Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for his kind statements. I certainly want to recognize the fact that without the majority leader's very strong and thoughtful leadership in this area, we would not have gotten this far. He is obviously an expert in the area of health care and especially sensitive to the need to do something in the area of fighting those agents which might be used against us as biological agents. His leadership and knowledge have made a significant difference in our ability to be successful with this bill. I thank him for that leadership. I join him in thanking the President. Obviously, this is an initiative high on the President's agenda and the people at NIH, Dr. Zerhouni and Dr. Fauci, who understand the threat and understand the need to address the threat. We have to put the threat in context, and, regrettably, the context is serious. Were this 1950, 1960, were this any time prior to the latter part of last century and the beginning of our century, and we had terrorists out there who wanted to do us harm, who were as fanatical as are the people who wish to do us harm, the Islamic fundamentalist movement, we would fight them and we would be concerned about them. But our concerns and our ability to handle their threat would be proportional. We would have been able to manage it at that time in an effective and rather contained way. The problem today is that when you have a fanatical group, a group willing to not only pursue its purposes without limitation and as part of that to be willing to kill innocent individuals, and when you have a group such as that that is also able to get or potentially take possession of weapons of mass destruction, you have created a whole new issue, a whole new threat, a threat of massive proportions. Because if individuals are willing to use weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical, or nuclear--and they have no compunction about killing innocents--and in fact the purpose of Islamic fundamentalism is specifically to kill Western individuals, people who subscribe to the American philosophy, to our Nation--and their purpose is to undermine our country, to destroy our culture because they deem Western culture to be a threat to them, when you have people like that and they have the ability to possess weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems to get those weapons into places where they could do massive harm, then you have a problem of immense proportion. The Nation must protect itself from that type of threat. That is what this bioshield initiative is an attempt to do. We recognize, as the majority leader stated, that probably the single most threatening weapon which these individuals can get their hands on easily and disperse easily--it is not the single most threatening weapon overall; I suspect a nuclear device, were they able to produce one, would be more threatening--the type of weaponry which they most likely can get their hands on which has the potential to do the most harm to the most innocent individuals is a biological weapon or potentially a chemical weapon, but more likely a biological weapon. Because if they were able, for example, as was seen in a small contained area in the Capitol, to spread anthrax or to spread smallpox or to spread botulism, Ebola, or any other agents which would be a disease which would be carried, as the majority leader mentioned, without sight, without sound, without smell, without noise, across a large dispersal area, they could literally harm tens of thousands, potentially even more, Americans. There is no question but if these fundamentalist terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, get their hands on that type of weapon, get their hands on a biological weapon, come into possession of an anthrax capability or a smallpox capability, they will use it. There is no question about that. They will use it in a place where people gather who are gathering simply to go through their daily lives, whether it is in a subway system as occurred in Japan, or whether it is in a building as occurred here in the Capitol, or whether it is in some other area where people congregate. So we as a nation--and the President has made this very clear--have a responsibility to try to defend ourselves from that type of a threat. It is not an inexpensive responsibility. It is going to cost us a lot of money. Regrettably, it is a complex responsibility. There is no magic wand you can wave that will inoculate the American public against these threats. But we understand there is a procedure to go as far down the road as we can possibly go to accomplish that sort of an inoculation or have the capacity to defend our people from that type of a threat. One of the great advantages we have in fighting Islamic fundamentalism is that we are a sophisticated society which has technical capabilities which we can bring to bear in this war--and it is a war--and bring it to bear in a manner which allows us to take the position that gives us self-defense and also the capacity to carry the battle to them rather than have them carry the battle to us. This bioshield bill grew out of an initiative that the President suggested, which was that in the case of a series of agents which are biologically driven, which we know can do the most harm, the top seven or eight agents which we know can do the most harm--six or seven agents--we are going to initiate an effort to try to develop the science necessary to develop ways to interdict, to stop, to cure, to make the attacks that use those types of agents less harmful to our people. But in order to accomplish that, we had to recognize as a government--and the administration certainly did--that there is no commercial applicability for this type of research. There is no commercial demand for this type of a commodity. A vaccine for anthrax is not in great commercial demand. People are not just going to go out and buy it or take it for the purposes of going through their daily lives. It is not like some other cure to some other sickness, and, therefore, we had to set up a structure where we make it viable for our private sector pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology industry to invest the extraordinary amount of money it takes to invest in the production of this type of response capability. That is essentially what bioshield does. It puts in place a regime which accomplishes