Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003, S. 1879. I am pleased to be sponsoring this bill with Senator Ensign and our bipartisan cosponsors. This important bill is about saving lives. That's what the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get treatment and be survivors.

Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. I authored MQSA over 10 years ago to improve the quality of mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law, there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained. Inspections were lacking.

MQSA set Federal safety and quality assurance standards for mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a suspicious finding on her mammogram. Now it is time to renew MQSA and lay the foundation to strengthen it even further.

The bill passed by the Senate today will extend MQSA for 2-years. This 2-year reauthorization of MQSA is important. It will give Congress an opportunity to consider in the next reauthorization expert recommendations from an Institute of Medicine, IOM, study and a General Accounting Office, GAO, report on several issues related to MQSA. I have been working with the Labor, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to get these studies underway. The IOM study was included in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. The HELP Committee also heard testimony in support of a 2 year reauthorization at its hearing last year on MQSA.

This legislation is also supported by groups including the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, and the American College of Radiology Association.

I thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for their support and help in moving this legislation through the Senate. I hope that the House will move quickly to pass this important bill. It is estimated that over 217,400 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and over 40,500 breast cancer deaths will occur in the United States this year. Early detection and treatment are important to reducing breast cancer deaths. Congress should pass this bill to reauthorize MQSA and extend this valuable program that helps save the lives of women and men with breast cancer.

I thank the Senator, who, like me, is a strong supporter of the International Fund for Ireland. As the Senator from Vermont knows, peace and reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland, under the Good Friday Agreement, will be assisted by efforts to build community institutions that promote tolerance and cooperation at the local level. I very much appreciate IFI's investment in these types of programs in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland. I want to particularly commend IFI for the grant awarded to the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, formerly the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. I would urge IFI, where appropriate, to increase its investment in these community-building efforts, as they are an important complement to IFI's economic development efforts.

Mr. President, I voted to continue debate on the Omnibus because I believe we need to explore alternatives. Let me be clear: I want this bill to pass. I am proud of the work we did on the VA-HUD subcommittee to help our veterans, protect our environment, rebuild our communities, but I believe we need to pause.

We need to take a break and problem solve. There should be an alternative between passing an Omnibus that contains terrible provisions and a one year continuing resolution that would underfund so many of our priorities.

There must be a way to compromise and go back to the original seven appropriations bills, negotiated on a bipartisan basis, before provisions were added in the dead of night, outside the usual and customary conference procedures.

The Omnibus includes critical funding for our Nation's veterans. Working on a bipartisan basis, Senator Kit Bond and I increased funding for VA health care by $1.5 billion over the President's request.

We said no to the administration's proposal to charge our veterans a $250 membership fee for their healthcare. We said no to higher deductibles and co-payments. With record numbers of veterans seeking medical care through VA, with soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a duty and responsibility to care for them. Promises made must be promises kept. The Omnibus funding bill allows us to keep our promise.

The Omnibus also includes increased funding for AmeriCorps--$444 million--an increase of $170 million over last year the highest funding level ever.

With this funding, more volunteers will serve our communities teaching in our schools, tutoring and mentoring our children, rebuilding neighborhoods, restoring parks, all while earning money to help pay for college, and learning the habits of the heart that make a difference for America.

The Omnibus adds $500 million for the Clean Water revolving loan fund, and another $6 million to improve water and sewer infrastructure that directly helps clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

Let me tell my colleagues what this means in my State of Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay is part of our heritage. It also source of jobs from the watermen to the restaurant owner. Yet the President's budget cut funds for this critical infrastructure program. That's why I fought to provide $1.35 billion for water and sewer construction.

This funding means a cleaner Chesapeake Bay and new jobs right away-- high paying construction jobs that will put people back to work clean our environment and prevent cost shifting to our local communities.

We have a chronic shortage of nurses in America. This bill contains a $30 million increase for the Nurse Reinvestment Act--legislation I wrote that provides scholarships to nursing students in exchange for 2- years of service in areas that need nurses most.

The Omnibus increases funding for special education by $1.2 billion. This is an important step toward the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations. When IDEA first became law, the federal government promised to pay 40 percent of the cost.

But Federal funding has never topped 17 percent that means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special ed, by cutting from other education programs, or by raising taxes. I do not want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs.

We need to make up the difference and help relieve a crushing financial burden on local school districts.

I fought hard to improve this bill to meet the day to day needs of Marylanders and the long range needs of our Nation.

So why do I want to pause--before we pass it?

Because we can do better. I want time to discuss and explore alternatives to provisions that were added in the dead of night and that cause real problems.

I believe the best social program is a job. You should be paid if you work. You should be paid overtime if you work overtime.

Yet the Omnibus allows the administration to gut overtime protections for 8 million American workers. The Bush proposal means workers will have to work long hours for less money.

It hurts nurses, police officers, fire fighters who are already stretched to the limit. This provision hurts working families struggling to make ends meet.

The Senate voted to block this provision. The House supported our efforts.

But then, in the dead of night, the administration strong-armed conferees to strip our protections out of the bill.

The administration should not be able to overturn the will of Congress without debate and without a vote.

The administration did the same thing to federal employees--twisting arms and going outside the usual and

customary process to push an anti-worker agenda.

The White House has a plan to contract out as many federal jobs as possible. It is a political agenda, masquerading as management reform. The Administration's plan for privatization costs money, costs morale, and costs the integrity of the civil service.

They have changed the rules to favor their contractor cronies, and now they have violated the democratic process. They know they do not have support in Congress or from the American public for their privatization agenda.

So they are using bully boy tactics and back room politics to bypass Congress and overturn a bipartisan compromise.

Let me tell my colleagues, what happened. During an appropriations conference, the House and Senate agreed to a bipartisan compromise that fixed some of the problems with OMB's new unfair contracting out rules but still recognized the importance of competition.

The compromise did not fix every problem. And it did not stop contracting out. But I supported it because it was fair, and I thought it was a good start.

My Republican colleagues supported it. And the White House supported it as well.

Yet now, the White House has gone back on the deal. They slipped a provision into the Omnibus spending bill that guts the bipartisan compromise and leaves us with meaningless ``improvements''

This is disgraceful. The contracting out provisions in the Omnibus roll back workers' rights--the right to appeal a contracting out decision, the right to competitively bid on their own jobs. It even rolls back the requirement that contractors have to save money.

That is not what we agreed to in a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. We had an agreement that these three things were important. But OMB did not like it, because it would have given workers a fair shot.

Our country faces a new threat--the threat that mad cow disease will contaminate our food supply.

