[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 139 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11978-S12002]
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--Continued


                Amendment No. 2283, as further Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2283.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the 
desk a modification of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask that the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 2283), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 169, line 18, strike ``$183,589,000: Provided, That 
     $120,000,000 of amounts available for influenza 
     preparedness'' and replace with ``$8,158,589,000: Provided, 
     That these funds shall be distributed at the discretion of 
     the President, after consultation with the Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House 
     and Senate Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education Appropriations, the Chairmen and Ranking Member 
     of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     Committee, and the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. 
     Provided further, That $8,095,000,000 of amounts available 
     for influenza and other potential pandemics preparedness is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 and''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also would ask that Senator Specter be 
made a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that a lot of us 
talked about earlier that provides funding for a possible avian flu 
pandemic. We have worked a lot on both sides of the aisle. I especially 
thank our chairman, Senator Specter, for his guidance and leadership on 
this amendment, for working this out and, again, ensuring that we can 
move ahead to make sure this country is ready with the funds we need to 
provide for better global surveillance, to provide for stockpiling of 
antivirals and vaccines, for money that is going to be needed for 
building flu vaccine manufacturing plants and for making sure our 
public health infrastructure is adequate and that we have the surge 
capacity in hospitals. That is all in this amendment.
  Again, I thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this amendment 
in working it out so that we can move to a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, very briefly, Senator Harkin is due great 
credit for this very important amendment, having taken the lead in 
establishing the fund. We have structured it, after consultation with a 
number of our colleagues, so that funds will be expended at the 
discretion of the President, after consultation with certain named 
Members of both the House and the Senate. This is in anticipation of 
the administration sending over a proposal in which we should have 
ample time to give due consideration before the conference.
  This is a very significant step forward so that we do not face a 
crisis where the administration wants something done, but only the 
Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to appropriate the 
funds.
  I salute my colleague, Senator Harkin, and all those who worked on 
the amendment.
  We jointly urge its adoption.


                Amendment No. 2283, As Further Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Harkin and their staff on 
moving the avian influenza amendment forward in a bipartisan manner. 
They have done a tremendous job on coming to an agreement.
  Senator Harkin and Senator Specter's amendment includes my proposal 
for funding for migratory wild bird surveillance which I would like to 
take a moment to outline more thoroughly.
  As we all know, the potential for an influenza pandemic is increasing 
as the H5N1 virus has now moved swiftly across Asia, Russia, Turkey and 
now the EU, killing millions of domesticated poultry and over 60 humans 
to date. History and science tell us that wild birds are the ones that 
spread deadly avian influenza viruses. It happened before during the 
1918 influenza epidemic that killed an estimated 40 million people 
worldwide. We must act now to ensure that this does not happen again. 
We have the tools. We just need to increase and strengthen them.
  My proposal seeks to provide funds supporting an early warning system 
for global influenza that starts with wild birds. This is a major gap 
in our flu tracking system. The proposed warning system would track and 
monitor avian viruses and their mutations carried by wild birds by 
expanding the Centers of Disease Control's wild bird surveillance 
efforts which are currently not extensive. The CDC's efforts must be 
tied together with the network of global organizations, including 
nongovernmental organizations that have the capacity to expand and 
comprehensively collect and disseminate these tracking data from around 
the world.
  Just as we track hurricanes as they begin as a tropical storm, we 
must track wild birds and the viral storms they carry over oceans and 
continents and share that data with the world.
  The purposes of my proposal are to support efforts: to more rapidly 
and efficiently detect, verify, and report on the presence of H5N1 and 
other highly pathogenic avian influenzas and infectious diseases in 
migratory wild birds and waterfowl; to use information on viral strains 
found in wild birds to better delineate any mutations in the virus; to 
use information on when and where highly pathogenic avian influenza 
viruses and other infectious diseases are identified in migratory birds 
to better guide preparedness in the U.S. and around the world, to carry 
out a comprehensive migratory bird surveillance program that will 
provide early warning to specific areas to enhance poultry biosecurity 
and surveillance, and other human protective measures as necessary; to 
create an open access database where information on highly pathogenic 
avian influenza viruses and other infectious diseases identified in 
migratory birds are shared in as close to real time as possible; to 
protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and officials traveling 
and living abroad; and to protect the economic interests of the U.S. 
and its partners from threats to health, agriculture, and natural 
resources.
  It is the intent of my proposal that within 90 days of the 
appropriation, the Centers for Disease Control's influenza branch enter 
into a contract with one or more nongovernmental organizations 
chartered in the U.S. with extensive global wildlife health experience 
in tracking disease in wild birds, including free-ranging, captive, and 
wild bird species, with a proven ability in identifying avian influenza 
in birds, and with accredited zoological facilities in the U.S.
  The influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental 
organization(s) will collaborate with appropriate Federal and State 
agency partners, including the Department of Agriculture acting through 
the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; various U.S. State wildlife agencies, multilateral 
agency partners, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the 
World Health Organization, the Office International des Epizooties, and 
the World Conservation Union; conservation organizations with expertise 
in international and domestic bird monitoring surveillance; accredited 
colleges of veterinary medicine; and other national and international 
partners, as necessary.
  The contracting nongovernmental organization, in coordination with 
the influenza branch of the CDC, shall manage an international 
surveillance program in which all partners named above are encouraged: 
to monitor and test for the presence or arrival of avian influenza and 
other significant avian pathogens at important bird areas around the 
world and in marketplaces with intense trade in wild birds; to use 
trained professionals to collect samples and other data and send 
samples to appropriate diagnostic centers; to use the international 
surveillance network to conduct disease surveillance activities on 
migratory birds worldwide, domestic and international field 
investigations on migratory birds, training and

[[Page S11979]]

capacity-building activities related to the relationships between human 
health, domestic and animal health, and wildlife health, and research 
on methods and approaches for the detection and enhanced surveillance 
of highly pathogenic avian influenza and other infectious diseases in 
migratory birds; and to send samples for avian influenza testing to 
certified laboratories that meet internationally established 
methods standards. These certified laboratories are located at the 
influenza branch of the CDC, the Office International des Epizooties, 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the National Veterinary Services 
Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture, and the Agricultural 
Research Service. These findings should be reported back to the 
contracting nongovernmental organization and the international 
surveillance network partners.

  The CDC's influenza branch and the eligible organization, in 
coordination with the partners of the international surveillance 
network, will use surveillance reports and other formal and informal 
sources of information to identify and investigate local disease 
outbreaks of avian influenza; will develop a long-term baseline of 
regional data related to highly pathogenic avian influenza and 
pathogens in migratory birds for analysis between and across sites to 
create a system to identify when and where outbreaks might occur and 
paths of dispersal; will provide technical assistance for disease 
prevention and control programs based on a scientific understanding of 
the relationships between wildlife health, animal health, and human 
health; will provide analytic disease findings regularly to the 
influenza branch of the CDC and other international network 
surveillance partners to prevent and combat diseases; and will conduct 
other activities as necessary to support the international network and 
its partners. The surveillance network will be coordinated from the 
headquarters of the contracting nongovernmental organization.
  The CDC's influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental 
organization, manage, map, and make available an online database 
containing all the results and information gathered through the 
international surveillance network. The database shall provide 
geographic data on wild bird populations and the movements of the 
populations. The laboratory test results will be available for viewing 
by any Federal agency, foreign country, multilateral institution, 
organization, or individual.
  The CDC's influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental 
organization, will request accredited colleges of veterinary medicine 
and other partners of the international surveillance network to monitor 
important bird areas around the world and to test for the presence or 
arrival of avian influenza and other significant avian pathogens of 
zoonotic concern.
  Expanding the CDC's efforts by supporting an international 
surveillance network, allows us to focus limited resources and prepare 
communities in the infected wild birds' flight path. If we have this 
information, our menu of interventions can include: providing available 
antivirals or vaccines to those at-risk, protecting poultry farms, 
preparing hospitals to take on thousands of patients, and even keeping 
people indoors. By tracking wild birds we may even be able to produce 
an avian flu vaccine faster by understanding which influenza virus is 
the killer. The current H5N1 virus is not the one that could cause 
widespread devastation to humans because it hasn't led to sustained 
human to human transfer, yet.
  This amendment provides $10,000,000 in 2006 to the CDC to work with 
U.S. and international partners to strengthen a global wild bird 
surveillance system. Ten million dollars is a small sum in comparison 
to the tens of billions of dollars for vaccine research and antiviral 
stockpiling. Vaccines and stockpiling are our current focus and we 
should be thinking about them, but it is equally important to think 
about being prepared for outbreaks and trying to keep a pandemic from 
ever hitting. This funding would enable the CDC's influenza branch to 
contract with one or more expert organizations with the capacity to 
quickly put into place the tracking and analytical systems we need.
  As we speak, some countries and organizations have started to collect 
information in the U.S. and the world. But while we are collecting 
data, they are not being stored in any kind of organized manner to make 
it available for easy study and response.
  To summarize, we have a major gap now in avian flu preparedness. We 
are not adequately tracking the wild birds that will be the flu 
transfer agents. We need to have a stronger and much better tracking 
system right now. Second, we have to do a much better job collecting 
and analyzing the information we have and will get so we can prepare 
our communities.
  I thank Senators Harkin and Specter and their staff for their work 
preparing our Nation for a possible pandemic. My proposal, which they 
have incorporated into their amendment, is relatively small but 
addresses a big gap that no one is thinking about. It's the big bird in 
the room.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an important flu 
amendment that Senator Harkin and I and several of our colleagues are 
offering to increase the amount of funding for the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention and their efforts to help our Nation prepare for 
both pandemic and seasonal influenza.
  Since December 2004, 77 cases of avian influenza have been confirmed 
in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, and 30 of these cases 
have been fatal. In countries across Asia and Europe, farmers have been 
culling their poultry stocks because of fears of infection.
  We need to prepare for the moment when--not if, but when--avian 
influenza hits our shores.
  What is particularly worrisome to me, when thinking about our 
Nation's ability to face the threat posed by pandemic or avian 
influenza, is the fact that we aren't even prepared to deal with the 
seasonal influenza epidemic that we face every year. Our efforts to 
prepare for pandemic influenza should be linked to efforts to reform 
and rebuild our Nation's seasonal flu vaccine infrastructure.
  Approximately 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year, with another 
200,000 people requiring hospitalization because of the flu. These 
deaths are largely preventable. We could stop them if we had a secure 
vaccine market, if we could improve our communications between the 
Government and our State and local public health partners, if we could 
better distribute and track vaccines, and if we made sure that everyone 
understood the importance of getting their annual flu shot.
  Since 2000, our Nation has had three shortages of flu vaccine, which 
resulted in senior citizens lining up for hours to obtain flu vaccine, 
unscrupulous distributors attempting to sell scarce vaccine to the 
highest bidder, and millions of Americans delaying or deferring 
necessary flu shots.
  In order to address these issues, we need to increase the resources 
that we are committing to our public health infrastructure.
  The amendment Senator Harkin is proposing will provide nearly $8 
billion to the CDC, allowing us to respond to the threat posed by avian 
influenza and our seasonal flu outbreaks.
  It will increase funding for stockpiling of vaccine and antivirals, 
and improve our domestic production capacity to produce these items.
  It will allow us to upgrade our public health infrastructure with 
additional funding for hospital surge capacity and grants enabling 
State and local health departments to prepare for public health 
emergencies like vaccine shortages and pandemic outbreaks.
  And it will provide funding so that we can increase our global and 
domestic surveillance around pandemic and seasonal flu, including 
improvements to our health information technology infrastructure.
  Yet while this amendment provides the CDC with much needed resources 
for our public health infrastructure, it does not diminish the need for 
legislation to reform our Nation's vaccine production and delivery 
infrastructure.
  In response to the delays in distribution of this year's vaccine, CDC 
director Julie Gerberding has indicated that the agency is unable to 
obtain real-time data on vaccine shipments and delivery, citing 
concerns over disclosure of proprietary information.
  Having an adequate supply of vaccine does us no good if it can't get 
to the

