Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator

Bunning be added as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. President, I spoke on this last night, and my friend and colleague from Missouri has covered the ground well, but I wish to say a couple things that I think are important to emphasize.

The first is, it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone around the world that there is no reason, other than market protection, not to permit a biotech product into Europe. It is not bad for the environment. It is good for the environment.

In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by 46 million pounds in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife.

It would be good for the environment of Europe and the world to allow a biotech product there. It would be good for them, frankly, to start using it in raising their own product.

It is also increasingly obvious that there is no safety hazard. Practically everybody in America has eaten biotech corn or product made from biotech soybeans. There has not been a single case or suspicion of anybody being hurt by it. And, of course, there would not be because producers have been adjusting plant genetics for decades and decades and decades. This is just a new way of doing a very old and a time- honored thing that is very important to the production of the agriculture and to the advancement of human welfare.

I congratulate the administration on filing this WTO action. It is, if anything, overdue. I congratulate my friend and colleague for his comments. I hope the Senate can get behind the resolution just as quickly as possible and support the administration in this effort.

I know the support for biotech is bipartisan in this Chamber. I believe very strongly that it is overwhelming. I know we have tried to do this quickly this week, and maybe too quickly. Maybe we will not get it done today but I hope we can get it done soon and the Senate can go on record.

I close by saying, it is not just a question anymore of fairness and fair trade and the truth prevailing--as important as all those issues are. It is a question of hunger in the world. To me, the turning point was when the European Union countries not only refused to take the biotech product themselves, which I don't even think is defensible, but then they began trying to convince African countries that are in danger of famine to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious U.S. humanitarian biotech food aid.

This is now a question of trying to get food to people who are starving. That is too much, even for the European Union. I think it is time we said it. That is the point of this WTO action. That is the point of our resolution. That is the reason my colleague from Missouri has spoken on this important issue late at the end of this week. That is the reason I wanted to come down to the floor and join him in his comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am looking forward to voting for the jobs and growth package when it comes out of conference and reaches the Senate floor. One of the lessons of the last few years is that we cannot do anything that any of us want to do without prosperity. We cannot do education the way we would like; we cannot improve the quality of health care the way we want to; we cannot protect our Nation's borders the way we would like to; and we cannot provide for our defense the way we would like to without prosperity.

Prosperity means jobs. The way to get jobs, among other things, is to put more money into the hands of people who save, spend, and invest, and that means tax relief. That is what the jobs and growth package is about.

It is not the only way, though, to increase jobs and create economic growth in our country. Another way to do that is by opening up markets abroad. One of the ways we do that is by getting our competitors to end tariffs, end the nontariff obstacles they have placed on importing our products.

For too long we have let the European Union get away with illegal, unwarranted, and protectionist trade policies regarding agricultural biotechnology. I strongly support the President and the administration in the case before the WTO against the European Union. I want to take a few moments to talk about that situation this evening.

For the past 5 years--half a decade--the European Union has effectively blocked our agricultural trade into Europe through their moratorium on the approval of new biotechnology products entering the European market.

Since its implementation in October 1998, the moratorium has blocked more than $300 million annually in U.S. corn exports to the European Union countries. When you look at the total cost of the moratorium, our corn producers have lost $1.5 billion in exports to the European Union.

This moratorium clearly violates WTO rules requiring measures regulating imports to be based on ``sufficient scientific evidence'' and mandating countries to operate regulatory approval procedures without ``undue delay.'' And as far as sufficient scientific evidence is concerned, they have zero standing. Moreover, their policies are holding back products that hold tremendous promise for improving the food supply, advancing human health and preventing famine in the developing world.

The actions of the EU not only violate laws established by the WTO, but also, the EU is violating its own laws requiring science-based regulatory decisionmaking.

The EU policy decisions on biotechnology are being driven by people disdainful of science and its capacity for solving problems facing mankind and critical of the leading role of the United States in scientific advancement.

It is likely that nearly every American has eaten a meal made with corn and soybeans enhanced through biotechnology. These products have been sold and served in restaurants, local grocery stores and farmers' markets for years, without any adverse health consequences ever being reported.

Additionally, agriculture biotechnology, contrary to what the EU may say, is good for the environment. In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by 46 million pounds, in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife.

However, the facts have not stopped the EU from propping up their moratorium on a flimsy foundation. In addition to their anti-American policies, the EU has more recently pursued policies to undermine the development and support of genetically engineered products around the world, including in countries facing famine, and that was the turning point in this case.

