Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Bob Smith loved serving the people of New Hampshire. I have witnessed Bob's high regard for the office he has held here in the U.S. Senate; he has taken his job seriously, both in Washington and at home. He is a man of strong family values and hearty resolve, two fundamental characteristics of our State. Bob is not a programmed politician. In fact, he is the opposite. He has always been driven by his independence and conservative ideas. When Bob and Mary Jo Smith first moved to New Hampshire, they did not waste any time getting involved in the Lakes Region community. Bob became a high school history and government teacher and helped coach the football and baseball teams. He also got involved in local politics by joining the school board. Fourteen years after settling in New Hampshire, Bob was elected into the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served until he was elected to the Senate. Here in the Senate, Bob has been an advocate and representative for the interests of New Hampshire, taking strong stands on the issues he cares about. Regardless of political bias, it can never be said that Bob Smith did not stand up for what he believed in, a fact that is known and respected in New Hampshire. He became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, providing leadership and a voice for New Hampshire on environmental issues. He has continued to speak out for the concerns of States like New Hampshire. On the Armed Services Committee, Bob has championed the cause of accounting for American prisoners of war and those service men and women who are reported missing in action. As a veteran of the Navy and the Vietnam War, Bob has long advocated for a strong military and understands the importance of government support and assistance for brave members of our armed services. During the past 18 years, Bob has shown grace and strength. He has served New Hampshire with honor and I admire his courage in standing up for what he believes in time and time again. Bob, his wife Mary Jo, and their three children have spent the past eighteen years achieving well the difficult balance of raising a family while simultaneously handling the constant demands of public office. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his distinguished career and thank him for his service to New Hampshire. fred thompson

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, one of the Senate's highest priorities, and one of my own personal priorities, has been ensuring that State and local first responders are prepared to handle a terrorist attack, especially one involving weapons of mass destruction. One of the principal ways I have tried to do this is through the Office of Domestic preparedness at the Department of Justice. Through the Appropriations subcommittee that Senator Hollings and I oversee, the Senate built ODP from a $5 million program into an $800 million program in just five years. Since 1998, ODP has been the focal point within the Federal Government for State and local jurisdictions to receive equipment grants, training, technical assistance, and exercise support for combating terrorism. The original legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security would have combined the preparedness functions of ODP and the response functions of FEMA into a single Directorate, the Directorate of emergency Preparedness and Response. The problem with this framework is that the much larger FEMA would have dominated the new Directorate, and its priorities and philosophies would have obscured those of ODP. ODP possesses unique experience and expertise when it comes to preparing the State and local jurisdictions to handle terrorism. FEMA has very little experience with this side of the equation: its role has always been to respond after an event occurs. FEMA employs something called the ``all-hazards'' approach to disaster response. Under the all-hazards approach, all disasters are handled the same way. But we cannot treat terrorism the same way we treat other disasters. The attack on the World Trade Center provides an excellent case in point. On September 11, New York City first responders treated the first explosion as a high-rise fire and set up their command center in Tower II. Because the responders employed a generic, all-hazards response, they did not anticipate the second explosion in Tower II. Our approach to terrorism must be different from our approach to natural disasters--it must be innovative and adaptive. It must anticipate a predatory adversary that constantly devises new ways to get around each new set of measures we take. There are four key components, or ``pillars'', involved in combating terrorism: prevention, preparedness, crisis management, and consequence management. Justice has traditionally been responsible for preparedness, and FEMA has traditionally been responsible for consequence management, or disaster response. The Homeland Security legislation, as originally written, would have lumped these components together. However, the people who are responsible for responding in the immediate aftermath of an attack cannot also be responsible for carrying out sustained training, equipment, and exercise programs. These are programmatic initiatives that must be executed day in and day out. FEMA is a response agency. It will not be able to give terrorism preparedness the time and attention it deserves because it must constantly respond to disasters around the country. The amendment I offered to the Homeland Security bill acknowledged the importance of consolidating the preparedness and response functions in the new Department of Homeland Security. However, the amendment set them apart in order to preserve both FEMA's and ODP's areas of expertise. The amendment created the Office for Domestic Preparedness under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security and transferred terrorism preparedness functions to this new office from both the Justice Department and FEMA. Specifically, the new Office for Domestic Preparedness includes Justice's current Office for Domestic Preparedness and parts of FEMA's Office of National Preparedness. ODP will be responsible for all of our preparedness activities and FEMA will continue to have the lead for consequence management. Under this framework, the preparedness and response functions will be preserved, yet will be closely coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is the best way to prevent FEMA's and ODP's critical functions from being blurred within the Department of Homeland Security. The responsibilities of the new Office for Domestic Preparedness will be similar to what they are now under the Department of Justice: coordinating terrorism preparedness at the Federal level; assisting State and local jurisdictions with their preparedness efforts; conducting strategic and operational planning; coordinating communications at all levels of government; managing the preparedness grants to State and local jurisdictions; and assisting them in the implementation of the President's National Strategy. This is, in fact, one of the key reasons why I have pushed for the creation of the Office for Domestic Preparedness within the new Department. It ensures the continuity of preparedness assistance for State and local jurisdictions. The office they have looked to for the last five years for equipment, training, and exercise assistance will continue to exist, but under the leadership of the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security. If not for this amendment, ODP would most likely have been subsumed by FEMA, and all of the work ODP has accomplished would have been lost. ODP's successful methodologies for providing assistance to State and local jurisdictions would have been scrapped in favor of FEMA's undeveloped and untested approach. An example of one such successful methodology is the system of accountability ODP established by requiring States to have a terrorism preparedness strategy before they could receive Federal funding. The State strategies have allowed ODP to make informed and strategic decisions about how to allocate funding for equipment, training, and exercises. FEMA has no such system in place. By keeping ODP's and FEMA's activities distinct, we preserve the progress each has made in their respective areas of expertise. The amendment permits FEMA to concentrate on a mission that it is uniquely equipped to perform: disaster response. This is extremely important, especially in light of the fact that there is an average of 34 major disaster declarations per year in the U.S. I know that my coastal State colleagues were very concerned that FEMA's natural disaster responsibilities, in particular its mission of responding to hurricanes, would be eclipsed by its new homeland security responsibilities. I am certain that this concern is shared by Senators from States that face the threat of earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. This provision makes it clear that FEMA is out of the preparedness business. This was one of the primary reasons why I felt such an amendment was necessary. It will help prevent competition between terrorism response and natural disaster response within the new Department. Under the original legislation, the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response would have been pressured on the one hand to focus its resources and attention on natural disasters, and on the other