Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 139 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 139 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11953-S11976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3010, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Sununu amendment No. 2214, to provide for the funding of
the Low-Vision Rehabilitation Services Demonstration Project.
Sununu modified amendment No. 2215, to increase funding for
community health centers.
Thune further modified amendment No. 2193, to provide
funding for telehealth programs.
Murray amendment No. 2220, to provide stop gap coverage for
low-income Seniors and disabled individuals who may lose
benefits or suffer a gap in coverage due to the
implementation of the Medicare part D prescription drug
benefit.
Harkin modified amendment No. 2283, to make available funds
for pandemic flu preparedness.
Clinton/Schumer amendment No. 2313, to provide for payments
to the New York State Uninsured Employers Fund for
reimbursement of claims related to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and payments to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for treatment for emergency services
personnel and rescue and recovery personnel.
Coburn amendment No. 2233, to prohibit the use of funds for
HIV Vaccine Awareness Day activities.
Coburn amendment No. 2230, to limit funding for
conferences.
Dayton amendment No. 2245, to fully fund the Federal
Government's share of the costs under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Dayton amendment No. 2289, to increase funding for disabled
voter access services under the Help America Vote Act of
2002.
Santorum amendment No. 2241, to establish a Congressional
Commission on Expanding Social Service Delivery Options.
Santorum amendment No. 2237, to provide grants to promote
healthy marriages.
Durbin (for Boxer/Ensign) amendment No. 2287, to increase
appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century
community learning centers.
Bingaman (for Smith/Bingaman) amendment No. 2259, to
provide funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within
the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Bingaman amendment No. 2218, to increase funding for
advanced placement programs.
Bingaman amendment No. 2219, to increase funding for school
dropout prevention.
Bingaman/Salazar amendment No. 2262, to increase funding
for education programs serving Hispanic students.
Harkin amendment No. 2322, to prohibit payments for
administrative expenses under the Medicaid program if more
than 15 percent of applications for medical assistance,
eligibility redeterminations, and change reports are
processed by individuals who are not State employees meeting
certain personnel standards.
Cornyn amendment No. 2277, to increase the amount of
appropriated funds available for Community-Based Job Training
Grants.
Landrieu amendment No. 2248, to increase appropriations for
the Federal TRIO programs for students affected by Hurricanes
Katrina or Rita.
Landrieu amendment No. 2250, to provide funding to carry
out the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act.
Landrieu amendment No. 2249, to require that any additional
community health center funding be directed, in part, to
centers in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane
Rita.
Collins/Feingold modified amendment No. 2265, to fund
grants for innovative programs to address dental workforce
needs.
Murray amendment No. 2285, to insert provisions related to
an investigation by the Inspector General.
Ensign amendment No. 2300, to prohibit funding for the
support, development, or distribution of the Department of
Education's e-Language Learning System (ELLS).

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until
10 a.m. shall be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Schedule

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the time until 10 a.m. will be
equally divided for debate prior to the cloture vote. That cloture vote
is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. promptly. We

[[Page S11954]]

will be on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. We started that bill now
6 days ago, last Friday. Senators have had ample opportunity to debate
and offer amendments. Therefore, I expect that we will invoke cloture
this morning. Once cloture is invoked, the chairman can begin the
process of bringing that bill to a close. If we work together and
Members are reasonable with their requests for amendments, we will be
able to finish the bill tonight. If we are unable to get passage of the
bill tonight, then we would return to session tomorrow and stay on the
bill with votes until completion. That gives added incentive for people
to finish it today, but we will be here tomorrow to vote if we do not
finish it tonight.
Today we may also receive the Agriculture appropriations conference
report from the House, and I will be talking to the Democratic leader
about the scheduling for consideration.
Finally, we have some Executive Calendar nominations ready for Senate
action, including a couple of judges. We need to dispose of those
nominations as soon as possible.

Withdrawal of Nomination of Harriet Miers

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the last several minutes, Harriet
Miers has formally requested to withdraw as a nominee to serve as
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I had a conversation with Ms.
Miers early this morning, and she told me that it was last evening that
she spoke to the President and formally requested her nomination to be
withdrawn. She stated clearly to me this morning and in a letter, which
I will refer to shortly, that she felt that withdrawal was in the best
interest of the United States. She came to this decision on her own,
based on what she has experienced and witnessed and with the requests
that are currently being made and as she projected forward to the
hearings, again, in the best interests of the country. This morning she
was gracious and forthcoming, confident, expressed appreciation for all
of the work that has been done to date in the Senate and asked me to
express that to each of the Senators, asking me to say thank you for
their individual courtesy over the past several days and weeks. As one
may expect, she was disappointed but confident and upbeat.
Earlier this morning, following that, I did talk to the President. It
is appropriate, because things are moving so quickly for me, to quote
from her letter, again, to use Harriet Miers' own words. As this is
addressed by the political pundits and the commentators over the course
of today, I think it would be helpful for our colleagues to hear
directly what Ms. Miers sent to the President.

October 27, 2005.
Dear Mr. President: I write to withdraw as a nominee to
serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the
United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the
confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated
immensely your support and the support of many others.
However, I am concerned that the confirmation process
presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is
not in the best interest of the country.
As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their
intention to seek documents about my service in the White
House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been
informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be
expected to testify about my service in the White House to
demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I
believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence
for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the
efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information
will continue.
As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office,
the strength and independence of our three branches of
government are critical to the continued success of this
great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of
confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have
steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive
Branch be reserved and its confidential documents and
information not be released to further a confirmation
process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position,
especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the
prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of
my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking
my confirmation should yield.
I share your commitment to appointing judges with a
conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to
continuing to support your efforts to provide the American
people judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am
most grateful for the opportunity to have served your
Administration and this country.
Most respectfully,
Harriet Ellan Miers.

Those are her words, and I think they are very direct. I did have a
chance to talk to the President moments ago. He says that he accepted
this withdrawal. Harriet Miers will continue as White House counsel, of
course. And I believe that we can expect another nomination in the very
near future. I will be talking to Chairman Specter a little bit later
this morning.
I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.

Harriet Miers

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard, since I have been in
Washington these many years, about what a tough town it is. I rarely
have felt that in my work here. But today I feel what some have said.
For Harriet Miers, this is a tough town.
Here is a fine woman, gentle and kind, has a lengthy career. Her
record: First woman to become a member of a large law firm in Texas;
first woman to be president of the Dallas Bar Association. The Dallas
Bar Association is larger than most State bar associations. She
followed that with being the president of the Texas Bar Association,
one of the three or four largest bar associations in the United States.
She has served in elective office for a short period. She has had
extensive experience in the courts.
I was in Texas this past weekend with a bunch of Democratic lawyers,
members of the Democratic Party. They all said the nicest things about
Harriet Miers. She was a fine litigator.
It is no secret I thought she would be an appropriate nomination for
the President. I suggested that to the President in a meeting that was
attended by the distinguished majority leader. I believe the 35 to 40
percent of the people who have served on the Supreme Court with no
judicial experience before getting there have been equally as good as
those people who have come to the Court with judicial experience. I
believe those Justices with whom I had lunch a few months ago, who
said, we would like to have people with no judicial experience come to
the Supreme Court--that is what they said--were right. I believe they
are still right.
I have talked a little bit about Harriet Miers. She called me this
morning. I agree with the distinguished Republican leader that she was
upbeat, but she wasn't happy. She was very disappointed. It was obvious
she was very disappointed. Who wouldn't be? In her experience as a
lawyer, elected city councilperson, in her whole career she has shown
that she has been a strong supporter for law firm diversity policies, a
leader in promoting legal services for the poor. She made statements,
written and otherwise, where she spoke her beliefs on basic fairness.
I believe, without any question, that when the history books are
written about all this, it will show that the radical rightwing of the
Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town.
Apparently, Ms. Miers didn't satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme
Court with rigid ideologists. The only voices heard in this process
were the far right. She wasn't even given a chance to speak for herself
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her credentials, which are
excellent, weren't good enough for the rightwing. They wanted a nominee
with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.
I hope our President, in choosing a replacement for his lawyer--and
that is what she is--will not reward the bad behavior of his rightwing
base. President Bush should reject the demands of these extremists and
choose a Justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all
Americans. The President should listen to all Americans, not just
extreme elements of his own party.
I repeat what the distinguished Senator from Maryland said, Ms.
Mikulski, that she sensed a whiff--I think that is a direct quote--of
sexism in all of the attacks on this nominee.
Mr. President, it is over with. She has given her withdrawal to the
President. I don't think it is a good day for our country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.
How much time do we have, Mr. President?

[[Page S11955]]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eight minutes 11 seconds.
Mr. REID. And that is equally divided; is that right?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 7 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. REID. While the distinguished majority leader is here, Mr.
President, through you to the distinguished Republican leader, we had a
half hour set aside and I took more than my share. You didn't take much
time. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes for morning
business and the vote at 10 o'clock be scheduled at 10:15.
I understand the Senator from New York is not talking in morning
business. I withdraw my request. I yield to her whatever time she may
consume.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is recognized.

Amendment No. 2313

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my brief remarks my colleague, Senator Schumer, be
recognized.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Subject to the control of the time, yes.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I believe amendment 2313 is pending before the Senate;
is that correct?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pending before the Senate is H.R. 3010.
Mrs. CLINTON. Is amendment 2313 at the desk?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is the pending amendment,
the one we go on in regular business.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Will we be going
to regular business before the cloture vote?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the bill at this time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Then if we are on the bill at this time, I wish to
speak briefly about amendment 2313 and ask that it be pending before
the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has the right to make that
amendment the regular order if she desires.
Mrs. CLINTON. I do desire, Mr. President, to make amendment 2313 the
regular order.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, this amendment addresses a problem that is quite
unprecedented with respect to the funds that were appropriated
originally from this body following the attacks of September 11. The
funds were part of the original emergency appropriation passed by the
Congress and signed by the President. The money addressed in this
amendment is intended for use for medical services and related matters
on behalf of first responders, construction workers, and others who
worked at Ground Zero, who were in a variety of ways injured, whose
health was impacted, often leading to employment-ending disabilities.
The people who gave so much in the immediate aftermath of those attacks
include, of course, those who lost their lives and also those who as
part of the rescue and recovery operations suffered long-lasting
physical and mental damage.
A number of those people have not been able to return to work. They
are suffering from ailments ranging from physical disability, loss of
limbs, loss of the use of limbs. They have suffered an incredible range
of lung-related and breathing diseases--asthma, respiratory
dysfunction. Others have suffered greatly from the stresses they
confronted, particularly working on what was called ``the pile'' day
after day after day; some who worked out at Freshkills, the formerly
very large landfill on Staten Island where the remains of so many who
lost their lives, including the debris from the cleanup, were taken and
deposited. Detectives worked there hour after hour after hour
recovering evidence, and often that evidence included, tragically, body
parts. Many of these people who were directly impacted continued to
work as long as they could. They tried to return to some semblance of
normalcy. Unfortunately, they often could not continue.
The money that was directed to be used for their medical and
employment-related needs was caught up in some of the efforts to deal
with the budget currently, and an unprecedented rescission of these
funds previously appropriated was called for.
On both sides of the aisle, in the Senate as well as the House, we
have a number of our colleagues who understand completely the need for
these funds to be reinstated and available for the purposes they were
intended. Certainly, the Governor of our State, the mayor of our city,
along with representatives of many of the workers, the police officers,
detectives, the firefighters, the construction workers, and others who
were adversely impacted because they responded to the need for their
services and their heroic efforts, are all united in our effort on both
sides of the aisle at all levels of Government to make sure that what
was promised is fulfilled.
I greatly appreciate the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member working with us over the last weeks to make sure we correct this
unprecedented rescission. I believe the amendment has been agreed to by
the chairman and ranking member. I hope we are able to move forward
with that expeditiously today.
This is a righting of an inadvertent wrong. I don't think the full
intent and understanding of what these funds were for was perhaps
appreciated, but there seems to be a great willingness, which I greatly
appreciate, on behalf of the majority----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. CLINTON. And so, Mr. President, let me, if I could----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no further time for the minority
to yield.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may we have unanimous consent to use the
leader time?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leadership time is reserved. The
leadership is to use that time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2
minutes. It can be deducted from the Republican time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, that request can be
agreed to.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I want to add my voice in support of
this amendment on behalf of Senator Clinton and myself.
We all know the help this country has generously offered those who
put their lives on the line--some survived, some did not--after 9/11.
Many emerged wounded. I want to add one other element here. When we
negotiated with the President for the $20 billion, there was a great
moment of unity. When this Congress stood up, it was a great moment of
unity. I have to say the President has never wavered in his commitment
of the $20 billion. In fact, the White House has been generous in
granting us flexibility--seeking to take $2 billion of the tax dollars
and move them to transportation.
This one rescission is the only mark where there has been a wavering
in the commitment made to New York in those bleak weeks right after 9/
11. We don't know how it came about. I doubt it came from the
President--maybe somebody in OMB. But removing this rescission rights
that wrong and keeps the ledger unblemished about this Nation's
commitment to $20 billion to New York.
I thank Senator Specter and Senator Cochran for understanding that
need, and Senator Clinton and I look forward to the fact that this
amendment, which will now be in the Senate bill, will prevail in the
House and that the White House will help us make that happen.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the time be allocated to Senator Schumer and myself.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. There
is 5 minutes 44 seconds remaining.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as you can tell from both Senator
Schumer and myself, we are very grateful for this understanding and
pending action that will give us a chance to right this wrong. Again I
think it is difficult to trace how it happened. I believe it is in the
rush of trying to figure out how to maybe make things balance a little
bit more that this was seized upon.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from Governor Pataki and Mayor
Bloomberg be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11956]]

Executive Chamber,

State Capitol,

Albany, NY, October 21, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chair, Appropriations Committee, Senate Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee, Senate Hart Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Cochran and Byrd: I would like to voice my
strong concerns over a provision in the House Labor-HHS
Appropriations bill which would rescind $125 million from the
New York State Workers' Compensation Board sent to New York
as part of the response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. As the Senate considers its own Labor-HHS
appropriations bill, I would ask that this rescission not be
included. If it is not feasible to reverse the rescission,
then I would respectfully ask that you support passage of a
new emergency appropriation.
Under P.L. 107-117, Congress provided New York a total of
$175 million for the Workers' Compensation Board. The funding
was for paying benefits to the volunteers who responded to
Ground Zero or the Staten Island Landfill and to pay claims
to the employees of uninsured employers. These funds were
made available ``until expended.''
Consistent with Congressional intent, I am requesting that
all funds from the initial appropriation remain available to
ensure that the continuing needs of affected individuals are
met.
I appreciate that you have incredibly difficult decisions
to make given the funding constraints under which you must
pass the Labor-HHS bill. However, the aftermath of 9/11
continues to manifest itself with responders' illnesses
emerging late and lasting longer than expected. To rescind
the funding provided to deal with these needs would be
turning our back on the very people who stepped up to the
plate in the wake of a national emergency.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.
Very truly yours,
George E. Pataki.
____

