Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive the Legislative presentations of the Retired Enlisted Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Fleet Reserve Association. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in SH216.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation which would correct procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I offer this bill on behalf of Senator Torricelli, Senator Thurmond, Senator Biden, Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Senator Helms, Senator Schumer, and Senator Sessions. This is legislation which is designed to correct a very pressing problem. This bill refines the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enable the appropriate investigations of espionage to avoid the very serious mistakes which were made during the investigation of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The references to Dr. Lee's investigation are made only for the purpose of illustrating the procedural problems which this legislation is designed to correct. The determination as to whether or not Mr. Wen Ho Lee is guilty will remain for the court of competent jurisdiction where he has been indicted. There was information released into the public domain at Mr. Lee's bail hearing which underscores the tremendous importance of this particular case. Dr. Stephen Younger, assistant laboratory director for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, testified at Dr. Lee's bail hearing on December 13, 1999, and said: These codes and their associated databases and the input file, combined with someone that knew how to use them, could, in my opinion, in the wrong hands, change the global strategic balance. It is hard to have any item of greater importance than changing the global strategic balance. Dr. Younger further testified: They enable the possessor to design the only objects that could result in the military defeat of America's conventional forces. . . They represent the gravest possible security risk to . . . the supreme national interest. Again, it is hard to find more forceful language as to the seriousness of this particular matter than the potential military defeat of America's conventional forces. During the course of this investigation, there were very serious time lapses while the FBI sought to get a warrant on Dr. Lee under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI made the FISA request in June of 1997. It was refused by the Department of Justice on August 12, 1997, and then FBI Director Freeh sent FBI Assistant Director John Lewis to talk personally to Attorney General Reno. Attorney General Reno then appointed a Department of Justice subordinate named Daniel Seikaly, who reviewed the matter and rejected it. Attorney General Reno, as she conceded in testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee on June 8, 1999, did not follow up on the matter, leaving this very important request rejected. The proposed legislation would require that when the Director of the FBI makes a request for a FISA warrant that the Attorney General personally must make the decision as to whether the FISA warrant request should be submitted to the court for action. The legislation further provides that when the Attorney General declines to submit the FISA application to the court, the rejection must be in writing. This would give the FBI Director a roadmap, so to speak, as to what additional information is necessary to have the warrant request submitted to the court. After the Department of Justice declined to submit the FISA warrant to the court, the FBI investigation of the case was inactive for some 16 months. It took from August of 1997 to December of 1997 for the FBI Headquarters to send a letter regarding the FISA request to the FBI Albuquerque Field Office, where it lay dormant until November of 1998. From the time the FISA application was not forwarded to the court to the time the FBI office in Albuquerque finally acted, some 16 months elapsed. These 16 months were very crucial with respect to the activities of Dr. Lee. This legislation further provides that when the Attorney General rejects a FISA application in writing, the Director of the FBI has the obligation to personally supervise the matter. The Department of Energy then initiated a polygraph of Dr. Lee, in a very unusual way, that has since been criticized by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The Department of Energy represented that Dr. Lee passed the polygraph when, in fact, he had not. The Secretary of Energy even made an announcement on national television to the effect that Dr. Lee had passed the polygraph when, in fact, he had not. That threw the FBI off course, thinking that a passed polygraph exonerated the suspect. This legislation provides that an agency such as the Department of Energy may not take action on a polygraph, that these matters are to be left to the FBI, which has the paramount authority to investigate these matters. The FBI then conducted another polygraph, but not until February 10, 1999, some 6 weeks after the polygraph he allegedly passed. Even though Dr. Lee failed this second polygraph, no action was taken to terminate Dr. Lee until March 8. In the interim, he deleted many of the files that are in issue. These deletions took place on January 20, February 9, 11, 12, and 17, all to the potential prejudice of the United States. Dr. Lee did not have a search warrant executed until April 9, which is a very long lapse before any official action had been taken. The legislation further provides that when a suspect is left in place for the purpose of the investigation, the FBI must make this request in writing and that to that agency. The agency, such as the Department of Energy, must then formulate a plan within 30 days to structure how that suspect will be left in place while minimizing the exposure of classified information to that person. One of the reasons given by the Department of Justice in declining to go forward with the FISA application was that Dr. Lee was not ``currently engaged'' in objectionable activities--to use mild words. This bill changes that requirement to probable cause on the totality of the circumstances. That is a brief summary of what this legislation would do. It is the view of the sponsors of this bill that it is very important for it to move forward so that on pending espionage investigations we do not have the lapses that occurred in this very important case. I am pleased to note that all the members of the Judiciary Subcommittee have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. I thank my colleague, Senator Torricelli, for his cooperation. Senator Thurmond, Senator Grassley, and Senator Sessions have all cosponsored among the Republican members, as have Senators Feingold and Schumer, in addition to Senator Torricelli. Senator Biden was consulted specially and is a cosponsor because he was the author of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act back in 1978. Senator Helms has asked to be added as a cosponsor, which he has. The subcommittee has had some substantial difficulty in ``birth'' pains; it has not really been born, to the extent that the subcommittee has not been funded. We have worked really from our own personal staffs. We have had three fellows and one detailee. We have completed a very lengthy detailed report, some 65 pages, which is the product of extraordinary work by Mr. Doman McArthur of my staff, in collaboration with Senator Torricelli's staff and the staffs of others. We have gone through the 65-page report with a fine-tooth comb to be sure that it is precise, exact, and does not make any disclosures as to any classified information. The subcommittee has deferred holding hearings on the Wen Ho Lee matter, which had been scheduled for December, at the specific request of Director Freeh. Director Freeh met with Torricelli and