Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to make his introductory statement, and as indicated by the President pro tempore, we are taking up H.R. 2660, which is the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

As a procedural matter, in accordance with the custom of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of Calendar No. 175, S. 1356, the Senate committee- reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. President, the bill which we are considering today is the largest of all of the appropriations bills, consisting of some $472 billion, even larger than the Defense appropriations bill, although a major portion of that is on mandatory spending--Medicare, Medicaid, family assistance, and other mandatory provisions--which leaves $137.6 billion to fund the three departments: the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education.

The amount of the discretionary spending is $380 million below the President's budget request and $435 billion below the amount the House of Representatives had to spend on Labor, HHS, and Education programs.

It is important to note that the House and Senate bills also have an additional $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 which was achieved by pushing back advanced appropriations from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2003.

On August 1, the last day of the session before the August recess, the majority leader, Senator Frist, and I had a brief colloquy where the majority leader announced at that time for the information of all Senators and others that the first order of business of 9:30 on Tuesday, September 2nd, would be this appropriations bill. The Senate has an enormous agenda to take up during the month of September. As is well known, the fiscal year ends on September 30th and if there is to be any realistic chance of completing all 13 appropriations bills, with only two having been completed so far--the Department of Defense appropriation and

the military construction bill--we are going to have to take up these bills in an orderly and expeditious way. When I say ``expeditious,'' I do not mean in a hurried way. It is a matter of taking up the amendments so we can move through them.

In advance of the August 1st departure date, I conferred with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, who agreed with that approach. I conferred with the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Byrd, who agreed with that approach. I conferred with the chairman of the full committee, the distinguished President pro tempore, about the processing of this bill. I talked to many of the Senators on both sides of the aisle who would be expected to offer amendments. It is my hope amendments will be offered, that we can work through time agreements. The distinguished assistant leader of the Democrats is here and has been very diligent in moving the legislative matters through. It would be my hope we would have the amendments come to the floor, offered, that we could get time agreements, and we could proceed to vote on whatever amendments may be offered.

I am advised by staff there are 45 amendments pending--amendments which we know about. That is a large number but it is well known that amendments tend to be refined as Members consider the matters.

We have a major job ahead of us. But it would not be out of reason to consider amendments today. We are advised that two Senators on the other side of the aisle have amendments which they are prepared to offer. If those come to fruition, we can move right ahead with the debate at an early point.

In the colloquy on August 1, reflected in the Congressional Record, I made a point that the grave difficulties which I have seen in my tenure in the Senate occur when the quorum calls consume a great deal of the Senate's time, when those two lights are on, signifying that there is no business pending before the Senate. I expressed the view that if Senators were not prepared to offer amendments, that the majority leader ought to consider moving to third reading, that is final passage, and try to move the bill along.

I fully understand that requires cooperation from the other side of the aisle. If the other side of the aisle decides we are not to move to third reading, there are ample procedures available to preclude the majority from moving to third reading. But, having given that notice more than a month ago that we would be taking the bill up at this time, 9:30 on September 2, and that the expectation was to move ahead, if we were to have any chance of completing the appropriations bills by September 30 that this bill would have to serve as a flagship for the month of September.

I might add that the Senate has a very crowded agenda. There is already considerable speculation in the media about what will happen in the Congress, the House and the Senate, now that we are back from the August recess and we face many contentious matters.

There is no doubt that an overlay, the international issue of Iraq, is very much on all of our minds. I was very glad to see the Bush administration sent a signal 10 days ago that there would be consideration to United Nations participation in Iraq. The precise formula was not indicated. I think that can be achieved, maintaining U.S. military command.

There have been strong requests for a statement from the administration as to what Iraq is going to cost. All of us would like to know what those parameters are and what the expenses are going to be. That is a difficult matter to calculate because of the uncertainties over Iraq in so many respects.

There are efforts being made to bring other nations into the operation there, into the policing operation, and a special effort to bring in Muslim nations, Pakistan and Turkey illustratively, to give the Arab world more confidence as to what is going on. Certainly, if we are successful in bringing other nations in, that will have a material impact on what the cost will be to the United States.

Beyond the issues of Iraq and other matters for the Department of State on international expenditures, there is the issue of prescription drugs, where legislation has been passed by both the House and the Senate which will have to be submitted to conference.

The Energy bills will be a major matter with Congress really on the spot to respond to the blackouts affecting 50 million people. From the Judiciary Committee where I serve, there are a number of matters which will be coming to the floor, litigation matters, most prominent of which is the legislation pending on asbestos. A bill was reported out of committee, largely along party lines.

During the month of August, considerable work has been done by many of us, including an effort to bring in a very distinguished Federal judge, Edward R. Becker, Chief Judge Emeritus of the Third Circuit, to analyze the issues in an effort to be helpful. Obviously the matter is a congressional matter, but Chief Judge Becker has special expertise in the field by virtue of being the judge who wrote the major opinion on the issue of class certification. That is mentioned as one of the many items.

The key to the success of our Senate will turn on getting started with this bill and moving ahead. I think it is not unreasonable to think, if we have cooperation on all sides, that this is a matter which could be completed during the course of this week.

The bill which is now before the Senate contains funding for medical research in the amount of $27.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health. This is $1 billion over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, and will continue the work of thousands of researchers across the United States.

The distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and I have taken the lead in the course of the past 5 years in more than doubling the allocations on the National Institutes of Health, from $12 billion to more than $27 billion. The increase of $1 billion is a sum which I personally would like to see increased. We are considering an amendment which would have a significant increase in the National Institutes of Health funding.

When you take a look at the diseases which are affected, they touch virtually all Americans either directly or through families or close friends: autism, stroke, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, heart disease, arthritis, schizophrenia, Cooley's anemia, kidney disorders, spinal cord injury, cancers of many varieties, including but not limited to breast, cervical, lymphoma, prostate, pancreatic, brain, lung, and colon.

The increases in funding here have had a very material effect for enormous advances in research which moves toward the prevention or cure of many of these matters.

This bill includes $944 million for obesity prevention and nutrition initiatives. We see more and more that there is a need for programs designed to increase physical activity, promote healthy lifestyles and good nutritional benefits. This is an increase of some $34.2 million over funds available for fiscal year 2003.

In the course of the preparation of this budget, obviously the subcommittee and then the full committee have considered a wide range of priorities. I think it should be noted that when there is the contention raised about cuts in the funding for this subcommittee, it is not accurate. For fiscal year 2003, the total discretionary budget was $134.6 billion. The total budget for fiscal year 2004, which we are considering today, as I have said, is $137.6 billion. So that is essentially flat funding but not a decrease.

My preference would have been to have had a significant increase in the funding for this subcommittee, as I argued in the full committee, and repeat that argument here on the floor. But we live within the constraints of the budget resolution which was enacted and with the allocations which have been made pursuant to the budget resolution. So on some of these items there are increases, on some of these items there are decreases, but the overall budget does not have a cut. It is essentially flat.

The budget also contains $63 billion for the prevention and reversal of heart disease. Americans of all ages live with the effects of cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is the Nation's No. 1 killer, with over 960,000 deaths attributed

to this disease each year. To address this initiative, the bill includes $5.7 billion for cardiovascular research, prevention, and education.

That is obviously an increase which we think is well warranted by the impact of heart disease on the lives of Americans.

The bill includes $4.6 billion for programs for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It includes $250 million to continue planning, design, and construction of new facilities, as well as repair and renovations of the existing structures.

Several years ago I made a trip to Atlanta to the Centers for Disease Control because I had heard a great deal about the deplorable conditions there. I found that was true. Senator Harkin made a similar visit. Upon returning, we added $170 million to the funding. In the ensuing years, we added $250 million in each of 2 years. This is the third year for this increase in funding.

The Centers for Disease Control is at the forefront of so much of what we are doing trying to combat AIDS worldwide, dealing with the SARS epidemic, and planning for potential terrorist attacks. The Centers for Disease Control is one of the areas which urgently requires adequate funding.

This bill also contains funding for infectious disease initiatives. More than 35 new emerging infectious diseases were identified between 1973 and the year 2000. Recent experiences with the West Nile virus, SARS, and monkey pox illustrate the vital need to strengthen this Nation's capacity to identify and combat emerging infectious diseases. The bill includes $2.2 billion to improve United States research capabilities and to detect and control emerging infectious disease threats in the United States and around the world.

Also included in the bill is funding for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program--some $10 million to create a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank to be used for patients who need transplants but lack suitable family donors. The stem cells found in cord blood are useful in treating a variety of blood disorders.

Following a report from the Institute of Medicine, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating funds to deal with medical errors reduction. This bill contains $84 million, an increase of $29 million over the previous year's amount, to determine ways to reduce medical errors.

I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. I think it might be appropriate to try to move the sequencing along, so I am going to interrupt my opening statement so I can confer with the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished assistant leader of the Democrats.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant leader for the Democrats for those comments. I know from working with Senator Reid for many years that he is consistently cooperative. I agree with his characterization of the importance of this bill and the complexity of the bill.

When he commented about 40 amendments mostly from that side of the aisle, that is consistent with the preliminary report which I have heard. It also accurately states that the amendments are 60-vote amendments, as required under the budget resolution.

When he comments about my greater experience, I may have been here a little longer, but I don't have any more experience than Senator Reid does. Those who have been in the Senate or who have observed the Senate know we have an amazing capacity for moving promptly when we decide to do so and when we decide to make relevant comments. If we can stay on the bill, I think we ought to take whatever time we need on this bill. I don't disagree with that a bit. But it is possible to work out time agreements. I do not disagree with the statement of the Senator from Nevada that it would be difficult--perhaps even unlikely--to finish the bill this week. But it can be done. The last time I managed this bill was in June of 2000. We finished the bill on June 28 in advance of the conventions that year. When this Senate starts to move in a definitive way, this Senate has the capacity to move expeditiously.

I had been in the middle of my opening statement and had come to a number of the main categories. But I am going to abbreviate this opening statement because I have conferred with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member of the full committee, who has advised that he is prepared to move immediately with an amendment.

To repeat, there is nothing like using the time on the Senate floor for amendments as opposed to statements. As important as opening statements are to the bill's managers, an opening statement is a statement. And if we move to amendments, I think that would be the most effective use of the Senate's time.

We might also be establishing a new record on moving to an amendment within a half hour of the opening of the Senate, especially on a day when, as the majority leader announced, there

will be no rollcall votes. But any amendments which will have votes ordered on will be taken up according to the majority leader's schedule, no earlier than tomorrow.

I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia will yield for a moment.

As a procedural matter, with an objection having been lodged, if I may have the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, the procedure would be appropriate if the Senator from West Virginia would allow me first to send a substitute amendment to the desk and then the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia would be in the nature of a second-degree amendment and would obviate the objection which was made earlier procedurally.

This certainly is not clear, if anybody is watching on C-SPAN, but that would set the procedural status in the correct shape.

Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk. For the information of all Members, this is the text of the Senate-reported bill.

Parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order now for the amendment to be offered by the Senator from West Virginia?

I thank the Chair and my colleague from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 1543 to Amendment No. 1542

Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from Iowa advancing toward the podium. I yield to him.

Mr. President, I have listened closely to the comments by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. At the outset, I will say our working relationship has been excellent. We have had what both of us describe as a seamless change of the gavel. Each of us says we liked it better when we were chairman than ranking member, but we have worked on a bipartisan basis to see to it that the public interest was taken care of when we have worked on this subcommittee.

This bill has been produced on a bipartisan basis and our staffs work very closely together. We have set an example for bipartisanship on this very important bill.

When the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia talk about increases in funding public education, I agree with them that it would be highly desirable to appropriate more for education. There are limits, though, as to what we may do. As the manager of this bill and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, it is my duty and responsibility to work within the allocations which have been given.

The Senate has passed a budget resolution and allocations have been given to each of the 13 subcommittees. As the manager of the bill, it is my responsibility and duty to stay within those limits.

When the argument is advanced that the appropriation is not as high as the authorization, that is correct, but I reply that that is characteristic. In the Senate, we have authorizing committees and we have the Appropriations Committee. It is the standard practice that the authorizers come in at a figure which is characteristically higher than what the appropriators will put up. That is done to give more latitude to the appropriators to see how close we can come or think we should come, as a matter of priority, to what the authorizers have said. It is the exception to the rule that the appropriators come to the authorizing level.

When we take a look at the specific figures in this bill, the bill authorizing No Child Left Behind was passed by the Senate on December 18, 2001, by a vote of 87 to 10 and signed into law on January 8, 2002. The appropriations bill was passed, the conference report, on December 20, 2001, on a vote of 90 to 7 and signed into law on January 10, 2002.

As we look at these dates of enactment, December 18 for authorization and December 20 for appropriations, we tend to forget how late we worked into December in the year 2001. I have a strong belief that if the 13 appropriations bills are not finished by September 30 of this year, we are likely to be here on the eve of Christmas in the year 2003. I think it is a fair statement that we forget how late we worked in the year 2001, how we had targeted October to finish, and then Thanksgiving to finish, and then we are back, and how impossible it is to make any plans into November, into December, when we have other commitments we would like to undertake, State travel for one thing.

I mention those dates really to focus on the authorization of title I, which was $13,500,000,000. The appropriation was $10,350,000,000. So the authorization was $2,850,000,000 over the appropriations. That was a year when Senator Harkin was the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd was the chairman of the full committee. I think they did a great job in coming as close as they did on appropriations, but the critical factor is the appropriations were not as high as the authorization.

Then on other facets of Leave No Child Behind, improving teacher quality authorization was $3,175,000,000. The appropriation was $2,850,000,000. So the appropriation was $325,000,000 less than the authorization. Again, that was during the tenure of Senator Harkin as chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Byrd as chairman of the full committee. I compliment them for what they did. I think they did a great job, but they did not have an appropriation quite as high as the authorization.

The other aspect of No Child Left Behind was the century community learning centers. Here, the authorization was $1,250,000,000 and the appropriation was $1 billion. So, again, it

was slightly under by $250 million. But again, Senator Harkin and Senator Byrd did a very good job in coming as close as they did.

So the point I am making is it is not unusual for the appropriation to be less than the authorization.

When Senator Harkin very effectively makes the analogy to the snow, the rain, and the heat, I want to agree with him about that, but President Bush was not responsible for the snow, the rain, or the heat, nor was Senator Harkin, nor Arlen Specter, nor Senator Byrd. But when we take a look at what has happened during President Bush's tenure, where Senator Harkin says President Bush was not responsible for the increase in appropriations, President Bush was responsible for his budget request.

President Bush's budget request for the year 2002, his first year, was $44.541 billion, which was $4.5 billion over the previous year. That is a very substantial increase. If you look at the increase in what President Bush has requested for 2002, 2003, and 2004, he has made a request of more than $53 billion, which is $13 billion more than President Clinton's request in the year 2001, which was an increase of $13 billion, which was roughly an increase of one-third over the $40 billion which President Clinton requested in 2001. No one would say President Clinton shortchanged education. I don't think Senator Harkin or Senator Byrd would suggest that, and Senator Specter is not making that suggestion.