The City of New York,

Office of the Mayor,

New York, NY, October 24, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Cochran and Specter and Ranking Members Byrd
and Harkin: In the aftermath of the attacks on the World
Trade Center (WTC), the Federal Government promised to
appropriate $20 billion to help New York City in its recovery
efforts. As you are aware, $125 million of that Federal
funding has been rescinded. I am asking your support for an
amendment to be offered by Senators Clinton and Schumer to
restore these funds to meet the ongoing needs of those harmed
by the September 11th attacks and (their aftermath. The funds
in question were originally to be used to process workers'
compensation claims, but have not proven necessary for that
purpose.
It is impossible to predict exactly the needs of the
governments, businesses and individuals hurt by such a
crisis. Jurisdictions affected by major disasters, be they
man-made or from natural causes, should get the benefit of
hindsight to make full and proper use of allocated funds.
Thus it is important that the Congress allow these
jurisdictions to come back to Congress to make revisions in
the federal assistance provided.
In New York, there is still a need for New York State to
retain $50 million of the aforementioned $125 million, but we
are writing you about the remaining $75 million. New York has
significant, ongoing needs for continued monitoring and
possible medical treatment as a result of the September
11th attacks.
It is our understanding that Senators Clinton and Schumer
will be offering an amendment to restore this $75 million so
it can be used to administer baseline and follow-up screening
and clinical examinations and long-term medical health
monitoring, analysis, and treatment for emergency services
personnel and rescue and recovery personnel through the FDNY
Bureau of Health Services and Counseling Services Unit, the
NYPD, Project Cope, the Police Organization Providing Peer
Assistance (POPPA), the World Trade Center Health Registry
and the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental
Medicine working with the State and City of New York.
The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) estimates that
this funding would enable the World Trade Center (WTC)
Medical Monitoring Program, that the Department's Bureau of
Health Services runs in partnership with Mt. Sinai Medical
Center, and the FDNY Medical Treatment Program to continue
for several more years, although additional funds would be
needed beyond that time period. The WTC Medical Monitoring
Program monitors and treats the WTC rescue and recovery
workers and volunteers affected by environmental contaminants
and other exposures at the WTC site. It is the only long-
term, national program that provides periodic medical
monitoring exams, as well as short- and long-term medical
treatment, for the approximately 12,000 FDNY rescue workers
and 12,000 other responders who could be at risk for WTC-
related illnesses as a result of their efforts in rescue and
recovery, service restoration or debris removal and clean up
at the WTC site. Federal and private funding is due to expire
in 2009 for the monitoring program and 2007 for the treatment
program. This is a much-needed amendment that would continue
this federal partnership for several more years.
The FDNY's workforce was the most severely affected by
September 11, 2001. On that day alone, the Department
suffered 343 fatalities, and 200 of our responders needed
medical treatment--some for life-threatening injuries. In
all, more than 12,000 FDNY rescue workers performed rescue
and recovery efforts from September 11, 2001 through July
2002. Since then, nearly 4,000 have developed respiratory
and/or mental health-related illnesses. Potentially disabling
conditions that our rescue workers face include asthma,
chronic bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, gastroesophageal
reflux disorders and psychological distress as a result of
their repeated exposures to the injured, the dying, the dead,
human remains, potentially life threatening situations for
themselves and other traumatic events. Our FDNY rescue
workers are also concerned about other potential exposures to
environmental toxins. More than 500 firefighters have
qualified for early retirement disability.
This funding would also provide critical support for the
New York City WTC Health Registry. The WTC Health Registry,
operated by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
tracks many highly affected subgroups present on 9/11,
including Lower Manhattan residents, children, building
survivors and visitors, as well as rescue workers and rescue/
clean-up volunteers. The Registry has enrolled 71,000
persons, including those who were contacted from known
employer and building listings, as well as eligible
individuals who voluntarily enrolled. The Registry is
designed to maintain contact with and systematically document
potential health effects related to 9/11 through periodic
monitoring of mental and physical health conditions over the
course of the next 20 years. To benefit participants and
others affected by the disaster, the Registry provides
immediate information on health and mental health outcomes,
as well as available resources and treatment options. It is a
unique resource open to health experts around the country
conducting more in-depth health investigations. Special
studies by a number of academic institutions have already
begun, with the Registry providing a means to contact
interested participants. The findings of these studies will
benefit individuals affected by 9/11 and physicians concerned
with their care.
The Registry provides one of the few opportunities to
conduct future population-based assessments of WTC health
effects on different affected populations. It was established
with funding provided through the federal Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The cost of this
program is modest and provides a platform to monitor the
public health consequences of the WTC attacks and develops
essential health and emergency preparedness information. This
amendment will ensure that the Registry receives funding for
several more years. It is also essential that the federal
government keep faith with the 71,000 WTC survivors who
enrolled by ensuring the stability and long-term survival of
this crucial project.
Thank you for all you have done to help us on behalf of
those affected by September 11.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Bloomberg,

Mayor.

Nicholas Scoppetta,
Commissioner, Fire Department of the
City of New York.
Thomas R. Frieden,
M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner,
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
____

Fire Department of New York--Mt. Sinai Partnership

To continue the existing medical monitoring and treatment
program, the FDNY needs federal assistance for a 30-year
medical monitoring program that to date has been funded by
the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
This would allow the FDNY Bureau of Health Services to
continue to provide comprehensive periodic follow-up
monitoring exams to FDNY WTC rescue workers (active and
retired) at periodic (e.g., 18-month) intervals, thereby
maintaining needed services and medical continuity for this
group.
Based on current patient enrollment and the anticipated
health/economic needs of this population, the FDNY needs
federal assistance to support the medical treatment for the
FDNY WTC rescue workers (active and retired). This funding
would support necessary medical and mental health treatment
programs already in place for what we estimate to be,
conservatively, 30 percent of the FDNY WTC responder
population. Funding for these monitoring and treatment
programs would allow the FDNY to provide to

[[Page S11957]]

our WTC rescue workers the same level and number of medical
and mental health services as Mount Sinai plans for the non-
FDNY WTC responders.
The FDNY treatment program, treating an estimated 3,000
patients, has a current budget of $15 million annually. The
Mt. Sinai portion of this program has a similar budget.
Funding for these programs is uncertain after 2007. The FDNY
monitoring and evaluations program, treating an estimated
12,000 patients, has a current budget of $5 million per year.
Funding for this program is uncertain after 2009.

World Trade Center Registry (WTCHR)

The WorId Trade Center Health Registry is designed to
monitor the physical and mental health of the 71,000
enrollees for 20 years. The Registry is the only systematic
way to document and verify the possible long-term
consequences of the WTC disaster in groups most directly
affected by the attacks, such as residents, children,
building survivors, visitors, and rescue/recovery workers and
volunteers. This is the largest effort ever in the U.S. to
systemically monitor the health of persons exposed to a
large-scale disaster.
The Registry has developed a comprehensive resource guide,
which is updated regularly, to help WTC-affected persons find
physical or mental health services and other 9/11-related
assistance. It is the only comprehensive and updated resource
directory for people affected by the attack. To accompany
this, the Department is collaborating with Mt. Sinai Medical
Center to develop a set of clinical guidelines for physicians
treating patients affected by 9/11.
An average cost of $46 per enrollee per year is required to
support the registry for its 20 year life span--a modest cost
to monitor the health consequences of this major disaster and
to develop essential health and emergency preparedness
information. Average annual and recurring support of $3.31
million is needed to support the registry. A cooperative
agreement between ATSDR and the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) provides partial and
declining support only through 2007, leaving a shortfall
averaging $2.2 million through that date. After 2007, no
funding has been committed to support the $3.31 million need.
New York City is working with our federal partners and
representatives to secure long-term funding for WTCHR.

Mrs. CLINTON. This money has been counted on to meet the needs of so
many of these workers, through the workers comp system, through the
health care system. We fought very hard to make sure there was a
sufficient amount of money for the diagnosis of the various physical
and mental ills that people suffered after 9/11. I was very grateful we
were able to do that. People are being diagnosed. They are being given
some help. Unfortunately, without this money, that help cannot
continue. After 9/11, we learned that many of the people who were
involved in the horrible bombing in Oklahoma City years before were
finally coming to ask for help, that they had been suffering in
silence. Often there had been terrible memories that interfered with
their ability to continue working. This is something that we know from
experts is, unfortunately, a very long-term, slow-moving problem, that
not everybody suffers the same way immediately. There are those for
whom it takes longer to come to grips with what has happened. We are
seeing that. We are seeing still people who for the first time go to a
physician, for the first time ask for help. I have worked closely with
the fire department over the last 4 years and they have been absolutely
superb in trying to make sure that help was available, people knew
about it, but they are the first to tell you not every one of the
firefighters was ready to ask for it. They had to be convinced it was
OK to do.
So having this money reinstated will fulfill the promise we have made
to all of these men and women that we are not going to forget them, we
are going to take care of them; that when they are ready to ask for
help, they will get help, and that the resources will be available for
them to get that help.
It is very heartening, and I obviously understand we are going to
have a challenge in the conference committee, but all of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in the House, particularly those who serve
on the Appropriations Committee, are part of this team and are working
hard to make sure their leadership understands what our leadership
does, which is that this is keeping faith with the people who kept
faith with America, a lot of brave and heroic and very extraordinary
human beings who ran toward danger instead of away from it. I am very
grateful that this will be in the Senate bill and we will be able to go
with a united front on behalf of the Senate joining with those in the
majority and minority in the House to make sure we provide this funding
as soon as possible.
I appreciate all the hard work we have seen from the chairman and the
chairman's staff, from the ranking member and the ranking member's
staff. This was a challenge they undertook because they supported what
we were trying to do and understood how significant it was to correct
this situation.
I also appreciate the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
member of the full committee who have similarly been very supportive in
helping us work out a solution to this issue.
I can only hope that when we get to conference the House will
understand and accept how we have worked this out and give us a chance
to make our case. I believe it is a worthy case. It has bipartisan
support. I think the House will see that and understand it.
I am grateful to everyone who has helped us get to this point.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Specter, I want to state that this amendment
restores $125 million previously appropriated to New York as part of
the emergency supplemental bill under chapter 11, relief and recovery,
passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush on January
10, 2002.
The funds would be used for such purposes as mental health treatment
and long-term health monitoring of rescue and recovery personnel.
The amendment is fully offset.
I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2313.
The amendment (No. 2313) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I call for the regular order.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m.
having arrived, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 3010: The
Labor-HHS appropriate bill.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Michael Enzi,
Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Richard Lugar,
Mike DeWine, Craig Thomas, Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Robert
Bennett, Mike Crapo.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
3010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, shall be
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine,
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr

[[Page S11958]]

Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Corzine
Lott
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn and chosen, having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Obama and Mr. Durbin are printed in today's
Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Amendment No. 2193

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before moving ahead to the amendments on
the flu pandemic, there are some amendments which have been cleared and
which have been accepted on both sides.
I call up Thune amendment No. 2193.
This amendment provides $10 million for the telehealth programs
within the Department of Education. The amendment is fully offset. I
believe it has been agreed to by my distinguished ranking member,
Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. We have no objections on this side.
Mr. SPECTER. I urge its agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2193), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2265

Mr. SPECTER. Amendment No. 2265, the Collins dental health workforce
needs amendment, provides funding which will grant innovative programs
an opportunity to move forward to address the dental workforce needs.
The amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2265) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2269

Mr. SPECTER. Amendment No. 2269, the Lautenberg amendment, provides
for a prohibition for the use of funds for abstinence education
information that has proved medically inaccurate. Again, it has been
cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2269.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to provide abstinence education
that includes information that is medically inaccurate)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide abstinence education that includes
information that is medically inaccurate. For purposes of
this section, the term ``medically inaccurate'' means
information that is unsupported or contradicted by peer-
reviewed research by leading medical, psychological,
psychiatric, and public health publications, organizations
and agencies.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2269) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2214, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up the Sununu amendment numbered
2214, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2214), as modified, is as follows:

After section 221, insert the following:
Sec. 222. For carrying out the Low-Vision Rehabilitation
Services Demonstration Project by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, an additional $5,000,000: Provided, That both
accounts made available on page 137, line 9 are reduced by
$5,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2214), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2308, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Now the Alexander amendment 2308, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 2308, as modified.

The amendment (No. 2308), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title III (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. (a) There are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $7,000,000 to the
National Assessment Governing Board for the purposes of
implementing a National Assessment of Educational Progress
test in United States history.
(b) On page 192, line 20, strike $418,992,000 and insert
$411,992,000 in lieu thereof.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2308), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2219, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up the Bingaman amendment numbered
2219, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2219, as modified.

The amendment (No. 2219), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$4,900,000 to carry out part H of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6551 et seq.).
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
amount made available under the heading Health Resources and
Services Administration for construction and renovation is
further reduced by $4,900,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 2219), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2220, 2241, 2237, and 2249, en bloc

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to
make a germaneness point of order against the following amendments en
bloc: Senator Murray, 2220; Senator Santorum, 2241; Senator Santorum,
2237; Senator Landrieu, 2249. I now raise a point of order that the
amendments are nongermane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate may make a point
of order, en bloc.
Mr. SPECTER. Technically, I raise a point of order that the
amendments are nongermane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The
amendments fall.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment or business
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Ensign amendment
No. 2300.

Amendment No. 2283

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment
aside and return to amendment No. 2283.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the matter before the
Senate is amendment 2283.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I talk about this amendment that
has to do with avian flu, I add my congratulations to the Chicago White
Sox for a sterling performance--four straight games in the World
Series--to congratulate the team, and to congratulate their owner,
Jerry Reinsdorf. The last time the Chicago White Sox won

[[Page S11959]]

the World Series was 1917. Of course, they were the Black Sox at that
time. And the outstanding performer during that 1917 classic was a guy
by the name of Joseph Jefferson Jackson from Greenville, SC. Baseball
fans and aficionados perhaps may not recognize his real name, but they
will recognize the name Shoeless Joe Jackson.
In 1999, along with Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings, we
introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It was accepted by the
Senate. Commissioner Selig agreed to review the Shoeless Joe Jackson
case to reinstate him to baseball. However, 6 years have passed and Mr.
Selig has done nothing.
With the winning of the World Series by the Chicago White Sox, it is
time to revisit this issue. In that regard, Senator DeMint from South
Carolina and I have submitted a resolution. We will be talking about it
later today at an appropriate time when Senator DeMint and I can both
be on the Senate floor. I want Senators to know we have a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that Senator DeMint and I will be submitting similar
to the one we offered in 1999 once again trying to honor one of
baseball's all-time great players who suffered a great injustice at the
hands of the then Commissioner Landis, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who was
a commissioner of baseball for almost 40 years. It was Commissioner
Landis who banned Shoeless Joe Jackson from baseball, and robbed him of
his rightful place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. We will have more to
say about that later today.
I congratulate the Chicago White Sox on a great victory and thank my
colleague and my friend from South Carolina for working to get this new
resolution. Hopefully, we will take it up in the Senate this afternoon
and pass it sometime this afternoon.
Mr. President, we have an amendment before the Senate that is crucial
to maybe even our most basic survival as a nation, perhaps crucial to
the survival of our economy and the future. I know that sounds like
overblown rhetoric, but everyone has probably been reading lately about
the threat of an avian flu pandemic. It has been on all the news
magazines and all the news shows. Newsweek magazine last week had a
very comprehensive expose or at least a delineation of the flu, how it
is spread, how virulent it is, and what it can do to us. So I don't
think it is overblown to say this perhaps could be the biggest threat
our country has faced in the last 100 years.
As has been pointed out in numerous articles and I think elsewhere in
the Newsweek article I referred to earlier, what this pandemic could do
to us as a people is even more threatening than what a few terrorists
could do and, as they point out, even a few terrorists with a nuclear-
type device. This pandemic could literally--estimated by the experts,
not by me--cause the death of anywhere from 200,000 to 2 million
Americans, with tens of millions of Americans hospitalized without any
capacity to take care of them. This would cause a disruption in our
economy the likes of which we have probably never seen.
I have been involved in looking at avian flu for the last several
years, tracking it and keeping in close contact with the National
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
in Atlanta. I always try to be careful we do not unduly alarm people. I
don't want to put myself nor do I think we should put ourselves in the
position of unduly alarming or generating a phobia that paralyzes our
country, but alarm bells must be rung. The warning signs are there. We
have to start preparing. The time for planning and thinking about it
has passed. We have to do something immediately.
The amendment we are debating allows the United States to
dramatically step up emergency preparations for an avian flu pandemic.
Last month, I offered on the Defense appropriations bill a similar
amendment that provided $3.9 billion to prepare for such a pandemic. At
that time, we did not know when or if the Labor-HHS bill would ever
come to the Senate. Obviously, this is the appropriate place for it
since this appropriations subcommittee under the leadership of Senator
Specter has jurisdiction over both the Department of Health and Human
Services and also the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
also the National Institutes of Health.
Between last month when this amendment was adopted on the Defense
appropriations bill and now, I have gone back to NIH, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and a number of drug companies involved
in either vaccine production or the production of antivirals to get a
better handle on what it is we need to do. Just what is it?
I will admit that in the first amendment, which I offered on the
Defense appropriations bill, we were missing some information. But now
we have that information. So the amendment we have before us today is a
more robust version of that earlier amendment we had on the Defense
appropriations bill which was adopted by the Senate. This version is
based on more and better information.
There is a broad consensus in the scientific community as to the
steps we need to take to get ready for a potential pandemic. Reflecting
that scientific consensus, this amendment will do four broad things.
One, as our first line of defense, it will dramatically step up
international surveillance of avian flu outbreaks overseas.
Two, it will ramp up our vaccine production infrastructure here in
the United States.
Three, it will give us resources to build up both stockpiles of
vaccines currently believed to be effective against avian flu as well
as stockpiling antiviral medications that you take if, in fact, you get
infected.
Fourth, this amendment will strengthen our public health
infrastructure at the Federal, State, and local levels, which today is
simply not equipped to cope with a major pandemic.
Some have suggested that we be patient and we wait for the
administration to put forward a plan to fight avian flu. We have
already waited too long. I am not saying we don't need a plan. We do
need an action plan. But we have been warned for years. The first
warning came in 1997 that an avian flu pandemic was not just possible
but likely, just as we were warned for years that the levees in New
Orleans would fail in the case of a major hurricane. Yet the Federal
Government did not come forward with any plan of action. I am not
saying this Government under President Bush. It was previous Federal
Governments. We did not heed the warnings. As I might even say, we were
warned in 1997 about a coming avian flu pandemic. Well, nothing was
done then either. There is a lot of blame to go around. I am not
blaming anyone. I am saying, look, we have turned a blind eye and a
deaf ear to our warnings. Now we have to take action.
Within the last year, the threat of a pandemic has become even more
urgent and immediate. The alarm bells are ringing at full volume, and
we in Congress cannot in good conscience wait any longer. We need to
act. If the administration offers a plan at a later date, that is fine.
It will almost certainly have to include the elements we have in our
amendment. We are all talking to the same people, after all.
But here is the thing. I do not know when they are going to come up
with their plan. I do know at least there is talk around here that we
are going to adjourn by Thanksgiving, finish our business, be out of
here by Thanksgiving. Well, if the administration comes up with a plan
next week, or the week after, and we are out of here, what happens in
terms of needing the resources, the money? That is what we have.
Our responsibility as appropriators is to come up with the money.
That is what this amendment does, so that if the administration does
come up with a good action plan, we will not have lost any time. The
money will be there, and we can move ahead as rapidly as possible.
There is no question the United States is woefully unprepared for a
major outbreak of human-to-human transmitted avian flu. We have had
clear warnings, as we did prior to 9/11, prior to Katrina, but, again,
the Federal Government did not do anything. Now we have been warned in
no uncertain terms about avian flu, but, again, under two
administrations, nothing has happened.
As many of my colleagues know, avian flu--or H5N1, as it is called in
the scientific community--has passed from