myself and requested that the hearings on Dr. Lee not go forward substantively, which might cause some problem with the pending prosecution. We do have hearings scheduled on the legislation for March 7, 8 and 21. I have already informed FBI Director Freeh of our intentions to proceed with those hearings, which will be on the substance as to how the act should be reformed. We have given notice to Director Freeh that we would appreciate his presence as a witness. He has said he would be glad to attend. That is a very brief statement of a very complex matter. It is my hope we will have the final clearance from the Department of Justice to be able to file the full 65-page report which will elaborate upon the brief summary which I have presented. I am delighted to yield to my very distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the 50th anniversary of Dr. Hilary Koprowski's feeding a child the very first dose of oral polio vaccine, I am pleased to offer this tribute so that America and the world can know more about this extraordinarily distinguished scientist. I have come to know Dr. Koprowski as a friend, a counselor and a constituent. The world owes Dr. Koprowski an enormous debt of gratitude for his scientific achievements as he will celebrate on February 27, 2000 the 50th anniversary of the first application of his oral polio vaccine. Vaccination of children in the United States, and mass vaccination trials with oral vaccine in Africa and Poland, paved the way for the eradication of paralytic polio in the Americas since 1991 and, hopefully, the elimination of polio from the rest of the world this year. Prior to the discovery of the oral vaccine, polio, a crippling disease, claimed numerous victims throughout the world. In the period from 1951 through 1953, here in the United States, 26 cases of polio were recorded for every 100,000 people. Dr. Hilary Koprowski is one of the most distinguished and respected biomedical researchers in the world recognized for his many achievements including the development of the first oral polio vaccine, in 1950, and the development of the genetically engineered oral rabies vaccine used all over the world. Dr. Koprowski pioneered the development of monoclonal antibodies for the detection and treatment of cancer. Dr. Koprowski continues his important work on gene-related vaccine using his wide scientific experience and profound scientific knowledge combined with strong organizational insight. Dr. Koprowski is the Director of the Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories and the Center for Neurovirology at Thomas Jefferson University and is Professor Laureate at the Wistar Institute. From 1957 to 1991, as Director, Dr. Koprowski led the Wistar Institute, where he is currently on the Board, to become one of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions with a staff of more than 600 people. Dr. Koprowski is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the New York Academy of Sciences and twenty-eight other learned institutions. He is a recipient of more than eighteen major awards, including the Order of the Lion, awarded by the King of Belgium, the Legion of Honor of France and the Nicolaus Copernicus Medal of the Polish Academy of Sciences. In 1990, he received the most prestigious honor of his home city, the Philadelphia Award. He is the author or co-author of more than 850 scientific papers. In addition to his truly outstanding career in medicine, Dr. Koprowski holds degrees in Music from the Warsaw Conservatory as well as the Santa Cecilia Academy of Music in Rome. His compositions are published and are currently being played by various orchestras. His biography, ``Listening to Music'', by Roger Voughan, was recently published by Springer-Verlag.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter and Mr. Harkin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2038 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I came to the floor 40 minutes ago with the expectation of introducing legislation. We found we were already on the bill. I have checked with the managers, Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman, who have no objections--nor does Senator Bryan--to Senator Harkin and myself proceeding for approximately 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin and I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of introducing legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, I am introducing legislation captioned the Medical Error Reduction Act of 2000. This legislation is introduced in response to a report from the Institute of Medicine which shows a very high death rate as a result of errors in hospitals. The statistics show that the death rate from errors in hospitals may be as high as 98,000 people. A chart has been prepared demonstrating that at the 98,000 figure, which is the uppermost estimate, medical errors are the fifth leading cause of death in the United States, problems which certainly need to be addressed. The legislation we are proposing follows a hearing which our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education conducted on December 13, 1999, and also a hearing conducted on January 25, 2000, in conjunction with the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Our legislation has input--not support, but input--taking into account concerns from the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, the American Psychological Association, and others. The core provisions of the bill will provide for 15 competitively awarded research demonstration projects to make a determination of the scope of medical errors and the ways to correct these medical errors systemically. Five of these demonstrations will have a mandatory reporting requirement with confidentiality when there is a medical error. Five of these demonstration projects will have a voluntary reporting program with confidentiality, and five of these demonstration projects will have a mandatory reporting requirement and also a mandate that the patient and/or the family be notified of the error. This, we think, is fundamental in terms of the professional responsibility of a doctor and the professional responsibility of a hospital to notify the injured party where error has occurred. Parenthetically, a similar obligation, I believe, is incumbent upon professionals generally. The legislation has further provisions for the studies to be conducted in a way to make a determination as to what is feasible on hand-held prescription pads and on other technical devices which will look to the system's errors which are encapsulated and encompassed in hospitals and medical care. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report, ``To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The report concluded that medical mistakes have led to numerous injuries and deaths, affecting an estimated three to four percent of all hospital patients. The IOM report also concluded that health care is a decade or more behind other high-risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety. According to the IOM, at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors, and the number may be as high as 98,000. We must put this statistic into perspective, as noted in this chart: at 98,000 deaths per year, medical errors are catapulted into the ranking of fifth leading cause of death nationwide. This total outnumbers deaths from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS. Further, medical errors resulting in injury are estimated to cost the nation between $17 billion and $29 billion, including additional health care costs, lost income, lost household production, and disability costs. The IOM findings are startling and beg for national attention to determine ways to reduce the number of medical errors. We have all heard and read media reports detailing the case of Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, who died from a chemotherapy overdose; or the tragedy of Willie King, who had the wrong leg amputated in a Florida hospital. Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases. On December 13, 1999, I chaired a hearing of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee to hear details of IOM's report findings. On January 25, 2000, I chaired a joint Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee/Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing to consider mandatory and voluntary reporting requirements and to begin to determine ways to reduce medical errors. Today, Senator Harkin and I are introducing legislation that seeks to find solutions to the problem of medical errors. This legislation was developed based on our hearings and with input from many health groups and experts in the field, including the American Hospital Association; American Medical Association; American Nurses Association; Institute for Safe Medication Practices; American Psychological Association; Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences; American Osteopathic Association; Association of American Medical Colleges; American Association of Health Plans; Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania; and Iowa Hospital Association. It is our hope that we can continue to work together to reduce the number of injuries and deaths related to medical mistakes. Let me review the key provisions of this bill. It would: Make grants available to states so they can establish their own error reporting systems and collect data to provide to Federal researchers. The compilation of such data will help researchers understand trends in errors and determine ways to reduce them. Require the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing Administration, to establish 15 competitively-awarded research demonstration projects throughout the nation, in geographically diverse areas, to assess the causes of medical errors and determine ways to reduce those errors. Facilities participating in these demonstrations will be required to employ appropriate technologies to reduce the probability of future errors. Such technologies might include hand-held electronic prescription pads, training simulators for medical education, and bar- coding of prescription drugs and patient bracelets. Facilities participating in the demonstrations will also provide staff training to reduce the number of errors, and encourage prompt review of errors to determine ways to prevent them from recurring. Of the 15 facilities who choose to participate in the demonstrations, 5 will have a mandatory reporting requirement of all medical errors to HHS, 5 will have a voluntary reporting requirement to HHS, and 5 will have a mandatory reporting requirement to HHS as well as to the patient and/or his family. Require the Secretary of HHS to provide information to all patients who participate in Federally-funded health care programs, educating them on ways to reduce medical errors. Require the Secretary to develop patient education programs to encourage all patients to take a more active role in their healthcare. Make grants available to health professional associations and other organizations to provide training and continuing education in order to reduce medical errors. Require the Secretary to report to the Congress within 180 days of enactment on the costs of implementing a program that identifies factors that reduce medical errors, including computerized health care systems. Require the Secretary to report on the results of the fifteen health system demonstration projects, focusing on best practices and costs/benefits of applying these practices nationally. Mr. President, patients must have confidence that when they seek medical treatment, they will receive the highest quality health care in the world. They should not be fearful of injuries or even death due to medical mistakes. The Institute of Medicine panel projected that with current knowledge and with implementation of medical error reduction methods that are proven to work, we can achieve no less than a 50 percent reduction in medical errors over the next five years. I believe that the research efforts authorized by this legislation will allow us to far exceed this goal, and immeasurably improve patient safety. I think my colleagues will agree that America has zero tolerance for preventable medical mistakes, and that we should act immediately to prevent further deaths and injuries. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his cosponsorship and his work on this very important piece of legislation, coming principally out of the subcommittee which Senator Harkin is the ranking Democrat and which I chair. There are other Senators who are working on legislation arising out of the Institute of Medicine report. There is no doubt that it is a problem of enormous magnitude. It is a life-and-death matter. We have taken the lead early to bring this legislation to the floor in the hopes that this will stimulate other ideas, other legislative proposals, so we may address this very serious issue.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, I am introducing legislation captioned the Medical Error Reduction Act of 2000. This legislation is introduced in response to a report from the Institute of Medicine which shows a very high death rate as a result of errors in hospitals. The statistics show that the death rate from errors in hospitals may be as high as 98,000 people. A chart has been prepared demonstrating that at the 98,000 figure, which is the uppermost estimate, medical errors are the fifth leading cause of death in the United States, problems which certainly need to be addressed. The legislation we are proposing follows a hearing which our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education conducted on December 13, 1999, and also a hearing conducted on January 25, 2000, in conjunction with the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Our legislation has input--not support, but input--taking into account concerns from the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, the American Psychological Association, and others. The core provisions of the bill will provide for 15 competitively awarded research demonstration projects to make a determination of the scope of medical errors and the ways to correct these medical errors systemically. Five of these demonstrations will have a mandatory reporting requirement with confidentiality when there is a medical error. Five of these demonstration projects will have a voluntary reporting program with confidentiality, and five of these demonstration projects will have a mandatory reporting requirement and also a mandate that the patient and/or the family be notified of the error. This, we think, is fundamental in terms of the professional responsibility of a doctor and the professional responsibility of a hospital to notify the injured party where error has occurred. Parenthetically, a similar obligation, I believe, is incumbent upon professionals generally. The legislation has further provisions for the studies to be conducted in a way to make a determination as to what is feasible on hand-held prescription pads and on other technical devices which will look to the system's errors which are encapsulated and encompassed in hospitals and medical care. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report, ``To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The report concluded that medical mistakes have led to numerous injuries and deaths, affecting an estimated three to four percent of all hospital patients. The IOM report also concluded that health care is a decade or more behind other high-risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety. According to the IOM, at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors, and the number may be as high as 98,000. We must put this statistic into perspective, as noted in this chart: at 98,000 deaths per year, medical errors are catapulted into the ranking of fifth leading cause of death nationwide. This total outnumbers deaths from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS. Further, medical errors resulting in injury are estimated to cost the nation between $17 billion and $29 billion, including additional health care costs, lost income, lost household production, and disability costs. The IOM findings are startling and beg for national attention to determine ways to reduce the number of medical errors. We have all heard and read media reports detailing the case of Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, who died from a chemotherapy overdose; or the tragedy of Willie King, who had the wrong leg amputated in a Florida hospital. Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases. On December 13, 1999, I chaired a hearing of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee to hear details of IOM's report findings. On January 25, 2000, I chaired a joint Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee/Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing to consider mandatory and voluntary reporting requirements and to begin to determine ways to reduce medical errors. Today, Senator Harkin and I are introducing legislation that seeks to find solutions to the problem of medical errors. This legislation was developed based on our hearings and with input from many health groups and experts in the field, including the American Hospital Association; American Medical Association; American Nurses Association; Institute for Safe Medication Practices; American Psychological Association; Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences; American Osteopathic Association; Association of American Medical Colleges; American Association of Health Plans; Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania; and Iowa Hospital Association. It is our hope that we can continue to work together to reduce the number of injuries and deaths related to medical mistakes. Let me review the key provisions of this bill. It would: Make grants available to states so they can establish their own error reporting systems and collect data to provide to Federal researchers. The compilation of such data will help researchers understand trends in errors and determine ways to reduce them. Require the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in conjunction with the Health Care Financing Administration, to establish 15 competitively-awarded research demonstration projects throughout the nation, in geographically diverse areas, to assess the causes of medical errors and determine ways to reduce those errors. Facilities participating in these demonstrations will be required to employ appropriate technologies to reduce the probability of future errors. Such technologies might include hand-held electronic prescription pads, training simulators for medical education, and bar- coding of prescription drugs and patient bracelets. Facilities participating in the demonstrations will also provide staff training to reduce the number of errors, and encourage prompt review of errors to determine ways to prevent them from recurring. Of the 15 facilities who choose to participate in the demonstrations, 5 will have a mandatory reporting requirement of all medical errors to HHS, 5 will have a voluntary reporting requirement to HHS, and 5 will have a mandatory reporting requirement to HHS as well as to the patient and/or his family. Require the Secretary of HHS to provide information to all patients who participate in Federally-funded health care programs, educating them on ways to reduce medical errors. Require the Secretary to develop patient education programs to encourage all patients to take a more active role in their healthcare. Make grants available to health professional associations and other organizations to provide training and continuing education in order to reduce medical errors. Require the Secretary to report to the Congress within 180 days of enactment on the costs of implementing a program that identifies factors that reduce medical errors, including computerized health care systems. Require the Secretary to report on the results of the fifteen health system demonstration projects, focusing on best practices and costs/benefits of applying these practices nationally. Mr. President, patients must have confidence that when they seek medical treatment, they will receive the highest quality health care in the world. They should not be fearful of injuries or even death due to medical mistakes. The Institute of Medicine panel projected that with current knowledge and with implementation of medical error reduction methods that are proven to work, we can achieve no less than a 50 percent reduction in medical errors over the next five years. I believe that the research efforts authorized by this legislation will allow us to far exceed this goal, and immeasurably improve patient safety. I think my colleagues will agree that America has zero tolerance for preventable medical mistakes, and that we should act immediately to prevent further deaths and injuries. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his cosponsorship and his work on this very important piece of legislation, coming principally out of the subcommittee which Senator Harkin is the ranking Democrat and which I chair. There are other Senators who are working on legislation arising out of the Institute of Medicine report. There is no doubt that it is a problem of enormous magnitude. It is a life-and-death matter. We have taken the lead early to bring this legislation to the floor in the hopes that this will stimulate other ideas, other legislative proposals, so we may address this very serious issue.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak in morning business next and following that, my distinguished colleague from Iowa, the senior Senator, Mr. Grassley, may be permitted to speak in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this morning President Clinton announced the budget for the administration for fiscal year 2001. It has a large number of new programs and has a very substantial increase in spending, up to $1.835 trillion. In examining the budget as to its applicability to the Departments of Labor, Health, Human Services and Education on items which I chair, the appropriations subcommittee, I am concerned about the number of new programs. On Education, there are 19 new programs. In the Department of Labor, there are nine new programs. It is a matter of concern when the President proposes programs which have mandates directing the local school districts as to what they should be doing without giving discretion to local school districts as to specific needs which they might have which might be in a somewhat different category. For example, this year the 19 new programs will increase expenditures by $2 billion 951 million--almost $3 billion. Let's put it that way, round it up a little bit. Within these programs, there is a new program for school renovation of $1.3 billion. While there may be some merit to that specific kind of program, it may well be that the local school district could better use that money, depending upon local needs, for matters such as a science program, for laboratory equipment, for computers, for teacher training depending upon what the needs are in the local school district. Last year, we had a considerable amount of controversy on the President's program for new teachers, a commendable objective, but it may well be that there are many school districts where the needs for some alternative programs are more pressing there. So I express a concern about the budget with its increased spending up to $1.835 trillion, and the mandate of a great many new programs which have not been authorized by