hand on combating terrorism. This competition would have weakened our level of preparedness for either type of disaster. By setting them apart within the new Department, we have built in a natural balance between these two critical areas. I was disappointed to learn that some at FEMA are already busy planning ways to avoid having to execute the directive. I am told that FEMA intends, during the next few weeks, to re-designate all of the preparedness staff at the Office of National Preparedness as ``all- hazards staff''. By renaming them all-hazards, FEMA could retain its preparedness functions. These actions come despite the fact that at least 38 U.S. Senators believe those functions should reside at the Office for Domestic Preparedness and not at FEMA. These actions come despite our having negotiated in good faith with the White House. These actions come despite agreement among the Office of Homeland Security, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. On a different note, it has recently come to my attention that the Office of Management and Budget is considering requiring State and local jurisdictions to match the Federal preparedness grants. OMB should not impose this requirement on State and local jurisdictions. They do not have the fiscal resources to support such a requirement. The equipment, training, and exercise initiatives that I have here discussed are part of a comprehensive National preparedness program. State and local jurisdictions will not be able to achieve the standards or readiness that are required, especially at this time of increased threat to our Nation, if they are forced to comply with matching requirements. In point of fact, State and local governments already bear most of the burden in protecting our Nation from terrorism. They-- the first responders, who willingly and courageously put themselves in harm's way--protect the American people. Just after September 11, the President duly acknowledged how critical first responders are to our National security. We cannot shortchange them now. We are at war and the Federal Government must fully support our State and local first responders. ODP has provided training to approximately 114,000 first responders and exercise support to more than 100,000 first responders nationwide. It has given out nearly $600 million in equipment grants to State and local jurisdictions since its creation in 1998. It also executed the largest terrorism exercise in U.S. history, TOPOFF. I have heard reports that those who participated in the multi-venue TOPOFF were the only ones truly prepared to handle the challenges presented on September 11. The amendment acknowledges that we do have an effective system in place and it preserves what has been accomplished. The amendment I submitted acknowledges that the Office of Domestic Preparedness and FEMA both perform critical roles and must work closely together. I commend the administration for recognizing the need and working with the Senate to get the job done. I would also like to thank Senator Lott for his excellent work on this bill, as well as his counsel Rohit Kumar. Finally, I would like to recognize Dean Kueter, Jr., of the National Sheriffs Association for his tireless work in generating grassroots support on this important issue.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, one of the Senate's highest priorities, and one of my own personal priorities, has been ensuring that State and local first responders are prepared to handle a terrorist attack, especially one involving weapons of mass destruction. One of the principal ways I have tried to do this is through the Office of Domestic preparedness at the Department of Justice. Through the Appropriations subcommittee that Senator Hollings and I oversee, the Senate built ODP from a $5 million program into an $800 million program in just five years. Since 1998, ODP has been the focal point within the Federal Government for State and local jurisdictions to receive equipment grants, training, technical assistance, and exercise support for combating terrorism. The original legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security would have combined the preparedness functions of ODP and the response functions of FEMA into a single Directorate, the Directorate of emergency Preparedness and Response. The problem with this framework is that the much larger FEMA would have dominated the new Directorate, and its priorities and philosophies would have obscured those of ODP. ODP possesses unique experience and expertise when it comes to preparing the State and local jurisdictions to handle terrorism. FEMA has very little experience with this side of the equation: its role has always been to respond after an event occurs. FEMA employs something called the ``all-hazards'' approach to disaster response. Under the all-hazards approach, all disasters are handled the same way. But we cannot treat terrorism the same way we treat other disasters. The attack on the World Trade Center provides an excellent case in point. On September 11, New York City first responders treated the first explosion as a high-rise fire and set up their command center in Tower II. Because the responders employed a generic, all-hazards response, they did not anticipate the second explosion in Tower II. Our approach to terrorism must be different from our approach to natural disasters--it must be innovative and adaptive. It must anticipate a predatory adversary that constantly devises new ways to get around each new set of measures we take. There are four key components, or ``pillars'', involved in combating terrorism: prevention, preparedness, crisis management, and consequence management. Justice has traditionally been responsible for preparedness, and FEMA has traditionally been responsible for consequence management, or disaster response. The Homeland Security legislation, as originally written, would have lumped these components together. However, the people who are responsible for responding in the immediate aftermath of an attack cannot also be responsible for carrying out sustained training, equipment, and exercise programs. These are programmatic initiatives that must be executed day in and day out. FEMA is a response agency. It will not be able to give terrorism preparedness the time and attention it deserves because it must constantly respond to disasters around the country. The amendment I offered to the Homeland Security bill acknowledged the importance of consolidating the preparedness and response functions in the new Department of Homeland Security. However, the amendment set them apart in order to preserve both FEMA's and ODP's areas of expertise. The amendment created the Office for Domestic Preparedness under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security and transferred terrorism preparedness functions to this new office from both the Justice Department and FEMA. Specifically, the new Office for Domestic Preparedness includes Justice's current Office for Domestic Preparedness and parts of FEMA's Office of National Preparedness. ODP will be responsible for all of our preparedness activities and FEMA will continue to have the lead for consequence management. Under this framework, the preparedness and response functions will be preserved, yet will be closely coordinated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is the best way to prevent FEMA's and ODP's critical functions from being blurred within the Department of Homeland Security. The responsibilities of the new Office for Domestic Preparedness will be similar to what they are now under the Department of Justice: coordinating terrorism preparedness at the Federal level; assisting State and local jurisdictions with their preparedness efforts; conducting strategic and operational planning; coordinating communications at all levels of government; managing the preparedness grants to State and local jurisdictions; and assisting them in the implementation of the President's National Strategy. This is, in fact, one of the key reasons why I have pushed for the creation of the Office for Domestic Preparedness within the new Department. It ensures the continuity of preparedness assistance for State and local jurisdictions. The office they have looked to for the last five years for equipment, training, and exercise assistance will continue to exist, but under the leadership of the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security. If not for this amendment, ODP would most likely have been subsumed by FEMA, and all of the work ODP has accomplished would have been lost. ODP's successful methodologies for providing assistance to State and local jurisdictions would have been scrapped in favor of FEMA's undeveloped and untested approach. An example of one such successful methodology is the system of accountability ODP established by requiring States to have a terrorism preparedness strategy before they could receive Federal funding. The State strategies have allowed ODP to make informed and strategic decisions about how to allocate funding for equipment, training, and exercises. FEMA has no such system in place. By keeping ODP's and FEMA's activities distinct, we preserve the progress each has made in their respective areas of expertise. The amendment permits FEMA to concentrate on a mission that it is uniquely equipped to perform: disaster response. This is extremely important, especially in light of the fact that there is an average of 34 major disaster