[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21644-21673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  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 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.

[[Page 21645]]


  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 21646]]


     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:

[[Page 21647]]



  (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 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

[[Page 21648]]

disease, autoimmune diseases, or diabetes, this research can help lead 
to a higher quality of life for Americans.
  I am proud to have NIH in Maryland. NIH's impact in Maryland is quite 
profound. We have excellent research centers and private companies that 
exist and grow because of the unique synergy between the Federal labs 
in Maryland, like NIH, and the ingenuity of the private sector. Yet the 
benefits of investing in NIH are not limited to Maryland. NIH funds 
research at universities across the country. Patients across the 
country, their loved ones, and those who someday may be diagnosed with 
diseases all benefit from these critical investments.
  We cannot afford to lessen our commitment to medical research. I 
thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein for their 
leadership on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important bipartisan amendment.
  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

[[Page 21649]]

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 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

[[Page 21650]]

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 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.

[[Page 21651]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 21652]]

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:

                      [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.


    Amendments Nos. 1548, 1552, As Further Modified, 1569, 1603, As 
Modified, 1612, As Modified, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629, 
1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641, 
                       1642, 1643, 1644, En Bloc

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a series of cleared amendments to 
the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to en bloc, with 
the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are considered 
and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1548

  (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of summer health career 
       introductory programs for middle and high school students)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SUMMER HEALTH CAREER INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the success of the health care system is dependent on 
     qualified personnel;
       (2) hospitals and health facilities across the United 
     States have been deeply impacted by declines among nurses, 
     pharmacists, radiology and laboratory technicians, and other 
     workers;
       (3) the health care workforce shortage is not a short term 
     problem and such workforce shortages can be expected for many 
     years; and
       (4) most States are looking for ways to address such 
     shortages.
       (b) Grants.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     acting through the Bureau of Health Professions of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, may award not to 
     exceed 5 grants for the establishment of summer health career 
     introductory programs for middle and high school students.
       (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (b) an entity shall--
       (1) be an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)); and
       (2) prepare and submit to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       (d) Duration.--The term of a grant under subsection (b) 
     shall not exceed 4 years.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007.


                           amendment no. 1552

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for programs and activities under the Nurse 
     Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205) and for other nursing 
     workforce development programs under title VIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296 et seq.), there are 
     appropriated an additional $50,000,000 for such programs and 
     activities.


                           amendment no. 1569

  (Purpose: To provide for a report concerning how Federal funds are 
                 expended relating to Hansen's Disease)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Not later than May 1, 2004, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress a report concerning the manner in which the 
     Department of Health and Human Services expends Federal funds 
     for research, patient care, and other activities relating to 
     Hansen's Disease. The report shall include--
       (1) the amounts provided for each research project;
       (2) the amounts provided to each of the 12 treatment 
     centers for each of research, patient care, and other 
     activities;
       (3) the per patient expenditure of patient care funds at 
     each of the 12 treatment centers; and
       (4) the mortality rates at each of the 12 treatment 
     centers.


                           amendment no. 1603

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. (a) In addition to any amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there may be appropriated, out 
     of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--

[[Page 21653]]

       (1) an additional $4,000,000 to carry out title III of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (language 
     instruction);
       (2) up to $1,000,000 to carry out part A of title V of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (Hispanic-serving institutions);
       (3) up to $500,000 to carry out part C of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (migrant 
     education);
       (4) up to an additional $3,000,000 to carry out high school 
     equivalency program activities under section 418A of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEP);
       (5) up to an additional $500,000 to carry out college 
     assistance migrant program activities under section 418A of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (CAMP);
       (6) up to an additional $1,000,000 to carry out subpart 16 
     of part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (parental assistance and local family 
     information centers); and


                           amendment no. 1612

       In the matter under the heading ``Training and Employment 
     Services'' under the heading ``Employment and Training 
     Administration'' in title I, add at the end the following:
       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, including the purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998, $25,000,000 may be used to carry out 
     activities described in section 132(a)(2)(B) of that Act 
     (relating to dislocated worker employment and training 
     activities and other activities for dislocated workers).


                           amendment no. 1623

 (Purpose: To increase funding for activities to prevent the mother-to-
                       child transmission of HIV)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Prevention.--
     In addition to any amounts otherwise made available under 
     this Act to carry out mother-to-child HIV transmission 
     prevention activities, there shall be made available an 
     additional $60,000,000 to carry out such activities and 
     $1,000,000 for non-mother-to-child activities.
       (b) Reduction in Amounts.--Amounts made available under 
     this Act for the administrative and related expenses for 
     departmental management for the Department of Labor, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of 
     Education, shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by 
     $61,000,000.


                           amendment no. 1624

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. __. For activities authorized by part H of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there are hereby 
     appropriated up to $5,000,000, which may be used to carry out 
     such activities.


                           amendment no. 1625

(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of studies concerning the program 
    established under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDIES CONCERNING MAMMOGRAPHY STANDARDS.

       (a) Study by GAO.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the program established under 
     the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (section 354 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b)) (referred to 
     in this section as the ``MQSA'') to--
       (A) evaluate the demonstration program regarding frequency 
     of inspections authorized under section 354(g) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b(g)), including the effect 
     of the program on compliance with the MQSA;
       (B) evaluate the factors that contributed to the closing of 
     the approximately 700 mammography facilities nationwide since 
     2001, whether those closings were due to consolidation or 
     were a true reduction in mammography availability, explore 
     the relationship between certified units and facility 
     capacity, and evaluate capacity issues, and determine the 
     effect these and other closings have had on the accessibility 
     of mammography services, including for underserved 
     populations, since the April 2002 General Accounting Office 
     report on access to mammography; and
       (C) evaluate the role of States in acting as accreditation 
     bodies or certification bodies, or both, in addition to 
     inspection agents under the MQSA, and in acting as 
     accreditation bodies for facilities in other States and 
     determine whether and how these roles affect the system of 
     checks and balances within the MQSA.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 16 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the study described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Study by the Institute of Medicine.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall enter into an agreement with the Institute of 
     Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct 
     of a study and the making of recommendations regarding the 
     following:
       (A) Ways to improve physicians' interpretations of 
     mammograms, including approaches that could be taken under 
     the MQSA without negatively impacting access to quality 
     mammography.
       (B) What changes could be made in the MQSA to improve 
     mammography quality, including additional regulatory 
     requirements that would improve quality, as well as the 
     reduction or modification of regulatory requirements that do 
     not contribute to quality mammography, or are no longer 
     necessary to ensure quality mammography. Such reduction or 
     modification of regulatory requirements and improvements in 
     the efficiency of the program are important to help eliminate 
     disincentives to enter or remain in the field of mammography.
       (C) Ways, including incentives, to ensure that sufficient 
     numbers of adequately trained personnel at all levels are 
     recruited and retained to provide quality mammography 
     services.
       (D)(i) How data currently collected under the MQSA could be 
     used to improve the quality, interpretation of, and access to 
     mammography.
       (ii) Identification of new data points that could be 
     collected to aid in the monitoring and assessment of 
     mammography quality and access.
       (E) Other approaches that would improve the quality of and 
     access to mammography services, including approaches to 
     improving provisions under the MQSA.
       (F) Steps that should be taken to help make available safe 
     and effective new screening and diagnostic devices and tests 
     for breast cancer.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date on 
     which the agreement is entered into under paragraph (1), the 
     Institute of Medicine shall complete the study described 
     under such subsection and submit a report to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated under this title 
     to the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     for general departmental management, $500,000 shall be made 
     available to carry out the study under this subsection.


                           amendment no. 1626

   (Purpose: To provide funds for the conduct of a grant program to 
strengthen local capacity on Native American reservations to screen for 
                and treat sexually transmitted diseases)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Native American populations have seen an alarming 
     increase in sexually transmitted disease prevalence in recent 
     years; and
       (2) a screening, treatment, and education program, 
     administered by tribal health organizations or local health 
     care providers, on Native American reservations with high 
     rates of sexually transmitted diseases will help prevent a 
     corresponding increase in the prevalence of HIV.
       (b) Grant Program.--From amounts appropriated under this 
     title for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     there may be made available up to $1,000,000 to enable the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to 
     carry out competitive grant programs to strengthen local 
     capacity on Native American reservations to screen for and 
     treat sexually transmitted diseases and to educate local 
     populations about such diseases, the consequences thereof, 
     and how the transmission of such diseases can be prevented.


                           amendment no. 1627

   (Purpose: To provide funding for newborn and child screening for 
                          heritable disorders)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for the support of the improved newborn and 
     child screening for heritable disorders program authorized 
     under section 1109 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300b-8), there may be appropriated up to an additional 
     $2,000,000 to carry out such program.


                           amendment no. 1628

  (Purpose: To provide funding for the mass layoff statistics program)

       On page 18, line 14, strike ``$440,113,000'' and insert 
     ``$445,113,000''.
       On page 18, line 17, insert before the period the 
     following: ``, of which $5,000,000 may be used to fund the 
     mass layoff statistics program under section 15 of the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2)''.


                           amendment no. 1629

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the Special Volunteers for Homeland 
                           Security program)

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:

[[Page 21654]]

       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for the Special Volunteers for Homeland 
     Security program, there may be appropriated an additional 
     $5,000,000 for such program.


                           amendment no. 1630

  (Purpose: To provide protection for nationals and residents of the 
        Islamic Republic of Iran who are targets of persecution)

       On page 57, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(C) in subsection (b)(1)--
       ``(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
       ``(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting `; and'; and
       ``(iii) by adding at the end the following:
       `(C) one or more categories of aliens who are or were 
     nationals and residents of the Islamic Republic or Iran who, 
     as members of a religious minority in Iran, share common 
     characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution 
     in that state on account of race, religion, nationality, 
     membership in a particular social group, or political 
     opinion.'; and''.


                           amendment no. 1631

 (Purpose: To authorize funding for the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Global 
                         Affairs Institute Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


            DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN GLOBAL AFFAIRS INSTITUTE

       Sec. __. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Endowment fund.--The term ``endowment fund'' means a 
     fund established by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and 
     Public Affairs of the Syracuse University in Syracuse, New 
     York, for the purpose of generating income for the support of 
     the School and other purposes as described in subsection (d).
       (2) School.--The term ``School'' means the Maxwell School 
     of Citizenship and Public Affairs of the Syracuse University 
     in Syracuse, New York.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (4) University.--The term ``University'' means the Syracuse 
     University in Syracuse, New York.
       (b) Daniel Patrick Moynihan Global Affairs Institute.--
       (1) Redesignation.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     subsection (c), the University shall designate the global 
     affairs institute within the Maxwell School of Citizenship 
     and Public Affairs of the University as the ``Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan Global Affairs Institute''.
       (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     paper, or other record to the global affairs institute within 
     the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of the 
     University, shall be deemed to be a reference to the Daniel 
     Patrick Moynihan Global Affairs Institute.
       (c) Grant for Endowment Fund.--From amounts appropriated 
     under subsection (f), the Secretary may award a grant to the 
     University for the establishment of an endowment fund to 
     support the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Global Affairs Institute.
       (d) Duties.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     subsection (c), shall be used to--
       (1) carry on the public and intellectual tradition of 
     Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan;
       (2) sustain all of the core activities of the School;
       (3) fund the residencies of visiting scholars and 
     international leaders;
       (4) support scholarship, training, and practice in 
     countries that are often the most impoverished economically, 
     institutionally, and civically;
       (5) support partnerships with governments and other 
     relevant entities around the world to train government 
     officials both at the School and in their home countries; and
       (6) expand the facilities of the School.
       (e) Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to the Endowment 
     Fund.--
       (1) Management.--The endowment fund established under 
     subsection (c) shall be managed in accordance with the 
     standard endowment policies established by the University.
       (2) Use of interest and investment income.--Interest and 
     other investment income earned from the endowment fund may be 
     used to carry out the duties under subsection (d).
       (3) Distribution of interest and investment income.--Funds 
     derived from the interest and other investment income earned 
     from the endowment fund shall be available for expenditure by 
     the University for purposes consistent with subsection (d).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 to 
     remain available until expended.


                           amendment no. 1632

(Purpose: To require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to 
  prepare a comprehensive plan to address blood safety and injection 
            safety in Africa under the Global AIDS Program)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Not later than 120 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.


                           amendment no. 1633

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health 
    and Human Services, and the Secretary of Education to report to 
     Congress on acquisitions made by each Department of articles, 
     materials, or supplies manufactured outside the United States)

       On page 20, line 19, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of this amount, sufficient 
     funds shall be available for the Secretary of Labor, not 
     later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of Labor during such fiscal year of 
     articles, materials, or supplies that were manufactured 
     outside the United States. Such report shall separately 
     indicate the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased by the Department of Labor that were 
     manufactured outside the United States, an itemized list of 
     all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.) that were granted with respect to such articles, 
     materials, or supplies, and a summary of total procurement 
     funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus 
     funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States. The Secretary of Labor shall make the report publicly 
     available by posting the report on an Internet website.
       On page 49, line 21, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That of this amount, sufficient funds shall 
     be available for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     not later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, 
     to submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of Health and Human Services during 
     such fiscal year of articles, materials, or supplies that 
     were manufactured outside the United States. Such report 
     shall separately indicate the dollar value of any articles, 
     materials, or supplies purchased by the Department of Health 
     and Human Services that were manufactured outside the United 
     States, an itemized list of all waivers under the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) that were granted with 
     respect to such articles, materials, or supplies, and a 
     summary of total procurement funds spent on goods 
     manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods 
     manufactured outside of the United States. The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall make the report publicly 
     available by posting the report on an Internet website.''.
       On page 74, line 4, strike ``Washington, D.C.'' and insert 
     ``Washington, D.C.: Provided, That of this amount, sufficient 
     funds shall be available for the Secretary of Education, not 
     later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of Education during such fiscal year 
     of articles, materials, or supplies that were manufactured 
     outside the United States. Such report shall separately 
     indicate the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased by the Department of Education that were 
     manufactured outside the United States, an itemized list of 
     all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.) that were granted with respect to such articles, 
     materials, or supplies, and a summary of total procurement 
     funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus 
     funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States. The Secretary of Education shall make the report 
     publicly available by posting the report on an Internet 
     website.''.


                           amendment no. 1634

(Purpose: To provide for the accurate and timely processing of medicare 
                                claims)

       On page 41, insert the following before the period on line 
     9: ``: Provided further, that to the extent Medicare claims 
     processing unit costs are projected by the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services to exceed $0.87 for Part A 
     claims and/or $0.65 for Part B claims, up to an additional 
     $18,000,000 may be available for obligation for every $0.04 
     increase in Medicare claims processing unit costs from the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Funds. The calculation of projected 
     unit costs shall be derived in the same manner in which the 
     estimated unit costs were calculated for the Federal budget 
     estimate for the fiscal year.''.


                           amendment no. 1635

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act to carry out activities under the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), there 
     are appropriated--
       (1) up to an additional $143,000 may be used to carry out 
     activities under title I of such Act (child abuse State 
     grants);
       (2) up to an additional $212,000 may be used to carry out 
     activities under title II of such Act (community-based 
     resource centers); and
       (3) up to an additional $2,100,000 may be used for child 
     abuse discretionary grants under such Act.