But, instead of taking this seriously, and doing everything possible to keep our food supply safe, the administration pushed to delay the country-of-origin labeling for meat products, overriding the will of the Senate.

Labeling of meat and meat products was supposed to go into effect this year, based on provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill. With this labeling, consumers could make an informed decision about what they purchased and what to feed their families.

Even with the first case of mad cow in the United States, administration will not back down from protecting its special interests friends. They made sure the Omnibus kept language delaying implementation of labeling for 2 years.

The Omnibus also rolls back existing gun laws and ties the hands of law enforcement. The Brady law requires that gun records be held for 90 days, yet this bill allows Government to destroy records after only 24 hours.

These records are kept for a reason--to help law enforcement track down weapons used in a crime, and to keep law breakers from buying guns.

The rollback provision also blocks the public from seeing critical information, even if they were the victim of a gun crime. If these rollbacks were in place last year, families of the DC sniper victims would not be allowed to know where the sniper got his gun and the questionable practices of the gun shop. Without this information, they would effectively be denied their day in court.

These provisions were not raised in the Senate. They should not be forced through in an omnibus.

I voted against cloture so the Senate has more time to discuss these important issues and explore the alternatives.

The American people deserve our best effort, not an omnibus rushed through in a single day.

There are serious problems with this bill--problems largely created by an administration that runs rough-shod over the democratic process and the will of Congress.

I am volcanic about how the final version of this bill was written.

As a member of the Appropriation Committee, I know first-hand the hard work and honest effort at bipartsanship went into the 7 appropriations bills.

All that went out the window once the administration forced itself into the room.

The underlying bill is a good bill that does a lot of good things.

We need to find a way to get back to those things and move forward for the good of America.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Julie Ellis LeMoult, an extraordinary young woman from Bethesda, MD.

This past spring, Julie Ellis LeMoult, loyal, compassionate, understanding and forgiving friend passed away far too early at the age of 28. Her death has dimmed the light of all who knew her: her husband, Chris LeMoult; her parents, Bruce and Donna Ellis; her sisters, Sheri DeLorenzo, Andrea Lynch and Christiane Ellis, and her many, many friends in Bethesda and all across the country.

Julie is irreplaceable. She dedicated her short life to maintaining and exalting humankind by paying tribute to each person's individual gifts. Above all, Julie was always selfless and strived to draw on and draw out the best in everyone she met.

The third of four children and the daughter of an entrepreneur who catered to kings, queens, presidents, diplomats, charitable causes and private social functions, Julie was raised in Bethesda, MD and attend Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School.

In December 1996, Julie graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University where she received a business degree in 3\1/2\ years while playing lacrosse. She excelled in her academics through fortitude and perseverance, overcoming a childhood struggle with dyslexia. Her self-esteem remained intact because of her athletic abilities, providing her swimming, diving, basketball, softball and lacrosse teams with the highest excellence of leadership and sportsmanship. Julie's stride and form as a runner exhibited her most memorable style of athletic grace.

In 1997, Julie worked for Hambrecht and Quist in San Francisco before returning to Maryland to join Discovery Communications where she was an invaluable member of its corporate affairs and communications department.

As an adult, Julie became a knowledgeable resource for many people experiencing panic and anxiety disorders and was able to recommend The Ross Center of Washington, DC, and the Midwest Center for Anxiety, Stress and Depression to those who sought her counsel.

Julie Katherine Ellis married Christopher M. LeMoult of Cape Code, MA, in September 2001. She delivered their baby boy, Logan Donnelly, in April 2003. Her life as a mother allowed her to be with her son for only 8 hours before unknown complications took her life.

In addition to her beautiful smile and peaceful nature, Julie's greatest legacies are her son Logan and her ability to open up her heart unconditionally to family, friends, acquaintances and strangers alike in the hope of making their lives better while expecting nothing in return.

The sorrow over Julie's loss is accompanied by the abundance of joy that exists in the memories her family and friends share, her life that they celebrate and her love that will live on. At Thanksgiving and always, Julie's parents, sisters, husband, son, family, friends and colleagues are grateful for the brilliance of her life. Julie Ellis LeMoult will never be forgotten.

Good morning, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to use such time as necessary to complete my statement.

Mr. President, this was a day I had always looked forward to, a day where the Senate would be voting on a prescription drug benefit. I have devoted my life to the advocacy of senior citizens and to standing up for ordinary people to make sure they could make sure that government was on their side when they needed it, when they were at risk. But today I come to this vote with indeed a heavy heart.

The bill the Senate is voting on today is a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. This bill talks big but delivers small. It promises prescription drugs to seniors yet it will create a skimpy benefit for the middle class, cause 2.7 million seniors who already have drug coverage from their employer to lose their coverage, set up the stage to force seniors into HMOs which means seniors could lose the doctors of their own choosing, provides lavish subsidies to insurance companies, creates tax dodges for those making over $250,000, while doing absolutely nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

When I voted for a bill in June, it was a modest but genuine bipartisan effort. I believed it was a start. For years Congress had talked about Medicare. But talk, talk, talk; when all was said and done, more got said than got done. And you can't talk your way out of diabetes; you need insulin. You can't talk your way out of high cholesterol; you need Lipitor. So I thought Congress should move on. But when I voted for the bill, I said that was as far as I would go. I said when the plan came back, if it helped the insurance companies instead of seniors, goodbye to my vote. I said if it increases costs for seniors, say goodbye to my vote. And if it limits benefits, say goodbye to my vote. On all three of these points, this bill falls and fails.

I am going to say that people who say this is a first step--well, it is a step in the wrong direction. If you take the wrong step, you can fall flat on your face. Some believe it is the best we can do. I don't believe that. I believe we can do better, we can do better now, and we can do better next week. We are 45 weeks away from adjourning from this Congress. We have 45 weeks to do a bill that will benefit seniors, protect seniors, protect the integrity of the Federal budget and be able to get the job done.

Seniors don't do better under this bill. It is skimpy. You have a premium of $420 a year, a deductible of $250. You pay $670 a year. When I sat and figured it out, you have to spend $1,000 to get $1,000 worth of drugs. Let me tell you what bothers me also. When you spend up to a drug cost of $2,250, then the Government says the gap between $2,250 and $5,100--your Government says we cannot afford to help you. That is a $2,850 coverage gap. This is while you are going to continue to pay your premiums. You keep on buying your drugs. Your Government says it cannot help you. While you are paying that premium and paying for your drugs, the Government will keep paying those HMOs. This bill leaves too many seniors in the coverage gap.

In my home State, 200,000 people will fall in this coverage gap. Some call it a donut. I call it a poison pill.