[[Page S11980]]

people who need it. In last season's epidemic, we had problems matching 
existing stocks of vaccine to the high priority populations, like 
senior citizens, who were in need of vaccine. It took weeks before we 
could determine how much vaccine was actually in communities, and where 
it was needed. We wasted lots of time and resources, valuable public 
health resources, in trying to track this vaccine.
  Earlier this month, Senator Roberts and I introduced the Influenza 
Vaccine Security Act, legislation that contains many of the provisions 
that would be funded through the Harkin amendment.
  Complementing this amendment, the Influenza Vaccine Security Act 
would further give the Department of Health and Human Services the 
authority to track vaccine distribution in a manner that addresses 
concerns about the protection of proprietary information, allowing 
providers to vaccinate patients without the current uncertainties over 
supply.
  While there is no vaccine shortage expected this year, delays in 
production have resulted in diminished supplies for many providers, who 
are unable to carry out full vaccination of their high priority 
populations, let alone any other patients who are in the habit of 
seeking an annual flu shot.
  Because we have no tracking system, we can't tell the providers and 
patients who are looking for flu shots when vaccines might be available 
in their local area.
  So it is clear that we need not only increased funding, provided 
through this amendment, for our public health infrastructure, but 
increased authority for our public health officials to ensure that our 
system of vaccine outreach, delivery and distribution for both 
pandemics and seasonal flu can operate as smoothly as possible.
  There is a clear need to implement legislation like the Influenza 
Vaccine Security Act that will allow our Government to plan for flu 
outbreaks, instead of scrambling to address shortages and epidemics 
once they have already occurred. We have done too much of that already, 
in the three shortages we have faced since 2000.
  I would urge my colleagues to not only pass the Harkin amendment 
today, but to work to bring legislation on seasonal and pandemic flu to 
the floor as quickly as possible, so that we can make needed reforms 
before our next vaccine shortage.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pandemic 
flu preparedness amendment that my colleague from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has 
offered to the fiscal year 2006 Labor/Health and Human Services/
Education appropriation bill.
  I thank Senator Harkin for taking the lead in addressing the 
important issue of pandemic flu on the floor of the Senate. Over the 
past few months, we have heard from leading public health experts such 
as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases, at the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. 
Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention that it is no longer a question of if a pandemic flu will 
occur, but instead when the threat does occur will we be prepared as a 
nation. Public health experts have warned that an avian influenza 
outbreak could ignite a worldwide pandemic that would threaten the 
lives of millions of Americans. The consequences of a pandemic could be 
far reaching, impacting every sector of our society and our economy.
  Past influenza pandemics have led to high levels of illness, death, 
social disruption, and devastating economic losses; the 1918 ``Spanish 
Flu'', took the lives of more than 500,000 Americans, the 1957 ``Asian 
Flu'' caused more than 70,000 American deaths and the 1968 ``Hong Kong 
Flu'' is attributed to more than 34,000 American deaths.
  Our Nation is facing a major health threat. Experts have told us that 
the next pandemic has the potential to be every bit as devastating as 
what the world witnessed over 100 years ago. With the rapid travel 
around the globe compared to 1918, and the interdependence of our 
economic markets compared to 1918, the potential human and economic 
costs of the next pandemic are unimaginable.
  We must take the necessary steps to adequately prepare for a 
potential pandemic. We must heed the warning we have been given. That 
is why I support Senator Harkin's pandemic flu amendment. Senator 
Harkin's amendment provides necessary funding that would be used to 
expand and strengthen efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, as well as at the State and local level related to pandemic 
flu and public health preparedness. The amendment would provide 
additional funding to expand CDC's global disease surveillance 
capabilities, provide additional support for State and local public 
health facilities, increase hospital surge capacity and scale up 
vaccine manufacturing to make sure the American people are protected 
against pandemic threats.
  First, the amendment provides additional funding to expand and 
support the strategic national stockpile to ensure antivirals, as well 
as necessary drugs, vaccines and other supplies are secured to respond 
to a pandemic flu and/or other pandemic threats.
  Second, this amendment provides additional funding to build up and 
support one of the most important components to public health and 
threat assessments, which is global disease surveillance. One of the 
best first defenses to limiting the scope and consequences of any 
outbreak within a short turn around is to rapidly detect and contain 
the spread of a new influenza strain.
  Third, this amendment funds research efforts to discover new vaccine 
treatments to deal with pandemic flu infections. Currently, there is no 
vaccine available to protect humans against a pandemic influenza. There 
is some vaccine development underway, but these efforts need to be 
strengthened, sustained, and tested to protect our Nation against 
pandemic flu.
  Lastly, this amendment provides additional funding for State and 
local public health preparedness initiatives. If a pandemic were to 
spread in the United States, State and local health departments would 
be on the front lines. However, State and local entities are woefully 
unprepared. Additional funds are needed for terrorism response 
planning, training, strengthening epidemiology, and surveillance, 
upgrading lab capacity and communications systems and other related 
activities. They must be given adequate resources. We must take the 
lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was evident that 
our country's public health infrastructure was not adequately prepared 
to address the needs of the people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. We cannot let that happen again. We can do better, and we must do 
better.
  Our Nation's public health experts have done their jobs--they have 
told us what needs to be done. We must heed their warning. Again, I 
thank Senator Harkin for his work on this important issue, and I 
support the amendment as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2283, as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 2283), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are now in a position to move to a 
number of amendments on which there is agreement. As we review the 
bidding here, there are prospects for several more rollcall votes. It 
is, as usual, impossible to tell whether we will need the rollcall 
votes. We are calling the Senators rather than identifying them on the 
floor--identifying them on the floor is the next step--but Senators 
know who they are, where they are on the prospect of rollcall votes, 
and they ought to come to the Chamber because we have had many 
inquiries as to when we are going to conclude this bill. We are getting 
very close.