[[Page 21655]]




                           amendment no. 1636

   (Purpose: To provide additional funding to the Office of Minority 
  Health to conduct a demonstration project to reduce SIDS disparity 
                                 rates)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) a recent Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service infant 
     mortality study identified protective and risk factors 
     associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (referred to in 
     this section as ``SIDS'');
       (2) several conclusions from the study suggest courses of 
     action to reduce the incidence of SIDS among Native American 
     and other high-incidence populations;
       (3) the study noted that alcohol consumption by women of 
     childbearing age (especially during pregnancy), maternal and 
     environmental tobacco exposure during pregnancy, and 
     pregnancy by women under the age of 20 increase the risk for 
     SIDS;
       (4) in 2000, for infants of African American mothers, the 
     SIDS death rate was 2.4 times that for non-Hispanic white 
     mothers;
       (5) nationwide, SIDS rates for infants of Native American 
     mothers were 2.6 times those of non-Hispanic white mothers; 
     and
       (6) the Office of Minority Health of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services has the expertise to coordinate 
     SIDS disparity reduction efforts across the Department of 
     Health and Human Services.
       (b) Increase in Funding.--In addition to any amounts 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act to carry out activities to 
     reduce Sudden Infant Death Syndrome disparity rates, there 
     may be appropriated up to an additional $2,000,000 to enable 
     the Director of the Office of Minority Health of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services to carry out a 
     demonstration project, in coordination with the Administrator 
     of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Director 
     of the Indian Health Services, the Administrator of the 
     Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the heads of 
     other agencies within the Department of Health and Human 
     Services (as appropriate), to reduce Sudden Infant Death 
     Syndrome disparity rates, and to provide risk reduction 
     education to African American and Native American populations 
     in the United States, including efforts to reduce alcohol use 
     by pregnant women, support for smoking cessation (maternal 
     and secondhand) programs, and education of teenagers on the 
     risk factors for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome associated with 
     teenage pregnancy within African American and Native American 
     communities.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that in carrying out the demonstration project under 
     subsection (b), the Director of the Office of Minority Health 
     is encouraged to--
       (1) expand upon the similar pilot program for Native 
     Americans that was funded by the Office of Minority Health; 
     and
       (2) coordinate with the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of 
     the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the Indian 
     Health Services, the Administrator of the Center for Medicare 
     & Medicaid Services, and the heads of other agencies within 
     the Department of Health and Human Services (as appropriate) 
     to support activities to reduce alcohol use by pregnant 
     women, support smoking cessation (maternal and secondhand), 
     and educate teenagers on the risk factors for SIDS associated 
     with teenage pregnancy within the African American and Native 
     American communities.


                           amendment no. 1637

(Purpose: To provide funds for programs on community automatic external 
                            defibrillators)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Automatic External Defibrillators.--There may 
     be appropriated up to, $2,000,000 to fund programs on 
     community automatic external defibrillators under section 312 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 244).


                           amendment no. 1638

       (Purpose: To require the Department of Labor to cease the 
   implementation of closing procedures for the Department of Labor 
  Employment and Training Administration regional office in New York 
    City, New York, and the Employment and Training Administration 
 affiliate offices in Seattle, Washington, Kansas City, Missouri, and 
               Denver, Colorado until September 30, 2004)

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. __. The Department of Labor may cease the 
     implementation of closing procedures for the Department of 
     Labor Employment and Training Administration regional office 
     in New York City, New York, and the Employment and Training 
     Administration affiliate offices in Seattle, Washington, 
     Kansas City, Missouri, and Denver, Colorado until September 
     30, 2004.


                           amendment no. 1639

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the purchase of automatic 
external defibrillators and the training of individuals in cardiac life 
                        support in rural areas)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15 insert the following:
       Sec. __. From the amounts appropriated under the heading 
     Office of the Secretary, General Departmental Management 
     there may be made available an additional $2,000,000 to the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration for the purchase 
     of automatic external defibrillators and the training of 
     individuals in cardiac life support in rural areas.


                           amendment no. 1640

(Purpose: To allow continued funding of the Council on Graduate Medical 
                               Education)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     funds made available under this heading may be used to 
     continue operating the Council on Graduate Medical Education 
     established by Section 301 of Public Law 102-408.


                           amendment no. 1641

(Purpose: To re-allocate funds within the CDC construction account and 
                            other purposes)

       On page 28, line 6, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$260,000,000'' in lieu thereof. On page 28, line 5, insert 
     after ``; and'' the following: ``purchase,''


                           amendment no. 1642

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the rural emergency medical service 
               training and equipment assistance program)

       On page 27, line 2, insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That up to $15,000,000 may be made 
     available to carry out the rural emergency medical service 
     training and equipment assistance program under section 330J 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-15)''.


                           Amendment No. 1643

   (Purpose: To provide an additional offset for increased spending)

       At the appropriate place in Section 515(a):
       Increase the amount by $37,455,000.


                           amendment no. 1644

  (Purpose: To provide for the issuance of rules relating to Personal 
                        Dust Monitor prototypes)

       On page 23, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) it is projected that the Department of Labor, in 
     conjunction with labor, industry, and the National Institute 
     for Occupational Safety and Health, will be undertaking 
     several months of testing on Personal Dust Monitor production 
     prototypes; and
       (2) the testing of Personal Dust Monitor prototypes is set 
     to begin (by late May or early June of 2004) following the 
     scheduled delivery of the Personal Dust Monitors in May 2004.
       (b) Re-proposal of Rule.--Following the successful 
     demonstration of Personal Dust Monitor technology, and if the 
     Secretary of Labor makes a determination that Personal Dust 
     Monitors can be effectively applied in a regulatory scheme, 
     the Secretary of Labor shall re-propose a rule on respirable 
     coal dust which incorporates the use of Personal Dust 
     Monitors, and, if such rule is re-proposed, the Secretary 
     shall comply with the regular procedures applicable to 
     Federal rulemaking.


                   amendment to no. 1603, as modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise, as a cosponsor, to express my 
support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from 
Nevada, Mr. Reid, to provide funding for a number of programs critical 
to Hispanic children around the Nation. Clearly, the programs 
identified in this amendment are vital to improving educational 
outcomes for Hispanic students.
  As a nation we have made a commitment to leave no child behind. Yet, 
too often, the needs of Hispanic children are overlooked, and Hispanic 
children are left behind. The U.S. Census Bureau recently indicated 
that Hispanics are the largest minority group in the country. The fact 
is, however, they often are among the most educationally disadvantaged 
students in the country. Hispanic students are less likely to complete 
high school and to enroll in or graduate from college.
  The amendment before us will help to address these issues in several 
ways. It includes $85 million for title III language instruction. Under 
this program, State and local schools implement programs that help 
limited English-proficient students learn English and keep up with 
their schoolwork. The Senate mark actually cuts this program from last 
year's level of $685 million. This is unacceptable. For Hispanic 
serving institutions, the Senate bill provides a

[[Page 21656]]

small but inadequate increase above last year's level. This amendment 
includes $6.4 million in urgently needed funds for HSIs, which continue 
to receive significantly less Federal funding per student then other 
degree-granting institutions.
  My colleague's amendment also includes $4.6 million for migrant 
education, which was level funded in the committee mark, and $1 million 
for the College Assistance Migrant Program, which the committee cut 
from last year's level. These programs help to identify migrant 
students, provide health services, and provide counseling and other 
assistance for migrants who have dropped out of high school. In 
addition, the amendment includes $11 million for the High School 
Equivalency Program, $12.8 million for Local Family Information 
Centers, and $69 million for Head Start Migrant and Seasonal Programs.
  I commend the Senator from Nevada for offering this amendment, and 
urge my colleagues to support it. This is an investment in our Nation's 
future. The academic achievement gap between Latino students and the 
remaining student population is a national disgrace. I am informed that 
approximately one-third of new workers are Latino. Let us work together 
to invest in these youth, for the benefit of the Latino community and 
for the benefit of our Nation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my fellow Senators 
to support this very important amendment. This amendment would invest 
an additional $190 million in our Nation's future, by strengthening 
seven programs: The High School Equivalency Program, HEP; The College 
Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP; migrant education; local family 
information centers; bilingual education; Hispanic serving 
institutions, HSIs; and Head Start for children of migrant workers.
  If we do no pass this amendment, funding for the High School 
Equivalency Program will be cut by 43 percent. This program provides 
academic instruction, counseling, computer assisted teaching, career 
awareness to migrant students studying for the GED, as well as 
assistance with college admissions and job placement.
  If this amendment is not passed, 23 program slots will be eliminated 
due to the lack of funding. Currently, these 23 slots are filled by 
some of the oldest and best performing projects in the HEP program, 
some of which have been providing services for 30 years. As a whole, 73 
percent of their students received GEDs, and no less than three of the 
programs have had consecutive years of 100 percent of their students 
receiving their GEDs. All of these programs are up for renewal as well 
as competition for these slots with other programs.
  One of the 23 programs that faces elimination is in my own State of 
New Mexico at the Northern New Mexico Community College. Other States 
in which programs are at risk of not being renewed due to the lack of 
funding include Pennsylvania, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, 
Florida, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and California.
  A second program whose funding has been cut is the College Assistance 
Migrant Program or CAMP. CAMP recruits talented migrant high school 
graduates and GED recipients, who aspire to a postsecondary education 
but lack adequate resources. CAMP assists students in their first year 
of college with personal and academic counseling, mentoring, and 
stipends.
  Before the Federal Government created CAMP programs, there was no 
record of a migrant child having completed college. Since their 
inceptions, both HEP and CAMP have achieved stunning success rates. For 
the projects that received 5-year grants in 1999, 72 percent of the HEP 
participants have received their GEDs while over 80 percent of the CAMP 
students have successfully completed their first year of college. Over 
the history of the program, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students 
received baccalaureate degrees.
  The existing 102 HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 
students in 25 States and Puerto Rico. Many areas of the country have 
no access to the programs at all. Based on the Department of 
Education's estimate, of the over 750,000 school-aged migrant children, 
over the next 5 years there will be over 170,000 migrant children who 
will become dropouts and eligible for HEP services. CAMP programs will 
have approximately 140,000 students who will qualify for services. The 
need for services far outstrips the programs' current resources.
  The title I Migrant Education Program was established to provide a 
compensatory education program designed to deal with the difficulties 
encountered by children of migrant workers as a consequence of their 
mobility. Some of these children attend three or four schools in a 
single school year. They have a need for coordination of educational 
services among the States and local districts where they live, often 
for a short time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant 
students so that they can achieve high levels of success both in and 
outside of school.
  The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000 
students were identified as eligible for the program in fiscal year 
2001. Additional funds are needed to ensure that these children are 
able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. 
This amendment will provide an additional $4,587,000 in needed funding.
  The Local Family Information Centers was authorized under the No 
Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of title I students, including 
English language learners, with information about their children's 
schools so that they can help their children to meet the high standards 
we have set under NCLB. The Local Family Information Centers also help 
parents to hold their local and state school officials accountable and 
become more involved in their children's education. This amendment 
would increase funding by $12.8 million.
  This amendment would increase funding to State and local education 
agencies in order to ensure that as many of the 4.6 million children 
with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high 
levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State 
academic standards as all children.
  Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all 
50 States based on the number of limited English proficient, LEP, and 
recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective 
language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and 
regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and 
providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This 
amendment would restore the $20.5 million cut in the current 
legislation and increase funds by an additional $64.5 million.
  Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The 
Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education 
system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that 
nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve 
the largest concentrations of the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic 
population. HSIs, by definition, have a full-time student enrollment 
that is at least 25 percent Hispanic; further, at least one-half of 
their entire student enrollment is low-income. The impending emergence 
of more than 100 new HSIs, mostly in California, Texas, Florida, New 
Mexico, Illinois, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the 
Hispanic college-age population underscore the urgency for immediate, 
major, and sustained increases in title V funding.
  At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in 
substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new 
workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new 
workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment 
would provide an additional $6.4 million in assistance to these great 
institutions.
  Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, MSHS, programs serve nearly 32,000 
migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually, operating 
in 38

[[Page 21657]]

States in every region of the country. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
programs were the first Head Start programs to serve infants and 
toddlers. today, two-thirds of the children in the program are infants 
and toddlers.
  Migrant and Seasonal Head Start was a response to the needs of 
migrant families. In most States, local childcare resources are not 
available when migrants come into a community, especially for infants 
and toddlers. When resources are not available, parents have no choice 
but to take the children to the fields where they are exposed to 
pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat and other health dangers. 
This program is ever growing and so greater resources are needed to 
provide these essential services. This amendment requests an additional 
$69 million for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start.
  We must do everything we can to provide every child with the best 
education we can. I urge my fellow Senators to support these greatly 
needed programs by providing them with the proper resources.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid 
Hispanic educational opportunities amendment.
  My Democratic colleagues and I have held roundtables with Hispanic 
leaders across the Nation and members of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus that have allowed us to share ideas and develop an agenda that 
addresses the issues that matter most to the Hispanic community.
  We know how important education is to Hispanics and will continue to 
ensure that it remains a top priority for the Democratic caucus.
  Unfortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved bill 
eliminated or significantly underfunded programs with a clear record of 
improving educational opportunities for Hispanic children. Unless we 
restore and expand these funds, millions of Hispanic students will be 
denied the opportunity to achieve the American dream.
  The fact is, Latino children are among the most educationally 
disadvantaged students in our Nation. They have the highest dropout 
rate in the entire country, the lowest college attendance rates, the 
lowest college graduation rates, and are more likely to attend 
underfunded schools in low-income areas.
  Hispanic children make up 17 percent of the total school age 
population in the country and recent trends indicate that the number of 
Latino children attending our Nation's schools is increasing.
  This amendment would help ensure that millions of Latino children get 
the quality education they need and deserve. It would restore and 
expand funds to programs with a proven record of improving achievement 
among Latinos.
  New York's schools serve a large and growing number of Latino 
students and the rate of enrollment for limited English proficient 
students has grown by 44 percent since 1990.
  Resources provided under title III of the NCLB help school districts 
in my State provide English language instruction to over 300,000 
limited English proficient children and nearly 120,000 immigrant 
children. Yet this appropriations bill cuts title III of the NCLB by 
$20 million.
  Restoring this funding will help States, local schools, and colleges 
build their capacity to teach limited English proficient students 
effectively.
  This appropriations bill also provides inadequate funding to serve 
the children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Often called 
``children of the road,'' these children face many obstacles in their 
lives, including extreme poverty, geographic and cultural isolation, 
discrimination based on race or ethnic status, language minority 
status, and, most important, mobility.
  Currently, only 664 of 1,177 eligible migrant children are being 
served in migrant and seasonal Head Start centers across New York.
  This amendment will take an additional 150 migrant children in New 
York out of the fields where they are put at risk of exposure to 
harmful toxins and pesticides and into quality head start classrooms 
where they can receive the social, behavioral, and cognitive skills 
they need to help prepare them for school.
  As they continue on their journey through the education pipeline, 
programs like the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, and College 
Assistance Migrant Program, CMP, help these students beat the odds.
  The HEP and CAMP programs are both very important to New York as well 
as other states in the Northeast. The HEP program helps migrant 
students who have dropped out of high school get their GED, and CAMP 
assists migrant students in their first year of college with both 
counseling and stipends.
  At the State University of New York at Oneonta, Luis Gonzalez, a New 
Yorker and former HEP and CAMP student will be entering as a sophomore. 
Luis' experience as a migrant youth is shared by countless other 
children of migrant and seasonal farm workers.
  For Luis, it resulted in a pattern of repeating grades until he quit 
school to work with his father in the vineyards of Western New York. A 
year later, he learned about HEP and earned his GED. He then applied to 
college and was admitted as a freshman to SUNY last year. As a CAMP 
student, Luis received vital academic, social, and financial support 
during his first year of college, the most critical year for most 
first-generation college students. Luis now mentors other HEP students, 
is a member of the AmeriCorps program and has maintained a cumulative 
GPA of 3.04.
  Securing additional resources for HEP and CAMP will help ensure the 
dreams of students like Luis become reality.
  Many Hispanic students like Luis choose to move on to Hispanic 
serving institutions, HSIs. These schools, including New York's 12 
HSIs, serve a large and growing number of Hispanic students. By 
supporting these institutions we are recognizing the large contribution 
they make to increasing access to higher education.
  Failure to increase funding for these programs will not only hurt 
individual Hispanic children. Unless we provide Latino children today 
with the education they need to learn the skills necessary for a wide 
range of jobs, we risk having a shortage of qualified workers in the 
future.
  We need a highly skilled workforce to compete in this global economy 
and investing in the education and training of our Hispanic population 
will help our Nation meet this challenge.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hispanic educational 
opportunities amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Hispanic 
educational opportunities amendment which will help address the 
challenges facing Hispanic students from coast to coast.
  I thank Senator Reid and Senator Bingaman for offering this 
amendment, and today I want to highlight how this bill will help so 
many people in our communities.
  Just last month in Washington State, I saw once again how important 
education is to our entire state and especially to the Hispanic 
community.
  On August 11, I had the opportunity to hold a day-long summit of 
Hispanic leaders in Yakima, WA. The turnout was overwhelming.
  In one room, we brought together Hispanic elected officials from 
across the State, along with public and private-sector leaders, on a 
host of issues.
  Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, the chairman of our Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, served as a cohost, and shared his national 
perspective on the issues.
  We had also had international leaders, including Peruvian Consul 
Miguel Velasquez and Mexican Consul Jorge Madrazo.
  I am especially proud that we had more than a dozen panelists who 
shared their expertise and led our discussion.
  I publicly thank each of our panelists for their time not only at the 
summit, but for dedicating their lives to helping the community. Many 
of them had to overcome significant barriers in their own lives, and 
today they are working to knock down barriers for all Hispanics. Their 
participation that day was just one example of the leadership they show 
every day of the year.

