Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Colleges and Universities/Head Start Partnership Act, on behalf of myself and Senators Enzi, Daschle, Johnson, and Inouye. As I am sure you all know, Head Start is the flagship Federal program that insures that disadvantaged children have access to the educational, social, health, and behavioral services that they need in order to be ready to enter and excel in school. Studies clearly show that Head Start is a strong and effective program and that children who enroll in it benefit from improved cognitive and social skills. Although Head Start is a model program, it can be even better. One factor that we know is strongly related to student outcomes is teacher quality and education. Simply put, the more advanced the credentials of the teacher, the better the outcomes for students. In recognition of this fact, the 1998 Head Start reauthorization required that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have at least an Associate's Degree, AA, in early childhood or a related field by 2003. In the impending reauthorization of Head Start, is it likely that teacher credential requirements will be increased even further. Although across the Nation as a whole, the 50 percent AA degree requirement for Head Start teachers has been met, there are some regions and sub-groups in the U.S. for which this is not the case. It is particularly difficult for Head Start teachers on Indian reservations, in rural areas, and those who teach migrants to access the necessary educational opportunities. Often, the distance these individuals would have to travel to take classes at the nearest college that offers an early childhood education degree is simply prohibitive. The purpose of the Tribal College and University/Head Start Partnership Act is to facilitate the continuing education of Native American Head Start teachers so that they can obtain the credentials they need to provide the best outcomes for the children under their care. Nationally, only 14 percent of Native American Head Start teachers have an AA degree and a scant 7 percent have a BA degree or higher. The current Act is based on the ``Head Start Partnerships with Tribally Controlled Land-Grant Colleges and Universities'' discretionary grants program at HHS. This program provided grants to 16 tribal universities and colleges during the period 1999-2001. The purpose of the program was to utilize the capabilities of these institutions of higher education to improve the quality of Head Start and Early Head Start programs funded through the American Indian Programs Branch, primarily by providing education and training opportunities for Head Start staff. Partnership agreements provided academic credits primarily toward Associate's or Bachelor's Degrees. Since the program began in 1999, 322 students have graduated from these programs and an additional 59 are expected to graduate by the end of 2003. In my home State of New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, SIPI, received a 3-year grant of $150,000 per year. This grant has supported the teaching of courses leading directly to an AA degree in early childhood. There are roughly 125 declared majors, 90 percent of whom are Head Start teachers, enrolled in these classes each semester, distributed across eleven reservations and pueblos in New Mexico, the closest of which is 30 miles from the SIPI campus. Without access to this type of distance education, these dedicated Head Start teachers would not be able to receive the education that is crucial to both their own futures and to the lives of the many children they teach. Although the Head Start Partnerships discretionary grants program at HHS has been very successful, funding has been sporadic. No grants were awarded in 2001 and 2002. Although HHS just recently announced a new competition for these grants, it is unclear if new grants will also be awarded in future years. I believe that an authorized grants program would be the best way to insure a steady and dependable source of funding so that tribal Head Start teachers can obtain the education that is so crucial to their success. The TCU /Head Start Partnership Act would authorize 5-year grants to TCUs so that these institutions can develop programs resulting in increased numbers of advanced degrees for tribal Head Start teachers, particularly in technology mediated formats. The act authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005-2008, in order to achieve these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important program. At a time when we are rightfully demanding that Head Start teachers be highly credentialed, we must provide the supports that are necessary to help teachers gain these credentials. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. En Bloc Amendments Nos. 1396 Through 1401

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I take a couple of minutes to speak about the tragic death of Colin McMillan, who was a very outstanding citizen of our State of New Mexico. He had distinguished himself as a businessman and also as a public servant in Roswell. In Santa Fe, he served in the State legislature, with a leadership position, and also here in Washington, where he served in the Department of Defense in the previous Bush administration. He was influential and effective in all of the positions he held. He was extremely well respected for his straight dealing and his integrity. I met Colin first when I was in law practice in Santa Fe and he was in our State legislature. As I indicated, he had a very prominent position, a leadership position, in our State legislature back in the 1970s. Since then, our paths have crossed many times. Most recently, we spoke when he came to my office to discuss his nomination by President Bush to serve as the Secretary of the Navy. This is a position I strongly supported him obtaining and I told him I was looking forward to him being back in Washington. I know he and his wife Kay were looking forward to returning to Washington. He spoke with great enthusiasm about his plans in that new position. His death is a loss to us in New Mexico, and it is a loss to the country. We will be deprived of his leadership. I know he was a very good