If you look at where President Bush was in his first 3 years, his request in the year 1996 was a little over $26 billion, and his request in 1999 was a little over $32.5 billion. That is a $6.5 billion increase by President Clinton in 3 years, an increase of about 18 to 19 percent. No one would say that President Clinton shortchanged education. But in his first 3 years in office, his increase was 18 to 19 percent compared to President Bush's increase of about 33 percent.

If you look at President Clinton's increases in other years, President Bush compares very favorably and nobody would say President Clinton underfunded education. A fair interpretation would be that President Bush has not underfunded education.

Having an increase in his request from $40 billion to more than $53 billion, a 33-percent increase, is a very substantial increase and better than what President Clinton did in the 3 years from 1996 through 1999.

I notice that the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is in the Chamber. I wonder if I might inquire, is Senator Akaka prepared to offer an amendment?

Mr. President, there is more argument to be made, more debate to be made on this amendment. But when there is another Senator ready to offer an amendment, and we have not had a quorum call at all, which is unusual when a bill starts the first day after a recess, with no votes scheduled, I will utilize our time and ask unanimous consent we temporarily set aside the amendment.

Is that satisfactory with Senator Byrd?

And Senator Harkin is nodding in the affirmative.

I yield to Senator Akaka for his amendment.

Mr. President, at the outset I thank the Senator from Hawaii for coming forward at an early time to offer an amendment. And in thanking him for offering the amendment at an early time, I urge my colleagues who have amendments which they intend to present to come to the floor and offer the amendments.

There are more than 40 amendments which have been suggested. How many of them will reach fruition to be offered we are not yet sure. But we have proceeded for almost 2 hours without having a quorum call. And if we are to proceed to complete this bill at an early date, hopefully notwithstanding the difficulty even this week, we are going to have to proceed with other amendments.

If there is staff available to inform the managers' staff as to what amendments may be in a position to be offered later this afternoon, that would be helpful. If we can get an idea as to what Senators may be arriving in town later today--we understand the absence of a vote will enable Senators to come to town without the pressure of a vote, but if staffers could tell us whether Senators will be in town for offering amendments later today, that would be very helpful so the managers can plan their activities.

With respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Hawaii, I think there is a real merit in what has been proposed to have information to promote economic and financial literacy among all students in kindergarten through grade 12. This item, although authorized, was not subject to funding by the subcommittee. Because of limitations in overall funding, the decision was made not to fund any new programs.

I note that the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Education released a report which identified a number of options for incorporating financial education into schools, some of which would include financial concepts to material being asked on tests, urging textbook publishers to include more financial educational content, incorporating financial educational materials into classroom lessons, and training teachers on the importance of financial education.

I think it is very significant to know that there are funds available for States, some $345 million, for innovative educational State grant programs which could accomplish precisely what

the Senator from Hawaii seeks to accomplish. Those $345 million in innovative educational State grants could well incorporate the ideas for which the Senator from Hawaii asks. In addition, there is already an appropriation of $2.850 billion in teacher quality State grant programs which could be used for this purpose.

So in opposing the amendment by the Senator from Hawaii, it is not because we do not think it seeks a worthwhile objective, but there are funds available in other lines which could fund this program. So it is with reluctance that I am constrained to say that our rule not to fund new programs because of overall limitations of funding would not have an exception for this amendment. Once we start to make exceptions on new programs, we obviously cannot adhere to that exclusionary rule.

To repeat: There are funds available from other programs, funds available from other appropriations which could accommodate the ideas of the Senator from Hawaii.

I note no other Senators on the floor seeking to offer amendments. In fact, I note no Senators even on the floor not seeking to offer amendments. We have a cozy twosome, Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming and this Senator.

Again, I urge my colleagues, among a list of some 40 prospective amendments, to come to the floor to offer amendments.

In the absence of any Senators who are coming to the floor to offer amendments, this is an appropriate time to return to the opening statement which I interrupted to yield to the Senator from West Virginia who offered an amendment.

In addition to the categories already identified, this bill provides for biodefense to continue the Nation's efforts to address bioterrorism, a very important subject, in the amount of $3.6 billion. On this subject, it is worth noting that during the August recess, I traveled to many fire departments and locations of first responders in my State of Pennsylvania to see the level of preparedness of many of the fire departments. We have allocated in Pennsylvania alone some $68 million for first responders and some $77 million in grants are available.

In visits to many communities, there was a very refreshing sign of voluntarism in the volunteer fire departments but really a need for more volunteers. In Sunbury, PA, the suggestion was made that the schools might incorporate in the curriculum a program for seniors, maybe even for juniors, which would provide high school education on being a first responder and might even inculcate a spirit among high school students of a desire and an interest in volunteering, going back to the statement widely quoted of President John F. Kennedy: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country, to try to bring high school students into the first responders line. We are going to be exploring in this bill the possibility of an earmark which might be devoted to an educational program in high schools to encourage students to become volunteers in fire departments or other first responder units.

Again, I ask my colleagues to come to the floor to offer amendments. There is no Senator on the floor to offer an amendment. With some reluctance, having passed 2 hours and 5 minutes without a quorum, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the invitation of the Senator from North Dakota, and I would like an opportunity to comment upon what he has had to say about the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia and also on the flexibility issue. Then I would defer to the Senator from North Dakota to speak additionally about trade.

When the Senator from North Dakota calls for adequate funding, I would suggest to him that the determination of ``adequate'' doesn't necessarily turn on having an opportunity which meets the full level of authorization. Some of this I had submitted when Senator Byrd had offered the amendment, but I think it would bear just a little repetition. Perhaps the Senator from North Dakota didn't hear it, or perhaps there might be even somebody listening on C-SPAN who wasn't listening earlier, or perhaps there might be somebody on C-SPAN listening. But just because the appropriations bill figure is not up to the level of authorization does not necessarily mean it is not adequate.

My preference would have been to have had a larger allocation for this subcommittee report and have had a larger allocation for education. But as Senator Byrd said earlier, and Senator Harkin said earlier, this appropriations bill goes about as far as you can. Senator Harkin and I had commented earlier this is a bipartisan bill. We have worked out the appropriations process in a bipartisan way.

I became chairman in 1995, and Senator Harkin has been chairman intermittently and I ranking, and reverse. As we have frequently said, it has been a seamless transfer of the gavel. But as Senator Harkin noted, this appropriation bill did as well as you could, and Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full committee, agreed with him. The question of what is adequate is a fair subject for debate. I repeat that it has always been desirable to have more funding on education. But just because the approprations is not up to the authorization level, it does not mean there has been a dereliction by the Bush administration.

I refer the Senator from North Dakota and others to the fact that when the No Child Left Behind bill was enacted in January of 2002--and the appropriation followed a few days later--the authorization for title I was $13.5 billion but the appropriation was $10.35 billion, and that was when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. So the appropriation was $2.85 billion under the authorization.

On another aspect of the No Child Left Behind bill, improving teacher quality, the authorization was $3.175 billion, the appropriation was $2.85 billion. So the appropriation, under the Democrats' control, was $325 million under the authorization.

On another aspect of the No Child Left Behind bill, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the authorization was $1.25 billion and the appropriation was $1 billion. So it was $250 million under the authorization.

I commended Senator Harkin, who was chairman of this subcommittee at that time, and Senator Byrd, who was chairman of the full committee. But the fact is the authorization was higher than the appropriation, which is customary.

As is reasonably well known, we have two committees, the authorizers and the appropriators, and the authorizers characteristically put up a higher figure than the appropriators may be able to manage.

There has also been some question as to whether President Bush has adequately funded education. As I said earlier--and again I think this is worth repeating--if you take a look at what President Bush has requested in the President's budget, which is the determination as to what the President wants on education funding, in the year 2002, the first year President Bush submitted a budget, it was for $44.54 billion, which was about a $4.5 billion increase over 2001, and if you contrast the 3 years of the request on the budget by President Bush, the figure has gone from $40 billion to $53.3 billion, which is an increase of about 33 percent.

If you take a look at the request by President Clinton from 1996 through 1999, the figure went from $26 billion to $32 billion, or an increase of about 23 percent. No one said President Clinton had shortchanged education. If you take a look at the 3 high years for President Clinton--1999, 2000, and 2001--the budget increased from $29.5 billion to a little over $40 billion. That is about a 33 percent increase, a little over $10 billion. So whereas President Bush, in the 3 years cited, had $13 billion and President Clinton, in the first of the 3 years cited, had $6 billion, and $10 billion in the second, I think President Bush's increases compare very favorably.

Again, it would be nice to have more funding, but on the question of what President Bush has done by way of his request, I think it is a very strong showing.

When the Senator from North Dakota makes reference to the issue of

flexibility, I quite agree with him, there is a need for flexibility.

If I might have the Senator's attention. When he talks about a one- room schoolhouse, that resonates with this Senator. My younger sister Shirley taught in a one-room schoolhouse located about 6 miles from Russell, KS, when I was, I think, a senior in high school. And when the Senator from North Dakota talks about a rural school, where a teacher has to teach a number of grades, I recollect that very well. I would not take an oath to this, but I think she had about four different grades from first to eighth. The intervening grades, I wouldn't be too sure.

But it was tough teaching in that country day school in a couple of respects. The first thing was there was no transportation. My father, who had a junkyard in Russell, KS, had to take time off to drive her to school and to pick her up from school. But that was what fathers did in about 1946 when she had this country day school.

Also, the word problems for the eighth grade were very difficult. My older sister Hilda was living with us at the time. Her husband was fighting in World War II and was in the South Pacific. Hilda was a college graduate and I was a senior in high school, both of us substantially beyond the eighth grade, and we would sit for hours at the kitchen table working over these word problems.

So when the Senator from North Dakota talks about the need-- occasionally we got the word problems, too. I don't want to leave that hanging. Occasionally we got them. We did not always get them. You know, the question: If X starts at point 1, and goes 20 miles an hour, and travels for 2 hours and 30 minutes, and B starts at point zero, and goes for 4 hours with deviation, et cetera, et cetera, who arrives at point Q first? Those are fairly tough questions.

The question I would have for the Senator from North Dakota is whether these standards, which do not have to be met for a few years yet, require modification now. Each State has to submit a plan to the Department of Education for approval. Of course, each State knows what they are dealing with. The State director of education knows how many one-room schools he has in North Dakota or how many he has in Kansas. Maybe there are some even in between in South Dakota and Nebraska.

The question I have for the Senator from North Dakota is: Has there been insufficient flexibility in the approvals given by the U.S. Department of Education on these plans submitted by the various States, if the Senator from North Dakota is familiar with that?

You can't get any smaller than a one-room school.

Mr. President, my response is that I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, there has to be flexibility. I am not conversant with what is going on in Kansas rural schools today, but I can become conversant. And perhaps the Senator from North Dakota is conversant on what is going on with rural schools in North Dakota.

But if they still have a small school, where a single teacher is all there is in a one-room school, and they have four students to teach in four different grades, I don't think it is realistic to bring four teachers in with specialties. You might have to have more than four because they teach arithmetic, geography, English, and history, and many subjects.

What I intend to do is to find out what is going on there.

I am glad to yield.

Mr. President, my question to the Senator from North Dakota, precisely stated: Does he know of any situation where there is any such school, where the State head of education has submitted that issue to the U.S. Department of Education for a waiver and had it turned down?

Mr. President, if we are not far enough down the road to know how it is going to work out, I don't think we are far enough down the road to criticize it. I think we are far enough down the road to make inquiries. But I think it is premature to criticize this bill for lack of flexibility, premature to criticize this bill for lack of funding to accommodate more flexibility until we see that the U.S. Department of Education has denied an application by North Dakota or Kansas or some rural State, which has a good educational system and has it taken care of, that is being turned down on the flexibility request.

The issue has been raised. I think it is an important issue. As the chairman of the subcommittee, I will make inquiries to see how the flexibility rule is being carried out to date or how it is proposed to be carried out, to have

hearings, if necessary, in the subcommittee. We ought to anticipate the problem, but it is too soon to criticize.

I do.

Mr. President, I agree it is important to discuss. The information handed to me at the staff level represents that since the act was passed in 2001, funding for high quality professional development for teachers and school administrators has been increased by 32 percent during the Clinton administration in the seven years following the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorized in 1994, which also called for set standards to develop and implement assessments. The total increase provided for title I grants to LEAs was $2.4 billion or 38 percent. In contrast, at the level proposed in this bill, the total increase since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Program in 2001, would be $3.6 billion or 41 percent. So I think the funding in this bill is providing for improvements.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reply briefly to the comments by the Senator from Nevada. It is very important to move on education in America; the legislation on Leave No Child Behind is very critical legislation on that important subject. But as we have heard the discussion move forward, there is a lot more commentary on President Bush than on the American schoolchildren. I suppose that is to be expected in the political context with a Presidential election coming next year, but the real focus, I suggest, is on the issue of adequacy of the funding.

The program for funding the No Child Left Behind legislation has been moving on with substantial increases in funding. Earlier today, the argument was made that the funding has resulted from the action of a Congress which was under the control of the Democrats. I suggest that ignores the recommendations and the budget requests President Bush has made and the budgets which he has submitted to the Congress of the United States which have been acted upon with both Democrats and Republicans.

When we look at the requests of the President to meet the legislation on No Child Left Behind, on the three budgets which he has submitted requests for fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004, there has been an increase in what he has asked for of some $13 billion-plus, moving from $40 billion to more than $53 million. If you take the 3-year period from 1996 to 1999 with the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the funding increased from some $26 billion to about $32.5 billion, which was an increase of 23 percent. If you take the

last 3 years prior to the budget submitted by President Bush, you have the funding from $29.700 billion to $40 billion, an increase of a little over $10 billion--there again, a 33-percent increase. So even when the Democrats controlled the Congress, the appropriations made were under the authorized amount which is a commonplace occurrence.

If we focus on what has been done to increase funding for education and what has been done to move along the legislation on Leave No Child Behind, President Bush has made a showing at least comparable and superior to that which President Clinton undertook, and no one ever said that President Clinton underfunded education. Perhaps the focus ought to be on what is the adequacy of the funding as opposed to the consistent critique of President Bush for political purposes.

I yield the floor.

Health Care

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

Mr. President, my understanding is that the amendment pending is the Byrd amendment; is that correct?

The amendment offered this morning by Senator Byrd is an amendment dealing with the issue of funding the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I will talk about the Byrd amendment which provides additional funding for the Title I program, a major part of No Child Left Behind.

The No Child Left Behind law passed the Congress with very wide support. It was proposed by the President. It was embraced by people on the left and the right in Congress. It had strong bipartisan support. But there are significant issues and problems attached to it, one of which is being addressed by this amendment offered this morning by my colleague. I come to the floor to support that amendment.

I begin by saying that I am a little weary of people trashing public schools in this country. We have a wonderful educational system. We have significant challenges. There is no question about that. But we have a great educational system.

We are one of the few countries in the world that early on started with a basic notion that every young child ought to be able to go through a classroom door and learn and become whatever their God given talents allow them to become. Through it all, we have had wonderful young men and women move from classrooms to experiments in research, to business, to academics, and to create in this country quite a remarkable record of achievement.

I recall a story I have told my colleagues many times but it is worth telling again whenever I talk about education. The oldest man in Congress when I arrived was a man named Claude Pepper, the Congressman from the State of Florida. He was then in his late eighties. When I went to see him to say hello, because I knew a lot about him, behind his chair in his office on the wall were two interesting pictures. One was of Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first airplane flight. It was autographed to Congressman Pepper, by Orville Wright before he died, a picture of his first flight: To Congressman Claude Pepper, with great admiration, Orville Wright.