[[Page 21658]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the names of the 
panelists in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Education Panelists

       Miguel Puente, CAMP Director at Heritage College, 
     Toppenish; Ricardo Sanchez, LEAP Director, Seattle; Armondo 
     Mungia, student at Eastern Washington University, Cheney; and 
     Elizabeth Padilla Flynn, Pasco School District.

                     Economic Development Panelists

       Luz Bazan Gutlerrez, President & CEO, Rural Community 
     Development Resources, Yakima; Veronica Yzquierdo, Executive 
     Director, Pasco Downtown Development Association; Jesse 
     Farias, Employment and Security, Wapato; and Gilberto Alaniz, 
     State Director, Opportunities Industrialization Center.

                         Civil Rights Panelists

       Lupe Gamboa, United Farm Workers; Roberto Maestas, El 
     Centro de La Raza, Seattle; Polo Aguilar, Grupo Mexico, 
     Yakima; and Kevin Diaz, Attorney, Columbia Legal Services.

                          Healthcare Panelists

       Teresa Mosqueda, Sea Mar Representative, Public Health, 
     Seattle; Kimberley Klint, Ph.D., Director of Mason Maters; 
     Vickie Ybarra, Director Planning and Development, Yakima Farm 
     Workers Clinic; Marisela Guzman, ConneX student, Toppenish; 
     and Jesus Hernandez, Lead Access Coordinator/Program Manager, 
     Community Choice, Wenatchee.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank each of them for their leadership, and today I 
am on the Senate floor supporting this amendment to help carry out the 
agenda we discussed at the summit.
  I can tell you that even though we covered a host of topics, 
including economic development, civil rights and healthcare, the No. 1 
topic people talked about was education.
  I was astounded to listen as leaders in the community, elected school 
board members, and city council members told me that when they were 
growing up, very few people, if any, looked at them and said: ``You 
know, you can be a success. You can pass first grade.'' Or that, ``You 
can go on to college, and you can become something in this country.''
  If we adopt this amendment, we will tell a generation of young 
students: We need you. We need you to be the next generation of 
engineers. We need you to be the next generation of teachers. We need 
you to be the next generation of C.E.O.s.
  Today we are missing out on an entire young population, and what they 
can give back to this country someday in leadership, in economics, in 
paying taxes, and in being successful members of the community.
  This amendment will help knock down the barriers facing Hispanic 
students, and we must adopt it.
  Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the underlying Labor-HHS 
bill we are debating cuts funding for critical Hispanic programs.
  That is why we need this amendment to stop those cuts and provide 
funding for critical services like extra help with preschool, English 
language acquisition, tutoring, mentoring, and financial aid.
  I want to highlight how this amendment will help in areas like 
Headstart, migrant education, and language skills.
  One program that I have seen bring help--and hope--to families for 
decades is Head Start. This amendment will expand access to Head Start 
programs for migrant and seasonal working families.
  Migrant and seasonal farmworkers work hard every day so that you and 
I can put affordable food on our tables. It is a good deal for us, but 
most of those families earn less than $10,000 a year. Many of their 
children pay a price beyond poverty.
  When families don't have access to child care, they are forced to 
take their children into the fields with them, exposing them to 
equipment and other hazards.
  Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs meet the needs of these 
families, keeping their children safe while preparing them for school.
  Nationwide, 60 percent of children are being served by Head Start, 
but for migrant children, it is just 19 percent and for children of 
seasonal workers, it is just 2 percent. That is unacceptable.
  This amendment will boost the funding so we give more children of 
migrant and seasonal workers a place in Head Start so they can start 
school ready to learn.
  This amendment does more than just increase funding to serve more 
children. It also makes sure that vulnerable children are not cut off 
from the help they are counting on.
  The President's budget request slashed funding for the High School 
Equivalency Program, HEP, by 43 percent.
  The appropriations bill before the Senate implements the President's 
cut, with a $10 million cut to HEP. It also cuts funding for the 
College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP, by $400,000.
  The funding cuts in the HEP program would eliminate the 23 oldest and 
best performing projects in the program, two of which are in Washington 
State.
  I have met with the leaders of HEP and CAMP programs in Washington 
state. They are doing critical work at Heritage College and Washington 
State University HEP programs.
  HEP provides education and counseling services to migrant students 
who have dropped out of high school so they can pass the GED 
examination.
  Some of the 23 projects that could be closed down have been providing 
services for 30 years.
  As a whole, 73 percent of their students received GEDs, an amazing 
success rate for a population of students who have already dropped out 
of school.
  The CAMP program is also critical. It recruits talented migrant high 
school and GED graduates, who want to go on to college, but don't have 
the resources. These programs introduce parents and students to campus 
during the summer before their freshman year. It helps those students 
in their first year of college with personal and academic counseling, 
mentoring, and stipends.
  Before we created CAMP programs, there was no record of a migrant 
child having completed college.
  Since then, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students have graduated 
with baccalaureate degrees. Without HEP and CAMP, access to college 
would be out of reach for the vast majority of migrant students.
  The funding levels in this bill ignore the amazing successes we have 
had through HEP and CAMP.
  Because migrant children move around, they don't have a local school, 
a school district, or even a State that is responsible for their 
education. We need to keep this safety net at the Federal level.
  Currently, funding for the 102 HEP and CAMP projects can serve only 
15,000 students, a small fraction of those who desperately need help. 
The Department of Education has estimated there are now over 750,000 
school-aged migrant children.
  Since migrant children have the highest dropout rate in the Nation, 
with nearly 60 percent failing to complete high school, that means that 
over the next 5 years, 170,000 of these children will drop out of 
school and be eligible for HEP services.
  Over the next 5 years, 140,000 students will become eligible for CAMP 
services.
  It makes no sense for this bill to take away funding when so many 
students need help.
  Another area where our country cannot afford to make the cuts in this 
appropriations bill is in the English Language Acquisition program. 
This bill cuts the program by $20 million. That is unacceptable.
  This amendment would restore that funding.
  It will also increase support for limited English proficient, LEP, 
students to $750 million.
  The number of LEP students has almost doubled over the past decade. 
It has increased at nearly eight times the rate of total student 
enrollment. The teachers who are serving those students could use more 
preparation to teach students with limited English proficiency.
  This amendment will help provide title III dollars so that these 
teachers can receive ongoing professional development.
  The Reid-Bingaman amendment will help students overcome barriers at 
almost every level of school.

[[Page 21659]]

  Congress has a proud tradition of ensuring that our most 
disadvantaged kids get a shot at the American dream. It is what we did 
when we passed title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
It is what we did when we created Head Start. And it is what we did 
when we started giving out Pell Grants.
  We need to carry on that tradition today, not out of charity, but 
because we recognize that these children are our bridge to a successful 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and give Hispanic 
students in Washington State and around the country a change at the 
American dream and a better life.


                           amendment no. 1629

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Indiana 
to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS Appropriations 
Act. I would like to thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their 
support for this amendment.
  I usually come down to the Senate floor to criticize the amount of 
unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Not often do I propose an 
increase in spending for a specific program. However, today, I feel 
obligated to offer an amendment to increase the level of funding for 
the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program with the 
Corporation for National and Community Service. I am requesting that we 
raise our level of funding by $5 million, to bring the total level of 
funding to $10 million, which is what the program was funded at last 
year. The administration requested a total of $15 million for this 
program this year. We are simply proposing to restore one half of the 
additional money the President requested. This issue is of enough 
importance to the administration as it was included in their Statement 
of Administrative Policy.
  The amendment Senator Bayh and I propose restores important money to 
the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program, a critical 
component on national service. This amendment increases the funding for 
this program by $5 million to be more in line with the amount requested 
in the President's 2004 Budget.
  We live in a time of heightened security where terror alerts have 
become an unfortunate reality. It is sobering to realize that the 
chances are strong that we will face another terrorist attack in the 
future. In addition to devoting considerable resources to fighting 
terror at home and abroad, we need to devote significant resources to 
preparing our domestic response to any future attack. We would be 
failing in our responsibilities if we do not adequately prepare for the 
next attack. The realities of the world in which we live today, require 
us to educate and prepare the public about terrorism and disasters. 
These volunteers are an extremely effective way to achieve our mission. 
We need to be fully funding these programs.
  For a number of years, Senator Bayh and I have been working together 
to increase opportunities for service in the United States. We have 
introduced legislation, the Call to Service Act, in the last two 
Congresses that would increase volunteer opportunities with AmeriCorps. 
We have also worked together successfully to create a short-term 
enlistment program for our military. One of the fundamental aspects to 
any expansion of service opportunities must be to increase the number 
of volunteers in homeland security projects. Our legislation 
specifically calls for more volunteers to perform homeland security 
function. Service programs such as the one in this amendment provide an 
important resources in preparing our Nation to respond to a range of 
emergencies by providing people who can serve in important capacities 
such as fighting forest fires, disaster relief, and working in hospital 
emergency rooms.
  I would like to share some examples of the works these volunteers do 
in the various states and country. Currently, there are 17 programs 
that received money during the second year of this program. The 
grantees are a diverse group and are spread across the country from 
Alaska to Florida. Important groups such as Volunteer Florida, the 
American Red Cross of Greater New York and the Housing Authority of the 
City of Milwaukee are all grantees under this program.
  In the first year of the program, 350 volunteers with the 
Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska were able to deliver training to help 
homebound seniors and help 4,500 disabled residents of Anchorage 
prepare to respond to a disaster.
  In Oklahoma, volunteers with the city of Tulsa developed a citywide 
volunteer disaster mobilization plan. Volunteers helped to educate the 
general public by distributing a family preparedness guide provided 
with information how to prepare for disasters. The volunteers convened 
meetings that included information on bioterrorism response by local 
health departments and established safe and secure teams throughout the 
community to serve as trained resources.
  I could go on at length about the good things these programs 
accomplish.
  Increasing the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program is 
consistent with our overall need to increase opportunities for 
Americans to serve their country. We need to increase spending for 
funding for all volunteer programs. Internationally, increasing 
programs such as the Peace Corps are important in spreading American 
ideals and values. Domestically, programs such as AmeriCorps need to be 
expanded to provide services and assistance to those in need. Any 
expansion of AmeriCorps and domestic volunteer opportunities would be 
an excellent opportunity to increase volunteer positions in the area of 
homeland security.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa for 
their work on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to 
continuing my work with Senator Bayh and the rest of my colleagues in 
the Senate to increase national service opportunities.


                           amendment No. 1644

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was 35 years ago, at 5:30 a.m. on 
November 20, 1968, that a gas and dust explosion occurred at Consul No. 
9 coal mine near Farmington WV. The force of the explosion rippled 
through the west side of the mine, igniting mine fires and additional 
explosions, blocking exits and shutting down escape routes. Large 
amounts of smoke, varying in color from black, gray, white, and yellow 
exhausted from the air shafts, with major explosions shooting flames 
over 100 feet into the air. After 10 days, the search and rescue 
operation was halted and the air shafts were sealed to put out the 
underground fires. Of the 99 miners underground at the time of the 
blast, the explosion took the lives of 78 coal miners, 19 of whom are 
still entombed underground.
  In response, the Congress passed the most comprehensive mine health 
and safety legislation to date--the 1969 Mine Act. The anguish caused 
by the Farmington disaster was expressed in the statement of findings 
and purpose of that legislation:

       . . . the first priority and concern of all in the coal 
     mining industry must be the health and safety of its most 
     precious resource--the miner.

  In addition to a comprehensive safety enforcement regime, the 1969 
Mine Act mandated limits on the coal dust levels to which miners could 
be exposed. The Congress' goal was to protect miners from Coal Workers' 
Pneumoconiosis, or Black Lung--a disease that results from coal dust 
particles accumulating in the lungs, scarring the tissue. It is a 
progressive, terminal disease that is irreversible.
  It is not known how many miners died from black lung disease prior to 
1969, but since that time, even with the stricter standards mandated by 
Congress, over 106,000 miners have been diagnosed with the disease, 
with the Federal Government receiving 5,000 new claims for black lung 
benefits each year.
  Last March, the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed new 
rules to implement the 1969 Mine Act with regard to coal dust levels, 
and the outcry in opposition to those rules was almost deafening. 
Newspapers from The Courier-Journal and Lexington Herald of Kentucky, 
to The Charleston

[[Page 21660]]

Gazette of West Virginia have described these rules as

       impractical . . . ill-advised . . . [an] assault on 
     workers' health and safety . . . a campaign that would bring 
     back black lung.

  Rallies have been organized in Pennsylvania and West Virginia--all in 
opposition to what experts describe as a roll back in the protections 
mandated by Congress in 1969 to prevent black lung.
  These are seriously flawed rules that would undercut long-running 
efforts to improve the working conditions of our nation's miners. Under 
the proposed rules, the levels of coal mine dust permitted in the mine 
environment reportedly would increase well beyond what was mandated in 
the 1969 Mine Act. That is a giant leap backward in the nation's work 
to protect the health of miners.
  And these proposed rules constitute only one in a series of proposals 
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration that are serving to erode 
the trust of miners in the one agency of the Federal Government charged 
with protecting their health and safety.
  Last January, an air shaft explosion killed three workers at the 
McElroy Mine in Cameron, WV. Later it was determined that MSHA had 
failed to properly inspect that mine. One news journal reported that, 
according to MSHA records, between December 2001 and January 2003, when 
the McElroy mine should have had six surface inspections, it had been 
inspected only once--just once.
  While this administration touts a low coal mine fatality rate as 
proof of MSHA's effectiveness, it ignores a series of accidents and 
near-fatalities that have occurred since last year in Kentucky, 
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Last year's QueCreek 
accident alone endangered 18 miners, and, had it swung the other way, 
which it easily could have, the rate of recorded fatalities would have 
increased.
  This year's fatality rate continues to move higher, with 10 
fatalities recorded in the last 3 months in Virginia, Kentucky, 
Indiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. And now MSHA has 
proposed a rule to scale back protections against black lung.
  In doing so, MSHA is undermining its own credibility. Contrary to 
past years, miners now view MSHA as an extension of an administration 
that does not understand the dangers which coal miners must confront 
every day. That is the only way to explain how MSHA can support a coal 
enforcement budget that clearly does not provide MSHA with the 
resources it needs to properly inspect our nation's mines. That is the 
only way to explain why MSHA would propose a rule that rolls back miner 
protections against black lung.
  And to make matters worse, the media reports that a conflict of 
interest may have existed when those rules were developed and proposed 
earlier this year. The Charleston Gazette reported last May that MSHA 
Secretary David Lauriski, on several occasions, petitioned MSHA to make 
the same change in its rules that he is now advocating when he was a 
lobbyist for Energy West. The Inspector General of the Labor Department 
has already been asked to investigate this conflict of interest.
  At the very least, there is something highly questionable about how 
these rules were developed and what effect they will have on the miners 
of our states. The Congress has a responsibility to our nation's coal 
miners to seek certain assurances from the Federal regulators before 
these rules are put into place. We have a duty to our constituents to 
ensure that rule changes such as these are implemented appropriately.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to prevent the implementation of 
the dust rules proposed by MSHA, until the Congress could be sure of 
their consequences. After discussing this matter with Senator Specter, 
the National Mining Association, and the United Mine Workers, I have 
decided not to offer that amendment for the time being.
  Instead, I will support the amendment offered by Senator Specter, 
which would require the Labor Secretary to report a new rule that 
incorporates the use of real-time dust monitors, assuming that those 
monitors are tested successfully in the coming months.
  However, it is important that the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration understand that this language is binding. It must issue 
a new rule if the personal dust monitoring devices prove successful. 
And I hope that they understand that the miners of our States and their 
representatives in the Congress will be watching, and that we will 
continue to oppose any effort to circumvent the 1969 Mine Act with 
regard to dust levels.
  I urge Senators to take this opportunity to improve the credibility 
of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. I urge Senators to recall 
the findings of the Congress that were contained in the 1969 Mine Act:

       The first priority and concern of all in the coal mining 
     industry must be the health and safety of its most precious 
     resource--the miner.

  Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Byrd and Senator 
Specter on this amendment to increase health and safety protections for 
the Nation's coal miners.
  Coal mining is difficult and dangerous work. Miners daily face the 
risk of mine collapse, mine fires, and the debilitating illness called 
black lung disease. Each year, over 4,000 coal miners lose time at work 
because of injuries on the job. We all remember the near-tragedy last 
summer at Quecreek Mine in Pennsylvania, when nine miners were trapped 
underground for 3 days. Miraculously, they were rescued but many other 
miners are not so fortunate.
  Congress passed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act in 1969 to 
protect miners from these hazards. One of the most critical parts of 
the Mine Safety Act is its requirement that mine operators reduce and 
control the level of dust that miners inhale during their shifts.
  Since then, we have made great progress in reducing the number of 
cases of black lung, but this battle is far from over. Over 100,000 
former miners and their dependents are receiving Federal benefits today 
because they or their family members have had black lung. Each year, 
more than 1,000 workers die from the disease--and hundreds of new cases 
of black lung are reported each year.
  This amendment deals with MSHA's proposed regulations on dust levels 
and dust monitoring. Many of us are deeply troubled by the 
administration's proposal. The proposed regulation reduces the 
protections of the Mine Safety Act. It would allow coal mine operators 
to raise dust levels up to four times the amount now permitted by the 
act. It would also reduce the number of samples taken in mines to 
measure coal dust exposure.
  It makes no sense to roll back the current protections. Instead of 
increasing the number of inspections and tightening the dust standard, 
the administration's regulation would allow coal mines to raise the 
amount of dust miners are exposed to. The new regulation directly 
contradicts the recommendations of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, under which the permitted level of coal 
dust would be cut in half.
  Senator Byrd and Senator Specter have proposed this amendment to 
require MSHA to consider incorporating the new Personal Dust Monitor 
technology, once testing is completed. This amendment is supported by 
both the coal mining industry and by the United Mineworkers.
  These Personal Dust Monitors have been developed in conjunction with 
labor and industry. They would be worn by individual miners at all 
times and could measure more accurately than any existing technology 
how much coal dust each miner is exposed to.
  MSHA itself has acknowledged the role of Dust Monitors in miner 
safety. It has extended the current rulemaking period in order to 
include comments based upon Dust Monitor testing. This amendment would 
go one step further, by requiring MSHA to consider reproposing the rule 
to incorporate Personal Dust Monitors as part of the required 
safeguards in the Nation's mines.

[[Page 21661]]

  Incorporating these technological advances into the rules on coal 
dust monitoring is a very important step. The Nation's miners risk 
their lives every day to provide critical domestic sources of energy, 
and we need to do all we can to protect their lives and health.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment to use all 
available technologies to protect the Nation's hard-working coal 
miners.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1645

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a 
brief statement I am going to make.
  As we all know, Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and his 
daughter Marcia, three staff members, and two pilots perished in a 
tragic plane accident nearly a year ago near Eveleth, MN. The Senate 
lost an honest, passionate public servant, and we all lost a friend.
  Senator Wellstone's life was a testament to his compassion and 
commitment to serve the less advantaged. He was a tireless advocate for 
people in need. That was never more true than when he began working 
with children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and their families.
  In 2001, Senator Wellstone introduced the Muscular Dystrophy 
Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2001 to 
intensify Federal investment in Duchenne and other forms of muscular 
dystrophy. The MD CARE Act asked the Director of the National 
Institutes of Health to create centers of excellence to conduct basic 
and clinical research into Duchenne and other muscular dystrophies. 
That bill was signed into law in December of 2001. About a year later, 
Senator Wellstone was tragically killed.
  While we cannot replace the colleague and friend who served with us 
in this Chamber, we can commemorate his work on behalf of Jacob 
Gunvalson and others who inspired the late Senator to see this law 
enacted. In September of this year, the National Institutes of Health 
will announce the first grantees of its newly created Muscular 
Dystrophy Cooperative Research Centers Program.
  In addition, three NIH institutes--the National Institute of 
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases, the National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development--also set aside $1 million in the MDCRC 
program as the ``Senator Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy 
Cooperative Research Centers.''
  I have an amendment that would rename the NIH Muscular Dystrophy 
Cooperative Research Center program in honor of the late Senator Paul 
D. Wellstone of Minnesota. I will not read all of it. In part, it says 
that the designation of the NIH Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research 
Centers program shall be known and designated as the ``Senator Paul D. 
Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research Centers'' in honor of 
Paul D. Wellstone, who was deceased on October 25, 2002. There is no 
cost involved.
  I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1645.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To rename the NIH Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research 
 Center (MDCRC) program in honor of the late Senator Paul D. Wellstone 
                             of Minnesota)

       Add at the appropriate place:

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR PAUL D. WELLSTONE NIH MDCRC 
                   PROGRAM

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) On December 18, 2001, Public Law 107-84, otherwise 
     known as the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, 
     Research and Education Amendments of 2001, or the MD CARE 
     Act, was signed into law to provide for research and 
     education with respect to various forms of muscular 
     dystrophy, including Dechenne, Becker, limb girdle, 
     congenital, facioscapulohumeral, myotonic, oculopha-
     ryngeal, distal, and EmeryDreifuss myscular dystrophies.
       (2) In response to the MD CARE Act of 2001, in September 
     2002, NIH announced its intention to direct $22.5 million 
     over five years to its newly created Muscular Dystrophy 
     Cooperative Research Centers (MDCRC) program.
       (3) Senator Paul D. Wellstone was a driving force behind 
     enactment of the MD CARE Act, which led to the establishment 
     of the MDCRC program.
       (b) Designation.--The NIH Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative 
     Research Centers (MDCRC) program shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Senator Paul D. Wellstone Muscular 
     Dystrophy Cooperative Research Centers,'' in honor of Senator 
     Paul D. Wellstone who was deceased on October 25, 2002.
       (c) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, 
     document.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for what he 
has done. I am delighted to join him in sponsoring the amendment to 
name the Muscular Dystrophy Operative Research Center after Senator 
Wellstone. Senator Wellstone attended many of our appropriations 
subcommittee hearings on neurological disorders and was a tireless 
advocate for medical research regarding the cause of muscular 
dystrophy. He was the original sponsor of the Muscular Dystrophy Care 
Act of 2001. This was the first disease-specific piece of legislation 
in the 107th Congress, the first major piece of health care legislation 
signed by President George Bush, and the first piece of legislation to 
ever address a very lethal childhood disorder.
  Just a few weeks before he died, Senator Wellstone visited a little 
boy named Jacob who was afflicted with muscular dystrophy. He and Jacob 
made some television ads, which sadly didn't air because of Senator 
Wellstone's tragic death. Senator Wellstone made a difference in the 
lives of thousands of children afflicted with this deadly disease. He 
leaves a legacy of unprecedented Federal commitment to muscular 
dystrophy research and development. I have no doubt that someday soon 
we will win the fight against muscular dystrophy because of Paul 
Wellstone's work.
  Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 1645? 
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1645) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 1623

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, earlier today, I offered an amendment to 
increase the amount of money in the Aid for Africa Program to the 
number that met the authorization level this Senate passed just a 
couple months ago. It was an additional $350 million which would be 
needed to do the $2 billion in bilateral aid to which we committed, 
plus the $400 million we would need to match roughly $700 million-plus 
that has now been put forward by other countries for the Global Fund.
  This bill is, in combination with the foreign operations bill, $350 
million short for what I believe is the most important health crisis 
facing the world and one I would argue is, as far as dollars spent, 
going to save more lives and improve the quality of life for more 
people than probably any other single dollar item we are doing in this 
bill.
  I believe this is the highest priority. That is why I was willing to 
offer an amendment to fund this program fully and to do so with an 
across-the-board cut. Having seen the success of an across-the-board 
cut in a previous amendment, I have not been necessarily encouraged by 
my colleagues to continue this effort.
  I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, my colleague, in sharpening 
his pencil to come up with enough money to at least meet the 
President's request on his program, which is an additional $61 million. 
It is an amendment Senator DeWine offered earlier for mother-

[[Page 21662]]

  Senator DeWine has been doing some great work, along, I understand 
now, with Senator Durbin, to come up with this money.
  In exchange for the acceptance of that amendment by the managers, I 
am going to withhold my amendment. I yield to the Senator from Ohio to 
explain what his amendment does.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I also thank my 
other colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, for 
his good work on this bill and for his willingness to work with us on 
this very important issue.
  I know the hour is late, Mr. President. I am just going to take 
literally 2 minutes to explain this amendment. I will offer the 
amendment and then I believe the amendment will be accepted.
  This amendment is very simple. What it does is it will restore the 
money to this bill the President has requested this Congress to provide 
for a program that literally will save tens of thousands, maybe 
hundreds of thousands, of lives of innocent children. We have the 
ability today to see a pregnant mother who is HIV positive and to 
provide her with the care and the drugs to ensure she will not give 
birth to a child who is HIV positive.
  The statistics are very simple and the facts are very simple. If a 
woman today is pregnant and is HIV positive, the odds are--the 
percentage is about 30 percent--she will give birth to a child who is 
HIV positive. In sub-Saharan Africa or in Haiti or in Guyana, there are 
programs today that will reduce those odds from 30 percent down to 5 or 
10 percent for as little as $3 to $4 per woman. That is not per day. 
That is per woman per child. It is almost a miracle.
  My colleague in the Chair and other Members of the Senate who just 
came back from a trip, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, to Africa saw 
these programs in place. They work. What this extra $60 million will do 
is to help ensure there will be tens of thousands of more children who 
will be born HIV negative.
  I thank my chairman for allowing this money to come into the bill.
  I call up my amendment on behalf of Senator Santorum and Senator 
Durbin, who went to bat, as he has many times in the past, for children 
and those who are HIV positive and who might be HIV positive. I thank 
Senator Durbin and Senator Santorum. I now call up my amendment No. 
1623.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr. 
     Santorum, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 1623 
     to amendment No. 1542.

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

 (Purpose: To increase funding for activities to prevent the mother-to-
                       child transmission of HIV)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Prevention.--
     In addition to any amounts otherwise made available under 
     this Act to carry out mother-to-child HIV transmission 
     prevention activities, there shall be made available an 
     additional $60,000,000 to carry out such activities and 
     $1,000,000 for non-mother-to-child activities.
       (b) Reduction in Amounts.--Amounts made available under 
     this Act for the administrative and related expenses for 
     departmental management for the Department of Labor, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of 
     Education, shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by 
     $61,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Ohio for 
his outstanding work. I congratulate my colleague from Pennsylvania for 
his contribution. The Senator from Ohio only talked to me about this 
amendment about 79 times during the course of the last 2 days. To say 
that he was persistent would be a vast understatement.
  We are prepared to accept this $61 million for the global AIDS for 
the CDC, of which $60 million is for the mother-to-child transmission 
prevention initiative and $1 million is for other global AIDS 
activities. This offset will be made from the administrative costs of 
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  During the course of the debate, we have had a great many AIDS 
amendments offered, and we wish we could have accepted more of them. 
But this particular one is very precisely targeted. I know the Senator 
from Ohio just came back from Africa and feels very deeply about this 
issue.
  We are pleased to accept this amendment, with our compliments to the 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Santorum, and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have no objection to this amendment. In 
fact, I am supportive of it. I want to make it clear for the record 
that the offset on this amendment is not an across-the-board cut. It 
comes only from the administrative account of the--is it all the 
Departments, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education--or is it just from the Department of Health and Human 
Services? I am a little unclear as to from what administrative account 
it is taken. I want it clear for the record. I just want to get an 
answer to my question as to which administrative account the offset is 
taken.
  Mr. DeWINE. The Senator is correct, it is not an across-the-board 
cut.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand it is not an across-the-board cut. Is it 
from the administrative account of all three Departments or only Health 
and Human Services?
  Mr. SPECTER. It is from all three.
  Mr. DeWINE. I can check the exact language of the amendment. 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. HARKIN. Pardon?
  Mr. DeWINE. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. HARKIN. So it comes from all three accounts. Again, I just wanted 
to make that clear for the record, that it is not from one account; it 
is all three, and it is not an across-the-board cut.
  With that, there is certainly no objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, have we adopted the DeWine amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have not. Is there further debate?
  Mr. SPECTER. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1623.
  The amendment (No. 1623) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 1542.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute is pending and one amendment is 
pending to the substitute.


                      Amendment No. 1561 Withdrawn

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I withdraw the pending amendment, DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 1542.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. SPECTER. This amendment is to strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert the following, which is the text of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1542, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1542), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.


                    close up foundation fellowships

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is almost like the change of season

[[Page 21663]]

around the Capitol when young people from all over the country descend 
on the Capitol to learn about their Government. We all meet with groups 
of these students from our State. We take photos, we answer questions. 
But if you take the time to look at the badges the students and 
teachers are wearing, more likely than not, they will say Close Up.
  Like thousands of young people around this Nation, I got my first 
real taste of our Federal Government from a trip sponsored by the Close 
Up Foundation. Since 1972, more than 26,000 students from my State have 
learned about their Government through the auspices of this 
organization. Close Up has awarded some $3.7 million in fellowships for 
students in need and their teachers to encourage the broadest base of 
possible participation. Furthermore, this program was started by a 
legendary member of this body, who also hailed from Louisiana--Allen 
Ellender.
  Moreover, there has never been a greater need than now for young 
people to understand what our Democracy is all about. As we face 
enormous challenges at home and abroad, the better understanding our 
young people have about their Government, the brighter our future will 
be.
  Sadly, Mr. President, the Close Up Foundation, which has enjoyed the 
support of the Senate for several decades, did not receive any 
resources in this bill. They are seeking funding of $1.4 million, an 
amount equal to last year's level. I would ask my friend, the Senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, and chairman of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services Subcommittee, if he is aware of the precarious situation of 
this program, and if he would be willing to work with me to find 
additional resources during the conference process.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the junior Senator from Louisiana 
for bringing this important issue to the subcommittee's attention. I 
believe that Close Up makes a vital contribution to civic education, 
and would not want to see the program fail. I say to my friend from 
Louisiana, that I will be pleased to work with her during conference to 
see if we can find the necessary funding to meet Close Up's needs.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my good friend and colleague from Louisiana for 
bringing up this important issue. I know my partner in this process, 
Senator Specter, worked hard to fund many priorities within a tight 
allocation. I look forward to working with him on this and other 
important programs in conference.


