A resolution designating March 25, 2003, as "Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy".

Mr. President, we are awaiting an amendment to be offered. I hope Senators will come and bring their amendments.

I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, AIDS has been a matter of attention by our subcommittee since 1982. It was our subcommittee that initiated the first AIDS research with public funds that I know of in the world. That research is still going on by the Department of Defense. We were looking for some way to prevent the transmission of AIDS. I am sad to say we have not been successful.

In the period just prior to our bill in the eighties, I had listened to a lecture at the Cosmos Club where the lecturer had predicted we would witness AIDS becoming a plague--more than an epidemic; it actually would become a plague. That prediction has become too true, and the President has committed $15 billion over a period of 3 years for our contributions to the AIDS program.

We have in our budget so far total spending of $2.4 billion that is directed to global AIDS spending. I am trying to get the total figures. I think we have over another $2 billion in our total budget directed toward AIDS spending.

It is true that money is going to agencies other than USAID, but in foreign operations, there is $1.5 billion, and Labor, Health and Human Services has $683 million.

My point is, we have an enormous amount of money in the bill before us already for AIDS spending. I am compelled to oppose the Senator's amendment because it transfers from defense procurement and research and development programs to another bill, the Health and Human Services bill and the Agency for International Development, which is in a third bill, the State-Justice-Commerce bill, portions of money allocated by our committee to those two other subcommittees. In effect, Senator Byrd's amendment would transfer from the Defense Department to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State $1.1 billion.

I have to oppose this amendment in the first place because I believe we have already met the commitment of the President. There is no reason I know of to accelerate that and provide more than the $3 billion. We have already committed to--as a matter of fact, because of the request initially, I believe we have in excess of $4 billion in this budget available to us for AIDS already.

The fund the Senator from West Virginia would take the money from is for the modernization of our aircraft. We are trying to modernize this force. We need to replace aging C-130s and the aging C-46 helicopters. We have an enormous number of vehicles and aircraft that have to be replaced because of the damage they have suffered from activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The modernization funding in this account is also for the National Guard and Reserve. We all have some real concern over the amount of money that is already available for those activities. Bluntly, I do not think we can afford to take $1.1 billion out of defense and put it into the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services, or Education--wherever it goes--at this time.

We are going to lose a sizable number of the weapons systems we would otherwise modernize or replace with this $1 billion. I call attention particularly to the fact that despite the authorization and request of the President, we were unable to fund the F-18 fighter the administration seeks to procure. We are unable to fund the total amount of F-22s. We have reduced the number of ships in the Virginia class from seven to five. I am already mentally confused over why we have to be so constricted, but that was the problem in the overall budget. We already have taken $3.1 billion out of the Defense budget and spread it through the nondefense budgets in order to meet the objections that were raised by so many Senators to the allocations we initially intended to make without that $3.1 billion. This would make it $4.2 billion out of Defense.

I say to my friend from West Virginia, we just cannot do that. There is no way we can take any more money out of the funds we have set aside to replace the aging fighters, helicopters, and the equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do have a letter from Dr. O'Neill, the Director of Office of National AIDS Policy. He says this:

By careful design, the President's 2004 budget request is

for $2 billion--

On this set-aside fund. As I said, our accounting is that set-aside fund for global activities is $2.241 billion.

In any event, to continue Mr. O'Neill's letter, he said:

This request was based on the sound judgment that funds in

excess of this amount could not be spent effectively in this

first year. These funds will be spent in a focused manner,

increasing each year, to efficiently and effectively create

the necessary training, technology, and infrastructure base

needed to ensure delivery of appropriate medical treatment

protocols and the long-term success of this initiative.

He stated in another paragraph, and I am pulling sentences out of this letter:

For the reasons stated above, the administration strongly

opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion

requested in the President's FY 2004 budget.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record in full after my statement.

Prior to the President's initiative, the total for AIDS

was $1.2 billion. It is my judgment, because of the amount of money we are spending in all the other agencies to increase our knowledge and ability to deal with AIDS, that this is a proper amount of money. We have the commitment that this money will increase as we get more and more people trained.

We listened to the Secretary of State the other morning tell us about the problem we have in finding people to train and help with the medical problems of the people we are dealing with in terms of AIDS throughout Africa in particular. I thought it was a very moving response he gave to the questions about AIDS.

Very clearly, right now there are two issues in the amendment of the Senator. First, I believe we have met the initial year's objective for the President's global initiative on AIDS. I believe we have an overwhelming amount of money in the total bills before the Congress this year, all 13 appropriations bills, on AIDS. Further, the way the Senator from West Virginia wants to offset this amount, in my judgment, will bring great harm to the area of modernization of our aging equipment and the replacement of the equipment that has been damaged and destroyed by war.

So I am forced to say to the Senator from West Virginia that I am compelled to make a motion to table his amendment at an appropriate time. I certainly do not want to do that before my friend has had a chance to make any comments he wants to make about my comments.

I ask unanimous consent that the schedule of the projection of spending for global AIDS be printed in the Record.

It shows in 2004, $2.040 billion; in 2005, there is $2.540 billion; in 2006, there is $3.090 billion; in 2007, $3.690 billion; in 2008, $3.890 billion. In all, the total is $15.250 billion over the 5-year period. This is a commitment that we will keep.