declarations per year in the U.S. I know that my coastal State colleagues were very concerned that FEMA's natural disaster responsibilities, in particular its mission of responding to hurricanes, would be eclipsed by its new homeland security responsibilities. I am certain that this concern is shared by Senators from States that face the threat of earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. This provision makes it clear that FEMA is out of the preparedness business. This was one of the primary reasons why I felt such an amendment was necessary. It will help prevent competition between terrorism response and natural disaster response within the new Department. Under the original legislation, the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response would have been pressured on the one hand to focus its resources and attention on natural disasters, and on the other hand on combating terrorism. This competition would have weakened our level of preparedness for either type of disaster. By setting them apart within the new Department, we have built in a natural balance between these two critical areas. I was disappointed to learn that some at FEMA are already busy planning ways to avoid having to execute the directive. I am told that FEMA intends, during the next few weeks, to re-designate all of the preparedness staff at the Office of National Preparedness as ``all- hazards staff''. By renaming them all-hazards, FEMA could retain its preparedness functions. These actions come despite the fact that at least 38 U.S. Senators believe those functions should reside at the Office for Domestic Preparedness and not at FEMA. These actions come despite our having negotiated in good faith with the White House. These actions come despite agreement among the Office of Homeland Security, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. On a different note, it has recently come to my attention that the Office of Management and Budget is considering requiring State and local jurisdictions to match the Federal preparedness grants. OMB should not impose this requirement on State and local jurisdictions. They do not have the fiscal resources to support such a requirement. The equipment, training, and exercise initiatives that I have here discussed are part of a comprehensive National preparedness program. State and local jurisdictions will not be able to achieve the standards or readiness that are required, especially at this time of increased threat to our Nation, if they are forced to comply with matching requirements. In point of fact, State and local governments already bear most of the burden in protecting our Nation from terrorism. They-- the first responders, who willingly and courageously put themselves in harm's way--protect the American people. Just after September 11, the President duly acknowledged how critical first responders are to our National security. We cannot shortchange them now. We are at war and the Federal Government must fully support our State and local first responders. ODP has provided training to approximately 114,000 first responders and exercise support to more than 100,000 first responders nationwide. It has given out nearly $600 million in equipment grants to State and local jurisdictions since its creation in 1998. It also executed the largest terrorism exercise in U.S. history, TOPOFF. I have heard reports that those who participated in the multi-venue TOPOFF were the only ones truly prepared to handle the challenges presented on September 11. The amendment acknowledges that we do have an effective system in place and it preserves what has been accomplished. The amendment I submitted acknowledges that the Office of Domestic Preparedness and FEMA both perform critical roles and must work closely together. I commend the administration for recognizing the need and working with the Senate to get the job done. I would also like to thank Senator Lott for his excellent work on this bill, as well as his counsel Rohit Kumar. Finally, I would like to recognize Dean Kueter, Jr., of the National Sheriffs Association for his tireless work in generating grassroots support on this important issue.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am proud to support the Health Care Safety Net conference agreement passed today. This legislation re- authorizes and strengthens several programs that provide critical services to the uninsured and medically underserved. With the recent announcement by the U.S. Census Bureau that there are now 41.5 million uninsured Americans, this legislation comes at a crucial time. The safety net legislation will ensure that millions of Americans who are uninsured or who lack adequate health insurance coverage will at least have access to preventive and basic primary health care services in their communities. The legislation reauthorizes the community health centers program, which provides needed health care services, including outpatient dental, diagnostic, treatment, preventive, and primary care--in under- served rural and inner-city areas. These services are provided through community health centers, migrants health centers, farm-workers, health centers for the homeless, health centers for residents of public housing, and healthy schools programs. It also re-authorizes the National Health Service Crops, a program that trains and places health professionals in areas where there are shortages of qualified professionals. Finally, the legislation establishes the Healthy Communities Access Program, which will help coordinate community services for the uninsured. I believe this legislation represents what can be achieved when good policy and bipartisanship overcome politics. A priority for President Bush, this legislation is an important piece of his agenda to ensure that all Americans have access to health care services. As a next step, I look forward to working with the President, and my colleagues in the Senate and House, to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments concerning the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, which was passed by both the House and Senate earlier this morning. This legislation was the product of a tremendous amount of hard work--from folks in both Chambers and on both sides of the aisle--and includes the most significant improvements in the way medical devices are reviewed and regulated, arguably since 1976. More importantly, these changes will have a very positive and lasting impact on both patients and consumers. The legislation accomplishes this in several ways: User Fees: First, it ensures adequate resources for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), by creating a new user-fee program, modeled after the one used to review drugs and biologics--which has been incredibly successful. FDA resources at the device center have dramatically declined in the last 10 years, resulting in significant staff turn-over (as high as 10%) and increased review times (more than 400 days per submission when the statute requires reviews of 180 days). By charging manufacturers a reasonable fee for reviewing their products, FDA can hire more staff, meet review deadlines, and ensure that patients have timely access to the newest, most innovative medical technologies. I particularly want to thank my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his work on this issue. Moreover, in order to protect some of the smaller companies-- including a substantial number in New Hampshire--the bill in many cases exempt or significantly reduce these fees. Re-Use: Second, the legislation provides greater protection to patients from reused and reprocessed medical devices. The bill ensures that medical devices--especially some of the more delicate, high risk products, such as angioplasty balloons--are not used over and over again on different patients without first demonstrating that this can be done safely and reliably. On that note, I would especially like to thank Senator Durbin for his invaluable assistance in working with us to craft this very important provision. I believe that it will save a great many lives. The legislation that he and I worked on this summer and have introduced separately today represents the foundation for the final product included in this bill. Third-Party Inspections: Third, it increases the frequency and quality of inspections of medical device manufacturing facilities--both here and abroad--by allowing inspections from FDA-accredited third- parties. On average, the FDA is currently able to inspect a U.S. facility only once every 7 years, and foreign facilities once every 11 years. This is unacceptable and in direct contravention to the current statutory requirement for inspections every 2 years. By augmenting FDA's inspection capabilities, we will help ensure that these medical devices are being manufactured in accordance with established manufacturing practices. Modernizing FDA: Finally, the bill brings FDA regulation into the 21st century, by instituting electronic labeling, electronic registration, and modular reviews of applications. It also establishes a more effective review process for the fastest wave of innovative combination biotechnologies, including drug and biologics coated stents, drug pumps, and engineered tissues. Working together, these changes will give FDA the tools it needs to work more effectively, and to get the next generation of life-saving medical devices into the hands of doctors and patients more quickly than ever before. I am also pleased to report that this legislation is widely supported by the administration, FDA, patient/consumer groups, industry, and provider/hospital groups. I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish here today and believe that this legislation will have a tremendous positive impact on people's lives as they enjoy the benefits of today and tomorrow's medical technology.