                           Amendment No. 2324

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2324 on behalf of 
Senators Warner and Allen. This amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services work with the Commonwealth of Virginia to resolve their 
Medicaid issues.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared with Senator 
Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S11981]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Allen, 
     for himself, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2324.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning the treatment 
of physician costs in the calculation of the Medicaid disproportionate 
   share hospital uncompensated cost limit by the State of Virginia)

       On page 178, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 222. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Hospitals cannot provide patient care without 
     physicians.
       (2) It is particularly difficult for hospitals to provide 
     patient care to uninsured patients.
       (3) Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments 
     provide payments to hospitals to provide care to uninsured 
     patients.
       (4) Hospitals that provide a large volume of care to 
     uninsured patients incur significant costs.
       (5) Since there is no other source of reimbursement for 
     hospitals related to these costs, some States have permitted 
     reimbursement of these physician costs through Medicaid DSH.
       (6) The State of Virginia has approved the inclusion of 
     physician services costs as hospital costs for Medicaid DSH 
     purposes.
       (7) Fifty percent of all indigent care in the State of 
     Virginia is provided by its 2 academic medical centers.
       (8) The financial viability of these academic medical 
     centers is threatened if these costs cannot be included in 
     Medicaid DSH reimbursement.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate is aware of an issue regarding the definition 
     of ``hospital costs'' incurred by the State of Virginia for 
     purposes of Medicaid reimbursement to that State and urges 
     the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services to work with the State to resolve the pending issue.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2324.
  The amendment (No. 2324) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2279, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up Senator Feingold's 
amendment No. 2279, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2279, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2279), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2299

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2299, 
proposed by Senator Cochran, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2299.

  The amendment is as follows:

         (Purpose: To provide additional public health funding)

       At the end of title II (before the short title), add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING.

       (a) Minority Public Health.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $10,000,000 for the Office of Minority Health.
       (b) Sickle Cell Disease.--From amounts appropriated under 
     the title for the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, such Secretary shall make available and amount not 
     to exceed $2,000,000 of such amounts to provide funding for 
     grants under paragraph (1) of section 712(c) of Public Law 
     108-357 (42 U.S.C. 300b-1 note).
       (c) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, amounts made available under this Act under the heading 
     Program Management for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services shall be reduced, on a pro rata basis, by an 
     additional $12,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2299.
  The amendment (No. 2299) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2301

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2301, 
proposed by Senator Obama, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Obama, for 
     himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, and 
     Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 2301.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funds to the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational 
Opportunity Program and the Office of Special Education Programs of the 
     Department of Education for the purpose of expanding positive 
                 behavioral interventions and supports)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. THURGOOD MARSHALL LEGAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 
                   PROGRAM AND POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS 
                   AND SUPPORTS.

       (a) Increases.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there is appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an 
     additional $3,500,000 for subpart 3 of part A of title VII of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1136 et seq.), 
     and an additional $1,000,000 to the Office of Special 
     Education Programs of the Department of Education for the 
     expansion of positive behavioral interventions and supports.
       (b) Offset From Consulting Expenses.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each 
     amount provided by this Act for consulting expenses for the 
     Department of Health and Human Services shall be reduced by 
     the pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount 
     provided by this Act for such expenses by $4,500,000.
       (2) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate a listing of the amounts by account of the reductions 
     made pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (c) Report on Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational 
     Opportunity Program.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the 
     Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report on the evaluation data regarding the educational and 
     professional performance of individuals who have 
     participated, during fiscal year 2006 or any preceding year, 
     in the program under subpart 3 of part A of title VII of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1136 et seq.).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2301.
  The amendment (No. 2301) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2327, 
proposed by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, and 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. 
     Coleman, for himself, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2327.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To develop a strategic plan for increasing the number of 
  foreign students attending institutions of higher education in the 
                             United States)

       On page 191, line 2, strike ``may be used'' and all that 
     follows through ``dissemination activities:'' on line 4 of 
     such page and insert ``may be used for program evaluation, 
     national outreach, and information dissemination activities, 
     and shall be used by the Secretary of Education to develop, 
     through consultation with the Secretaries of State, Commerce, 
     Homeland Security, and Energy, institutions of higher 
     education in the United States, organizations that 
     participate in international exchange programs, and other 
     appropriate groups, a strategic plan for enhancing the access 
     of foreign students, scholars, scientists, and exchange 
     visitors to institutions of higher education of the United 
     States for study and exchange activities: Provided further, 
     That the strategic plan described in the preceding proviso 
     shall make use of the Internet and other media resources, 
     establish a clear division of responsibility and a mechanism 
     of institutionalized cooperation between the Departments of 
     Education, State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Energy, 
     and include streamlined procedures to facilitate 
     international exchanges of foreign students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors:''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2327.
  The amendment (No. 2327) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2248, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2248, as 
modified, for Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2248, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2248), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Federal TRIO programs)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury

[[Page S11982]]

     not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to carry out the 
     Federal TRIO programs under chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A 
     of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-11 et seq.).
       (b) On page 190, line 3 strike ``$2,104,508,000'' and 
     insert ``$2,099,508,000''.


                    Amendment No. 2250, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2250, as 
modified, proposed by Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2250, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2250), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding to carry out the Mosquito Abatement for 
                         Safety and Health Act)

       At the end of title II (before the short title), add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT.

       From amounts appropriated under this Act for the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention for infectious diseases-
     West Nile Virus, there shall be transferred $5,000,000 to 
     carry out section 317S of the Public Health Service Act 
     (relating to mosquito abatement for safety and health).


                Amendment No. 2215, as Further Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2215, as further 
modified, proposed by Senator Sununu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2215, as 
further modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2215), as further modified, was agreed to, as 
follows:

      (Purpose: To increase funding for community health centers)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Amounts appropriated in this title for community 
     health center programs under section 330 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) shall be increased by 
     $50,000,000. The amount appropriated for Facilities 
     Construction funded by the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration is further reduced by $50,000,000.


                    Amendment No. 2276, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2276, as 
modified, proposed by Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2276, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide appropriations for the National Youth Sports 
  Program, a private, nonprofit organization to provide recreational 
activities for low-income youth, primarily in the summer months, which 
          employs college and university athletic facilities)

       On page 165, strike line 2 and insert the following:

     for a study of the system's effectiveness: Provided further, 
     That the total amount made available under this heading shall 
     be increased by $10,000,000, which shall be for carrying out 
     the National Youth Sports Program under the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act.
       On page 137, line 9, both of the amounts are further 
     reduced by $10,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if my colleagues will withhold for just a 
second, I do not seem to have that amendment in front of me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not have any objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2276, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2276), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2262, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2262, as 
modified, proposed by Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered on this amendment, so it cannot 
be adopted by a voice vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is that on amendment No. 2262?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe in my conversations with both Senator Bingaman 
and Senator Hutchison that they agreed to a voice vote on this 
amendment. So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to amendment 
No. 2262 to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. I am proud to be cosponsor of 
this amendment, which was introduced by Senator Bingaman. The amendment 
adds $60 million to key education programs that are critical to 
improving Hispanic educational opportunities. If approved, the money 
will be put to good use by State and local entities to invest in our 
country's most precious resource: Our youth.
  The Hispanic community is an integral component of our American 
workforce. By ensuring that the 8.7 million Hispanic youth enrolled in 
our Nation's schools succeed in education, we make a down payment on 
our Nation's future economic security.
  I note that the Hispanic Education Coalition, a group of diverse 
national education, civil rights, and Hispanic organizations, supports 
amendment No. 2262.
  The amendment will restore $5 million in funding to the School 
Dropout Prevention Program that was authorized by the No Child Left 
Behind Act, and long championed by my colleague Senator Bingaman. It 
increases funding for civics and English as a Second Language, ESL, 
programs by $6.5 million for parents, workers and citizens who want to 
learn more about our country's history and enhance their language 
skills in English, the language of opportunity in America and 
throughout the world.
  In addition, funding for two small but incredibly effective programs, 
the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, and the College Assistance 
Migrant Program, CAMP, would be reinstated to their Fiscal Year 2004 
levels. As a product of rural America, I have known and met many 
migrant worker families. They work hard to provide the wonderful 
grains, vegetables, and fruits we eat at our dinner table. In Colorado 
and other parts of the country, HEP-CAMP works to keep migrant students 
in high school through graduation, with the ultimate goal of sending 
them off to college.
  This amendment also provides an additional $13 million in funding for 
Parent Assistance and Local Family Information Centers. The Colorado 
Parent Information and Resource Center in Denver uses this funding to 
help low income parents understand and navigate the school system and 
encourages their involvement in the school community. Parental 
involvement is critical to children's success and I strongly support 
efforts that engage parents in their children's education.
  Finally, there are modest increases for our Nation's Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions and for bilingual and migrant education.
  I urge the Senate's support of amendment No. 2262 because I believe 
we will all reap the benefits of increasing Hispanic educational 
achievement.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to support an amendment 
introduced by Senator Bingaman to increase funding for education 
programs for Hispanic students. This important group of Americans has 
long been underserved by our public schools, and the actions proposed 
in this amendment are an important remedy.
  In America, the promise of a good education for all makes it possible 
for any child to rise above the barriers of race or class or background 
and achieve his or her potential. We live in a world where the most 
valuable skill you can sell is knowledge. Yet we are denying this skill 
to too many of our children.
  This denial has grave consequences, with those consequences falling 
inequitably on children of color. Of every 100 white kindergartners, 93 
graduate from high school, and 33 earn at least a bachelor's degree. 
But for every 100 Hispanic kindergartners, only 63 graduate from high 
school, and only 11 obtain that college degree. The school age 
population of Hispanic students is growing five times faster than the 
student population at large. If we fail to do better in educating 
deserving Hispanic youth, this failure will have grave consequences for 
us all, not just with increased unemployment but in missed 
opportunities for innovation and competitiveness.
  This failure of our education system is not easy to address. There is 
no single, simple solution. This amendment recognizes this fact by 
proposing a variety of programs to help Hispanic students. Among these 
programs, Support