About 40 million people in Africa's famine-stricken nations are at risk of starvation and diseases brought about by incessant hunger. Additionally, 800 million children are starving worldwide. Ongoing droughts and famines have devastated these countries, leaving them without options, and much too often, without hope.

Last fall, three African countries--Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique-- were pressured to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious, U.S. humanitarian biotech food aid by the EU. The EU even threatened their export markets if they accepted biotechnology food aid. To do that to a country threatened with famine is nothing less than extortion.

This is the same food that we eat here in the United States. It is unconscionable to me that the EU would promote these anti-humanitarian, anti-development policies.

The EU should try honesty for once. They should try explaining the real reason they do not like American biotechnology: they want to protect their market from competition. They want to protect European markets by ignoring the scientific evidence, which makes clear the safety and nutritional advantage of biotechnology.

Our agriculture producers are leading the biotech revolution and providing us with the most affordable, most abundant and safest food supply in the world. And Missouri's producers are among the leaders in the country.

When the U.S. wins this lawsuit, it will be a victory for our producers who have lost more than $300 million annually in corn exports, and also for science, the environment and everyone who wants to win the war against famine and world hunger.

I applaud the President for filing this suit in the WTO. In doing so, he is once again demonstrating the kind of leadership and courage we have come to expect from him I appreciate our leadership working so quickly on this important issue.

Senator Bond and I, along with several others, have submitted a resolution in support of the action in the WTO against the European Union. I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution expeditiously, to support it, and to give the administration the ammunition they need to prosecute this lawsuit successfully.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object, since I understand this follows the Collins amendment and I think the Senator had mentioned 5 minutes for that, there are three of us here to speak on the amendment. We want to see if we can get another couple of minutes so we have some time to actually say something. If this UC is dependent on that, I raise that issue.

I thank the chairman.

I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I too thank the Senator from Maine for her advocacy on this issue, not just this year but in past years. I also thank our distinguished chairman and ranking member because I understand they have cleared this amendment and will accept it.

There is not anything more important we can do for small business in a procurement issue than what we are doing with this amendment. I do not think there is very much more we can do that is important to taxpayers and important to quality in defense procurement than this issue.

Bundling is choking small business. It is hurting the taxpayer. It is hurting quality. This amendment is a major step forward to limiting it to cases where it is truly appropriate.

From 1992 through 2001, 44.5 percent of DOD procurement dollars were in bundled contracts and therefore essentially off limits to small business competition. So in each one of those, there were fewer competitors. There was a tendency to have higher price and poorer quality for the taxpayers. And small businesses, which are supposed to have preferences under the statutes, actually were foreclosed from bidding.

The kind of contract I am talking about is this, and this is an engineering contract that was recently let: Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. This means whoever wins this contract has to be able to be prepared to provide any or all of the following in indefinite amounts in terms of services at any time the Government wants it: Planning, environmental services, inspections, operations, maintenance, family housing services, relocatable facilities and structures, public works supply management, demolition, architecture, and engineer and task order management.

The Government says, yes, we are very open to small business. You can bid on this if you are a small business. You just have to be able to provide all of that at any time we want it in whatever quantity we need it.

Naturally, small business is cut off. It is hurting the taxpayer. It is hurting the small businesspeople. It has a disproportionately negative impact on minority small business. It needs to be stopped.

The Senator from Maine quoted Angela Styles from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It cannot be said better than she said it:

When small businesses are excluded from Federal

opportunities through contract bundling, our agencies, small

businesses, and the taxpayers lose.

That is the short of it. I am glad this amendment is evidently going to go into this bill. I hope it stays in in conference. I thank the Senator from Maine for her advocacy.

I yield the floor.

I was going to suggest that to the Senator from New Mexico and the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for his kind comments.

It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk on behalf of such an important amendment and to recognize that we certainly have come a long way.

For many years, our Nation has needed a sound and balanced energy policy that includes a renewable fuels standard. For many years, we have all talked and talked about alternative energy, about renewable energy, and today with the first bipartisan leadership amendment of this Congress, the Republican and Democratic leaders have introduced the renewable fuels standard legislation as an amendment to S. 14.

I believe what has happened today stands on the shoulders of the work by many of the most distinguished Members of this body in the last decade. We heard from the senior Senator from Missouri. We are going to hear from the Senator from Nebraska and the compromise, if you will, in the last Congress.