Beneath it there was a picture of Neil Armstrong standing on the Moon, autographed to Claude Pepper. I thought about the distance between those two framed photographs, the first person to fly and the first person to walk on the Moon. December 17, 1903, for 59 seconds, Orville Wright left the ground and flew. And then in 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the surface of the Moon.

What is the distance between those two photographs framed on one Congressman's office wall? The distance is education, learning, knowledge. It did not happen in a European country. It did not happen in an African or Asian country. It happened in this country.

Our system of public education gives every young child every opportunity to be whatever their God given talents allow them to be, which has spawned remarkable opportunities and challenges and remarkable achievements. Those achievements, the first person to leave the ground and fly and the first person to fly to the Moon and walk on the surface of the Moon is an achievement of technology, science, and knowledge.

There are so many others. We could talk about, for example, Dr. Jonas Salk and the development of the Salk vaccine that prevents polio. There are so many other examples that I should not even begin to list them.

The point is that all of this stems from America's public schools. Yes, we have some great private schools as well, but public education has been the way we have educated the large majority of American young people.

I come from one of those schools, a very small rural school in a very small town with a senior high school class of nine students, a high school with four grades--freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior-- totaling 40 students. We didn't have foreign languages in that high school. We had a library the size of a coat closet. Disadvantaged? Probably. But did I get a great education? You bet your life I did. Because the school board members in that town cared about that school and made sure it was a good school.

Let me talk just a bit about where we are today. I talked about where I went to school. We still have a lot of rural schools. I visited many communities in August in my home State of North Dakota and talked with educators, talked with school administrators, talked with parents about the schools in their hometowns. We have many small community schools and

they do a remarkable job of educating their kids.

We passed a piece of Federal legislation that the President described as No Child Left Behind. I think it makes sense. I agree with President Bush. It makes sense to have accountability in education. Accountability is important. We spend a lot of money on schools and on education. We give report cards to kids for a reason--so that child and that child's parents understand how the child is doing in school. That is the report card. There is nothing at all wrong or inappropriate with us deciding we ought to have report cards on our schools as well, because some schools do better than others.

The question is why. Why shouldn't a child walking through a classroom door in one State have the same opportunity at a quality education as a child walking through a classroom door in another State or another county or another city?

Accountability is fine. We spend a great deal of money on education in this country. Public funding for education is important. We commit a great deal to it, so let's hold schools accountable. That is the philosophy behind this law, No Child Left Behind. The title itself simply begs the question: Would you want to leave a child behind? The answer is no, of course not. Has anyone proposed legislation here in the Senate that says: Let's leave children behind? Has anybody here said: My bill says leave children behind? Of course not. No Child Left Behind is a title. We all agree with that. It is a slogan, and an important slogan, I might say: No Child Left Behind.

What is important, however, is what we do at the Federal level to create opportunities to improve our education system and, yes, to provide more accountability for how the resources are spent and how our schools are doing. It is very important for us to have passed this legislation and now to do what is necessary to make it work.

I regret to tell you that at least my observation is that in two areas we are setting this law up for failure, which then means we are setting up for failure those children and the teachers and the parents and the school administrators who are a part of this large, wonderful, important industry called public education.

The two areas are as follows. No. 1 is funding. There was an implied promise by everyone when this legislation was passed imposing mandates, certain requirements on school districts and schools in this country, that we would provide the funding for those mandates. In fact, when President Bush signed the law, he said:

And a fourth principle is that we are going to spend more

money, more resources, but they'll be directed at methods

that work. We're going to spend more on our schools, and

we're going to spend it more wisely.

Beyond this quote, the implied promise by the President and by Members of Congress, the bipartisan consensus, was that we will impose these mandates and we will provide funding to make them work. Regrettably, that has not happened. Providing the funding is the goal of this amendment that has been offered and it is one I support. The ink of the President's signature on this bill was hardly dry when the next Presidential budget was sent to the Congress that did not fully fund the authorized requirements in No Child Left Behind. In fact, the President's proposal cut some funding initially. The Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act fell about $7.2 billion short of the authorized level for No Child Left Behind programs.

Some will make the case that authorization bills are different from appropriations bills. It is not unusual that we authorize more than we actually appropriate, and I agree with that. That certainly is the case. But it is also the case with No Child Left Behind that we embarked on a new and aggressive education policy in this country that said we will seek accountability but we will also provide the resources to make that happen. Regrettably, the President has not requested those resources. His requests have fallen far short of that which I believe was promised. Also, the Congress has not provided the resources above the President's request. We have provided some additional resources but not sufficient resources to do what I believe we need to be doing.

The second area I think will set this up for failure unless some changes are made is the issue of flexibility. This ought not and cannot and should not be a one-size-fits-all public policy. You simply cannot put the same template over a school with nine high school senior students as you do over a school in midtown Manhattan. They are different schools with different resources, different needs, different circumstances. So you have to have some flexibility to recognize that.

If this law is administered with flexibility and with the sensitivity and understanding that you have different parts of the country with different needs, different school districts, different kinds of schools, different challenges with different kinds of students--if you understand that and are sensitive to it in the rules and regulations administered by both the Department of Education and the State education agencies, then this can work.

But if this policy says to a small school in a small town: You have a teacher and that teacher has been teaching geography in your school for 12 years, and he or she is, by all accounts, a wonderful teacher, loved by the students, teaches a wonderful course in geography, and produces from that course students who know that subject cold--by all accounts an all-star teacher, but that teacher is teaching in his or her college minor, not major if, because of this--legislation and the way it is interpreted in the rules and regulations at the Federal Department of Education and the State education authorities, you say to that teacher and that school: By the way, you are not highly qualified and therefore you are not eligible to teach that course in geography that you have taught so well and with such excellence for 12 years, then I say this legislation is destined to fail.

We must recognize, and the legislation we passed does recognize, that there are alternatives and opportunities for teachers of the type I just described. Some, however, who administer this law, at both the Federal and State levels, say what we demand, then, is that teachers teach only in their major because that is the only teacher who is highly qualified. Nonsense. Total rubbish. There are teachers who teach in their minor who do a wonderful job and have developed the experience, the skill, and the capability to be wonderful teachers.

If someone is going to say, especially to rural schools in this country: You must teach only in your major, and if you are teaching in your minor, you are not highly qualified and therefore you are not eligible to teach, then the question is, Who is going to come up with the extra money to fund all that? You are going to have teachers going through our colleges getting trained as teachers getting double majors? They have to stay in school longer. It is going to cost more money.

We have States that do not pay teachers very much money. The fact is, they spend most of their day with our kids. Yet we do not, apparently, value that profession significantly enough to pay it the kind of money that is necessary to keep teachers in the profession.

I think two things are at work here. First, if this is not funded, it is destined to fail. You cannot have an implied promise that we will impose the mandate and fund the mandate and then not fund it. And, second, if we do not have flexibility in how this is administered by both Federal and State education departments, it is destined to fail as well. I don't want it to fail. I want this law to succeed, and I want this to recognize with some significant abundance of common sense that there is a way to hold schools accountable. There is a way for us to establish national aspirations and goals, to demand accountability, without being foolish about it and without telling a fair number of teachers, wonderful teachers, the best and brightest with standards of excellence by all accounts, that, somehow, you are no longer capable of teaching. That makes no sense at all. That is absurd.

I want this to succeed, but the two areas I mentioned are two areas I think will destine this law to fail unless remedies are taken that will resolve both: No. 1, adequate funding and, No. 2, the implementation of this legislation in a way that recognizes the need for flexibility; the implementation ought to

recognize that ``highly qualified'' is a description that ought to apply to all teachers who do an excellent job everywhere in this country. That is who highly qualified ought to apply to.

All of us come from schools that gave us opportunities. I mentioned that my high school senior class was in a really small community in southwestern North Dakota with nine students. I had a couple of teachers, one especially who I think helped me a great deal. Teachers live with you the rest of their lives. In fact, when I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, my English teacher from high school would still from time to time send back to me newsletters I would send out to North Dakota constituents. She would edit them for grammar and mistakes and send them back. English teachers never leave you, of course. But there are wonderful teachers. They blessed my life and blessed the lives of so many American kids who have graduated from our school system.

I come today to support the specific Byrd amendment that would provide the funding that is necessary to increase funding for title I to the $18.6 billion level that was authorized by law. Title I is the largest program funded by the No Child Left Behind Act, the major Federal aid program serving disadvantaged students--those students most in danger of falling behind. This amendment is the same amendment Senator Byrd offered during the appropriations committee markup, which was regrettably rejected on a party-line vote.

We hear these days of teachers buying their own supplies for their classrooms because the school district doesn't supply them. We hear about states on the west coast where teachers worked the last 10 days of the year for free, without salary, because the school district didn't have the money to pay them. We hear all of these stories about what is happening with respect to the financial crunch both at the State and local governments. That applies to school districts as well.

The question of whether we are going to allow this to succeed and make accountability something that really does work is I think a function of whether we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. If we are going to impose mandates, how are we going to fund those mandates? The implied promise was that we were. Regrettably, the history of this in the last couple of years is that we are not going to meet that promise. This amendment is one more opportunity to do what we said we were going to do.

Second, I simply want my comments today to send a statement to those who are engaged both at the Federal level and at the State level in developing these definitions that if these definitions and the implementation of this legislation is done without common sense, once again this is destined to fail. We must have some common sense in how this is implemented. It can work. It should work. I hope it will work. But this law called the No Child Left Behind Act simply will not work unless these two conditions are met.

I introduced a resolution a couple of months ago that would suspend the enforcement of the No Child Left Behind Act until full funding is provided and that called for flexibility in the implementation that will allow this law an opportunity to work.

I see that the Senator from Pennsylvania, the manager of the bill, is on the floor. I was intending to say just a few words on a separate subject on the issue of trade, but I don't want to interrupt the discussions with respect to education. So let me ask my colleague if he was intending to speak on the bill at this point. If that were the case, I would defer.

I say, Mr. President, to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I am aware that the Secretary of Education at one point talked about being very ginger with respect to waivers and the kind of flexibility I think is necessary. I do not have his quotes in front of me.

But the point I was trying to make is that as States determine what their specific needs are, of course the State education authority is going to be in touch with the Department of Education to determine how the Department of Education is going to send down the rules, how they are going to enforce this.

My understanding, at least, is that the Department of Education has indicated it is not going to be very anxious or interested in waiver policies. So the point I was trying to make--and I don't think I mentioned one-room schools. I mentioned small schools.

But the point I was trying to make is, if we do not have flexibility and therefore describe wonderful teachers as not highly qualified, and you have to hire additional teachers in small schools so they are all teaching in their major, then the question is: Who is going to come up with the money for that?

First of all, I do not think it would be smart to do that because you are telling some wonderful teachers they are not qualified. But second, if you do embark on that strategy, it is going to cost all of these school districts more money, and that becomes the mandate. And the question is: Who is going to fund the mandate?

Those are the questions I raised that are related to both funding and also flexibility. I hope an abundance of common sense might well be applied to all aspects of this legislation.

Might I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to yield?

The point is not just a one-room school or one teacher teaching four kids. The point is, for example, a school of the type I described with four grades and 50 students and four teachers. Those four teachers are having to teach outside of their major. They are teaching in their minor and major, several different classes, and in many cases are wonderful teachers who produce great students. They know their subjects, and the demonstration of being good teachers is that they turn kids out of that classroom having completed their course, and these kids know the subject as well. In those circumstances, a school like that couldn't possibly hire another four teachers because they wouldn't have the money.

The question is, are you still going to continue to keep those schools open and allow those teachers to teach in their major and minor provided they are good teachers?

Unfortunately, I believe we are headed toward a time when the definition of who is highly qualified will exclude many of those great teachers.

Well, as the Senator from Pennsylvania notes, we are not down the road far enough at this point to understand exactly what the U.S. Department of Education is going to do in terms of allowing States to deal with their specific needs. I can tell you, having dealt with many Federal agencies for a long time--I know the Senator has as well-- having watched some of these statements coming from the Department of Education, we will at some point be on the floor talking about these circumstances because we will have Federal Rules imposed by the Government in a way that simply does not match the needs or interests of the small local school districts.

I will be happy to work with the Senator as we proceed so that if he indicates--and he did earlier--he believes flexibility is the hallmark and a watchword, you have to have flexibility and common sense, then he and I need to be very vigilant in making sure that both the State plans but also especially and most importantly the Federal Rules with respect to how those plans are evaluated give us the opportunity for some common sense and flexibility.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield once again.

First of all, it is not so much a criticism as a determination of what is necessary to make this legislation or make this new law work. The State plans that were submitted to the Department of Education for approval deal almost exclusively with how states measure yearly progress for the school districts themselves. These plans that have been approved do not deal with the definition of ``highly qualified'' teachers.

If you take a look at what has been discussed and described, including the discussions around the provisions in the underlying law itself, there is enough to cause concern that ought to require us to talk about it at this point. Because if we don't do that, we will head towards 2005 and 2006, when the deadline exists with respect to the issue of highly qualified teachers, and we will find we have put in place a bureaucratic juggernaut that will cause chaos in school districts all across the country.

It is very important for us to discuss this now.

I don't disagree at all with the data. I did not talk about Clinton versus Bush and so on. I didn't make that reference. The circumstances are dramatically different than they were previously. We embarked on a new, different, aggressive education policy called No Child Left Behind in which we imposed for the first time significant enforceable standards in order to measure accountability. That was my point.

I like the work the Senator from Pennsylvania does. He and I have worked on a lot of things together. Notably, I was one who, along with the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa and others, worked to try to double the amount of funding in the National Institutes of Health, and the dividends that will pay for the American people in the future are significant. I like the work the leadership of this subcommittee does, the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa. I appreciate working with them. He indicated this is the best we can do on funding. He would probably wish to do more. I think I heard him suggest that. I sit back and try to figure out what are our priorities as a country. What are the priorities? Then I see stories.

For example, in the middle of all of this, I was visiting schools and talking about funding that might or might not happen under these mandates. And at that time, we were simultaneously having a situation with Turkey this year. They would not let us use their bases or allow our troops to cross their borders into Iraq. So Mr. Wolfowitz was sent to Turkey and came back with a deal to provide $26 billion to Turkey. I called around to find out where that money was coming from. I found out $6 billion was to be in the form of direct grants and $20 billion in guaranteed loans. I am thinking, maybe I should change my name to Turkey. The old John Paxon song, I am changing my name to Poland.

I think the issue for all of us is what are the priorities? What represents the significant priorities including national security, national defense, homeland security? Those are significant. But when you talk about education, it is also the case that education is our future. I want this law to succeed. I want it to work. The only point I came to talk about is, I don't think it can or will work unless, A, adequate funding exists to pay for the mandates we impose on local school districts and, unless, B, there is a reservoir of common sense used on how these rules apply to schools.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on another subject.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know some of my colleagues want to speak as well.