I think it is wise to start this program on a sound basis. This summary I have had prepared shows all treatment of AIDS and all of our programs other than defense.

The last chart I want to put in the Record shows zero for defense, as far as AIDS is concerned. In the lump sum we have for medical research, I know there is a sum of money that continues to be spent in pursuing the research base for a way to prevent transmission of AIDS, to develop a vaccine for AIDS. That is not disclosed on this, so there is actually more than this in the total amount for the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

Does the Senator from West Virginia wish to make an additional statement before I make a motion to table?

Yes, I have.

Exhibit 1

The White House,

Washington, July 17, 2003.

Hon. Bill Frist,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Frist: It is my understanding that an amendment

regarding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria may

be offered today to the Department of Defense FY2004

appropriations bill currently under consideration on the

Senate floor.

I want to reiterate the Administration's strong support for

the FY2004 budget request of $2 billion for all international

HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria activities, including $200

million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and

Malaria. This request is a solid first step in fulfilling the

President's commitment of providing $15 billion over the next

five years to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, the

Caribbean and around the world.

I recently finished traveling to Africa with the President

where he saw first-hand the positive impact that current U.S.

funding is having in caring for the sick, providing treatment

for individuals living with HIV/AIDS and extending lives. He

also witnessed

the vast infrastructure and capacity challenges that need to

be addressed in order to scale-up many of these efforts.

It is by careful design that the President's FY2004 budget

request is for $2 billion. This request was based on the

sound judgment that funds in excess of this amount could not

be spend effectively in this first year. These funds will be

spent in a focused manner, increasing each year, to

efficiently and effectively create the necessary training,

technology, and infrastructure based needed to ensure

delivery of appropriate medical treatment protocols and the

long term success of this initiative.

These funds are vital to our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS

abroad, but must be spent in the right way, at the right

time. Similarly, efforts to increase funding to the Global

Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria are not appropriate at

this time. Currently, the United States is responsible for

over 40% of all contributions made to the Global Fund. We

have reached a critical time in the Global Fund's

development, and other nations must join the U.S. in

supporting the work of the Global Fund.

For the reasons stated above, the Administration strongly

opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion

requested in the President's FY2004 budget. I appreciate your

unwavering leadership on this issue and look forward to the

continued strong bipartisan support of the Senate in ensuring

the success of this lifesaving initiative.

Sincerely,

Dr. Joseph F. O'Neill,

Director, Office of National AIDS Policy.

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator have a quote that the President would spend $3 billion?

I would like to see that. I would be happy to see that quote.

I don't want to interrupt the Senator.

Mr. President, the subject of how much money it takes to comply with the authorization and requests on AIDS is not a matter for the Defense bill. This is an attempt to take defense money and shift it over to the Health and Human Services bill and the State bill in anticipation that those bills will not meet the satisfaction of those who want to see this money put out on $3 billion a year rather than $15 billion over 5 years.

I understand the motivation for that: to put up more money. But that money is divided between the Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee on the one hand and the State-Justice-Commerce bill on the other hand. Or perhaps some of it might go into the foreign operations bills. I don't know. But it is not defense.

What this is doing is suggesting we take defense money that is needed to replace the helicopters we have lost, to repair damage to the equipment we have had damaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it also goes to eliminate other items that are needed in terms of modernization.

I oppose this amendment for that reason alone right now. I am not prepared to get into the argument about the total amount we have for AIDS, in terms of whether or not there is a commitment for $3 billion a year or $15 billion over 5 years. The point is, as the manager of this bill, my task is to assure we get the money we need for defense.

It is an enormous amount, I say to those who say it is $1 billion, that is true--$1 billion a day. We are spending approximately $1 billion a day for defense globally and that is a whale of a lot of money. I am often reminded of Senator Dirksen saying a billion here and a billion there and it becomes real money. There is no question about it, this is real money.

But this is not the bill on which money is allocated for AIDS under global AIDS. On that basis alone I ask the Senate to support my motion to table the amendment of the Senator. Does the Senator from Nevada wish to speak before I make that motion?

Yes.

Mr. President, I had a conversation with the Senator from Iowa concerning the President's statement. I am informed by a call we made to the President's Director of AIDS Policy that in a background briefing with the press it was plainly spelled out that the President's request for 2004 was $2 billion but that there was an absolute commitment for $15 billion over 5 years.

I will say this. There is no question that the amount of money in this account is higher. This is one of the things I have been trying to say all day, that in this bill are substantial

amounts of money that relate to Iraq. That increase is for the procurement of aircraft, ammunition, and specialized equipment that was destroyed in Iraq. It is not being spent in Iraq, but it is being spent to replenish particularly the special operations command, special operations forces. They consumed a considerable amount of their equipment and supplies. That extra money will be in this account. It will be reduced $1.1 billion if this amendment is agreed to.

It would be my hope Senators would look at this as an amendment to take money from the Defense bill to meet the AIDS obligation. We will be back on this AIDS obligation next week, hopefully, when we get to the Health and Human Services bill.