The renewable fuels standard is the biggest single reason I sought to get on the Energy Committee. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of the amendment and to be associated with what is going to happen today. I know there are going to be many chances to come to the floor and fend off various second-degree amendments from opponents of renewable fuels. So I will keep my initial comments brief today. I look forward to future opportunities to discuss other aspects of the amendment.

I note also at the outset that this legislation is supported by a historic coalition. When you get a coalition that ranges from the Farm Bureau to the American Petroleum Institute, it tells you the consensus that has been created finally on behalf of this idea. It is because it is a good idea. It is because it is the right thing to do. It is at the crux of so much we all want for Americans. It is at the crux of economic growth in jobs. It is at the crux of energy security. It is at the crux of environmental quality and value-added agriculture and family farming.

An article ran on April 23 in the Daily Statesman, which is the daily paper in Dexer, MO. The headline was ``Missouri Job Loss Rate Number One in the Nation.'' Last year, Missouri lost 77,000 jobs. The enactment of the renewable fuels standard will, first and foremost--and right away--bring thousands of jobs to Missouri, and tens and tens of thousands of jobs--hundreds of thousands of jobs--to the country.

We are talking about long-term good jobs in agriculture, in trade, in transportation, in energy, and in food processing. We are talking about jobs on the farm. We are talking about construction jobs to build these plants and maintain them. We are talking about jobs for the suppliers of these ethanol plants. We are talking about jobs for those who buy the ethanol and the by-products. We are talking about transportation jobs in shipping the ethanol. We are talking about trade opportunities for the United States. It will happen as a result of what I believe the Senate is going to do today.

A recent study found that increasing ethanol production to 5 billion gallons annually would create 214,000 jobs in the country, $5.3 billion in new investment, and increase household income by $51 billion. I want those benefits for this country, and I want those benefits for Missouri.

These increasingly modern ethanol plants are equipped to produce 40 million gallons of ethanol a year. I have visited the plants, as has my colleague, Senator Bond, in Missouri, plants we already have in Craig and Macon. The economic benefits of one of those plants are significant. They include an increase of household income for the community, the county in which these plants are operated; many of these counties have been struggling economically. It includes an increased household income of $20 million for these counties annually. Additional farmer cooperatives around the State of Missouri are organizing funding in an effort to produce even more ethanol in Missouri. I know this is happening in Nebraska. It is happening all over the Midwest. It is going to continue happening.

Ethanol is also at the crux of energy security for America. Ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable fuels are going to be playing an increasing role in reducing the need for imported oil. This is an area where I have to respectfully disagree with the opponents of the renewable fuels standard.

I am very strongly in support of providing incentives for increased exploration and recovery of oil reserves in this country. And we have a progrowth, proenergy energy bill, largely because of the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee. I have supported every effort to increase the amount of oil reserves we have in the United States and that we can practically explore and recover.

But it is clear that we cannot just drill our way out of our dangerous oil dependency. We have to have other alternatives, and ethanol and biodiesel are the alternatives we have now--not 5 years, not 10 years, not 15 years from now, but now--to reduce our dependence on oil imports. I do not ever want to be in a situation again where we are sending $4 billion a year to somebody like Saddam Hussein to buy oil, and depending on regimes like that one for the health of our national economy.

Ethanol is a key to energy independence for the United States. The United States is increasingly dependent on imported energy to meet our personal, transportation, and industrial needs. As a domestic, renewable source of energy, ethanol can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the United States' ability to control its own security and economic future. Our energy policy should first and foremost promote domestic, renewable fuels, not foreign oil imports.

This is an area where I respectfully disagree with the opponents of renewable fuels standard. It is clear that we cannot drill our way out of our dangerous oil dependency--especially

without access to the oil in Alaska's ANWR. America's national, energy, and economic security are vulnerable due to our dangerous dependence on oil imports.

In 1999, America was importing over 55 percent of its oil and petroleum products. Just 2 years later, our dependency increased to over 59 percent. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration projects the U.S. will import nearly 70 percent of its petroleum. Something must be done.

It is absolutely necessary that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Over the next decade the RFS will reduce crude oil imports by an estimated 1.6 billion barrels.

In addition to the establishment of a national ethanol standard, the amendment has other important provisions that include an orderly phase- down of MTBE use and removal of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. That is very important, and it is very important to the environment.

I am sure that over the coming weeks we are going to have a lot of opportunities to debate things such as climate change and CAFE standards. I remind opponents of this amendment that ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles. I encourage all proenvironment organizations to score this amendment as a vote in favor of America's air quality.