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I object.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first let me say that I believe that this Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3801, The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, represents a significant step toward achieving our common goal of improving the quality of education research. I thank Assistant Secretary Whitehurst and his staff for the assistance they provided in crafting this legislation. I am especially gratified to see this bill come together in the same spirit of bipartisanship in which we crafted the No Child Left Behind Act. Though significant Federal involvement in education research dates back to the 1950's, we are still without a strong body of high quality education research to guide education policymaking. Yet the need for sound, rigorous education research that is free of political bias and useful to educators has never been more important. With passage of the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, we have made it our mission as a Nation to make sure every student is well-educated. By renewing our efforts to master the science of how children learn best, this bill will help tremendously in achieving that mission. Specifically, the bill: No. 1, reconstitutes the Office of Education Research and Improvement as the ``Institute of Education Sciences'' to provide a more rational, streamlined infrastructure for the Department of Education's research, development, statistics, evaluation, and dissemination functions; No. 2, establishes more rigorous research standards, which all Institute-funded education research will have to meet. Education fads that masquerade as science will no longer be acceptable; No. 3, establishes Research and Development Centers to cover such important topics as standards, assessment and accountability, improving low achieving schools, innovation in education reform, rural education, teacher quality, and postsecondary education; No. 4, contributes to the creation of a ``culture of science'' within the new Institute by giving the Director the hiring flexibility necessary to attract and retain the best researchers, evaluators, and statisticians to the Institute; No. 5, makes technical assistance to schools, school districts, and states more efficient and user-friendly, particularly the assistance needed in order to effectively implement the No Child Left Behind Act. The current patchwork of regional technical assistance entities will be replaced by a single set of technical assistance providers; No. 6, increases the independence of the research and evaluation functions of the Department, while preserving the independence and quality of the current National Center for Education Statistics; No. 7, further insulates the National Assessment of Educational Progress from political interference by giving the independent National Assessment Governing Board the authority to release NAEP results to the public; and No 8, requires that grants and contracts with regional education laboratories, national research and development centers, and technical assistance providers are awarded on the basis of open competition. It is my hope that the significant reforms made by this legislation will mark the beginning of a new era in the field of education research--an era in which policymaking will be based on sound science, to the benefit of our Nation's students.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate his courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on the most important resolution. His leadership has had an integral impact on how this resolution was designed, and he has been a leader on addressing what is obviously the major national security issue which we confront as a Nation today. I--like many Americans, hopefully--have followed the debate in this Chamber. I have been interested in the tenor and tempo of the debate. I believe it has obviously been serious and substantive in its approach to how we address the question of this resolution, which will authorize the President to take such action as is necessary in order to protect our Nation relative to Iraq, and to work with the United Nations in that undertaking. One of the things, however, I have also noted is there is almost a sophistry being presented here. For example, I heard one presentation, talking about whether or not we were pursuing preventive war versus preemptive war, in which there was almost a rather nice dissertation of what I would call political science 101 on the difference between preemptive war and preventive war, and whether or not we, as a Nation, had a right to pursue a preventive war versus a preemptive war. I would simply point out we are at war. We are not initiating war. We are not in the process of striking an enemy by whom we have not been struck. Two Embassies in Africa were attacked. Hundreds of people died. An American ship in Yemen was attacked. Many sailors died. And, of course, on September 11, thousands of Americans died in America as a result of an attack. We are at war. We did not ask for it. We did not initiate it, but we have no choice but to respond to it. In responding to it, we must have our eyes open. We are a Nation which inherently believes in the better nature of people. We inevitably give people the benefit of the doubt. It is our culture, and it is one of our strengths. Regrettably, in this war, giving people the benefit of the doubt--people who have a track record of either hating us, attacking us, or confronting us militarily--may end up costing us even more lives. I think we need to review the enemy's purpose. Let's begin with al- Qaida and bin Laden, and use his own words. bin Laden, in an interview that was published in January 1999--it originally appeared in Time--made the following statement: Hostility toward America is religious duty. He went on to say, in February 1998: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Moslem, who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. ``Civilians and military.'' He went on to say: We, with Allah's help, call on every Moslem, who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah's order to kill Americans and plunder their money. And most recently, in a tape recently released just a week ago: The youth of Islam are preparing something to strike fear in your hearts---- Referring to America---- and will target the vital sections of your economy until you renounce your injustice and hostility. This is an enemy who has called to arms the people who believe in him and follow him for the purposes of killing Americans as defined by his own language: ``civilian and military.'' That is the enemy we confront in al-Qaida. And what is the relationship to Iraq? First off, we must look at the history of our relationship and of Iraq's relationship in the area of military activity. Saddam Hussein has attacked his neighbors, neighboring nations twice. He has mercilessly--mercilessly--suppressed his own people, especially the Kurdish minority within Iraq. He has invaded Iran and Kuwait. He has also developed and used weapons of mass destruction. ``Weapons of mass destruction'' is a terribly antiseptic term. But what it means is, he is essentially willing to spread disease which will kill thousands--tens of thousands--of people in order to obtain his purpose. And he has done it. He has used biological weapons. He has used chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurdish people in his own country, killing literally thousands of people. Of course, we went to war with Iraq in the early 1990s. So our history with Iraq is significant, as we recognize they are governed by an outlaw and, as a result, have been a nation functioning outside of the civil discourse of organized nations. But why is it important we confront them at this time and in this context? It is important because of the weapons of mass destruction which they have. If this were the world prior to 1980, let us say, when weapons of mass destruction were not so readily available, or nations which had them were governed by governments which had at least some modicum of responsibility, then you might not look at a tyrant such as Hussein and say you needed to do anything: Let him, regrettably, do his harm to his neighbors and his nation. It is not affecting us. The problem is, after September 11, we, as a country, cannot take such an isolationist view, for we know there is an enemy out there called al-Qaida that has stated, unequivocally, their purpose is to kill Americans and destroy our society and culture. And we have seen them take action to do that on September 11, and in Africa at our Embassies, and at the USS Cole. We also know there is another nation out there, run by a tyrant, who is a murderous individual, who has weapons which are capable of exacting massive--massive--amounts of damage and loss of life, if used. The threat, obviously, is that the two should be joined or that the tyrant should just unilaterally use these weapons. Why is that threat legitimate? It is legitimate because there is significant