Yesterday was Labor Day. I noticed this morning that there was a speech given by the President, which I welcome, in which he talked about increased attention to international trade issues, particularly trade deficits and the jobs that are flowing overseas. The story specifically talks about the difficulties we have in the manufacturing jobs that have left. I wanted to make a couple of points about that.

I have talked before about the trade deficit. We have the largest trade deficit in human history. It is now over $470 billion. Let me just show a chart that shows this trade deficit, although the red marks on this chart really should read ``jobs.'' When your trade deficit goes to $470 billion, that means jobs that used to exist here exist elsewhere--in China, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Mexico, Canada.

I want to make a point about this because I am heartened by the fact that the President talked about China. The Administration is talking about currency fluctuations, which is a separate issue. I have spoken about that many times. Having trade agreements with other countries and not having a shock absorber to adjust for currency fluctuations makes no sense at all. It never has. We negotiate with Mexico for a trade agreement and you ratchet down 10 and 15 percent tariffs to 5 percent and 2 percent. And then Mexico devalues its currency by 50 percent. You are 35 percent worse off.

It has never made any sense to deal with trade agreements on tariffs and not worry about currency fluctuations. That is what we are finding with China. China is manipulating its currency values in a way that continues the trade deficit with China which is now $103 billion a year. They send us all their trinkets and trousers, tennis shoes, you name it. They produce it and send it here to go on our store shelves in Laramie, WY, Fargo, ND, Denver, CO for our consumers. Guess what. Try to send the Chinese some North Dakota wheat and see what you find out. The trade isn't two way. We don't really have a two-way trade agreement with China and Japan. We don't have an adequate trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Korea, and Europe.

The Senate will soon consider a Commerce-State-Justice bill, which funds the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce is a crucial agency when it comes to international trade, because it has a Market Access Compliance program responsible for knocking down foreign trade barriers.

Do you know how many people the MAC program has to deal with trade barriers in China? Just 19. And we have a $103 billion deficit with China.

Now, the Commerce Department is involved in the issue of knocking down trade barriers in other countries. We have a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. Do you know how many people at the MAC program deal with Japan? Ten people.

We have a $13 billion deficit with Korea and we have two-and three- quarters people working on market access issues in Korea. I don't know how three-quarters of a person works on this; there must be a new, novel way to do that in Commerce.

We have an $82 billion trade deficit with Europe and just 15 people working to open up those European markets and enforce trade agreements with Europe.

This makes no sense at all because this relates to jobs. When I asked on Labor Day what happened to manufacturing jobs, I will tell you what happened. They have gone. Paul Craig Roberts, an economist in the Reagan administration, wrote an op-ed piece recently saying that this is not a jobless economic recovery. Yes, the country is beginning to show economic growth. No, we don't have additional jobs. We have lost several million jobs. Jobs are not being created in this country; they are being created elsewhere. That is the problem. Part of it, in my judgment, is simply enforcement, demanding that other countries own up to their responsibilities to us in our trade agreements.

I have used this example often--and I will again briefly--with respect to Korea because it is such an appropriate example. Do you know that last year we imported from Korea very close to 680,000 vehicles into this country; 680,000 Korean cars came into the United States. Does anyone know how many American automobiles we were able to export to Korea? Just 2,800. So it was 680,000 to 2,800. Why? Because our markets are open to their cars. Good for us. Their market is largely closed to our automobiles. We don't do much about it. We just do not do much about it. Don't we care? I don't know. Nobody cares much, it seems to me, to begin to say to the South Koreans, with respect to automobile trade: If you want to sell cars in the U.S., open your markets wide to American vehicles. If you don't, then go sell your cars in Zambia, or in Libya, but not in our marketplace, until your marketplace is open to us.

While I am on the subject of cars, in the last trade agreement we did with China--a country with a $103 billion surplus with us--our negotiators agreed, for reasons I would never understand, that with respect to future trade between the United States and China in vehicles, automobiles, we would agree, after a long phase-in, that we will have a 2.5-percent tariff on any Chinese automobiles that would eventually be sold in our country, and China would be allowed to have a 25-percent tariff on any U.S. automobile sold in China.

So our negotiators sat down with a country that has a very large trade surplus with us, and said we will agree, after a phase-in, for you to have a tariff that is 10 times higher in China on U.S. automobiles going to China than we would have on Chinese automobiles coming into the United States. I don't understand how people think when they do that. They undercut our marketplace and throw away our jobs.

Look, I am for expanding trade. I think expanded trade is good but it must be fair trade. If it is not fair and in our mutual best interests in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, then we need to rethink it.

We face a circumstance in this country when we talk about the need for additional jobs. What happened to the 3 million jobs that used to exist here that no longer exist here? They exist elsewhere, where they can hire children at age 12 and put them in a manufacturing plant that doesn't have to be a safe workplace because you don't have OSHA; they can dump chemicals into the air and water because that country doesn't have an EPA, and it can pay 12-year-old children 20 cents an hour and work them 14 hours a day, and it is perfectly legal--by the way, a manufacturing plant that can prevent them, because their country prevents them, from organizing as a labor force.

That is where the jobs are going. Too many are going in that direction, and too many American families who used to have decent jobs with decent pay and benefits now have to look at those jobs existing in other countries that didn't fight for the last century for the kinds of things that we did, such as safe workplaces, child labor laws, fair compensation, and a requirement that you not pollute streams and the air.

Our country is losing ground, not gaining ground. If you look at the ocean of red ink on this chart in international trade, and at the loss of jobs, and if you look at what this translates into with respect to the weakening of our basic core manufacturing in this country, you simply must be concerned.

I don't want to sound like someone who is a ``classic protectionist'' who doesn't believe in trade; I believe in

trade. I believe in the doctrine of comparative advantage, when a country can produce something in a manner that is much more efficient than ours because of the resources they have, because of natural advantages they have, then it makes more sense for us to buy from them and sell to them that which is in our best comparative advantage. But it is not part of the doctrine of comparative advantage to have a country that says we are going to hire kids and pay them pennies and dump sewage in the streams and the air. That is not a doctrine of comparative advantage; that is a political imposition that creates circumstances by which we lose manufacturing jobs to other areas of the world and then have them produce the products and ship them back into our marketplace. We have the products, perhaps at a lower price, and what we also have is an economy that is losing jobs and steam. That is why we have to be concerned about this.

I welcome the President's statement yesterday that he is going to have someone in the Administration dealing with this issue of China and dealing with the issue of the currency fluctuations. But there are far greater problems in international trade than just currency fluctuations. That is one of them but it is by no means the most significant.

I will not spend more time going on and on about the specifics of potato flakes to Korea at a 300-percent tariff. I can spend time talking about these continuing trade barriers, such as beef to Japan, where 15 years after the beef agreement with Japan every single pound of American beef is set to have a 50-percent tariff on it. Fifteen years after our agreement with Japan--a country with a $70 billion surplus with us--for us to allow that to happen is shameful. I will not go further, except to say I will speak at greater length on trade and jobs, which are related in a significant way, because we must-- Republicans, Democrats, the administration, and Congress--tackle this issue in a significant way if we are going to preserve a strong, vibrant manufacturing base in this country and begin building jobs-- good jobs that pay well with decent benefits once again.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that the most recent free trade agreement we voted on in the Senate was the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. It is an example of everything that is wrong with our trade policy.

The Singapore Free Trade Agreement was negotiated in secret, as are all trade agreements, and then they are unveiled with great fanfare, and we are told: Here is the agreement. And because the Congress decided it would vote itself a set of handcuffs so that when a trade agreement comes to the floor of the Senate we cannot offer any amendments--that is called fast track--when the Singapore Free Trade Agreement came to the Senate, it had a provision in it that had nothing to do with the Singapore Free Trade Agreement--nothing at all. It had to do with immigration, and it said we will grant special visas to 5,400 people from Singapore to come into this country to take American jobs. All of the folks on the committee who deal with immigration were apoplectic. They had apoplectic seizures on the floor of the Senate. What did we do? We constructed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that said to the Administration: Next time, you better watch it. What a wonderful piece of public policy. Why couldn't anybody offer an amendment to take out the 5,400 jobs that will be taken in this country by the special visas given in that bill? Because we cannot offer any amendments to the trade bill. And so they negotiated this Singapore Free Trade Agreement. It has other problems with it, I should say, but they negotiated it with this little provision, and we could not take it out. That is so symbolic of what is wrong with our trade policies.

The minute you speak of this, as is always the case, the Washington Post, for example, which simply will not allow an op-ed piece on my side of the issue--you almost never see an op-ed piece talking about the requirement for fair trade because the Washington Post and most of the largest newspapers have the same view and that is: Free trade, free trade. It is like a mantra. We ought to put them in robes on a street corner and let them chant for a while, to get it out of their system, ``free trade, free trade.'' The only thing that matters, it seems to me, is whether trade is fair and whether the engagement we have with other countries is mutually beneficial.

After the Second World War, our trade policy was exclusively foreign

policy for 25 years because we wanted to help other countries. So we did all kinds of concessional trade strategies with other countries that were fine. It was our foreign policy. It was a way for us to help them, and it did not matter because we could beat any country under any set of circumstances in the job market with one hand tied behind our back. We knew that. We were the biggest, the best, and the strongest. We had an economy that could compete with anybody with one hand tied behind our back. So for 25 years, our trade policy was exclusively foreign policy run out of the State Department.

Twenty-five years after the Second World War, we began to see the emergence of some pretty tough, strong international competition-- Japan, Europe, others, now China. Our trade policy is still, in most cases, soft-headed foreign policy. Instead of saying, Let us make sure that as a strong economic power, the world's preeminent economic superpower, that we retain a basic core manufacturing base--because we will not long remain an economic superpower without a manufacturing base--instead of saying that, what we are saying as a country in our policies is we do not care what remains. If we have a complete decimation of the manufacturing base in this country, so be it, that is the way the world economy was intending it to be. That is so shallow and so fundamentally devoid of caring about this country's national security. Yet, I am telling you, there are people out there who believe that. They just say: Let's have whatever happens happen and no complaining.

What bothers me the most about this situation, when we talk about these jobs, is we have set up the American workers to compete in a way that is fundamentally unfair because our country will not stand with its workers. We say to our workers: If you do not want to lose your job, then you better be prepared to compete. What does that mean? If you do not want to lose your job, you better take a pay cut. If you do not want to lose your job, you better be prepared not to get any benefits in the future. If you do not want to lose your job, be prepared to compete with that 12-year-old kid making 12 cents a day working 12 hours a day in an unsafe factory.

When did that become the admission price of the American marketplace, the only marketplace of its type in the world, the most lucrative marketplace in the world? When did we decide the admission price is do anything under any circumstances and allow your goods to come onto our shelves? When did that become something we accepted as a matter of course?

What about a sense of fairness in which this country says our workers will compete? The American workers are the finest in the world. We will compete anytime anywhere with anybody under any circumstances provided we understand that which we fought for a century in this country represents a value system by which we measure jobs. One ought to be able to have the right to organize as workers. One ought to be able to have the right to work in a safe workplace. One ought not to have to compete with 8-, 10-, and 12-year-old kids because they ought to have child labor laws. One ought to have some fair compensation capability. We fought for those issues for years. In fact, there are people who died on the streets in this country fighting for the right to organize.

I thought we had gotten through all those issues and said, Here is what the American marketplace is about, but now there are executives of companies who say: Let's fly around in our jet and look at various places in the world where we might produce, where we pole vault over those questions. We do not have to answer questions about hiring kids. We do not have to answer questions about paying 12 or 20 cents an hour. We do not have to answer to an OSHA or EPA. We, in fact, are going to move our production to Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.

Here is the result: A little story I read recently about producers in a manufacturing plant far away from here, in a portion of Asia, making baseball caps. Those baseball caps have 1\1/2\-cent labor in each baseball cap, and they are sent to the bookstore of an Ivy League college to be sold for $17. One-and-a-half-cent labor by a young Asian worker in a plant far away to produce a baseball cap that is then sold for $17 in the bookstore of an Ivy League college. I suppose that used to be a job in this country, to make baseball caps. It used to be we made shoes, shirts, and trousers, too.

One day when I was speaking in the Senate Chamber, Fruit of the Loom decided it was gone. Fruit of the Loom made a big announcement that they were moving to Mexico. I said: It is one thing to lose your shirt, but I mean Fruit of the Loom, once they leave . . . Just think of the jobs that used to exist here, that supported families, are going elsewhere.

I could understand that if it represented the doctrine of comparative advantage where one country had a specific resource or some specific advantage in which they produce something in a much more attractive and a much less expensive way than we do, provided that advantage is not some politically imposed advantage by a government that says you cannot organize, you do not have to have a safe workplace, you can pay pennies, and you can hire kids.

That is not part of the comparative advantage. That is a political will and a political system that says let's take jobs from those industrialized countries that have already settled those issues.

I hope to speak on trade at greater length later this week. It was my intention to mention the effort that was discussed yesterday in the newspapers about China and specifically about trade and jobs. I think this is a critically important issue. A recovery without jobs is not the kind of recovery we need in this country. We need a recovery that produces decent jobs that pay well, that have good benefits. We specifically need to pay attention to and understand that a world economic superpower will only remain a world economic superpower if they have a strong manufacturing base. That is critical to any economy.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Isn't it also true that this administration proposed eliminating taxation on other income? Doesn't the Senator think it is a little odd for an administration to be penalizing people who want to work, people who want to work overtime and, at the same time, providing tax breaks or tax elimination for people who don't work for their income?

I sympathize with the predicament the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has expressed. He has been a stalwart in support of increased funding for many of these educational efforts over the years, and I note that his independence and integrity have resulted in his being cited by yet another prominent publication today.

If those qualities of an independent mind, intelligence, experience, and real compassion for people are considered to be detriments, then it is a sad and unfortunate day for the Senate. I think the Senator's record shows clearly to the contrary.

I would be happy to yield.

The Senator's distinguished record speaks for itself.

I rise on a matter related to what the Senator just described, the quandary regarding funding for education programs. Yesterday, for the fourth time, I attempted to obtain 40 percent of Federal funds for special education to fulfill a promise that was made by the Federal Government to States and school districts 27 years ago, which today, and if we pass the appropriation measure that is before us, would be less than half of that 40 percent share. Every one of my colleagues in the Republican caucus voted against this amendment, evidencing that special education funding in the scheme of everything else is simply not a high enough priority.

At that time, yesterday, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee made some observations that I still find rather astounding, particularly as it relates to the actual experience of educators in my State of Minnesota. According to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, it seems we are putting so much Federal money into the education programs--in fact, to quote the Senator, so much so fast under President Bush and the Republican Senate that we now have a situation where a large percentage of the dollars which we have already appropriated cannot be spent and have not been spent.

Over $9 billion were cited that are supposedly sitting in some vault somewhere over at the Department of Education, title I funding, that was appropriated over the last 2 or 3 years evidently that the States have not drawn down to spend.

We were told before that funding for other areas of education had increased so rapidly that those dollars could not be utilized. We were told by the Senator about 2 months ago that there are so many Head Start slots available that some of those are unfilled because there is more availability than parents desiring to put their children into Head Start.