I have looked at what it means for those who already have prescription drug benefits. I truly believe that 400,000 Marylanders will be at risk from losing their private plans--whether it is from a Government employer or a private sector employer. I am talking about factory workers and teachers. I am talking about secretaries and firefighters. This bill could dilute or even destroy these benefits over a lifetime.

Often, workers took these benefits instead of pay raises. They chose the promise of a secure health retirement instead of increased pay. I am very concerned that they could lose their benefit. Employers are already being crushed under the weight of health care costs.

In 1998, 48 percent had prescription drug benefits, and now only 28 percent have those employer-sponsored health care coverage. Now, why is this a problem also?

The other very troubling provision in this bill is it has an absolute prohibition on allowing the Government to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices. This bill does nothing to save money on drug costs. In fact, it does the opposite. This bill prohibits the Government from negotiating lower prices. Page 54 of this bill--read it.

But, we already do it. I am the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee. I know what the VA does. The VA uses its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. That means we get a 25-percent reduction. It is not price control. It doesn't shackle innovation. It is good management. By the VA negotiating those prices, it is good for the VA to be able to afford to provide drugs, and it is good for the veteran to be able to afford to buy their drugs. Why can't we do this everywhere?

I will tell you, while we give these subsidies, while we have the skimpy benefit, it provides lavish benefits to insurance companies and HMOs; $12 billion in subsidies to private insurance plans to subsidize their participation, forcing them into HMOs in the future--$12 billion. What is the consequence? It

means if you are forced into an HMO, you are going to lose your doctor. You will get the doctor that a bureaucrat tells you you should have rather than the doctor you want to have.

It also creates tax dodges for those making over $250,000, the so- called health savings account--another $6 billion, which they should be paying taxes on. But oh, no, it is one more gimmick, a tax dodge. If you take that $12 billion plus the $6 billion, it would give us $18 billion to close the coverage gap. Instead, we have tax dodges and bonuses to insurance companies rather than a better benefit for the seniors.

I know what some seniors are asking: Barb, why are you going to vote against this bill? I need help now. I need a prescription drug coverage now.

Senior citizens in Maryland have told me that they don't even buy green bananas. They don't want to wait. I want to ease your worry about prescription drug costs. I want to give you something real. For the next 2 years, all you are going to get is a 15-percent discount card, while insurance companies and HMOs are going to get $12 billion from the Government, and there will be this tax dodge for those making over $250,000.

To the seniors of Maryland, I am going to vote against this bill. I am not voting against you. I am voting for you so that you have the benefit that you need. We have an affordable program for the U.S. Government. We can hold our heads up high, but know that when my name is called, I am going to vote no on this bill and, yes, that we can do it better, and we can do it better tomorrow.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Delegate Pete Rawlings. He was a big man with a big heart--who leaves an indelible mark on the people of Maryland.

The Baltimore Sun said Delegate Rawlings had ``the passion of a civil rights activist and the analytical mind of a mathematician combined with the savvy of a backroom pol.'' I think that captures him perfectly.

Delegate Rawlings used America's unique opportunity structure to build a life of accomplishment and of service. But more importantly, he expanded that opportunity structure for thousands of others. In over a quarter century in the House of Delegates, Pete Rawlings was known as a man of principle who put his principles into action.

Mathematician and politician, educator and leader, Pete Rawlings may be best remembered for his untiring advocacy to improve education for all. He was an unfailing advocate for education. He used his power and influence to provide an unprecedented State commitment to education, a $1.3 billion commitment that the State recognized it would be constitutionally bound to fulfill. Maryland's schools are better today because of Delegate Rawlings.

The passing of Delegate Rawlings is a tragedy, but his life was a triumph. His wife, Dr. Nina Cole, and his children, Wendall Rawlings, Lisa Rawlings, and Councilwoman Stephanie C. Rawlings Black are in my thoughts and prayers.

I ask that an editorial from the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Congressional Record.

The editorial follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 16, 2003]

Pete

He'd thunder and preach, he'd deplore and beseech, he'd

count pennies and votes and usually come out on the money.

With the death Friday of Del. Howard P. ``Pete'' Rawlings,

Maryland lost an extraordinarily gifted leader and one of the

most accomplished politicians of his era--known for both a

tight fist and a caring heart.

Mr. Rawlings' intellectual grasp of policy detail and

instinct for mastering the levers of power propelled him to a

top post in the General Assembly. His greatest contributions

arose, however, from his willingness to take on the unpopular

yet critical tasks of fiscal management.

He never forgot his West Baltimore constituents, yet he had

the rare courage to sometimes tell them no.

Such was the force of his conviction that he managed not

only to survive such battles but to prosper. His remarkable

legacy includes a new generation of political leaders he

mentored along the way.

As a freshman delegate, part of a tiny minority of black

lawmakers, Mr. Rawlings claimed his seat on the House

Appropriations Committee in 1979 and immediately started

breaking the rules. He publicly questioned every spending

item, including those dear to the hearts of his committee

mates, wanting to know what good the money would do for ``his

people.''

Colleagues rolled their eyes. Who was this guy? They were

used to machine-backed black legislators who were reliable

votes, and to the ``screamers'' who would grandstand in

protest of the system but never get anything done. In Mr.

Rawlings, they found the passion of a civil rights activist

and the analytical mind of a mathematician combined with the

savvy of a backroom pol.

He was quickly tagged as a ``comer,'' was named to a

subcommittee chairmanship and by 1992 was awarded the gavel

of Appropriations Committee chairman.

Running Appropriations in Annapolis isn't like in Congress,

where the bounty flows seemingly without limit. In Maryland,

the budget has to balance. Mr. Rawlings made it his business

to try to ensure the taxpayers' money was being spent wisely.

He battled with Baltimore mayors and officials of Morgan

State University. He authored reforms in education, housing

and health care. He brought home the bacon as he saw fit.

The strongest testimony to his style may be his endorsement

of Martin O'Malley in the 1999 mayoral race against black

competitors, thus awarding the job of running a majority-

black city to a white politician Mr. Rawlings thought better

qualified.

Much of Mr. Rawlings' success stemmed from the sense that

he was not interested in power for its own sake, but for what

he could accomplish. That, and a deep bass voice that boomed

with such moral authority it seemed to come from the heavens.

His passing robs Baltimore of its most effective and

empathetic advocate. All of Maryland, though, is poorer for

his loss.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2200 to Amendment No. 2150

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2193

First, we acknowledge the very able Senator from Minnesota has offered an amendment for the full funding of the Wellstone Memorial in this year's appropriation.