The use of ethanol-blended fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared with conventional gasoline. The American Lung Association of Chicago credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990. Again, this is an alternative which we have today to protect the environment.

The chairman's energy bill contains many exciting opportunities for the development of clean hydrogen vehicles. I support that. But those technologies are a long way off.

My children may drive hydrogen cars. Today I can drive a car fueled by ethanol. A couple weeks ago, I visited a Break Time convenience store in Columbia, MO, that is selling ethanol at the same price that it is selling regular gasoline.

Renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel provide a solution to our air quality problems that we can use now. Today you could fill your car with an ethanol blend or a biodiesel blend--without any changes to your vehicle. The chairman's energy bill contains many exciting opportunities for the development of a clean, hydrogen vehicle, but we all know these technologies are a long way off. My children may be driving these hydrogen cars, but today I can drive a car fueled by ethanol. Fleet vehicles in Missouri can run on ethanol or biodiesel without any costly engine upgrades--today.

The use of these renewable fuels will bring environmental benefits in the short term while we continue to explore long-term opportunities such as hydrogen cars and other technologies.

As I said, I recently toured both of the ethanol plants in Missouri and visited an ethanol fueling station during the April recess. I have to tell you, this is an exciting and innovative way to add value to traditional commodities. The use of grain for ethanol production adds up to 30 cents to every bushel of corn. Not only do farmers benefit from the higher price but also by joining cooperative and building ethanol production facilities. They are able to directly take advantage of the value-added market through ownership of the plant. They continue to make money during times of price volatility.

There is no question that the renewable fuels standard will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will slow the deterioration of the environment through the reduction of fossil fuel emissions, enhance national, energy and economic security, create a new industrial base with tens of thousands of new, high quality jobs, and add value to traditional commodities.

I am happy to join Senate Leadership in offering this amendment. It is time that we make the RFS a part of our national energy policy.

Mr. President, I want to say how pleased and proud I am to be a part, in a small way, of this effort. I am especially pleased that this is the first bipartisan amendment that is being offered on the Senate floor. It will strengthen this energy bill we put together under the leadership of Senator Domenici. It is something we can all stand up and support.

I hope we will get a thumping, bipartisan majority in support of this amendment. Again, it is a key to jobs. It is a key to energy independence. It is a key to environmental quality. And it is a key to value-added agriculture and the family producers in Missouri and around the country. I am pleased to speak in favor of it.

I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding, and I congratulate him for his great work in getting this bill together. It is very much needed.

We cannot operate a modern college or university today without being up to date with information technology. The range of uses and needs for that kind of technology are almost unlimited. They cover everything from long distance learning to access to research for students to the ability to teach your students about information technology. Of course, most jobs include a requirement that you be up to date in that kind of technology.

Another important use for universities is helping the communities around them. I will talk about an example of that in just a few minutes. Most modern colleges and universities,

whatever their background, are networking very close to the communities which they serve. As centers of excellence in information technology there is a wide variety of ways to make a difference. That is an important contribution that historically black universities and minority institutions make.

It is important to understand these institutions are not just important for the students who attend. That is their primary function, but they are very important centers of achievement and community activities in the communities of which they are a part. That is the reason this bill is so important and why I am pleased to cosponsor it and pleased to speak for just a few minutes today on its behalf.

Most of the background has been given here and I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and Senator Allen in supporting this bill and assembling this information. They had a great hearing.

Let me talk about a couple of historically black colleges in Missouri that would benefit from this bill. One is Lincoln University in Jefferson City. Lincoln was founded in 1866 by former officers and soldiers of the Union Army. It has 2,500 undergraduates, 200 graduate students. David Henson, the president of Lincoln University, told us that the passage of the bill would give Lincoln the opportunity to acquire equipment, networking capability, digital network technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to develop and provide educational services to its students, its faculties, and its staff, and also give Lincoln students universal access to campus networks around the country.

Another historically black college is Harris-Stowe State College with a rich tradition in the St. Louis area. Henry Givens, Jr., the president of Harris-Stowe State College, said this would enable their students and faculty to take advantage of a variety of sources, such as distance learning, online services, and continuing education.

I mentioned before that the colleges are very important parts of the communities they serve. Harris-Stowe helps educate young kids from the community. This kind of a grant would benefit the local public elementary school. It sends its children ranging from first to fifth grade to learn at the Southwestern Bell Library and Technology Resource Center at Harris-Stowe College. Harris-Stowe got a grant to build the center, but the technology is now very much out of date. This is another aspect that this bill will help address, and I think it is important.