[[Page S11983]]

for Hispanic Serving Institutions will help those colleges that now 
grant diplomas to over 50 percent of all Hispanic graduates. Language 
Acquisition Grants address those students who struggle to learn because 
they do not yet have full fluency in English, a number which includes 
nearly half of the Hispanic students in our public schools. The School 
Dropout Prevention Program addresses one of the most significant 
problems for children of color. In Illinois, only 53 percent of 
Hispanics graduate from high school, compared with 83 percent of 
whites.
  We must do better. We must not lower our standards. Instead, we must 
increase our support for those students who are eager to succeed. In 
many situations, it is clear that children of color, when provided 
appropriate support and effective teachers, can rise to meet our 
expectations and fulfill their hopes and the dreams of their families. 
I am proud to support Senator Bingaman in this effort.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2262, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2262), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase funding for education programs serving Hispanic 
                               students)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

     SEC. __. INCREASED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS SERVING 
                   HISPANIC STUDENTS.

       (a) Migrant Education.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an 
     additional $4,800,000 for the education of migratory children 
     under part C of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.).
       (b) English Language Acquisition.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, an additional $7,650,000 for English language 
     acquisition programs under part A of title III of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6811 et seq.).
       (c) HEP/CAMP.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an 
     additional $2,850,000 for the High School Equivalency Program 
     and the College Assistance Migrant Program under section 418A 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-2).
       (d) ESL/CIVICS Programs.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an 
     additional $3,250,000 for English as a second language 
     programs and civics education programs under the Adult 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.).
       (e) Parent Assistance and Local Family Information 
     Centers.--In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional $6,500,000 
     for the Parent Assistance and Local Family Information 
     Centers under subpart 16 of part D of title V of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7273 et seq.).
       (f) Hispanic-Serving Institutions.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $4,950,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions 
     under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.).
       (g) Offset.--The first amount on page 123, line 15 and the 
     amount on line 21 are further reduced by $30,000,000.

                           Amendment No. 2259

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
amendment No. 2259.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2259 is an amendment that 
was offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Smith. This amendment funds 
money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. It was mentioned earlier. I 
know that Senator Bingaman and others wanted a rollcall vote on 
amendment No. 2259. I believe all debate has transpired. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides for an additional 
$75 million from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. The bill currently 
contains $797,521,000. It has an increase of $10 million over last 
year. As is the case with so many of the items, it is a very good 
program. We would like to have more money, but we simply do not have an 
offset.
  If the sponsors of the amendment have some offset and want to talk 
about priorities, we will be glad to listen, but on this state of the 
record, we are constrained to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2259. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
by Senator Bingaman to provide $60 million to strengthen programs 
critical to the success of Hispanic children and youth in our schools, 
community colleges, and universities.
  The No Child Left Behind Act laid a new foundation for our commitment 
to a quality education for all children. That landmark legislation, 
enacted 3 years ago, contained the formula for success for all 
students: well-qualified teachers, effective instruction, especially 
for children with limited English skills, additional assistance for 
students who fall behind in school, and the accountability essential to 
ensure that no child is in fact left behind. But none of those reforms 
can succeed without the resources necessary to make them possible.
  The bill before us falls far too short of delivering the educational 
opportunity promised to Hispanic students in the No Child Left Behind 
Act. We can clearly do more to enable Hispanic children to have access 
to the best possible education. The Bingaman amendment before us will 
add urgently needed funds and restore the integrity of key Hispanic 
programs that have been eliminated or underfunded in the bill.
  Hispanic children are the Nation's fastest growing student 
population. The number of Hispanic students in America's classrooms has 
grown by 61 percent since 1990. Despite this growth, too many of these 
children are being denied the support they need to succeed in school. 
In fact, Hispanic students drop out of high school at an unacceptable 
rate of 52 percent.
  The Bingaman amendment restores funding for the School Dropout 
Prevention Program, which helps States and school districts implement 
research-based, sustainable dropout prevention programs and re-entry 
programs to help students who fall behind academically. At a time when 
we are working to narrow achievement gaps, this important program is 
more essential than ever, and is geared to ensure that all children 
graduate with a high school diploma. By contrast, the underlying bill 
eliminates this program entirely and is an insult to every Hispanic 
child in America.
  The amendment also invests an additional $10 million to restore title 
III and expand its services to an additional 16,000 English-language-
learners throughout the Nation. This year, we are adequately serving 
only 1 in every 5 of these students under title III. All English 
language-learners deserve access to good bilingual programs, with well-
qualified teachers to help them learn English and meet high academic 
standards.
  The Bingaman amendment also provides funds for another provision in 
the No Child Left Behind Act, the Parent Information Resource Centers 
and Local Family Information Centers programs. The amendment adds $13 
million for Parent Information Resource Centers, bringing total funding 
to $55 million. Because Local Family Information Centers can be funded 
only if funds for the parent centers are over $50 million, the Bingaman 
amendment enables the local centers to receive funding for the first 
time ever. The $5 million that the amendment provides for the Local 
Family Information Centers is an important step in involving parents in 
their children's education, and is especially important for parents of 
English-language-learners who may need more assistance in navigating 
the school system.
  The amendment also benefits the 750,000 children of migrant 
farmworkers, by providing an additional $9

[[Page S11984]]

million for the Migrant Education Program. These children face many 
obstacles to their education, including dire poverty, geographic and 
cultural isolation, and outright bigotry. The Migrant Education Program 
was created in 1966 to reduce these obstacles, coordinate educational 
services to migrant children, and lay the foundation for them to 
succeed in school and in life. This amendment will provide a range of 
supplemental support services to migrant students, including the 
assurance that their school records will follow them from school to 
school as their families relocate to new areas of the region of the 
Nation.
  The Bingaman amendment will also help migrant students go to college 
and complete college, by investing an additional $5 million in the High 
School Equivalency Program and the College Assistance Migrant Program. 
These two programs are lifelines of college opportunity for migrant 
students. They use proven strategies to help migrant students complete 
high school and graduate from college. They provide instruction and 
counseling for those who have dropped out of school to get back on 
track, and they provide valuable guidance to migrant high school 
graduates in their first year of college.
  By contrast, the bill before us freezes funding for these two 
programs at this year's levels of $18.7 million for the high school 
program and $15.5 million for the freshman college program. It carries 
forward a cut of $4.4 million from last year, which resulted in the 
elimination of five parts of the high school program. We need to do 
more, not less, to help migrant students succeed in school and college. 
Reductions in these valuable programs should be unacceptable to us all.
  Finally, the Bingaman amendment provides an additional $9.9 million 
to support the nearly 250 colleges and universities across the country 
designated as Hispanic Serving Institutions. Over half of all Hispanic 
students enrolled in higher education are served by these colleges and 
universities. They enable tens of thousands of Hispanic students every 
year to continue their education and obtain a college degree.
  Investing in the education of Hispanic children is a vital part of 
assuring the future strength and well-being of our Nation. I strongly 
urge the Senate to support the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Bingaman amendment. This amendment provides $74 million in much needed 
additional support for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
  Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly defeated an amendment by Senator 
Coburn that would have increased ADAP funding at the expense of the 
Centers for Disease Control construction and renovations account. CDC 
buildings and labs haven't been updated in years, and in some cases 
decades. Today, we are asking CDC to do more to protect public health 
than ever before, especially in light of important priorities like 
avian flu preparedness and combating bioterrorism. It doesn't make 
sense to cut the funds that would help them build the facilities to do 
it, which is why I could not support the Coburn amendment.
  The Bingaman amendment will help provide additional funding for 
lifesaving medications to nearly 150,000 low-income, uninsured or 
underinsured people in the United States. And it does not cut other 
important public health programs to do it. The CDC estimates that over 
212,000 people in the U.S. who have been diagnosed with HIV are not 
receiving treatment, making this additional ADAP funding a critical 
priority. I urge my colleagues to help those not receiving treatment by 
supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about the 
importance of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP. ADAP is a 
vital resource for low-income individuals who are living with HIV/AIDS. 
It helps get medications to those who most need them so that they can 
stay healthy and avoid more costly health care treatments that are 
required if their condition worsens. To date, ADAP has been a 
successful partnership between Federal and State governments, but it is 
rapidly buckling under the strain of budget shortfalls and rising 
demand for services.
  Currently, there are over one million individuals living with HIV in 
the United States, many of whom rely upon expensive medications to stay 
alive. While we have made significant strides in stabilizing the spread 
of HIV in recent years, it is the most vulnerable individuals who are 
unable to afford medications to treat their condition. These are the 
people that ADAP helps. They are not eligible for Medicaid--as most 
State programs only cover those individuals who have been disabled by 
full-blown AIDS. They are individuals who simply cannot afford to 
purchase all the medications required to keep them healthy and active 
members of the community and the workforce.
  Each year, ADAP caseloads increase by 7,000 to 8,000 people. Yet 
funding has not kept pace with that growth. It has been estimated that 
ADAP would need an additional $100 million each year to keep pace with 
increased demand. While increases in drug rebates or State funding 
could contribute to part of that need, they will by no means cover the 
entire amount. The Federal Government must also step up its financial 
commitment to ensure that all individuals, including those new to the 
program, get the care they need.
  Unfortunately, we have not met the new demand. In the budget we are 
debating today, ADAP has only received a $10 million increase over 
amounts appropriated in 2005, the same amoun recommended by the House. 
In 2004, funding for ADAP only increased by $34 million. Year after 
year, ADAP goes underfunded, which means more and more low-income 
individuals are unable to access medications that may keep them alive. 
In my opinion, that is simply wrong.
  In response to funding shortfalls, many states, struggling with their 
own budgetary difficulties, have been forced to create waiting lists, 
implement additional cost sharing requirements or create restrictive 
formularies that create barriers for many individuals to access 
treatment. Other states with lower than average eligibility guidelines 
have been unable to extend coverage to individuals who live in poverty 
because they do not meet restrictive income and asset tests.
  The State of Oregon has done its best to keep ADAP service levels 
constant, with the support of organizations like Cascade AIDS. But it 
is becoming increasingly more difficult to meet the rowing need for 
assistance. Oregon's ADAP has been forced to implement priority service 
ran kings and may have to consider additional cost-sharing requirements 
next year. Our income eligibility guidelines have also been lowered, a 
change which means more individuals are going to go without the 
medications they need. Oregon is not alone.
  Currently, 2,185 low-income individuals are on waiting lists for ADAP 
nationwide. Some of these individuals have been fortunate enough to 
receive temporary assistance through an emergency initiative launched 
last year by the President. However, that program expired in September 
and will be entirely phased out by the end of the year. Individuals on 
waiting lists are sick and in most cases they only get sicker while 
they wait for treatment.
  Sadly, individuals on waiting lists in Kentucky and West Virginia 
died while waiting for acceptance into their States drug assistance 
programs. In a nation with wealth such as ours, it is unacceptable that 
individuals face the threat of dying from AIDS because we do not 
adequately fund the programs such as ADAP. Now is the time for Congress 
to act so further tragedies like these do not occur again.
  Apart from these unfortunate examples, others who are on waiting 
lists are only likely to see their conditions worsen, which means they 
may one day require more costly health care treatment. It is not good 
fiscal policy to continually fail to invest in medical treatments that 
could prevent HIV cases from progressing to full-blown AIDS. It is a 
fact that treating AIDS is much more expensive than treating HIV. The 
more we can do to keep individuals healthier, longer, the better, not 
only in terms of cost savings for the government, but in extending the 
chance that those living with HIV/AIDS can live to see a cure for their 
illness.