We had authorized $370 billion in the Defense authorization bill. We have found here $3.69 billion, despite the fact we already took out of this account $3.1 billion and allocated it to nondefense accounts.

I do believe we have performed literally miracles--well, my squadron's motto in World War II was, ``We do the impossible immediately. Miracles take slightly longer.'' So I cannot say this was a miracle, but it sure was doing the impossible to try to find the money to try to meet the objectives of the Defense authorization bill, notwithstanding the fact that we have taken $3.1 billion out of it.

Mr. President, there is no question that there is no one on the floor of this Senate who is more committed to the war on AIDS than this Senator. I do not know how many people understand it. I believe I do understand it in the way that it replicates cells, destroys cells. It really is a total global plague now.

I am proud our President has made this commitment of $15 billion. Instead of standing here and challenging the commitment on the basis we have not provided $3 billion in the first year, we should applaud the President for making the commitment for $15 billion. I applaud him again today for that.

I also hope the Senate will understand we have reviewed every request for equipment that has been made in addition to those items that were authorized. We have allocated the money as best we can. The Senator from Hawaii and I have had no disagreements at all on that.

I, once again, am very proud of the support of my friend. And I do make a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, and I ask unanimous consent that vote on that motion take place at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the minority leader.

I understand that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senator finishes his remarks, I be recognized to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I asked for and have obtained a copy of the transcript that was made at the background briefing provided for the President's speech in Africa. This was made by Dr. Joseph O'Neill, the President's director for AIDS policy. He was asked this question by the press:

Can you clarify something about the money issue? You've

talked about full funding, but no one has yet defined what

full funding is. Is it the $2 billion that the President

originally requested for next year? Or is it the $3 billion

that was in the authorization bill? Or is it something else?

Dr. O'Neill answered:

Full funding and what we are going after is $15 billion

over five years. Our request for this year, 2004, as you

know, is $1.9 billion if you exclude the tuberculosis and

malaria money.

And I want to make a very clear point on this, because it's

something where there has been continuing confusion. We have

requested and will request $15 billion over five years. Now,

in order to be effective with those dollars, we would be

foolish to think we would spend the same amount every year.

In order to do--particularly to do the treatment that is the

cornerstone of this initiative--and I can say this because

I'm a practicing physician myself, I still [see] HIV/AIDS

patients, this is a very tough thing to do--in order to do

that, we need to build a lot of infrastructure, we need to do

a lot of training, particularly of health care workers. So

for the first year, it's going to take less money to get the

job done than it will in the outyears.

So we've always been clear [on that], we've always tried to

be clear that we've always intended to ramp up these dollars

over five years for a total of $15 billion over five [years].

That is the statement on which we relied. Again, I come back to the fact that we are talking, in this instance, about the problem of the other bills that do handle HIV/AIDS and not this bill.

I understand the Senator from West Virginia would like to make a statement. I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to make the statement before I renew the motion to table his amendment.

Mr. President, I renew my motion to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately at the conclusion of the next vote, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Calendar No. 291, Allyson Duncan, to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; provided that there then be 10 minutes for debate equally divided between Senators Dole and Edwards and, at the conclusion of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination without further intervening action or debate; provided, further, that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 294, Louise Flanagan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina; provided that following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session; provided, further, that the time for voting on each of the confirmations of these judges be limited to 10 minutes.

Yes. I so modify my unanimous consent request.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Prior to that time commencing on the nominations, I ask unanimous consent, other than the managers' package which is being cleared on both sides, that the only other amendments to the Defense appropriations bill to be in order will be: Senator Byrd's amendment, with Senator Byrd speaking for 20 minutes and 10 minutes for me; Senator Biden's amendment, 10 minutes for Senator Biden and 5 minutes for me; and I ask further that following disposition of those amendments the bill be read for the third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill without further intervening action or debate.

That means other than the managers' package, the only amendment in order to this bill would

be Senator Byrd on a 30-minute timeframe, 20 minutes for Senator Byrd and 10 minutes for myself; that will follow the 10 minutes of debate on the circuit court judge and the vote on that confirmation.

I, again, renew my request for unanimous consent that following the disposition of those amendments and the circuit judge this bill be read for the third time and the Senate vote on final passage of the Defense appropriations bill with no further intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment which I shall send to the desk shortly.

This January, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a 5-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative. The President received a lot of praise for that announcement, as he should have. AIDS is a dreadful disease which is currently inflicting an almost unimaginable toll on the African continent, devastating entire populations.

Sub-Saharan Africa has been far more severely affected by AIDS than any other part of the world. According to UNAIDS--the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS--in 2002, there were 29.4 million people living with HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa has about 10 percent of the world's population but more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people. In fact, the infection rate among adults is about 8.8 percent in Africa, compared with 1.2 percent worldwide.

More than 17 million Africans have died from AIDS since its emergence, and UNAIDS estimates that by 2020, an additional 55 million Africans will lose their lives to the epidemic. The sheer brutality of these statistics is hard to fathom and must tug at the hearts and souls of all of us in this body.