[[Page S11960]]

bird to bird and from birds to humans. We know of one specific case--we
know of one specific case--where it went from human to human. Now,
there may be others, but we do know of them. And we do know that 50
percent of the humans who have been infected with avian flu have died--
50 percent. It has a 50-percent mortality rate. We also know another
thing: Every chicken, every member of the poultry family that has been
infected with avian flu dies--100 percent. This is a very virulent
strain.
Experts in virology at the Department of Health and Human Services
say it is only a matter of time before the virus mutates and human-to-
human transmission becomes both widespread and sustained. That has not
happened yet. We have had some cases of the avian flu jumping from a
bird to a human. As I said, we have had one known case of it going from
one human to another; and, I might add, both died. We have had no cases
where the transmission is both sustained and pervasive, widespread, but
the virologists say it is only a matter of time before that happens.
An outbreak in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, or anywhere such as that,
could trigger within weeks a worldwide outbreak, facilitated by air
travel, the mass movement of people across borders. As I said, 50
percent of the individuals who have been infected have died. You can
envision a nightmare scenario, a kind of 21st century ``Black Death''
that is not difficult to picture. Indeed, most experts say it is not a
matter of if but when.
Let me quote from an article that was in the recent Newsweek magazine
of October 31, an article by Fareed Zakaria, entitled ``A Threat Worse
Than Terror":

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Newsweek article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Newsweek]

A Threat Worse Than Terror

(By Fareed Zakaria)

``A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United
States faces today,'' says Richard Falkenrath, who until
recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland
Security adviser. ``It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In
fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in
government.'' One makes a threat assessment on the basis of
two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of
life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher
than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of
mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill
hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill
millions.
Whether this particular virus makes the final, fatal
mutation that allows it to move from human to human, one day
some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge
of viruses is China's growth. (China is the natural habitat
of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and
its forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds
to gather closer together--and closer to human habitation--
which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one
species to the next. Also, growth means a huge rise in
chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every
day, chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways.
``Every day the chances that this virus or another such virus
will move from one species to another grow,'' says Laurie
Garrett, author of ``The Coming Plague,'' who has been
writing brilliantly on this topic for years.
Nobody really disputes that we are badly unprepared for
this threat. ``If something like this pandemic were to happen
today,'' says Falkenrath, ``the government would be mostly an
observer, not a manager.'' The government can't even give
intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't
actually know what to say. We don't know whether people
should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest
hospital. During the cold war, hundreds of people in
government participated in dozens of crisis simulations of
nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These ``tabletop
exercises'' were conducted so that if and when a real crisis
hit, policymakers would not be confronting critical decisions
for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's
deadliest threat.
Beyond short-term measures for this virus--mainly stocking
up on Tamiflu--the only credible response to the development
of countermeasures. The best response would be a general
vaccine that would work against all strains of the flu.
That's a tall order, but it could be achieved. The model of
the Manhattan Project is often bandied about loosely, but
this is a case in which it makes sense. We need a massive
biomedical project aimed at tackling these kinds of diseases,
whether they're natural or engineered by terrorists.
The total funding request for influenza-related research
this year is about $119 million. To put this in perspective,
we are spending well over $10 billion to research and develop
ballistic-missile defenses, which protect us against an
unlikely threat (even if they worked). We are spending $4.5
billion a year on R&D--drawings!--for the Pentagon's new
joint strike fighter. Do we have our priorities right?
The final sense in which we are unprepared is that we have
weak global organizations to deal with pandemics. The bird
flu is a problem that began in Guangdong, China, and spread
to Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, Romania and now possibly Iran.
It may move next into Africa. Some of these governments are
competent; others are not. Some hide information from
everyone; others simply refuse to share it with the United
States. We need a system that everyone will follow. The World
Health Organization should become the global body that
analyzes samples, monitors viruses, evaluates cures and keeps
track of the best practices. Yet the WHO leads a hand-to-
mouth existence, relying on the whims and grants of
governments. A year ago its flu branch had five people. Now
it has 12. It needs a much, much larger staff and its own set
of laboratories around the world that would allow it to
fulfill this clearinghouse function. Countries have finally
agreed to a new set of conventions that give the U.N. and the
WHO some of the authority they need. And Kofi Annan has
appointed one person to coordinate the global efforts to
fight pandemics.
Many people believed that globalization meant that
government would become less important. But as we see,
today's world has actually made government more crucial. Only
government can tackle a problem like this one, not by being
big but by being smart and effective. And we need good
governance not just at home but beyond. Without effective
international coordination, we are doomed to failure. John
Bolton once said that you could chop off 10 floors of the
United Nations and we'd all be better off. Let's hope that
the scientists fighting global diseases aren't on any of
those floors.

Mr. HARKIN. We have to ask some very tough questions now. Where do
our preparedness efforts stand? What can we do better? We are facing a
threat, a huge threat. We are doing nothing. We can do better. We must
do better for the American people to prepare for an avian flu pandemic.
First, let's look at the issue of global surveillance, which is No. 1
in terms of the first part of our amendment that we have addressed.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing a great job
working in cooperation with the World Health Organization and
governments in affected regions to detect the disease and to help stop
its spread. Dr. Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention in Atlanta--I don't know if she is getting any sleep now
because this is topmost on their agenda. They are on the case.
Surveillance can alert us to an outbreak, and governments can then
take measures to isolate the disease. This is our first line of
defense. The sooner we identify and contain an outbreak of human-to-
human transmitted avian flu virus, the better off we will be. To coin a
well-worn phrase: It is better to fight them over there than to fight
them here. It is better to stop H5N1, isolate it, contain it where it
might break out, rather than having it transmitted and brought to other
countries and brought to America.
Again, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention know how to do
this. We had success with surveillance during the SARS outbreak a
couple years ago. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
managed to control its spread. It never got to America. I think the
closest it got, if I am not mistaken, was Toronto. But we also learned
some invaluable lessons from the SARS episode. We learned we have to be
prepared, that our surveillance efforts have to be more than they have
been in the past.
Secretary Leavitt, who I know has also been on top of this, recently
took a tour of Southeast Asia. He took Dr. Fauci, the Director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Gerberding,
and others. I

[[Page S11961]]

know they met with people in various parts of the governments of
several countries in Southeast Asia.
What I heard back from that is, while the governments are willing to
work with us, and to report and survey, a lot of times they do not have
the capacity, they do not have the knowledge, they do not have the
wherewithal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They
could use our help. Many of these outbreaks of avian flu in those
countries are in remote locations, and the central government may not
have a lot of control over that.
If you take a small village where they have a lot of poultry, and
maybe that is one of their major sources of livelihood, and where they
do not understand the dimensions of avian flu and what it means, well,
maybe they do not report it, or it may be reported in a minor way. We
need people there on the ground who can move rapidly to the sites to
see whether a case of avian flu has broken out.
As I understand it, the governments of these countries are willing to
work with us to allow us to do that, but we do not have the resources
to do that right now because the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention simply does not have the money. That is what is in our
amendment: to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the money
to be able to respond and get CDCP action prone, right now, in those
countries.
Secondly, what is the status of our capacity to produce vaccines here
in the United States? Unfortunately, the news is almost all bad. It is
astonishing that the United States has one plant--one plant--capable of
manufacturing flu vaccines. That plant happens to be in the State of
our distinguished chairman, Pennsylvania. It is a great company. They
do great work. I have met with them. They use one technology. It is
egg-based technology. That is basically the technology we have been
using for a long time in which to grow vaccines from a virus strain.
So since we only have that one plant right now, in the event of a
worldwide pandemic, the U.S. would have to rely on imported vaccines,
vaccines other countries may not be willing to ship to us. In other
words, the first responsibility of any government is to protect its own
people. If this pandemic ever breaks out, I doubt any other government
is going to be willing to ship us vaccines. They are going to want it
for their own people.
We are very vulnerable. We need to play some catch-up ball. The
Federal Government needs to help private industry develop more vaccine
manufacturing capacity. These should be next-generation cell-based
facilities, which would then be capable of producing vaccines at twice
the rate of egg-based facilities.
This is the only way we are going to be able to produce enough
vaccine rapidly enough to deal with a major outbreak. Right now it is
all egg-based. As I understand it, the manufacturing plant I mentioned
is in the process of enlarging its capacity for egg-based vaccines.
That is all well and good, but that still will not be enough to protect
us in the future. It will not be sufficient to take a strain of the
virus and develop a vaccine specifically for that virus in a short
period of time. Some say it would take 2 to 3 years to produce a
nonegg-based production capacity. I don't accept that. This is a matter
of incredible urgency. We have already given one grant to a company--it
is public, I can mention it--Sanofi Pasteur, which is the company based
in Pennsylvania that already has a cell-based vaccine manufacturing
plant which they are increasing. The Government has already given them
a grant--it was under a competitive bid situation--to build a cell-
based plant. That is all well and good. But we have to do a lot more
than that. We need two or three on line being built now, not just one.
Our goal should be to have the research and production capacity to
isolate a virus, convert it to a vaccine, produce enough vaccine for
the American populace, all within a timeframe of 3 to 6, maybe 9 months
at the most. We can do that. That can be done. We don't have the
capacity to do it right now, and we are a long way from reaching that
goal.
Again, keep in mind that H5N1, the strain of the virus that is there
now, we have a vaccine for that. The National Institutes of Health,
under the great leadership of Dr. Zerhouni and Dr. Fauci at the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases--Dr. Fauci got a
strain of the virus earlier this year. They then began a crash program
to develop a vaccine. They have. That vaccine is now in clinical
trials. It looks as though it is going to be pretty good against H5N1.
But we have been warned by experts that H5N1 may not be the strain that
comes here. It could be H5N2, N3, N4, N5, something else just as
virulent. Experts believe the vaccine being developed will have some
effect, perhaps, on different strains, but they can't be sure.
What we need is a vaccine manufacturing capacity, cell-based, so you
can manufacture a vaccine in a hurry, so if a different strain were to
hit here, we could again isolate the virus, develop the vaccine, and
have a vaccine within 6 to 9 months, not just developed but also
manufactured in sufficient capacity to vaccinate our people. That is
also in our amendment.
I hasten to add that in our amendment, we don't specify exactly how
this is to be done. We will leave that up to the Secretary--hopefully,
working with us in a collaborative effort--to figure out the best way
of doing it. The point is to get the money out there now, to know it is
there, that we can move ahead with contractual relationships, cost-
share agreements, guaranteed purchases, whatever it takes to get these
facilities constructed in the shortest possible timeframe.
The third part of our amendment, we need an aggressive program of
purchasing and stockpiling vaccines and antivirals. I just talked about
vaccines. Vaccines are what you take to prevent getting the illness.
Antivirals are what would you take if you get the illness so you don't
get very sick. The World Health Organization a few years ago
recommended that nations stockpile enough antiviral medication to cover
at least 25 percent of the population. Guess where we are right now.
One percent. We have enough antiviral medication to cover 1 percent of
our people. Again, we have to play catch-up ball. Antivirals are the
medications one would take if they get sick. It will prevent a lot of
people from dying, help them get through the illness.
I had Senator Kennedy prepare this chart, which illustrates how
unprepared we are. These are the stockpiles of antiviral medicine.
Australia has enough for 20 percent of the population; Great Britain
has enough for 25 percent, the World Health Organization
recommendation; France has 25 percent; Japan is rapidly building up,
they are at 17 percent. The U.S.A. is at 1 percent stockpile of
medications. Again, if the pandemic hits here, are we going to go to
Britain and say: Send us some of yours, or Japan or France or some
other place? No. They are going to keep their antivirals for their own
people. That is why we need to put the money out right now to begin the
purchase of antivirals and to stockpile them. It has a long shelf life
so we don't have to worry about it. That is the antivirals.
As for vaccines, we are facing a catch-22 situation. We won't be able
to produce a vaccine until we actually see what the variant is, H5N1,
H5N3, whatever it might be that causes the outbreak. Scientists at NIH
have developed a vaccine for H5N1. They believe it will be effective
against some of the future variants, but we don't know exactly how
effective. It is the best we have. It will at least provide some
protection. We should be stockpiling it now.
The fourth part of our amendment is the public health infrastructure.
Right now our public health infrastructure is simply not capable of
dealing either with an avian flu pandemic or even a major act of
bioterrorism. Let's assume we build up adequate stocks of the vaccine.
Let's say we are able to get a crash course and we can get up to 25
percent, like Great Britain, in our antivirals. Let's say we can do
that in a short period of time. I believe we can, if we put the funds
out there. Let's say we have all that. It is going to go for naught if
we don't have a public health infrastructure to deliver it, to identify
the people who need it, to make sure these drugs and antivirals and
vaccines get out there.
One thing I am upset about--the President's budget for fiscal year
2006 proposed to cut $120 million from State public health agencies.
That is the

[[Page S11962]]

wrong way to go. Our amendment doesn't just restore that; it goes a lot
further. It is not enough just to restore the funding. That funding
would basically take care of ``normal'' illnesses people get around the
country. It wouldn't even come close if we had an outbreak of avian
flu. We need to hire more public health professionals, epidemiologists,
physicians, lab technicians, others. We need people who are trained and
educated to recognize, to know how to isolate, to know how to put the
rings around populations if avian flu breaks out, and how to distribute
it, who gets these, who is the first line of individuals.
Someone is detected having avian flu; let's say they do get H5N1. How
do we find out who that person came in contact with in the last 48
hours, track them down, get them the vaccines immediately, or the
antivirals? Did the person work in a building that had central air-
conditioning that could have taken the virus and spread it around? Who
works there? Get them the antivirals and the vaccines immediately. This
takes expertise. This takes people. This takes a knowledge base and
education.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention know how to do it.
They can do it for minor outbreaks now. But something this big, we need
to do more to build up that public health infrastructure. In consonance
with the public health infrastructure, we need to dramatically increase
the surge capacity of hospitals all across the country. Most hospitals
right now have trouble coping if we have a bad flu season with what we
call ordinary flu. They would be overwhelmed by an avian flu pandemic.
Dr. Rick Blum, president of the American College of Emergency Room
Physicians, recently said:

We have pumped billions of dollars into preparedness since
9/11, but virtually none of that has gone to the one place
where we know 80 percent of patients go first, [the emergency
room].