Of course, most historically black colleges and minority-serving institutions have not had a lot of money and do not have access to a lot of money to build these kinds of information technology centers in the first place. But even when they can get the money to do that, it is extremely difficult for them to maintain and upgrade and update that technology. There is no area where it is more important to be up to date than the area of information technology. That is the situation with Harris-Stowe. Their resource center is 5 years old. It is greatly in need of a technology upgrade. Without Federal legislation of this type, as a practical matter that is simply not going to be possible on an ongoing basis.

But with this support it will be possible, not only because of the Federal dollars we can help provide but also because the Federal dollars will be leveraged by these institutions with foundations, with State money, and will be an important way for them to gather resources from around the community and help serve their students and their communities with information technology.

I am grateful the Senator from Virginia has taken up this legislation and pushed it. A lot of what we do here is an attempt to directly fund or subsidize what some people are doing. It works so much better when we work through institutions that already have strong records of performance and strong records of service to constituencies around the country. That is what this bill does. I am very pleased to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on the Fire Research Act in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., to consider comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on ``U.S. Energy Security: Russia and the Caspian.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent thta the Committee on Indian affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 2 p.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 519, the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a nominations hearing on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: [Senators].

Panel II: John G. Roberts, Jr., to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Panel III: David G. Campbell to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, and S. Maurice Hicks, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana.

Panel IV: William Emil Moschella to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a roundtable entitled ``SBA Re-Authorization: Credit Program, Part I,'' and other matters on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in Room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, in support of the Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003, which will help hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from Sickle Cell Disease. SCD, a genetic disease that affects red blood cells. This bill has bipartisan and bicameral support, as Representatives Danny K. Davis, a Democrat, and Richard Burr, a Republican, will introduce the companion bill today.

Sickle Cell Disease is an inherited blood disorder that is a major health problem in the United States, primarily affecting African Americans. People with sickle cell disease have red blood cells that contain an abnormal type of hemoglobin. Sometimes these red blood cells become sickle-shaped--crescent shaped--and have difficulty passing through small blood vessels. When sickle-shaped cells block small blood vessels, less blood can reach that part of the body. Tissue that does not receive a normal blood flow eventually becomes damaged. This is what essentially causes the potentially life-threatening complications of sickle cell disease. There is currently no cure.

More than 2,500,000 Americans, mostly African Americans, have the sickle cell trait. Among newborn American infants, SCD occurs in approximately 1, in 300 African Americans. The most feared complication for children with SCD is a stroke, which may affect infants as young as 18 months of age. While some patients can remain without symptoms for years, many others may not survive infancy or early childhood.

Many adults with SCD have severe physical problems, such as acute lung complications that can result in death. Adults with SCD can also develop chronic problems, including pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, and kidney failure. The average life span for an adult with SCD is the mid-40s. Stroke in the adult SCD population commonly results in both mental and physical disabilities for life.

The Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003 helps combat SCD by providing Federal matching funds for SCD-related services under Medicaid, and by allowing States to receive a Federal 50-50 match for nonmedical expenses related to SCD treatment such as genetic counseling. This bill also authorizes a grant program in the amount of $10 million per year for 5 years to fund 40 health centers nationwide. Although I will go into detail about the bill, its focus is to encourage States to partner with SCD providers, who have historically been on the frontlines of this issue, to treat and find a cure for SCD patients.

With regard to the Federal matching funds, this bill allows states to reimburse SCD services beyond current Medicaid law, which only covers physician and laboratory services. For example, if a State wanted to increase reimbursement rates for SCD blood transfusions, it could do so through rate setting for the new SCD benefit without having to increase reimbursement for all Medicaid blood transfusions, therefore, making it easier for a State to reimburse at a higher rate for SCD-related treatment.

The bill also provides Federal reimbursement for education and other services related to the prevention and treatment of SCD. This will allow States to get a Federal 50-50 match for nonmedical, administrative expenses to include outreach and genetic counseling about SCD and its treatment for SCD patients of any age. This is critical to helping this historically underserved population, many of who may not know about SCD or its symptoms until it is too late.

This bill also allows hospitals and clinics to do outreach with non- medical personnel to educate high-risk communities about recognizing SCD. It would also allow nonmedical personnel like counselors to spend time with SCD families to discuss how to manage the disease. Providing this one-stop shop will centralize SCD-related treatment and counseling services to better serve those with SCD.