AIDS' severe social and economic consequences are depriving Africa of skilled workers and teachers while reducing life expectancy by decades in some countries. An estimated 11 million children in Africa have been orphaned by AIDS--having literally watched their AIDS-inflicted parents slowly slip away before their eyes. These AIDS orphans are now facing increased risk of malnutrition and reduced prospects for education. AIDS is being blamed for declines in agricultural production in some nations, and is regarded as a major contributor to the famine threatening southern Africa. The United Nations Development Programme Annual Report for 2003 states that, ``HIV/AIDS is a catastrophe for economic stability and may be the world's most serious development crisis.''

For far too long, the world has turned a blind eye to the suffering on the African continent. Does the United States, as the wealthiest Nation on Earth, not have a special moral responsibility to act to alleviate some of the worldwide misery caused by AIDS? Americans have always been generous and caring people, and I have no doubt that they would expect their elected officials to rise to the occasion and take the lead in ridding the world of this horrid disease, wherever it takes root.

I am pleased by Congress' initial response to the President's call for action to combat the AIDS crisis in Africa--with passage of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. And I was encouraged that our President publicly touted the legislation's passage as a moral triumph.

However, I have seen far too many fancy White House bill signing ceremonies and dressed-up press releases in the last 2\1/2\ years to be entirely confident that this Administration would simply keep its promise to fully fund this legislation. Once the cameras stop rolling and the headlines fade away, this administration seems to have established a troubling pattern of repeatedly making promises but failing to deliver the dollars needed to keep them. The drastically underfunded No Child Left Behind Act and the President's skimpy funding requests to meet our homeland security needs are perfect examples.

Last week, as President Bush visited five African countries, he again pledged that the United States would play a leading role in combating AIDS. The President repeatedly promised to do all in his power to make sure that Congress fully financed his proposed 5-year, $15 billion program to attack the disease in the world's poorest countries. I commend him for having gone to Africa, and for promoting greater efforts to fight AIDS.

He should be held to his commitment to those in Africa who are suffering from AIDS.

Clearly, an expectation has been created that the administration and Congress will provide $3 billion toward this noble initiative in fiscal year 2004, as language explicitly authorizing that amount for fiscal year 2004 is spelled out in the new Global AIDS law that the President proudly signed.

Unfortunately, despite all the recent headlines, photo-ops, and White House promises regarding the African AIDS crisis, the simple fact remains that the President did not put enough money behind his promises, as he failed to include $3 billion to fight AIDS in his fiscal year 2004 budget. That is right! He requested only $1.9 billion, not the $3 billion that the world now expects. That is $1.1 billion less than what he promised.

Just last Thursday, Members of this body went on record, by a vote of 78-to-18, in support of a Sense of the Congress Resolution that stated our intent to provide full appropriations for the $15 billion AIDS initiative touted by our President, including $3 billion in fiscal year 2004.

The lives of millions worldwide are at stake. Now is the time to honor the financial commitment made by Congress and the President to combat Global AIDS. My amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill would do just that by allocating $750 million in fiscal year 2004 to the Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/ AIDS Globally for the purpose of making a contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and $350 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services for programs to combat AIDS overseas. This amendment would be completely offset by a $1.1 billion across-the-board cut in the amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense under Titles III and IV of this legislation for Procurement, as well as for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.

The bill before the Senate includes $73,976,000,000 in procurement spending,

an amount that is $1,255,000,000 above the President's request. This bill also includes $63,565,000,000 for research and development programs, a level that is $1,738,000,000 above the President's request. Certainly, the Senate should be willing to reduce the current procurement and research funding by less than eight-tenths of 1 percent in order to fulfill the President's promise. It is his promise. He had pledged our Nation's help with one of the most dreaded and destructive scourges on the globe. But he is trying to shift the burden to Congress to make up the difference in the underfunded budget request. Congress should step up to this challenge and appropriate the money that we have already authorized by an overwhelming vote.

My amendment would allow us to fulfill the humanitarian promise made by our Government to fight the worst public health crisis that history has ever known with a total $3 billion appropriation in fiscal year 2004.

This amendment would help to alleviate some of the misery endured by millions of AIDS-inflicted families around the globe for roughly what we spend in a single day to fund the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, AIDS is a catastrophe for millions around the globe. What better message can we send than to reduce our behemoth military budget ever so slightly in order to keep our national word to help fight this dread disease. It is the right thing to do. It is the noble thing to do. Let's do it.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the following cosponsors be added.

Mr. President, the cosponsors are Senators Clinton, Pryor, Lautenberg, Murray, and Corzine. I ask they be added.

Yes, I do, and there are other Senators who wish to speak on this.

Has the Senator yielded the floor?

Mr. President, there is ample precedent for across-the- board cuts in the Defense bill. In fact, the language is taken out of section 8135 of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act. Even with these cuts, the procurement, research, and development accounts remain $2 billion above the President's request and $6.7 billion above fiscal year 2003. So the procurement, research, and development accounts are robustly funded.

This amendment provides the funds called for in the 78-to-18 vote last week on the State Department authorization which called for $3 billion.