friend of my colleague, Senator Domenici, for many years and a political ally in New Mexico for many years. His loss will be noted and regretted by all of us in New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let my compliment my colleague on his statement and also our colleague from Montana. This is a very serious issue, one we have had many hearings on, one very recently. The problem is just as Senator Domenici described it. We have sort of an annual event. Annually, we find out we haven't put enough money in these appropriations bills to fight fires. Accordingly, the agencies involved, in particular the Forest Service, understandably have to go somewhere to get that money. They go into these other accounts. These are the funds they should be using to do the forest thinning and forest health and restoration work we all know is essential. Last Saturday, I went up to Taos in our home State to see the damage that was done in the Taos pueblo by the Encebado fire. That was a very substantial fire, burning close to 6,000 acres of land, right behind the Taos pueblo. We got a helicopter tour with the Governor and the war chief and the BIA officials and others to survey all the damage that had been done. On our way back after we had surveyed the damage, which was extensive, we flew down what is called Lucero Canyon. That area was one that the Governor and the war chief pointed out and said: This is an area which is greatly overgrown and which we need to thin. We very much would like to get some Federal funds to help with this thinning activity because our next forest fire we fear is going to be in this canyon. It is also part of the Taos pueblo land. It is clearly also in danger of burning. That is one area which is one of many areas in northern New Mexico and throughout the West that could be singled out for high risk of being subject to some kind of catastrophic fire. As Senator Domenici said, there are two separate needs. One, we have to have money to fight fires when fires start. But a separate and equally important need is that we have to be able to use the funds we appropriate for thinning activities and for forest restoration activities. We have to be able to use that money for those purposes and not have it transferred for this other purpose. So I hope we can find a solution. The proposal I have made is that we essentially give the Forest Service authority to go to Treasury and borrow money so they don't have to take it from their other accounts. To the extent there is a need to fight fires, let them go to Treasury and get that money and then have that money reimbursed by Congress in a supplemental later. I don't think it is tenable for us to think each year, when we have the fire season, we are going to pass a new supplemental appropriations bill. We may have to do that this year. I am not arguing against doing that this year. But that is not a long-term solution to the problem. We need to recognize this problem is with us. Every year we have these fires and every year we come up short in funds to fight them. I very much hope we can solve that problem and do it in a way that avoids the robbing of funds from the restoration accounts, which is what we have been doing each year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a great New Mexican, Paul Bernal, who passed away on July 16. Mr. Bernal was a truly remarkable--yet remarkably humble--man. Mr. Bernal was best known for his work to recover the Pueblo de Taos' title to its people's sacred Blue Lake, which lies in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of northern New Mexico. Mr. Bernal served the Pueblo for many decades as a strategist and interpreter in its struggle to restore this sacred piece of land, which was taken without just compensation by the United States at the turn of the century. The Pueblo de Taos is a very traditional community and at that time had few leaders who spoke the English language. This language barrier stalled the Pueblo's efforts for decades. Mr. Bernal, who in 1946 had completed his service to this country aboard the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga in World War II, was appointed by the Pueblo elders to overcome this barrier and achieve the goal of restoring these sacred lands. Mr. Bernal and his colleagues did achieve their goal, and the restoration act returned 48,000 acres of the Carson National Forest to be held in trust for the Pueblo to use for traditional purposes. It also restored to the Pueblo their rights to hunt, fish, graze livestock and, most importantly, to hold their lakeside ceremonies undisturbed. Mr. Bernal's courage and dedication is an inspiration and a testament to perseverance from which we can all learn. I am honored to say that I had the opportunity to work with the Pueblo and Mr. Bernal when I cosponsored a bill in the mid-1990's to restore a final tract of sacred land to complete the Blue Lake wilderness' integrity--a tract the Taos Pueblo people use as the sacred Path of Life Trail that connects the Pueblo itself with Blue Lake. At a 1994 hearing on the bill, I had the privilege of hosting the last of Mr. Bernal's many appearances before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At that hearing, Mr. Bernal remembered the days when he testified before the distinguished and longtime Committee Chairman Scoop Jackson: ``They used to call me Mr. Blue Lake,'' Mr. Bernal said, ``I loved that name.'' Mr. Blue Lake surely will be missed. My thoughts and prayers are with Paul Bernal's family and community. I hope they can be comforted by the fact that his was a life of dedicated service to his people and country, and that his legacy will endure with the continued use of the sacred Blue Lake and its surrounding wilderness.