We acknowledge the vigorous advocacy of Senator Dayton for not only Minnesota but for his dear and beloved colleague, Senator Wellstone, of happy memory. We all remember with great melancholy that terrible day when Senator Wellstone lost his life. We promised we wanted to have a permanent memorial to the legacy of truly an extraordinary American. I assure the Senator from Minnesota and all the people of Minnesota, we have the will to help complete this memorial. We are a little tight on the wallet.

I wonder if the Senator would accept essentially a 2-year funding promise, that we fund this this year at $500,000 and that next year we complete it with $700,000. This way it keeps the money in the pipeline so the memorial can be sure it can meet its bottom line, and that we can continue to stay the course on creating this most appropriate memorial to our beloved colleague.

Would the Senator accept that as a way of keeping the process moving forward but understanding that we are a bit tight this year? I know, because the Wellstone legacy was in championing veterans, I say to my colleague from Minnesota, we have been able to add $1.3 billion, and if I know our colleague, that is what he would be happy about.

But we are not going to abandon the memorial, either. Does this sound like a reasonable, rational, and acceptable approach?

I further say to my unflagging colleague from Minnesota, this $500,000 will not come out of other Minnesota projects. OK? The memorial to Senator Wellstone is a national project of national impact and, therefore, will not impact upon the Minnesota projects which are also so important and needed.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I might say to the wonderful distinguished whip and my colleague from Missouri, at 2:30 the Senator from Maryland, along with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, are receiving a national award. It will occur in Statuary Hall.

It is really important, if the Senator from Arizona could come next, we could finish this bill. It will be very awkward to try to do the bill at 2:30. I will be here. I will give up the reception of this award. It is really awkward when we are ready to go. I respect the impeccable credentials of the Senator from Arizona on national security. We know what he wants to offer. We could deal with this now and have him present his arguments and our rebuttal, and perhaps do this before the luncheon recess. We would like to get this done before the Senate recesses for the year.

Mr. President, we have fully funded the VA including a $1.5 billion increase over the President's request for VA medical care.

We have provided $28.5 billion for medical care, a 12 percent increase over last year's level. with no deductibles, no co-pays, and no membership fees for veterans. Promises made to our veterans must be promises kept and we have kept our promises to veterans in this bill.

In the area of housing and community development, we continue our commitment to core housing programs, including Community Development Block Grants, HOME, HOPE VI, and Section 8. These programs provide flexible funding for local communities for a range of activities, such as new rental housing, rehabilitation of dilapidated properties, and child care centers.

Last year, CDBG funds created or retained over 100,000 jobs nationwide.

We also keep our commitment to the environment helping local communities protect their citizens' health and their environment.

EPA helps communities by cleaning up Brownfields, improving air quality,

and fixing water and sewer systems. We provide $8.2 billion to the EPA, $105 million above last year, and $500 million above the President's budget request.

In water and sewer needs, communities all across the country are faced with aging water and sewer systems. The costs of fixing and maintaining these aging systems continue to increase. That is why Senator Bond and I worked together to restore the administration's $500 million cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund.

We have also fully funded environmental cops on the beat so that we catch polluters who threaten public health and the environment.

We have provided a record amount for Americorps, $340 million, so that Americorps can enroll more volunteers to serve in our communities.

In NASA, we provided the full amount for the Space Shuttle--$3.9 billion. Senator Bond and I have always made the Space Shuttle safety a priority.

The bill also funded all major programs in space science, earth science, and aeronautics.

In order to keep our manufacturing jobs here, we increase our investment in the National Science Foundation. We win the Nobel Prizes, and they win the markets. That is why we provide NSF with the largest budget in its history.

We have increased funding for education to attract and train more scientists, engineers and teachers of science.

Again, I joined this Subcommittee to meet the needs of our veterans, empower communities, and create new jobs. This bill has accomplished all three goals.

I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond for the wonderful job he has done on this bill on the part of representing the Democratic side. I thank him for all the courtesies and collegiality. Most of all, I thank him for really not playing politics with veterans health care, as I did not. As we approached this bill, when it came to looking out for veterans health care, we weren't the Republican Party; we weren't the Democratic Party; we were the red, white, and blue party. Therefore, we could raise the funding for veterans medical care by 12 percent with no deductibles, with no new deductibles, no new copayments, and no membership fees. That was due in large part to our mutual advocacy and the wonderful cooperation of Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd.

I joined this subcommittee for two reasons: To meet the day-to-day needs of my constituents--our veterans--housing, the environment; and the long-range investments needed for our country in science and technology. I believe we have accomplished both.

I also thank the staff who enabled us to do this: On my own side, Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin, Alexa Sewell, and Jennifer Storipan; and the staff of the distinguished Senator from Missouri: Jon Karmarck, Cheh Kim, Allan Cutler, and Rebecca Benn.

I also thank the floor staff of both the majority and the minority who helped us expedite the bill. No kinder words could be said by me than to express my gratitude to Senator Harry Reid, the whip on our side, who really also helped bring this bill to closure. This is why we come to the Senate, to try to use the taxpayers' money in a wise way. It keeps promises made to our U.S. veterans, but adds value to our country, whether through empowering neighborhoods, protecting the environment, or investing in science and technology so we not only win the Nobel Prizes but we win the markets.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senator Ensign and

our bipartisan cosponsors. This important bipartisan bill is about saving lives. That's what the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get treatment and be survivors.

Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. I authored MQSA over ten years ago to improve the quality of mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law, there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained. Inspections were lacking.

MQSA set federal safety and quality assurance standards for mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a suspicious finding on her mammogram. Now it is time to renew MQSA and lay the foundation to strengthen it even further.

The bill that I am introducing with Senator Ensign today is a bipartisan agreement to extent MQSA for two years while making two additional changes to certificates that facilities are required to have to perform mammograms. First, the bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a temporary renewal certificate for up to 45 days to a facility seeking reaccreditation, if the accreditation body has issued an accreditation extension and other criteria are met. This will help ensure that a facility is not forced to close its doors to women seeking mammograms, while it is completing its reaccreditation and the quality of mammography is not compromised.

Second, the bill allows the Secretary, at the request of an accreditation body, to issue a limited provisional certificate to a facility to enable a facility to conduct examinations for educational purposes while an onsite visit from an accreditation body is in progress. This certificate would only be valid during the time the site visit team from the accreditation body is physically in the facility and would not be valid longer than 72 hours.

The two year reauthorization of MQSA is important. It will give Congress an opportunity to consider in the next reauthorization expert recommendations from an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study and a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on several issues related to MQSA. I have been working with the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to get these studies going since I included them in the Senate fiscal year 2004 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. The HELP Committee also heard testimony in support of a two year reauthorization at the HELP Committee's April hearing on MQSA.