the appropriate authorizing committees in the Congress. When it comes to the question of paying for these programs, the President has proposed raising the caps by some $62 billion, but it is highly questionable whether that raise in the caps will accommodate all the programs which he has proposed. I think there is agreement between the Congress and the administration that Social Security and Medicare have to be kept inviolate and that there not be expenditures which would threaten Social Security. On the face and on the figures, the President's budget does not invade Social Security, but there is the lurking possibility that Social Security could be invaded with the tremendous number of new programs which the President has proposed. Last year, when the President came forward with his budget, he had proposals for some $18 billion in offsets: Federal tobacco revenues of $6 billion, FAA user fees of $1 billion, and so on, down to some $18 billion, none of which materialized. So when we take a look at the President's proposed offsets, we have to take them with more than a grain of salt as to whether they ever will materialize. The President has proposed this year to have offsets for penalties for tobacco companies where they fail to live up to the reduction on teenage smoking. The administration's budget will cut youth smoking in half by charging the tobacco industry an assessment for every underage smoker, with an estimated penalty of $3,000 for each underage smoker. It does not pick up until some of the out years. This is an illustration of where the President is proposing alleged cuts which may well never materialize. There is one item where the Clinton administration budget is not adequately funded, and that is for the National Institutes of Health. In 1997, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution called for a doubling of the NIH budget over a 5-year period. During the course of the last 3 years, very substantial advances have been made on funding for the National Institutes of Health, although we are not quite yet on target. That has been a real battle because although the Senate passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in 1997 calling for doubling within 5 years, when the issue has come before the budget resolution on amendments sponsored by Senator Harkin, who is the ranking Democrat, and myself as chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, those increases in funding have been rejected. But with a sharp pencil and with very substantial help from staff on allocation of funding, we have succeeded in increasing the funding for the National Institutes of Health by more than $5 billion over the last 3 years. Three years ago, the Senate passed an increase of $950 million. It was pared down somewhat in conference to $907 million. Two years ago, we increased NIH funding by some $2 billion, and last year we increased National Institutes of Health funding by $2.3 billion. It is true the National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government. In fact, it may be the only jewel of the Federal Government. This year, with a long list of cosponsors who are being added incrementally each day--and I expect quite a few more by the end of the day, and more even before Senator Harkin, the principal cosponsor, and I offer this for a budget resolution--we are proposing an increase in funding of $2.7 billion, which is the minimal amount necessary to keep funding for the National Institutes of Health on a track to approximate the goal of doubling NIH funding over the 5-year period. In addition to Senator Harkin and myself, we have cosponsorship by Senator Mack, Senator Mikulski, Senator Frist, Senator Schumer, Senator Collins, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Hutchinson. The advances which have been made by NIH over the course of the past several years have truly been astounding with the projection that Parkinson's may be on the verge of being solved within a 5-year period, enormous advances on Alzheimer's, enormous advances on a variety of cancer problems--breast cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer-- enormous advances on heart disease. As a capital investment in the health of America, there is no better investment. As a capital investment for cutting costs for Medicare and Medicaid, there is no better investment. Last year, the Clinton administration proposed an increase of some $300 million which was far under the mark. That was raised by Congress to $2.3 billion and signed into law by the President. This year, I think, noting the strong congressional support, the administration has proposed an increase of $1 billion in NIH funding, but that, too, is short of the mark on meeting the objective of doubling NIH funding within a 5-year period. I have sought recognition today to submit, with my distinguished colleague Senator Harkin, an important resolution calling for increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, to keep us on track to double NIH funding by 2002. Specifically, the resolution which we are offering today calls for the fiscal year 2001 Budget Resolution to include an additional $2.7 billion in the health account, to be allocated for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, I have said many times that the National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the only jewel of the Federal government. We all remain enthralled by the advances realized by the National Institutes of Health, which has spawned innumerable breakthroughs in our knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, severe mental illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, and many others. It is clear that a substantial investment in the NIH is crucial to allow the continuation of these advances into the next decade. On May 21, 1997, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution submitted by our distinguished colleague, Senator Mack, which stated that funding for the National Institutes of Health should be doubled over five years. Regrettably, even though that resolution was passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to nothing, when the budget resolution was considered on the Senate floor, the appropriate health account had a reduction of $100 million. That led to the introduction of an amendment to the resolution by myself and Senator Harkin. We sought to add in $1.1 billion to carry out the expressed sense of the Senate. Our amendment, however, was defeated 63-37. We were extremely disappointed that while the Senate had expressed its druthers on a resolution, they were simply unwilling to put up the actual dollars to accomplish this vital goal. The following year, during debate on the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution, Senator Harkin and I again introduced an amendment which called for a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, and which provided sufficient resources in the budget to accomplish this. While we gained more support on this vote than in the previous year, our amendment was again defeated, this time by a vote of 57-41. Not to be deterred, Senator Harkin and I again went to work with our Subcommittee and we were able, by making economies and establishing priorities, to add an additional $2 billion to the NIH account for fiscal year 1999, which at the time was the largest increase in history. Most recently, for fiscal year 2000, Senator Harkin and I again introduced an amendment to the Budget Resolution which would have added $1.4 billion to the health accounts, over and above the $600 million which had been already been provided by the Budget Committee. Despite this amendment's defeat by a vote of 47-52, we were able to provide, through the maximization of our limited resources, a $2.3 billion increase for fiscal year 2000--truly an historic accomplishment. In 1981, when I was first elected to the Senate, NIH funding