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured. I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border. The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems. In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country. In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.'' The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the ``Health Border 2010'' initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. On October 15, 2001, just one month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. I ask unanimous consent to include articles from the El Paso Times and the Los Angeles Times from October 2001 with respect to those meetings and hope the Secretary will be an advocate with us in the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured. I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border. The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems. In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country. In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.'' The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the ``Health Border 2010'' initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. On October 15, 2001, just one month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. I ask unanimous consent to include articles from the El Paso Times and the Los Angeles Times from October 2001 with respect to those meetings and hope the Secretary will be an advocate with us in the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Cochran and Byrd for their leadership on this legislation. They have crafted a very good bill, which will go a long way toward improving security along our Nation's borders. For many years now, I have been concerned about the vulnerability of the U.S.-Mexico border in my home state of New Mexico. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that there are still miles of border land where there is nothing separating my state from Mexico. To correct this problem, I requested and the Appropriations Committee approved $967,000 in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Border Patrol to construct vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico. The original appropriations are now nearly exhausted and this important project will have to come to a halt in the near future if more funding is not allocated to this effort. I have been informed by the New Mexico Border Authority that an additional 76 miles of vehicle barriers need to be constructed at an estimated cost of approximately $2.4 million. I understand that the bill we are now considering includes $90.3 million for construction for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Is it the expectation of the chairman and ranking member that the funds in this account could be used for continuing the construction of additional barriers?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me also ask whether it is the opinion of the chairman and ranking member that this project is worthwhile and that the Department of Homeland Security should be encouraged to continue it in fiscal year 2004?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I will speak for a very few minutes on this same issue and indicate my strong support for the amendment Senator Byrd has offered. As my colleague, Senator Harkin, indicated, I strongly support this amendment. I believe this is the obvious follow-on to the vote we had last week where 78 Members of the Senate agreed when appropriations bills did come to the Senate we would vote to fully appropriate the funds that were authorized in the United States Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. That was legislation we passed earlier this year that I strongly supported. It did provide $15 billion worth of funds. It authorized $15 billion worth of funding for this purpose. It was a follow-on to the President's State of the Union speech. In the State of the Union speech, the President committed this country to this initiative. I strongly supported it. Then, as a follow- on to that State of the Union speech, we passed the authorizing legislation which, as I understood it, said we will appropriate $3 billion a year for 5 years in order to fight this terrible epidemic of infectious disease we see around the world. From my perspective, the question is whether we consider this to be an urgent problem. If we do consider it to be an urgent problem, then I think the funding that was laid out in that authorization bill is the right funding. I was surprised to hear the quotations from the letter Dr. O'Neill has sent on behalf of the administration indicating the administration does not want $3 billion this first year, 2004. It does not want $3 billion the second year, 2005. And only in the later years is the administration going to be requesting $3 billion or more in order to make up the full $15 billion. That would be an appropriate approach to a problem that is not urgent. That would be an appropriate approach to a problem we can just as well deal with 3 years from now as today. But this issue is not that type of problem. This is an urgent problem. Accordingly, I think it is entirely appropriate that we try to fund this AIDS initiative the way it was designed in the authorizing legislation, the way the President signed off on it in the authorizing legislation, and the way I thought all of us had agreed to proceed with it. The statistics are devastating. We have gone through those to great lengths here, the number of teachers who are being lost because of HIV/ AIDS, the number of people who are going untreated with HIV/AIDS in Africa because of lack of resources. The global AIDS fund is desperately in need of additional resources. We have committed $200 million rather than the full $1 billion that was anticipated we would commit this year. We can, obviously, fall back on a 5-year plan and say: Look, we never did intend to give you $3 billion the first couple of years. We are sorry if you misunderstood us. But the truth is most Members of Congress and I think most Members of the Senate--I certainly can speak for myself. When I voted for the authorizing legislation, I assumed we were going to appropriate the funds we were authorizing in that bill on that schedule in order to get to the $15 billion. That was my assumption. I can understand the reluctance to take any funds out of the defense budgets. I have supported defense budgets virtually every year since I have been in the Senate. I intend to support the budget again this year. But this is a very small amount. This is funding which can readily be replaced in a supplemental. There will be a defense supplemental down the road. We have all talked about that. Most of the