As I talked to advocacy groups about ways to improve MQSA, the need to improve the skills of doctors reading mammograms was brought to my attention. One study found that a woman has a 50 percent chance of getting a ``false positive'' reading from her mammogram over 10 years. I'm gravely concerned about reports that doctors miss about 15 percent of breast cancers on mammograms. I was also disturbed by a New York Times investigation last year. It found that some radiologists were missing alarming numbers of breast cancers because they lacked the experience or training they needed for the difficult task of interpreting the X-ray. These are reasons why I requested the hearing that the HELP Committee held in April on this issue. While I am disappointed that the HELP Committee was not able to reach agreement this year on a continuing medical education provision to address this issue, I look forward to Congress reexamining this issue once the IOM and GAO studies are completed.

The IOM and GAO will look at several important issues such as: ways to improve physicians' interpretation of mammograms; possible changes to MQSA regulatory requirements; ways to ensure the recruitment and retention of sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel to provide quality mammography; how data currently collected under MQSA could be better used; and factors that led to the closing of mammography facilities since 2001. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to examine the recommendations from these studies in 2005 and to consider further improvements to MQSA in its next reauthorization.

The HELP Committee will mark up this bill tomorrow. This legislation is supported by groups including the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the national Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, and the American College of Radiology Association. I strongly urge Committee passage and swift Senate passage of the bill later this week. I hope that the House will also expeditiously pass this bill. There are an estimated 212,600 new cases of breast cancer and an estimated 40,200 breast cancer deaths in the United States this year. Early detection and treatment are essential to reducing breast cancer deaths. Congress should pass this bill this year to reauthorize MQSA and extend this valuable program that helps save the lives of women and men with breast cancer. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

American Cancer Society,

November 18, 2003.

Hon. Barbara Mikulski,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the American Cancer

Society and its more than 28 million supporters, I would like

to thank you, along with Senator Ensign, for your continued

leadership in sponsoring the ``Mammography Quality Standards

Act of 2003.'' As the largest national, community-based

organization dedicated to eliminating the incidence and

burden of cancer and improving cancer care, the Society

strongly supports the reauthorization of the Mammography

Quality standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) in the remaining days of

this session.

In addition, we believe a two year reauthorization is

appropriate at this time, as we continue to examine methods

for mammography quality improvement. Currently, funding has

been included in the LHHS Appropriation bill for the

Institute of Medicine and General Accounting Office to study

and recommend concrete improvement to MQSA. When the results

of these studies are released, we look forward to again

working with the Congress to further improve MQSA and ensure

that women's access to high quality mammography continues.

The American Cancer Society, along with other professional

societies and advocacy groups, was actively involved in the

development of the 1992 MQSA law and its reauthorization in

1997, in an effort to further reduce deaths and disability

from breast cancer. Mammography screening has led to earlier

detection of breast cancer when it is in its most treatable

stages, thereby providing a greater chance for life-saving

treatments and a greater range of treatment options.

Increasing utilization of mammography has been a major factor

in the reduction of breast cancer deaths in the U.S. over the

last decade. Based upon ongoing scientific evidence and

improvements in technology, high-quality mammography

continues to be the best available tool for the early

detection of breast cancer. Therefore, the Society is honored

to again lend our support to Congress in its commitment to

ensure that women have access to high-quality mammograms.

The Society would like to commend you again for your

leadership on this critical public health issue, and we look

forward to continuing to work closely with you and the other

cosponsors to ensure the enactment of this important

legislation this year. If you or your staff have any

questions, please contact Kelly Green Kahn, Manager of

Federal Government Relations (202-661-5718).

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Smith,

National Vice President, Federal & State Government

Relations.

Wendy K.D. Selig,

Vice President, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senator Ensign and

our bipartisan cosponsors. This important bipartisan bill is about saving lives. That's what the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get treatment and be survivors.

Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. I authored MQSA over ten years ago to improve the quality of mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law, there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained. Inspections were lacking.

MQSA set federal safety and quality assurance standards for mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a suspicious finding on her mammogram. Now it is time to renew MQSA and lay the foundation to strengthen it even further.

The bill that I am introducing with Senator Ensign today is a bipartisan agreement to extent MQSA for two years while making two additional changes to certificates that facilities are required to have to perform mammograms. First, the bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a temporary renewal certificate for up to 45 days to a facility seeking reaccreditation, if the accreditation body has issued an accreditation extension and other criteria are met. This will help ensure that a facility is not forced to close its doors to women seeking mammograms, while it is completing its reaccreditation and the quality of mammography is not compromised.

Second, the bill allows the Secretary, at the request of an accreditation body, to issue a limited provisional certificate to a facility to enable a facility to conduct examinations for educational purposes while an onsite visit from an accreditation body is in progress. This certificate would only be valid during the time the site visit team from the accreditation body is physically in the facility and would not be valid longer than 72 hours.

The two year reauthorization of MQSA is important. It will give Congress an opportunity to consider in the next reauthorization expert recommendations from an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study and a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on several issues related to MQSA. I have been working with the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to get these studies going since I included them in the Senate fiscal year 2004 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. The HELP Committee also heard testimony in support of a two year reauthorization at the HELP Committee's April hearing on MQSA.

As I talked to advocacy groups about ways to improve MQSA, the need to improve the skills of doctors reading mammograms was brought to my attention. One study found that a woman has a 50 percent chance of getting a ``false positive'' reading from her mammogram over 10 years. I'm gravely concerned about reports that doctors miss about 15 percent of breast cancers on mammograms. I was also disturbed by a New York Times investigation last year. It found that some radiologists were missing alarming numbers of breast cancers because they lacked the experience or training they needed for the difficult task of interpreting the X-ray. These are reasons why I requested the hearing that the HELP Committee held in April on this issue. While I am disappointed that the HELP Committee was not able to reach agreement this year on a continuing medical education provision to address this issue, I look forward to Congress reexamining this issue once the IOM and GAO studies are completed.

The IOM and GAO will look at several important issues such as: ways to improve physicians' interpretation of mammograms; possible changes to MQSA regulatory requirements; ways to ensure the recruitment and retention of sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel to provide quality mammography; how data currently collected under MQSA could be better used; and factors that led to the closing of mammography facilities since 2001. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to examine the recommendations from these studies in 2005 and to consider further improvements to MQSA in its next reauthorization.