  As a matter of fiscal and moral responsibility, Senator Bingaman and 
I

[[Page S11985]]

are offering an amendment today that would increase funding to ADAP 
programs by $74 million in the 2006 budget. That amount, combined with 
the new funding already in the bill, should just barely cover the costs 
associated with new caseload growth in the coming year. I know it will 
not be enough to address past funding inequities, but it is a start. We 
have to act now to do something to address ADAP waiting lists and 
support those States--like Oregon--that have fought to keep their 
programs whole, but often at the expense of imposing increased cost-
sharing and additional access barriers.
  I understand there are enormous demands on the Federal budget, but 
this isn't an issue of increased spending, but of priorities. ADAP has 
the potential to save lives and must be a priority of this Congress. 
For too many years, appropriations have not kept pace with new case 
growth, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. We must act now to 
better support some of our most vulnerable citizens who live with HIV 
and that is why I am asking you to support my amendment.
  I realize I do not have an offset for my request and I respect 
Chairman Specter's position to keep the pending bill in balance. But at 
the same time, there are some issues that are of such great importance 
that they require us to commit new funding, regardless of whether it 
was accounted for in our original spending plan. ADAP is one of them. 
In a bill that appropriates almost $150 billion, I don't believe $74 
million is too much to ask, especially if it could save someone's life.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the 
fiscal year 2005 concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burr
     Corzine
     Inouye
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has an 
amendment which Senator Harkin and I have discussed with him. I believe 
it is acceptable. I yield now to Senator Kerry so he can state his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2216

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside 
and amendment No. 2216 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2216.

  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: To provide for a limitation on funds)

       At the end of title II (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any strategic plan under section 3 of 
     Executive Order 13335 (regarding interoperable health 
     information technology) that lacks a provision that requires 
     the Department of Health and Human Services to give notice to 
     any patient whose information maintained by the Department 
     under the strategic plan is lost, stolen, or used for a 
     purpose other than the purpose for which the information was 
     collected.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, very quickly, this is an amendment that 
makes clear as we gather this gigantic database of information, medical 
information, that we apply the same privacy rights to that information 
we have applied with respect to banking information, so if indeed it 
were either hacked or there were a theft or loss of that information, 
any individual whose information is contained therein would be notified 
so they would be aware of it and able to take any steps necessary to 
protect themselves.
  I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for being 
willing to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2216) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again we are very close to finishing up 
this appropriations bill. There may be one or two other amendments. I 
am hopeful. Please come. I have been deceived by people saying they 
have a plane to catch, they have this or that. But those who have any 
amendments, if they haven't been over here--otherwise, I defer to my 
distinguished chairman.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have an amendment by the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Boxer, who is on the floor and ready to go with her amendment. My 
suggestion would be--we have culled the list, we have called everyone, 
we know of no other rollcall votes--that we move to third reading when 
we conclude the Boxer amendment.
  We have had continuous requests, multiple requests. Senators want to 
know when we are going to conclude. We are very close to concluding. 
Let us, if it is agreeable to my ranking member, take up the Boxer 
amendment, and then have an interlude for anybody else who has an 
amendment. Then we will go to third reading and final passage.
  As previously announced, Senator Boxer is next. Then we have the 
amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. We will have two 
back-to-back rollcall votes on Senator Boxer's amendment and Senator 
Ensign's amendment. Then we will be in a position to have some 
additional voice votes on about half a dozen amendments. Then we are in 
a position to go

[[Page S11986]]

to final passage. Our colleagues can be informed that we are moving 
right along. That should conclude the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and my 
friend from Iowa for being courteous as we tried to work something out. 
It appears we are going to have to vote on this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support afterschool programs.
  I send a modification to amendment No. 2287 to the desk and ask for 
immediate consideration of the modified amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2287), as modified, is as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2287, as modified

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 
                21st century community learning centers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

       (a) Funding Increase.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there is appropriated 
     $51,900,000 for 21st century community learning centers under 
     part B of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.).

