Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1508). The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1508) entitled ``An Act to provide technical and legal assistance to tribal justice systems and members of Indian tribes, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, that when the Senate receives from the House the joint resolution funding the Government until Friday, December 15, the text of which is at the desk, it be considered read a third time and passed, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5528, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 161, submitted earlier today by Senator Campbell.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 14. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Thursday, December 14, at 10 a.m. There will be no session on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week in order to accommodate the funeral service for Congressman Dixon of California who passed away on Friday. Discussions will continue on the remaining appropriations issues, so the final votes may occur as early as Thursday or Friday.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the provisions of S. Res. 387.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to notify my colleagues of my efforts to change the Department of Defense's vaccine acquisition strategy. You see, it is my belief that the BioPort/anthrax debacle provides lawmakers with an excellent case study, one which illustrates that the Department's present policy of relying on the private sector to provide vaccines critical to the protection of our men and women in uniform is fatally flawed and must be changed. There exists a growing consensus that the Department of Defense must shoulder the responsibility and begin to produce biological warfare vaccines for itself. In the early 1990's, in the aftermath of the gulf war, recommendations were presented to senior Defense Department acquisition officials to fulfill the urgent demands of war-fighters to develop vaccines against biological agents. One of the principal recommendations was for the construction of a Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) vaccine production facility. Detailed and thoughtful studies presented many merits to the GOCO approach. Without listing all of its merits, I will point out that the GOCO option would guarantee the country access to a vaccine supply immune from the foibles of a profit-driven pharmaceuticals industry. For reasons that remain a mystery to this day, the Defense Department did not elect to pursue the safer, GOCO option. Rather, the Department chose to contract with a private-sector entity we now know as BioPort, for the vaccine against the biological agent anthrax. Since embarking on this acquisition strategy, events have proceeded as many had feared they would; disastrously. Last summer, the Defense Department awarded the BioPort corporation extraordinary contract relief to a previous contract for the production and vulnerable storage of the anthrax vaccine. The terms of the contract relief reduced the number of doses of vaccine to be produced by one-half, charged the U.S. taxpayer almost three times as much as was originally negotiated, and provided BioPort with an interest-free loan of almost $20 million. BioPort officials have stated that even this may not constitute enough support. I question the fitness of whoever negotiated such a horrendous arrangement on behalf of the American taxpayer. In July, because of BioPort's continuing troubles, the Department was forced to dramatically scale back the scope of Phase One of the immunization program because the rapid rate of vaccinations threatened to consume the last of the Department's stockpile of FDA approved vaccine. Now, only those personnel who are deployed to high-threat regions, such as the Persian Gulf and the Korean Peninsula, will receive vaccinations. As it appears increasingly apparent that neither additional lots of vaccine, nor the new production line in East Lansing, will receive FDA approval anytime soon even this dramatically reduced effort may completely exhaust the Department's supply of vaccine, leaving our troops vulnerable. As the Department is preparing to transition into production of the first of more than a dozen new bio-war vaccines developed under the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program, it was apparent to me that unless we wish to repeat the mistakes of the past, a new acquisition strategy is urgently needed. My colleagues and I on the Senate Armed Service Committee are making efforts to prevent the Defense Department from continuing to pursue a flawed acquisition strategy. Through oversight hearings and legislative provisions within the national defense authorization bill, we are actively providing the Department with some much needed guidance. On April 14, I chaired the second of three committee hearings on the topic of vaccine production. During that hearing, DOD personnel who had advocated the GOCO route in the early Nineties, and were overruled, were given the opportunity to testify. Their testimony is perhaps the most important the committee has received all year on this topic. At a third committee hearing, conducted in July, the Department announced that it had published a solicitation for a second-source of the Anthrax vaccine. As the Department received only cursory inquiries from the pharmaceutical industry during the required thirty day period, this effort appears to have failed. In response to the testimony received by the committee, I drafted section 221 of the Senate's fiscal year 2001 national