common sense which tells us that it may be joined. There have been reports not by American news media or by American intelligence services but by Arab sources which have made it clear that there is a cross-fertilization between the Hussein government and al- Qaida. Reports appearing in a Karachi newspaper, the Ummat, on November 22 carried an article saying that Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to the top Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. In this regard, a delegation led by a senior official in the Iraqi Government, Taha Hussein, met with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din Haqqani--I hope I pronounced that correctly, but considering his purposes, I don't really care--in Qatar and conveyed Saddam Hussein's offer to him. If the report is true, then it is at least the second time Saddam Hussein has offered bin Laden asylum. A report in the Christian Science Monitor cited Arab sources which it considered to be legitimate that, according to Hassan Mohammed, who claims to have worked for two decades for Iraq intelligence services, graduates of an Iraqi school were intimately involved in training both Assad al Hassan and al-Qaida cells, and the quote is: My information is that the Iraqi Government was directly supporting al-Qaida with weapons and explosives. There are more and more reports like this. It is also logical, logical because Osama bin Laden and his people have made it clear that those who consider us an enemy are their allies. Therefore, Iraq is a natural ally to them, and vice versa. So the possibility that a weapon of mass destruction which has been developed--and we know they have been developed within Iraq, biological and chemical weapons--could fall into al-Qaida hands or people representing the same concepts of al-Qaida is distinct. We also know that Iraq is moving forward with a nuclear program, that they wish to have a nuclear bomb, and that they may well have it, if they are able to get fissile material within a year; if not, within 3 or 4 years. They are much further down the road toward obtaining nuclear weapons than we even anticipated when we had the war with them in the early 1990s. That was terminated then but has been restarted. So what are we to do about this? The U.N. has passed 16 resolutions, the basic purpose of which is to try to disarm Saddam Hussein and his government, specifically in the area of weapons of mass destruction. There is no civilized nation today that does not understand the threat that is represented by having a government headed by a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. So the U.N. has made a conscientious effort to address this with these 16 resolutions. Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored those, lied about what he is doing, and he ejected the inspectors, which leads us to the point we are at today. This resolution has as its fundamental purpose the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, taking away his weapons of mass destruction. If, as a corollary to that, a regime change occurred in Iraq, that would be for the betterment of the world, I suspect. But the vital purpose here is to terminate the capacity to have and to use weapons of mass destruction, either by Iraq or by a client of Iraq or by an ally of Iraq or by al-Qaida specifically. It is a totally legitimate national security purpose that we should pursue. The President has outlined the need to accomplish this. What he has essentially said, and appropriately so, is that we will support the U.N. effort to accomplish this. But if the U.N. is unable to accomplish it, then our national security is so important, so overriding, that we should take action with our allies to accomplish this. That is the only reasonable approach when you confront a threat of this significance. There are some in this body who have essentially said we should pursue what I call the good intentions approach. That is an American trait--that we do give people the benefit of the doubt. But the good intentions approach in this area--hoping that things will work out through a policy of containment--has not worked. We know for a fact that Hussein and his people have ignored the 16 resolutions and that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, and they actually possess them. We know for a fact that they may well use them. To wait and rely on good intentions would be an error of policy which might lead to the death of many Americans. We can't afford that risk. We must insist, as the President has said, on the disarmament of the Hussein regime; specifically, the disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction, in a manner which is absolutely confirmable, where we know without question that it has occurred and that those weapons have not been moved into other places of hiding or into other hands, which may cause greater harm. What the resolution before us does is give the President the authority to accomplish those goals. To fail to give the President the authority to accomplish those goals would be, in my opinion, an act of gross negligence, a failure of our responsibility as a government to defend our people. We are at war. We have been attacked. Americans have been killed. And if Mr. bin Laden and his people have their way, more will be killed. If we are to defend ourselves, we must be assured that the most threatening weapons they can use will not be used against Americans. Therefore, we must take action relative to Iraq. This resolution empowers the President to accomplish that. That is why I intend to vote for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Lee C. Bollinger on becoming the 19th president of Columbia University. President Bollinger comes to this highly esteemed post superbly qualified, having previously served as a exceptional teacher and world renowned scholar. After serving as law clerk for Judge Wilfred Feinberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the Chief Justice Warren Burger on the U.S. Supreme Court, he joined the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School in 1973. In 1987 he was named Dean of the Law School, position he held for 7 years. He became Provost of Dartmouth College and Professor of Government in July 1994 and was named twelfth president of the University of Michigan in 1996. President Bollinger's primary teacher and scholarly interests are focused on free speech and first amendment issues, and he has published numerous books, articles and essays in academic journals on these and other subjects. Bollinger is well known also for his commitment to students and will be teaching a class on first amendment issues to Columbia College students this year. As an alum, I am proud to welcome this distinguished and committee scholar to the presidency of Columbia University. I wish him all the best.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues today in thanking Senator Helms for his extraordinary service to our Nation. When I was younger, in my college days, going through my early experience in government in New Hampshire--which tends to be in the more liberal bastions of the regions of our Nation, dominated by those on the left--in the press, with whom Jesse Helms has dueled for so many years, Senator Helms was characterized sometimes in not all that flattering a manner by the news outlets to which I had recourse, such as the Boston Globe or New York Times or even the national media. But you could sense, cutting through all that clutter, this was an individual of courage and purpose, a man who stood for what he believed in and was willing to carry those beliefs forward, even when they were not popular. His direction, his willingness to stand up and say what he believed was right, is the essence of what it takes to be an effective member of a legislative body, in my opinion. But, more important even than that-- maybe not more important but equally important as his commitment to his purpose and his cause, was the fact that he did it in such a gentlemanly way. I do not believe there has been an individual who has passed through this body since I have been here--and I haven't been here that long--who has been as courteous and as generous and as kind as he dealt with people around him. He is the true gentleman. Two of my children had the opportunity to serve here as pages. In comments to me after their days working here, there were some instances where people had not necessarily been all that kind to them. But the one comment that always came through was that Senator Helms was the most interested in them, the kindest person, the person who always took the extra time to come down and talk with the pages. That reflected his attitude towards all of us. When I first arrived in the Senate, he made an extra effort to make me feel comfortable as a new Member. It is that courtesy which really defines his nature so well. So we are going to miss him immensely. He is, has been, and I am sure will continue to be a spokesperson for many of the causes in which I believe and which he has done so effectively. We will miss him because he brought grace, decency, and courtesy to this body. So it is a pleasure for me to rise and thank him, with my colleagues, for his exceptional service to our Nation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I thank the leader for his courtesy in orchestrating this so I can speak briefly. I hope to offer an amendment, and I want to outline what the amendment is. I understand