I understand Senator Harkin wishes to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me reiterate a few things that have already been said. This is not an across-the-board cut on an entire bill. The language here is taken out of section 8135 of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act. In other words, there is ample precedent for the way we are providing the money. Even with these cuts, the procurement and research and development accounts remain $2 billion above the President's request and $6.7 billion above fiscal year 2003. These are real budget funds. Here we have a $368 billion Defense bill. We shouldn't hesitate to reduce it by $1.1 billion to pay for a program as important as global AIDS. I know the administration says it doesn't want that much money this year. The administration prefers doing the ramped-up approach.

People understand simple math. Fifteen billion dollars over 5 years is $3 billion a year. I think we should provide the full $3 billion. People understand that is certainly going to be $15 billion over a 5- year period if we do it $3 billion a year. It is easy to understand that. But by doing the ramped-up approach, it appears that the President is not fulfilling his commitment. I want to help him fulfill that commitment.

I remember, as well as the distinguished Senator from Alaska does, when we were trying to provide moneys for homeland security. We tried to provide moneys for our firemen, our policemen, and our health personnel. We were told by the then-Director of Homeland Security, former Governor Tom Ridge, in a letter that they didn't need that much. It seems that the administration doesn't need the money if some effort is being made on this side of the aisle to provide the money that the administration needs. They know they don't need that then and they come back later and ask for it themselves. They say they need it then.

This is an opportunity to show the world that we mean what we say. This is an opportunity to show the world that the President means what he says.

Here we are quibbling over eight-tenths of 1 percent. We are fiddling over that little measly amount of money when we could adopt the amendment. People of the world would understand what we are saying. They would believe the President is backing up his commitment. Why do we quibble over a few tenths of 1 percent here?

I have made the case.

I ask unanimous consent that certain letters I have received be printed in the Record. These are letters of support for the amendment. They come from the Global AIDS Alliance, the Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations located in Washington, DC, Physicians for Human Rights, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the Center for Health and Gender Equity.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Bingaman and Cantwell be included as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his patience and for waiting until we could finish our statements before he moves to table.

Mr. President, the facts are staggering. More than 5 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS each year. That is 15,000 people infected each day, 625 people infected every hour, more than 10 people every minute--people of virtually all ages, people in every corner of the world. Last year, more than 3 million people died from AIDS. The longer we wait to find a cure, the longer we wait to fulfill the pledge to the global HIV/AIDS trust fund, the longer we wait, the greater the tragedy.

The Byrd amendment would allow the Senate to fulfill the humanitarian promise made to fight HIV/AIDS. This amendment would help to alleviate some of the misery endured by millions of AIDS-inflicted families around the globe for roughly what we spend in a single day to fund the Department of Defense.

This amendment would make good on the Government's pledge to the world and the effort to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. The President promised $15 billion in the next 5 years. Congress has authorized $3 billion for the next fiscal year. But the authorization without appropriation is a will-o'-the-wisp. The President's budget only provides $1.9 billion. This amendment would increase funding for the global AIDS/HIV initiative by $1.1 billion to $3 billion. The amendment would be offset by a $1.1 billion across-the-board cut in the amounts appropriated for the Defense Department procurement as well as for research, development, test, and evaluation. We are spending more than $1 billion a day for defense in this bill. Surely we can afford to spend $1 billion more in a year to combat AIDS and HIV.

I reiterate that a few days ago--last week it was, I believe-- President Bush visited five African countries. He again pledged that the United States would play a leading role in combating AIDS. The President repeatedly promised to do all in his power to make sure that Congress fully financed his proposed 5-year, $15 billion program to attack the disease in the world's poorest countries. This is the President's chance. Why wait? He may not be around here for 5 years. Who knows, right? The President may not be in power for 5 years. He may not be around here 5 years. Why not help him to fulfill his commitment today? Three billion dollars in 1 year--$3 billion--to attack this disease.

On July 10, 2003, the Senate voted in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 78 to 18 to provide full appropriations for the $15 billion AIDS initiative touted by our President, including $3 billion in fiscal year 2004. Now is the time, Senators, to step up to the plate and honor your commitment. Now is the time to help the President to honor his commitment.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote no on the motion to table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Byrd. This amendment fulfills a promise we made to the entire world to fund the global AIDS initiative. When I say ``we,'' I mean all of us--the Congress and the President of the United States. President Bush made this promise to fund the global AIDS initiative at $15 billion, $3 billion per year for 5 years, in his State of the Union Address last January. I was there. I remember when he said it.

I remember after the President made that commitment, everyone-- Republicans and Democrats, House Members and Senators--all stood and gave him a prolonged standing applause for that commitment. The President even signed a bill authorizing this money. We passed a bill saying, yes, we authorize it.

Recently, the President has traveled through Africa restating this commitment, and I was quite taken by the President's words in Africa saying we were going to meet our commitment and we would provide the $3 billion this year. Yet the President neglected to include this full funding in his budget for this initiative. Rather than calling for $3 billion in 2004 that was promised and authorized, the President's budget calls for a mere $1.9 billion, falling far short of the promises he made and we made.

Yet the President is in Africa saying we are going to provide $3 billion. Basically, I think he said we have provided $3 billion. That is what is authorized. We know around here you can authorize anything but until the Appropriations Committee appropriates the money it is meaningless.