defense authorization bill. Section 221 requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a reevaluation of the present vaccine acquisition. The report will include an evaluation of the commercial sector to meet DOD's vaccine requirements and a design for a Government-owned, contractor- operated vaccine production facility. Section 221 also notes that a significant body of work regarding this topic was assembled in the early 1990's including Project Badger, which recommended that a GOCO vaccine production facility be constructed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in my home state of Arkansas. I am pleased to report that the provision was retained in the conference report which the Congress voted to send to the President for his signature. In addition to hearings and legislative provisions, I have begun a dialog with numerous personnel within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I would be remiss if I did not mention the many productive conversations I have had with the Under Secretary of Defense, Rudy deLeon. Because Secretary deLeon is relatively new to his position and has little ownership over the flawed decisions of the past, he has been very willing to explore alternative acquisition strategies including the solution I favor: construction of a Government-owned, contractor- operated vaccine production facility. As evidence of his commitment to find a solution, vaccine production was the first topic discussed by the Defense Resources Board, which Secretary deLeon chairs, when it met to begin its preparation of the Defense budget submission for fiscal year 2001. I have encouraged Secretary deLeon to include $25 million in the fiscal year 2002 Defense budget submission for R&D, in addition to $400 million in the next version of the Department's Fiscal Years Development Plan, to cover construction costs. To ensure that funding for this project does not come at the expense of other critically needed bio-defense programs, I will soon meet with the Director of OMB. I am hopeful that I can explore with Mr. Lew ways to increase the top- line of the Defense budget to cover the expense of this project. For too long DOD has pursued a flawed acquisition strategy that is a disservice to both the American taxpayer and our men and women in uniform. The Department must be weaned from its dependence on the private sector for the provision of critical biological warfare vaccines.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12:30 p.m. the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume debate on the conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill. Debate on the conference report will be limited to today's session, with final remarks to begin at approximately 3:30 p.m. Those Senators who have statements are encouraged to come to the floor as early as possible today due to the break for the weekly party conference meetings. The vote on the Agriculture appropriations conference report will occur at 5:30 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee I worked hard this year, along with Senator Max Cleland, our ranking member, to develop a defense authorization bill that is responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the military services; supports numerous quality of life improvements for our service men and women, their families and the retiree community; and addresses in a comprehensive manner, the health care needs of military retirees. The subcommittee focused on the challenges of recruiting and retention during each of our hearings this year, including the health care hearing. The important legislation contained in this bill will have a positive impact on both recruiting and retention as those who might serve and those who are serving see our commitment to provide the health care benefits promised to those who serve a full military career. I am proud of this bill and I believe the initiatives it contains will result in improved recruiting and retention within the military services. The most vigorously pursued and most prized provisions in our bill will extend TRICARE, the military health care system, to all military retirees without regard to their age. We have eliminated the statutory language that kicked military retirees out of the military medical system when they became eligible for Medicare--just at the time of their lives when these retirees need medical help the most and can afford it the least. We were fortunate during conference to be able to include a permanent funding mechanism for the retiree health care benefit. This funding mechanism will ensure that the important health care benefit will be financed in perpetuity rather than being subject to annual budget exigencies. I am delighted that we have stepped up to fulfill the commitment to those who served our nation over a full career. Of course, health care is not the only issue on which the Personnel Subcommittee focused this year. In the area of military personnel policy, there are a number of recommendations intended to support recruiting, retention and personnel management of the services. Among the most noteworthy, is a provision that would, effective July 1, 2002, require high schools to provide military recruiters the same access to a high school campus, student lists and directory information as is provided to colleges, universities and private sector employers, unless the governing body--school board--decides by majority vote to deny military recruiters access to the high school. When I asked military recruiters what I could do to assist them in meeting the challenges they face recruiting the best young