The HELP Committee will mark up this bill tomorrow. This legislation is supported by groups including the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the national Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, and the American College of Radiology Association. I strongly urge Committee passage and swift Senate passage of the bill later this week. I hope that the House will also expeditiously pass this bill. There are an estimated 212,600 new cases of breast cancer and an estimated 40,200 breast cancer deaths in the United States this year. Early detection and treatment are essential to reducing breast cancer deaths. Congress should pass this bill this year to reauthorize MQSA and extend this valuable program that helps save the lives of women and men with breast cancer. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

American Cancer Society,

November 18, 2003.

Hon. Barbara Mikulski,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the American Cancer

Society and its more than 28 million supporters, I would like

to thank you, along with Senator Ensign, for your continued

leadership in sponsoring the ``Mammography Quality Standards

Act of 2003.'' As the largest national, community-based

organization dedicated to eliminating the incidence and

burden of cancer and improving cancer care, the Society

strongly supports the reauthorization of the Mammography

Quality standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) in the remaining days of

this session.

In addition, we believe a two year reauthorization is

appropriate at this time, as we continue to examine methods

for mammography quality improvement. Currently, funding has

been included in the LHHS Appropriation bill for the

Institute of Medicine and General Accounting Office to study

and recommend concrete improvement to MQSA. When the results

of these studies are released, we look forward to again

working with the Congress to further improve MQSA and ensure

that women's access to high quality mammography continues.

The American Cancer Society, along with other professional

societies and advocacy groups, was actively involved in the

development of the 1992 MQSA law and its reauthorization in

1997, in an effort to further reduce deaths and disability

from breast cancer. Mammography screening has led to earlier

detection of breast cancer when it is in its most treatable

stages, thereby providing a greater chance for life-saving

treatments and a greater range of treatment options.

Increasing utilization of mammography has been a major factor

in the reduction of breast cancer deaths in the U.S. over the

last decade. Based upon ongoing scientific evidence and

improvements in technology, high-quality mammography

continues to be the best available tool for the early

detection of breast cancer. Therefore, the Society is honored

to again lend our support to Congress in its commitment to

ensure that women have access to high-quality mammograms.

The Society would like to commend you again for your

leadership on this critical public health issue, and we look

forward to continuing to work closely with you and the other

cosponsors to ensure the enactment of this important

legislation this year. If you or your staff have any

questions, please contact Kelly Green Kahn, Manager of

Federal Government Relations (202-661-5718).

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Smith,

National Vice President, Federal & State Government

Relations.

Wendy K.D. Selig,

Vice President, Legislative Affairs.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I acknowledge the validity of my colleagues' concerns and look forward to working with them to try to address these concerns in conference and with Secretary Principi.

No objection.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank Senator Bond and the distinguished Senator from California for her graciousness as we proceed on both the bill and an amendment of Senator Bond and her advocacy in behalf of the State of California. Her advocacy on the issue is well known, but I know she also has pragmatic solutions. I also appreciate that she did not object to bringing this bill forward. We thank her very much.

The veterans need this bill. We need it to protect America's environment. We need it to empower communities, and we need to invest in science and technology that helps us come up with new ideas for the new products that are going to lead to new jobs right here in the United States of America.

The Presiding Officer knows about the loss of jobs in our country and the way we are going to not only have the jobs today, but also the jobs of tomorrow, is by coming up with these new products. We know we win the Nobel Prizes, but now we have to start winning the markets.

I am so pleased to bring the VA-HUD bill to the Senate floor with my dear colleague, Senator Bond. This is truly a bipartisan bill. I thank Senator Bond for his cooperation and collegiality in developing the framework for this legislation, as well as Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd who worked with us as we tried to deal with a very spartan and frugal allocation in these tough economic times. We really appreciate Senator Stevens trying to problem-solve with us on how we can meet the compelling needs that are in this legislation.

One of the most compelling needs is VA. During the August recess, I traveled to VA clinics all over Maryland, from the rural parts of my State all the way up to metropolitan areas, meeting with doctors and nurses, but also with veterans. What did I see? Outpatient clinics at capacity, waits to see specialists, and, at times, driving long distances to travel in rural areas. Everywhere I went, they all said they were being swamped by new veterans seeking care.

They are anticipating the return of the Iraqi war veterans, not only Jessica Lynch, but others who come back bearing the permanent wounds of war knowing that they are going to need the permanent help of the VA. We want to be on their side to stand up for that help.

We also saw that many people who had health care but lost their jobs or were forced into early retirement turning to the VA. When we took a look at the VA budget, we found that the President's request was about $1.5 billion under what we needed to deal with the waiting lines, the new Iraqi vets coming back, and also the fact that we need to take care of those category 7 veterans, those World War II veterans. So we need more money in VA. We tried to take care of this on the Iraqi supplemental, but that was not the time nor the place, and we count on working with the leadership, under Senator Stevens, to solve this problem. We have come a long way in this VA-HUD budget in dealing with this issue.

While we stand up for our veterans, we also want to stand up for our communities. This is why the HUD budget offers promise to the area of housing and community development. We continue our commitment to core housing programs. We particularly are enthusiastic about the Community Development Block Grant Program because it goes to local communities; it is flexible funding where the local community decides where the public investment

needs to go to leverage jobs or to rebuild communities. This is why we like CDBG, whether it goes to North Carolina, to those small rural communities in Alaska, or to a big city such as Baltimore. Because of what we have done, we have helped retain over 100,000 jobs nationwide.

It is also the same for a program called HOME, which has created in the past 10 years over 700,000 affordable housing units. We are going to continue in this bill the longstanding commitment to renew all section 8 vouchers and also to keep the HOPE VI program going. So we are looking out for building housing, building hope, and providing access to the American dream.

We are also in this bill fighting to protect our environment. We are helping EPA by providing the right funds to clean up brownfields, improve air quality, and fix water and sewer systems. I am particularly proud of the way we have continued on a bipartisan basis to fully fund the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Where we would like to do more is in the water and sewer program. Every Senator has come to us, along with every Governor, to say: Increase water and sewer money. The communities need it to protect public health and the environment, but we also need it, say the Governors and the local officials, because this will also create jobs. We are under so many EPA-unfunded mandates that essentially this will push problems onto the local ratepayer.

We have funded water and sewer projects, but I am going to be offering an amendment to increase it even by $3 billion more.

We also have to have very strong enforcement of environmental laws. So we must not skimp on enforcement, and I will be supporting an amendment by Senator Lautenberg on this issue.

Then we go to national service. This bill also empowers communities through national service. Working with Senator Bond, we cleaned up a terrible accounting mess. The President has responded and given us new leadership, but right now we are working to increase the volunteer program. We continue to need additional funds and better management.