Here is the President saying we came up with the $3 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, the African leaders applaud him, thanking him for that, and yet he only put $1.9 billion in the budget.

Millions of people experience pain and suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic. People around the world are being robbed of healthy and productive lives. This epidemic is ravaging families, communities, and economies across the globe, nowhere more so than in Africa. The United States has a responsibility to fulfill the promise we made.

The amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia would uphold our commitment, our promise, to fight the AIDS epidemic and our promise to adequately fund the initiative. This amendment offered by Senator Byrd provides the full $3 billion for 2004, the full $3 billion that the President was taking credit for and touting in his recent trip to Africa. This would be offset by taking the $1.1 billion from the amounts appropriated for the Defense Department procurement and research account. The amendment by Senator Byrd would add to the $1.9 billion the amount of $1.1 billion to bring it to the $3 billion level promised by President Bush on his recent trip to Africa.

Let me be clear: This money is not coming out of the salaries of our troops or the support for our troops. It is not coming out of our work in Afghanistan. This money comes from two titles of the Defense appropriations bill that include $1.25 billion more than the President's budget request.

We are spending in this bill about $1 billion a day for the Armed Forces, for defense. There is no excuse to deny the AIDS initiative that we promised, the President promised, the President touted so earnestly on his trip through Africa. There is no excuse to deny the $1.1 billion more a year to bring it to the $3 billion level.

Again, sometimes I am sure people wonder about what we are doing. The average American probably does not understand the difference between an authorization and appropriation. What is the difference? That is where the confusion is.

Last week the Senate overwhelmingly voted 78 to 18 in support of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that the global AIDS initiative should be fully funded. That means we should fund it at the $3 billion level.

Now the Senate needs to put its money where its mouth is. This is the amendment by which we can do it. It does not detract anything from our troops. It comes out of an account that is even $1.25 billion more than the President's budget request.

We all just returned from a joint session of Congress and we listened to Prime Minister Tony Blair speak. I thought it was a fine speech; maybe even more than that. I thought it was a very good speech in all of its aspects. But there was one aspect that pertains to what this amendment is about. Prime Minister Blair said at one point in his speech that we cannot--we, being the United States--walk away from our other commitments in the world aside from national security. He mentioned specifically the AIDS catastrophe that is happening throughout Africa. He said we have to meet our commitments and our responsibilities there, and he got a standing ovation for that.

It is nice to give standing ovations to the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he says we should meet our responsibilities to meet the AIDS crisis. It is nice to vote for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we should fully fund it. It is nice to even vote for the authorizing bill authorizing we fully fund it.

But there is another thing that Prime Minister Blair said that I thought was worth noting. I am paraphrasing because I don't have the speech; I am just remembering it. He said something about our reputation, about making sure we stood strong for what we believed in and that we stand up to what we have committed to. If we do not, then what is the rest of the world going to think? They will think, OK, that is what the United States says but the only thing the United States ever backs up is military action. I hope it does not boil down to that, that the only thing we ever back up in terms of commitments is a military commitment. We ought to look upon the other commitments in the same light. Once we make the commitment and we make the promise, we fulfill it and we keep it. This is one that compels us to give an overwhelming vote to the amendment offered by Senator Byrd. This is the amendment that does it.

I know there will be arguments saying we cannot take it out of defense. As I pointed out, it comes out of an account that is $1.25 billion more than what the President even requested.

Now is the time to stand up and be counted. Now is the time to back up our reputation for being a caring nation and for being a nation that stands behind its word. We gave our word. The President, 2 weeks ago, gave his word in Africa for $3 billion and yet we have

only come up with $1.9 billion. Now is the time to come up with the full $3 billion.

I yield.

I don't have the quote but I will get it for you in a short amount of time. The President, if I remember right, said in Africa that we have--again, I am paraphrasing; I don't know if I have the right word--but we have pledged $3 billion this year to fight AIDS in Africa. He said that in Africa.

I will get my staff to run it down.

I yield the floor.

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

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I just want to clarify something to make the record as clear as I can. Earlier in my remarks, I had said the President, traveling in Africa, had stated that he wanted the full $3 billion for the AIDS funding in Africa for this year. The chairman of the committee had asked me about that, and I had said that I would come up with the documentation. Well, it is sort of half of this and half of that. I will admit now that the President did not specifically say: ``$3 billion.'' I wanted to admit that for the record.

However, the President did say--and I will quote his words exactly-- on July 12, in Abuja, Nigeria:

The people of Africa are fighting HIV/AIDS with courage.

And I'm here to say, you will not be alone in your fight. In

May, I signed a bill that authorizes $15 billion for the

global fight on AIDS. This week, a committee of the House of

Representatives took an important step to fund the first year

of the authorization bill. And the Senate is beginning to

take up debate.

And here is the key language:

The House of Representatives and the United States Senate

must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people

on this continent of Africa. . . .

Well, to ``fully fund this initiative.'' I have a copy of the authorizing language. The authorizing language says, specifically, under paragraph A(2):

Authorize the appropriation of a total $15 billion for

fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Specifically, the act authorized $3 billion to be appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for HIV/AIDS and related programs. So, specifically, the authorizing bill authorized $3 billion in this coming fiscal year. The President said:

The House and the Senate must fully fund this initiative.