discussion in the last 2 days is how we have the defense supplemental coming. We have already passed one this year. We will have another one next year. This is a very appropriate place for us to identify some funds we can use for this urgent need. In its January 2000 report, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States, the CIA noted that over the next 20 years HIV/AIDS and associated diseases in sub-Saharan Africa would: . . . kill up to a quarter of their populations . . . (and) this will further impoverish the poor . . . and produce a huge and impoverished orphan cohort unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization. The estimate predicted increased political instability and slower democratic development as a result of AIDS. According to the World Bank: The illness and impending death of up to 25 percent of all adults in some countries will have an enormous impact on national productivity and earnings. Labor productivity is likely to drop, the benefits of education will be lost, and resources that would have been used for investments will be used for health care, orphan care, and funerals. Savings rates will decline, and the loss of human capital will affect production and the quality of life for years to come. More than 30 percent of teachers are HIV positive in parts of Malawi and Uganda, 20 percent in Zambia, and 12 percent in South Africa. AIDS is killing people at middle and upper levels of management in both business and government; the trained personnel to replace them are not available. Without a workforce, there is no productivity. Without productivity, a country's economy quickly deteriorates and the government collapses into chaos. All too often, terrorism and fanaticism springs forth from this chaos and begin to spread outwards from its birthplace, inflicting damage and destruction on other countries. HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases. AIDS has serious implications for issues of security in Africa, since HIV infection rates in many armies is extremely high. Domestic political stability is threatened when security forces become unable to perform their duties due to AIDS. Peacekeeping efforts on the part of more stable African nations are at risk as well as rates of infection among the peacekeeping troops grow. While he was in Nigeria last week, President Bush said: We will not allow terrorists to threaten African peoples or to use Africa as a base to threaten the world. If we underfund the efforts to fight HIV/AIDS and its associated disease, we will be allowing just that. The HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria pandemic in Africa is an international emergency. While visiting Botswana last week, President Bush declared: This is the deadliest enemy Africa has ever faced, and you will not face this enemy alone. Congress conveyed the same message last week in passing an amendment that asserted its belief that nothing short of full funding for HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria should be appropriated. The Byrd amendment allows us to do just that, and to do so without cutting vital services to other international health programs. The funding to do this would result from a .079 percent cut for all programs and activities within Title III and Title IV. These two Titles are receiving $3 billion more in funding than President Bush requested in his budget for fiscal year 2004. The Byrd amendment allows full funding for international HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria programs. It allows the promise made to be a promise kept. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases. I hope very much we can support the amendment of Senator Byrd. I hope it will get the same 78 votes we got for the sense-of-the-Congress resolution last week when we talked about whether we were going to appropriate money on the same schedule and at the same level we had authorized money in the earlier legislation this year. I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. I will certainly support it and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam President, I will respond to a few of the points my colleagues from Alaska and Hawaii made. First, I will say what this amendment does not do. There is nothing in this amendment that restricts what action the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, or any other agency of the Government is permitted to take with regard to these enemy combatants. This is an amendment that asks for a report. It does not say certain action has to be taken with regard to these individuals. It says tell us the status. Second, there is nothing in this amendment that affects court cases. If there are court cases related to any of these enemy combatants, then it is perfectly appropriate for the Justice Department to indicate who the person is or which individuals are involved and say they are subject to pending litigation, if that is the case. But the reality is, if one is designated an enemy combatant, they are taken out of the court system. That designation takes one out of the court system and puts them in the custody of the military. It is the position of our military that from that point on, one has no right to a hearing, no right to be charged, is an enemy combatant, and accordingly they will deal with them as they choose. The Senator from Alaska says this is something that is probably in the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. I think that sort of makes my case. These people are in nowhere land. They are in limbo. There is an article that came out in the morning paper in my home State in Albuquerque where there was a little report on the speech I gave 2 days ago talking about this problem, and I will read a sentence from that report: White House spokesman Taylor Gross referred questions about Bingaman's speech and proposed amendment to the Justice and Defense Departments. A Justice Department spokeswoman referred questions to the Defense Department. A spokesman for the Defense Department declined to comment. The reality is, we are allowing the administration to put these people in a category and then take the position that no rights apply to these individuals. There is no obligation