For example, most victims of avian flu would need ventilators to help
them breathe. Right now there are only 105,000 ventilators in the
entire United States, three-quarters of them in use on any given
typical day. So we have to prepare for surge capacity. Where do the
tens of millions of Americans go? Don't take my word. Ask the experts.
That is what they are saying: a million to as high as maybe 10 million
hospitalizations.
We have our work cut out for us. We face enormous technical and
logistical challenges. We have no time to waste. This amendment would
provide for nearly $8 billion for a comprehensive national effort to
prepare in the ways I have outlined. More specifically, the total is
divided up as follows: $3.080 billion would be allocated for
stockpiling antivirals and the necessary medical supplies to deal with
a pandemic once it has broken out; $3.3 billion would go to stockpiling
flu vaccines, expanding the U.S. flu vaccine manufacturing capacity and
for vaccine-related research; $600 million in additional grants to
State and public health agencies for their own emergency preparedness;
$750 million to improve hospital preparedness and surge capacity--where
is the overflow going to go--and for health technology information
networks; $60 million for stepped-up global surveillance--this would
quadruple the current level of surveillance we have right now, our
first line of defense--$75 million allocated for communication and
outreach to the public in case of an avian flu pandemic.
Again, this is where you have to tread lightly. You want to get
people informed. People should be understanding of this. If a case of
avian flu were to break out in this country, we don't want panic to
ensue. People need to be adequately informed and advised. This has to
do with communications and outreach.
Lastly, $100 million will be channeled into research and CDC lab
capacity related to an avian flu pandemic.
Now, this is about double what we had in the Defense appropriations
bill almost a month ago. And the reason for that is simply because in
the meetings we have had with Government officials, with drug
companies, and others, it has become clear that the big gap in the
amendment we offered earlier was the $3.3 billion in stockpiling flu
vaccine and getting money out there to rapidly build cell-based
technology through vaccine-manufacturing plants. We have to do that
right away.
I know the analogy may not be correct, but when people say you can't
do that in a big hurry, I say just think about the Pentagon over here,
how big it is. Have you ever seen the Pentagon? We built the Pentagon
in 9 months during World War II, by the way. Now, I know that vaccine
manufacturing is not the same but, come on, we can do it. We can build
the facilities. A lot of it is in equipment. But if the money is there,
we know we can get the equipment built. Maybe we can't do it in 9
months, but don't tell me we can't do it within a year and a half, or
at least have a couple on line within a year. That is really the big
difference between this amendment and the one that was offered a month
ago on the Defense appropriations bill.
Let me again sum up by saying this is the proper bill for it to be
on. If we had had Labor-HHS earlier, we would have offered the
amendment to that. This is the proper place for it. We do have the
jurisdiction. It ought to be here. And, again, we are not tying the
hands of the Secretary or anyone else. We are not being absolutely
specific on how you do things in the amendment. We want the money to be
there. When the administration comes up with their plan and they want
to move ahead, it is there. We have 3 more weeks--I don't know how many
weeks. Everybody tells us 3 more weeks. Let's face it, there are a lot
of things happening in the administration--Supreme Court Justices,
other things that are bouncing around here that divert attention. We
cannot divert our attention. We cannot. We have to get this money out
there and get it appropriated.
I will have more to say perhaps later on. I know there are other
Senators who wish to speak on this amendment and about the threat of an
avian flu pandemic. So I will yield the floor at this time and just say
I hope we can have a strong vote or have this amendment accepted as we
did under the Defense appropriations bill that was taken up earlier.
And, again, this is emergency funding--emergency funding. It ought to
be emergency funding. It is something we have to do. We just cannot
wait any longer.
So I will yield the floor and ask any Senators who want to speak on
this amendment to come over and speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from
Iowa for his leadership on this very important issue. I spoke briefly
yesterday about the matter and expressed my agreement with the basic
thrust of what the Senator from Iowa is seeking to accomplish. There is
no doubt that we face a tremendous potential problem with the impact,
which could be devastating, as Senator Harkin has outlined.
We have been awaiting a plan from the administration because in the
normal course of events, with the expertise at the Department of Health
and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, we would look
to the administration to give us an appraisal as to what their plans
are, what their evaluation has been, and how much money they think they
need.
Senator Harkin has gone over a number of facts and factors, but the
executive branch has more at its disposal than does the Congress, at
least at this stage. Our subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on this
issue. It is fair to say that we have been under a heavy workload in
preparing this bill, and we have had other very heavy commitments, most
notably in the confirmation proceedings which were recently concluded
for Chief Justice Roberts, and the confirmation hearings which have
been intense for Ms. Harriet Miers until her withdrawal this morning.
We have been in touch with the executive branch and have sought to
get information from them as to what they would like to have done. And
I have a call in to Secretary Leavitt at the moment, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to get as much information as we can from
the executive branch.
We have been exploring an alternative and are in the process of
modifying the amendment from the Senator from Iowa to call for the
disbursement of these funds at the discretion of the President after
consultation with certain designated Members of the Congress. We are
now talking about the

[[Page S11963]]

breadth of what we have in mind: The chairmen and ranking members of
the Appropriations committees of both Houses, perhaps adding the
chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations subcommittees on
labor, health and human services and education. Also, the suggestion
has been made about having the chairmen and ranking members of the
committees on health, education, labor, and pensions. We are trying to
sort through that now to have a workable consultation but leaving the
judgment to the President.
We are well aware of the very substantial sum of money which is in
this amendment, in the range of $8 billion. We are also well aware of
the scope and magnitude of the problem. It would have to receive 60
votes to have an emergency designation but, again, with the
expenditures in the hands of the President, there is about as good an
assurance as you can have it would be wisely disbursed.
At any rate, we are in the midst of trying to work this through. If
the Congress does not act--we are not too far away from adjournment--
the funding will not be present. The President can't spend money
without the appropriation coming from the Congress. If there is to be
an emergency supplemental, all of that takes time. And once you go
through a supplemental, then there is the risk of it becoming a
Christmas tree with many other items being included.
So when we have the appropriations for the Department of Health and
Human Services and this subcommittee working with that Department and
with the Centers for Disease Control, we are the logical subcommittee
to take up the issue and to grapple with it. We, obviously, are very
concerned about the responsibility for appropriating this kind of
funding.
So that is where we stand. I note the senior Senator from Illinois
has come to the floor, and Senator Harkin and I would urge anyone else
who wants to speak to come to the floor now because we are going to be
moving for a vote on this subject in the immediate short timespan.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator just yield for a minute?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to respond by thanking the chairman and my good
friend from Pennsylvania for his great leadership on this issue. You
said it about me, but you have been the chairman. You have led this
subcommittee. You know what is needed. You have been first and foremost
in insisting that we get the funds necessary for both CDC and for NIH
for this research.
I might just say again for public knowledge, obviously our chairman,
the Senator from Pennsylvania, has to wear other hats. As chairman of
the Judiciary Committee he has been tied up a lot on Supreme Court
nominees, and I recognize he has had to deal with that on his side, in
chairing that committee. It is an awesome responsibility, and I commend
him for the work he has done, by the way. I thought the hearings on
Judge Roberts were superb, and I commend my friend for his leadership
in chairing that committee.
So we find ourselves in the situation now where we have asked for
information in the past, but things happen around here and we move on
and our focus gets diverted a little bit on this and that. That is
human nature. I understand that. I hope we can hear back from the
administration.
I say to my friend from Pennsylvania that I have no problem in
modifying the amendment or whatever it might be that would say that the
money is there. In fact, the amendment does not say how they would
spend it. It would be there for them. If there is any way we can modify
that, if they have some other ways on what to do, that is fine with me.
I do not mind that at all. I am just concerned that we have it there so
that we don't have to come back at some point and they can't say, well,
we would do it, but Congress didn't appropriate the money.
I sure do not want to have that sitting on our plate, I say to
chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment being
offered by the Senator from Iowa. It might not be this winter, it might
not be next winter, but it is going to happen. The virtual certainty of
a pandemic flu is what public health leaders are telling us we as a
country need to be prepared for. So are we prepared? The obvious answer
is no.
Last week, HCD Research polled 846 doctors from across the country
about their sense of how well prepared America is to face a pandemic
flu. Four out of five of the doctors surveyed said America is not
prepared for a public health crisis that we have been told is virtually
certain to occur.
When it comes to public health challenges, America can do better.
What is our national leadership on this issue? We still do not have a
national pandemic preparedness plan. The administration has been
working on a plan, literally, for years.
As we head into this flu season, still there is no plan coming from
this administration. Communities need Federal guidance. This is not an
issue where every village, every town, every State can make its own
policy.
California's State health officer said:

While state and local officials have been taking what steps
they can to prepare for avian flu, they've been eagerly
anticipating a national preparedness plan to tell them how to
seal up those gaps. And where is that plan? The
administration tells us to expect one sometime soon but it is
long, long overdue.

Japan has had its national pandemic preparedness plan in place since
1997. Canada, Austria, Great Britain, all have a national preparedness
plan in place. We look forward to seeing this plan from this
administration.
In the meantime, I am joining Senators Harkin, Obama, and Kennedy to
offer this pandemic flu amendment. Senator Harkin has been our voice
and our leader on this issue. Senator Kennedy has made a lifetime of
public service devoted to public health issues. Senator Obama, my new
colleague from the State of Illinois, was one of the first to speak out
in our State and bring this to my attention and the attention of so
many Members. I salute all three of them for their extraordinary
leadership.
This proposal would make $8 billion available to immediately ramp up
preparation for the flu pandemic, whether it is the H5N1 strain now
rampant in birds or another virulent strain that might threaten us. We
know this pandemic is virtually inevitable, in the words of Dr.
Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control.
What does this amendment do? It gives the Federal health agencies
what they need to move immediately and aggressively to get this country
ready for a global pandemic flu.
Let's start with hospitals. That is an important line of defense for
people sick with flu. Communities and hospitals need to develop surge
capacity to figure out how to take care of people when the beds are
filled and the emergency room is overwhelmed and the neighboring
counties face similar situations. The Trust for America's Health
anticipates U.S. hospitals will swell by more than 2 million people if
we face this flu pandemic. But Health and Human Services Secretary
Leavitt has worried aloud that communities haven't even prepared for
this surge in hospital admissions.
The American College of Emergency Physicians President Rick Blum
says:

We've pumped billions of dollars into preparedness since 9/
11 but virtually none of that has gone to the one place where
we know that 80 percent of the patients go first.

Whether it is a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a public
health disaster, hospitals are stretched now to have staff to handle
the daily flow of patients. They are already operating with a real
shortage of nurses and other health professionals.
Realistically, aren't a significant percentage of those health care
workers going to get sick themselves if we have a new pandemic or stay
away from the clinical setting once the pandemic hits?
These are serious and important questions we need to ask, answer, and
be prepared to face.
The Harkin amendment provides $750 million for communities to prepare
for additional hospital beds and working with shortages of doctors,
nurses, and other health professionals.
The amendment also provides $3 billion so the Federal Government can
get in line to buy antiviral medicines to have on hand for an outbreak
of flu. Until there is cash in hand to purchase the drugs, the
Government cannot contractually commit to buy them; they cannot even
get in line to buy them.

[[Page S11964]]

The United States has about 2.3 million courses of antiviral
medications stockpiled--2.3 million for a nation of our size. We expect
another 2 million by the end of next month. That is enough to treat
about 2 percent of the U.S. population, far short of the international
standard of 20 to 25 percent.
Senator Frist has asked the Secretary to try to increase that
stockpile to ensure treatment so that we could treat 50 percent of
America. Our amendment would provide Secretary Leavitt with the
resources he needs to make it happen. We go beyond political rhetoric
to political reality.
Our amendment also provides $3.3 billion so we can intensify our
search for a vaccine that could protect Americans from contracting flu
in the first case. If we can develop and manufacture a vaccine that is
effective against the pandemic flu, we might be able to stop this flu
epidemic in its tracks. Testing drugs is expensive. It is time
consuming. We have to invest in it and invest in it now.
The amendment also adds $60 million for global surveillance. I heard
one public health official describe this as ``situational awareness.''
Margaret Chan, who leads the pandemic flu planning efforts for the
World Health Organization, estimates there is a window of only ``20 to
21 days'' in which a local outbreak could be controlled before it is
turned loose on the world.
Fareed Zakaria, in the recent issue of Newsweek on this particular
issue of the flu pandemic, wrote as follows:

Many people believed that globalization meant that
government would become less important. But as we see,
today's world has actually made government more crucial. Only
government can tackle a problem like this one, not by being
big but by being smart and effective. And we need good
governance not just at home but beyond. Without effective
international coordination, we are doomed to failure.

If we hope to contain this flu, we have to know where and when the
first outbreak occurs, and we can only do that if we step up the work
we are doing with other countries to monitor contagious diseases.
Karen Hughes, a confidante of President Bush, now with the State
Department, recently spoke about the $5.5 million the United States has
spent on technical assistance to other countries--$5.5 million. That is
not enough, and we know it.
Secretary Leavitt concluded his trip to seven Asian countries with
this observation:

Right now, the world's surveillance is not adequate to
protect us.

Many people in the Bush administration are acknowledging the problem.
What we want them to do is acknowledge the solution, the Harkin-
Kennedy-Obama amendment. We need this money. Americans deserve Federal
leadership. We need leadership that prepares us for a disaster, not
just telling us it is coming but doing something. America can do better
to make our individuals and families safe from these public health
threats.
A few weeks ago, President Bush praised John Barry's book, ``The
Great Influenza,'' a historical account of the 1918 pandemic flu. If
you read the book, you will find John Barry was critical of the role of
Government in that influenza outbreak. He blamed lack of preparation in
this country on Congress. Here is what he said:

They cut every budget request in half.

Are we facing the same thing today? Are we doomed to repeat that same
mistake when it comes to this avian influenza? We will not be if we
take the leadership initiative of Senator Harkin. We are not seeing the
leadership from the White House at this moment that the country needs.
It is time for Congress to move decisively, to enact this amendment, to
provide direction in funding and progress to prepare the United States
for the virtual certainty of a pandemic flu outbreak.
Senator Frist has made it clear he wants the Senate to finish its
business and go home by Thanksgiving, but unless and until we address
the avian flu pandemic, we should not go home. We should go home to an
America that gives thanks that its leaders in Congress--in the House
and the Senate--had the vision and determination to deal with this
public health challenge. Our work will not be completed until we do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

withdrawal of the nominations of harriet miers

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Harriet Miers confirmation process
has been one of the most unusual and troubling Supreme Court
nominations in our modern history.
The loudest voices heard in this process were the voices of the
extreme factions of the President's own political party.
They had a litmus test, and they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet
that test even before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice
heard. That is not what the confirmation process is about, and their
litmus test is not what the Supreme Court is about.
The more Ms. Miers's record indicated that she might in fact be
personally committed to the basic constitutional rights and liberties
that make our country what it is for all Americans, the more committed
those extreme groups and their partisan voices in the media became to
prevent her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate.
Most of us in the Senate were ready to give Harriet Miers a fair
chance and a fair hearing. We wanted to have a dignified process in
which the evidence would come first, and then the decision, and Harriet
Miers deserved that chance.
It is disingenuous for the President to suggest that Senators'
insistence on White House records was somehow responsible for the
withdrawal of the Miers' nomination. If the President were willing to
stand up to the extremists in his party, a realistic compromise could
easily have been found on this issue.
The fact that the White House and Senate Republicans were not willing
to stand up for principle and fairness against the extremists in their
midst should be disturbing to all Americans. But now we have all seen
that fringe of our society at its worst, and we know that their agenda
is not the Nation's agenda.
President Bush has an opportunity now to unite the country. In
choosing the next nominee, he should listen to all Americans, not just
the far right.
If he does, we can have a smooth and dignified confirmation process
and avoid the kind of harsh battle that the extremists on the right
seem bent on provoking.
President Bush should take whatever time is necessary to find a
consensus nominee to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the Court.
Justice O'Connor is willing to serve the Court and the Nation for as
long as it takes, so there is no need to rush to send a new nominee to
the Senate. Hopefully, the next selection will share Justice O'Connor's
values and her commitment to the Nation's progress in achieving equal
rights for all.
We are reminded that the nomination of Justice O'Connor was sent to
the Senate by President Reagan and had a unanimous vote in the Senate.
She has served with great distinction and eloquence and is a beloved
figure in the United States.
That kind of nomination brought the country together. It certainly is
an opportunity now for the President to follow what President Ronald
Reagan did in bringing the country together on a Supreme Court nominee.
It seems to me that would best serve the country, best serve the
Constitution, and best serve the Supreme Court.

Amendment No. 2283, as Modified

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his
extraordinary leadership on the issue of avian flu. I thank my other
colleagues in the Senate--Senator Reid, Senator Barack Obama, Senator
Durbin, and others--who have been important voices in helping us focus
the attention of this body on the issue of avian flu.
I also acknowledge the support that has been given to the Harkin
proposal by the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee dealing
with health, Senator Specter. I also acknowledge and commend the work
of my colleagues and friends, the chairman of our Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi, and Senator Burr, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health
Preparedness. He has spent a great portion of his time in the Senate,
working on biodefense and related public health threats, and the

[[Page S11965]]

challenges in developing countermeasures, vaccines and antivirals to
deal with new public health challenges.
We are at a very important step. We are on an issue which is of such
central importance to health care that we have seen the Senate come
together. There are a lot of issues that are divisive, but it seems
that we are making remarkable progress in this area.
Our legislation is timely. I remind the Senate that this issue,
pandemic flu, has been a concern of the world community for some time.
This chart says, ``The U.S. Missed the Warning Signs of the Flu
Pandemic.'' The Institute of Medicine warned us about this in 1992;
then we had the General Accounting Office warning us in November of
2000. This is what the General Accounting Office had stated:

Influenza pandemic. Plan Needed for Federal and State
Response, November 2000.