In addition to the diagnosis and treatment components, this bill creates a grant program for 40 health centers nationally. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to distribute grants to up to 40 eligible health centers nationwide for $5 million for the next 5 fiscal years. Grants may be used for purposes including the education, treatment--i.e., genetic counseling and testing--and continuity of care for individuals with SCD, for training health professionals, and to identify and secure additional Federal funds to continue SCD treatment.

This bill also creates a National Coordinating Center to collect, monitor and distribute information on new and innovative practices to prevent and treat SCD, establish a model protocol for the grant recipients to follow as a quality control mechanism, develop educational materials regarding the prevention and treatment of SCD, and submit a report to Congress to ensure fiscal accountability and provide information of recent developments towards a cure for SCD.

The Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003 provides tremendous benefits to States. The approach taken in this bill is to add services related to SCD to the list of services covered by Medicaid for those people who are eligible for Medicaid under current eligibility rules.

For example, the bill allows States to use Medicaid funds to work with providers to better serve areas with a high prevalence of SCD in fields such as education and counseling,which are currently not reimbursed by Medicaid. This bill also allows the States to create opportunities to partner with providers to determine ``best practices'' to encourage the most effective and efficient use of medical resources toward SCD treatment and education.

In introducing the Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003, we are trying to help thousands of Americans who live with this disease. This legislation will provide many of these patients with access to the essential treatments that they need. It has the support of many important groups representing the SCD, African-American and children's health care communities as well as the providers and researchers who are working to treat and find a cure for this disease. For example, Allan Platt, Program Coordinator, The Georgia Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at Grady Health System in Atlanta, GA has written me the following letter, which states in part, ``You did a wonderful thing for sickle cell patients and for those who are caring for them. Let us know how we can rally support for this.''

I want to offer my appreciation to the Sickle Cell Disease Association of American Inc., SCDAA, for its vigilant efforts to help find a cure for SCD, and working with my office to help craft this critical piece of legislation. SCDAA President and Chief Operating Officer, Lynda K. Anderson, has provided tireless support on behalf of this effort. Also I would like to acknowledge the efforts of SCDAA Board Member Michael R. DeBaun, M.D., M.P.H, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Biostatistics at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO. Lynda and Michael have brought the issues addressed in this bill to my attention and helped to bring the introduction of this bill to fruition.

The SCDAA was founded in 1971 to provide an effective coordinated community-based approach to developing and implementing strategies to resolve issues surrounding sickle cell disease. Through three decades, SCDAA and its member organizations have demonstrated how community- based organizations and comprehensive health and research centers can work with local, State and Federal agencies in furtherance of national health care objectives. To this day, SCDAA continues to pursue legislative initiatives to secure additional government funding for research and community-based services. Moreover, it has demonstrated its capacity to provide continued leadership in this area as a potential national coordinator center, and I look forward to the organization applying for such a designation, once this measure has been enacted into law. My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle and in both legislative bodies look forward to working with SCDAA to fight this good fight and to secure the resources required to address the very unique needs of patients, families and communities affected by

Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, in support of the Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003, which will help hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from Sickle Cell Disease. SCD, a genetic disease that affects red blood cells. This bill has bipartisan and bicameral support, as Representatives Danny K. Davis, a Democrat, and Richard Burr, a Republican, will introduce the companion bill today.

Sickle Cell Disease is an inherited blood disorder that is a major health problem in the United States, primarily affecting African Americans. People with sickle cell disease have red blood cells that contain an abnormal type of hemoglobin. Sometimes these red blood cells become sickle-shaped--crescent shaped--and have difficulty passing through small blood vessels. When sickle-shaped cells block small blood vessels, less blood can reach that part of the body. Tissue that does not receive a normal blood flow eventually becomes damaged. This is what essentially causes the potentially life-threatening complications of sickle cell disease. There is currently no cure.

More than 2,500,000 Americans, mostly African Americans, have the sickle cell trait. Among newborn American infants, SCD occurs in approximately 1, in 300 African Americans. The most feared complication for children with SCD is a stroke, which may affect infants as young as 18 months of age. While some patients can remain without symptoms for years, many others may not survive infancy or early childhood.

Many adults with SCD have severe physical problems, such as acute lung complications that can result in death. Adults with SCD can also develop chronic problems, including pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, and kidney failure. The average life span for an adult with SCD is the mid-40s. Stroke in the adult SCD population commonly results in both mental and physical disabilities for life.

The Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003 helps combat SCD by providing Federal matching funds for SCD-related services under Medicaid, and by allowing States to receive a Federal 50-50 match for nonmedical expenses related to SCD treatment such as genetic counseling. This bill also authorizes a grant program in the amount of $10 million per year for 5 years to fund 40 health centers nationwide. Although I will go into detail about the bill, its focus is to encourage States to partner with SCD providers, who have historically been on the frontlines of this issue, to treat and find a cure for SCD patients.

With regard to the Federal matching funds, this bill allows states to reimburse SCD services beyond current Medicaid law, which only covers physician and laboratory services. For example, if a State wanted to increase reimbursement rates for SCD blood transfusions, it could do so through rate setting for the new SCD benefit without having to increase reimbursement for all Medicaid blood transfusions, therefore, making it easier for a State to reimburse at a higher rate for SCD-related treatment.

The bill also provides Federal reimbursement for education and other services related to the prevention and treatment of SCD. This will allow States to get a Federal 50-50 match for nonmedical, administrative expenses to include outreach and genetic counseling about SCD and its treatment for SCD patients of any age. This is critical to helping this historically underserved population, many of who may not know about SCD or its symptoms until it is too late.

This bill also allows hospitals and clinics to do outreach with non- medical personnel to educate high-risk communities about recognizing SCD. It would also allow nonmedical personnel like counselors to spend time with SCD families to discuss how to manage the disease. Providing this one-stop shop will centralize SCD-related treatment and counseling services to better serve those with SCD.

In addition to the diagnosis and treatment components, this bill creates a grant program for 40 health centers nationally. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to distribute grants to up to 40 eligible health centers nationwide for $5 million for the next 5 fiscal years. Grants may be used for purposes including the education, treatment--i.e., genetic counseling and testing--and continuity of care for individuals with SCD, for training health professionals, and to identify and secure additional Federal funds to continue SCD treatment.

This bill also creates a National Coordinating Center to collect, monitor and distribute information on new and innovative practices to prevent and treat SCD, establish a model protocol for the grant recipients to follow as a quality control mechanism, develop educational materials regarding the prevention and treatment of SCD, and submit a report to Congress to ensure fiscal accountability and provide information of recent developments towards a cure for SCD.

The Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003 provides tremendous benefits to States. The approach taken in this bill is to add services related to SCD to the list of services covered by Medicaid for those people who are eligible for Medicaid under current eligibility rules.

For example, the bill allows States to use Medicaid funds to work with providers to better serve areas with a high prevalence of SCD in fields such as education and counseling,which are currently not reimbursed by Medicaid. This bill also allows the States to create opportunities to partner with providers to determine ``best practices'' to encourage the most effective and efficient use of medical resources toward SCD treatment and education.

In introducing the Sickle Cell Treatment Act of 2003, we are trying to help thousands of Americans who live with this disease. This legislation will provide many of these patients with access to the essential treatments that they need. It has the support of many important groups representing the SCD, African-American and children's health care communities as well as the providers and researchers who are working to treat and find a cure for this disease. For example, Allan Platt, Program Coordinator, The Georgia Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at Grady Health System in Atlanta, GA has written me the following letter, which states in part, ``You did a wonderful thing for sickle cell patients and for those who are caring for them. Let us know how we can rally support for this.''

I want to offer my appreciation to the Sickle Cell Disease Association of American Inc., SCDAA, for its vigilant efforts to help find a cure for SCD, and working with my office to help craft this critical piece of legislation. SCDAA President and Chief Operating Officer, Lynda K. Anderson, has provided tireless support on behalf of this effort. Also I would like to acknowledge the efforts of SCDAA Board Member Michael R. DeBaun, M.D., M.P.H, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Biostatistics at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO. Lynda and Michael have brought the issues addressed in this bill to my attention and helped to bring the introduction of this bill to fruition.

The SCDAA was founded in 1971 to provide an effective coordinated community-based approach to developing and implementing strategies to resolve issues surrounding sickle cell disease. Through three decades, SCDAA and its member organizations have demonstrated how community- based organizations and comprehensive health and research centers can work with local, State and Federal agencies in furtherance of national health care objectives. To this day, SCDAA continues to pursue legislative initiatives to secure additional government funding for research and community-based services. Moreover, it has demonstrated its capacity to provide continued leadership in this area as a potential national coordinator center, and I look forward to the organization applying for such a designation, once this measure has been enacted into law. My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle and in both legislative bodies look forward to working with SCDAA to fight this good fight and to secure the resources required to address the very unique needs of patients, families and communities affected by

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

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

Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators Bond, Clinton, and Schumer, to offer the Airline Workers Fairness Act, with the hope of ensuring the fair and equitable resolution of labor integration issues surrounding American Airlines and the former TWA. I want to give the Senate a brief history of these issues.