on the Department of Justice to follow procedures with regard to these individuals. There is no obligation on the Department of Defense. There is nothing in my amendment that questions the treatment of these individuals. Others have questioned the treatment of these individuals. I have not questioned the treatment of these individuals in Guantanamo. There is nothing in the amendment that questions the treatment of these individuals. Also, the point my good friend from Hawaii has made, that this would give al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization information that could be useful to them about when individuals might be released, first, we have a proviso that anything the Department of Defense determines might be contrary to national security, they should keep it classified. They can give it any level of classification they want to give it. If they want to say it is code level classification, they can do that, whatever classification they think is appropriate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I came to the floor two days ago to express my concern about the administration's detention policies with respect to three different categories of individuals, and this is particularly in the period since 9/11. One of those groups I spoke about was immigrants. There, of course, the concern has been underscored by the report done by the inspector general in the Department of Justice pointing out the abuses that have been engaged in by both the Department of Justice and the FBI with regard to immigrants after the 9/11 tragedy. Another group I spoke about were material witnesses. There have been several abuses there. In some cases, I think the FBI has acknowledged that. I think, again, we have a serious issue there of adequate attention to civil liberties and human rights. The third group I spoke about is the group designated by the Department of Defense and the President as so-called enemy combatants. That is a group my amendment deals with today. The amendment is very straightforward with regard to these individuals. It requires a report. It says to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, give the appropriate committees of the Congress a report within 90 days of the time this law becomes effective. The report shall indicate who these people are that the administration has designated as enemy combatants, and it shall tell us what plans the Department has with regard to charging these individuals with crimes, with regard to trying them for those crimes, and if there is an intention to repatriate some of these individuals to particular countries, to please advise us of that, but tell us something about who these individuals are and what you intend to do with them. That is the thrust of the amendment. There is a proviso in the amendment that says if there is a national security problem that the Department or the Secretary of Defense sees in giving us any of this information, of course, that doesn't need to be included in the unclassified version of the report. That could be kept in a separate, classified annex and assigned whatever classification the Secretary determines is appropriate. The administration is holding 3 individuals today--that I am aware of--in the United States as enemy combatants and is holding close to 700 at our military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all cases, these individuals are being called incommunicado. They are given no access to counsel and no opportunity for judicial review as yet. Let me say what I think should be obvious to everybody, and that is that I am not advocating that these individuals be released. What I am saying is that we should afford them the right to be charged with a crime. Tell us what action they have taken that justifies their incarceration, and set up some opportunity for them to be tried for those actions. Many of these enemy combatants have been in custody by our Government for well over 18 months--in some cases over 20 months. President Bush announced recently--in the last 2 weeks--that 6 of the 700 or so of these enemy combatants will be tried by a military tribunal. As far as I know, there has been no indication yet as to what they will be tried for. There is no indication yet, or designation, or appointment of a military tribunal or commission to do the trying of these individuals. There has been no date set for these trials. But the President has said that 6 of the 680 or 700 individuals are eligible--I believe that is the phrase used by the Department of Defense and the White House--to be tried by military tribunals. There are serious questions about how those tribunals will function, and I am sure there will be many debates about that. Even more serious is a question relating to those who remain in jail, who have not--as yet at least--been given any indication of charges, any indication of when trials might be conducted in relation to them. The obvious question we need to be asking--we in the Congress--since we have an oversight responsibility over the administration, the executive branch, is, Where does the Government or this administration intend to go with regard to these individuals? So far, the administration takes the position that once the President says someone is an enemy combatant, they can keep them incarcerated, presumably until the war on terrorism is over. But the President has said--and I think he is probably right--this war on terrorism is of indefinite duration; it is not a war that we can see the end of--at least not in the near future. It appears to be the President's view and the administration's view that these individuals can be kept as prisoners from now on, without the administration having an obligation to say who they are, without the administration having an obligation to charge them with a crime, without the administration having any obligation to afford them a hearing. The administration takes the view that they do not come under the Geneva Convention, but evidently they come under none of the other procedural requirements that we have always thought applied in our system either. In my view, this is not a tenable position. It is not consistent with the commitment to liberty and the rule of law on which this