At the same time, we are working on NASA to return our space program to flight, but we want to ensure, as always, the safety of our astronauts, and we are absolutely committed to implementing the Gay-Min commission report so that when we go back to space, our astronauts will be safe.

Space science: This is where we look at big breakthroughs, whether it is Earth science, work at NASA Goddard, or the Hubbard telescope, but also Senator Bond and I worked to increase funding of aeronautics by $50 million.

In 1980, the U.S. had 90 percent of the commercial aviation market. Now we are down to 50 percent. This is unacceptable. We have to make sure we make airplanes in this country, and we come up with the best ideas and the breakthrough technology, not only for smart weapons of war, but where this is translated into the commercial airline business where we can fly and ensure that passengers are safe, but also maintain this manufacturing base. So Senator Bond and I put in $50 million for increased aeronautical research.

At the same time, we have put money into the National Science Foundation to make sure we have that farm team of the next generation of scientists and engineers, but also in breakthrough technologies, investment in biotech, infotech, and a marvelous new field called nanotech that could create thousands of new jobs.

Imagine that wonderful wedding ring the Chair has on, that our former colleague Senator Dole gave. As she looks at that ring, just know that that is the size of a supercomputer when we move our nanotechnology further ahead, that the entire Library of Congress will be in something less than the size of my earring. Is this not phenomenal?

There will come a day when someone will be able to take one little pill-like item a day, or even a month, and that nanotechnology will be an ongoing monitor for the diabetic, for the high blood pressure person, for the stroke-prone person and be able to send alerts to a doctor's office. This is what lies ahead.

We will not only be saving lives or collecting information, but what we will be doing is winning the Nobel Prizes and winning the markets and these products will be manufactured in this country and will revolutionize the world.

This is what VA-HUD is all about, standing up for our veterans, rebuilding communities, protecting the environment, answering a call to national service, making public investments in science and technology. So I am pleased to support this bill, along with my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond. This is a bipartisan bill. This is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. This is a red, white, and blue bill. We hope it moves expeditiously through the Senate with a few of the amendments we are proposing.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I am here to stand up for our troops. I am going to vote for the Defense Authorization Act because it will give our troops the tools they need to fight the battles today and in the future. Every day our soldiers are fighting a war on many fronts, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq soldiers are risking their lives every day, while their loved ones at home are praying for their safe return. Our troops are making grave sacrifices, some losing their lives in service to our Nation. Their families, their husbands and wives, parents and children, are also making sacrifices. It is the responsibility of Congress to provide the weapons, vehicles, and tools that our soldiers need to be an effective fighting force.

But I also stand up for those who are protecting the United States of America--our brave, our gallant Federal employees who are out there every day on the front line. I am here to defend the rights of hard- working civilian employees in the Department of Defense. When I stand up for America, I want to be able to stand up for what America believes in. And that includes basic rights for workers.

I think it is terrible that the DOD is using it's budget, which is so vital for our troops, as a cover for undermining the basic rights of dedicated employees. This bill creates a completely new--and completely unfair--personnel system for civilian Defense Department employees. The new system undermines the collective bargaining rights of civilian personnel. It weakens the rights of DOD employees to appeal personnel decisions to an independent body. It rejects the current salary system, and seeks to replace it with one that will leave workers vulnerable to the whims of their supervisors. It even takes away the guarantee of overtime, weekend, holiday, and hazardous duty pay. We should not put a system in place that distracts Federal employees from doing their jobs and requires them to play office politics.

This new civilian personnel system will seriously undermine morale, and opens the door to cronyism and political patronage. I am tired of the attempts by this administration to replace our effective civil service system with one that rejects the rights of workers. The thousands of civilian Federal employees at the Department of Defense are concerned about the security of our country, and work hard every day to ensure that our fighting forces are the best in the world. Many

have served on the front line in the war on terrorism, and have lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am ashamed that the Defense Department wants to take away their basic rights as workers.

I think it is terrible that I must choose between supporting our troops and supporting our civilian Federal employees. I am tired of the cynical manipulation of this process. I feel like I am being set up-- that if we stand up for the workers, we are somehow or another getting in the way of national security. I am going to support the 2004 Department of Defense Authorization because it is important to our Armed Forces. You can count on me to continue to fight for everyone who is making sacrifices for our Nation. Our troops and our civilian Federal employees deserve no less.

Madam President, I thank Senator Bond and Senator Stevens for working very closely with us to ensure that promises made to veterans are promises kept. This $1.3 billion is a dire need. I am ready to give my consent to this amendment, and the veterans of America will be happy because of it.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first, I compliment our two colleagues from New York on their advocacy for veterans and the attempt to work to form a bipartisan coalition and for being concerned about mental health services and long-term care, as well as the rural needs.

I say to my two colleagues, we on the VA Committee have to be concerned that we are in the veterans health care business and not in the veterans health real estate business. So we want to advocate for services, not for buildings.

I think the Senator is also aware that we just had to work very hard to forage to come up with the $1.3 billion to meet the compelling needs for our veterans. I ask the Senator from New York, with her very strong advocacy and the support of a bipartisan list of cosponsors, would she consider a different approach--that, perhaps, report language be in the bill acknowledging the validity of the concerns raised by her, Senator Enzi, and others, talking about the need for long-term care, and pay attention to this as well as the rural health care?

I say to my dear and esteemed colleague, the CARES project or process is due December 3. To make these recommendations, some of which are quite excellent--inclusion, participation, et cetera--would derail CARES. It could affect our spinal injury programs or more outpatient clinics. I know it could have unintended consequences.

Would the Senator consider an alternative other than having the vote on the amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this colloquy be extended for another 5 minutes.

Mr. President, there has been a review of the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Lautenberg amendment. He is absolutely right. This money is needed because it essentially restores funding for the environmental cops on the beat. We wanted to do this in our bill, but circumstances shackled us from doing so.

This is a good amendment. We are happy to accept it. I thank the Senator for his longstanding advocacy in this area.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2173 to Amendment No. 2150

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

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It does two things. It says the Corporation for National Community Service must change the rules. It protects the integrity of the grant process by preventing corporation officials from disclosing sensitive grant information and insists that any changes for rules for volunteer programs must have public comment.

One of my guiding principles is that people have a right to know, to be heard and to be represented. The Mikulski-Bond amendment upholds this principle. It ensures that the public gets a meaningful chance to comment on decisions that affect their communities and the volunteers who serve them.