men and women in America, they asked me to help them get access to high schools on the same basis as the colleges and universities. Other initiatives to support recruiting are: a pilot program in which the Army could use motor sports to promote recruiting; implement a program of recruiting in conjunction with vocational schools and community colleges; and a pilot program using contract personnel to supplement active recruiters. This conference report authorizes the expansion of Junior ROTC programs. We have added $13.5 million to expand the JROTC programs. When combined with the funds in the budget request, this add will maximize the services' ability to expand JROTC during fiscal year 20001. I am proud to be able to support these important programs that teach responsibility, leadership, ethics and assist in military recruiting. In military compensation, our major recommendations include a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel and a revision of the Basic Allowance for Housing to permit the Secretary of Defense to pay 100 percent of the average local housing costs and to ensure that housing allowance rates are not reduced while permitting increases as local housing costs dictate. The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift Savings Plan for active and reserve forces not later than 180 days after enactment. The Thrift Savings Plan will be a very positive recruiting and retention tool assisting the military services in attracting high-qualified personnel and encouraging them to remain until retirement. We included a provision that will dramatically reduce the number of military personnel eligible to receive food stamps. Under this provision, military personnel determined by the Secretary of Defense to be eligible for food stamps would receive an additional special pay sufficient to raise their income level to where they would no longer need food stamps. This special pay will reduce the number of military personnel eligible to receive food stamps from the current DOD estimate of about 5,000 to less than 2,000. No United States military personnel should be forced to use food stamps to feed his or her family. When you combine the food stamp assistance in this bill with the increased pay raises we have directed over the next 5 years, we should practically eliminate the need for any service member to seek assistance from food stamps. We also modified the basic pay tables for non-commissioned officers effective July 1, 20001 to give these deserving leaders a well deserved pay raise. When we adjusted the basic pay tables for all military personnel last year, we discovered that the non-commissioned officers-- the key element in our military units--did not receive an equitable pay raise with the officers. We were able to correct that situation this year. Other health care provisions include: the elimination of co-payments for those active duty family members enrolled in TRICARE Prime; an initiative that would provide recipients of the Medal of Honor, and their families, life-time military health care; and a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement a patient care reporting and management system to reduce medical errors. Mr. President, I am proud of this bill. It will provide the resources and authority the military services need to maximize their readiness and to improve the quality of life for active and retired military personnel and their families. Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hardworking staff members of the Personnel Subcommittee: Charlie Abell, Patti Lewis, and Michele Traficante. I am proud of the work they have done this year, and every man and women who wears our nation's uniform, and every military retiree, is better off today because of their efforts. I thank you. I will vote for the bill and I urge my colleagues to support the bill as well.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and I want to commend my colleagues Senator Brownback and Senator Wellstone for their hard work on this legislation. Inge had hoped for a better life when she left her home in Veracruz, Mexico--for legitimate work that would pay her well. She was hoping to earn money in a restaurant or a store and earn money to bring back to her family. She never expected a smuggling debt of $2,200. She never expected to be beaten and raped until she agreed to have sex with 30 men a day. She never expected to be a slave--especially not in the United States--not in Florida. So she got drunk before the men arrived. And when her shift was done, she drank some more. Inge would soak herself in a bathtub filled with hot water--drinking, crying, smoking one cigarette after another-- trying any way she could to dull the pain. And she would go to sleep drunk or pass out--until the next day when she had to do it all again. Unfortunately, Inge's case is not unique. It is a horrific story played out every day in countries all over the world. In fact, at least 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the U.S. each year and at least 700,000 women and children are trafficked worldwide. These women and children are forced into the sex industry or forced into harsh labor, often by well organized criminal networks. Traffickers disproportionately target the poor, preying on people in desperate economic situations. They disproportionately target women and girls-- all of this for money. Trafficking of women and children is more than a crime--it is an assault on freedom. It is an assault on that founding principle of our nation, ``. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . .'' It is an assault on the very dignity of humanity. Yet the protections we have against trafficking are inadequate. That is why the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is so vital. This legislation takes several approaches to address this human rights abuse. It requires expanded reporting by the State Department in its annual human rights report on trafficking, including an assessment and analysis of international trafficking patterns and the steps foreign governments have taken to combat trafficking. It also requires the President to establish an interagency task force to monitor and combat trafficking. As a means of deterring trafficking, the President, through the Agency for International Development (AID) must establish initiatives, such as microlending programs to enhance economic opportunities for people who might be deceived by traffickers' promises of lucrative jobs. In addition, this legislation establishes certain minimum standards for combating trafficking and authorizes funding through AID and other sources to assist countries to meet these standards. The President can take other punitive measures against countries that fail to meet these standards. The bill also creates protections and assistance for victims of trafficking, including a new nonimmigrant ``T'' visa. At the same time, punishments for traffickers are increased through asset seizure and greater criminal penalties. All of these provisions are important for strengthening U.S. and foreign law and for combating trafficking. I strongly support them. It is a sad consequence of globalization that crime has become more international in its scope and reach. These seedy sex industries know no boundaries. Traffickers use international borders to trap their victims in a foreign land without passports, without the ability to communicate in the local language, and without hope. But just as trafficking has become global, so must our efforts to fight trafficking. That is why I also support an appropriation in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill for $1.35 million earmarked for the Protection Project. This legal research institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is a comprehensive analysis of the problem of international trafficking of women and children. Led by Laura Lederer, a dozen researchers have been documenting the laws of 190 independent states and 63 dependencies on trafficking, forced prostitution, slavery, debt bondage, extradition, and other relevant issues. When it is complete, the Protection Project will produce a worldwide legal database on trafficking, along with model legislation for strengthening protections and recommendations for policy makers. At the moment, the Protection Project is at a critical phase of research and funding is crucial. For the last few years, the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs has been funding the project, along with private donations made to Harvard University, where the project was formerly housed. However, with its transition to Washington and Johns Hopkins, the project has lost private funding and has suffered a nine-month delay in its research. I urge my colleagues on the CJS conference to retain the Senate earmark for this project. The research that the project is producing is critical to understanding, fighting, and ultimately winning the war against international trafficking of women and children.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain Joseph E. Baggett, Judge Advocate Generals' Corps, United States Navy, upon his retirement after twenty-nine years of devoted, active duty service in our great nation's Navy. Captain Baggett was born into a military family. The son of a career enlisted Marine, Captain Baggett grew up in the presence of the United States Navy in such diverse locations as Naval Air Station Pensacola, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, and the United Kingdom. Raised with the values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, and with a family tradition of service, it only made sense that he too would pursue a military career. Captain Baggett graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Tulane University in May 1971, and entered the Navy through Tulane's Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps. At that time Captain Baggett raised his hand and took his oath to support and defend the Constitution. In the years since that day he has devoted indeed all of his great energy, talent, and intellect to that task. He has been steadfast in his covenant to this nation and his devotion to those with whom he has served. An illustrious career gives eloquent testimony to his service to our country and to our Navy's legal community. After two tours as a Supply Corps officer, including service onboard USS Rich (DD-820), he entered the Navy's Law Education Program and commenced the study of law at Tulane University. After earning his Juris Doctor degree in 1977, his first tour of duty as a Navy Judge Advocate was at Naval Legal Service Office, Jacksonville, Florida where he served as a formidable military prosecutor tirelessly pursuing justice on behalf of the Navy. Captain Baggett's subsequent tours demonstrate his exceptional talent for international and operational law, his unsurpassed academic credentials, and his desire to serve the Fleet wherever required. In such diverse assignments as Commander Middle East Force onboard USS LaSalle (AGF-3) and USS Coronado (AGF-11), Commander Iceland Defense Force, and Commander Sixth Fleet, serving onboard USS Belknap (CG-26) and USS Iowa (BB-61), Captain Baggett's legal acumen and diplomatic