country was founded. We demand that other governments show greater respect for human rights than this, and we should be demanding better from our own Government as well. The amendment is very straightforward and very modest, in my view. It simply says that the Secretary of Defense shall provide us with a report on the status of these detainees--provide that to the relevant committees of the Congress. Under the amendment, the report should include the name and nationality of the individuals involved, a statement as to whether our Government intends to charge them with some offense, or intends to repatriate them, or intends to release them-- whatever action we intend to engage in. There is nothing in the amendment that biases what is done with these individuals in any way. In the case of the individuals for whom such a determination has not been made, we ask for a description of the process the Department of Defense is intending to follow and the timeline for actually making a decision regarding these individuals. Madam President, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to require some accountability with regard to this set of individuals. We have made provision in the amendment, as I said before, so that the Secretary can withhold any information from any report he deems to be information necessary to withhold for national security reasons. The administration, in my view, needs to take some action and needs to advise the Congress on what it is doing with these people. If the individuals have committed crimes, let's see them charged with crimes. If they have not committed crimes, let's see them repatriated. Let's see some action taken. We in Congress need to understand what that action is. That is the thrust of the amendment. I hope it will receive broad bipartisan support. I appreciate Senator Specter cosponsoring the amendment, as well as the other Members I mentioned. I believe there is at least one other Member who wishes to speak in behalf of the amendment. So I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to that follow-on question, that is exactly correct. The Senator from Illinois is exactly right in pointing out that in what we are trying to do, we are not-- this is not an amendment I am offering 6 weeks after the 9/11 tragedy. This is an amendment I am offering 20 months or more after the 9/11 tragedy. We know that many of these individuals have been there well over a year and a half. It is time that we in Congress exercise our oversight responsibility and say: Who are they? What are they intending to be charged with? I do not anticipate that these are individuals we are going to some day say we have decided to release. I assume that we have them there for good reason, and that we are going to prosecute them and that we are going to find them guilty. That is my assumption, assuming the system works as it is intended to work. So my thought is, let's get some idea of where we are going so that we begin to build in some accountability and begin to recognize what we historically have recognized, and that is that there are certain legal protections that apply if one is jailed by the United States Government. There are certain legal rights that we will be afforded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to the question, I think the Senator from Illinois makes a very good point. If we are going to proclaim our commitment to liberty and to freedom as we always have, and as I certainly want to be able to do, and if we are going to insist that U.S. citizens, when they are captured in overseas incidents, whether they be military or civilian, that they be given some reasonable treatment through the court systems of those countries, then we have to have some adherence to reasonable legal process for these individuals that we have incarcerated. That is all I am asking. Tell us what we are going to do. If they come back and say we are not going to do anything, then we can see whether a follow-on amendment or follow-on action is appropriate. This amendment simply says, give us a report. Tell us the status of these individuals; tell us your plans with regard to these individuals; or give us some idea whether or not you are going to charge them. If you are going to charge them with something, tell us what you might charge them with. If you decide to make that decision later on, tell us when you might decide to make that decision. It is the most modest of amendments. I hope very much it will be supported by my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. How much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I retain that and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the courtesy. I will use my remaining 50 seconds.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, first of all, if the Secretary of Defense believes the release of any of these names compromises our national security, he is given full reign to keep that information classified at any level of classification he decides is appropriate. So we are not in any way interfering with national security. In my view, it is not appropriate for us to say, look, if you want to check on them, get on a plane and go down to Guantanamo. We and the American people need to be persuaded there is some adequate due process and legal process being followed. Regarding the idea of these military tribunals, there have been no tribunals established. The President said 6 individuals out of the nearly 700 are eligible to be considered or to be tried by military tribunals. There are no military tribunals established. I urge support for the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to that question, let me say that is exactly right. We have gone out of our way to make it clear the Departments can keep secret, can keep code classification, whatever classification level the Department decides is appropriate, any information they think is vital to our national security. So we are saying, as to the information that is not of that type, tell us what can be told about who these people are and what the intent is as far as what to do with them.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Specter, Daschle, Byrd, Leahy, Levin, Rockefeller, Corzine, Durbin, and Carper.