Recently, National Service tried to change the rules for AmeriCorps. I was very troubled by the corporation's actions for two reasons: the process and the policy. My first concern was the process or actually the lack of a process. The corporation acted behind closed doors without input from Congress, volunteer advocates, or the communities they serve. States, communities, and advocates were told they had just 1 business day to review sweeping new rules, to ask questions about them, and to offer suggested changes. The corporation ``jackpotted'' advocates, volunteers, States, and local communities.

My second concern is policy. The AmeriCorps rules changes would hurt communities who depend on volunteers by eliminating support for long- standing, successful volunteer programs and by increasing financial and administrative burdens on communities and volunteer organizations.

I commend the board of directors for stepping in to stop the corporation. But it is clear that the corporation needs specific direction to ensure that the public has a right to be heard. The corporation doesn't have a Senate-confirmed CEO. We are working on a bipartisan basis to get David Eisner confirmed as the new CEO, but the staff must not make rule changes without leadership and public comment.

This amendment is good process, and good policy. It makes sure that the public has an opportunity to comment on any changes to National Service programs. And the amendment protects the integrity of the National Service grant process.

I thank Senator Bond for working with me on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his strong efforts to reform the fiscal and sloppy practices that are at the corporation. The volunteers are terrific, and now with the new CEO, I think we will be able to move ahead.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I concur with my colleague.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2175 To Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I have no objection. This has been a longstanding issue raised by our colleague from Alaska. It is a very compelling situation.

This is an excellent amendment. We concur.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2177 To Amendment No. 2150

I concur with the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2178 To Amendment No. 2150

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase funding for our communities for our Nation's waste system. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It adds $3 billion to the VA-HUD bill for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure. My amendment increases funding in the EPA clean water State revolving loan fund to $3 billion, over $1.3 billion. My amendment also increases funding in the EPA drinking water revolving fund from $850 million to $2 billion.

When I offer this amendment, I want to be very clear. I am in no way critical of the effort the committee has made. I have been part of the effort. I congratulate Senator Bond for his robust funding for water and sewer systems. I thank him for his hard work on this issue. But we simply did not have enough money in our allocation. The budget cut $500 million from the President's budget from the clean water State revolving loan fund. Senator Bond and I worked together to restore that $500 million, and we are very grateful for that. But the Nation calls out for more.

Our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their effort to provide clean water and safe water and to comply with Federal environmental mandates. The need for better water and sewer systems is much greater than the amount that we now have in the Federal checkbook.

There have been studies, and studies after that, and the needs have been real and valid and have been validated by independent research.

The Federal Government must do more to help meet these needs. Failure to do so places a great burden on the local taxpayers because it shifts the responsibility to them. We have created an unfunded Federal mandate. At the same time, the lack of proper water and sewer threatens public health and environmental safety. Our State and local governments are also revenue-starved to meet these mandates.

Let me tell you about some of the studies.

In fiscal year 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network said our water and sewer systems will face a funding gap of $12 billion over the next 20 years. GAO said the cost to really do our water and sewer systems the way they need to meet not only environmental but public health concerns will be $300 billion over 20 years. There is study after study after study that validates this.

In my own State of Maryland, there is $4 billion in unmet needs. This isn't Senator Barbara Mikulski talking; this is the State of Maryland speaking. Our Eastern Shore and rural communities are trying hard to reduce harmful nutrients that pollute the Chesapeake Bay. Every time they increase their bonding authority to pay for unfunded mandates, it means one less school or one less highway. But the needs of Maryland are a cameo of the needs of the Nation. We are simply not putting enough money in the Federal checkbook for water and sewer systems.

In my own hometown of Baltimore, our sewer system was built over 100 years ago. We are under a court order instituted by the EPA to rebuild it. It will cost $1 billion to do this. In order to be able to do this, ratepayers will pay the bill.

This is an issue where growing green also generates jobs.

The second reason this amendment is necessary is that it creates jobs. It is estimated for every $1 billion we spend on water infrastructure, 40,000 jobs are created, from the civil engineers and architect who design on it, to construction contractors, to heavy equipment manufacturers, and even those who run the lunch wagons at the job site. This creates jobs, but it has value for the taxpayer. It will give the State a much needed breather as they themselves are trying to meet this need.

My amendment is temporary and it is targeted. It is a one-time $3 billion increase. This isn't $3 billion every year; it is $3 billion this year. The State loan funds have widespread support and would go a long way in helping this.

The President requested $3.7 billion for water and sewer projects in Iraq. The President requested this funding as an emergency.

I respect what the President said, but we have an emergency here. We have crumbling water systems that threaten

public health. We need billions of dollars. We have rising rates for our citizens, and at the same time the local ratepayer is going to shoulder the responsibility. If there is an emergency in Iraq, there is surely a water and sewer emergency in this country.

My amendment has widespread support--from the Water Infrastructure Network, a coalition of 47 nationally organized recognized organizations, to local officials, water and sewer service providers, engineers, construction contractors, labor unions, and environmentalists. This is the place where it all comes together-- mayors, Governors, workers, private sector.

These will not be government jobs. These will be jobs in the private sector, in the local community, meeting local needs. Groups such as the League of Cities and the Association of Counties and others do that.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for my amendment be printed in the Record. They are from the Water Infrastructure Network, the Coalition of the American Rivers and Ocean Conservatory, and others.

Mr. President, in conclusion, my amendment helps our communities by providing more funding to meet immediate water and sewer

needs so our communities can have clean and safe water. Water and sewer funding provides dual value for the taxpayers. It helps public health, it helps the environment. We will have clean water and safe water, and it creates jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide $3 billion more for our communities because I know every single State could use at least $1 billion more and I wish we could do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 502(c)(6) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive the 502(c) of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I say to the distinguished Democratic whip, I think we can do this in 2 hours. I think there are amendments that require more conversation and modification, that might not require votes.

No, I do not have an objection.

Mr. President, I have no objection except I am sorry we can't finish this bill.

Mr. President, what time----

I move to reconsider and lay the motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

nsf epscor program

I share that understanding as well and thank my colleagues.

The Senator is correct. We were unable to provide additional funds for the NOAO due to our tight 302(b) allocation.

I would be happy to support the Senator.

I also thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, and I, too, will support his request for such a study during the conference negotiations. This is an important matter for the State of West Virginia and other coal-producing States.

nasa

Mr. President, what time is it?

Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that are left I just want to thank my colleague for the spirited way he has tried to move this bill. We worked with energy. We had momentum. We had bipartisan support. With the 2 minutes left on this bill, I really must express my very keen disappointment that we were not allowed at least another hour or two to finish. I know the other side has the issues they want to raise on Federal judgeships, but this bill stands up for what America stands for--veterans, empowerment of communities, and housing. And for 2 hours, in a show of respect to them, we could finish this bill.