was less than $3.6 billion; for fiscal year 2000, it is $17.9 billion, a 95% inflation-adjusted increase. Through several years and several Subcommittee Chairs--Senator Weicker, Senator Chiles, Senator Harkin, and myself--the budgets were always tight and frequently faced Administration-proposed cuts. Still, we managed to increase NIH funding tremendously. This resolution seeks to reiterate the intent of the Senate to double our investment in the National Institutes of Health: we must provide $2.7 billion to stay on track to reach that goal. I believe that this goal can be achieved if we make the proper allocation of our resources. Our investment has resulted in tremendous advances in medical research. A new generation of AIDS drugs are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus in HIV infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. Death rates from cancer have begun a steady decline. The human genome is on track to be 90 percent mapped by this spring, and fully sequenced by 2003. We are seeing the advent of a relatively new field of pharmacogenomics, which seeks to solve whether there is something about an individual's genetic instructions which prevent them from metabolizing a particular drugs as intended. In essence, drugs may soon be designed to fit the patient's genetic makeup. I anxiously await the results of all of these avenues of remarkable research. I, like millions of Americans, have benefitted tremendously from the investment we have made in the National Institutes of Health. But to continue that commitment takes actual dollars, not just the discussion of dollars. That is why we offer this resolution today--to call upon the Budget Committee to add $2.7 billion to the health accounts so we can carry forward the important work of the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of our distinguished majority leader, Mr. President, I have been asked to make the following announcement. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1052, the Mariana Islands legislation. As previously announced, there will be no votes during today's session of the Senate. Therefore, any votes ordered on the Mariana Islands bill will be scheduled to occur on Tuesday. Also on Tuesday, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the nuclear waste bill. It is hoped that action on that legislation can be completed by the end of the week. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a resolution along with 25 of my colleagues to designate March 25, 2000, as ``Greek Independence Day: A Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' One hundred and seventy-nine years ago, the Greeks began the revolution that would free them from the Ottoman Empire and return Greece to its democratic heritage. It was, of course, the ancient Greeks who developed the concept of democracy in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Our Founding Fathers drew heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that, ``to the ancient Greeks * * * we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' It is fitting, then, that we should recognize the anniversary of the beginning of their efforts to return to that democratic tradition. The democratic form of government is only one of the most obvious of the many benefits we have gained from the Greek people. The ancient Greeks contributed a great deal to the modern world, particularly to the United States of America, in the areas of art, philosophy, science and law. Today, Greek-Americans continue to enrich our culture and make valuable contributions to American society, business, and government. It is my hope that strong support for this resolution in the Senate will serve as a clear goodwill gesture to the people of Greece with whom we have enjoyed such a close bond throughout history. Similar resolutions have been signed into law each of the past several years, with overwhelming support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Accordingly, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about a distinguished Pennsylvanian, the librarian from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, Mr. Yongyi Song, who was greeted tumultuously in Philadelphia on Saturday afternoon when he returned from the People's Republic of China after having been held in custody there since August 7. Mr. Yongyi Song came to the United States some 10 years ago and has become a world-renowned scholar on the Cultural Revolution. In addition to his regular duties at Dickinson College, he has published extensively on the Cultural Revolution. Last August, he and his wife Helen made a trip to the People's Republic of China so that he could continue his research. While there, he was taken into custody on August 7. Thereafter, his wife was released, but on Christmas Eve he was charged with transmitting state secrets. A careful analysis of the case raises very severe questions as to whether there was ever any substance to the charges. A campaign was waged by scholars and academicians and by colleges and universities across the land to obtain his release. Dickinson College retained a very distinguished attorney, Jerome Cohen, an expert in Chinese affairs, who took up the cause. A resolution was submitted last Wednesday by this Senator with quite a number of cosponsors--Senator Biden, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, being the principal cosponsor; in addition, Senator Santorum and others. After consultation with Secretary of State Albright and others in the State Department, I sought a meeting with the Chinese Ambassador, which I had last Friday late in the morning. Before going to the meeting, I heard rumors that Yongyi Song might be released. While I met with the Chinese Ambassador, I was delighted to find that he handed me a piece of paper announcing Mr. Song's release, and gave me the word that Mr. Song would soon be on a Northwest airliner headed for Detroit, and ultimately for Philadelphia. We thank the People's Republic of China and we thank the Chinese Ambassador for Mr. Yongyi Song's release. We regret that he ever was taken into custody. But when he returned and commented to the news media, on a galaxy of cameras--both television and still cameras--and to many newspaper reporters, Mr. Song commented that he was not physically abused. He said he was subjected to a good bit of mental torture. He disputed the representations by the People's Republic of China that he had confessed or implicated others. But as Shakespeare would say, ``All's well that ends well.'' It has been reported that this is the first time there has been a release of anybody who was charged with stealing state secrets. It is my hope that this is a significant step forward for the People's Republic of China to recognize human rights. In an era when the People's Republic of China is seeking permanent most-favored-nation status and seeking entry into the World Trade Organization, it is my hope that they will accept at least minimal norms for due process, so that if someone is taken into custody, that person is entitled to confer with counsel, should be entitled to notice of the charges, should be entitled to an open trial, and should have the requirement that evidence be presented in an open forum before any determination of guilt. The detention of Mr. Yongyi Song from August 7 until January 28, in my judgment, was excessive. But we are glad to have Yongyi Song back at his duties at Dickinson College and glad this has ended favorably. We do hope this is a first step in a continuing recognition by the People's Republic of China to give appropriate consideration to human rights. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article entitled ``Scholar Back in U.S. After China Detention'' from The New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and my distinguished colleague from Iowa. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2015 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to send to the desk, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, a bill captioned the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2000.'' It is being introduced after a series of four hearings, which have been conducted in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, which I chair and on which Senator Harkin is the ranking Democrat. The subject has been a very important one because approximately 15 months ago, there were disclosures about stem cell research which provided an opportunity for a veritable fountain of youth. The scientific discoveries have found that from the stem cells, new cells may be created which have the potential to cure a great many severe maladies. For example, on Parkinson's disease, stem cells are enormously helpful. There is potential for cures on Alzheimer's, on heart ailments, and really on the whole range of human ailments, illnesses, and diseases. There has been a limiting factor on the use of stem cells because of a provision, which was inserted many years ago into the appropriations bill for our subcommittee, which limits Federal funding on research relating to stem cells. The Department of Health and Human Services has handed down a ruling which would permit federal scientists to conduct research on stem cells that have been derived by private sources. The concern has been that the human embryo, subjected to scientific research, would potentially destroy life. The fact is that the only human embryos which are used as a basis for stem cell research are human embryos from discarded in vitro fertilization clinics. It is not a matter of using a human embryo which has the potentiality for life to extract the stem cells because these are embryos which have been discarded. Notwithstanding the legal opinion handed down by the general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, it is our view that there are still undue restrictions on scientific research from existing law. That is why this legislation has been introduced. It will eliminate the ban on the use of Federal funding for the research on stem cells. There are a number of very important restrictions. First, the research would not apply to the creation of human embryos for research purposes. Second, the research would not result in the cloning of a human being. Third, it would be unlawful for any person receiving Federal funds to knowingly acquire, receive, or transfer any human embryos for valuable consideration, even if the transfer affected interstate commerce. These limitations have been engrafted into the legislation to be sure this kind of inappropriate conduct is being prohibited. The legal opinion issued by the Department of Health and Human Services covers the statutory prohibition on the use of funds, stating that human embryo research would not apply to research utilizing human pluripotent stem cells because such stem cells do not constitute a human embryo. However, applying the Federal funding solely to pluripotent stem cells is not sufficient because there ought to be an opportunity for broader research, as I have suggested. The controversy on stem cell research is very similar to the controversy which had existed on prohibiting research on fetal tissue when many people advanced the argument that it would induce abortions to secure fetal tissue. It soon became readily apparent that the research on fetal tissue was from discarded fetal tissue and that, in fact, there would not be an inducement of abortions to produce fetal tissue for research purposes. That is very similar, almost identical, except for what is involved with the issue of human embryos. Human embryos which will not be used for research for stem cells where there is any possibility that they might produce life and may be used only from discarded embryos, similarly to the discarded fetal tissue. When the appropriations bill was considered last fall, a provision was inserted into the committee report which would eliminate the prohibition of use of funds for research on stem cells. When it became apparent that this provision would likely stall the progress of the appropriations bill, an agreement was reached to remove that provision in committee before the bill got to the floor under an arrangement with our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who agreed to bring up the legislation as a freestanding bill. That is the legislation Senator Harkin and I are introducing today. We intend to have an additional hearing within the next several weeks so that the stage will be set by late February or early March to proceed with the schedule of this bill as a freestanding measure and so that the Senate may vote up or down and the House of Representatives may ultimately have an opportunity to vote as well. Over the past 14 months, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee which I chair, held four hearings, the latest on November 4, 1999, to discuss the advances in stem cell research made by two research teams. One team, led by Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin, and the other headed by Dr. John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University. Stem cell research is one area that holds particular promise for the development of future medical treatment and cures. Stem cells originating in an embryo have the unique ability, for a very limited period of time, to become any cell type of the body. This power, if harnessed by science, could lead to replacement therapies for failing cells, for example, or lead to organ tissues that could be implanted into a patient. Scientists are just beginning preliminary research into the potential practical applications of this line of work. At a Senate hearing convened by my subcommittee on December 2, 1998, Dr. Gearhart testified that he has been able to induce some stem cells to grow into nerve cells. Other scientists also stated that cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases and illnesses that plague mankind could be greatly accelerated by stem cell research. Some scientists, for example, believe that stem cell research could lead to tangible benefits to Parkinson's Disease patients in as soon as 7 to 10 years. What has been delaying the advancement of this new line of research is a provision in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that prohibits research on human embryos. On January 15, 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a legal opinion finding that the statutory prohibition of the use of funds appropriated to HHS for human embryo research would not apply to research utilizing human pluripotent stem cells because such cells do not constitute a human embryo. But even this limited use of stem cells may be blocked by those who misunderstand its purpose. According to Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, research on stem cells is not the same as research on human embryos. Stem cells do not have the capacity to develop into a human being. While I applaud the HHS ruling, I do not believe that it goes far enough. To achieve the greatest and swiftest benefits, Federal researchers need their own supply of stem cells. Therefore, I am proposing this legislation to enable Federally-funded researchers to derive their own stem cells from spare embryos obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics. Allowing scientists to conduct human stem cell research would greatly accelerate advances in many avenues of study and, in collaboration with private industry, expedite the production and availability of new drugs and treatments. Enacting such legislation would clarify the boundaries governing Federally-funded researchers and make clear the commitment of this Congress to biomedical research. Let me review the key provisions of this bill: It would amend the Public Health Service Act and give permanent authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct, support, or fund research on human embryos only for the purpose of generating stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells may be derived and used in research only from embryos that would otherwise be discarded and donated by in vitro fertilization clinics and only with the written informed consent of the donors. The Secretary shall issue guidelines governing human stem cell research, including definitions and terms used in such research. All Federal research protocols and consent forms involving human pluripotent stem cell research shall be reviewed and approved by an institutional review board. The Secretary shall annually submit to the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, including whether and to what extent research has been conducted in accordance with this purpose. The following restrictions would apply: (A) The research shall not result in the creation of human embryos for research purposes. (B) The research shall not result in the cloning of a human being. (C) It shall be unlawful for any person receiving Federal funds to knowingly acquire, receive, or transfer any human embryos for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce. We have heard very compelling testimony from many individuals who are hoping for treatments and cures from stem cell research. One individual, Mr. Richard Pikunis of Malvern, New Jersey, a 27 year-old stricken with Parkinson's Disease, told the Subcommittee how the disease has affected every facet of his young life--from law school graduation to the birth of his son. Dr. Douglas Melton, a prominent professor at Harvard, told of the struggles of his son afflicted with juvenile diabetes. We also heard from Michael J. Fox, who implored us to do more for people with Parkinson's disease. Mr. Fox told of his daily medication routine and progressing physical and mental exhaustion. He asked for the Subcommittee's help to eradicate the disease so that he could dance at his children's weddings. Mr. Fox has just recently announced that he is leaving his popular television series to devote more time to his family and to advocate for more research on finding a cure for Parkinson's disease. Mr. President, these are just a few of the voices pleading with us to allow this research to move ahead. While stem cell research does not guarantee that a cure will be found, without it the opportunity to halt their suffering may be denied then. The enactment of this legislation as soon as possible could give thousands of individuals a chance to see a cure within their lifetime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we still in morning business?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The thrust of the private relief bill and the concurrent resolution is that they seek relief for Mr. Yongyi Song, who is a librarian at Dickinson College of Carlisle, PA. Mr. Song was detained in Beijing, China, on August 7 of this year and on Christmas Eve was charged with ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' Two days ago, the People's Republic of China announced that Yongyi Song had confessed, which I believe is a representation having absolutely no credibility because Mr. Song has been held in detention for months. Any statements made in that context are inherently coercive, intimidating, and really of no validity at all. The facts are that Yongyi Song is a distinguished and noted scholar who has published extensive works about the Cultural Revolution in China and that he had made a trip to the People's Republic of China earlier this year in order to further his academic research. Then he was taken into custody without cause. The resolution that has been filed calls for the People's Republic of China to release Yongyi Song promptly. It calls for the fair treatment of lawyers in the People's Republic of China so they may practice in a decent manner within their judicial system, and it calls for the People's Republic of China to put into practice the reforms in the judicial system which they have, in fact, adopted on paper but are not putting into effect as a matter of practice. The relationship between the United States Government and the People's Republic of China is a complex one. We have seen repeated incidents by China of flagrant disregard for human rights, and this is another instance. By taking Yongyi Song into custody and holding him in detention without charges, and months later--from August 7 until Christmas Eve--finally filing charges, and then the representation of a confession, which legal experts interpret to mean that they have no case and are doing their best to try to fashion some make-way situation is perhaps the lowest ebb of disregard for human rights and for academic freedom. The resolution will be taken up concurrently in the House of Representatives as well. The bill for naturalization will enable the Government of the United States to take stronger action on behalf of Mr. Song. It will enable our State Department officials, for example, to visit with Yongyi Song, may be instrumental in obtaining the right to counsel, and may be instrumental in obtaining the right to observe any trial which is in process. There has been a marked and serious determination in the activities of the People's Republic of China in their criminal justice system. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the full text of an article from the New York Times, dated January 6 of this year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for 6 years I had the pleasure of working closely with Dr. Harold Varmus, the distinguished Director of the National Institutes of Health. During his tenure as Director, great strides were made in medical research--the continued mapping of the human genome; new generations of AIDS drugs' gene therapy; the remarkable growth of information technology in health research; a strong effort to combat the global spread of infectious diseases; and exciting new scientific opportunities, such as stem cell research, that may one day lead to cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes. When I first met Dr. Varmus, I recall being impressed by the force and eloquence with which he advanced the cause of medical research. When he informed me of his intention to leave his post as Director, I could not help but think that NIH would lose one of its most valuable assets. His commitment to raise the level of scientific achievement at the NIH, and the enthusiasm and vigor that he brought to the job will certainly be missed. I have no doubt that in his new position as head of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, Dr. Varmus will stimulate the same high level of excitement and energy as he did at NIH. And while Sloan-Kettering will benefit from his vast knowledge of the biology of cancer, cancer patients there will feel the warmth of his deep compassion. During his tenure as NIH Director, the agency has seen unprecedented funding increases. In 1993, when he assumed the position of Director funding for NIH was $8.9 billion. Under his leadership, the NIH budget has more than doubled to the $17.9 billion. Dr. Varmus was the first Nobel Laureate to serve as NIH Director. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1989 for his work in demonstrating that cancer genes can arise from normal cellular genes. He is an international authority on retro-viruses and the genetic basis for cancer. Prior to coming to NIH, Dr. Varmus was a Professor at the University of California at San Francisco. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Varmus on his new position and to salute his contribution to the Nation and the cause of medical research. His wise counsel and responsible leadership helped lay the foundation for a research agenda that will have a lasting effect on the lives of millions of people throughout the United States and the world.