Despite these warnings, we still do not have a plan.
The warnings continue: In the year 2001, we had the warning of the
European Commission, and in 2002 the World Health Organization. And
then we have had recent outbreaks take place in South Korea and
Vietnam.
The current avian flu strain poses a deadly threat. If you have this
virus, this chart displays the chances of survival. One can see from
this chart that there is only a 50-percent chance of survival. Granted,
there have only been several dozen cases in each of these countries,
but nonetheless, this figure, of 50 percent, does show that we are in
great danger if there is a pandemic.
We have seen other countries move ahead: Japan released its pandemic
plan in October 1997; Canada, February 2004; the Czech Republic, April
2004; Hong Kong, February 2005; Britain, March 2005; and the United
States, we're still waiting.
What is important here is the fact that we are taking three major
approaches to preparing for a pandemic.
One, we are going to have an important commitment to stockpiling
antivirals and vaccines. That is going to be enormously important,
particularly given the fact that we have such an inadequate stockpile
today. We've stockpiled antivirals for only 1 percent of the
population. This is incredibly low in comparison to other countries.
With this amendment, we will have the opportunity to stockpile what is
needed.
Secondly, we will be supporting efforts to detect the potential
spread of the virus globally and in the United States, and we provide
resources to contain it and improve our surge capacity, which is
enormously important.
I know there are some differences with our friends and colleagues on
the other side about the public health aspects of this. And I know
Senator Burr is strongly committed to doing a review of the entire
public health system and making a series of recommendations--which I
think are going to be enormously important, and I look forward to
joining him--but this is a small downpayment to ensure we begin making
progress in the area of pandemic preparedness and public health.
A review of any other country's pandemic preparedness plan will show
that it is not only the stockpiling of the vaccines and antivirals
that's needed, but also the public health component. So this has that
dimension, which is very important: improving the public health system,
and stockpiling antivirals and vaccines.
The third aspect, which will be included in the proposal by Senator
Enzi and Senator Burr and others, will deal with the incentives that
will be made available to industry to develop countermeasures and
vaccines, and also, hopefully, some compensation, for example, for
first responders who might take a particular vaccine or antiviral that
might not have gone through the complete safety process at the FDA and
still, as a first responder, be committed and dedicated to protecting
the public. We want to make sure that if those individuals, who are
committed to protecting the public, suffer from an adverse reaction to
the vaccine or antiviral, they won't be left high and dry. They deserve
protection for themselves and for their families.

This is a complex issue, but I think the Senate has come together and
will come together with the succeeding legislation in a very important
way.
The final dimension is where the administration, HHS, will be in
terms of their plan. We eagerly await its release. We understand it
will be forthcoming in a very short period of time, but we don't have
it yet.
We have seen examples of national pandemic plans, for example, the
Canadian plan which was issued in 2004, that talks about what does this
plan address? Who is responsible for pandemic planning? It goes into
the roles and responsibilities of all of the different governmental
agencies.
Why is this an important health issue? It goes into great detail
about what is going to be communicated to the public, the legal
considerations, the ethical considerations, and then it goes into what
preparations are being made. It addresses specific components of the
preparation: surveillance, vaccine, antivirals, health service,
emergency planning, emergency service, public health interests,
communications, and then what needs to happen to ensure a comprehensive
response. It goes into a whole series of recommendations and details
what will be involved in the recovery.
This plan is very thorough. I think the American people are entitled
to that kind of plan in order to protect their health and safety.
I thank Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, my friend and colleague
Senator Enzi, Senator Burr, and others who have been involved. I think
this is going to be an enormously important and historic action by the
Senate when it is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments
of Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, and others on the floor, discussing
the importance of this biodefense legislation in the overall response
to bird flu and other potential infectious diseases.
I express special thanks to Senator Burr and Senator Kennedy for
their help on the subcommittee that has been in charge of this, for the
extensive hearings they have had, which have included a number of
meetings many of us attended with experts from around the world who
deal with these problems, and for coming up with a comprehensive
solution that will address whatever happens to come up, whether it is
avian flu, SARS, or some other pandemic we have not envisioned yet.
We have a bill that was reported out of the committee a little over a
week ago that deals with that comprehensive response. I am hoping
everybody will take a look at the work we did on that. Again, I want to
express my thanks to Senator Burr for his work and the leadership he
has provided.
One of the key principles of that legislation is that our response
activities must be more broadly focused, not focused solely on the
latest, newly emerging disease. So that, even if bird flu never becomes
a pandemic, we will be prepared for the next infectious disease, as I
mentioned, perhaps even a new SARS outbreak. The money spent will not
be wasted because the process that will be set up will be able to
handle a wide range of things.
Given that, I believe the additional funding for a potential flu
pandemic should be focused on broader response activities. In examining
the initial amendment proposed by Senator Harkin, and as Senator
Kennedy discussed on the floor yesterday, the overall funding was
intended for stockpiling antivirals, strengthening public health
responses, increasing global health surveillance, dramatically
increasing the vaccine infrastructure, improving hospital preparedness,
including surge capacity and health information technology systems, and
other key elements.
These elements are broader than bird flu. If targeted appropriately
and implemented properly, it will mean that we Americans will be better
prepared for whatever new infectious disease comes our way, not just
bird flu. That is why I have worked with Senator Harkin to come up with
an amendment that clarifies we are going for the broader picture that
all of us worked on in committee.
I was pleased with the unanimous response we had for getting it out
of committee. So rather than the funding provided in the Labor, HHS
bill being for a very limited thing, we want to focus on the broader
context we have all worked on and agreed on, for the most part. We will
be bringing a bill to the floor, I hope, to cover this in great

[[Page S11966]]

detail and then a second bill that will deal with public health.
I appreciate the work Senator Harkin has done on this and the way he
has brought it to the attention of the American public. I appreciate
the work of Senator Burr on this to have a bill that actually does this
comprehensively. I also appreciate the way people are working together
to come up with a safe, secure United States.
I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for her indulgence, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Wyoming
for the great leadership he is providing for our Nation to start
preparing us for the different types of flu viruses that might come our
way. I know he has worked very hard on this in his chairmanship of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I certainly was
pleased to hear his comments on this very important issue. It is one
that is important for all of us to assure that our country is ready if
we have the kind of pandemic that could happen. It reminds me of Y2K
when many were concerned that computers would crash all over America
when we turned into the next century, and because we were prepared,
there was no crisis. That is what I hope is the result of our
addressing the potential flu strains that may be making their way
across the world and could affect Americans in the future.

Harriet Miers

Mr. President, I particularly will talk today about my friend Harriet
Miers. All of us were stunned this morning--I certainly was--when I
heard she had submitted her resignation as a nominee to the Supreme
Court because I have total confidence in her. I have total confidence
she would have been a superb Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States. I have that confidence because I know her.
Many people were making judgments before they knew her. They were not
giving her the benefit of the opportunity to come into an open forum
and talk about her views.
She wrote today to the President: As you know, Members of the Senate
have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in
the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been
informed repeatedly that in lieu of records I would be expected to
testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my
experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy
career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination,
I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and
information will continue.
This is a letter that was written by a woman who cares more about our
country, more about our President and his role and the respect for his
role under the separation of powers in the Constitution, than she cares
about a wonderful cap for a wonderful career, and that is her career. I
admire her even more, if that is possible, for the decision she has
made. I have to say I am disappointed in that decision because I know
she would have been a superb Justice. She would have been a strict
constructionist. She would have been a judge who knew the place of a
judge, not to make law, which is a requirement and responsibility for
those elected for that purpose. She would have been a Justice who
looked at and interpreted the law.
I will tell my colleagues what else Harriet Miers would have done
that I think is very important. She would have known what it was she
could do on the Supreme Court to give guidance to legislatures, to
Members of Congress, to clients who are being represented by lawyers
throughout the country, about how the law should be interpreted. She
would have given the guidance to legislatures about what the
constitutional requirement would be.
When one is giving tests for discrimination, for instance, the
Supreme Court has said there are varying tests for discrimination.
There are rigid tests in some circumstances, there are more moderate
tests in other circumstances. I would like to have had someone on the
Court with real-world experience to more clearly define those tests so
that Congress, so that legislatures, would know when they pass a law
more how the Court would interpret that law in light of a more clear
path to the right result.
I would have liked someone who has had the experience of living in a
part of the country that is different from other members of the Court.
I think we need diversity of geography. I think there are different
issues in eminent domain, in business and commerce, in regard for
private property rights, in States that have a lot of Federal lands
versus States that do not have a lot of Federal lands. There are
different approaches to these issues by people who live in different
parts of the country and I think that kind of diversity is important.
This is a woman who has been a leader in the legal field. She worked
her way through SMU Law School. She was also case notes editor of the
Southwestern Law Journal, which is now the SMU Law Review. She became
one of the first women to be hired by a major Dallas law firm as an
associate. She then rose to lead that law firm, to be the managing
partner, the first woman to do so in the State of Texas. She worked in
the leadership of the bar association, which is the legal organization
that sets the standards of ethics, propriety, and practice for our
lawyers in this country. She rose to be the first woman president of
the Dallas Bar Association and later the first woman president of the
State Bar Association.
I graduated from law school about the same time she did. I graduated
from the University of Texas. She graduated from SMU. I know how hard
it was to get a job. I know the obstacles she faced. I know she did not
have the door opened for her with her outstanding record at SMU that
many of our male colleagues in law school had. Yet, she attacked those
barriers with a positive attitude and spirit. She knew if she proved
herself, she would be rewarded as anyone else. She never gave up.
She caught the eye of a Governor of Texas, and she had been a
Democrat. I think everyone knows she was a Democrat in the early years.
Most people in Texas were. In 1989, she made a decision that she wanted
to support a Republican, George W. Bush. That changed her views in many
things. I think some of the things that were being brought up from
before she changed her views and her support have been used to indicate
she is not firm in her views. Well, I think she is firm in her views. I
think she is firmly a strict constructionist, a person who has proven
herself intellectually in business, in experience, and in leadership.
She would have been a terrific Justice. I do not think she was given
her due.

I am disappointed, but I do not question her decision because I know
she made the decision on the right points and for the right reasons.
She wanted to protect the Presidency from invasion of the rights of the
President.
Can you imagine if a President had to stop and think--before asking
advice from his legal counsel or his top staff as he is trying to make
an important decision for our country: If I ask this question in
writing, is that going to be recoverable in the public arena? Do I then
have to temper what I say?
A President cannot talk to each of his staff members all day. He has
many other responsibilities, so he has to communicate in writing. I
think he should be able to communicate with his key staff people as he
is in the decision making process, and I think he should not have to
worry that it is going to, all of a sudden, be misconstrued in the
public arena when it was part of his decision making process.
That is what Harriet Miers is also trying to protect. She is giving
up probably something she never dreamed she would be, because it is the
pinnacle of a legal career to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. She is
giving that up because she believes that right of the President would
either be invaded or it would be made a cause celebre, and that would
not be healthy for our country or for the President. So she gave up
what could have been a dream of hers, to do what is right for our
country.
I want to reaffirm my view that she would have been an excellent
Supreme Court Justice, that she had the right background and
experience, that she would have brought a viewpoint that is a very
important viewpoint to the Court. You know, if we didn't want diversity
of experience in making these

[[Page S11967]]

important decisions, we would have one Justice of the Supreme Court; we
wouldn't have to have nine. Our Founding Fathers decided to have nine.
I think they were right, as they are in so many parts of the
Constitution that they thought would be important for the Constitution
to last over 200 years. I think diversity of experience and background
is very helpful for a Court of nine Justices.
I am disappointed today, but I am very supportive of her decision
because it was her decision and because she made it for the right
reasons. I wish her well and I am very pleased she is going to stay as
White House Counsel, one of the most important jobs in the White House.
She will continue serving our country. When I talked to her this
morning she was upbeat, she was positive, she was strong, and I know
she will be a great contributor to the United States of America and to
the President she serves. I commend her today, with all that she has
gone through, for the grace with which she has gone through it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I understand there are other speakers who wish to be
heard on the pandemic amendment. I urge them to come to the floor now.
We still have quite a list of amendments to deal with. It is Thursday
afternoon. I know that is a signal of Members' special interest.
To those who have amendments they want to have heard and disposed of
before we go to third reading and final passage, I urge them to come to
the floor at this time.
In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue which is being
debated here relative to the amendment by Senator Harkin regarding the
avian flu and how we are going to address this very serious potential
pandemic. We all recognize this is a threat of dramatic proportions,
not only to our society but to the world generally. As a Congress, we
have tried to begin to address this matter relative to other issues
that could have an equal impact, involving biologics that could be used
against our society in a terrorist attack.
Three years ago I authored a bill called the BioShield bill. Along
with a number of Members of this Senate, including Senator Kennedy, who
was the ranking member of the committee I chaired at that time, the
HELP Committee, we put together a package which basically created a
structure which we hoped would lead to development of vaccines to
address the threat which was posed by the use of biological weapons
against our country, specifically things such as smallpox, anthrax,
botulism, and plague.
That proposal, the BioShield bill, was funded at $5.6 billion, which
is a lot of money. The reason we put that much money in the pipeline
was because we wanted to create an incentive for the pharmaceutical
industry and for startup biological companies to begin to develop
vaccines.
Our country, regrettably, has seen basically a devastation of the
vaccine industry. We used to have 30 to 40 companies that were involved
in the production of vaccines. Regrettably, that number is down to
three or four. The reason we have seen this dramatic reduction in
companies that are willing to invest in research and then develop
vaccines is pretty simple. The return on investing in a vaccine is
significantly less than the cost of investing in that vaccine as looked
at through the eyes of a pharmaceutical company or those of a
biological company, because of the threat of lawsuit.
The fact is, the potential liabilities created by doing a vaccine are
so huge that no amount of projected return on investment, from an
investment standpoint, ever justifies creating a vaccine. So the
vaccine companies have essentially contracted in this country and the
assets which were being used to develop vaccines historically are now
being used to develop other types of pharmaceuticals.
The second reason there has been a contraction, at least in these
areas, is there is no use for these vaccines unless an event occurs
because there is no smallpox in this world right now, thank goodness,
and vaccines against smallpox would not be necessary unless there were
a smallpox outbreak. And there could not be a smallpox outbreak unless
there were a terrorist event that uses smallpox as a weapon. It is a
fact that you cannot have a smallpox outbreak in this world today
unless there were an intentional decision to spread the smallpox by
somebody who had a terrorist intent. So for a company to go in and
develop a vaccine for that means they would be developing a vaccine
which has no market.
The BioShield theory was: Put a lot of money in the pipeline to
create an economic incentive for companies and researchers and
biological groups to pursue creation of vaccines only in those areas
where there is no vaccine today or there is limited vaccine
availability today and where the threat is not a common threat that
would be spread in a way other than through terrorism.
We listed the top six threats, No. 1 being smallpox, No. 2 anthrax,
followed by things such as botulism and plague spread by a terrorist
event, and said we would use this $5.6 billion to try to develop these
vaccines.
We thought we had therefore moved the issue along and started to
resolve the issue. It turns out we did not. It turns out the BioShield
bill, even though it had $5.6 billion behind it, has not energized the
market or research atmosphere we hoped for. It turns out that only $1
billion has been spent on purchasing smallpox capability, the known
manufacturing process for which had already existed. So we have learned
a fairly significant lesson here which needs to be applied to the avian
flu issue, and that is why it is important. The lesson is this: Even
though you put a lot of money in the pipeline, you are not going to
resolve the problem--the problem being resolved, of course, by having
scientists being willing to develop ways to address these types of
disease threats--unless you also put in place the mechanisms to create
the atmosphere for the production of the vaccine.
So last week or 2 weeks ago the HELP Committee passed a creative and
strong bill, which was authored primarily by the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Burr, which attempted to address the entire issue in a
packaged way of how you energize the American creative spirit to
produce responses and vaccines which will protect us from not only
terrorist threats but things such as avian flu.
One of the key elements of that is money. But another key element of
that is the liability protection. So I came to the floor today to make
it clear that even though it is correct that we need to put a
significant amount of money in place, and put it in place soon--the
amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa relative to the Defense
bill, I think is the right approach. This amendment as an emergency
supplemental, if it is put in place with the defense money being
considered and in the context of what the administration is going to
send up here as a proposal, probably within the next week, also may
well be the right course. But all this money that is going to be put on
the table is not going to solve the problem unless we are also
sensitive to the fact that there are other forces out there that are
limiting the willingness of the research community and the vaccine
development community to pursue solutions. We have to take all those
hurdles out of the way, not just one of them out of the way.
It is critical that we do a comprehensive approach to this. I
understand within a week or so the White House is going to send us a
comprehensive approach. It is critical that we get that type of
leadership on this. But we, as a

[[Page S11968]]

Senate, at least, have already proposed a comprehensive approach
through the proposal of Senator Burr, and we should make sure any
movement in this area be tied to the proposal of Senator Burr and the
HELP Committee, which was reported out, and the much more comprehensive
amendment of Senator Enzi.
This is a much more complex problem than putting money into it. We
already know from our personal experience through the BioShield that
putting money into it is not going to get the type of response we need.
It has to be more than dollars; it has to be policy.
Some of the specific things we need to do, beyond reforming the
liability structure so we have people willing to participate in the
vaccines, is to purchase a vaccine where it is available. Some
obviously are available now, but the vaccine for avian flu is limited.
Tamiflu has some serious limitations in its applicability, although
there are other things in development which may work a lot better.
We also have to have research capacity to handle an event like this
in basic things such as surgical masks and hypodermic needles and bed
capacity.
All this has to be put together in a comprehensive structure, and
there has to be a clearer form of how we would execute were we to be
hit with a pandemic, with the responsibility being allocated and people
knowing who they would be reporting to and how we would get action
taken.
There are a lot of things in play here to effectively address the
avian flu issue, much of which is being addressed as a Congress, but
much of which has to be addressed also by the administration and which
we expect to see in the next few weeks from the administration--and
dollars are only part of it.
I wanted to put that caveat on the table. If we were to simply vote
for the proposal from Senator Harkin and say we have done our job, we
need to pass the Burr language. And we need to make sure the
administration is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive and orderly
approach to how they will deal with it, should an outbreak occur. I
know they are. Every State is. My own State has already set up a very
sophisticated approach of how they are going to deal with the necessity
of potentially isolating people, and with the potential of having to
ration the vaccine. These are going to be very difficult questions of
how you deal with bed capacity and things such as that. There is a lot
more to do. I wanted to discuss this in the context of the BioShield
bill and what we need to do. This is more than a dollars issue.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a quote:

A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United
States of America faces. It's a bigger threat than terrorism.
In fact, it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in
government.