skill repeatedly helped safeguard America's Interests and project America's presence in these often complex areas of the world. Interspersed were tours in Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs, the International Law Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, and the University of Miami where he earned a Masters of Law degree in Ocean and Coastal Law. With his vast experience with forward-deployed, operational forces, Captain Baggett was able to quickly contribute to a number of vital, National-level issues in subsequent Washington staff assignments, including tours on the Joint Staff's Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, as Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General for International Law, and as the Defense Department Representative for Ocean Policy, where he was pivotal in developing United States policy on a variety of issues, including issues involving the newly formed Russian Federation. With this comprehensive top-level, international legal perspective, Captain Baggett was the obvious choice to become the Counsel for National Security to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Returning to the Fleet as the Senior Staff Judge Advocate for the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Captain Baggett was a major influence in high-level decisionmaking related to all aspects of Fleet operations, including environmental coordination and enforcement, rules of engagement, medical law, military justice, and the legal aspects of shore activity management. Captain Baggett's subsequent tour as the Commanding Officer of the Navy's flagship Naval Legal Service Office, in Norfolk, Virginia, demonstrated once again his exceptional leadership skills. Here he mentored the young men and women of the Navy's legal community about the operational imperatives of the Navy, and constantly stressed the paramount need to serve the Fleet. Captain Baggett's wealth of expertise of Navy won him the assignment as Director of the Legislation Division in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. In this capacity his consistent sound judgment and flawless tact ensured Navy issues were properly conveyed to Senate Committees and Subcommittees. Standing beside this officer throughout his career has been his wife Suzanne, a lady to whom he owes much. She has been his key supporter, devoting her life to her husband, to their two sons, Merritt and Graham, and to the men and women of the Navy family. She has traveled by his side for these many years. Her sacrifice and devotion have served as an example and inspiration for others. With these words before the Senate, I seek to recognize Captain Baggett for his unswerving loyalty to the Navy and the Nation. The Department of the Navy and the American people have been served well by this dedicated naval officer. He will be missed. He has left the Navy better prepared to face the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. We thank him and wish Joe, and his lovely wife Suzanne, fair winds and following seas as they continue forward in what will most assuredly remain lives of service to this Great Nation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, when I was elected to the House of Representatives back in 1992, I spent 2 years serving in the minority-- 2 years; in 1993 and 1994--before the Republican victories in the 1994 elections brought about the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Having now been on the majority side for 5\1/2\ years, I am very appreciative of the 2 years I served in the minority. Having had the experience of knowing what it is to be in the minority, to have the agenda set by the majority side, to have the frustration of having vote after vote in which you come up on the short end, is important. I think it helps me in understanding the frustrations the other side has experienced. It also helps me understand now, being in the majority, how hard it is to lead and to govern. I remember in those first 2 years, we were pretty organized in lobbing criticisms and lobbing objections and in presenting our agenda to the American people. We didn't have to worry about legislating. We didn't have to worry about passing anything. We didn't have the votes to do that. But we could do a lot in framing the debate. As we approach the end of this session, it is much easier to criticize in the minority than to govern in the majority. It is easy to say no; it is easy to find even the slightest flaw with a legislative proposal as a rationale for opposing it and blocking it. When you are in the majority, the job of calling up tough bills, debating the very tough issues, taking the very tough votes, that is what governing is about. That is why I have come to the floor this afternoon. I believe an attack unanswered is an attack assumed. Last week, Senator Byrd, for whom I have the greatest admiration, came to the floor and noted that few Members in this body have ever witnessed how the Senate is really supposed to function. I concur with that; I agree entirely. I believe it takes a commitment, a commitment from both sides of the aisle to complete our appropriations obligations in a timely fashion and to ensure the Senate is governing and functioning the way it is supposed to. The fact is, there are a number of Senators who don't seem to want bills signed into law but who want issues. Why? Because it is easier to demagogue an issue than it is to legislate an issue. So who gets left holding the buck? Who gets the blame if legislation, for any reason, does not pass? It is clearly the majority in the Congress who