                  pediatric graduate medical education

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Specter, for 
all of the work he has put into drafting and shepherding the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations 
bill. His leadership and his efforts should be commended.
  Last week, I offered an amendment in support of our Nation's 
children's hospitals. My amendment would equalize the funding that 
children's hospitals receive compared to adult hospitals. Specifically, 
the amendment would provide an additional $15 million to fund the 
pediatric Graduate Medical Education program at $305 million. These 
monies are used by children's hospitals across the country to hire and 
retain residents who are interested in pediatric research and in 
becoming pediatricians.
  I ask my colleague, the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, if he 
supports our Nation's children's hospitals and the Graduate Medical 
Education program?
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague, Senator DeWine. I strongly support 
our Nation's children's hospitals and the pediatric Graduate Medical 
Education program.
  Mr. DeWINE. Children's hospitals train almost 30 percent of all 
pediatricians and half of all pediatric specialists. They also provide 
more than 40 percent of the hospital care in this country for children 
needing cardiac surgery, children suffering with cancer, and children 
with cerebral palsy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with my colleague about the valuable role of 
children's hospitals in providing pediatric care and research.
  Mr. DeWINE. The House included $305 million in its Fiscal Year 2004 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill. I have agreed to 
withdraw my amendment, but I urge the senior Senator from Pennsylvania 
to continue working to provide in conference the most funding possible 
for the Graduate Medical Education program.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will do all that I can to see to it that the GME 
program is funded at the highest level possible in conference.
  Mr. HARKIN. I concur with the chairman, and will strongly support the 
GME program.


  centers for children's environmental health and disease prevention 
                                research

  Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to join Senator Harkin in confirming our 
intent that funding in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill be used in 
part to continue funding 12 Centers for Children's Environmental Health 
and Disease Prevention Research. These centers were established through 
a joint initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and combine a new, 
unique, multidisciplinary approach to researching, identifying, 
treating, and ultimately preventing health risks posed to children by 
environmental hazards in the communities in which they live, play and 
attend school. As you know, we do not earmark NIH.
  I ask Senator Clinton, how much does NIEHS provide in funding for the 
centers?
  Mrs. CLINTON. NIEHS has provided $750,000 per center, for a total of 
$9 million per year to provide for direct and overhead costs that the 
centers incur. I hope that EPA will also continue to hold up its end of 
the funding to continue funding 12 centers. I thank Senators Specter 
and Harkin for their continued support of the centers, which are 
directly in line with our shared goal of addressing environmental 
factors that may cause or contribute to childhood illnesses such as 
asthma, or that can interfere in the proper growth and development of 
our Nation's children.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am glad to join my colleagues in support of the 
important work that the Centers for Children's Environmental Health and 
Disease Prevention Research perform. The research and outreach that 
these centers initiate is unparalleled. The centers have not only begun 
important studies into the potential impact of our environment on 
children's health, but have also cultivated invaluable relationships 
with their surrounding communities. Continued funding for these 12 
centers will allow high-quality research involving local communities in 
a collaborative process to continue and result in the most effective 
translation of research into methods of prevention.


national institute of general medical sciences charge to conduct basic 
                          behavioral research

  Mr. INOUYE. Will the chairman of the subcommittee yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be pleased to yield for a question from the 
Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. First, I would like to compliment the chairman and the 
ranking member, Senator Harkin, for their leadership in developing an 
excellent bill for consideration by the Senate. As a member of the 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee for many 
years I understand the challenge faced by the subcommittee each year in 
developing a bill that adequately funds all the outstanding programs in 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. The chairman and the ranking 
member have done an admirable job and they set a fine example of 
working in a bipartisan manner to meet the health, education and 
workforces priorities of the Nation. I would also compliment the 
dedicated staff who support this effort. We would not have such good 
bills for the Nation without their counsel and hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to highlight one NIH-related 
matter that despite our best efforts remains largely unresolved. This 
year again the Committee's report urges the

[[Page 21664]]

National Institute of General Medical Sciences to fund basic behavioral 
research. The Committee report states the following:

       Behavioral Research.--The Committee believes that NIGMS has 
     a scientific mandate to support basic behavioral research 
     because of the clear relevance of fundamental behavioral 
     factors to a variety of diseases and health conditions. The 
     Committee encourages the NIGMS to incorporate basic 
     behavioral research as part of its portfolio, especially in 
     the areas of cognition, behavioral neuroscience, behavioral 
     genetics, psycho-
     physiology, methodology and evaluation, and experimental 
     psychology.

  This is excellent language. The Committee has had similar language in 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, but little has yet been 
done to implement the Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee's NIGMS 
report language from fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of our remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
NIGMS statute, which states in Public Law that one of the purposes of 
NIGMS is to conduct and support behavioral research, be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of our remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. INOUYE. Would the chairman and ranking member join me in helping 
ensure that the NIH complies with the wishes of the subcommittee on 
this matter?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague, the 
Senator from Hawaii, for bringing this matter to our attention and I 
look forward to working with him and the NIH to resolve this matter. 
This subcommittee has successfully doubled the NIH budget over the last 
5 years. Thus this speaks to this subcommittee's commitment to all 
types of scientific health research, including behavioral health.
  Basic behavioral research is essential if we are to successfully 
address the many public health issues plaguing our Nation. Since 
September 11, 2001, the psychological and physiological effects of 
terrorism and stress became real to all Americans across this great 
Nation. It is imperative that we, as a nation, better understand the 
psychological effects of sustained stress and the role of the 
behavioral health sciences in the prevention and treatment of the 
leading causes or morbidity and mortality. The leading causes of death 
and chronic illness are related to high risk behaviors such as: 
unintentional injuries and violence, tobacco use, alcohol and drug use, 
dietary behaviors, sexual behaviors, and inactivity. I am committed to 
working with you and Senator Harkin to help ensure that NIH understands 
the wishes of this Subcommittee.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Chairman yield for a comment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to my distinguished colleague and ranking member 
of this subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I echo the sentiments 
of the Senator from Hawaii and the chairman of this subcommittee. The 
significance of behavioral health research has never been as important 
as it is now. The interrelationship between behavioral health research 
and the health of the people of this Nation is clear. I stand behind 
with our Chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from 
Hawaii to work with NIH to address the requests of this subcommittee.

                               Exhibit 1

     Senate Report--Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
                             Appropriations


             national institute of general medical sciences

                  Fiscal year 1999 (S. Rept. 105-300)

       Behavioral science research and training.--The Committee 
     encourages NIGMS to support basic research training as part 
     of its mandate to support basic research training in all 
     areas of health-related research.

                  Fiscal year 2000 (S. Rept. 106-166)

       Behavioral science research and training.--The Committee is 
     concerned that NIGMS does not support behavioral science 
     research or training. As the only national institute 
     specifically mandated to support research not targeted to 
     specific diseases or disorders, there is a range of basic 
     behavioral research and training that NIGMS could be 
     supporting. The Committee urges NIGMS, in consultation with 
     the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences, to behavioral 
     science research community and other national institutes and 
     offices, to identify basic behavioral science research and 
     training priorities and to develop a plan for implementing 
     those priorities. (p. 134-5)

                  Fiscal year 2001 (S. Rept. 106-293)

       Behavioral science research and training.--The Committee is 
     concerned that NIGMS does not support behavioral science 
     research training. As the only Institute mandated to support 
     research not targeted to specific diseases or disorders, 
     there is a range of basic behavioral research and training 
     that NIGMS could be supporting. The Committee urges NIGMS, in 
     consultation with the Office of Behavioral and Social 
     Sciences, to develop a plan for pursuing the most promising 
     research topics in this area.

                   Fiscal year 2002 (S. Rept. 107-84)

       Behavioral science research and training.--The Committee is 
     concerned that NIGMS does not support behavioral science 
     research training. As the only Institute mandated to support 
     research not targeted to specific diseases or disorders, 
     there is a range of basic behavioral research and training 
     that NIGMS could be supporting. The Committee urges NIGMS, in 
     consultation with the Office of Behavioral and Social 
     Sciences, to develop a plan for pursuing the most promising 
     research topics in this area.

                  Fiscal year 2003 (S. Rept. 107-216)

       Behavioral science research and training.--As the NIH 
     institute most concerned with basic research, the NIGMS has 
     provided leadership in basic research on physiological and 
     biological structures and functions that may play roles in 
     numerous health conditions. The Committee encourages the 
     NIGMS to develop collaborations with other Institutes, such 
     as the NCI and the NIMH, and the Office of Behavioral and 
     Social Sciences Research to fund basic research to integrate 
     physiological knowledge of pre-disease pathways with 
     behavioral studies.

                               Exhibit 2

                    Public Law 87-838--Oct. 17, 1962

   AN ACT To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the 
establishment of an Institute of Child Health and Human Development, to 
extend for three additional years the authorization for grants for the 
  construction of facilities for research in the sciences related to 
                     health, and for other purposes

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C., ch. 6A, 
     subch. III) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new part:

   ``Part E--Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and of 
                        General Medical Sciences


   ``establishment of institute of child health and human Development

       ``Sec. 441. The Surgeon General is authorized, with the 
     approval of the Secretary, to establish in the Public Health 
     Service an institute for the conduct and support of research 
     and training relating to maternal health, child health, and 
     human development, including research and training in the 
     special health problems and requirements of mothers and 
     children and in the basic sciences relating to the processes 
     of human growth and development, including prenatal 
     development.


        ``establishment of institute of general medical sciences

       ``Sec. 442. The Surgeon General is authorized, with the 
     approval of the Secretary, to establish in the Public Health 
     Service an institute for the conduct and support of research 
     and research training in the general or basic medical 
     sciences and related natural or behavioral sciences which 
     have significance for two or more other institutes, or are 
     outside the general area of responsibility of any other 
     institute, established under or by this Act.


                  ``establishment of advisory councils

       ``Sec. 443. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized, with the 
     approval of the Secretary, to establish an advisory council 
     to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the 
     Surgeon General on matters relating to the activities of the 
     institute established under section 441. He may also, with 
     such approval, establish such a council with respect to the 
     activities of the institute established under section 442.
       ``(b) The provisions relating to the composition, terms of 
     office of members, and reappointment of members of advisory 
     councils under section 432(a) shall be applicable to any 
     council established under this section, except that, in lieu 
     of the requirements in such sections that six of the members 
     be outstanding in the study, diagnosis, or treatment of a 
     disease or diseases, six of such members shall be selected 
     from leading medical or scientific authorities who are 
     outstanding in the field of research or training

[[Page 21665]]

     with respect to which the council is being established, and 
     except that the Surgeon General, with the approval of the 
     Secretary, may include on any such council established under 
     this section such additional ex officio members as he deems 
     necessary in the light of the functions of the institute with 
     respect to which it is established.
       ``(c) Upon appointment of any such council, it shall assume 
     all or such part as the Surgeon General may, with the 
     approval of the Secretary, specify of the duties, functions, 
     and powers of the National Advisory Health Council relating 
     to the research or training projects with which such council 
     established under this part is concerned and such portion as 
     the Surgeon General may specify (with such approval) of the 
     duties, functions, and powers of any other advisory council 
     established under this Act relating to such projects.


                              ``functions

       ``Sec. 444. The Surgeon General shall, through an institute 
     established under this part, carry out the purposes of 
     section 301 with respect to the conduct and support of 
     research which is a function of such institute, except that 
     the Surgeon General shall, with the approval of the 
     Secretary, determine the areas in which and the extent to 
     which he will carry out such purposes of section 301 through 
     such institute or an institute established by or under other 
     provisions of this Act, or both of them, when both such 
     institutes have functions with respect to the same subject 
     matter. The Surgeon General is also authorized to provide 
     training and instruction and establish and maintain 
     traineeships and fellowships, in the institute established 
     under section 441 and elsewhere in matters relating to 
     diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of a disease or diseases 
     or in other aspects of maternal health, child health, and 
     human development, with such stipends and allowances 
     (including travel and subsistence expenses) for trainees and 
     fellows as he deems necessary, and, in addition, provide for 
     such training, instruction, and traineeships and for such 
     fellowships through grants to public or other nonprofit 
     institutions.


                  ``PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AUTHORITY

       ``Sec. 445. Nothing in this part shall be construed as 
     affecting the authority of the Secretary under section 2 of 
     the Act of April 9, 1912 (42 U.S.C. 192), or title V of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C., ch. 7, subch. V), or as 
     affecting the authority of the Surgeon General to utilize 
     institutes established under other provisions of this Act for 
     research or training activities relating to maternal health, 
     child health, and human development or to the general medical 
     sciences and related sciences.''
       Sec. 2. Section 301(d) of the Public Health Service Act is 
     amended by striking out the words ``research projects'' 
     wherever they appear therein and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``research or research training projects''.
       Sec. 3. Title II of the Public Health Service Act is 
     amended by adding after section 221 the following new 
     section:


                         ``Advisory Committees

       ``Sec. 222. (a) The Surgeon General may, without regard to 
     the civil service laws, and subject to the Secretary's 
     approval in such cases as the Secretary may prescribe, from 
     time to time appoint such advisory committees (in addition to 
     those authorized to be established under other provisions of 
     law), for such periods of time, as he deems desirable for the 
     purpose of advising him in connection with any of his 
     functions.
       ``(b) Members of any advisory committee appointed under 
     this section who are not regular full-time employees of the 
     United States shall, while attending meetings or conferences 
     of such committee or otherwise engaged in business of such 
     committee receive compensation and allowances as provided in 
     section 208(c) for members of national advisory councils 
     established under this Act.
       ``(c) Upon appointment of any such committee, the Surgeon 
     General, with the approval of the Secretary, may transfer 
     such of the functions of the National Advisory Health Council 
     relating to grants-in-aid for research or training projects 
     in the areas or fields with which such committee is concerned 
     as he determines to be appropriate.''
       Sec. 4. (a) Section 704 of the Public Health Service Act is 
     amended by striking out ``six'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``nine''.
       (b) Section 705(a) of such Act is amended by striking out 
     ``1962'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1965''.
       Approved October 17, 1962.

                    Public Law 87-839--Oct. 18, 1962

AN ACT To amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to develop American flag 
carriers and promote the foreign commerce of the United States through 
                     the use of mobile trade fairs.