This is not a quote from me or from the Presiding Officer. These are
the words of Richard Falkenrath, who until very recently served as
President Bush's Deputy Homeland Security Adviser. He is not alone in
this assessment. Administration officials and public health experts
have warned the next flu pandemic is not a question of if but a matter
of when. If we don't take action now, the consequences of a global flu
pandemic could be devastating. And perhaps that is even an
understatement.
A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that 1.7 million
Americans could die in the first year alone of an outbreak. Remember,
in 1918, the last flu pandemic, as many as 60 million people died in
the world. The world's population was one-third of what it is now.
In addition to the 1.7 million Americans who could die during the
first year, according to health experts, the economic costs would be
enormous.
Every week, the possibility of this threat grows closer. It is now in
Croatia. Anyone who watches the news knows that the bird flu is
sweeping much of the globe.
When we started debating a possible flu pandemic here in the Senate,
the bird flu was contained in parts of Asia. Now it has moved into
Turkey, and even as far west as Great Britain. Anyone who watches the
news knows scientists recently determined that the last flu pandemic
outbreak in 1918 started in birds, and it made its way into humans.
It has not been shown without any fault, any degree of being wrong,
because it could be wrong--because the birds are dying from avian flu
doesn't mean it will get to us, but it did in 1918. Will the virus jump
to humans? That is the question. Shouldn't we be prepared if in fact
that is the case?
I read one news account of a friend in Congress who said we don't
want to spend a lot of money for something that might not happen. We
have to be prepared. We have to be prepared. We should do everything we
can to make sure Americans are prepared and protected--and we are not
prepared.
Despite repeated promises, this administration has yet to release the
President's Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan. We have
written letters; no response. I don't know why.
The World Health Organization deems such a plan essential to proper
readiness. A draft of this plan was ready months ago, but no final plan
has been released. At least we were told it wasn't.
As a result, preparations for a pandemic have been needlessly delayed
and the Federal Government is ill prepared to handle such a pandemic.
We don't have the capacity to rapidly manufacture vaccines in mass
quantities. We lack an adequate stockpile in antiviral medications, and
our health care infrastructure is woefully unprepared.
We are already behind nations such as Canada, Britain, and Australia,
and we are falling further behind these nations each day we fail to
act. Some nations finalized their avian flu plans months ago. They are
implementing the protections, and we are still waiting for this
administration to give us something as basic as a plan. America can do
better. In fact, America must do better.

Senate Democrats have provided leadership on this issue. We have
added much needed resources for pandemic preparedness in the Senate
appropriations bill we passed nearly a month ago. We have offered
legislation, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act. That would
build on our commitment to preparing our Nation for the possibility of
a pandemic. Unfortunately, the funding remains tied up in a conference
with the House and the Senate, and we haven't acted on this
comprehensive legislation.
The recent spread of bird flu to Europe proves we can't afford to
drag our feet. The Senate must act immediately so we can limit the
human and economic costs of a potential avian flu pandemic. That is why
I am cosponsoring Senator Harkin's amendment to provide $7.9 billion
for a comprehensive national effort to prepare for an avian flu
pandemic. The amendment will allow us to take the following steps to
prepare our Nation for a potential pandemic:
No. 1, quadruple our funding for global surveillance relating to
avian flu so we may rapidly detect the emergence of a new strain of
flu; dedicate more than $3 billion to vaccine research and improving
our domestic infrastructure.
We are woefully unprepared to do this.
We must increase our hospital surge capacity and funding for State
and local health agencies so the American people can be assured there
will be an adequate supply of health care providers and institutions to
care for them in the event of a pandemic.
The legislation calls for conducting an outreach program to health
care providers and to the American public.
With this legislation, we must stockpile effective antivirals
adequate to treat at least 50 percent of the population and other
medical supplies.
Finally, it calls for improving research and lab capacity related to
an avian flu pandemic. This, to me, is the most important.
I congratulate the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator
Harkin of Iowa, for this legislation. It is badly needed. I hope there
will be a bipartisan vote to support this amendment.

[[Page S11969]]

I understand there are efforts being made to weaken this so-called
second-degree amendment to give the President the authority to do all
of this, and he would be obligated to do it only if he saw it was
necessary. We are looking at that second-degree amendment now to see if
there is any way we can work with the majority, who are offering this
amendment.
The avian flu pandemic may be inevitable, but the devastating
consequences are not. We need to heed warnings and take action now. I
hope my colleagues will join in supporting us by making the investments
necessary to make sure this Nation does everything possible to protect
Americans from the threat of the global flu pandemic.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Harriet Miers

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I respect Ms. Harriet Miers' decision to
withdraw from consideration for the Supreme Court. At the same time, I
do regret our constitutional process was not complete. Instead of a
hearing before the Judiciary Committee and a debate on the Senate
floor, Ms. Miers' qualifications were subject to a one-sided debate in
news releases, press conferences, radio and TV talk shows, and the
editorial pages.
I acknowledge the rights of everyone to express themselves as they
see fit, but that should not have precluded Ms. Miers from getting
basic due process. There was a decisive imbalance in the public forum,
with the case for Ms. Miers not heard because of the heavy decibel
level against her.
I have repeatedly noted her excellent work in handling complex civil
cases. Had the constitutional process been followed with a hearing, she
would have had an opportunity to establish that her intellect and
capabilities demonstrated in her 35-year professional career could be
carried over in the field of constitutional law and the work of the
Court. Whether she would have been confirmed remains an open question,
but at least she would have had the major voice in determining her own
fate.
Ms. Miers did deliver late yesterday evening, on time, her responses
to the committee request for supplemental information on her
questionnaire. Eight large boxes are in the committee's possession, but
now there is no reason to read or analyze those responses.
The Judiciary Committee carefully did not intrude on the President's
executive privilege. The committee studiously avoided asking what
advice Ms. Miers gave to the President, and that limitation would have
been continued in any hearing, with an adequate range of questions
available to enable the committee to decide on her qualifications for
the Court.
We must guard against having the Miers proceedings become a precedent
for the future.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of an op-ed piece which I had
submitted to the Washington Post yesterday and the Washington Post
agreed to publish be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
I note Senator Byrd is here.

Exhibit 1

Washington Post-Accepted Op-Ed Referenced on the Floor

Just over three weeks ago, President Bush nominated White
House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill retiring Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Since then,
political pundits and outside groups have loudly expressed
their opinions, one way or the other, on the nomination.
There has been a great eagerness in some quarters, outside
the Senate, to prejudge the nomination.
Fortunately, the Constitution does not leave the
disposition of Presidential nominations to pundits or outside
groups. The question whether to confirm a President's nominee
is left to the careful consideration of the Senate, where we
have an established process for examining a nominee's fitness
for the bench. That process will begin on November 7, when
the Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on Ms. Miers.
Confirmation hearings offer a nominee the opportunity to
introduce herself to the Senate and the American people. The
hearings allow Committee members to ask questions of the
nominee, to develop a record, and to present an informed
recommendation to the full Senate. In order to receive a
favorable vote in the Committee, Ms. Miers will have to
demonstrate her qualifications to serve on the bench. A
crucial qualification to serve on the Supreme Court is the
aptitude to decide difficult legal issues, including
important Constitutional questions, and to explain those
decisions in opinions.
It is true that Ms. Miers has not had deep experience in
Constitutional law, but that is far from a disqualification
for the bench. Few lawyers, aside from sitting federal judges
or a few Constitutional law practitioners, have such
experience.
Thus, while Ms. Miers needs a crash course in
constitutional law to prepare for the hearings, the same
could be said for virtually any nominee to come before the
Senate Judiciary as a Supreme Court nominee. In the past
century, we have had many justices without constitutional law
experience, who never the less brought the legal acumen and
intellectual abilities to tackle the vital and challenging
work of the Supreme Court. These include, for example, Sandra
Day O'Connor, who had never served on a federal court or
practiced Constitutional law. Similarly, Justice Hugo Black,
before his election to the Senate, specialized in labor and
personal injury law. Yet, he is regarded as one of the
greatest justices of the 20th century.
Moreover, the Supreme Court's docket is not limited
exclusively to Constitutional law issues. Roughly 40% of the
Court's docket tends to involve constitutional issues.
Business and commercial law issues, with which Ms. Miers is
well acquainted, make up another 20% of the Court's docket.
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have known and
worked with Ms. Miers closely. As White House Counsel, she
plays an important role in advising the President on
complicated legal and policy issues.
Consequently, I work with Ms. Miers on nearly all the
matters that come through our committee, from nominations to
legislation, from the USA PATRIOT Act to asbestos liability
reform.
Based on my personal experience, there is much to recommend
her.
She is, as all acknowledge, a good and decent woman with
whom it is a pleasure to work. She has a logical,
disciplined, and sharp mind. She will bring to the bench, if
confirmed, the knowledge of a practicing trial attorney--a
perspective sorely lacking among the current Justices. As the
President has observed, Ms. Miers had a wealth of practical
experience as a lawyer in private practice. I have reviewed
her record and found that she has handled a wide range of
complex cases.
She is also a woman who fought up through the ranks. She
went to law school at a time when women were discouraged from
joining the field, yet she rose to manage a 450-person firm
and became head of the Texas Bar Association. Ms. Miers comes
to the Committee with many strengths and an accomplished
record.
This is not to say that it is all easy sailing for Ms.
Miers. I have not made up my mind. Nor have most of my
colleagues. Like every Supreme Court nominee in recent times,
Ms. Miers still has the burden of demonstrating the depth of
her substantive knowledge on constitutional issues, issues
such as the intersection of the First Amendment's guarantees
of free speech and freedom of religion, the scope of
Congress's powers to legislate under the Commerce Clause and
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the scope of executive
power, and the criminal defendant's protections found in the
Bill of Rights.
Like every Supreme Court nominee in recent times, Ms. Miers
bears burden of proving she has the aptitude to address the
complex issues that will come before the Court. She deserves,
and she will receive, a full and fair hearing at which she
will have the opportunity to demonstrate her fitness for the
bench.
Until then, I hope that the American people and my
colleagues will keep an open mind.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Sense of Foreboding

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the American people enter this fall season
with apprehension, trepidation, and a somber sense of foreboding.
Gasoline prices, which peaked above $3 per gallon in September, now
seem stuck at levels once thought absurd. Gas prices in West Virginia
hover around $2.57 per gallon and can vary significantly in some areas,
rising precipitously at times.
Heating costs are projected to soar this winter, with many households
expected to pay an additional $350 to heat their homes with natural gas
and heating oil. It makes one shiver, thinking of winter in those
mountains of Appalachia.
People are already struggling with inadequate wages, are being forced
to curtail everyday expenses simply to buy gasoline, to fill up their
tanks. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are already forced to choose
between prescription drugs and food. That is a tough choice. They must
now confront life-threatening heating costs. This winter is coming. I
can feel it in the air.

[[Page S11970]]

This winter, with energy costs rising, the Federal safety net will be
needed to provide essential support for countless Americans. Many are
watching with incredulity the fraying of that safety net.
On the farms and in the cities, in rural and urban neighborhoods,
Americans have been shaken by the Government's inability to respond
effectively to Hurricane Katrina while the Government focused on tax
cuts for the wealthy and massive spending requests to rebuild Iraq--
what a shame; we should never have gone there, no; it was no threat to
our national security, and I said so at the time--massive spending
requests to rebuild Iraq. Our Nation's infrastructure was weakening
from neglect at home while all this was happening. Katrina highlighted
that erosion, focused our attention on that erosion and the high cost
of forgoing critical infrastructure repairs.
Just a few days ago, that erosion was further highlighted as
Americans watched the wooden 173-year-old Whittenton Dam threaten to
give way in Taunton, MA, forcing the evacuation of yet another American
city.
This winter, the country must confront the threat of an avian flu
pandemic as public health officials warn that our Nation's health
infrastructure remains woefully inadequate. Remember the influenza?
Remember the flu of 1917 and 1918? I don't remember it exactly, but I
had it. My mother died in that pandemic. I was less than a year old.
She said to my father: Give ``the baby'' to the Byrds. One of my
father's sisters had married a Byrd, Titus Dalton Byrd. They did not
have any children. They had a child prior to my birth, but their child
had died--his name was Robert Madison--so they had no children left. My
mother's wish that my father give me, the ``baby,'' to Mr. and Mrs.
Titus Dalton Byrd, the ``Mrs.'' being my father's sister. Yes, that is
why I am here today. It was their wish that my father give me, the
baby--there were three older brothers and a sister--give them all to
somebody, but give the baby to the Byrds. They took me in, changed my
name, and brought me to West Virginia, away from North Carolina. And
here I am.

Earlier this week, Hurricane Wilma pummeled southern Florida, causing
heavy flooding and power outages. The cleanup costs could be enormous.
Rather than addressing these weaknesses and providing the American
people with some reassurance, the Congress incredibly and inconceivably
is looking for ways to further siphon funds away from our safety net
and domestic investments. It is as if we have learned nothing--
absolutely nothing--from Hurricane Katrina.
A hope and belief seem to exist, and fingers are crossed all across
this town, that no one will connect how the budget cuts being
considered will affect those hurting from high energy prices.
Eight Senate committees--eight Senate committees--have drafted
reconciliation legislation to cut domestic investments in order to
prefund $70 billion in additional tax cuts, many of which will not take
effect for several years. They are backloaded. Now, get that: tax cuts.
Oh, it is so easy. Ah, how I love to vote for tax cuts. That is easy.
It does not take any courage to do that. Tax cuts. I have been in
politics now 60 years next year, in various and sundry legislative
branches, and the easiest vote I ever cast was for tax cuts.
Some of these spending cuts are coming from the very same programs
that are providing essential disaster relief to the victims of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, such as those used to provide temporary
health services. They comprise much of the safety net for our Nation's
most vulnerable, as well as for Americans afflicted by disaster.
The reconciliation process has been touted as a means to contain the
budgetary costs of Katrina, but that is a specious, spurious argument.
The reconciliation process would worsen--worsen now; not improve--our
fiscal position. With $70 billion in new tax cuts and an estimated $39
billion in spending cuts, the result is a deficit that increases by $31
billion--$31 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $31 for
every minute--oh, the clock is ticking; that clock is ticking--$31 for
every minute since Our Lord Jesus Christ was born. Under the process
being considered, Katrina costs would continue to mount, without
offsets, while the safety net is further worn away.
The argument for reconciliation makes even less sense when you
consider that Katrina costs are one-time, unforeseen emergency
expenditures. Meanwhile, no action, none, no action has been taken to
pay for trillions of dollars--trillions. How long would it take to
count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? How long would
it take to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? Man,
can you imagine that? How long would it take? Thirty-two thousand
years? These young pages who have quick minds can figure that out.
Thirty-two thousand, I am not sure about that figure. If it is not
32,000, it is 34,000 or 36,000. Thirty-two thousand years--I will stick
with that figure for now--at a minimum, at the rate of a dollar per
second. Can you believe it?
There are trillions of dollars of tax cuts. No action has been taken
to pay for those trillions of dollars of tax cuts or the hundreds of
billions of dollars of costs for Iraq--a war that we should have never
been in. We should never have gone. And they are still struggling to
find a reason why we went. Too late now. I said then I don't believe
there are weapons of mass destruction. I think there have been in some
years gone by but not now. And have they been found? No. And I and 22
others--yes, 22 others; one Republican among the 23; one Senator who is
now dead and gone; he died in a plane crash--23 souls, including my
own, said: No. No, we won't go. We are not going to vote to give this
power to declare war to this President or any President. We are not
going to do it. Twenty-three of us. But there we are. We are there.
So with the hundreds of billions of dollars of costs for Iraq, no
action has been taken to pay for that, even though these costs are as
plain and obvious as any in the Federal budget. I simply cannot fathom
why the administration believes that reconstructing Baghdad does not
have to be paid for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and
Alabama requires offsets.
Can you imagine that? Reconstructing Baghdad does not have to be paid
for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama
requires offsets. It does not make sense. It does not make good sense.
It does not make common sense.
Nor has any action been taken to find savings elsewhere in the
bloated--bloated--Federal budget. The Defense Department's budget
comprises one-sixth of the Federal budget and surpasses the total
discretionary budgets of every other agency and office of the Federal
Government combined. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard
audit. How about that. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard
audit, and it has not been able to for some years. I will say that
again. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard audit or to
conduct effective oversight of military expenditures in Iraq. May God
help us.