That comes as quite a surprise to parents and educators and Head Start service providers in Minnesota where there has been known to be a serious shortage of funding for those who are eligible and would like to utilize that program for years. It would come as a surprise to the school board members in school districts all over Minnesota that there is unused money in Washington for education. Our State is experiencing a shortage of some $250 to $300 million in education funding resulting in school districts across the State having to make drastic cuts in funding

for public education, cutting teacher positions, cutting curriculum offerings, cutting supportive services.

I wrote this morning to the Secretary of Education to ask him exactly the circumstances resulting in this $9.2 billion of unexpended Federal funds and to ask for his recommendation on what can be done to make these funds available to schools and school districts throughout the country where the funds, I can guarantee, would be well used today, tomorrow, or the day after so we do not have a situation where we have supposedly $9 billion of Federal funds lying around waiting for some school or school board to identify this opportunity to provide the educational services that schoolchildren in Minnesota are being denied today because of a critical shortage of funding.

We also offered yesterday amendments to increase funding in this bill before Senators were lambasted for our fiscal irresponsibility. We were told again by the chairman of the HELP committee that we have finally set up in the Senate this year a budget for ourselves and we have renewed the concept of fiscal discipline through a budget after having been abandoned for a year under prior leadership of the Senate. Even though we have a budget, we should, we are being told, ignore it and fund all these additional programs for education.

Yes, I did seek yesterday to increase funding for special education by $11 billion next year. That is a lot of money. But it is money fulfilling broken promises of over a quarter of a century. It was lambasted for its fiscal excess.

Yesterday the manager of the bill noted there were no Senators offering amendments. It seems one of the reasons was that quite a number of Senators were at the White House literally at the same time I was offering my amendment. About the same time the critics were accusing my amendment and other amendments being offered for being fiscally reckless, Members were being notified by the President that he would seek another $60 billion or $80 billion--according to estimates I have seen, but it will actually be $100 billion--additional spending for the war effort in Iraq over the next fiscal year in addition to the $87 billion we approved earlier this year for additional funding for that effort, which I supported. And I will support, I expect, the request by the President for this continuing effort. Once we are in a war situation, as we are, we cannot conduct a war under budget. We have to conduct a war to win, to secure that victory, as the administration is trying now to do.

It struck me as an odd juxtaposition of priorities, particularly given the Republican assistant leader spoke yesterday and said we were very clear that what the President wants he is going to get in terms of additional dollars.

If we want to break the budget for an additional $160 million, as was one proposal yesterday for education--another proposal was for $68 million for education; in my case, $11 billion for additional funding for special education--those are figures that somehow break whatever this budget and this fiscal discipline the majority caucus claims we have established within this body. As soon as the administration wants another $80 or $100 billion next fiscal year, no questions asked. What the President wants, he will get.

I wish the President would add to his list of priorities in addition to funding the economic reconstruction of Iraq, for $10 billion, we are told in this proposal, and another $15 billion over the next few years for AIDS in Africa, a worthwhile cause, but I wish we would give the same priority to the special needs of the students of America, both those at the elementary and secondary levels and also, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, those in postsecondary education who find getting a Pell grant or getting a college work-study opportunity about as scarce as finding a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.

As the American people look at the fiscal crisis afflicting this Government's budget, from the beginning of this fiscal year of a projected deficit of $150 billion to now a deficit projected to be in the neighborhood of $550 billion--that includes, by the way, the use of the Social Security trust fund surplus of $155 billion for this year so actually the operating account of the Federal budget is in deficit close to $700 billion this year. Next year, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 was expected to be $200 billion and now it is already up to $480 billion. That does not count the $80 billion or $100 billion for the next fiscal year to be added for the President's request. So we are looking at the start of the fiscal year of a deficit next year of some $580 billion, almost three times what was projected a year ago. That is in contrast, by the way, to a surplus that we enjoyed in each of the last 4 years under President Clinton.

There is one area, however, where there does not seem to be such a problem on the spending side. That is when it comes to pharmaceutical industry prices and profits. There was another interesting article today in the New York Times looking at the practice of the Veterans Administration in successfully lowering the price of prescription drugs for the VA and making it possible for millions of veterans to pay just $7 for up to a 30-day prescription. It is astonishing to see what the Senate and House bills now contain for prescription drug coverage contrasted with the VA copay of $7 per prescription. No wonder thousands of veterans are signing up for this program every month, stretching those appropriated dollars.

I ask unanimous consent this New York Times article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

For all its apparent success, lawmakers have disregarded the Veterans Administration model and others like it that use the Government's immense power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. In fact, under the Senate and House bills, under existing law, Congress would exempt the drug industry from the kind of cost controls in place for virtually every other major provider of Medicare services.

One of the founders of the current health maintenance organization concept who then recanted his support based on what they became, former Minnesotan Dr. Paul M. Elwood, said in the article:

The legislation pending in Congress does more to deform

than to reform Medicare.

Drug companies [the article goes on] say they support

prescription drug coverage under Medicare [since the taxpayer

will be paying for more of these medicines]. But in the last

few years, they have invested several hundred million dollars

in campaign contributions, lobbying and advertising to head

off price controls.

They were the largest contributor in the last campaign cycle for Federal campaigns, and of course those are not philanthropic contributions; they are political investments on which they expect and are receiving their desired return.

The article goes on to say:

The legislation ``reflects a political judgment that the

pharmaceutical industry'' would block ``price controls or any

arrangement that used the concentrated purchasing power of

the government to buy prescription drugs,'' said Paul B.

Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System

Change, a private research institute.

Why would the pharmaceutical industry be able to block the Congress from enacting legislation that would lower prescription drug prices for the people of America? It begs the question, Whose interests are being represented, that an industry, the pharmaceutical industry, can block legislation right here on the Senate floor, right over there in the House of Representatives--can block legislation that would result in lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people of all ages across this country?

It goes on to say that the VA plan, by contrast, uses its buying power and uses it successfully to lower prices that VA pays for the medicines and that the veterans in turn pay. According to the National Academy of Sciences:

. . . the VA's methods had achieved nearly $100 million in

savings over the past 2 years.

But Congress did not consider that approach; in fact, Congress did the opposite. Congress said you cannot use that approach. Medicare cannot get involved in price reductions. Medicare cannot use the vast purchasing power on behalf of all senior citizens and others under Medicare, which goes far beyond what the Veterans' Administration has in terms of numbers--cannot use that clout to negotiate or insist on

lower pharmaceutical prices for seniors, for others on Medicare. Why? Because that would cut into the profits of this already excessively profitable industry.

Representative Michael Bilirakis, the Florida Republican

who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health, said that if Medicare pooled its purchasing power,

it would amount to ``a form of price controls.''

``That's not America,'' Mr. Bilirakis said. ``Many of my

constituents would feel that price controls are a great

thing. But ultimately some of us have to be responsible.''

Since when is it responsible for Congress to allow drug prices to go up higher and higher, beyond the reach of our fellow citizens? Since when is it responsible in America to let an industry, the drug industry, write a letter that 53 Senators sign, saying they would oppose any kind of reimportation such as that proposed by my colleague from the House of Representatives, Gil Gutknecht, Republican House Member from Minnesota. He was one of those who courageously and successfully led the drug reimportation victory in the House, one which I hope this body will enact and follow suit.

But when a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist can write a letter that 53 Senators sign, stating exactly what the pharmaceutical industry wants said, that this is somehow dangerous to the safety and well-being and welfare of Americans, says a lot about who controls what happens in Washington.

In fact, if the record be shown, the imports of foreign-manufactured drugs exceeded $14 billion last year. These were drugs that were made, manufactured outside of this country and imported. The only difference is they were imported by the drug companies at higher prices. If the consumers want to import those same drugs from Canada or somewhere else at lower prices, that is what is objectionable. But once again, it is the pharmaceutical industry and its profits that are given priority over people.

So we have this very bizarre but, unfortunately for America, all too real juxtaposition of less spending for education. I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who has been such a champion of funding for education and so many other causes benefiting the people of his State and across America. His amendment is one that we will consider. I wish and hope it will fare better than my amendment yesterday for special education. Given the votes on the other side of the aisle, I don't think that is promising.

But when time after time we try to put more money into education and are defeated, yet we can, without even a blink of an eye, put $80 billion or $100 billion more into economic reconstruction or other efforts in Iraq paying, as I was told, in Iraq, paying 1.8 million Iraqi citizens not to work, not to do anything, just not to foment revolution, pay 1.8 million Iraqi citizens not to work and we are not willing to pay Americans who want to work overtime, or extend unemployment benefits for those who want to work and are seeking work, when we can run up deficits of humongous proportions, the biggest deficits in this Nation's history, three times more 12 months later than they were projected to be, without a blink of the eye on the other side of the aisle. But there is nothing to be said when drug companies want to raise prices and take more money out of the pocket of Americans.

I would say it is time for this body to look very carefully at itself. It is time for the American people to look carefully at this body.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Sept. 4, 2003]

Some Successful Models Ignored As Congress Works on Drug Bill

(By Robert Pear and Walt Bogdanich)

By most measures, the Department of Veterans Affairs has

solved the puzzle of making prescription drugs affordable for

at least one big group of Americans without wrecking the

Federal budget.

Wielding its power as one of the largest purchasers of

medications in the United States, the V.A. has made it

possible for millions of veterans to pay just $7 for up to a

30-day prescription. Thousands are signing up for the program

every month.

Yet for all its apparent success, lawmakers have

disregarded the V.A. model--and others like it that use the

Government's immense power to negotiate lower prices--as they

try to give older Americans relief from rising drug costs

while reshaping how the elderly get medical services.

Instead, a Congress deeply divided by ideology has given

birth to legislation that would add prescription drug

coverage to Medicare, but that many experts say would fall

short of meeting the needs of the elderly. The benefits,

costing $400 billion over 10 years, are complex and limited,

and the legislation relies in part on cost control mechanisms

that are untested or unproven.

In fact, Congress would exempt the drug industry from the

kind of cost controls that are in place for virtually every

other major provider of Medicare services.

``The legislation pending in Congress does more to deform

than to reform Medicare,'' said Dr. Paul M. Ellwood, a noted

health policy analyst who was an early proponent of managed

care. ``Instead of creating a system of readily

understandable choices based on cost and quality, Congress is

writing legislation that will increase the complexity of

Medicare, so it will be more difficult for seniors to

navigate.''

The effort to forge a final deal on Capitol Hill, blending

separate House and Senate measures, was high on the agenda as

Congress returned to work this week. Lobbyists and health

policy experts say the likelihood that a comprehensive drug

bill will become law this year seems no better than 50-50.

But Thomas A. Scully, administrator of the federal Centers

for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said yesterday that he

was ``95 percent sure we will get a Medicare bill out of

Congress.''

Politically, the legislation is a marriage of convenience,

combining drug benefits, long sought by Democrats, with a

Republic approach to administering the benefits, through

private health plans and insurance companies. To secure

votes, the Senate bill was festooned with provisions aiding

various interest groups. There is language that would, for

examples, aid chiropractors; marriage and family therapists;

doctors in Alaska; hospitals in Iredell County, NC; operators

of air ambulance services; and many other groups.

The need for bipartisan support ``led to a series of

compromises that resulted in a hodegepodge of a bill,'' said

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who opposed

the Senate bill.

Michael Valentino, a manager of the V.A.'s drug benefit

program, praised Congress for trying to help Medicare

patients buy prescription drugs. But he added that the

coverage could be expanded if Medicare took full advantage of

its purchasing power.

John C. Rother, policy director for AARP, the lobbying

group for older Americans, said the legislation was a ``real

godsend'' for people with low incomes or high drug expenses.

``But for many others,'' he said, ``the benefits will be

seen as inadequate.''

Premiums and drug benefits could vary from plan to plan,

state to state and year to year. The Senate and House bills

both establish a standard drug benefit, with substantial

coverage upfront and catastrophic coverage for high costs.

But beneficiaries would have to pay all drug costs in the

middle, until their out-of-pocket costs reached a certain

level--$3,700 a year under the Senate bill and $3,500 under

the House bill.

Robert D. Reischauer, former director of the Congressional

Budget Office, said the gap in coverage ``defies rational

policy analysis'' and was not found in commercial insurance.

Congress engineered the gap to keep the drug plan's cost

under the $400 billion limit.

`political judgment'

Drug companies say they support covering prescription drugs

under Medicare. But in the last few years, they have invested

several hundred million dollars in campaign contributions,

lobbying and advertising to head off price controls.

The legislation ``reflects a political judgment that the

pharmaceutical industry'' would block ``price controls or any

arrangement that used the concentrated purchasing power of

the government to buy prescription drugs,'' said Paul B.

Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System

Change, a private research institute.

The V.A. plan, by contrast, owes its relative success to

its buying power--and a willingness to use it. Its doctors

and pharmacists analyze research to establish a list of

preferred drugs for various conditions. The V.A. obtains

discounts through bulk purchasing arrangements--using generic

drugs where possible--and competitive bidding.

``We are so far ahead of anybody else, it's almost

ridiculous,'' Mr. Valentino said. In 2000, the National

Academy of Sciences found that the V.A.'s methods had

achieved nearly $100 million in savings over the previous two

years.

But Congress decided not to adopt the V.A.'s approach; in

fact, it was not seriously considered. Lawmakers also passed

up other alternatives including vouchers for the purchase of

health insurance and proposals to assist only people with low

incomes.

Representative Michael Bilirakis, the Florida Republican

who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health, said that if Medicare pooled its purchasing power,

it would amount to ``a form of price controls.''

``That's not America,'' Mr. Bilirakis said. ``Many of my

constituents would feel that price controls are a great

thing. But ultimately some of us have to be responsible.''

The political imperative that seems to have produced

today's fragile consensus stems from complaints that every

lawmaker has heard from constituents: prescription drugs

costs too much.

At Medicare's inception in 1965, policy makers chose not to

cover outpatient drugs, because medicines now so

indispensable to treating disease either did not exist or

were relatively inexpensive.

Instead, Medicare focused on big-ticket items like hospital

care and doctors' services. For years, Medicare mostly paid

whatever bills health care providers submitted, but by the

1980's Congress decided it needed to restrain rising costs.

In subsequent years, Medicare prospectively set limits on

what it paid major health care providers, including

hospitals, doctors, skilled nursing homes and home health

agencies.

The controls have never been popular with the health care

industry.

``In Medicare, the tendency is to set prices too low,''

said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, president of the American

Medical Association. Indeed, Carmela S. Coyle, senior vice

president of the American Hospital Association, said 67

percent of hospitals lose money on Medicare.

By and large, however, the measures have managed to slow

the growth of Medicare costs, say many health policy experts,

including Bruce C. Vladeck and Nancy-Ann DeParle, who ran

Medicare under President Bill Clinton. Drug costs, however,

have skyrocketed, and while most of the elderly get some help

from retiree health benefits, Medicaid or state programs, at

least one-fourth of Medicare beneficiaries have no drug

coverage.

Under the bills passed this year, the government would

subsidize drug coverage provided to Medicare beneficiaries by

private insurers and health plans. They would bargain with

drug companies to secure discounts and rebates, a task likely

to be delegated to pharmaceutical benefit managers, or

P.B.M.'s, the companies that already perform the service for

many employers. Both bills stipulate that Medicare officials

cannot ``interfere in any way'' in those negotiations.