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House or Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     title II of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 
     U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), is amended by adding immediately after 
     section 212(A) thereof (46 U.S.C. 1122a) the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 212. (B) (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     encourage and promote the development and use of mobile trade 
     fairs which are designed to show and sell the products of 
     United States business and agriculture at foreign ports and 
     at other commercial centers throughout the world where the 
     operator or operators of the mobile trade fairs exclusively 
     use United States flag vessels and aircraft in the 
     transportation of their exhibits.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to provide to 
     the operator or operators of such mobile trade fairs 
     technical assistance and support as well as financial 
     assistance for the purpose of defray certain expenses 
     incurred abroad, when the Secretary determines that such 
     operations provide an economical and effective means of 
     promoting export sales.
       ``(c) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
     $500,000 per fiscal year for each of the three fiscal years 
     during the period beginning July 1, 1962, and ending June 30, 
     1965. In addition to such appropriated sums, the President 
     shall make maximum use of foreign currencies owned by or owed 
     to the United States to carry out the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(d) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit annually to 
     the Congress a report on his activities under this Act.''
       Sec. 2. Section 104(m) of the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, is 
     amended by inserting immediately before ``, and (B)'' the 
     following: ``or section 212(B) of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936''.
       Approved October 18, 1962.


                funding for unaccompanied alien children

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to inquire of my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, 
about the nature of funding in this measure for the care and treatment 
of unaccompanied alien children.
  As my friend knows, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress 
transferred responsibility for the care and treatment of unaccompanied 
alien children from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee 
Resettlement (ORR), effective March 1 of this year. Fiscal year 2004 
will be the first full year during which ORR will be responsible for 
this important function, and it is critical for ORR to have adequate 
funding to exercise its new responsibilities.
  Mr. SPECTER. I commend my friend from California for her tireless 
dedication to ensuring the protection of unaccompanied alien children. 
Indeed, it was her efforts last year that brought about the transfer of 
responsibility for these vulnerable children to ORR. I am pleased to 
have been a supporter of those efforts.
  As the Senator knows, the President requested $34.227 million for 
unaccompanied alien children for fiscal year 2004. The allocation 
levels the subcommittee received for fiscal year 2004 were so low, the 
committee had to reduce the overall funding for ORR beneath the 
President's request. Nonetheless, the committee recommended the full 
$34.227 million for fiscal year 2004 for unaccompanied alien children 
that the President requested.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. It is important to note that in 
making its initial request for fiscal year 2004, the administration 
acknowledged that it was a preliminary estimate based on less-than-
complete information. Since the administration made its initial budget 
request last January, it has become evident that ORR will need more 
funds in order to fulfill its unaccompanied alien child 
responsibilities.
  In talking with experts who work with these children as well as with 
administration officials, it has become evident that this important 
program will need at least $20 million in additional funding to order 
to operate effectively in fiscal year 2004.
  As the Senate knows, I was prepared to offer an amendment to this 
bill that would appropriate the additional $20 million for these 
programs, bringing the total appropriation for unaccompanied alien 
children for fiscal year 2004 to $54,227,000. This anticipated that the 
additional $20 million being appropriated for these functions would be 
derived from unused refugee and entrant funds from prior fiscal years. 
These funds have gone unused because of the unfortunate shortfalls that 
have occurred in refugee admissions during the last several fiscal 
years.
  In the interest of time and in deference to the delicate balance that 
the committee was forced to achieve in

[[Page 21666]]

putting together this bill, I will not offer this amendment at this 
time. However, I ask the chairman for some assurance that he will work 
with House conferees to secure a minimum of $54.227 million for these 
functions in conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend from California for withholding from 
offering her amendment. The Senator is correct that the program would 
benefit greatly from an additional $20 million, and I am dedicated to 
helping secure that funding before the end of this process.
  As the Senator knows, the House mark for Refugee and Entrant 
Assistance was $33.797 million higher than the Senate was able to 
recommend. Should the conferees reach agreement on overall ORR funding 
that is closer to the Senate mark than the House mark, I will work with 
my colleagues in the Senate and the House to achieve an appropriation 
for unaccompanied alien children along the lines of the amendment that 
you have so graciously agreed to withdraw.
  Mr. HARKIN. As ranking member of the subcommittee I agree with my 
friend from Pennsylvania and will work to ensure that the funding the 
senior Senator of California is requesting for the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement will be reflected in the final conference agreement.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished chairman, for that assurance. He has been an important 
ally in our efforts to reform the treatment of unaccompanied alien 
children. I also commend my friend from Iowa for his tireless efforts 
on behalf of all children throughout his career in the Senate, and I 
thank him for his support for this effort. I look forward to working 
closely with both of my colleagues to ensure that adequate funding is 
appropriated to carry out the mandate that Congress created in the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002.


                        community access program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I've come to the floor today to discuss 
my disappointment that the chairman's mark zeros out funding for the 
Community Access Program, a community-based program that seeks to 
coordinate health care of the uninsured and underserved.
  This development is especially disappointing because less than 8 
months ago, the Senate overwhelmingly adopted my amendment to provide 
full funding for the CAP program in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations 
bill.
  Since early 2001, the current administration has targeted this 
program for elimination. It is difficult to understand why the 
President's budget eliminates a program that seeks to get care for the 
uninsured at a time when the ranks of the uninsured continue to grow. 
As more and more families lost their insurance coverage, programs like 
CAP will become even more important.
  The CAP program helps increase the capacity and effectiveness of 
community health care institutions and providers who serve patients 
regardless of their ability to pay.
  The program supports community-based groups that coordinate care for 
the uninsured. CAP has been very successful, and it enjoys broad 
bipartisan support. The CAP program was authorized in October 2002 as 
part of the Health Care Safety Net Authorization bill, which was 
unanimously adopted by the Senate.
  The purpose of the CAP program is spelled out in the Health Care 
Safety Net Authorization bill. Let me read from the Committee report.
  The purpose is ``to provide assistance to communities and to 
consortia of health care providers, in order to develop or strengthen 
an integrated health care delivery system that coordinates health 
services for individuals who are uninsured and individuals who are 
underinsured. And, to develop or strengthen activities related to 
providing coordinated care for individuals with chronic conditions.''
  I believe these are goals and objectives that we must achieve, but 
eliminating CAP will make this impossible.
  I understand the fiscal pressures facing Chairman Specter, and I 
believe he has done the best job possible. But we are facing a major 
health care crisis in this country. I know the important role CAP can 
play in working to address this crisis.
  Washington State has four CAP grantees. They have worked hard to 
expand access to quality, comprehensive care for those who have no 
health care safety net outside of the emergency room.
  Washington's CAP grantees are based in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia 
and Seattle. As I've met with our CAP grantees, they've shown me a 
glimpse into the future of affordable health care.
  For example, almost a year ago, I visited the Odessa Brown Children's 
Clinic in Seattle. I saw a doctor, a dentist and a psychologist all in 
the same room, not just treating individual body parts, but treating 
the whole child in a comprehensive, compassionate way.
  Today that project--known as ``Kids Get Care''--is connecting more 
than 3,000 children to comprehensive health care.
  These efforts are making a real difference for low-income families, 
and they need more investment, not elimination.
  Our CAP grantees have worked to ensure that our increased investment 
in Community Health Centers reaps the greatest benefit possible.
  They have worked with vulnerable populations to tear down all 
barriers to care--not just economic barriers. They have used this small 
investment to better serve the uninsured.
  We should be strengthening efforts like this--not eliminating them.
  Currently, one in nine Washington residents is uninsured. With my 
State's ongoing economic crisis, demand will grow for programs that 
provide care for the uninsured.
  We need to meet the immediate needs of families who today can only 
access care in the Emergency Room.
  CAP provides the seed money that gives community health care 
providers the ability to serve those who have nowhere else to go.
  I had considered offering an amendment to restore full funding for 
CAP.
  However, because of the budgetary constraints, to secure the votes 
needed, I would have to cut other vital Labor, HHS and Education 
programs, many of which are already taking cuts.
  Instead, I would like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee 
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Chairman Specter, again let me stress my appreciation for your 
efforts. You have been given an almost impossible task.
  The bottom line is our Subcommittee allocation for LHHS is simply not 
sufficient to meet the important priorities of labor, health care and 
education.
  I know you did the best job possible, but I am asking for your 
support of CAP in conference.
  When I raised this issue in the subcommittee markup, you indicated 
your willingness to work to ensure that this program is funded when the 
final bill emerges from conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. It is true that we have not funded the Community Access 
Program. That program has traditionally been funded by the House, and 
let me assure you that it will be funded when we come out of 
conference. As the Senator from Washington is aware, the House passed 
LHHS Appropriations bill allocates a total of $104.317 million for FY 
2004 for the Community Access Program.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to echo the comments of my good friend from 
Pennsylvania and thank Senator Murray for bringing up this important 
issue. I, too, am very concerned by the President's elimination of this 
successful program. I look forward to working with Chairman Specter to 
restore funding in conference.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman and ranking member of their support 
in conference, and as a conferee, I will continue to work with you to 
ensure the $104.317 million in FY 2004 for the Community Access 
Program.


                      dislocated worker amendment

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on

[[Page 21667]]

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education. I came to the floor today 
to offer an amendment to increase dislocated worker formula funds in 
order to create new job training opportunities for dislocated workers.
  Given the continued job losses nationwide, increasing funds to 
retrain workers is critical--both for workers and for the businesses 
that are hiring workers. Our national unemployment rate is now 6.1 
percent, which is close to the highest it has been in 9 years. Since 
the recession started in January 2001, we have lost more than three 
million private sector jobs, and these job losses continue. In my 
State, Boeing announced over 600 layoffs in July. In August, it 
announced over 500 more. And it has plans to cut a total of 5,000 jobs 
nationally by the end of the year. These funds are clearly needed to 
get Americans back to work.
  I am pleased that my colleagues and I have reached an agreement to 
include an additional $25 million in this bill for the Dislocated 
Worker formula funds. Clearly, I would have liked to secure additional 
funding, but recognize that the bill includes many worthy priorities 
and that funds are extremely tight. I look forward to working with the 
chairman and ranking member to secure this funding increase in the 
final version of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments. 
And I think she makes a good point about the important role the Senate 
can play in supporting the retraining of dislocated workers. The 
Senator is correct that we have agreed to include an additional $25 
million for the Dislocated Worker funding stream in the managers' 
amendment. I will fight to keep this funding in the conference 
committee bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the Senator from Washington that there is a 
great need for additional funds for dislocated workers, I will work 
with my colleagues to retain this increase of $25 million for 
dislocated worker formula funds in the conference committee bill.


                 ymca and the healthy steps initiative

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to commend Mr. Specter and the 
committee for increasing funding for chronic disease prevention and 
control programs under the CDC. I especially want to thank him for the 
report language accompanying this bill that recognizes the important 
role that nonprofit organizations such as YMCAs and Jewish Community 
Centers play in providing millions of American youth comprehensive 
health and wellness programs designed to address risk behaviors such as 
physical inactivity, unhealthy diets, and tobacco use. Because only 25 
percent of public schools are offering daily physical education 
programs, and it has fallen to community-based organizations like the Y 
to step in and implement health promotion and health education 
strategies and interventions designed to increase physical activity and 
foster good nutrition among school-aged children.
  I also support the committee's efforts to ensure that private 
organizations like the YMCA and Jewish Community centers are eligible 
to receive funding as part of the Secretary's steps to a Healthier U.S. 
Initiative. It is essential that we begin to encourage after school 
physical activity programs that help reduce and prevent obesity.
  As President Bush recently noted during a visit to the West Lake YMCA 
in Dallas to promote his Healthy Steps Initiative, ``the YMCA is an 
integral part of a healthy America by encouraging our youngsters to 
exercise, to have fun, to get outside, to learn to eat good foods.'' I 
agree that national organizations, like the YMCA, that have a long 
history of serving youth and have the ability to assist state health 
and education departments in all 50 States, are perfectly positioned 
for the job of helping us develop and deliver model physical activity 
programs for elementary and secondary education students.
  If we are going to quickly and efficiently make an impact on youth 
obesity, resources need to be made available to organizations that: 
have a longstanding physical presence in our communities; have 
established and stable relationships with state and local health and 
education agencies; and are experienced in providing health and fitness 
programs to America's youth.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire 
for his support for the subcommittee's efforts in this regard. We 
should all be concerned about the scourge of obesity among our Nation's 
youth, and I am committed to assisting the necessary partnerships and 
programs needed to reverse these devastating trends. Those efforts 
should include private organizations such as the YMCA to the extent 
possible and government at all levels should be working with such 
groups to develop and implement after school physical activity programs 
to reduce and prevent obesity. I am delighted to work with my colleague 
from New Hampshire to ensure that national nonprofit organization's 
like the YMCA and Jewish Community centers have an opportunity to play 
a leading role in helping achieve the President's goals for a healthier 
America.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both of my distinguished 
colleagues, and I want to add my concern over the growing problem that 
obesity poses on the health of our Nation. Specifically the emphasis 
that it has had in the lives of our youth. Together we need to seek and 
work toward a solution.
  Nonprofit organizations play a significant role in this battle to 
keep our Nation healthy. I look forward to working with my good friend 
and chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Specter, and my chairman on 
the authorizing committee on which I serve, Senator Gregg.


                           vaccine stockpile

  Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to join Senator Harkin in confirming our 
intent that the Vaccines for Children program funding in the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill be used in part to stockpile a 6-month supply of 
childhood vaccines. Only a year ago, doctors had to turn families away 
at the door because of national vaccine shortages for eight out of the 
eleven vaccine-preventable diseases. During the vaccine shortage, 
children became ill with pneumococcal meningitis and pneumonia, 
diseases that could have been prevented with an adequate supply of the 
pneumococcal vaccine. Fortunately, we have witnessed some significant 
progress since then, which is a credit to a collaborative effort by 
public health officials, vaccine manufacturers and providers. Shortages 
have stopped, and childhood vaccines for eleven different diseases are 
no longer being delayed.
  Mr. HARKIN. During the crisis, the HELP Committee met on multiple 
occasions to study this important issue. I want to thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania and join him in affirming that it was our intent to use 
funding in this bill to stockpile a 6-month supply of childhood 
vaccines. Despite the efforts of the committee and the collaborative 
effort by many others on this important public health issue, I 
understand that my home State of Iowa, like the rest of the Nation, 
only has a one-to-two month stockpile for some of the routinely 
recommended childhood vaccines. Senator Reed, is it accurate to state 
that these shortages, temporarily alleviated, could return at any time?
  Mr. REED. Yes, unfortunately, the General Accounting Office report 
confirmed that a pause in production for safety reasons could happen 
again and would have a critical and devastating impact on the ability 
to vaccinate children and adults. That is why I appreciated the 
administration's announced commitment to provide funds in the 2004 
Budget for a vaccine stockpile. Senator Clinton, how much funding does 
the administration plan to provide in Fiscal Year 2004 for a stockpile?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The administration plans to provide $124 million in 
fiscal year 2004 so that it can store a 6-month supply of childhood 
vaccines by 2006. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for affirming the 
administration's commitment to prevent further vaccine shortages by 
stockpiling a 6-month supply of childhood vaccines. Senators DeWine and 
Reed and I introduced the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act along with to 
strengthen and support the administration's authority in these efforts 
and assure that the stockpile includes adults as well as all children,

[[Page 21668]]

who were affected by the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid shortage last year. 
Senator DeWine, is a vaccine stockpile sufficient to prevent future 
shortages?
  Mr. DeWINE. No. We also need an additional buffer because CDC 
acknowledges that it will take until 2006 before we can have a six-
month stockpile of childhood vaccines. That is why I joined you and 
Senator Reed in introducing the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act, which 
would provide a notification mechanism so that CDC can work with other 
manufacturers to maintain the vaccine supply when a manufacturer cannot 
produce an adequate supply of vaccine. Each of the four major vaccine 
producers has stated that they do not object to this sort of an advance 
notice provision. We have worked amicably with Senators Frist, Gregg, 
and Kennedy on both of these vaccine provisions. We have worked 
amicably with Senator Frist on this issue and our vaccine provisions, 
and fully expect to continue working with this bipartisan group of 
Senators to accomplish the important goal of assuring safe vaccines for 
all children.