three things. First, it creates a research and development initiative which is public and private, using the great strength of NIH, which is refocused under the leadership of Dr. Zerhouni and Dr. Fauci, which has refocused a large amount of their energy, time, and expertise on this issue. It combines that public effort, which is aggressive, with a private initiative. In order to get the private initiative going, it sets up a funding stream which makes it clear to the private sector that should they pursue development of vaccines or other ways to treat these agents which we see as the most threatening, whether it be anthrax, plague, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola, or botulism, when they set up processes to address those diseases, whether it is a vaccine or whether it is something else, they will know there are going to be dollars in the pipeline to support that research and, more importantly, to purchase their product once they have produced it. And it will be purchased by the Government, obviously, because there is no market in the private sector for that. So along with the research component of having NIH focused on this and the private sector focused on this, this bill sets up a stockpiling and procurement procedure to make it clear that, first, once we develop these types of vaccines, we are going to have enough of them to be able to deal with a major attack. Second, the producers of these vaccines or other treatment processes developed--it might be a pharmaceutical--are going to be able to have adequate return on their investment so they can pay the cost of producing that and still make a reasonable return. Third, the bill sets up a process where, should the event occur, should we be attacked with some sort of an agent that we do not yet have the actual approved response to--don't have an approved vaccine--and it has not received all of the FDA clearing that vaccines must go through, which is a long, complicated process in order to approve a vaccine for human use, or approve a pharmaceutical, but should there be somewhere in the pipeline a vaccine which appears to have some success in remediating damage caused by one of these biological attacks, or a pharmaceutical which remediates that, and it is in the pipeline, we set up a procedure that allows, under certain very limited situations where there is a clear and obvious emergency, the administration to use that treatment that is in development for human consumption in order to confront an emergency situation where specifically we have been attacked. So that is the basic theme of the way this bill works. It creates the research component, the stockpiling and purchasing component, and creates an emergency outlet valve, if you will, for addressing a situation where we are attacked and we don't have a finalized product to address it. As the majority leader mentioned, of the six major areas of threat that we see in the biological area, today we only have vaccines to address two of them. One of the vaccine regimes is sort of difficult to deliver. That, of course, is in the anthrax area. We have, obviously, a very strong vaccine capability, and we are getting the production of new vaccines in the area of smallpox. Hopefully, people will get back to being vaccinated for smallpox because this is a legitimate threat. But in the area of plague, viral hemorrhagic fever, and botulism, there are no vaccines yet. That is why it is very important that we focus the resources, energy, and the genius of the American health community on making sure that we try to develop these types of responses. We are, regrettably, living in a world that has people who would do harm, who would pursue a course of inflicting massive harm for the purpose of making their political and quasi-religious point. It is an unfortunate fact. We need look no further than 9/11 to recognize that the killing of innocent people by the thousands is something that fundamentalist Islamic people, who ascribe to that belief, who are terrorists, basically are willing to pursue. We know that, regrettably, these biologic agents exist. Anthrax can be produced probably fairly easily if they have a chemistry background. We know it can be delivered and, regrettably, it was in the Capitol Building. We know that other types of agents can also be produced. Regrettably, there may even be a vial of smallpox somewhere out there that could be used. So it is critical, as the President has so appropriately stated, that we put into place the process for trying to, in this area, reduce the threat, and hopefully someday be able to totally mute the threat. Obviously, if we are capable as a culture of developing a vaccine or some other treatment that will neutralize the effect of these types of biological agents, then they will not be used against us because the harm they would cause would not be worth the risk of developing and spreading of the agent. So it is definitely in our interest to pursue this course. It is regrettable that it has taken us this long to get to this point from a legislative standpoint. But I congratulate the administration because they have not waited on us, the Congress. They have gone down the road as far as they think they can go toward letting contracts and putting into place the processes necessary to begin the development of these various vaccines and regimes necessary to address these risks. They have sort of come to a dead end, where they need this authorization in order to take the next steps necessary in the process of developing and expediting the process of getting these cures in place and the regimes in place. So this bill remains critical to our efforts in the fight on the war against terrorism. Therefore, it is good that we have finally been able to reach a consensus in the Senate, where we will be able to pass this bill later today. It is my understanding that the House of Representatives is likely to accept this bill as it passes the Senate. Hopefully, that will be the case, and we can move it down to the President, who I know has been waiting anxiously. He has talked to us many times about the need for this piece of legislation. This will be a good way, obviously, to complete this week. Amendment No. 3178

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask that if we proceed to a quorum call, the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq's Transition--The Way Ahead (Part II).