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will use a very short amount of time, 
knowing colleagues are anxious to get moving on this bill.
  I feel heavy in my heart because this Senate is such a wonderful 
institution when we authorize afterschool programs in the United States 
of America. We did that, and we have had a very sad response in terms 
of the funding that does not match the authorization.
  I think my colleagues know full well the FBI says there is no program 
that does more to keep our kids out of trouble than afterschool 
programs. That is why Senator Ensign and I teamed up originally to get 
the first of afterschool programs authorized by this Congress. But it 
has been very sad.
  I know the Senator from Pennsylvania supports this program. I know 
the Senator from Iowa, who heads this important subcommittee, supports 
these programs. Most Senators support these programs. But right now is 
a moment when we have to stand up for our kids.
  Look at what has happened. Despite the fact we are supposed to be 
going toward $2.25 billion, we are actually now funding afterschool at 
less than $1 billion--less than we were in 2002 because the afterschool 
programs have not been exempted from across-the-board cuts.
  What we will do today with this amendment is add back--this is very 
important--$51.9 million, which will get it back to the $1 billion 
area. At least we will take it back to where it was in 2002.
  This is a very sad day.
  I want to say something to my friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman 
of the subcommittee and someone whom I admire greatly, Senator Specter. 
What we have here is a real sadness for our children. We have a 
situation where we are actually cutting the funding of afterschool 
programs year after year after year while our children cry out for 
attention after school. The FBI tells us this is the best.
  The Bush administration's Drug Enforcement Agency takes taxpayer 
money and places ads all over America's televisions that say, It is 4 
o'clock in the afternoon. Do you know where your children are? It is 3 
o'clock, 5 o'clock. Make sure you know where your children are. They 
spend taxpayer dollars with one hand warning our families to take care 
of their kids after school and with the other hand we and they are 
complicit in cutting the afterschool programs.
  We are covering 1.3 million children. There is another couple million 
to 3 million who need afterschool care. The least we can do is add 
roughly $51 million to protect this program from inflationary costs and 
at least get it back to where it was in 2002.
  For the sake of our children, for the sake of our families--I am 
talking here about our poor families, our working poor families, our 
middle-class families, and our upper middle-class families, and, yes, 
frankly, even our wealthier families who also support these programs, I 
urge you to please vote aye on this amendment.
  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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California for 
offering this amendment on afterschool funding. I agree with her about 
the importance of the program. It is a line of community support which 
I have recognized for several decades since I was district attorney for 
Philadelphia, since I saw firsthand the high incidence of crime 
committed during the hours between the time students leave school and 
the time they see their parents. Senator Harkin and I have been very 
solicitous about this program and have made very substantial increases 
going back to 1998 when we added $39 million; in 1999, we added $160 
million; in 2000, we added $253 million; in 2001, we added $392 
million; in 2002, we added $154 million. We took a program which was 
funded at $40 million in 1998 and we brought it right up to the billion 
dollar mark. It is a tremendous program.
  One of the grave difficulties of managing this bill is to oppose so 
many amendments which are good. We had to oppose Senator Byrd's $5 
billion for title II, Senator Kennedy's addition to Pell grants, 
Senator Dodd on daycare, Senator Clinton on special education, and so 
it goes. If you want to amass a terrible voting record, be chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education. It is a great place to do it.
  I wish we had more of an allocation. I know how sincere the Senator 
from California is about this program. I very much regret being 
constrained to oppose it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator is a big supporter of the afterschool 
program because I remember when the President was looking to cut it in 
half. He and I were looking at this together, and we spoke. I think it 
was teaming up with Members on both sides of the aisle to help. I want 
to point out to my dear friend that when Senator Ensign and I got 
together and wrote the authorization part which you have been so 
wonderful to fund, we were very clear in our authorization--and 
everyone supported it--that, my God, to actually reduce the funding of 
this program is a big mistake.
  I say to my friend, getting this program to $1 billion occurred 
because we all worked together on the authorization, and we were 
fortunate to have appropriators who agreed with us.
  But in 2002, even with the best efforts of my friend, we haven't even 
protected this program from inflation from 2002 to today and to 2006. 
We actually have a cut in real dollars to the program below inflation. 
It is tragic that we will lose children from this program which the FBI 
says is so important.
  I want to make one more plea to my friend. I am not asking for $1 
billion, which in fact we should have if we follow the authorization. 
All I am asking for is enough funding--such a small sum that it is an 
asterisk in this budget--to please add $51.9 million. That is all. We 
will at least bring it back up to $1 billion, because we haven't been 
protected from across-the-board cuts.
  I make a plea to my friend. I know everything around here is 
precedent setting, to do this or that or the other. These are real 
kids. There is real stuff going on out there, and they need these 
afterschool programs.
  I yield the floor and thank my friend very much for yielding to me.
  Mr. SPECTER. We will keep a sharp eye on this program in conference. 
If there is any way to increase the funding to any extent, Senator 
Harkin and I will be very sympathetic.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
offering this amendment and for being, if she doesn't mind my term, the 
watchdog. We all get wrapped up in a lot of things here. But I can't 
think of anything more important than what Senator Boxer is talking 
about right now. We know what is happening in this country. We know 
more and more people are being squeezed by the fact that we can't raise 
the minimum wage. They are being squeezed by the lack of adequate 
housing. They are being squeezed by entry-level jobs that they cannot 
get. There are all kinds of pressures on families.
  We passed a law 10 years ago, Welfare to Work, to get people off of 
welfare to

[[Page S11987]]

go to work. We always knew that the one big component we never answered 
was, what do you do with the kids? It is both daycare and afterschool 
funding because these parents get home right away--usually single 
parents. We need the funding for the afterschool programs. If we want 
to cut down on teen crime and teen drugs, teen pregnancies, this is the 
way to do it. Senator Boxer is absolutely right. It is a shame we do 
not have the money for it. We should have.

  I thank the Senator for offering this amendment. I hope, with the 
concurrence of our chairman, we can somehow find the money for this. I 
don't know where. It is tight. I know we have a tight situation. I 
cannot think of anything more worthy than this program.
  I thank the Senator from California.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with reluctance, I have to raise a point 
of order. This will push us over the brink. Under section 302(f) of the 
Budget Act, this amendment would create a situation where the authority 
and outlays would be in excess of the subcommittee 302(b) allocation 
for the fiscal year 2006. I expect the Senator from California to move 
to waive.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate that my friend is reluctant 
to raise this. I look forward to the conference, where perhaps we can 
find enough money to protect some of these kids.
  Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I 
move to waive the applicable sections of the act for purposes of the 
pending amendment.
  I ask again 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, we will now proceed to the amendment of 
the Senator from Nevada. It is the anticipation of the managers 
following that amendment that we will have two rollcall votes.
  I ask unanimous consent that after the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, the first rollcall vote be 15 minutes plus 5 and the second a 
10-minute rollcall vote, 10 minutes plus 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2300.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, briefly I 
will comment about Senator Boxer's amendment.
  Senator Boxer and I have worked long and hard on afterschool 
programs, something in which I passionately believe. We worked to try 
to have this program increased without adding to the deficit, so we had 
an offset. It was unfortunate the offset was not accepted. I will 
continue to work with Senator Boxer because it is a program in which I 
believe. However, I also believe in staying within the budget. So 
reluctantly, I will have to vote against Senator Boxer's amendment. I 
say reluctantly. It pains me to do so. To be consistent with my voting 
record this year, I have voted consistently to stay within the budget. 
I will reluctantly oppose that amendment.
  Getting to my amendment, this is a very simple amendment, and I will 
not speak long because I know everyone needs to get home. I will keep 
it as simple as possible.
  My amendment will stop the Department of Education from competing 
against private companies in the United States that are developing 
software to teach Chinese students to speak the English language.
  Normally, one would think that would be a good thing, for the 
Department of Education to be able to help the Chinese students learn 
English--English is an international language--that would be a good 
thing, and we all applaud those efforts. The problem is, there are at 
least five companies in the United States and probably many more that 
already have invested their research dollars and created jobs in the 
United States to produce this very same software. This software exists 
today and these companies in the United States would like to sell to 
the Chinese market.
  I don't think our Government should be in the business of competing 
with the private sector. We are all worried about jobs in the United 
States, and here we have the Department of Education contracting to 
develop software that they can give to the Chinese so they can teach 
their kids English.
  There are very effective programs out there that have been developed. 
We have letter after letter after letter from these companies opposing 
what the Department of Education is doing. They have asked for help.
  What this amendment is about is protecting jobs in the United States, 
protecting those software engineers, those high-value, high-quality 
jobs in the United States, and to help them be able to sell to other 
countries--in this case, especially to the Chinese.
  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting my 
amendment and is going to consider this vote in their ratings. If you 
believe in fiscally conservative principles, we hope you vote for the 
Ensign amendment.
  I don't want to take up more time other than to reemphasize this 
point: Protect jobs in America. We have all voted on trade issues here. 
With trade issues, the premise behind those is we open markets in both 
places. We all know that the Chinese and low-cost labor have brought a 
lot of products into the United States. Here we have products that have 
been developed in the United States that could be sold in China. That 
is how trade is supposed to work. While we are doing free-trade 
agreements, we should not cut off the very jobs created in America to 
sell to the people in China.
  I urge passage of our amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to 
protect jobs in America and vote for this valuable amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from 
Nevada is seeking to do, but let me see if I can put his amendment in a 
broader perspective.
  I agree, as a general rule, we ought to prevent the Government from 
directly competing with the private sector for a variety of reasons, 
but the E-Language Learning System is a unique case, and we ought to 
treat it as such. There are three reasons.
  This is not just some program somebody cooked up and put in the 
budget; this is a program that was initiated directly by President Bush 
as a result of a summit meeting with President Jiang Zemin in China in 
October of 2001. This was a President Bush and Jiang Zemin summit 
proposal from 2001.
  The President announced the intent of our Government to implement 
this program at the APEC summit in Shanghai after meeting with 
President Jiang. Secretary Powell reiterated the importance of the 
program at the APEC summit 1 year later.
  We do a lot of talking around here about the importance of public 
diplomacy, how do we do a better job getting the American image, the 
American voice, the American culture and values seen around the world. 
This is an important part of our public diplomacy since it will help 
Chinese children learn English and learn more about the United States 
of America.
  Of all of the foreign ``aid'' we have ever promoted since World War 
II, the most effective has been in education where their students study 
here or our students study there. This can be utilized to help American 
children learn Chinese and other critical foreign languages in the 
future, something that is important to our national security, according 
to the Hart-Rudman Report and the 9/11 Commission Report.
  This is the first and most important point, this agreement between 
the President of the United States, George W. Bush, and the President 
of China. It is in our national interests.
  The other two points, quickly. There has been some argument that the 
contract awarded to implement this program that was agreed upon by the 
Presidents of our two nations is somehow unfair. It is important for my 
colleagues to know that this contract was openly competed and conforms 
to the research and development requirement of the STAR schools 
legislation following the same rules followed on similar programs for 
the last 17 years. It