                               mentoring

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
colleagues who share my zeal for quality mentoring programs, Senators 
Allen and Ben Nelson, and the distinguished leaders on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies. My concern is with the adequacy of the 
funding level for mentoring included in this bill today. For the two 
programs focused exclusively on mentoring, the Department of 
Education's Mentoring Programs grants and the Department of Health and 
Human Services' Mentoring for Children of Prisoners, the bill before us 
commits just $38.6 million--well short of the President's request of 
$150 million. I understand that limited resources are constraining the 
amounts we are able to provide for many programs, and I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for the increase they included in this bill 
for Mentoring Programs. But I do hope we can find some funding to 
further increase the allocation for mentoring.
  I'm sure we can all remember an adult who made a difference for each 
of us growing up by spending time with us, encouraging us, and serving 
as a positive role model. That is exactly what mentoring is: a 
sustained relationship between a young person and an adult in which the 
adult provides support, guidance, and assistance to the young person. 
The benefits of a mentoring relationship are wide-ranging--including 
gains in educational achievement, health and safety, and social and 
emotional development.
  We have some wonderful mentoring programs in Hawai'i, and they have 
an invaluable impact on young people throughout my State. One of these 
excellent examples has been the Senior Kupuna in the Preschools Project 
run by the Hawaii Intergenerational Network that has achieved 
meaningful results such as positive changes in classroom behavior. But 
these programs need additional funding to serve more young people.
  I would like to work with the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee to increase funding for mentoring in 
Conference to a level at least equal to the House allocation of $75 
million. Before I yield the floor to them, I am pleased to yield at 
this time to another strong advocate of mentoring programs, the former 
Governor of Virginia, Senator Allen.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, Senator 
Akaka, for his work on this important issue. I, too, strongly believe 
that mentoring is effective. Unfortunately, the need for mentors is so 
much greater than what is currently available. MENTOR/National 
Mentoring Partnership estimates, based on the latest US Census figures 
and risk factors for youth, that approximately 17.6 million young 
people could benefit greatly from a high-quality formal mentoring 
relationship with a caring adult. Of those young people who need 
mentors, an estimated 2.5 million are fortunate to be in formal, high-
quality mentoring relationships. But that leaves more than 1.5 million 
young people in need of mentors, falling into a ``mentoring gap.''
  The President has requested $100 million for Mentoring Programs 
grants and $50 million for Mentoring for Children of Prisoners as a 
strategic first step to closing that mentoring gap, and I want to 
recognize him for his leadership. Through a concentrated effort, we 
will be able to match thousands of new children with caring adults. 
But, that cannot happen unless we are able to increase the funding for 
mentoring in this appropriations bill.
  Given the tight budget times we are facing, I appreciate the increase 
that the committee was able to provide for mentoring. However, I 
believe that we can do better in conference. I, too, would like to work 
with the chairman with the goal of matching or exceeding the House 
figure of $75 million, even though it is still short of the President's 
request of $150 million. I would like to conclude my remarks at this 
time and yield to a fellow former governor, the Senator from Nebraska, 
Ben Nelson.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleagues, 
Senators Akaka and Allen, for their efforts toward ensuring that young 
people in this country are able to access valuable mentoring services.
  As Governor, I helped the mentoring program TeamMates of Nebraska--
which was started by former Nebraska football coach, now Congressman, 
Tom Osborne--expand statewide. From your personal experience, I know 
that, like any youth-development strategy, mentoring works best when 
measures are taken to ensure quality and effectiveness. Programs must 
carefully recruit, screen, and train prospective volunteers, and then 
support them throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship. 
Inadequate funding directly impacts a mentoring organization's ability 
to operate a high-quality program. I strongly believe that we should 
recede to the House numbers on mentoring, which would provide $75 
million to help match young people across the country with mentors.
  I'd like to share a quote from a Nebraska mentee, Ean Garrett. Ean is 
a participant in the ProPal Plus Mentoring Program in Omaha, Nebraska, 
and these are his own words:

       Mentoring shows us that we don't have to live day by day, 
     that we live in a world full of opportunities. It teaches us 
     that with imagination and a lot of hard work, we can go as 
     far as we want. Mentoring helps us see that graduating from 
     high school is not an option; it is a requirement. And 
     mentoring helps us develop our skills so that we are 
     successful well-rounded people who are major contributors to 
     our community, our society, our country, the human race, and 
     the world. Thanks to ProPal Plus and my mentor, the American 
     dream is mine.

  The chairman and ranking member have faced a lot of tough choices in 
crafting this bill, and I am pleased they were able to find an increase 
for mentoring. I do think Ean's words help us all understand why we 
must find more. I will end there and yield time to the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Hawai'i, 
Virginia, and Nebraska for raising this very important issue. I agree 
that the funding levels for Mentoring Programs and Mentoring for 
Children of Prisoners should be examined carefully in Conference. We 
have a great many wonderful mentoring programs throughout Pennsylvania 
that could use more funding in order to continue their good work with 
young people.
  I applaud the three Senators in their goal that these two programs 
receive the $75 million funding level proposed by the other body. I 
will work with them and my colleagues in the other body to try to 
achieve this goal during conference.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I echo the comments of my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. It has been proven time and again that kids act out the 
behaviors that are role modeled for them. That's why caring adult 
mentors can truly help transform the lives of young people. A 
substantial increase in federal funds for mentoring would provide a 
much-needed infusion of grant funding into the mentoring community in 
Iowa and across the nation. This funding is a wise investment in the 
future

[[Page 21669]]

success of young people across this country.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
willingness to work with us on mentoring funding as this appropriations 
bill moves forward. It will make a big difference in many lives around 
the country.


                funding for health professions training

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  I want to thank the chairman for the hard work he has put into 
crafting the Labor-HHS bill that is currently before us. I know that he 
faces many challenges in developing this important legislation every 
year, and I commend him for his leadership. As the chairman knows, I am 
a very strong supporter of Federal health professions training 
programs. These important programs administered by the Health Resources 
and Services Administration, HRSA, provide critical support to health 
professions institutions, facilities, students and communities 
throughout the country.
  Support from these programs is particularly important to our Nation's 
historically black health professions schools. HRSA's Health 
Professions Training for Diversity Programs, including Minority Centers 
of Excellence, Health Careers Opportunities, Scholarships for 
Disadvantaged Students, and Faculty Loan Replacement, support those 
institutions with a historic commitment to training minorities in the 
health professions. Without support from these programs, many of our 
historically black health professions schools, including Meharry 
Medical College in my home State, would be unable to sustain their 
mission of training minorities for clinical careers in medically 
underserved areas.
  The other programs that comprise the Health Professions Training 
cluster are equally important to ensuring that we meet our health 
professions workforce needs, particularly in the over 3,100 Federally 
Designated Health Professions Shortage Areas. Primary Care Medicine and 
Dentistry, Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and Training 
Centers, Allied Health, and other Title VII programs all play a 
critical role in our health care system. As we continue to work to 
expand access to quality health care for all Americans, I believe it is 
important that we support those existing Federal programs that make a 
difference.
  I also recognize that these programs have not yet been formally 
reauthorized, and so I appreciate the chairman's continued support for 
funding these items. I look forward to working with him, Chairman Gregg 
and others to reauthorize these programs and to look for ways through 
the reauthorization process to improve performance measures and 
accountability.
  I, again, thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and 
express my interest in working with him and our colleagues in the House 
to fully restore funding for all Health Professions Training Programs 
when the Labor-HHS bill gets to conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his comments and for his leadership on these very important issues. 
He has truly been a leader in this area, and he has consistently pushed 
for improvements in Federal programs to eliminate health disparities. 
In fact, he authored the Title VII and Title VIII Reauthorizations as 
chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee's Public Health Subcommittee during the 105th Congress.
  As he knows, our subcommittee has a long history of supporting HRSA's 
Health Professions Training programs. Senator Harkin and I appreciate 
the contributions these programs make to our provider workforce through 
a variety of scholarships, loans, grants and contracts. Unfortunately, 
the allocation that was provided to the subcommittee for FY04 did not 
permit us to fully support these worthy initiatives. I agree with the 
majority leader that a restoration of funding for all health 
professions programs should be our goal in conference. I am pleased to 
commit to the majority leader that I will do all I can to fully restore 
funds for the four diversity programs and, at a minimum, bring funding 
for the other programs to the House level.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to commend both my chairman, Mr. 
Specter, and the majority leader for their support of the Health 
Professions programs. My home State of Iowa is suffering from a severe 
shortage of health professionals. In a rural State, getting well-
trained doctors, nurses, and health technicians is always a challenge. 
One of the biggest obstacles facing health professionals who want to 
come to rural areas is loan debt. Many of these professionals cannot 
afford to work in small town America. And that is truly a shame. That 
is why I am a long-standing supporter of the Health Professions 
training programs. These programs help to train American workers for 
good paying, steady jobs, while giving them the economic freedom to 
work in medically underserved areas--many times the most rewarding 
settings in which a health professional can work. I thank my colleagues 
for their commitment to these programs, and I look forward to working 
with Mr. Specter to try to restore this funding in conference.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also wish to express my appreciation to 
the chairman and ranking member for their longstanding commitment to 
HRSA Title VII Health Professions programs. I had planned to offer an 
amendment to increase funding for these critical programs to the House 
level. I will not offer this amendment with the understanding that this 
will be worked out in conference. I thank the managers of the bill and 
the Senate majority leader and look forward to working with them as 
this bill proceeds.


           comprehensive cancer account survivorship programs

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Harkin and 
Specter for increasing funding for the CDC Chronic Disease 
Comprehensive Cancer Account by $2.6 million in this bill, bringing the 
total funding for this account to $12 million in FY 2004. Given the 
tight budget constraints we are facing this year, I am particularly 
appreciative of the increased funding they were able to provide for 
this important program.
  The Comprehensive Cancer programs support public and private 
partnerships to reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. 
These efforts are especially important to the growing number of cancer 
survivors and their families who are faced with a wide range of 
physical and emotional health complications after they have survived 
cancer. This is an especially critical issue for children.
  According to the Institute of Medicine's National Cancer Policy 
Board, while childhood cancer was nearly always fatal before 1970, 78 
percent of patients today survive at least 5 years. While this 
statistic represents a welcome trend and is a major victory against 
cancer, it raises new issues that need to be addressed.
  Cancer survivors, especially children, are oftentimes plagued with 
neurological impairments, heart and lung problems, growth and fertility 
disorders, and psychological stresses caused by treatment, 
complications of the cancer, or both.
  Over the past 3 years, 16 children in the small community of Fallon, 
NV, have been diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia. Sadly, three of 
these children have since lost their battle with cancer. However, 
thanks to chemotherapy and other promising treatments, many of these 
children have shown tremendous progress and we are hopeful that they 
will make full recoveries.
  While we are focused and doing everything we can to ensure that the 
children in Fallon make full recoveries, we cannot stop there. We need 
to have support programs to ensure that these children--and cancer 
survivors around the country--receive the support and care they need 
and deserve.
  According to the IOM policy board, up to 60 percent of survivors do 
not receive coordinated follow-up care at specialized clinics, which 
are best suited

[[Page 21670]]

for treating long-term medical and psychosocial needs. Moreover, 
pediatric oncologists are trained to battle the cancers, but few are 
prepared to treat the chronic medical conditions that can follow.
  A recent assessment of all the existing comprehensive cancer control 
programs showed that while all States were doing something with regard 
to cancer survivorship, there was no uniform, coordinated approach. The 
CDC, in coordination with this country's leading cancer survivorship 
organizations, have started a year long planning process to develop a 
National Public Health Action Plan on Cancer Survivorship. This plan 
will chart the course for the implementation of cancer survivorship 
activities into State comprehensive control programs, State cancer 
registries and other public health functions, which will be available 
this winter for States to use.
  We cannot afford to stay behind the curve on this issue, which will 
surely become an even bigger problem as NIH research continues to 
improve treatments. Providing increased funding to the Comprehensive 
Cancer Account will not only ensure that adequate funds are available 
to disseminate the new survivorship plan to all States, but also ensure 
that States will have the appropriate resources to implement the plans.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I share Senator Reid's support for the 
CDC's Chronic Disease Comprehensive Cancer program. As someone who has 
dedicated a good deal of my career to advancing treatment and services 
for people with cancer, I especially appreciate the importance of this 
program. Having lost my two sisters and my brother to cancer, I 
consider myself a cancer survivor and know too well the toll this 
disease takes on everyone. We are under very tight budget constraints 
this year, but we need to support the highest possible funding level 
for comprehensive cancer in conference so we can ensure every cancer 
survivor has access to the necessary and appropriate care before, 
during, and after cancer touches their life.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for 
raising this important issue. As he pointed out, the lack of a uniform 
and comprehensive cancer survivorship plan is becoming a critical 
public health issue for the millions of cancer survivors and their 
families and friends. That is why I worked with my close friend Senator 
Harkin to secure increased funding for this program. Like so many 
public health programs, especially within the Chronic Disease Account, 
there is a lot more that can and should be done. I will work with my 
friend from Nevada and the conferees to secure the highest possible 
funding level for comprehensive cancer programs.
  Mr. REID. I thank the chair and ranking member for their support for 
this effort, and I look forward to working with them to secure the 
highest possible funding level for the Comprehensive Cancer Account and 
the cancer survivorship programs it supports.


               adequate funding for medicare contractors

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee. As the Senators know, Medicare contractors 
play a critical role, partnering with the Federal Government to 
administer the Medicare program. This year, these contractors will 
process over one billion Medicare claims; they are the primary point of 
contact for beneficiaries and providers and provide the first line of 
defense against Medicare fraud. They are very efficient, with 
contractors' administrative costs representing less than 1 percent of 
total Medicare benefits.
  While the subcommittee has done its best to provide needed funding 
for Medicare contractors over the years, the fact exists that CMS and 
its Medicare contractors have been severely underfunded for years. The 
problem has been more acute since the mid-to-late 1990s with the 
enactment of new Medicare laws placing additional responsibilities with 
insufficient resources to perform these new duties, e.g., HIPAA, BBA 
'97, BBRA '99, BIPA 2000. Clearly funding has not kept pace with 
additional work.
  The pending Medicare reform legislation, S. 1, if enacted, will 
exacerbate funding problems for Medicare contractors. Hundreds of 
changes are made that will require more work by contractors, such as 
system changes to adjust provider payments, expedited appeals processes 
and new coverage requirements.
  I know that the chairman and ranking member share my concern that 
Medicare contractors receive adequate funding. The budget constraints 
we face resulted in an insufficient 1.6 percent increase for Medicare 
contractor operations, even though claims volume is expected to rise 11 
percent. The Medicare Integrity Program, MIP, which provides 
contractors with dedicated funding for critical fraud and abuse 
detection activities, is not increased at all. Further, the money we 
provide does not account for any of the new responsibilities 
contractors will face if Medicare reform is enacted.
  I am concerned that inadequate funding would be devastating to the 
administration of Medicare and the safeguarding of the Medicare trust 
fund. Those that will feel the impact most are Medicare beneficiaries 
and the providers that care for them.
  I am told that if funding is not increased to an adequate level, many 
Medicare contractors would have to reduce staff levels and eliminate 
certain beneficiary and provider outreach activities. Since claims must 
be paid, the result will be decreased customer service to beneficiaries 
and providers. I'm certain we'll hear from our constituents when they 
are faced with busy phone lines, longer wait times for questions to be 
answered, reduced provider training on how to properly submit a claim 
leading to the submission and potential payment of improper claims.
  I ask the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa to work with me to 
ensure that Medicare contractors receive increased funding within the 
available amounts appropriated in the bill. This is particularly 
critical if Medicare reform is enacted.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend from South Carolina's remarks and 
I, too, share your concerns. I'd like to point out that the Medicare 
Integrity Program has had a significant impact on reducing waste, 
fraud, and abuse in Medicare. In fact, for every $1 spent fighting 
fraud and abuse through MIP activities, Medicare contractors save the 
government $14. I understand that MIP is now capped at $720 million 
despite continuing projected increases in claims volume. Therefore 
Congress must authorize an increase in this permanent funding 
authority. I'd like us to work with the authorizing committee to 
increase MIP funding beyond FY 2003 to ensure it meets the demands of 
rising workloads and to appropriately safeguard the Medicare trust 
fund.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senators from South Carolina 
and Iowa. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $2,496,889,000 
for Medicare operations, the full amount of the President's budget 
request and an increase of $110,209,000 over the FY 2003 level. I share 
your concerns that beneficiaries and providers receive the highest 
level of service by adequately funding Medicare contractors. We also 
must ensure that the trust fund is protected by adequately funding MIP.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for raising these important issues, and I offer my 
commitment to work with you both to provide Medicare contractors with 
the resources needed to best serve beneficiaries and providers as well 
as encourage this Congress to authorize an increase in the MIP funding 
so that we may appropriate those critically needed dollars.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment helps States implement the 
No Child Left Behind Act by providing $80 million for high quality data 
systems. I was proud to create this program as part of our 
reauthorization of the Institute of Education Sciences last year 
because I saw a real need to help States do this right. Requiring