will get blamed if the Government shuts down, as we have already found out. It is those who are in the majority in Congress, clearly, who get the blame. In terms of another Government shutdown, I assure the American people and my colleagues that despite any dispute over issues pending, the Government will not shut down if we have anything to say about it or anything to do about it, if it can be prevented in any way. Social Security checks will be delivered, health care services under Medicare will be funded, and our Nation's veterans will not be left out in the cold. That being said, we still have 11 appropriations bills unsigned and multiple unrelated issues on the table. The education of our kids, prescription drugs, and a Patients' Bill of Rights are all there, still on the table. Since these unrelated issues seem to get tossed around a great deal, let me talk about them plainly for a few minutes and why the minority continues to insist on their passage by holding up our Nation's spending bills. First of all, in the area of education, the other side maintains that we are not having a debate on education in the 106th Congress. I suggest that the other side of the aisle doesn't really want a bill; they want an issue. They say that unless we vote for their few education proposals, which, by the way, would concentrate even more power in the Department of Education, we are not having a debate on education. I think that is not fair, and it is not accurate. During the 106th Congress, we have already voted six times on the class size reduction initiative. Six times we have all been called upon to cast our vote, to go on the record, even though that has been misconstrued and misrepresented to the American people. We have been willing to debate it. We have been willing to cast votes a half dozen times during this Congress alone. As my distinguished colleague from Alabama pointed out, the Department of Education has failed to pass an audit for 3 years in a row. They can't even account for how the money is being spent currently. So it is not unreasonable that many of us have reservations in giving them more power and more authority in the area of school construction and the hiring of 100,000 new teachers. According to the Congressional Daily Monitor, a press conference was held recently with Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Education Secretary Dick Riley, ``demanding that Republicans accept their positions.'' So after voting six times against the class size reduction initiative in the Senate, you would think the attitude would not be their way is the only way. Our side of the aisle has been more than accommodating in providing funding that was reserved for class size reduction. In the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, Republicans have appropriated the $1.3 billion for class size reduction in the title VI State grant so that schools who want to use the funding for this initiative are able to do so. But schools that have already achieved the goal of class size reduction or have more pressing problems can use the funding for other priority items such as professional development or new textbooks. One would think that is a reasonable, acceptable compromise, a middle ground. But instead, we hear the other side saying: It is our way or no way. We are going to block the appropriations bills unless you do it exactly the way we want it. They contend, again, unless we are voting for class size reduction, we are avoiding the issue of education, even though we have already voted on class size reduction six times in this Congress. The Democrats considered bringing this issue up again in the HELP Committee just last week as an amendment to a bipartisan bill to fully fund the IDEA program. If a debate on education is what the other side really wants, then why did they object to multiple unanimous consent requests on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to keep the debate on education? The ESEA debate was moving along very well on the Senate floor. There was a consensus that only a few amendments should be offered and they should be germane. They should relate to education. But then on the other side of the aisle there were those who objected to those agreements to keep the debate limited to education. I know that I and my colleagues on this side of aisle would be more than willing to return to S. 2, the reauthorization of this critical elementary and secondary education bill, to debate education, if we would simply have that agreement to limit the amendments not to everything under the sun, not to prescription drugs and a Patients' Bill of Rights and minimum wage and everything else, but to limit that debate to education. I am not going to allow Members on the other side of the aisle to have it both ways. You claim that we are not dealing with education and then object to agreements to keep education debates on education bills. I suggest you are looking for an issue, not the passage of legislation. Then on the issue of prescription drugs, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, last week--I had the opportunity to preside as he made this speech, but I want to quote him--said: On the other side, they make a proposal which sounds good but just will not work. Under Governor Bush's proposal on prescription drugs, he asserts for 4 years we will let the States handle it. There are fewer than 20 States that have any drug benefits. Illinois is one of them, I might say. His home State of Texas has none. But he says let the States handle it for 4 years. Let them work it out. In my home State of Illinois, I am glad we have it, but it certainly is not a system that one would recommend for the country. Our system of helping to pay for prescription drugs for seniors applies to certain illnesses and certain drugs. If you happen to be an unfortunate person without that kind of coverage and protection, you are on your own.