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19th, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 900, a bill to convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the savage unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake Irrigation Project to the pertinent irrigation districts; S. 1876, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the Provo River Project; S. 1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes; S. 2304 and H.R. 3209, bills to amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin Project; S. 2243, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska; H.R. 1648, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution systems of the Cachuma Project, California, to the Carpinteria Valley water district and the Montecito water district; and H.R. 1732, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, TX, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Certainly, unless the Senator from Maine----

Mr. GREGG. I would like to get 3 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi. I believe it is the proper process by which we should go forward with BRAC. BRAC is an extraordinarily complicated undertaking. I participated in four prior BRAC events and I can tell you from personal experience that it is intense, it is complicated, and it requires a great deal of planning and thought before it should go forward. The Senator from Mississippi is proposing we make the logical step at taking what is the first first; specifically, that we look at those overseas bases and see how many should be addressed relative to closure; and if we decide that a series of bases overseas should be closed, it is more than likely that much of what they do and what they are responsible for will have to be moved back to the United States. When that returning of troops, materiel, and mission comes to the United States, that is going to adjust how we should approach the BRAC process here in the United States. We all recognize there is excess in the military, although the last four BRAC processes have significantly reduced that. But we also should go forward in addressing that excess in an orderly and thoughtful manner. An orderly and thoughtful manner means you look at overseas bases first and decide which ones should be closed, and then look at domestic bases to determine whether they are going to have to take on new responsibility as a result of the closures overseas or whether they should also be closed. It is, therefore, an extremely constructive proposal and one which I strongly support and look forward to voting for, and hopefully it will pass. I yield the floor and reserve the time to Senator Lott.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of our time and I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the bill.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor. Stay Put Rule

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once Senator Santorum's amendment is modified and we agree to it, at 12:10 today the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 1350, with all provisions of the original agreement in place, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. GREGG. Senator Kennedy and I have a number of technical and conforming amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle and put into a managers' package. Therefore, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his help, assistance, and tireless effort in making sure this bill moved forward, and in an extremely constructive way. We have had considerable success in this committee in passing out of the committee a number of major pieces of legislation that have been bipartisan. Even in this time, as we head into a Presidential election, when there is a bit of tension and some slowdown in legislative activity due to the differences of opinion, which are being highlighted both substantively and politically, we have been able to make progress not only on special education but on other bills, such as the pension bill, which we passed and, hopefully fairly soon, on the bioshield bill, which is a critical piece of legislation. And that is in the last couple months. The special education bill is one this committee has attended to over the years and has tried to improve. It is a very intense piece of legislation in the sense that the parents and children who are affected by it are immediately impacted by everything we do. Clearly, the school systems, which try to respond to the needs of these children, and often have very complicated and difficult issues to resolve, are also immediately impacted. Therefore, I am glad we have been able to reach what is clearly a bipartisan and very positive and aggressive bill in moving forward on the issue of giving special needs children adequate education and appropriate education, to which they have a right and which, obviously, we all want to accomplish. The bill has received strong support from across the board. It is supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of School Administrators, Great City Schools, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired. I think it is important to note those different groups that represent different constituencies because sometimes there is tension between those groups as to how special needs children should be addressed and how they should be educated. As Senator Kennedy has so effectively highlighted, the bill creates a number of initiatives with which we are trying to address improvement of the educational system as it reaches out to these children. The first area that is the most fundamental area of change is what the children are learning. Unfortunately, the present law that has evolved over time has become an inputs exercise. In fact, there are something like 819 items which must be checked off in every school district for every child relative to the special needs of that child and how they are educated. We came to the conclusion that this was not getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is, are these children learning? Is their life improving? Are they being given the tools they need in order to participate in society? The bill moves significantly from being an inputs-tested bill to being an outputs-tested bill, to looking at improvement in academic results as being the primary mode under which we evaluate whether the bill is working relative to the children it is supposed to