He may not have said $3 billion, but what he said must mean $3 billion because that is full funding of the bill for next year. It is right, he didn't use $3 billion, but he said he wanted it fully funded. If it is fully funded, it must be $3 billion for this next year.

Secondly, the Secretary of State, on a briefing in South Africa, was asked a question:

The House Appropriations Committee today cut back the first

year's funding from about $3 billion to about $2 billion.

And Secretary Powell answered:

I would, of course, have preferred full funding of the

President's request to make the best use of the money that

Congress has provided for this. And I'll wait and see the

congressional action and see how this ultimately emerges from

the Congress.

So here we have the President saying he wanted it fully funded. He says:

The House and Senate must fully fund this initiative.

That can only mean that we must come up with the $3 billion. So while the President didn't specifically say $3 billion, that is the full import of his words that he spoke in Africa.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President I will speak for a very few minutes on this same issue and indicate my strong support for the amendment Senator Byrd has offered.

As my colleague, Senator Harkin, indicated, I strongly support this amendment. I believe this is the obvious follow-on to the vote we had last week where 78 Members of the Senate agreed when appropriations bills did come to the Senate we would vote to fully appropriate the funds that were authorized in the United States Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. That was legislation we passed earlier this year that I strongly supported. It did provide $15 billion worth of funds. It authorized $15 billion worth of funding for this purpose. It was a follow-on to the President's State of the Union speech.

In the State of the Union speech, the President committed this country to this initiative. I strongly supported it. Then, as a follow- on to that State of the Union speech, we passed the authorizing legislation which, as I understood it, said we will appropriate $3 billion a year for 5 years in order to fight this terrible epidemic of infectious disease we see around the world.

From my perspective, the question is whether we consider this to be an urgent problem. If we do consider it to be an urgent problem, then I think the funding that was laid out in that authorization bill is the right funding. I was surprised to hear the quotations from the letter Dr. O'Neill has sent on behalf of the administration indicating the administration does not want $3 billion this first year, 2004. It does not want $3 billion the second year, 2005. And only in the later years is the administration going to be requesting $3 billion or more in order to make up the full $15 billion.

That would be an appropriate approach to a problem that is not urgent. That would be an appropriate approach to a problem we can just as well deal with 3 years from now as today. But this issue is not that type of problem. This is an urgent problem. Accordingly, I think it is entirely appropriate that we try to fund this AIDS initiative the way it was designed in the authorizing legislation, the way the President signed off on it in the authorizing legislation, and the way I thought all of us had agreed to proceed with it.

The statistics are devastating. We have gone through those to great lengths here, the number of teachers who are being lost because of HIV/ AIDS, the number of people who are going untreated with HIV/AIDS in Africa because of lack of resources. The global AIDS fund is desperately in need of additional resources. We have committed $200 million rather than the full $1 billion that was anticipated we would commit this year.

We can, obviously, fall back on a 5-year plan and say: Look, we never did intend to give you $3 billion the first couple of years. We are sorry if you misunderstood us. But the truth is most Members of Congress and I think most Members of the Senate--I certainly can speak for myself. When I voted for the authorizing legislation, I assumed we were going to appropriate the funds we were authorizing in that bill on that schedule in order to get to the $15 billion. That was my assumption.

I can understand the reluctance to take any funds out of the defense budgets. I have supported defense budgets virtually every year since I have been in the Senate. I intend to support the budget again this year. But this is a very small amount. This is funding which can readily be replaced in a supplemental. There will be a defense supplemental down the road. We have all talked about that. Most of the discussion in the last 2 days is how we have the defense supplemental coming. We have already passed one this year. We will have another one next year. This is a very appropriate place for us to identify some funds we can use for this urgent need.

In its January 2000 report, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States, the CIA noted that over the next 20 years HIV/AIDS and associated diseases in sub-Saharan Africa would:

. . . kill up to a quarter of their populations . . . (and)

this will further impoverish the poor . . . and produce a

huge and impoverished orphan cohort unable to cope and

vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization.

The estimate predicted increased political instability and slower democratic development as a result of AIDS.

According to the World Bank:

The illness and impending death of up to 25 percent of all

adults in some countries will have an enormous impact on

national productivity and earnings. Labor productivity is

likely to drop, the benefits of education will be lost, and

resources that would have been used for investments will be

used for health care, orphan care, and funerals. Savings

rates will decline, and the loss of human capital will affect

production and the quality of life for years to come.

More than 30 percent of teachers are HIV positive in parts of Malawi and Uganda, 20 percent in Zambia, and 12 percent in South Africa. AIDS is killing people at middle and upper levels of management in both business and government; the trained personnel to replace them are not available.

Without a workforce, there is no productivity. Without productivity, a country's economy quickly deteriorates and the government collapses into chaos. All too often, terrorism and fanaticism springs forth from this chaos and begin to spread outwards from its birthplace, inflicting damage and destruction on other countries.

HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases.