American Airlines acquired TWA in April of 2001. We all thought that was a good thing. We still hope it is a good thing. We supported it. At the time, American Airlines promised TWA employees that they would be treated fairly as a result of the buyout, and in fact that promise was one of the conditions of Federal approval of the buyout. Certainly, our expectation was that when the representative employee groups merged, their seniority lists would be dovetailed in the normal fashion. In other words, the years of service for TWA employees would count in the merged company, and years of service for former American Airline employees would count as well. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. In fact, nothing even close to it happened.

The former TWA flight attendants were stapled to the bottom of the merge seniority list, and most of the TWA pilots were stapled to the bottom of the seniority list. In all my years in public office and in the years when I practiced labor law, I have never seen a merger that was as disadvantageous to one of the former employee groups as this one.

The effect of it is that employees who have been working for TWA for decades are placed behind on the seniority list employees working for American Airlines only a year or two. All you have to do is fly American Airlines and be recognizable as a Member of Congress to see what the implications of this have been for real people.

I do not think I go on a flight where a flight attendant does not come up to me and tell a story, such as she is a 28-year flight attendant for TWA who is now going to be laid off while people who have been working for American Airlines for only a year or two will be still flying.

A specific example: Sally Young, a former TWA captain who now works for American Airlines whom I have met and talked with, is a 15-year veteran of TWA. She was demoted, because of seniority, from being a captain to a first officer, and now, after the recent layoffs were announced, is scheduled to be laid off even though pilots who have been working only a short time for American Airlines will continue to fly.

The result of this for the flight attendants is that there were 4,000 flight attendants who worked for TWA. By midsummer, all of them will be gone. These are people who have given their life to this company, people who have mortgages, people who are at a stage in life where it is very difficult for them to retrain and find other employment. People who were promised better, who clearly understood that in some way, shape, or form they would be protected in this buyout are going to be gone, and most of the pilots will be gone as well.

I am not here to blame anybody for this. It is an extraordinarily, uniquely disadvantageous situation. I do not know how it happened, but I know it is not right, and this amendment is designed to fix it in a fair and equitable fashion. It applies only to this merger.

It says that the parties will bargain for several weeks after this amendment becomes effective, and if they cannot reach an agreement, they will go to a neutral expert binding arbitration, and the arbitrator can then decide what result will be fair in light of the situation they are in now. These people who have worked for so long and given back so much over the years to keep this company afloat will have the consideration that we all thought they would have had.

Those of us who are offering this amendment and supporting this amendment would rather not do it on this vehicle. We would not have done it on this vehicle, but the underlying bill provides several billion dollars of extraordinary relief for the airline industry. We support that.

In addition, American Airlines announced several thousand more layoffs earlier this year. If we do not do something soon, it will be too late to do anything. Certainly it will be too late to do anything as conveniently as it will be if we adopt this amendment.

Again, our amendment does not impose any Government solution on the parties. It costs no money. It affects no other airline and no other situation. We are offering it now to provide some relief to a group of people who expected and deserve better and who, unless we do something, are going to be out on the street. That is the reason we are offering the amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I will speak briefly. First, I commend my friend and colleague from Missouri for his work on this issue for several years and his consistent advocacy for fairness to all the employees of American Airlines. I also express my deep gratitude to our friend and colleague from Texas for how she has worked with us on this amendment and indeed on this whole issue within, of course, the limits of her convictions.

Briefly, this situation is not easy for anyone and I recognize that. I emphasize that there are thousands of people who are in a uniquely difficult situation, people with 10, 15, 20 years seniority with a company. When you get that kind of seniority with a company, you order your life so far as it is job related, on the assumption that unless the company goes down--in this case, stops flying--you are not going to be laid off. You do that in terms of your financial affairs; you get mortgages; you make arrangements with your kids and their college education. Thousands of people worked for TWA for years and years and years and did that.

Then something happened. I don't know what happened; I was not there. The people who were supposed to represent their interests in this process--management, the union, the government--for some reason did not. Their interests were not represented. As a result, they are now facing layoffs contrary to all their expectations.

I support the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I hope it means as we continue to represent those interests we will have some chance along the process to get fairness for these people who expect better and deserve better and who have worked so hard in giving so much to this company for so long.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following calendar items en bloc: Calendar No. 54 and Calendar No. 55.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 704 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.