impact. Secondly, it is the teacher who is the key player in this effort. Teachers who undertake teaching special needs children are extraordinary people. They are giving of themselves in an immense way. I had the chance, when I headed up a center that dealt with children who had severe disabilities, to constantly be amazed at the commitment of these individuals who are basically, 24 hours a day--at least in our institution--trying to assist the children as they work through their personal problems but also work toward learning more. What we have tried to do is give teachers some new tools and relieve them of some of the bureaucratic burden. That is especially important. It is estimated that the average special needs teacher may spend as much as a day and a half each week just doing paperwork. We tried to reduce that and give the teachers the professional support they need and the assistance to make sure they are qualified to deal with these children who have very complex and difficult issues. Thirdly, we attempt to facilitate a better relationship between parents and the schools. Unfortunately, there is a natural tension. It has developed over time. Sometimes it becomes quite aggravated. It not only goes to the schools, it goes to the parents of other children in the school and the property-tax payers in the community. There is no reason a parent of a special needs child should find themselves in a confrontational situation as they try to get what is the appropriate education for their children. We have developed a whole series of initiatives to try to, for better or worse, create dispute resolution in a more comfortable manner rather than a confrontational and litigious manner. This is important to the parent and to the school system. It will mean resources, instead of being focused on hiring attorneys and confrontation in the courtroom or confrontation in a formal legal setting, can be focused on actually educating the child in the classroom. That is the bottom line. Fourth, the bill gives schools the tools they need to ensure that all the children are safe. As Senator Kennedy mentioned, discipline has always been a very difficult issue relative to IDEA, relative to special needs children. Disruption in the classroom is one of the primary concerns you hear when talking with teachers and faculty in relation to how special needs children are handled and dealt with in the classroom. In this bill we try to address that. We have made significant progress. I need to especially point out the work of Senator Sessions who focused on this issue, and in a very constructive way moved the process forward, so we have an excellent piece of legislation in this area. Lastly, we do have, as part of the amendments which passed yesterday, a glide path to full funding under the discretionary accounts, which is the proper way it should be done. In the history of dramatic increases in funding in this account, as was mentioned by Senator Bond, a 376- percent increase is the fastest growing funding increase of any spending item in the Federal budget on a percentage basis over the last few years. The commitment is there and now the authorization is locked in to get us to full funding in 6 to 7 years. This is a good piece of legislation. I expect it to receive very strong support. It didn't come about through luck and just out of the blue. It came about because a lot of people spent a lot of time over a significant period in constructing it and listening and bringing the people who were involved to the table to discuss it. I especially thank some of those folks because most of this work is done by our staff, and they do an extraordinary job. Let me mention a couple. Senator Kennedy has mentioned them also on his side of the aisle. Specifically with Senator Sessions, there was John Little of his staff who worked so hard on the discipline issue. Senator Alexander and his staff; Kristin Bannerman, worked very hard on providing State and school districts greater flexibility. Of course, from Senator Kennedy and his staff there is Michael Myers, who is staff director, and Connie Garner, who was already mentioned, who has been a major player. And Jeremy Buzzell, we very much appreciate his effort. On my staff, I have some extraordinary people who have done incredible work and deserve a great amount of accolades for this bill getting to this point: Annie White, who is truly a specialist in this area; Denzel McGuire, an extraordinary leader on all educational issues; and Bill Lucia, who is equally strong on these issues. I have had the very good fortune to have an exceptional staff--and, of course, my staff director Sharon Soderstrom, who does an exceptional job on all issues. We are very lucky to have these folks working for us. As a result of their efforts, we have been able to produce what I believe is an exceptional and a positive work product which is consistent with the efforts of this committee generally, as I mentioned. I thought I might read some of the things we have been able to pass out of this committee this year, this Congress, to reflect on how constructive we have been, even in a time of some considerable partisanship. We have done the genetics nondiscrimination bill; the generics drug bill, which reduces the cost of generics; special education; the community services block grant; the Workforce Investment Act, if we can get that to conference; we have the trauma care bill; the medical devices bill; the child abuse prevention and treatment bill; the childcare block grant; the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act; pediatric drug research authority; Organ Donation and Recovery Act; and the Birth Defects Act. That is just a few of the pieces of legislation we have been able to produce out of this committee in a bipartisan effort. I certainly appreciate the assistance of Senator Kennedy undertaking and accomplishing this very strong record. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reducing the paperwork burdens within IDEA is one of the Senate's top priorities in reauthorizing this important law. We want to empower teachers to spend more time with their students in the classroom, rather than spending endless hours filling out forms that do not lead to a better education for students. This bill already contains a number of excellent provisions aimed at cutting down on unnecessary paperwork for both teachers and parents. For instance, S. 1248 streamlines state and local requirements to ensure that paperwork focuses on improved educational and functional results for children with disabilities. It clarifies that no information is required in an IEP beyond what Federal law requires. It eliminates the requirements that IEPs must include benchmarks and short-term objectives that generate more paperwork, but requires a description of how progress is measured, including quarterly reports to parents. It reduces the number of times that procedural safeguards notices must be sent out to parents to once per year, unless their parent registers a complaint or requests a copy. It ensures that State regulations are consistent with IDEA and that any state-imposed requirements or paperwork reporting are clearly identified to local educational agencies. And it requires the Secretary to develop model forms, review paperwork requirements and provide Congress with proposals to reduce the paperwork burden on teachers. This is a great start on reducing paperwork for teachers, parents, and administrators. However, we need to do more. The amount of paperwork special education teachers are required to complete is burdensome, takes valuable time away from the classroom, and undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. Let me give you some statistics to illustrate this problem. According to a recent study by the Council for Exceptional Children, a majority of special educators estimate that they spend a day or more each week on paperwork, and 83 percent report spending half to one and a half days per week in IEP-related meetings. Special education teachers spend an average of 5 hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of 2 hours per week on paperwork. The average length of an individualized education program, or IEP, one of the biggest sources of paperwork, is between 8 and 16 pages. Fifty-three percent of special education teachers report that, to a great extent, their routine duties and paperwork interfere with their interaction with their students. Special educators spend more time on paperwork than grading papers, communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues, supervising paraprofessionals and attending individualized education program meetings combined. While special educators spend the majority of their time on paperwork filling out compliance and documentation-related paperwork, general educators spend most of their time completing instructionally relevant paperwork such as tracking students' academic progress across the curriculum. With these overwhelming paperwork burdens on teachers, we need to ask ourselves what kind of effect they are having on our special education system. Special education teachers feel excessive paperwork interferes with their ability to serve children with disabilities more effectively. The study of personnel needs in special education, SPENSE, sponsored by OSEP reveals that special education teachers often cite required forms and administrative paperwork as an area of dissatisfaction with their working conditions. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in the process overwhelms and burdens teachers, robbing them of time to educate their students. It also makes it more difficult for school districts to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers. Studies from the Department of Education show that the nation is facing a significant shortage of special education teachers, and many special educators leaving the field cite the burden of unnecessary paperwork as one of the primary reasons for their departure. Simply put, teachers, schools, local educational agencies, and States should be relieved of irrelevant and unnecessary paperwork burdens that do not lead to improved educational outcomes for children with disabilities. Therefore, I support the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, which authorizes a pilot program allowing States to demonstrate innovative and creative measures to reduce the paperwork burden. The Secretary of Education would be authorized to grant waivers of paperwork requirements to 15 States based on proposals submitted by States for reducing paperwork. The goal is to increase instructional time and resources and improve results for students with disabilities. This pilot program is not meant to decrease any of the rights children have under the Act, but is intended to allow those States who choose to participate to think creatively and innovatively about how to best meet the demands of the Act while reducing the paperwork burden so school personnel can focus on educating children with disabilities. In fact, we clearly state that the Secretary of Education may not waive any applicable civil rights requirements or procedural safeguards under Section 615, and nothing in the demo will affect the right of a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education, FAPE. The amendment also includes a rigorous reporting requirement to ensure that the Secretary reports to Congress about the success of this program in reducing unnecessary paperwork while preserving the rights of children served under the Act. The National Education Association, made up of 2.7 million teachers, supports this amendment. The NEA says that paperwork reduction in IDEA is one of the highest priorities of its members. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, so that our Nation's teachers can spend more time on providing high quality education services to our Nation's children with disabilities--rather than on filling out mounds of unnecessary paperwork.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for Members' information, we expect to have a vote on final passage around 12:10. In fact, we may have a unanimous consent, although I will withhold that for a moment. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 12:10 be equally divided between the sides.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider and agree to amendment No. 3150.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. I understand your concerns and will take them to conference.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the pending legislation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Unless there is further business, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 12, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Telecommunications Policy Review: A View from Industry.