Government auditors have found substantial sums of defense contractor
waste and fraud. Astonishingly, the Department of Defense pulled its
inspector general out of Iraq last fall. Yet the Defense Department has
not been asked to examine its $450 billion annual budget.
All of the savings, all of the deficit reduction is supposed to come
from the safety net for working families--people who work with their
hands or at their desks--and from essential domestic investments that
have been dangerously--dangerously, dangerously--foolishly neglected
for too long. The sacrifice, too often, is being asked of working
families, while others remain blissfully exempt.
The budget reconciliation process at this point in the year and under
these circumstances is ill-conceived. We are missing an opportunity to
ferret out real waste in the Federal budget and to reform programs that
could yield real budgetary savings. And worse, we are opening the door
to a dangerous process.
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee--I believe it was
yesterday--included in its reconciliation package language that would
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This is a
critically important law. It allows Customs to distribute to American
companies and

[[Page S11971]]

their workers the duties that it collects on unfairly traded, meaning
``dumped,'' imports. Yes. I am the daddy of that. Yes. I am the daddy
of that child. It is called the Byrd Rule. There are several things
that are called the Byrd Rule, but that is the one we are talking
about.
It allows Customs to distribute to American companies and their
workers the duties that it collects on unfairly traded, meaning
``dumped,'' imports. The funds go only to those--now listen; the
funds--I say the fines for these violations go only to those who have
been injured by foreign producers who violate our trade laws.
The funds go to crawfish producers in Louisiana. Hear me now. They go
to shrimp producers throughout the Gulf States. Hear me. They go to our
lumber industry. That is a big industry. They go to raspberry growers.
They go to honey producers and beekeepers. They go to garlic growers in
California, to makers of pasta, to makers of steel, to makers of steel
bearings and other products manufactured all across our Nation.
Companies in nearly every State of the Union receive funds under this
law, and the funds are essential. They enable our industries to invest
in their facilities and in their workers, to upgrade their equipment
and technology. What could be wrong with that? That is a good law. The
World Trade Organization doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong.
The WTO doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong, wrong, wrong, I
say to the four corners, the four winds of the Earth--wrong. The WTO
ruling in this case was created out of whole cloth. Nothing in the WTO
agreements prohibits us from reimbursing U.S. industry with duties
collected--how and from what--on unfairly traded imports. If the
trading partners didn't violate the law, they wouldn't have to pay
these fines. They violate the law, yes.

The administration was directed by Congress in both the fiscal year
2004 and 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Acts to negotiate a solution to
this WTO dispute in ongoing trade talks. The Appropriations Acts
explicitly--plainly, clearly--state that U.S. negotiations shall be
conducted within the World Trade Organization to recognize the right of
WTO members to distribute moneys collected from antidumping and
countervailing duties as they deem appropriate. The WTO cannot infringe
on the sovereign right of the Congress to legislate. They can't do
that. The United States needs to keep this important trade law on the
books. Keep it on the books.
I have talked to the President. I have talked with the administration
about that. I have talked with our Trade Representative. Keep it on the
books. They first said they would fight for it. After Katrina, we send
a terrible message by continuing with this flawed reconciliation
process. You watch how it works. I helped to write that law. The
reconciliation process was never intended by those of us on both sides
of the aisle--we are about all gone now, who created that process--to
be used as it is being used. We send a terrible message when the
American people call for deficit reduction and instead we lead them
erroneously into more debt.
I hope the Congress will take the time to reconsider the flawed
assumptions underlying this reconciliation process. It needs to do so
before the process gets even further out of hand.
I thank all Senators. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Harriet Miers

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the administration searches for a new
nominee for the Supreme Court, I hope the White House will not retreat
to a political corner and choose a nominee who will only serve to
divide the Nation and divide this Senate. I urge the President--hear me
now--to select a nominee cut from the same cloth as the new Chief
Justice of the United States--moderate in approach, steeped in thought
and experience, and committed to the protection of the U.S.
Constitution, which I hold in my hand. In partnership, the President
and the Senate must do all that they can to avoid rancor and extreme
partisanship. That begins with real consultation and a nominee who can
bridge the gap between political philosophies.
I found it noteworthy--I did--that questions about Harriet Miers'
nomination came from Senators, organizations, and individuals from
diverse political philosophies. It does not matter who is asking the
questions about a nomination; these questions serve the long-term
interest of the Nation, those people out there, the American people who
are watching us through those lenses.
Unfortunately, in this age of partisan politics dominating all else,
questions too often are labeled as obstructionism. You remember that?
Obstructionism. If you ask questions, you are an obstructionist. Get
that, I say to these fine young pages. Nothing could be further from
the truth. No.
Republican Senators--yes, the Senators who sit over on that side of
the aisle--and Democratic Senators, who sit over here, had serious
questions concerning the judicial philosophy of this nominee. Asking
questions and insisting upon answers from judicial nominees helps to
make certain that the American people have faith in their courts.
Asking questions is not something to be labeled as obstructionist. How
many times have I said that? Rather, it is patriotic to ask questions.
Asking questions is part of my duty, part of your duty, Mr. President,
part of each Senator's duty as citizens.
I think now would be a good time for the Senate to consider a
proposal first put forward by Senator Specter in which I joined in the
105th Congress. We introduced legislation to establish a formal
advisory mechanism for the Senate in the selection of Supreme Court
Justices. Under that proposal, the Senate Judiciary Committee would
establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President
to consider based on suggestions from Federal and State judges,
distinguished lawyers, law professors, and others with a similar level
of insight into the suitability of individuals for appointment to the
Supreme Court. The President would, of course, be free to ignore the
pool if he chose to do so, but the advice required by the Constitution
would be formally available and the President would know that the
individuals in the pool had received a bipartisan nod from the Senate
committee required to do the vetting.
Senator Specter and I have talked about reintroducing this
legislation in the coming days in an effort to guarantee that a broad
spectrum of individuals are nominated for the Supreme Court and that
the Senate is able, more fully, to fulfill its constitutional role. I
am glad there are 14 Senators, ladies and gentlemen, Republican and
Democrat, evenly divided, who joined together and who saved the Senate
from a terrible blunder called the nuclear option. Some call it the
constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it. It is
unconstitutional on its face, the so-called nuclear option. What a
shame that would have been. But the 14 Senators, Republican and
Democrat, saved the Senate. That was a historic moment.
I say the President was right when he called Senators, when he sought
the advice of Senators, when he sent Judge Roberts' name up here. Yes,
for once he called me and asked what I thought. I complimented him on
calling Senators, seeking their advice. The phrase is advice and
consent, not just the word ``consent.'' It also has the word
``advice.'' So I said, and the 14 said, we want to be in on the takeoff
as well as on the landing. So seek our advice. Yes.
Mr. President, seek our advice. Say to us, Lend me your ears, and I
will lend you mine. He did that. The President did that. I complimented
him on it. I hope he will do that now. I hope he will not send up a
lightning rod, somebody who will just polarize the country and attract
bows and arrows.
Mr. President, listen to the advice and consent clause in this
hallowed document, the Constitution of the United States. Read it. It
says ``advice.'' Hear me, Mr. President. Call Senators again. Don't
send up someone who will divide the Senate, who will cause a
filibuster, and then some would seek to cut off the freedom of Senators
to speak. Be careful. Mr. President,

[[Page S11972]]

please call. Please call me. If you don't call me, call somebody else.
Call Senators. Ask them what they think. You can discard our viewpoint
if you wish. You don't have to accept our advice. I don't have anybody
particularly in mind, but call me. Will you do it, Mr. President? I
hope you will.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Defense Authorization

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the words of the
Senator from West Virginia. In that light, let me point out that last
night the Senate adopted a unanimous consent agreement to resume
consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under
the agreement, each side would be allowed to offer 12 amendments to the
bill, all of which must relate to the bill or the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee.
Let me start by congratulating the Democratic leader for working
tirelessly to bring this bill back before the Senate. Senator Reid
recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to the American people
and to our brave men and women in uniform to debate and pass a
responsible Department of Defense authorization bill. I thank him for
his efforts.
Congress has an additional responsibility, and that is to put our
Iraq policy right and return the focus of our country to our top
national security goals. That policy, and particularly the failure of
the administration to offer a reasonable, flexible timetable for
bringing home our troops, is making us weaker. It is making us less
safe, and it is making our enemies stronger. The perception of a
massive, indefinite American troop presence in Iraq is feeding the very
insurgency that we are trying to defeat. That is why I now call upon
the majority and minority leaders to agree that they will allow the
Senate to debate and vote upon an amendment calling for a flexible
timetable for returning our troops home. This doesn't have to be
exactly the resolution I introduced in June, or it doesn't have to
include the December 31, 2006, target date for completion of the
primary military mission that I proposed back in August.
There are plenty of Members deeply concerned about Iraq whose
leadership has been and will continue to be crucial, people such as
Senators Levin, Kerry, and Dodd. Senators Byrd and Kennedy have also
been vocal about their concerns. There are plenty of Members on the
other side, also, with whom I have spoken and shared some of my
concerns about our Iraq policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a reasonable
amendment that will finally start the process of getting our Iraq
policy and our broader national security strategy on track.
Obviously, I do not have to remind anyone here that the United States
suffered its 2,000th casualty in Iraq this week, and there have been
more since then. Every one of our servicemembers in Iraq and their
families deserve clarity about the mission they are serving and the
timeframe for that mission. And the American people and the Iraqi
people, too, need to know that we have a plan to complete our military
mission and draw down our troops in Iraq.
Mr. President, the Senate needs to do its job. When the Senate
finally resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill, and I
hope that will be very soon, we need to finally address and put our
Iraq policy right. The Senate will consider up to 24 amendments at that
time. Clearly, this should be one of them. I hope my colleagues agree
with me and that we can work together to ensure that we live up to our
responsibilities.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No 2279, as Modified

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Collins, to offer an amendment to fund the Automatic
Defibrillation in Adam's Memory, the ADAM Act. But first I would like
to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa and
their staffs for the hard work that obviously went into drafting this
bill in the face of tight budget restraints.
Mr. President, in 2001, I learned about Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old
high school student and a star athlete in southeastern Wisconsin.
Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring
Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest and died
before the paramedics were able to arrive.
After his death, his friend, David Ellis, joined forces with the
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR
training and public access defibrillation into schools, to educate
communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths, and to save lives.
The ADAM Act called for the establishment of a national Project ADAM
clearinghouse. Such a clearinghouse would provide schools with the
``how to'' and technical advice to set up public access defibrillation
programs. This clearinghouse responds to a growing number of schools
that have the desire to set up such a defibrillation program but often
do not know where to start.
The ADAM Act was signed into law in 2003--and we are very pleased
with that--but it has yet to be funded. The amendment Senator Collins
and I offered would simply fund the ADAM Act clearinghouse with
$800,000 for fiscal year 2006.
Mr. President, at this time, I would like to call up my amendment and
ask that it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2279), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the
following:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts appropriated under this
Act, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated an additional $800,000 to carry out section 312
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 244). The amounts
on page 137, line 9 shall be further reduced by $800,000.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand that the amendment will be accepted, and I
want to thank the managers in advance for that as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2283

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise first to commend Senators Specter
and Harkin for their diligence and hard work on what is an enormous
bill, particularly given the tight budget they had to work with. I also
personally thank Senators Specter and Harkin for adopting an amendment
into the managers' bill relating to scholarships for low-income and
minority students and for expansion of positive behavioral
interventions and support within schools to encourage better
discipline. I thank them and their staffs for working with us on this
amendment.
In addition, it is my understanding that there has been a meeting of
the minds between the two sides of the aisle around what may end up
being the most significant aspect of the Labor H appropriations bill.
Yesterday, I joined Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and a number of my
colleagues in introducing an avian flu amendment. I know we had been
able to attach an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill that made
significant headway in funding the work that needs to be done to
prepare this nation for pandemic flu. Obviously, this Labor H bill was
the more appropriate vehicle to fund preparedness activities. The fact
that Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have agreed to work something
out on this issue is extremely important.

[[Page S11973]]

I will mention a couple of things that I believe make this avian flu
amendment so significant. A number of Senators have talked on the
Senate floor very eloquently about the threat of avian flu and the lack
of preparedness and relative inactivity in the United States compared
to our European and Asian allies. In the United States, we do not have
a national preparedness plan for a pandemic. We do not have a stockpile
of antivirals. Our public health system is weak, and the vaccine
infrastructure is fragile. All of these areas desperately need
attention, and the amendment that I hope will be adopted unanimously
will provide the funding to do just that.
I am not going to rehash what was discussed earlier, but instead I
wanted to spend a few minutes on the non-health aspects of avian flu,
because it is important to fully understand the scope of the potential
problems that a pandemic might cause. Obviously, the health concerns
should be our immediate focus, and the Harkin amendment and the avian
flu bill I introduced back in April do just that. However, we cannot
ignore the economic and social implications of the pandemic flu. They
deserve our urgent attention.

As Dr. Michael Osterholm has warned us, the arrival of a pandemic flu
would trigger a reaction that would change the world overnight. We know
that a vaccine would not be available for at least 6 months after the
pandemic started. We also know that we only have enough antivirals in
our stockpile to treat 1 percent of the Nation's population. As such,
if an avian flu pandemic hits, foreign trade and travel would be
reduced or even suspended in a desperate but fruitless attempt to stop
the virus from entering new countries. This is not speculation. Some
will recall that Hong Kong's Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food has
already threatened to close the border with the Chinese mainland if the
H5N1 strain of avian influenza moves into the human population.
Domestically, transportation would also be significantly curtailed as
States or communities seek to keep the disease contained, and
unaffected areas try to keep infection out. Such efforts at self-
protection would have a devastating effect on the world economy, which
relies on the speedy distribution of products. There would be major
shortages of food, medicines, light bulbs, gasoline, and spare parts
for military equipment. Potentially, we would have shutdowns in the
production of microchips that fuel so much of our technology.
To use just one example, currently, two U.S.-based companies supply
most of the protective face masks for health care workers around the
world. Neither company would be able to meet increased demand during a
pandemic, in part because the companies depend on multiple suppliers in
multiple countries for the parts to make the masks.
Businesses today rely on the world's real time economy, and have not
established alternative supply chains nor emergency plans for
production and distribution. In a time of pandemic, the labor source
could be severely affected as well, compounding the supply chain
problem.
Our Government officials also have not yet addressed the social
implications of a pandemic. We had a taste of that in what tragically
happened with Hurricane Katrina. We witnessed desperation and confusion
as people scrambled to survive and to find their loved ones. We are
going to have to develop protocols and plans now so we can prepare the
public for whatever public health measures may be needed, including
possible quarantine or isolation.
The closest the world has come to this scenario in modern times was
the SARS epidemic in 2003. Over a period of 5 months, about 8,000
people were infected and about 10 percent of those infected died. Once
SARS emerged in China, it spread to 5 countries within 24 hours, and to
30 countries on 6 continents within several months. The economic
consequences of SARS were staggering. The 6-month epidemic costs to the
Asian-Pacific region alone were estimated at over $40 billion.
As avian flu is significantly more contagious and more deadly, you
can only imagine the potential scope of economic devastation that we
might face. Senator Harkin has mentioned that the warning bell is
ringing and we need to heed its urgent call to action. Time is running
out and this administration must act now if it is to prevent the severe
economic, security, and health consequences from pandemic flu.
Let me close with one last comment. I heard some colleagues in
discussions, both in the media and on the floor of the Senate, suggest
that we should not succumb to panic. I know at one point an analogy was
drawn between what we are calling for with respect to investments in
pandemic flu preparedness and Y2K.
Let me just make two points. No. 1, we are absolutely certain that
some form of pandemic will occur in our lifetime. We do not know if it
will be caused by a H5N1 virus that mutates and spreads by human-to-
human contact, similar to the 1918 pandemic. But unless history has
completely taught us the wrong lessons, we can expect some form of
pandemic that has severe consequences, and right now, we do not have
the infrastructure to deal with it.
What that means is whatever investment we make now--for example, in
developing a cell-based technology rather than an egg-based technology
to develop vaccines--that is a sound investment even if we are lucky
and this H5N1 virus does not end up mutating in such a way that it can
cause a pandemic, because we will now be prepared for whatever pandemic
occurs. We will have the infrastructure to rapidly produce the sort of
vaccines that are necessary. This is a smart investment for us to make
on the front end. The second point is one that, again, I think has been
highlighted by what happened in New Orleans and the gulf coast.
Sometimes the costs of doing nothing are so high that in the same way
that you or I buy catastrophic health insurance hoping that we never
have to use it, this is one of those situations where we have to devote
the dollars to prepare and develop a plan, hoping that we never have to
use it.
I am extraordinarily grateful that Senator Harkin, Senator Specter,
and other leaders on this committee have been able to come to an
agreement that should allow us to finally fund the preparedness and
readiness activities that are going to be necessary for us to meet the
challenge of avian flu.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2218, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of
amendment 2218, and ask unanimous consent that it be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2218), as modified, is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2218, As Modified