For President Bush and Republicans in Congress, the concept

makes sense: let the marketplace set the prices, rather than

government. For years, lawmakers have found fault with

Medicare's arcane and voluminous regulations. Congress has

frequently intervened to tweak the formulas, taking money

from some providers while giving more to others--often to

those with the most persuasive lobbyists.

That, in turn, contributes to anomalies in medical care,

because doctors have financial incentives to perform certain

services and not others. Mr. Scully, the Medicare

administrator, said such anomalies were inevitable because

Medicare was ``a big dumb price-fixer.''

Still, Medicare has been a boon to the elderly and their

children. Surveys show that beneficiaries are overwhelmingly

satisfied with their care. Before Medicare, only 56 percent

of the elderly had hospital insurance; the program has

contributed to an increase in life expectancy and a sharp

reduction in poverty among the elderly.

Moreover, some studies show Medicare has done better at

controlling medical costs than private health insurance.

Cristina Boccuti, a researcher at the Urban Institute, and

Marilyn Moon, a former public trustee of the Medicare

program, said Medicare spending grew more slowly than private

health insurance costs from 1970 to 2000. Republicans say

such comparisons are misleading and contend that Medicare's

cost controls have slowed access to new treatments and

technology.

Negotiated Discounts

But that does not seem to be a problem for the V.A. The

study by the National Academy of Sciences found that its

approach had ``meaningfully reduced drug expenditures without

demonstrable adverse effects on quality.''

Mr. Valentino said: ``When we make our recommendations,

it's not because Doctor A, in his or her opinion, believes it

is the best drug. It is because the evidence says it's the

best drug.'' Echoing the criticisms of government

investigators, he added that P.B.M.'s, by contrast, sometimes

make deals favoring expensive drugs for their own financial

benefit.

Under the House and Senate bills, Medicare beneficiaries

would have access to drug discounts negotiated on their

behalf by private insurers and P.B.M.'s. Supporters of the

legislation say these discounts could reduce retail drug

prices by 20 percent. But Congress consciously decided to

disperse Medicare's purchasing power. It did not want

Medicare to establish a uniform nationwide list of preferred

drugs or a price list for those drugs--mechanisms that the

drug industry opposes.

``Price controls cause artificially low prices,'' said

Jeffrey L. Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical

Research and Manufacturers of America. And low prices for a

government program, he added, would reduce the money

available for researching new drugs and could prompt drug

makers to seek higher prices from patients with private

insurance.

Critics of the drug industry dispute such arguments--and

say that they obscure the obvious.

``The obvious is that if you control prices, you pay

less,'' said Mr. Vladeck, the former Medicare administrator.

``There are some problems with it, and not all price controls

work as well as others. But the pharmaceutical industry does

have enough political juice to prevent any reasonable price

controls.''

The idea of giving people a choice between traditional

Medicare and private health plans has deep roots.

``We must promote diversity, choice and healthy competition

in American medicine if we are to escape from the grip of

spiraling costs,'' the Nixon administration said in 1970, in

words similar to those of President Bush in 2003.

In 1978, Alain C. Enthoven, a Stanford University

economist, called for regulated competition among private

health plans. Medicare, he said, would subsidize premiums,

and the most efficient health plans would pass on their

savings to consumers, so patients would have a financial

incentive to enroll.

Prompted by such thinking, the government offered new

private alternatives to the traditional Medicare program in

the 1980's, and Congress encouraged the development of health

maintenance organizations. Enrollment grew, in part because

many H.M.O.'s offered drug benefits not available in

traditional Medicare.

Medicare beneficiaries generally praised the care they

received in H.M.O.'s, but the plans did not control costs as

their proponents had hoped. Many H.M.O.'s began reducing some

benefits, including drug coverage.

They also pressed Congress for more money, saying that

their costs were rising 10 percent a year--five times the

increase in payments from Medicare. Unable to persuade

Congress to close the gap, many abandoned Medicare or

curtailed their participation.

That track record has heightened critics' skepticism about

the current legislation.

``The myth of the market,'' said Lynn M. Etheredge, who

worked at the White House Office of Management and Budget

from 1972 to 1982, ``has a powerful sway over people's minds,

despite evidence that it is not working in the Medicare

program.''

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the

legislation, many private plans will cost slightly more than

traditional Medicare. Moreover, there is widespread doubt

that insurers--who do not now sell stand-alone drug

insurance--will begin to do so.

Even Mr. Scully concedes that such drug coverage ``does not

exist in nature'' and would probably not work in practice.

The elderly are heavy users of prescription drugs, so few

insurers are eager to write coverage for their drug costs

alone, separate from their other medical expenses.

``It would be like providing insurance for haircuts,''

Charles N. Kahn III said several years ago, when he was

president of the Health Insurance Association of America.

limits of coverage

Even if President Bush signs a Medicare drug bill in the

coming year, it will not be the last word.

Health policy experts say that costs may well grow faster

than the official projections suggest. That would increase

pressure on Congress to hold down drug costs, just as

lawmakers continually try to slow the growth of Medicare

payments to hospitals.

At the same time, when Medicare beneficiaries realize the

limits of the new drug coverage, they can be expected to

lobby for more generous benefits. In supporting the Senate

bill, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts,

made clear that it was only a down payment, a foundation for

more comprehensive drug benefits.

Ms. DeParle predicts that the legislation will produce a

huge demand for drugs, and she is far from certain that

competition will do much to control costs. ``It is pretty

much theory, and that is what worries me about it,'' she

said. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that per

capita drug spending for the Medicare population will

increase about 10 percent a year over the next decade.

Critics of the legislation doubt its cost can be kept to

the $400 billion budgeted by Congress. ``Utilization will go

up dramatically, and costs could explode,'' said Senator Don

Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma.

For now, however, politicians have chosen to favor drug

companies over Medicare beneficiaries, said Prof. Uwe E.

Reinhardt, a health care economist at Princeton University.

``On one hand, there is the taxpayer and, in fact, patients

who would benefit from having costs controlled,'' Dr.

Reinhardt said. ``But on the other hand, those people do not

finance the campaigns of these legislators.''

Ms. Coyle of the hospital association declined to address

the question of why her industry, but not the pharmaceutical

industry, had been subject to price controls. Her group's

biggest concern about the legislation, she said, is that ``we

are not addressing the larger problem: a health care system

that is fundamentally broken.'' The nation, she said, wants

the best care for everyone, but needs to decide if it is

willing to bear the cost.

So who would be the big winners if the legislation is

signed into law?

``The short-run political winner is George Bush, because

this law will not be understood by anyone,'' Dr. Reinhardt

said. ``It is so complex. But he can go in 2004 and say,

`Look, for 30 years you tried to get a drug benefit--I got

you one.' ''

And, he added: ``the elderly will benefit, too, relative to

nothing. Who loses? Obviously the people who pay for it.''

It is a privilege to join Senator Harkin on this urgently needed proposal to protect the 40-hour workweek and the right to overtime pay for millions of working men and women. The Bush administration's new regulations are an unfair scheme to prop up business profits by allowing firms across America to reduce their costs by denying overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, including 200,000 in my own State of Massachusetts. Police officers, nurses, cooks, clerks, physical therapists, reporters, and many others would be required to work longer hours for less pay.

Our amendment is very clear. It says that no worker now eligible for overtime protections can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new regulation.

With a failing economy, with more than 9 million Americans out of work, with so many other families struggling to make ends meet, cutbacks in overtime pay are a nightmare that no worker should have to bear. Overtime pay now makes up a quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean an average pay cut of $161 a week for them.

Hard-working Americans do not deserve this pay cut, and it is wrong for the administration to force it on them. Overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act have been a fundamental right of this Nation's workers for more than half a century. This basic law was enacted in the 1930s to create a 40-hour workweek. It requires workers to be paid fairly for any extra hours. Especially in times such as these, it is an incentive for job creation because it encourages employers to hire more workers instead of forcing current employees to work longer hours.

The economy has lost more than 3 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office. The Bush administration is wrong to propose regulations that will enable businesses to require their employees to work longer hours and reduce the need to hire additional workers.

According to the congressional General Accounting Office, employees without overtime protection are more than twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by that protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before, longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a workweek that exceeds 50 hours, let alone 40 hours a week.

We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to balance their family needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater burden to this daily struggle. Protecting the 40-hour workweek is vital to protecting the work/family balance for millions of Americans in communities all across the Nation. The last thing Congress should do is to allow this antiworker administration to make the balance worse than it already is.

Sixty-five years ago the Fair Labor Standards Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt and established minimum wage and maximum work hours. It was in the midst of the Great Depression, and as President Roosevelt told the country:

. . . if the hours of labor for the individual could be

shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum

wages could be established, each worker could get a living

wage.

Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. Our modern economy has lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any recession since the Great Depression.

What can the administration be thinking when it comes up with such a shameful proposal to deny overtime protections on which millions of workers rely? Congress cannot sit idly by when more and more Americans lose their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods, and their dignity. We will continue to battle to restore jobs, provide fair unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage, and we will do all we can to preserve the overtime protections of which so many American families depend.

I urge my colleagues to support this essential proposal to keep faith with the Nation's working families.

I wish to take a few moments of the time of the Senate to review what is happening to American workers in relation to other countries around the world. It is reflected in this chart. The red columns indicate the number of hours workers are working and comparing it with other industrialized nations of the world.

As you can see from this chart, American workers are working longer and harder than those in any other industrial nation of the world. That has been a phenomenon that has really developed in the recent times.

This chart shows that U.S. work hours have increased while those in other industrial nations actually decreased. The United States--we see over here the increases; and the decline in other industrial nations. So here we have a workforce that is prepared to work and prepared to work long and hard. Yet we find the administration is attempting to penalize these workers for being willing to work and for working long and hard.

This chart here is ``Workers Without Overtime Protections Are More Than Twice As Likely To Work Longer Hours.''

What does this chart say? That if the workers do not have the overtime protections, the employers work them more than twice what they would work if they did have the overtime protection. Why is that important? Because this particular proposal is taking away this kind of protection. The result will be that the workforce, which is working longer and harder than that in any other industrial nation in the world, is going to find they are going to have to work even longer and harder to make ends meet. This is true, even if they are working 50 hours a week. Then they are three times as likely to be required to work longer than if they had the overtime protections.

So we have a situation where we see Americans working longer and harder. We have a situation that, if they do not have the overtime protections, they are required by their employers to work twice as hard as those with the overtime protections. In the instances of those who work 50 hours a week, they are required to work three times as hard.

These are the facts. Nearly 3 in 10 employees already work more than 40 hours a week and one in five Americans work more than 50 hours a week. One in five Americans are working more than 50 hours a week. These working Americans don't have the time they need to meet their family responsibilities.

Parents today define that biggest daily challenge as balancing work and family responsibilities and instilling values in their children. When parents have more time to spend with their children, they achieve more academically, improve behavior, and demonstrate lower dropout rates.

This proposal by the administration is an antifamily proposal because it is going to deny essential resources for families to be able to meet their particular needs. The result will be all the additional social problems that impact families that do not have a chance to be together, to stay together, to work together, to pray together, to enjoy each other.

The Fair Labor Standards Act overtime protection works. Workers are compensated time and a half their regular pay for hours worked in excess of the 40 hours per week. That is what the law is. Employers have a financial disincentive to work employees excessive hours. Employers have an incentive to hire more workers instead.

As we see, that is the current law. This is the current employment situation where we see the loss of jobs for more than 3 million American workers over this period of time. So we are finding at the present time our workers are working longer and they are working harder in order to provide for their families. We have the greatest loss of jobs that we have had since the time of the Great Depression.

What this particular proposal is saying is that isn't even enough. Even though you are working longer and working harder than at any time before, we are going to take away the protections which are going to effectively deny the average family who is receiving overtime about $161 a week.

With all the challenges we are facing in this country, the fact that workers who are working longer and harder and are making $161 on average in overtime is not on the front burner. These Americans are working. They ought to be entitled to that protection.

We have now more than 8 million workers--2.5 million workers are salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly workers--who will lose their overtime pay under the Bush proposal. Even some who are salaried workers are eligible for overtime. This is 8 million who would be eligible for overtime who will be denied that.

Even the business community admits this will have widespread effects. According to the Society for Human Resource Management:

This is going to affect every workplace, every employee,

and every professional.

This is widespread in its impact on working families in this country.

This is a chart which should give you some kind of historical perspective of the number of workers who were protected in terms of overtime. The percentage of workers who were not protected was 17 percent in 1983. In 1998, it was 20 percent. Now, under the Bush proposal--here it is--33 percent. Thirty-three percent of the workers, effectively.

It includes the 8 million who will not be eligible. The impact of this is very clear. That is sort of a major pay cut for workers. American workers are working longer and harder than any other industrial society in the world. Who are they? They are millions of workers who would lose overtime protections under the Bush proposal.

Let us be clear for any who are watching this debate. Police officers will be affected. Nurses will be affected. Cooks and chefs and clerical workers will be affected. Firefighters and physical therapists will be affected. It is interesting that these are first responders--police officers, firefighters, and nurses. They are our first responders. We are talking about trying to give support to our first responders on the one hand, and on the other hand we are taking away the economic protections they need to provide for their families.

We continue along with the various groups: Paralegals, reporters, dental hygienists, graphic artists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, and social workers.

The interesting irony is that they are our first responders. We not only fail to give support to the local communities which they need for the first responders to terrorism, but on the other hand we are sending a message to the police officers, firefighters, and nurses that we are going to reduce their pay at the same time. What kind of message is that at a time when we are talking about homeland security?

Millions of workers depend on their overtime pay to make ends meet. The most recent statistics show that overtime pay accounted for more than 25 percent of the income of workers who worked overtime which they depend on in terms of their income. The workers are stripped of their overtime protection, and they will be forced to work longer hours for less pay.

That is what this is about. It is just a major broadside against workers in America who are working longer and harder, attempting to maintain their jobs, hopeful that they won't be dismissed or fired as a result of the economic policies of this administration which has seen the greatest growth of unemployment since the Great Depression as a result of economic policy.

The Senator from Iowa will remember when we had different economic policies. We had them during the period of President Clinton when we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability in this country since the early part of the 1960s. That was because of economic leadership at the national level. In the early 1960s, we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability than we had for better part of the century.

National economic leadership is essential in terms of ensuring the people are going to work. We have a failed economic policy with 3 million people left out of work. And for those who are left in, we are cutting back on the pay of some of the hardest working individuals in the world. That is unfair. That is unjust. It is done by the issuance of a regulation rather than as a result of legislation and hearings. It will not stand.

I commend the Senator from Iowa for his leadership in this area because he is involved in some other issues that affect working people and farmers and others on the forefront. I commend him for all he has done. I am proud to join with him in resisting this proposal because it is just wrong. It is wrong for the workers. It is wrong for our economy. It is wrong for families. This is a family issue. It is a homeland security issue. It is a children's issue. It is a women's issue because so many of these workers who work overtime in the economy are women.

Make no mistake, the women will be hurt by this proposal. They are working hard and trying to raise their families. Make no mistake about who is being impacted on this.

It has broad implications in terms of our economy. It is not right, it is not fair, it is not just, it is bad economics, and it is just lousy policy.

There are those of us who will be joining together with the Senator from Iowa to see that we resist this proposal.

Yes.