that the parliamentary situation, or the order of events, is that Senator Gramm has the first amendment and, until that is worked out, this amendment will not necessarily be in order. This amendment will address a very significant issue. It is a sense- of-the-Senate amendment dealing with the question of how we are dealing with the national policy on the smallpox vaccination. As many people in America are probably aware, smallpox is probably one of the most virulent potential biological weapons that can be used anywhere in the world. It had, however, been significantly contracted in its availability. There were only two sites that actually possessed the actual smallpox germ; one was in Russia and the other was in the United States. Both of those were considered to be very secure. There is, however, concern that other individuals in the world may be trying to develop a smallpox strain, and if they are able to do that, the potential for devastating biological attack would be overwhelming. I think it is important that people understand, as a preface to this issue, that, if a smallpox epidemic--or even a single incident of smallpox--breaks out anywhere in the world, it is reasonable to assume today that it is breaking out because there is somebody who has possession over the smallpox strain and is willing to use it in an aggressive, violent way and is willing to use it in a terrorist act. In other words, there is no way today you could have a natural breakout of smallpox anywhere in the world. If, for instance, a single case of smallpox were found somewhere on the North American continent, one could immediately presume that terrorists had possession of the smallpox disease and were willing to spread it. That has a huge potential for loss of life. Smallpox is a disease that spreads extremely quickly and is hard to control. How do we address this? Essentially, because we thought we had beaten smallpox as a disease, we didn't have in place a large stockpile of vaccination as a nation, or even across the world. There is very little stockpile of vaccine. We did have some stockpile and it was quite old--approximately 15 to 30 years old. It was a small amount. But after determination, it is now thought that even that small amount can be subdivided and we can produce maybe as much as 70 million doses. We are in the process of developing, on the production side of the agenda in the U.S., with the pharmaceutical companies--and not only here but overseas--the capacity to bring online large amounts of dosage of smallpox vaccine. We expect that we will have enough dosage of smallpox vaccine within a relatively short time that, if we desire to do so, we could vaccinate every individual in our Nation. Why don't we immediately do that and make that our national policy? The reason the decision has not been made to go forward to vaccinate the entire country is that there is a downside to the smallpox vaccine as it is presently developed; that is, approximately 1 percent of the people vaccinated, we know, will be significantly harmed and possibly even die. If you vaccinate 260 million people, you are looking at a significant death toll--in the hundreds, at a minimum--as a result of that vaccination regime. We know who those people usually are. They are usually people suffering from certain types of allergies, and we know they are people who are aged, infirm, or who have other weaknesses in their immune systems. What has been the policy decision so far? The first policy decision, on which I greatly congratulate this Congress and the administration, was to put in place the regime so we could produce an adequate amount of vaccine. The second policy put forward as the concept of how we will address the smallpox breakout is that we will do a concentric circular event. In other words, we will surround the incident of smallpox with a vaccination of everybody in the area in an expanding circle. It is a pebble in a pool approach. If somebody threw a pebble in the small pond, it spreads outward. In the event of a smallpox outbreak, we are going to vaccinate everybody around the people infected, hopefully, containing the output. That is the plan as it is presently proposed. In addition, the plan is to vaccinate all first responders in the country. What is the problem with that plan? It is very unlikely that our public health capability would allow us to vaccinate enough people fast enough to make the concentric circle approach be absolutely secure. We would probably experience an expansive medical emergency that would lead to a fairly significant loss of life should a single case of smallpox break out in the United States. I am not saying it is not a reasonable approach, but it is an approach that probably has a significant likelihood that it will not be totally successful. We will have a significant success rate, but the success rate will be limited. Therefore, the loss of life will still be significant. What is America to do? Basically, I think we can place confidence in our public health community that the vaccines are being developed and brought online. In addition, I believe we should, as a national policy, be willing to say to any American, once we have the smallpox vaccine in place, that in order to vaccinate the population generally--and it will be in place certainly by next June, and maybe earlier--we should be able to say to any citizen who feels strongly that they want to be vaccinated that you may be vaccinated. In addition to the concentric circle approach, which I endorse, we should be able to say, if you are an American citizen, you have the right to go to your medical practitioner and ask them for a smallpox vaccination. If the physician determines you are not in an adverse category and that it is appropriate for you, thus, limiting the loss of life as a result of the 1 percent problem, then you ought to be able to get that vaccination. That is what this sense of the Senate says. It says that, once we have obtained the necessary dosage level, which has been federalized, in order to vaccinate our population generally, then any American citizen will have the right to go to their physician and obtain that vaccine and be vaccinated. It makes great sense to do this because, as a practical matter, it will first bring a calmness to the circumstance, which is important. Secondly, should there be an outbreak, it will obviously mean that a large percentage of America has been vaccinated already. Many people, I suspect, will take advantage of that option if it is out there. Thirdly, I think it is good public health policy. I also think it should be done at no charge. I believe we, as a government, have an obligation to protect our citizens as a primary responsibility and, therefore, the Federal Government should pick up the cost of the vaccine as it is distributed. So that is what this sense of the Senate says. It doesn't say that the concentric circle approach isn't good. It says, in addition to that, we should give all Americans, once we have obtained the vaccine capability that we know we are going to obtain, we should give them, in consultation with their physician, the opportunity to be vaccinated. I believe that is good health policy. Certainly, as we proceed down the road and debate this homeland security bill, I intend to take the opportunity to offer this sense-of- the-Senate amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Twenty minutes?

Mr. GREGG. I suggest that I speak for 10 minutes with the understanding that no amendment be offered, and the Senator from Ohio be allowed to speak for 10 minutes with the understanding that no amendment will be offered.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am very pleased this morning to introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Brownback. Our bill, the National Cancer Act of 2002, is an important step forward in making survivorship of cancer the rule in this Nation and cancer mortality the rare exception. I want to thank our good friends in the cancer and pain care communities who have provided critical feedback during the development of the Act. Our bill will: Enhance coordination between State registries and between those registries and Federal cancer control and research efforts, with a focus on developing interoperability and compatible hardware/software infrastructure. Reauthorize the successful CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer screening program, with expansion encouraged for colorectal cancer screening. Improve NIH efforts in the area of pain and palliative care research and dissemination of information to patients and providers. Expand access for patients to experimental therapies, both in NIH-funded clinical trials, privately- funded manufacturer trials and access for terminal patients to therapies that have not yet been approved by FBA. Encourage Congress and the Administration to address several of the most significant cancer-related problems in the Medicare system. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the HELP Committee to move this important piece of legislation this year. I know that we all share the agenda of combating this public health problem facing so many Americans.