[[Page 21671]]

lots of testing only has a benefit to our students if the results of 
those tests are used to help teachers focus their teaching on weak 
spots and to help superintendents, principals and policymakers direct 
resources where they are needed most.
  Funding these data systems with this amendment will make sure that 
the testing and attendance data required by No Child Left Behind are 
put to good use. Frankly, when I come down here to the Senate floor I 
usually prefer to talk about students, teachers and parents--not data 
systems. But it is clear to me that funding these data systems will do 
a lot more than buy computers and pay programmers. When I wrote this 
program I worked closely with the Harvard Civil Rights Project. They 
also see the danger to students--mostly poor and minority students--if 
no one is keeping track of what's happening to them.
  All the new testing and accountability required in No Child Left 
Behind creates a real risk that kids who are having trouble passing 
those tests will drop out or be pushed out of school. The newspapers 
have been filled in recent months with stories of these so-called 
``pushouts''--students who are discouraged from completing school 
because their test scores are low and threaten the school's ``adequate 
yearly progress.''
  The focus on this new phenomenon has raised serious questions about 
the ``Texas Miracle'' by pointing out the large numbers of students who 
are simply disappearing from our school systems. In July, the Houston 
Chronicle ran an article celebrating a new system--funded through a 
Federal grant--that is helping educators in Houston keep kids in 
school. They are using a data system to help lower their dropout rate, 
and they are definitely not the only ones who need help to do that. The 
high quality, longitudinal, statewide data systems that this amendment 
would help build are one of the best tools we have to keep kids in 
school.
  Information is a powerful tool, and only by knowing which students 
are not showing up can our schools make an effort to find those 
students and help them. There are a lot of challenges today to keeping 
our teenagers in school, and I am not saying that data systems are the 
only answer. In fact, I have introduced a whole bill focused on 
literacy and counseling and school reform to address many of the issues 
contributing to high dropout rates. But I know that funding these data 
systems can make a difference.
  Over the last few years I have secured funds to help Washington State 
develop a data system that will truly support the mission of leaving no 
child behind by ensuring that every child is counted. The work they 
have done to develop a high-quality, statewide system is really 
impressive, and I know that they and other States across our country 
need this funding to make that possible.
  I'd like to thank the Senators from New Hampshire and Nevada for 
working with me to fund this program. You can see that this is not a 
partisan issue. We need to pass this amendment and provide this funding 
to give States a critical tool to implement the No Child Left Behind 
Act. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting funding for this 
program.
  I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Houston Chronicle, July 30, 2003]

 Tool Tracks Potential Dropouts; Profiler Software Lets HISD Keep Tabs 
                          on At-Risk Students

                           (By Zanto Peabody)

       The Houston school district has a high-tech new way to keep 
     high school dropouts--by catching them before they leave.
       With a new computer database available at every campus this 
     fall, teachers can keep a virtual eye on every student and 
     identify those at risk of leaving. For the first time, 
     educators can look up a student's attendance and discipline 
     records, immigration status, grades, and test scores at one 
     source and use that information to predict dropouts.
       ``All students will know someone is watching them, tracking 
     them, and is interested in their success,'' school board 
     member Laurie Bricker said at a news conference Wednesday.
       Houston Independent School District has been developing the 
     PASS software--the Profiler for Academic Success of 
     Students--for more than three years, Chief Academic Officer 
     Robert Stockwell said, but recent events have underscored the 
     need for it
       Starting with an investigation of possible dropout-
     reporting fraud at Sharpstown High School and culminating 
     with a state audit that may lower the district's 
     accountability rating, HISD has come to know how badly it 
     handles some student data.
       ``The dropout issue is a key battleground for our future,'' 
     Stockwell said. ``We must keep these students in school and 
     learning. Failure is not an option.''
       The Sharpstown investigation showed that employee can and 
     have changed student records to reflect lower dropout rates. 
     The state investigation and one by a district task force 
     exposed computer records managed so badly that the district 
     has no way of knowing where students have gone.
       In an attempt to escape Texas Education Agency sanctions, 
     HISD has promised to monitor students at risk of quitting. 
     District officials also are considering a plan to assign an 
     adult to each at-risk student.
       Lee High School Principal Steve Amstutz said the newest 
     version of the PASS program will make that task easier. 
     During a demonstration of the program, Amstutz was able to 
     determine which fictional students were likely dropout 
     candidates--students who missed too many days recently or 
     whose grades dropped suddenly.
       ``In the past, that would have taken a small army of people 
     looking through obscure records,'' Amstutz said.
       HISD Chief Business Officer Cathy Mincberg said the 
     district developed its own program, using a $1.1 million 
     federal grant, because no other school in the nation has such 
     a comprehensive way of tracking students.
                                  ____


      The ``Zero Dropout'' Miracle: Alas! Alack! A Texas Tall Tale

                          (By Michael Winerip)

       Houston, Aug. 13.--Robert Kimball, an assistant principal 
     at Sharpstown High School, sat smack in the middle of the 
     ``Texas miracle.'' His poor, mostly minority high school of 
     1,650 students had a freshman class of 1,000 that dwindled to 
     fewer than 300 students by senior year. And yet--and this is 
     the miracle--not one dropout to report!
       Nor was zero an unusual dropout rate in this school 
     district that both President Bush and Secretary of Education 
     Rod Paige have held up as the national showcase for 
     accountability and the model for the federal No Child Left 
     Behind law. Westside High here had 2,308 students and no 
     reported dropouts; Wheatley High 731 students, no dropouts. A 
     dozen of the city's poorest schools reported dropout rates 
     under 1 percent.
       Now, Dr. Kimball has witnessed many amazing things in his 
     58 years. Before he was an educator, he spent 24 years in the 
     Army, fighting in Vietnam, rising to the rank of lieutenant 
     colonel and touring the world. But never had he seen an urban 
     high school with no dropouts. ``Impossible,'' he said. 
     ``Someone will get pregnant, go to jail, get killed.'' 
     Elsewhere in the nation, urban high schools report dropout 
     rates of 20 percent to 40 percent.
       A miracle? ``A fantasy land,'' said Dr. Kimball. ``They 
     want the data to look wonderful and exciting. They don't tell 
     you how to do it; they just say, `Do it.''' In February, with 
     the help of Dr. Kimball, the local television station KHOU 
     broke the news that Sharpstown High had falsified its dropout 
     data. That led to a state audit of 16 Houston schools, which 
     found that of 5,500 teenagers surveyed who had left school, 
     3,000 should have been counted as dropouts but were not. Last 
     week, the state appointed a monitor to oversee the district's 
     data collection and downgraded 14 audited schools to the 
     state's lowest rating.
       Not very miraculous sounding, but here is the intriguing 
     question: How did it get to the point that veteran principals 
     felt they could actually claim zero dropouts? ``You need to 
     understand the atmosphere in Houston,'' Dr. Kimball said. 
     ``People are afraid. The superintendent has frequent meetings 
     with principals. Before they go in, the principals are 
     really, really scared. Panicky. They have to make their 
     numbers.''
       Pressure? Some compare it to working under the old Soviet 
     system of five-year plans. In January, just before the 
     scandal broke, Abelardo Saavedra, deputy superintendent, 
     unveiled Houston's latest mandates for the new year. ``The 
     districtwide student attendance rate will increase from 94.6 
     percent to 95 percent,'' he wrote. ``The districtwide annual 
     dropout rate will decrease from 1.5 percent to 1.3 percent.''
       Dropuots are notoriously difficult to track, particularly 
     at a heavily Latino school like Sharpstown, with immigrants 
     going back and forth to Mexico. Dr. Kimball said that 
     Sharpstown shared one truant officer with several schools. 
     Even so, Houston officials would not allow principals to 
     write that the whereabouts of a departed student were 
     ``unknown.'' Last fall, Margaret Stroud, deputy 
     superintendent, sent a memorandum warning principals to 
     ``make sure that you do not have any students coded `99,' 
     whereabouts

[[Page 21672]]

     unknown.'' Too many ``unknowns,'' she wrote, could prompt a 
     state audit--the last thing Houston leaders wanted.
       A shortage of resources to track departing students? No 
     ``unknowns'' allowed? What to do? ``Make it up,'' Dr. Kimball 
     said. ``The principals who survive are the yes men.''
       As for those who fail to make their numbers, it is 
     termination time, one of many innovations championed by Dr. 
     Paige as superintendent here from 1994 to 2001. He got rid of 
     tenure for principals and mandated that they sign one-year 
     contracts that allowed dismissal ``without cause'' and 
     without a hearing.
       On the other hand, for principals who make their numbers, 
     it is bonus time. Principals can earn a $5,000 bonus, 
     district administrators up to $20,000. At Sharpstown High 
     alone, Dr. Kimball said, $75,000 in bonus money was issued 
     last year, before the fictitious numbers were exposed.
       Dr. Paige's spokesman, Dan Langan, referred dropout 
     questions to Houston officials, but said that the secretary 
     was proud of the accountability system he established here, 
     that it got results and that principals freely signed those 
     contracts.
       Terry Abbott, a Houston district spokesman, agreed that 
     both Dr. Paige and the current superintendent, Kaye 
     Stripling, pressured principals to make district goals. 
     ``Secretary Paige said, and rightfully so, the public has a 
     right to expect us to get this job done,'' Mr. Abbott said. 
     The principals were not cowed, he said, declaring, ``They 
     thrive on it.'' Every administrator under Dr. Paige and Dr. 
     Stripling, Mr. Abbott said, has understood ``failure is not 
     an option'' and ``that failure to do our jobs can mean that 
     we could lose those jobs--and that's exactly the way it 
     should be.''
       As for adequate resources for truant officers to verify 
     dropouts, he said individual schools decided how to use their 
     resources, but added, ``money is not the problem, and money 
     by itself won't solve the issues we deal with every day.''
       To skeptics like Dr. Kimball, the parallels to No Child 
     Left Behind are depressing. The federal law mandates that 
     every child in America pass reading and math proficiency 
     tests by 2004--a goal many educators believe is as impossible 
     as zero dropouts. And like Houston's dropout program, 
     President Bush's education budget has been criticized as an 
     underfinanced mandate, proposing $12 billion this year for 
     Title 1, $6 billion below what the No Child Left Behind law 
     permits. ``This isn't about educating children,'' Dr. Kimball 
     said. ``It's about public relations.''
       If Houston officials were interested in accountability, he 
     said, they would assign him to a high school to monitor the 
     dropout data that he has come to understand so well. Instead, 
     after he blew the whistle on Sharpstown High, he was 
     reassigned, for four months, to sit in a windowless room with 
     no work to do. More recently, he has been serving as the 
     second assistant principal at a primary school, where, he 
     said, he is not really needed. ``I expect when my contract is 
     up next January, I'll be fired,'' he said. ``That's how it 
     works here.''
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in our efforts to ensure that the United 
States remains an economic and military superpower in the 21st century, 
we must strive to improve the quality of math and science education in 
this country.
  The No Child Left Behind Act took some major steps in the right 
direction towards improving math and science education at the K-12 
level.
  However, our work is not done. The Federal Government is not doing 
enough at the higher education level to ensure that our Nation's 
colleges and universities are producing graduates to meet our country's 
national security needs.
  This is evidenced by the fact that legislation was signed into law by 
President Clinton in 2000 to allow America's employers to bring into 
this country almost 200,000 highly skilled foreign workers a year 
through the H-1B visa program. America's employers needed these highly 
skilled workers to fill job vacancies in high tech, engineering, 
science and other highly skilled positions.
  Why couldn't we fill these almost 200,000 job vacancies a year with 
American workers? Because this country's educational system was not 
producing enough graduates with degrees in these highly skilled fields 
to meet the demand.
  Admittedly, not long after this legislation was signed into law, 
America's economy was hit by a decline, and this decline was greatly 
exacerbated with the events of September 11. But our economy is 
bouncing back.
  Regardless, we must not forget the lessons learned on September 11. 
One of the clearest messages was that we live in a dangerous and ever-
changing world.
  Our world is much more dangerous today in many aspects than it was 
when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and 
the Korean War.
  While citizens of this country sleep each night, the other half of 
the world is thinking and contriving of every possible way to take the 
business and the economy from the United States of America. In 
addition, while we are sleeping, people all over the world are trying 
to figure out how to come and take our security and our freedom away 
from us.
  Once there was a great ocean that protected this nation. Now, with 
cyberspace, and all the other modern technologies it is simply one 
world in economy, one world in national security.
  Our country must continually be prepared to meet these threats.
  One way we can ensure that we are prepared to meet these ever-
changing 21st century threats is to ensure that America's young minds 
gain the technical expertise necessary to understand and defend against 
these threats.
  Now, I love Shakespeare. I love theater. I love music, and I love 
political science, sociology and a lot of the liberal arts disciplines. 
Majors in these disciplines are important to a well-rounded and 
enlightened citizenry.
  However, I also love this country, and I love freedom. Unfortunately, 
today, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough 
graduates with degrees in the requisite scientific programs to meet our 
country's future national security needs. If this continues, how will 
we defend our Nation and defend freedom? Will we rely more heavily on 
importing highly skilled workers than we have in the past?
  To ensure our country's role in the future, we must look within our 
borders to meet these needs.
  Unfortunately, today, a look inside our borders shows that this 
country is facing a dire shortage of math, science, and engineering 
students. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 
engineering, mathematics, and science fields show declining numbers of 
degrees.
  Over the last 20 years, there has been a 20 percent decrease in the 
number of people receiving bachelors' degrees in engineering .
  Moreover, during roughly the same time, the number of students 
graduating with bachelors in physics has dropped by nearly 20 percent, 
and the number graduating with a bachelors in mathematics has decreased 
more than 25 percent.
  While the U.S. produces fewer and fewer mathematicians, scientists, 
and engineers, the rest of the world is making up the difference. And, 
America is importing them. We are grateful for their willingness to 
come to our shores and share their exceptional talents.
  America, however, must now take steps to encourage, at all levels of 
our educational process, young people to undertake the training 
necessary to meet our Nation's demands.
  There is no doubt the course work is rigorous, particularly the long 
hours in the laboratory. I learned firsthand the rigors involved in 
earning an engineering degree because as a consequence of my military 
service, I was privileged to receive from my great Nation GI bill 
education benefits. Without these benefits, I would not have earned my 
engineering degree and would not have achieved my career goals.
  However, given the rigors, and given the great need for graduates 
with backgrounds in scientific courses of study, it is an absolute 
necessity for the Congress to help in every way to inspire and reward 
America's youth to pursue scientific courses of study.
  Accordingly, I have submitted an amendment to this bill to encourage 
individuals to pursue programs of study in math, science, and 
engineering.
  The amendment is simple. It simply provides that the maximum Pell 
Grant award an individual can receive will be increased by 50 percent 
if he or she pursues a program of study in math, science, or 
engineering.

[[Page 21673]]

  As you know, the Pell Grant program, which is funded at about $12 
billion a year, is one of the most successful and respected educational 
initiatives taken by the Congress. The concept behind the Pell Grant 
properly recognizes the needs of young people coming from economic 
backgrounds which make it difficult for them to acquire higher 
education.
  Nevertheless, we in the Congress have an obligation when expending 
taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our 
Nation desperately needs more trained students in math, science, and 
engineering. That is an indisputable objective.
  The Pell Grant program, in my judgment, offers Congress the 
opportunity to provide incentives for student recipients to pursue 
curricula in math, science, and engineering.
  My Pell Grant amendment is one idea, but I am certain it is not the 
only idea. As a member of the Senate's Education Committee, I hope that 
my chairman, Senator Gregg, will schedule hearings as part of the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to look into our system of 
higher education and whether this country is on track to produce 
graduates who meet the current and projected needs of this country.
  At this time, I will not offer my amendment in order to give the 
Education Committee a sufficient opportunity to address this issue.
  At some time in this Congress, though, I fully intend to reintroduce 
an amendment along these lines after the committee has reviewed the 
issues, after I get the views of the administration, and after the wide 
range of people who on a daily basis review the Pell Grant program have 
an opportunity to share their views as well.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the next vote will be the last vote of the 
week. Tomorrow morning, the Senate will convene at 8:30 in order to 
recognize the second anniversary of the September 11 tragedy. 
Throughout tomorrow, there will be various events to honor those who 
perished on that date 2 years ago. Tomorrow morning, there will be four 
different moments of silence which will begin with the ringing of a 
bell just outside the Chamber doors. Members are welcome to come to the 
floor tomorrow morning to participate and give remarks if they choose.
  We will also conduct business during tomorrow's session. However, any 
rollcall votes ordered on Thursday or Friday will be scheduled to occur 
on Monday. I thank all Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate insist on its amendment to H.R. 2660, request a conference with 
the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes thereon, and that 
the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is following passage of the bill.
  Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, as amended, pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are 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 result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
     Sununu
  The bill (H.R. 2660), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Coleman) appointed Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, Mr. DeWine, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Byrd conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________