The only answer I can reach is that it is the result of pressure being exerted on the administration by these business groups that do not want to be in a position of having to hire additional workers, and they don't want to be paying additional overtime pay that has been a part of the whole social balance in this country and society and recognized as such by Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s.

Forty hours of work a week is what workers ought have as an opportunity for employment. Under special circumstances, if they are going to have to work longer or want to work longer, they get the time and a half.

Now what we undermining is the age-old concept about the importance of protecting a 40-hour week. We are effectively eliminating that. Make no mistake about it. Effectively, the 40-hour workweek will be eliminated for

millions of workers with this proposal because now employers will be able to require hours from the workers without having to give them fair compensation.

But let me ask the Senator. The Senator from Iowa is a floor manager with the Senator from Pennsylvania on this legislation which has important funding for education programs, for health programs, for job training programs, for the NIH, and all the research we are doing in terms of cancer research--all kinds of research.

Is it true that this administration has said, if their proposal-- which will deny millions of workers overtime pay--is eliminated, this administration and this President will veto the underlying bill which they feel so strongly about in terms of the income of working families who are working longer and harder providing for their children; that they are prepared to risk the funding of these vital services which are absolutely at the heart of the quality of life of the American people?

Am I correct in understanding that this is the administration's position, that they feel so strongly about taking away the overtime pay for workers that they are prepared to risk the whole funding stream for education, for health, for NIH, and for job training, the range of different services that are so important to the well-being and health and education of people in this country?

I say to the Senator, I certainly agree. I know we are going to have an opportunity to address this and debate this issue, but I hope our colleagues, over the period of the next day or so, will really think long and hard and deeply about this proposal.

We have been attempting in this body to raise the minimum wage for working families. Effectively, without raising the minimum wage this year, we will lose all of the gains of the last increase. And we are denied on the other side of the body. We indicated we would like to raise the minimum wage.

In fact, there are millions of workers in this country who are working two or three jobs a day. These are primarily women. About 62 or 63 percent of those workers who earn the minimum wage are women. One- third of those women have children, so it is a children's issue. It is a women's issue. It is a civil rights issue because most of the people working at the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue.

The American people support overwhelmingly the fact that people who want to work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not have to live in poverty for themselves and their children. We cannot get a vote on it. The other side will not let us have a vote on it.

So they will not let you take care of those who are at the lower end of the economic ladder. Here they are going on to take the overtime away. They have assaulted Davis-Bacon, which is ways of giving protection to workers who are trying to do a decent job in terms of building and constructing the great parts of American commerce. And what in the world, we find out that on the issue of worker health and safety, they are now rescinding the proposed tuberculosis standards which have been in development for 10 years, when we have a dramatic increase in the problems of tuberculosis and other airborne diseases in this country. The list goes on and on.

What is it about this administration? With all the challenges, with Iraq adrift, our grids and electrical systems crashing, the judicial nomination process in shambles, and the economy sputtering, they are spending their time attacking and assaulting working men and women in this country. Can the Senator possibly help me understand how this is a priority, given all the other kinds of needs we are facing in this Nation?

Pensions.

I have the floor, and after the Senator has finished, I will be glad to yield.

The Senator is quite correct. There is a panoply of different issues that affect working families. On each and every one of them, I think any fair assessment is that the administration comes down on the wrong side of it. Today it is overtime. And this is a debate at the core of what policy this administration is focused on.

But I think, as Senator Dayton and others have pointed out, there are a whole range of issues that shortchange American workers, and we have every intention of continuing the battle for them.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on another subject. I know there are others who want to speak. But I will just take a moment of the Senate's time to address an education issue which, hopefully, we will have a chance to address and debate further. But I think it is important that we have it out in the Record so our colleagues are aware of it.

Mr. President, many of us are deeply concerned about the continuing failure of our appropriations for education to fulfill to promise that the Congress and the administration made to pay for the school reforms of No Child Left Behind signed just a year and a half ago.

Make no mistake, the bill before us continues to have harsh cuts in education that will hurt families, students, and teachers throughout the country. These are the children of these workers we were just talking about.

The President and Congress promised to reform and improve public education, to leave no child behind over a year ago. We said to the parents and teachers: Help is on its way. But if we pass the school budget before us, the message to parents and teachers and schools would be: You are on your own.

A pattern is emerging. Each year the President picks a large area to work on in a bipartisan fashion and promises compassion and help. In the past, that area has been in education. This year, it is the global AIDS crisis, and we hope that the promised support will happen. But on education, the promises made consistently have been broken. In fact, the bill before us contains a litany of broken promises on education, because the Republican Congress refuses to keep them:

In January 2002, President Bush promised that ``America's schools will be on a new path of reform . . . our schools will have greater resources to meet those goals.'' But the bill before us cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by $200 million. We have raised standards and raised expectations on school children. We hold schools accountable for better performance. Yet now, the Republican majority wants to cut funding for school reform.

President Bush promised that we would ``leave no child behind,'' and that became the title of the landmark school reform bill he signed into law over a year and a half ago.

But the bill before us leaves 6 million children behind. It underfunds the Title I program for needy children by over $6 billion. Under the Republican education budget, some 6 million needy children will not get smaller classes, will not get supplemental services, and will not get the special attention they need to meet high standards.

In March of last year, President Bush promised to support teachers, making sure they ``get the training they need to raise educational standards.''

But the bill before us cuts 20,000 teachers from professional development programs. It completely eliminates training for teachers in technology. We need to upgrade and expand teacher quality efforts, not downgrade teacher training. The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to give every classroom a high quality teacher. They need more resources, not fewer resources, to reach that goal.

President Bush promised that his Administration ``will promote policies that expand educational opportunities for Americans from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.''

The bill before us undermines support for non-English speaking children and undermines support for many of the nation's neediest children.

The bill before us cuts 32,000 children from English as a Second Language programs.

It cuts 40 percent of funding for the children of migrant workers struggling to get their GED and go to college.

It eliminates dropout prevention funding.

It eliminates the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship program.

This legislation basically does nothing to help families afford college, at a time when the rising cost of college is keeping minority and low-income students out. Average public college tuition rose almost ten percent this past year. The average public university's annual costs now equal more than 62 percent of a working class family income. Each year, over 400,000 college-ready, low-income students do not pursue a four-year college degree, because they cannot afford the cost. Yet this bill has a zero increase in individual student Pell grants, zero increase in the campus-based financial aid program, and zero increase in the college work study program.

After all the promises made and all the public visits to schools, how can we possibly approve a cut to the No Child Left Behind Act?

If we intend to hold schools and students accountable, Congress and the Administration have to be accountable too. We know what works in school reform. When we provide the resources, we know that schools can be turned around. They can upgrade their curricula, provide diagnostic tests that identify learning needs early, train teachers in the latest and best instructional techniques, and give students the after-school academic help and English language instruction they deserve. We have seen hundreds of high-poverty schools across the country turn themselves around with exactly these reforms, because they have the necessary resources to do. We need more, not fewer, resources for school reform, so that the reforms we say we care so much about can actually succeed.

Sadly, the Senate is suddenly starting to move even more harshly in the wrong direction. For the first time in eight years, the Senate education budget is lower than the House proposed education budget. And the House Republican bill falls short by over $8 billion, compared to the amount needed to fully carry out the No Child Left Behind Act. The Senate bill before us is even worse. This bill actually cuts funds for the No Child Left Behind Act.

Obviously, money is not the answer to all the problems of our schools. But the way we allocate resources in the federal budget is a pretty clear expression of our view of the nation's priorities. And the priorities on education reflected in the bill before us--the product of a Republican-only budget process--are profoundly wrong.

I hope a bipartisan group of colleagues will come together as we consider this legislation, and keep the promises we made to help these schools. Our nation and our nation's schools and students deserve no less.

I want to talk about the issue of higher education, specifically. In the area of education, the amendment I offer with Senator Collins increases the maximum Pell grant by $500, increases other financial aid to keep pace with the soaring tuition costs college students and their families are now facing. A coalition of 56 higher education and student organizations throughout the country supports it. The $2.2 billion is offset by the same mechanism the majority uses in the underlying substitute to offset their funding levels. We rescind $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 advanced appropriations made in fiscal 2003 and reappropriate those funds in fiscal 2003.

Our Nation faces a growing crisis in higher education because of the soaring costs of tuition in recent years. The crisis is now far worse because State and local budgets are in crisis, too. Cash-strapped States are dealing with $80 billion in deficits by cutting higher education funds and forcing public colleges to raise tuition. According to a USA Today report last week, over 40 percent of public colleges in America, which educate three-quarters of all college students, are raising tuition by more than 10 percent a year. There has been a $1,750 increase in tuition and fees at the University of Massachusetts. Northern Virginia Community College, which has the most community college students in Virginia, has raised tuition by 45 percent. Iowa has raised tuition by 19 percent at all public colleges. The University of Arizona has raised tuition by 28 percent; the University of Missouri by 18 percent.

Unless this amendment is adopted, over 100,000 current college students are in danger of dropping out because of higher tuition costs and zero increased financial aid.

Hard-working students are threatened, students like Tawn Pham at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. Tawn is 21 years old. He works at the local courthouse. He is a Pell grant recipient. He borrows Stafford loans. His family came to America from Vietnam in 1987. Without financial aid, he would never have gone to college. Without increased financial aid, his college education is threatened by recent tuition and fee hikes. The American dream we all pay homage to is threatened for young students like Tawn Pham because of our threatened failure to increase financial aid.

The answer is not simply to allow students to borrow more and more. Vast numbers of college students are already borrowing, for example, tens of thousands of dollars to pay for their education. Twenty years ago a typical aid package was 40 percent loans, 60 percent grants. Today the figures are reversed. The typical package is now 60 percent loans and 40 percent grants. And students who are pursuing graduate work confront upwards of $120,000 in student loan debt. Yet the banking industry proposed that students borrow even more at higher interest rates to go to college.

Last year the Bush administration proposed to make consolidated student loans more expensive. No young person should have to mortgage their future in order to go to college. They should be paying off the loans they have at lower interest rates, not higher interest rates.

Vast numbers of students are already taking jobs to defray the costs of their education. Half of all college students who take part-time jobs are now working 25 hours a week and trying to be full-time students, too. Their studies are clearly suffering, and so is their future.

According to GAO, only 41 percent of students who work between 20 and 31 hours a week complete a college degree. For students who work 32 hours a week or more, the figure is even worse.

Sadly, this bill provides virtually no new help for students and families struggling to pay the increased cost of higher education.

In the bill before us, there is zero increase in the maximum Pell grant; zero increase in Perkins loans; zero increase in work-study aid; zero increase in campus-based financial aid; zero increase in support for leveraged State student aid.

The amendment Senator Collins and I are proposing is a stopgap effort to provide assistance for hard-pressed college students and their families. It will help the 4.8 million Pell grant recipients whose median family income is $15,000 a year. There are 4.8 million students who are going to institutions of higher learning, and their family income is $15,000 a year. It will bring new Pell grants to 200,000 new recipients. It will expand the TRIO and the GEAR-UP Programs to enable historically underrepresented students to achieve the goal of a college education. It supports graduate students in the science, humanities, and public interest.

It will bring us a step closer to guaranteeing all Americans a promise of education security. Just as we have made Social Security and Medicare a promise to our senior citizens over 60 years ago, we should make education security a promise to young men and women. If you work hard, finish high school, and are accepted for admission to college, we should guarantee you will have the opportunity to earn a college degree.

I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment. Surely we have reached the stage in America where we can say it and mean it--inability to pay the cost will never again be a barrier to the dream of a college education.

I would just point my colleagues' attention to a statement from the administration, an administration policy. I will include the relevant parts--executive branch, September 2 statement, Pell grant programs:

``The bill provides $12.2 billion for Pell grants, $538 million less than the President's request for the high priority program.''

This is the administration saying that the underlying substitute is $538 million below what the President of the United States even requested.

Under the Department's most recent estimates of Pell, the Senate level may be insufficient to cover the cost for student awards in 2004. That's true.

We believe that this amendment that we're offering ought to be accepted. It is related obviously not only to those children who are going on to college, but it also helps and assists GEAR-UP children coming in--which are basically the children who would fit into this category, and helps the TRIO Programs. It gives general support for the education continuum for these children that would otherwise definitely not have the chance to attend higher education.

I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside so that I might offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I understand there are a number of pending amendments, the order of which and

the time of which will be worked out by the floor managers. We wanted to make available to the Members today this amendment. We will obviously work with the leadership and floor managers to have appropriate time for debate and discussion.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I returned this past Friday from a 10-day trip to southern Africa with Majority Leader Bill Frist as well as Senator Warner, Senator Enzi, Senator Coleman, and Senator Alexander. We traveled to South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana, and Namibia. We traveled there to assess each of the HIV/AIDS crises in these countries. We wanted to see where things are now and where we need to go in the future to help them deal with the terrible crisis they face.

The fact is we are in a critical stage in this attempt to help them and other countries fight this global AIDS battle. We passed the global AIDS authorizing legislation a few months ago and shortly we will pass the appropriations bill to fund these programs. As we start to plan how to spend this significant amount of money, we are now at a critical stage. We are at a critical stage because it is so very important that this be done right, that it be done correctly, and that it be done quickly, because millions of lives are at stake.

All four countries we visited have, of course, been designated by the President and now by Congress to be recipients of our global AIDS assistance. So these Members of the Senate wanted to find out how we could most effectively and efficiently give this assistance to these nations, how we could make sure our money would be well spent. In doing so, we wanted to know specifically what these countries' respective governments were doing. We wanted to know what the nongovernment organizations, the NGOs as they are referred to, are currently doing; what the church groups--we refer to them as faith-based groups--are doing; and what the businesses, the private sector groups, are doing as well.

We wanted to know what was the state of the health infrastructure, the public health sector in each of these countries. We also wanted to assess where our own Government was. We wanted to talk to our embassy officials and see how their planning was coming along.

Finally, and certainly most important, we wanted to ask the leaders of these countries--we wanted to talk to their health professionals and social workers, actually the people out in the field in these nations-- what their needs were, what they thought they needed. We asked them: What do you need from us? What can we do to help you do your job to help save lives? We went to the very people who every single day watch the AIDS victims die--the people who try desperately to treat, to help, and to save them, and the people who try to prevent people from coming down with AIDS.

We have some answers.

The spread of HIV/AIDS in poor countries is, as we know, rampant. It is a grave human tragedy. When it comes to the HIV/AIDS crisis, the sheer numbers are staggering. We can't let these numbers numb us. We have to keep reminding ourselves that these are statistics; that behind each one of these statistics are human beings; and that these statistics represent real people, real mothers, real fathers, children and babies. These are real people and real lives.

The statistics are unbelievable. In South Africa, 5 million people are HIV positive. In Mozambique, 13 percent of the people have HIV or AIDS. The disease has created by some estimates 370,000 to 425,000 orphans, and by the year 2010, it is estimated that in Mozambique the life expectancy is estimated to plummet to only 39 years. There are only 524 doctors in the whole country, a country of 18.6 million people.

In Botswana, a nation of 1.7 million people, there is a 38.8-percent HIV rate among those between the ages of 15 and 49. It is a staggering figure. There are 330,000 people, it is estimated, HIV positive, and 18 percent of the deaths in that country are the result of AIDS. Thirty- five percent of pregnant women are HIV positive. By the year 2010, it is projected that the life expectancy rate will be 31.6 years, if nothing is changed, if the situation is not changed, and if there is no intervention.