[[Page S11988]]

was awarded in open competition to Northrop Grumman and subcontracted 
to a company called Little Planet, a company in Nashville, TN. That is 
how I happened to know about it.
  Some of the unhappy companies, I am told, met with the Department of 
Education to talk about how to cooperate with the program and are now 
complaining. Mr. President, $2.5 million of the taxpayers' dollars have 
already been spent in this program, more than one-third of the total 
contract. So we will be pulling the plug and wasting $2.5 million of 
taxpayers' dollars a third of the way through a program that was agreed 
to by the President of the United States and President Jiang Zemin of 
China and flushing the money right down the drain.
  Finally, this fairly awarded contract was the result of the agreement 
between the leaders of our country and China and is being managed so it 
will help, not hurt, the private sector. In an effort to prevent unfair 
competition with the private sector, the Department of Education tells 
me it has agreed to share the results of its research to promote 
further development of the language software. In fact, the Department 
hopes the private sector will ``adopt [the program's] unique and 
advanced feature that [the Department is] researching and carefully 
testing, including authentic voice recognition, gaming, and research-
based learning environments delivered through low-cost web-based 
technology.'' So the goal is, in the long run, to help the private 
sector.
  In conclusion, while the amendment is well-intentioned, and I 
understand the Senator's point, it is the wrong approach. It is wrong 
because it stops a program agreed to by the leaders of two countries, a 
commitment that is in our national security interest, a commitment that 
is part of our public diplomacy. It was arrived at fairly. It was 
competed. A third of the money has already been spent. And the 
Department of Education has agreed to share the results of its research 
with the private sector.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support it 
because it is in the national security interest of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Very briefly, I will clarify a couple of points.
  One, that this was a bid process.
  To use an example, say, for instance, that the Government, the 
Department of Education, wanted to give away printers to China, so they 
sent out several bids. They had an open bidding process and selected 
one company. Even though it was fairly bid, would we want the Federal 
Government using taxpayer dollars to buy from one company so they could 
give that product to the Chinese? I think not because that would be a 
disadvantage for other companies in the United States who should be 
able to compete to sell their products in China.
  On the second point the Senator from Tennessee raised, he said the 
Department of Education is willing to share research on some of the 
innovations that are trying to develop. Looking through the details of 
what the Department of Education has asked for the software companies 
to develop, there are at least five software companies that already 
meet those specifications. They already have developed the features the 
Department of Education is attempting to develop.
  Once again, I urge agreement of the amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. China is a pretty big country. There are several 
hundred million children there who might have an opportunity to learn 
English.
  If our President, George W. Bush, in a meeting with the leader of 
China, thinks it is a good idea to bid out a $9 million contract to 
improve the ways we help Chinese children learn English, if he believes 
that is in our national security, I don't think we ought to pull the 
plug on it a third of the way through it. There is plenty of 
opportunity for the private sector in the United States to help 
hundreds of millions of Chinese children learn English, and I hope they 
will do that.
  I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the request of Senator Ensign, I ask 
unanimous consent that his name be taken off as a cosponsor of the 
Boxer amendment because there was a change in the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my comments will be very limited as to 
the pending amendment.
  Last year, in the conference report, there was a direction that the 
Department not fund any grant that will compete directly with the 
private sector, and further that the Department report to the 
Committees on Appropriation of the House and the Senate on the 
activities undertaken on this project. It is my understanding that no 
funds were used on this project last year.
  It is a little hard to evaluate the factual basis as I listen to the 
arguments of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Nevada. 
However, my own judgment in looking at the record is that it is 
unlikely any funds are going to be spent which would--we will include 
the same kind of conference language next year, this year, that we had, 
which should maintain and should respond to the concerns about any 
grant which will compete with the private sector, and it leaves the 
Department of Education at their discretion to use this system if they 
conclude it will help Chinese students of any age to learn English.
  On the basis of a very limited record, my vote will be cast with the 
Senator from Tennessee.
  In the absence of further debate, can we proceed to two amendments?
  Mr. ENSIGN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the plan at this point, under the 
unanimous consent agreement already reached, is to have a 15-minute 
plus 5 rollcall vote on the Boxer amendment, a 10-minute rollcall vote 
plus 5 on the Ensign amendment, and then we will be very close to final 
passage.
  The concern has been to submit the colloquies and have a few voice 
votes now, but I want to be sure when our colleagues come to vote on 
these two amendments we know the lay of the land, in case anybody has 
not been notified and wants to have a further consideration. But it 
would be the anticipation of the managers, following these two votes, 
there would be a very brief period of time, and then we would go to 
final passage and conclude the bill.
  I yield the floor.


                Vote on Amendment No. 2287, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Boxer amendment. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu

[[Page S11989]]


     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Inouye
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2299

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of an amendment 
that the Senate has agreed to, the amendment offered by Senator Cochran 
adding $12 million for health care for historically underserved 
communities, including $2 million to help fund the Sickle Cell 
Treatment Act that was passed last year.
  I thank Senator Cochran for his concern and sensitivity on the issue 
of funding the Sickle Cell Treatment Act. I thank Senators Specter and 
Harkin for similarly showing sensitivity to the importance of funding 
this bill and funding health care in historically underserved areas. 
With this additional $2 million, we will be able to get the program off 
the ground, begin designating sickle cell disease outreach centers, and 
provide additional grants for medical treatment, education, and other 
health care services for sickle cell patients.
  I can't emphasize enough how much the leadership of these Senators 
means to the community of people who are affected by this disease, not 
just the 70,000 Americans who have it, not just the 2.5 million 
Americans who have the trait, but their families and friends who 
struggle every day with this disease. I thank the bill managers for 
accepting the amendment and thank Senator Cochran for offering it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to the 
vote on the Ensign amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Ensign amendment 
No. 2300.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2300.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Inouye
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 2300) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. That last 15-
minute vote was 14 minutes. We now have a very brief period for 
colloquies and some agreed-to amendments. Senator Harkin and I wanted 
to be sure that we hadn't missed anybody, so we did not do this in 
advance of the last two votes, but we will take only a few minutes and 
I anticipate that we will start this vote before 6 o'clock, which is 
not too bad for Labor-HHS on a Thursday afternoon.


          Amendment Nos. 2322, 2285, 2277, and 2233, Withdrawn

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
Nos. 2322, 2285, 2277, and 2233 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2230, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Coburn amendment 
No. 2230, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the modification to the 
desk?
  Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.__ LIMITATION ON TRAVEL AND CONFERENCES.

       The appropriations for travel, conference programs and 
     related expenses for the Department of Health and Human 
     Services are reduced by $15,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2282

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Levin's amendment No. 2282 
provides for the Secretary to undertake a family unification effort. No 
funding is involved. It is language only. It has been cleared by 
Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2282.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To create a national family reunification initiative)

       On Page 165, before the period on line 5, insert the 
     following:

     : Provided, That the Secretary shall undertake a family 
     reunification effort in concert with national non-profit 
     organizations engaged in similar efforts.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
program has successfully carried out activities and services that 
support family reunification, family preservation, community-based 
family support, and other services for children in need.
  My amendment builds upon the success of this program, through an 
enhanced, coordinated effort to reunite children with their families, 
by directing the Secretary to undertake a family reunification 
initiative in concert with national non-profit organizations engaged in 
similar efforts. The goal is to ensure that the most effective methods 
are utilized to achieve family reunification expeditiously. This can be 
achieved by collecting, tracking and coordinating information 
maintained by national non-profit organizations that are also engaged 
in family reunification efforts.
  It is quite evident why such a coordinated effort is needed. Over the 
past several months, we learned a lot about displacement. After nearly 
2 months have passed since Hurricane Katrina, thousands are still 
seeking family members. Of the 2,000 foster children who fled New 
Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, 37 are still unaccounted for.
  Overall, there have been 4,878 reports of missing children and over 
1,600 not yet resolved. There have been 12,754 adults reported as 
missing. Of these cases, 6,562 remain unresolved. We have all witnessed 
rescues from the rooftops in New Orleans. It was the norm rather than 
the exception in many instances for intact families to be separately 
rescued and subsequently sent to many different places, all across the 
country.
  Some have miraculously reconnected with one another. Far too few. We 
cannot depend on miracles; we need a coordinated system that will help 
unite family members who seek one another. It is for the social good to 
bring families together, when possible. Family