AIDS has serious implications for issues of security in Africa, since HIV infection rates in many armies is extremely high. Domestic political stability is threatened when security forces become unable to perform their duties due to AIDS. Peacekeeping efforts on the part of more stable African nations are at risk as well as rates of infection among the peacekeeping troops grow. While he was in Nigeria last week, President Bush said:

We will not allow terrorists to threaten African peoples or

to use Africa as a base to threaten the world.

If we underfund the efforts to fight HIV/AIDS and its associated disease, we will be allowing just that.

The HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria pandemic in Africa is an international emergency. While visiting Botswana last week, President Bush declared:

This is the deadliest enemy Africa has ever faced, and you

will not face this enemy alone.

Congress conveyed the same message last week in passing an amendment that asserted its belief that nothing short of full funding for HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria should be appropriated. The Byrd amendment allows us to do just that, and to do so without cutting vital services to other international health programs. The funding to do this would result from a .079 percent cut for all programs and activities within Title III and Title IV. These two Titles are receiving $3 billion more in funding than President Bush requested in his budget for fiscal year 2004. The Byrd amendment allows full funding for international HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria programs. It allows the promise made to be a promise kept. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases.

I hope very much we can support the amendment of Senator Byrd. I hope it will get the same 78 votes we got for the sense-of-the-Congress resolution last week when we talked about whether we were going to appropriate money on the same schedule and at the same level we had authorized money in the earlier legislation this year.

I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. I will certainly support it and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support this amendment of my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

A couple of months ago, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the President spent a good deal of time talking about the global AIDS crisis, the worst public health threat in human history. I commend him for that, and for going to Africa, which highlighted the devastation caused by AIDS there.

President Bush has shown real leadership on AIDS, although it is important to mention that a bipartisan group in Congress has been pushing for stronger action on AIDS for years.

A short time after the President's Coast Guard Academy speech, we passed the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act, which authorized $15 billion over 5 years to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That was consistent with what the President proposed in his State of the Union address back in January. It was an important step. It showed that we are beginning to take the AIDS pandemic seriously.

But that was an authorization bill. It did not appropriate any money. For all intents and purposes, it was like writing the check with out enough money in the bank.

Let me explain. The President's budget request contains only $1.9 billion of the $3 billion we authorized for AIDS for fiscal year 2004. $1.9 billion is a good step, but we should do more. It remains to be seen whether the promise of that authorization bill--a promise with which I agree--will be fulfilled.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is the first real test of that.

The United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act also called for up to $1 billion for the Global Fund to fight AIDS and TB and Malaria. Again, a promise. For fiscal year 2004, the President has only budgeted $200 million for the Global Fund, which is one-fifth of the amount authorized. It is also a cut of $150 million from what was appropriated last year.

There is another problem. While the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for Foreign Operations includes approximately $1.3 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in HIV/ AIDS programs, as the President's budget would cut other essential international health programs from 5 to 63 percent.

Child survival and maternal health programs are cut by 12 percent. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to reduce the 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths each year that could be avoided. Instead, the President's budget cuts these programs by 12 percent.

It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like measles. Measles kills 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million children a year. Again, this is something which is easily preventable. Every one of us can just go to the doctor's office and get our children and grandchildren immunized against measles. In many poor nations, parents and grandparents do not have that luxury. They need our help.

The President's budget cuts funding for programs which combat measles, polio, SARS, ebola and other deadly diseases by 32 percent.

These are not my numbers, these are the administration's numbers. These numbers are in the President's budget.

These cuts will hurt children the most in countries where vaccines costing a few pennies make the difference between life and death. That is not acceptable.

If somebody said to us, look at those five children, you can save their lives by spending a dollar, would we do it? Of course, we would do it.

These are not Democratic or Republican programs. I have been joined time and again by colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support these health programs in both the Senate and the House.

Anyone who knows anything about public health knows that building the health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if you are going to effectively combat AIDS. It is the same thing with child nutrition. It is the same thing with maternal health. You don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't an either/or proposition. People who are malnourished, who are in poor health, who have weak immune systems, who are at risk of other infections, are far more vulnerable to AIDS. It is common sense.

Mr. President, we hear a lot of speeches here. We may feel good about giving those speeches, but I do not feel

good about lofty rhetoric that bears little resemblance to reality, especially when it deals with a catastrophe like AIDS. The President's budget falls short. The allocation for Foreign Operations falls short. We have to do something.

Senator Byrd's amendment builds on an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman to the State Department Authorization a couple of weeks ago. That amendment, which passed 78-18, called for full funding--$3 billion, for the first year of the President's $15 billion AIDS initiative, even if it means exceeding the budget ceilings. This amendment does not exceed the ceilings.

This amendment would provide full funding of the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act. It is what we said we would do. Senator Byrd's amendment would do it.

His amendment would provide the additional $750 million we authorized for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. And it would provide $350 million for CDC and NIH programs to combat AIDS. That is what we said we would do when we passed the AIDS authorization bill, and again when we passed the Bingaman amendment.

If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign aid budget. We are going to have to start keeping our promises.

Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources. Leadership is not a press release.

Let's stop the rhetoric. Let's do what needs to be done to stop the 15,000 new HIV infections that occur each day. Then the United States can show the promise and the moral leadership a great Nation should show.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.