The next country we visited was Namibia, a nation of 1.8 million people. Twenty-two percent of the adult population has AIDS or are HIV positive. Twenty-three percent of pregnant mothers are HIV positive. By the year 2010, the life expectancy rate is expected to be 39.6 years of age.

We know the statistics. We certainly can learn from them. We can see the victims and we can talk to them and talk to those who care for them. We can do all of these things and still not comprehend the gravity of this human tragedy.

One of Africa's great leaders is Graca Machel, a woman we met within Mozambique. We had a delightful meeting with her for over an hour. She is one of the most articulate persons I have ever met with in my life. When we met with her in Mozambique, she was talking about a country that she loves so well. This is what she said:

I can know the statistics, but I don't really understand

what it means to have 13 percent of my people HIV positive *

* *. [Our countries] are facing extinction * * * and we still

face the worst.

The mind cannot comprehend the gravity of this tragedy. This certainly was for me, and I am sure for all of my colleagues, a deeply troubling, gut-wrenching trip. But it was a very productive trip.

We were accompanied on the trip by President Bush's AIDS adviser, Dr. Joseph O'Neal. His experience and his expertise proved invaluable to us on our trip. Our ability to talk with him, share ideas, go back and forth and compare notes of what we had seen was very valuable.

Each one of us on the trip, I am sure, has come back with different impressions but with a lot of the same impressions. This afternoon I would like to take a few minutes to share with my colleagues some of my thoughts. They are, of course, my thoughts and my thoughts alone. I would guess that there will be a lot of similarities between my thoughts and other colleagues'. But these are mine. These are my impressions and my thoughts from this trip to Africa.

First, time is clearly not on our side. It is not on the side of victims in Africa nor on the side of victims of these four countries. We don't have time. We don't have much time. We don't have time to wait. Facing this global AIDS crisis cannot be business as usual. It cannot be bureaucracy as usual. We cannot treat this crisis the same way we have done with others. We don't have the luxury of time. For each moment that we delay, obviously people die. People are dying as we speak today. They die every moment.

We saw groups in each country, and organizations and individuals, that are ready now to receive our money and our assistance and our help and who are ready to go into action to deal with the problem. We need to get them the money and allow them to get about the business of saving lives. That is good news. And it was heartwarming to talk to them, to see them.

These are groups that have a proven track record. These are groups that are already doing good work. We just need to give them more resources so they can expand what they are already doing.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate, as we do this, we cannot be timid. Quite frankly, we need to take chances. We need to be willing to say that once in a while we will fail with some of these groups, so we need to say to our own bureaucracy: Do not be afraid of failure. There will be some failures. There will be some foul-ups. But we need to move forward. Lives are at stake. And we will hold you--those of us in the Congress--accountable for being timid. Do not be timid. Move forward.

We need to find these groups that can move forward. We saw many of them on our trip. We need to find these groups, these individuals. We need to fund them, and we need to move on.

For example, Dr. Donny McGrath, who is with the Africa Centre, is ready to go. He has a plan for a 5-year program to establish a model HIV/AIDS treatment prevention program in a rural part of South Africa. He has the structural support necessary to pull off this program that could deliver and will deliver care and treatment to this remote area. We met with him. I think everyone was impressed. And he has the structure of the Africa Centre behind him.

Dr. Tammy Meyers, we met with her. She would like to begin providing treatment for children with AIDS out of South Africa's biggest hospital in Johannesburg. We were told actually it is the biggest hospital in the world. The tragedy is, today they are not--with the exception of a handful of kids--giving kids treatment because they do not have the resources to do it. We are told that in the area of Johannesburg, South Africa, there are 6,000 or 7,000 children who right today are dying, children who should be on treatment for HIV, children who have AIDS, who could be receiving treatment but yet cannot get these drugs. Dr. Tammy Meyers would like to move forward. We need to get her that help. We need to give that hospital that help.

The Salvation Army is also doing great work in many of these countries. We were so impressed when we went into a Salvation Army orphanage that was providing drug treatment for children they had under their charge in that orphanage. As an organization, the Salvation Army has a proven track record. As I said, they are involved in many of the countries in the world where HIV is a problem, where AIDS is running rampant. We need to say to groups such as the Salvation Army, who have a proven track record: Tell us what you need. What are the resources you need? Tell us what you can do. Let's work together. Let's save lives.

So there are many things we can do, and we can do quickly, and we need to do it. We need to save lives.

Second, in all four nations we visited, when we asked what the No. 1 need was, almost invariably, no matter who we asked, the answer we got back was: We need training. From the doctors to the nurses, when we talked to people who were delivering services right down at the grassroots level, people pled with us: Give us more training. Train our doctors. Train our nurses. Help us.

The fact is, AIDS treatment and prevention is a specialized field of medical care. We need to put more and more specialists in place, doctors who can train other doctors to fight this disease and provide treatment.

Now, I do not have all the answers as to how to do this, but we need to think about it. And as we do the things we can do quickly and relatively easy--as I said before, plug into the existing groups, the existing organizations that are ready to go right now--at the same time, we have to look at what we do in the long run over the next year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years to deal with this crisis, to answer the call of these countries when people say: We need doctors, specialists. We need the training.

So we need to develop a cadre of doctors. Do we use our Peace Corps? Maybe we use our Peace Corps to do this. Maybe we use the U.S. Public Health Service Corps, revamp it in some way to do this. Maybe what we do is take residents, when they finish their residency in this country, and work out some way so that it is advantageous to them to interrupt their career, in a sense--or really maybe a better way of looking at it is enhancing their career--and give them the opportunity to go and spend a few years working in these African countries, specializing in this area, taking that specialization then and training doctors in these countries--the multiplier effect--so that these countries will then have trained specialists of their own who will stay in their countries and we will help save lives.

That is the type of multiplication and training of doctors we are going to have to think through and figure out over the long run as to how we are going to help them answer that call that we heard time and time again: How are we going to get the training? That is the long run.

No. 3, clean water. On our trip it became very clear just how essential clean water is to fighting AIDS, and also it is essential just to save lives. It is essential to keeping young children alive worldwide. Some 60 percent of all infant mortality worldwide is linked to infectious and parasitic diseases, most of them water related. Furthermore, diseases from dirty water are killing more than 5 million people each year--that is one figure, and I think other estimates, frankly, are much higher than that--while an additional several billion people get sick from unclean water each year.

In just one country, Mozambique, for example, diarrheal diseases are the third largest cause of death in children under 5 years of age. That is the equivalent of 55 deaths per day. Potable water is accessible to only 26 percent of the rural population in Mozambique. Imagine that. Get outside the city, and only one in four of the population has good water, and only 40 percent of the urban population in Mozambique.

The reality is that we cannot effectively treat and fight AIDS without clean water supplies. In impoverished nations, up to 90 percent of AIDS patients suffer from chronic diarrheal diseases, which contribute to an increase in these deaths. One of the complications of AIDS is the development of thrush, which can be alleviated by drinking sufficient quantities of water. Caregivers need to be able to wash their hands before and after caring for an infected person. Mothers infected with HIV/AIDS may choose to use formula to feed their infant children and would need clean water to mix formula.

Providing access to clean water is about the most cost-effective use of our AIDS money because it would provide a double benefit. Digging wells in a village provides the whole village with clean water, not just those stricken with HIV or AIDS.

Providing clean water is a cheap thing to do, and good groups are already doing it. We saw some of those groups during our trip. For example, Lifewater International, a group that we saw, is a partnership of U.S.-based organizations working globally to improve drinking water supplies, hygiene, and sanitation in Third World nations. They are making a difference, and they can do more if we just give them the resources they need. This is a simple and cost-effective strategy, and it is the right thing to do. There are groups such as this all over the world. All we need to do is to take some of these resources, plug into these groups, let them multiply already what they are doing, and we will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

No. 4 of the thoughts I have: Care for the dying. As we focus on saving and prolonging lives, we must not forget the millions who, despite our best efforts, will surely die. Precious little is being done to help them die with dignity. We talked with people who deal with these individuals. We talked with people who see them die. We talked with people who watch them die every day. Those people whose job it is to deal with the dying looked us in the eye and pled with us; they said: Give us the tools, the drugs to allow these people who are dying not to suffer so much and to die with dignity.

The global AIDS bill we passed this May allows us to do this. There are groups out there ready to help, groups capable of helping. We should give them the ability to help the suffering and to help the dying.

No. 5, let me just talk for a moment about government attitude and political leadership in regard to the issue of AIDS. We visited four countries. The governments of Namibia, Mozambique, and Botswana are all fully engaged in this struggle against AIDS. That political leadership is essential in the battle against AIDS. We can only hope the recent public statement by the fourth country, South Africa, in favor of the use of antiretroviral drugs will be followed by an aggressive government attack on the problem.

For those who have not followed this, this is a change in policy. The government in the past had not embraced the use of antiretroviral drugs to treat the AIDS problem. So this has been a change. We can only hope this is a profound change. We can only hope the Government of South Africa will now become much more aggressive in this endeavor.

Some local units of government from South Africa have been aggressive, but unfortunately the tragedy is the central government has not been as aggressive. And while we talked to many people in South Africa who are doing wonderful things, unfortunately there are some people in the South African Government who still would appear to be in a form of denial about this problem. It would appear that progress is being made. We would hope progress will continue to be made.

The sixth point I would like to make is the killing power of stigma. We cannot underestimate the killing power of stigma, people's feelings of shame and disgrace with this disease. Stigma kills. Stigma prevents pregnant women from getting tested for HIV/AIDS. Stigma prevents people from getting treatment. Stigma prevents us from dealing with this crisis head on. There is tremendous denial. People hide the fact they are sick, even if that means risking their lives or even if it means risking the lives of their unborn children.

On our trip we heard doctors speak of women with AIDS who were told they could take drugs that might prevent their child who was about to be born from testing HIV-positive, drugs that could reduce the odds of the children being born with AIDS by 50 percent. Yet despite hearing this news, we heard about some women who left the clinic never to return because of the stigma attached to having AIDS, never to return because of the ridicule their husbands, their family might inflict upon them. That is a horrible tragedy--a stigma so powerful, so powerful these women would risk the lives of their unborn children, something it is hard for us to understand.

I heard a story that was also hard to understand. I talked to a doctor in South Africa who was intimately involved in drug treatment, who had set up a program of drug treatment. He told me a story about a woman who worked in his house. She had worked there for some time. One day she left, disappeared. He couldn't figure out where she had gone. The days went on. Then the weeks went on. After about 7 weeks, he decided he was going to go look for her. So he got in his car and drove to her village. It turned out it was a drive of 7 hours. He drove and drove and got to her village. When he got there and started asking about her, he found that she had died the day before. This is a woman who died from AIDS, a woman who died rather than acknowledge she had AIDS, who worked for a doctor who was treating people with AIDS. As the doctor said to me: I would have paid for her drugs. I would have taken care of her. I would have done anything. But she wouldn't tell him.

That is the power of the stigma that is attached to this. It kills people. She preferred to die alone, hiding her disease.

What is the solution? I don't know that we have a solution, but there are some things we know. First, in these nations, wherever it occurs, we need to educate people, whether it is in this country or any other country. We need to educate people about AIDS. Second, political leaders need to talk openly about the disease. Leaders in Botswana and Namibia and Mozambique have been forthright and up front and open to public discussions about the disease.

Third, we need to have treatment available so people have hope. No one is going to get tested for HIV/AIDS if there is no treatment and you are told to just go home and die. As Graca Machel said: There is ``no effective prevention without treatment.''

People must be able to see that they are getting something themselves. By treating people, it offers hope, and it offers incentive for more and more people to get tested. That, by itself, will save lives. That is the reality, Mr. President.

My seventh thought has to do with children. In the four nations we visited, really we are just barely getting started in providing treatment for children who are HIV positive or who already have AIDS. There are--and it is a good news story--some mothers-to-children transmission preventive programs in

the early stages. We have heard from people who are very thankful to the United States, people who are thankful to President Bush, thankful to us and our country, about these programs. Some of these programs are programs we put in place.

We heard some very good success stories about many of these programs. They show very promising results. With these programs and the drugs they provide, we are seeing HIV/AIDS transmission rates from a mother who has AIDS to a child about to be born, and then born, drop from 30 percent to 5 to 10 percent. What do we mean by that? Well, the doctors tell us that if a mother is HIV positive and she is not treated, the odds are approximately 30 percent that she is going to give birth to a child who will be HIV positive. In these developing countries, with treatment--and usually a fairly simple treatment and it costs about $3--we can reduce those numbers to about 5 to 10 percent. That is a dramatic drop in the number of children who would be born HIV positive. If given the proper medication, the odds go dramatically down.

The challenge, of course, is getting these mother-to-child transmission programs going and then getting the pregnant women into the program.

We also have to face the challenge of treating children who do develop AIDS. That is a different ball game, a different problem. Treatment for these kids is, as I said when I referenced South Africa-- and it is true of all the other three countries--is virtually nonexistent, just like the treatment for adults.

In Johannesburg, to take one example--and you can replicate these numbers or use similar numbers across all of Africa, or at least all the countries where HIV is prevalent--there are 6,000 to 7,000 kids in need of antiretroviral treatment, yet fewer than 100 kids are getting any treatment at all. The good news is that there are good people in the hospitals who are ready now to treat these kids. Dr. Tammy Meyers is ready now to start a program to provide drug treatment for these children.

In conclusion, on this trip we saw the human face of Africa. We saw the human face of AIDS. I have seen this face before in Haiti and Guyana. That human face will remain with all of us who went on this trip after all the specific statistics have faded.

I will always remember Graca Machel telling us about her going out in the rural area visiting a grandfather and his two wives. He is 83 and his wives are 73 and 76. They lost their eight children. They saw them die one by one, each one claimed by AIDS. Now these elderly people are caring for their 30 grandchildren after having lost each 1 of these 8 children. I will remember that.

I will remember watching a young teenager as he described losing his parents to AIDS and then having to go from home to home to home, relative to relative, to see others of his relatives die of AIDS, being handed from one family to another.

I will remember an HIV-positive mother describe giving birth to a child who developed AIDS, a little baby, who died shortly after birth. I will remember watching her describe that child as that child died.

I will also remember an HIV-positive mother who described getting the help she needed, having someone reach out to her, getting the drug treatment she needed before giving birth to her child, and described the joy she felt to know her child was not HIV positive, that her child was a healthy child. We listened to her joyfully describe that child and the future that child now has. Her baby was born HIV free. Her story doesn't need to be the exception.

With our HIV/AIDS money, more and more babies can be born free of AIDS. We need to move quickly. Time is not on our side. We need to move now. We need to invest in the people who are ready to go and in the programs that already work. We need to do all we can to address the human tragedy of global AIDS. We have the ability to ease this suffering, and it is our moral obligation to lead this fight. We are at a critical time in world history. I believe history will judge us well by what we are doing today. It is our obligation at this critical time to make sure that we not only begin this fight--and we have--but that we carry it out, that we stay with it, that we do it effectively, that we do it correctly, and that we stay with it day after day after day.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.