(Purpose: To increase funding for advanced placement programs)

At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$7,000,000 to carry out part G of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6531 et seq.).
(b) On page 183, line 15, strike ``$1,057,385,000'' and
insert ``$1,050,385,000'' and on line 21 strike
``$417,924,000'' and insert ``$410,924,000''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that the Senator
from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself are offering to add an
additional $7 million to the funding for advanced placement instruction
in our schools. This is an issue she and I have pursued for many years.
It is my strong belief one of the clearest ways we can improve the
quality of education in our school system is to encourage more students
to take advanced placement courses, to encourage more teachers to get
the training necessary to teach those advanced placement courses. Those
are courses the college board has identified as specified standards
nationwide.
It is clear to anybody who is involved in secondary education in this
country that a student is advantaged in their later education and in
their career if

[[Page S11974]]

they have the opportunity and take advantage of the opportunity to take
these advanced placement courses in high school. There are many high
schools in my State of New Mexico that do not offer advanced placement
courses to their students. I think that is a shame in this day and
time. I think it is very unfortunate we do not make this opportunity
available nationwide to more students and encourage it.
A recent report which the Presiding Officer and I have requested from
the National Academy of Sciences talks very extensively about the
importance of developing the scientific and technical building blocks
we need for this country to strengthen our economy. They recommend in
that National Academy of Sciences report that we can do a variety of
things to improve the quality of education from kindergarten through
the 12th grade, in addition to doing various things at the university
level and, of course, doing a variety of things with research and
development as well.
One of their recommendations is directly applicable to this amendment
which we sent to the desk. The recommendation is that we set out to
quadruple the number of students in advanced placement math and science
courses by the year 2010. There are approximately 1.2 million students
who take those courses today. The suggestion is that in the next 4 or 5
years we should increase that to 4.5 million students. That is an
enormous undertaking. That is an easy thing to say but a very hard
thing to do.
The recommendation in the appendix attached to the National Academy
of Sciences report indicates that the estimate they have would cost
something in the range of an additional $350 million per year for us to
be able to achieve this kind of improvement. We are not asking for that
$350 million in this amendment. We are asking for $7 million. We are
asking to get closer to what the President requested in the budget he
sent to the Congress earlier this year. We are asking to go up to $40
million for advanced placement instruction.
That is a very modest request, but we are informed it is all that is
possible, given the budgetary constraints under which this bill is
operating.
I think it is an extremely good amendment. It is a very important
focus for us to have as we try to begin to focus on an agenda that will
make this country more competitive in world markets. I know the
Presiding Officer feels this needs to be a very high priority for this
country. I certainly do, as well as the Senator from Texas.
I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.
I yield the floor so Senator Hutchison can explain her views on the
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator
Bingaman. We have been working on increasing the amount put in the
advanced placement program for years. Together, we actually started the
Federal funding for this program. It has been a phenomenal success.
In fact, in a recent study on the lack of emphasis in science in our
country in high schools and colleges, one of the recommendations made
by the commission, which I think the Presiding Officer of the Senate
sitting in the chair today is familiar with, * * *
One of the recommendations is increasing the Advanced Placement
Program. That is exactly what we are doing with this amendment.
The Advanced Placement Program allows students to pursue college-
level studies while still in high school. It is celebrating its 50th
anniversary and it is now in 15,000 schools around the world, including
60 percent of high schools in America. Through these programs, students
experience a rigorous college level curriculum and have the chance to
earn college credit, advanced placement, or both.
According to a U.S. Department of Education study, participation in
advanced placement courses is a stronger predictor of success in
college than test scores or grade point averages. A 2002 study by the
University of Texas at Austin showed that among students with the same
SAT scores and class rank, advanced placement students scoring three or
higher on the exams performed better in advanced college courses than
students who participated in concurrent enrollment or who did not skip
any college courses at all.
Research has also shown that 61 percent of students who take two or
more advanced placement exams graduate from college on time. By
contrast, only 29 percent of other college students earn a degree
within 4 years.
When you consider the average total charges at a 4-year public
institution in the 2005 school year were more than $12,000 per year and
$29,000 per year for private colleges, graduating within 4 years
becomes a very important objective.
While much growth has occurred in advanced placement participation, a
vast gap still exists between the 57 percent of the class of 2004 who
embarked on higher education last fall and the 13 percent of the class
of 2004 who were prepared to succeed in college by having mastered an
AP course in high school. Currently, 40 percent of students entering 4-
year colleges and universities are requiring some remedial education
while 63 percent of students at 2-year institutions do. This is a
significant concern. One or more remedial courses, particularly in math
or reading, negatively influence the likelihood that a student will
obtain that bachelor's degree.
Last year, a fellow Texan and current Assistant Secretary of
Education, Tom Luce, wrote a book entitled ``Do What Works: How Proven
Practices Can Improve America's Public Schools.'' Among other programs,
the book highlighted the importance of advanced placement courses in
educating today's students. In his book, Secretary Luce states:

Advanced Placement courses are increasingly viewed as a key
to driving higher educational achievement by all students,
particularly economically disadvantaged and minority
students.

Secretary Luce dedicated his book to Edith and Peter O'Donnell, two
great Americans who know and understand the importance of educating our
youngsters. Peter O'Donnell recently sat on the Commission of National
Academies which published a report entitled ``Rising Above The
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future.''
The report outlined a number of recommendations to strengthen
America's competitiveness with the ultimate goal of creating new, high-
quality jobs. One of the recommendations was to train additional
advanced placement instructors to teach advanced courses in mathematics
and science. Some ways we can do this are by subsidizing test fees for
low-income students who are enrolled in AP classes and plan to take an
AP test, and by expanding teacher training and participation in online
courses.
President Bush requested $51 million in his budget for this program.
That would be an increase of $22 million from last year.
This amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Bingaman would
accomplish the President's funding goal by adding an additional $7
million. It is very important we do this. It does have offsets.
I particularly thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin and their
staffs for helping find the offsets, realizing the importance of this
program.
My friend Peter O'Donnell was certainly on the mark when he suggested
advanced placement would start our students in a higher echelon of
academic programs to better prepare them for college. These programs
will also help them get through college within a 4-year period, which
is becoming more and more of an issue in public and private
universities around our country.
I thank Senator Bingaman for being a partner with me on this. Since
1998 we have worked on this together. If we can continue to increase
the program and, therefore, increase the number of participants, we
will see the college students who perform better having more
opportunities for science and math careers, which is very important for
the future of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for her
strong advocacy for this amendment and this program. I also say a word
of commendation about Peter O'Donnell and the work he has done in this
area.

[[Page S11975]]

He was very generous in giving of his time to brief me and my staff on
progress that has been made in the State of Texas in expanding advanced
placement through the private foundation he has established there. It
is a very impressive model the whole country needs to emulate. This
modest amendment will be a step toward helping more to happen around
the country.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Boxer, and
Senator Feinstein be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand it, we are ready for a vote on this
amendment at this time unless the managers would like to postpone it.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. A voice vote would be fine with us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no debate, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2218) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent at 3 o'clock today the Senate
proceed to executive session and to consecutive votes on the following
nominations: No. 386, John Smoak, to be United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Florida; and No. 384, Susan Neilson, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
I further ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to each vote; further, that following those votes the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
then return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 2244 Withdrawn

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask consent to withdraw amendment
numbered 2244.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2262

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last evening I called up for
consideration amendment 2262 and then had it laid aside. I call it up
again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is very
important. I hope we can get a vote before the afternoon is over. The
amendment would invest an additional $60 million in our Nation's future
by strengthening 8 programs: the Migrant Education Program, the English
Language Acquisition Program, the High School Equivalency Program, the
College Assistance Migrant Program, the Dropout Prevention Program, the
English as a Second Language Program, the local family information
centers, and also the Hispanic-serving institutions.
The funding additions this amendment calls for add up to the total
$60 million. This is an amendment that is strongly supported by the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, by the National PTA, and by the Hispanic
Education Coalition, which is an ad hoc coalition of national
organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for the
more than 40 million Hispanics who live in this country today.
The Migrant Education Program is the first item. The title I Migrant
Education Program was established to provide a compensatory education
program designed to deal with the difficulties encountered by children
of migrant families. Some of the children attend three or four schools
in a single school year.
They have a great need for coordination of educational services among
the States and local districts where they live, often for short periods
of time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so
that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of
school.
The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000
students were identified as eligible for the program in Fiscal Year
2001. Additional funds are necessary to ensure that these children are
able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.
This amendment will provide an additional $9.6 million in needed
funding.
This amendment would also increase funding to States and local school
districts in order to ensure that as many of the 5.5 million children
with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high
levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State
academic standards as all children.
Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all
50 States based on the number of limited English proficient LEP and
recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective
language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and
regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and
providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This
amendment requests an additional $10.3 million for Language Acquisition
Grants, which restores the program's funding to its Fiscal Year 2003
level.
This amendment would provide modest increases for the High School
Equivalency Program HEP and the College Assistance Migrant Program
CAMP. The HEP helps migrant students who have dropped out of high
school earn a GED. The CAMP assists migrant students in their first
year of college with both counseling and stipends. These programs
provide farmworker migrant students with education opportunities and
support that will help them to become productive members of society.
Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged youth in this
Nation. Current estimates place the dropout rate for migrant youth at
between 50 and 60 percent. Before CAMP, there was no record of a child
of migrant farm workers ever having attended college. Both programs
have been very successful in helping migrant students become productive
members of society.
According to the Department of Education, in 2003-2004, almost 10,000
students were served by HEP CAMP, and 63 percent of the HEP
participants received a GED, and 84 percent of CAMP students completed
their first year of college in good standing. This amendment provides
an additional $5.7 million for these programs.
The Dropout Prevention program help States and school districts to
implement research-based, sustainable, and coordinated school dropout
prevention and re-entry programs in order to raise student achievement.
At a time when schools are focused on narrowing achievement gaps
between differing subgroups of students, it seems that Congress would
want to retain Dropout Prevention, a program specifically aimed at
providing schools with the tools to help students achieve a high school
degree.
Support for dropout prevention is even more significant when
considering that the primary source of Federal funding for public
schools, authorized through the No Child Left Behind Act NCLB, focuses
mainly on elementary schools. More than 90 percent of title I funds--
the principal NCLB program--are directed to elementary schools. Such an
emphasis on elementary education is necessary and appropriate, but
equally important is continuing an investment of resources throughout
the education continum in order to meet the needs of middle level and
high school students.
The Dropout Prevention Program is the only Federal program actively
working to reduce the Nation's dropout rates, and, as recent headlines
tell us, it is a problem that is far more severe than previous data
indicated.
A report by the Urban Institute finds that only 68 percent of all
students in the public high school class of 2001 graduated.
Furthermore, it states that only 5 of all black students and 50 percent
of all Hispanic students grate. Nearly half of all black and Hispanic
students do not graduate from high school. This is a problem that has
reached enormous proportions. The Dropout Prevention Program was
eliminated in this legislation. This amendment restores $5 million to
this program.
The Local Family Information Centers Program was authorized under the
No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of title I students,
including

[[Page S11976]]

English language learners, with information about their children's
schools so that they can help their children to meet the high standards
we have set under NCLB.
The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their
local and State school officials accountable and become more involved
in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding
for these centers by $13 million.
The need for increased funding for English as a Second Language ESL
is evident by the growing demand for services and the lack of resources
to meet that need.
Enrollment in Adult ESL has increased 105 percent over the past 10
years, yet there is a lack of programs and funding to ensure that all
who desire to learn English have access to appropriate services.
Currently, community-based organizations must piece programs together
with volunteer labor and facilities. The need for more targeted
services is overwhelming. Demand for English-language instruction far
outweighs supply, waiting lists for classes typically range from
several months to years, and many States do not have the capacity to
meet the demand.
The current $70 million in funding is insufficient to meet the
enormous demand for ESL services. As the labor market continues to
require English-proficient labor, investing in ESL programs will
strengthen the labor pool and return a more versatile productive
workforce. This amendment provides an additional $6.5 million for ESL
programs.
Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The
Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education
system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that
nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve
the largest concentrations of the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic
population.
The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs mostly in CA, TX,
FL, NM, IL, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic
college-age population underscore urgency for immediate, major, and
sustained increases in title V funding.
At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in
substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new
workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new
workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment
would provide an additional $9.9 million in assistance to these great
institutions.
We must do everything possible to provide every child with the best
education we can. This amendment would provide small but much-needed
increases to programs that can make a difference in the lives of
millions of children. I urge my fellow Senators to support these
greatly needed programs by providing them with the proper resources.
This is a very worthwhile amendment. It puts resources to use where
they are most needed--not just in my State but throughout this country.
The fastest growing minority population in our country is the
Hispanic community. We need to ensure these young people growing up are
well educated, are prepared for the challenges for the 21st century.
This legislation helps greatly with that effort.

Amendment No. 2259

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly describe one other
amendment at this point. I called this amendment up yesterday, as well,
amendment 2259, dealing with the Drug Assistance Program, an amendment
Senator Smith and I have worked together on to add additional funding
for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP.
We had an amendment voted on last night by Senator Coburn to shift
funding to this function by taking funding from the Centers for Disease
Control. Our amendment does not do that. Our amendment provides $74
million in much-needed funding. It would be emergency funding for the
AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
This is a very meritorious amendment. It is an amendment I hope all
colleagues will support. Some Members of this body voted against the
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma in anticipation of supporting
this very important amendment I am talking about now.
The AIDS Drug Assistance Program provide life-saving assistance to
over 136,000 uninsured or underinsured HIV-infected individuals each
year. As the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has increased,
largely due to advances in HIV treatment, the importance of and demand
for ADAP has grown so that, as of September 2005, a total of 2,187
individuals were on ADAP waiting lists in nine States.
As the National ADAP Monitoring Project says:

When an individual is on a waiting list, they may not have
access to HIV-related medications.

We are talking about life-extending and life-saving medications. In
fact, it has been reported that patients on ADAP waiting lists in West
Virginia and Kentucky have passed away.
Furthermore, as of March 2005, due to funding shortfalls, 21 States
have some sort of cost containment measures in place, including waiting
lists, that often impede access to care. This includes increased cost-
sharing, reductions in eligibility income limits, and limitations on
covered treatments.
We as a Nation, are rightfully committed to providing billions of
dollars of support for HIV/AIDS care and treatment services to those
living with HIV in nations across the world and we should be. However,
here at home, it is unforgivable that there are Americans with HIV
dying because they are on waiting lists for life-saving drugs or having
life-saving medications rationed to them in various forms.
A story entitled ``Dying for AIDS Drugs'' documents some of the
stories of those who have lost ADAP coverage or are on waiting lists.
As the story reads:

Margaret Nicholson, a Springfield, Oregon, homecare
attendant who survives with her mother and husband on less
than $20,000 a year, lost her ADAP coverage because she
couldn't afford the new co-pays; she has now gone 4 months
without seeing a doctor and is scraping by on pill samples.
In North Carolina, HIV doctor Aimee Wilkin says some of her
waiting list patients, forced to seek medicines through drug
company charity programs, have faced multiple treatment
interruptions, the result of bureaucratic delays, exposing
them to the risk of HIV drug resistance. In Kentucky,
caseworkers are so desperate they're asking churches to pass
the hat to sponsor someone's pills for a few weeks at a time.

In our great Nation, this is unacceptable and should end. This
amendment, sponsored by Senator Smith and myself, would go a long way
to address the ADAP shortfall and I urge its passage.
I hope we can also have a rollcall vote on this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on Senate amendment 2262 at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask for a rollcall vote on Senate
amendment 2259.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to request
that at this time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

____________________