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am very pleased this morning to introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Brownback. Our bill, the National Cancer Act of 2002, is an important step forward in making survivorship of cancer the rule in this Nation and cancer mortality the rare exception. I want to thank our good friends in the cancer and pain care communities who have provided critical feedback during the development of the Act. Our bill will: Enhance coordination between State registries and between those registries and Federal cancer control and research efforts, with a focus on developing interoperability and compatible hardware/software infrastructure. Reauthorize the successful CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer screening program, with expansion encouraged for colorectal cancer screening. Improve NIH efforts in the area of pain and palliative care research and dissemination of information to patients and providers. Expand access for patients to experimental therapies, both in NIH-funded clinical trials, privately- funded manufacturer trials and access for terminal patients to therapies that have not yet been approved by FBA. Encourage Congress and the Administration to address several of the most significant cancer-related problems in the Medicare system. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the HELP Committee to move this important piece of legislation this year. I know that we all share the agenda of combating this public health problem facing so many Americans.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Enzi, Senator Collins, and Senator Cochran, the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002. This legislation makes several technical and non-controversial changes to the Higher Education Act, HEA, and is designed to provide relief from burdensome legal requirements, improve the financial aid process, and bring greater clarity to the law. Most importantly, it provides for a one-year extension of two provisions in the HEA that are of great importance to students, their families, and schools. These provide schools having low student loan default rates with exemptions from the requirement that loan proceeds be disbursed in multiple installments, and the requirement that the disbursement of loan proceeds to first-time undergraduate borrowers be delayed for 30 days after classes start. Under current law, these provisions are set to expire at the end of this month. Thousands of institutions of higher education across America count on these exemptions to save them time and money in the disbursement of their limited financial aid resources. These provisions also serve as an incentive for schools to keep their default rates low. Additionally, failing to act now means that students needing loan proceeds for books or living expenses could be seriously disadvantaged. At a time when both student and institutional budgets are being squeezed, we should do what we can to provide them with relief. The bill makes a number of other beneficial changes to the HEA. Most notably, it: Helps protect home-schooled students by making it clear that institutions of higher education will not lose their institutional eligibility for Federal financial aid by admitting home-schooled students. Clarifies the Federal policy on the return of financial aid funds when students withdraw, to better protect students' grant aid. Removes barriers to students seeking forbearance from lenders on student loan payments, by eliminating the requirement that new agreements between lenders and borrowers be in writing. Instead, the bill allows a lender to accept a request for forbearance over the telephone, as long as a confirmation notice of the agreement reached is provided to the borrower and the borrower's file is updated. Makes clear that under the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program, the U.S. Department of Education can provide scholarship aid to low-income and minority students to prepare for and attend law school. Eases requirements for Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, by allowing them to apply for Federal HSI grants without waiting two years between applications. Corrects a drafting error in current law that mistakenly bars students attending certain nonprofit schools of veterinary medicine from eligibility for the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Allows financial aid administrators to use ``professional judgment'' to adjust a student's financial need in cases where the student is a ward of the court. Expands the use of technology to provide voter registration material directly to students in a timely manner. I am well aware that extending the two provisions set to expire on September 30 for another year will cost $10 million. However, we intend to find the necessary offsets to pay for these extensions as the bill progresses through the Senate. It is my sincere hope that we can all work together in these final weeks of the session to see that this legislation becomes law. The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002 will improve the financial aid process for everyone involved, but most importantly, for our nation's postsecondary students. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Enzi, Senator Collins, and Senator Cochran, the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002. This legislation makes several technical and non-controversial changes to the Higher Education Act, HEA, and is designed to provide relief from burdensome legal requirements, improve the financial aid process, and bring greater clarity to the law. Most importantly, it provides for a one-year extension of two provisions in the HEA that are of great importance to students, their families, and schools. These provide schools having low student loan default rates with exemptions from the requirement that loan proceeds be disbursed in multiple installments, and the requirement that the disbursement of loan proceeds to first-time undergraduate borrowers be delayed for 30 days after classes start. Under current law, these provisions are set to expire at the end of this month. Thousands of institutions of higher education across America count on these exemptions to save them time and money in the disbursement of their limited financial aid resources. These provisions also serve as an incentive for schools to keep their default rates low. Additionally, failing to act now means that students needing loan proceeds for books or living expenses could be seriously disadvantaged. At a time when both student and institutional budgets are being squeezed, we should do what we can to provide them with relief. The bill makes a number of other beneficial changes to the HEA. Most notably, it: Helps protect home-schooled students by making it clear that institutions of higher education will not lose their institutional eligibility for Federal financial aid by admitting home-schooled students. Clarifies the Federal policy on the return of financial aid funds when students withdraw, to better protect students' grant aid. Removes barriers to students seeking forbearance from lenders on student loan payments, by eliminating the requirement that new agreements between lenders and borrowers be in writing. Instead, the bill allows a lender to accept a request for forbearance over the telephone, as long as a confirmation notice of the agreement reached is provided to the borrower and the borrower's file is updated. Makes clear that under the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program, the U.S. Department of Education can provide scholarship aid to low-income and minority students to prepare for and attend law school. Eases requirements for Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, by allowing them to apply for Federal HSI grants without waiting two years between applications. Corrects a drafting error in current law that mistakenly bars students attending certain nonprofit schools of veterinary medicine from eligibility for the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Allows financial aid administrators to use ``professional judgment'' to adjust a student's financial need in cases where the student is a ward of the court. Expands the use of technology to provide voter registration material directly to students in a timely manner. I am well aware that extending the two provisions set to expire on September 30 for another year will cost $10 million. However, we intend to find the necessary offsets to pay for these extensions as the bill progresses through the Senate. It is my sincere hope that we can all work together in these final weeks of the session to see that this legislation becomes law. The Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002 will improve the financial aid process for everyone involved, but most importantly, for our nation's postsecondary students. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate, I applaud the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The Court found that a publically funded private school choice program was Constitutional and does not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. The Court's decision finally puts to rest the constitutionality arguments which have long been raised by those who oppose providing choice to low-income families. Within hours of the Court decision, Congressman Armey introduced H.R. 5033, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 2002. I join my House colleague in introducing the companion bill, here in the Senate. Specifically, these bills provide scholarships to some of the District's poorest students to enable them to select the public or private school of their choice from participating schools in the District and the surrounding areas. This program, like the Cleveland program upheld by the Supreme Court, would allow families to choose from a wide variety of providers, including religious schools. Both bills are nearly identical to the 1997 D.C. Student Scholarship Act. Although that bill had passed both houses of the Congress and more than a thousand D.C. families had expressed interest in the scholarship program, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Why should we extend the option of private schools to poor families? Because, as is true in many urban areas, thousands of students in the District of Columbia are in need of high quality educational options. Seventy-two percent of D.C. fourth graders tested below basic proficiency in reading and seventy-six percent tested below basic proficiency in mathematics. This means that three quarters of 4th graders do not possess elementary reading skills and can not complete simple arithmetic problem. Unfortunately, these statistics do not improve dramatically as children grow older. Even in the older grades, the majority of students are found to be struggling with math and reading. Tragically, lagging academic performance isn't the only problem plaguing many of the public schools in D.C., there is also the issue of safe, secure classrooms. In 1999, nearly one in five D.C high school students reported, that at some point in the preceding month, they felt too unsafe to go to school, while nearly one in every seven students admitted to bringing a weapon to school. Although the creation of charter schools in the District has led to some choice for families lucky enough to get a spot for their child, there are simply not enough charter schools to accommodate the growing clamor of D.C. parents to obtain a better education for their children. Interestingly enough, the lack of space in charter schools is compounded by the City's refusal to free a handful of the 30 surplus public school buildings--buildings, which in some cases, are just sitting there abandoned and unused. D.C. parents have witnessed superintendents come and go, and have been given the promise of education reform and improvements that never materialized. Yet, all the while their children remain trapped in failing schools. This is unacceptable to them and should be wholly unacceptable to my colleagues. The thousands of families clamoring for better educational opportunities for their children in our nation's capital need an immediate solution. As Frederick Douglass, quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the recent Zelman decision, said, ``Education. . . . means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of the man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free.'' Unfortunately, for many families, that freedom remains unobtainable within D.C.'s current educational system. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider this important bill. We have allowed too many students to languish in failing schools. Let's provide a way for real education, and doing so, help make the freedom Douglass refers to a reality for some of the district's neediest children.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate, I applaud the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The Court found that a publically funded private school choice program was Constitutional and does not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. The Court's decision finally puts to rest the constitutionality arguments which have long been raised by those who oppose providing choice to low-income families. Within hours of the Court decision, Congressman Armey introduced H.R. 5033, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 2002. I join my House colleague in introducing the companion bill, here in the Senate. Specifically, these bills provide scholarships to some of the District's poorest students to enable them to select the public or private school of their choice from participating schools in the District and the surrounding areas. This program, like the Cleveland program upheld by the Supreme Court, would allow families to choose from a wide variety of providers, including religious schools. Both bills are nearly identical to the 1997 D.C. Student Scholarship Act. Although that bill had passed both houses of the Congress and more than a thousand D.C. families had expressed interest in the scholarship program, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Why should we extend the option of private schools to poor families? Because, as is true in many urban areas, thousands of students in the District of Columbia are in need of high quality educational options. Seventy-two percent of D.C. fourth graders tested below basic proficiency in reading and seventy-six percent tested below basic proficiency in mathematics. This means that three quarters of 4th graders do not possess elementary reading skills and can not complete simple arithmetic problem. Unfortunately, these statistics do not improve dramatically as children grow older. Even in the older grades, the majority of students are found to be struggling with math and reading. Tragically, lagging academic performance isn't the only problem plaguing many of the public schools in D.C., there is also the issue of safe, secure classrooms. In 1999, nearly one in five D.C high school students reported, that at some point in the preceding month, they felt too unsafe to go to school, while nearly one in every seven students admitted to bringing a weapon to school. Although the creation of charter schools in the District has led to some choice for families lucky enough to get a spot for their child, there are simply not enough charter schools to accommodate the growing clamor of D.C. parents to obtain a better education for their children. Interestingly enough, the lack of space in charter schools is compounded by the City's refusal to free a handful of the 30 surplus public school buildings--buildings, which in some cases, are just sitting there abandoned and unused. D.C. parents have witnessed superintendents come and go, and have been given the promise of education reform and improvements that never materialized. Yet, all the while their children remain trapped in failing schools. This is unacceptable to them and should be wholly unacceptable to my colleagues. The thousands of families clamoring for better educational opportunities for their children in our nation's capital need an immediate solution. As Frederick Douglass, quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the recent Zelman decision, said, ``Education. . . . means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of the man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free.'' Unfortunately, for many families, that freedom remains unobtainable within D.C.'s current educational system. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider this important bill. We have allowed too many students to languish in failing schools. Let's provide a way for real education, and doing so, help make the freedom Douglass refers to a reality for some of the district's neediest children.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Inouye, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and to Mr. Stevens, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for the fine work they have accomplished in crafting this important Fiscal Year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. It has been my pleasure, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, to work with them on this bill, as well as on the defense portions of the recently passed Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Bill, H.R. 4775. They certainly do a masterful job of setting priorities and balancing competing needs. I am also pleased that the Appropriations Committee chose to specifically provide $90 million in the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental bill to accelerate the depot modernization period of the USS Scranton at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from Fiscal Year 2003 to Fiscal Year 2002, as it will result in dramatically improved fleet readiness. In addition, it will free up $90 million in Fiscal Year 2003, which had been programmed for the USS Scranton, to be used for other U.S. Navy critical submarine requirements. This could include returning back to Fiscal Year 2003 the important USS Annapolis depot modernization period at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which the Navy was recently forced to slip from Fiscal Year 2003 to Fiscal Year 2004, because of a Navy funding shortfall. I direct a question to my two friends, the Chair and the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Is it the Subcommittee's understanding that the appropriation of the additional $90 million to accomplish the USS Scranton depot modernization period in Fiscal Year 2002, now gives the U.S. Navy flexibility to allocate the Fiscal Year 2003 USS Scranton funds to meet other critical submarine requirements?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Well, the vote is scheduled to start at 10:30. It would be just an additional 5 minutes and 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. And that 5 minutes be granted also on this side.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator be granted an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I asked unanimous consent the Senator be granted an additional 5 minutes, and also 5 minutes for this side.