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I know Senator McCain is waiting. I appreciate very much his graciousness. The fact is, while Senator Durbin made that comment, every State does have a Medicaid program that offers prescription drugs today. In addition, they have State employee drug programs already in existence. These programs are separate from the State pharmaceutical assistance programs, of which 25 currently exist. So Senator Durbin's argument is unfair and unjustified because the money given to the States is not required to be used to only start a new pharmaceutical assistance program. They can be used to expand the existing Medicaid drug programs. So Governor Bush's helping hand drug plan provides greater assistance to low-income seniors, and provides it now, while Vice President Gore's plan requires an 8-year phase-in for those drug benefits. So I suggest that we are getting a lot of demagogy. The Patients' Bill of Rights is the final issue I wanted to talk about, but I will reserve that for another time. I will say this, and say it clearly: We have an active conference that has been working, and working hard. We had numerous votes on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We had endless amendments in the committee on the Patients' Bill of Rights. To suggest this isn't a deliberative body, as the Democratic leader suggested last week, is unfair. This issue has been debated, and debated thoroughly. It is the Democrats who stifled the debate by walking out on the conference in the spring. We can still have a Patients' Bill of Rights enacted if we have cooperation. There are two sides to every story, and both should be told. Let's not allow two competing agendas to prevent us from getting our work done on the spending bills. They are too important. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his work in this area. I am glad I am cosponsoring the bill. Senator Sessions has been one of the tireless leaders in education and in rooting out fraud and abuse in the Department of Education. I also mention, with Senator Sessions' help on the Education Committee, we recently sent a bill out that I sponsored on the Senate side, that passed the House of Representatives, which would require a fraud audit of the Department of Education be performed by the General Accounting Office within 6 months. While the Senator is dealing with one specific area of fraud that is very serious, for which this legislation needs to be enacted, there are other examples of fraud, mismanagement, and abuse within the Department of Education that have come to light in recent days. We are hopeful that legislation can move before this session ends. It is ironic that there are those who want the Department of Education to have even more power, such as in the hiring of 100,000 teachers or in school construction projects, when it is clearly a troubled agency that has had a real problem in even having a clean audit of their books. So I commend the Senator heartily and appreciate the work he is doing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his work in this area. I am glad I am cosponsoring the bill. Senator Sessions has been one of the tireless leaders in education and in rooting out fraud and abuse in the Department of Education. I also mention, with Senator Sessions' help on the Education Committee, we recently sent a bill out that I sponsored on the Senate side, that passed the House of Representatives, which would require a fraud audit of the Department of Education be performed by the General Accounting Office within 6 months. While the Senator is dealing with one specific area of fraud that is very serious, for which this legislation needs to be enacted, there are other examples of fraud, mismanagement, and abuse within the Department of Education that have come to light in recent days. We are hopeful that legislation can move before this session ends. It is ironic that there are those who want the Department of Education to have even more power, such as in the hiring of 100,000 teachers or in school construction projects, when it is clearly a troubled agency that has had a real problem in even having a clean audit of their books. So I commend the Senator heartily and appreciate the work he is doing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Born- Alive Infants Protection Act. While I am profoundly saddened by the fact that such legislation has become necessary, I am proud to be an original cosponsor and commend Senator Santorum for his efforts on behalf of those members of our society who don't yet have a voice. While the abortion lobby announced its vociferous opposition to this common-sense legislation and will most-certainly denounce this as an attack on Role v. Wade, this is not such an attack. Rather, it is an effort to end the brutal practice of infanticide, and to reaffirm that a child may not be killed once it has been born. I simply do not know how some of my colleagues will be able to defend the practice of killing children who have been born alive. We are talking about children who have been fully delivered. As I think of the moment I first held my grandson Jackson, I am repelled by the fact that our society has degenerated to the point where some people say that Jackson's life should be able to be taken even after his birth. I truly fear that if this practice is not stopped, some day, when the Peter Singers of the world have their way, the weakest members of our society--babies, the mentally retarded, the terminally ill, and the elderly--will have their lives taken from them against their will after someone has determined that their life is not meaningful. Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues join me and work to enact this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the month of September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Contrary to public perception, cancer is not just an adult disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of childhood deaths, second only to accidents. Cancer strikes 46 children, or two classrooms of children, every school day. In 1975, only 35 percent of children with cancer survived more than five years. Thanks to modern medicine, 70 percent of children diagnosed with cancer survive. Thirty percent, however, do not. Childhood cancer has a unique set of characteristics and problems which researchers are still trying to find answers to. While most adult cancers result from lifestyle factors, such as smoking, diet, occupational, and other exposure to cancer-causing agents, the causes of most childhood cancers, are not yet known. While adult cancers are primarily those of the lung, colon, breast, prostate and pancreas, childhood cancers are mostly those of the white blood cells (leukemias), brain, bone, the lymphatic system and tumors of the muscles, kidneys and nervous system. Childhood cancers further differ from adult cancers in that they often have spread to other parts of the body by the time they are diagnosed. Our goal must be to increase funding for research, early detection and treatment, and prevention of childhood cancer. The member institutions of the Children's Oncology Group, C.O.G., provide treatment for up to 90 percent of all children with cancer in North America. The Children's Oncology Group is supported, in part, by federal funds from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and by private funds raised by the National Childhood Cancer Foundation. The National Cancer Institute is slated to receive $3.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 for cancer research. Yet childhood cancer is one of many focuses of the NCI's research, and it certainly is not among the top funding priorities. I have worked with my fellow colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to raise awareness about the need for greater focus on childhood cancer, and I am delighted that the Senate will today pass legislation to address a number of pressing children's health issues. In particular, I want to thank Senator Frist, the author of this legislation, for working with me to include language directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study environmental and other risk factors for childhood cancers and to carry out projects to improve treatment outcomes among children with cancer --such projects shall include expansion of data collection and population surveillance efforts to include childhood cancers nationally, the development of a uniform reporting system nationwide for reporting the diagnosis of childhood cancers, and support for the National Limb Loss Information Center to address the primary and secondary needs of children with cancer to prevent or minimize the disabling nature of these cancers. By authorizing the Secretary to carry out these functions, we will hopefully get the answers we need to ensure that all children live a healthy, cancer-free life. Another devastating disease which affects almost exclusively male children, is Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, DMD. At this time, there is no cure for DMD. Little boys with DMD are most often not diagnosed before the age of two or three years. Most boys with DMD walk by themselves later than average, and then in an unusual manner. They may frequently fall, have difficulty rising from the ground, or difficulty going up steps. Calf muscles typically look over developed or excessively large, while other muscles are poorly developed. Use of a wheelchair may be occasional at age 9, but total dependence is normally established upon reaching the teen years. Most boys affected survive into their twenties, with relatively few surviving beyond 30 years of age. I have heard from the parents and grandparents of a little boy in Arkansas who has DMD. His name is Austin and his family is desperately hoping for a cure so they don't have to watch their son and grandson lose his ability to walk. While we are far from finding a cure for DMD, I am hopeful that language that Senator Frist has graciously worked with me to include in the children's health bill will help Austin and the thousands of other young boys suffering from DMD. Specifically, the Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand and increase coordination of the activities by the National Institutes of Health with respect to research on muscular dystrophies, including DMD. In conclusion, we are about to pass incredibly important legislation to address a myriad of children's health issues, including childhood cancer and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Efforts to improve the quality and length of life for millions of children are valuable beyond measure, and I encourage all of my colleagues to work together with me to raise awareness about these devastating diseases and the need to find treatments and cures for the children they affect.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.