[[Page S11990]]

matters. The strength of the family is greater than its parts. The 
stress of losing your home, your job, your community, does not compare 
to losing your family.
  I am pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. The amendment is No. 2282 or No. 
2280?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2282.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2282.
  The amendment (No. 2282) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2289, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2289, as 
modified, proposed by Senator Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 178, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $15,121,000 for 
     activities authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 
     of which $13,500,000 shall be for payments to States to 
     promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which 
     $8,621,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and 
     advocacy systems for voters with disabilities.
       On page 137, line 9, both amounts should be further reduced 
     by $7,000,000.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I Support Senator Dayton's amendment to 
increase the funding for disability access grants mandated under the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
  Senator Dayton's amendment to H.R. 3010, the fiscal year 06 Labor-HHS 
Appropriation bill, provides a $7 million dollar increase to the HHS 
provisions. Specifically, Senator Dayton's amendment would increase the 
HHS appropriations by $7 million for disability access grants and 
protection and advocacy services for voting purposes and ensuring full 
participation in the elections process by individuals with 
disabilities.
  I support the outstanding work of Senator Dayton. Congress has failed 
to fully fund HAVA disability grants. To date, with respect to the 
disability access grants, Congress authorized a total of $100 million 
but has appropriated only $33 million, roughly a third of the funding 
required to ensure our Americans with disabilities have equal access to 
the franchise for voting purposes in the upcoming Federal elections in 
2006, a few months away. With respect to the protection and Advocacy 
grants, Congress authorized a total of $40 million but has appropriated 
only $12 million, roughly a fourth of the funding required to ensure 
our Americans with disability have equal access to voter registration 
and polling places in the 2006 Federal elections. As a result, the 
disability grant programs have a combined total HAVA funding shortfall 
of $95 million in Federal funds for election administration 
requirements.
  Senator Dayton's amendment for $7 million is offset by administrative 
expenses under ``other services'' which received a $599 million 
increase over the fiscal year 05 level.
  January 1, 2006 is the effective date for two of the most important 
Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: The voluntary voting system 
standards and the state-wide computerized voter registration list. Both 
requirements are designed to ensure that individuals with disabilities 
can exercise their right to an accessible ballot.
  In light of the above, it is essential that Congress does not fail to 
honor our commitment to the disability communities. If we fail to 
provide adequate funding, we may jeopardize the opportunity of States 
to implement the most historic election reforms in America and the 
opportunity to voters, including the disability communities, to fully 
exercise their franchise in the upcoming 2006 Federal elections. It is 
time to fulfill our promise to the disabilities communities.
  I thank Senator Dayton for his leadership on this HAVA issue and I 
commend the Chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator 
Harkin, for accommodating this increase.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2289, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2289), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2295, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Enzi's amendment No. 
2295, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Enzi, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2295, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 115, strike lines 15 and 16, and insert the 
     following:

     under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, or to 
     modify, through regulatory or administrative action, the 
     procedure for redesignation of local areas as specified in 
     subtitle B of title I of that Act (including applying the 
     standards specified in section 116(a)(3)(B) of that Act, but 
     notwithstanding the time limits specified in section 
     116(a)(3)(B) of that Act), until such time as legislation 
     reauthorizing the Act is enacted. Nothing in the preceding 
     sentence shall permit or require the Secretary of Labor to 
     withdraw approval for such redesignation from a State that 
     received the approval not later than October 12, 2005 or to 
     revise action taken or modify the redesignation procedure 
     being used by the Secretary in order to complete such 
     redesignation for a State that initiated the process of such 
     redesignation by submitting any request for such 
     redesignation not later than October 26, 2005.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2295, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2295), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2234, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Coburn's amendment No. 
2234, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. 
     Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 2234, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 222, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND 
                   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Estimate.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Education shall estimate improper 
     payments pursuant to section 2 of the Improper Payments 
     Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note, Public Law 107-
     300) under--
       (1) in the case of the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 
     Program under part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 670 
     et seq,), the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397aa et seq.), and the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.); and
       (2) in the case of the Secretary of Education, title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in the case of the programs specified in subsection 
     (a)(1), and the Secretary of Education, in the case of the 
     program specified in subsection (a)(2), shall report to 
     Congress on the specific actions taken under each such 
     program to comply with section 2 of the Improper Payments 
     Information Act of 2002, including a schedule for full 
     compliance with such Act within fiscal year 2006.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2234, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2234), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2280, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Harkin's amendment No. 
2280.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a modification to 2280, which I 
send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2280, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 178, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 222. (a) Section 1310.12(a) of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations shall not apply before

[[Page S11991]]

     June 30, 2006, to any agency or its designee that provides 
     transportation services for children enrolled in a Head Start 
     program or an Early Head Start program if such agency or 
     designee places such children in child restraint systems (as 
     defined in section 571.213 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations).
       (b) Section 640(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9835(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Transportation Safety.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Waiver authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may waive, for a period of 
     up to one year, the requirements of regulations promulgated 
     under paragraph (1) of this subsection and section 1310.12(a) 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations for one or more vehicles 
     used by the agency or its designee in transporting children 
     enrolled in a Head Start program or an Early Head Start 
     program if--
       ``(i) such requirements pertain to child restraint systems 
     and bus monitors;
       ``(ii) the agency demonstrates that compliance with such 
     requirements will result in a significant disruption to the 
     Head Start program or the Early Head Start program; and
       ``(iii) the waiver is in the best interest of the child.
       ``(B) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2280, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2280), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2272

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2272, proposed by 
Senator Nelson of Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Nelson 
     of Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 2272.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the 
Treasury should ensure that existing Federal employment preferences for 
  disabled veterans and Federal policies promoting opportunities for 
    other disabled persons are carried forward as a part of any tax 
                      collection contract program)

       On page 222, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 permitted the 
     outsourcing or privatization by the Internal Revenue Service 
     of collection of unpaid and past due federal income taxes.
       (2) The Internal Revenue Service is about to issue to 
     private-sector debt collection companies tax collection 
     contracts that will create up to 4,000 well paying private-
     sector jobs.
       (3) If the same tax collection activities were conducted by 
     Federal employees, Federal law would give preferences in 
     employment to disabled veterans in filling those federal 
     jobs.
       (4) By enacting legislation to improve the Internal Revenue 
     Service's tax collection efforts and outsourcing or 
     privatizing those efforts, Congress did not intend to curtail 
     the Nation's long-standing commitment to creating meaningful 
     job opportunities for disabled veterans and other persons 
     with severe disabilities.
       (5) The contracts the Internal Revenue Service will execute 
     with private-sector debt collection companies provide a 
     unique opportunity for the Federal government to stimulate 
     the creation of well paying jobs for disabled veterans and 
     other persons with disabilities.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Secretary of the Treasury should, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, ensure that existing Federal employment 
     preferences for disabled veterans and Federal policies 
     promoting opportunities for other disabled persons are 
     carried forward as a part of any tax collection contract 
     program carried out under section 6306 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the American Jobs Creation 
     Act of 2004, and
       (2) the criteria applied by the Internal Revenue Service in 
     awarding contracts to private-sector tax collection companies 
     under such program should incorporate a preference for 
     companies hiring disabled veterans and other disabled 
     persons.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2272.
  The amendment (No. 2272) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2283: Senator Reed, 
Senator Corzine, and Senator Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if no other Senator has any amendment to 
offer, we are now ready for final passage.
  I yield to Senator Frist.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate both the chairman and 
ranking member for a tremendous job. This next vote is on passage of 
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the very last of our series of 
appropriations bills that have come before the Senate. Again, 
congratulations to Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd and again the 
chairman and ranking member on this bill.
  We will be in session tomorrow. However, we will have no rollcall 
votes. On Monday, we will begin consideration of the deficit reduction 
bill, and we are working on a schedule of debate for that measure. I do 
not expect to have votes on Monday. We will not have votes on Monday, 
but Senators should be aware that next week will be a busy week on the 
deficit reduction bill.
  Senator Specter has set a high mark with rollcall votes, and people 
have come to the floor on time. We are going to continue to encourage--
in fact, require--that. I encourage Senators to be ready for quick 
rollcall votes throughout next week.
  This is the last vote tonight. There are no votes tomorrow and no 
votes on Monday.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as a final word, Senator Harkin and I 
thank our very devoted staff: Bettilou Taylor, Ellen Murray, Jim 
Sourwine, Mark Laisch, Sudip Parikh, Lisa Bernhardt, Candice Rogers, 
Rachel Jones, Erik Fatemi, and Adrienne Hallett.
  I notice Senator Grassley is waving his arm. He is here 6 minutes 
early. Let the record show it is 5:53.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, very quickly, this is a very big bill. It is 
very important for millions of people in this country. The management 
of this bill has been spectacular. Senator Specter and Senator Harkin 
should be congratulated. They did a very good job in a short timeframe. 
We should all recognize the outstanding job the two of them did.


                   mathematics and science education

  Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today to discuss and bring to my colleague's 
attention an issue that I believe must become one of our Nation's top 
education priorities. As the world's economy becomes more 
interconnected, our Nation's economic edge will continue to depend on 
our ability to innovate. We cannot remain competitive without a 
workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans.
  We must invest in our children and enable them to fully develop their 
God-given talents in order to compete in a knowledge-based, global 
economy. This means we have to place more emphasis on careers in 
science, engineering and math. Right now, we are not getting the job 
done.
  Globally, the United States ranks 17th in the proportion of the 
college-age population earning science and engineering degrees, down 
from 3rd place several decades ago.
  While China graduated 600,000 engineers and India graduated 350,000 
last year, only 70,000 students earned degrees in engineering here in 
the United States.
  In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with science or engineering 
degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations. Countries 
including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan 
and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering 
graduates than the United States.
  Is the chairman aware of these startling statistics?
  Mr. SPECTER. I say to my colleague that I am aware of these examples 
and I share his concern.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman for his attention to the issue 
and the opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of science and 
math education today. I know there are other Senators, especially 
Senators Alexander and Bingaman, who care a great deal about this 
issue. In fact, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Alexander and 
Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science to compile a report on 
the top 10 actions the Federal Government can take to enhance our 
ability to compete in our global economy. And while the academy 
provided

[[Page S11992]]

a variety of recommendations, from the crucial need for energy 
independence and investment in research infrastructure--which are in 
their own right extremely important--a great deal of their 
recommendations focus on the need to improve our Nation's math and 
science coursework and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who 
will prepare our students for futures in highly innovative careers.
  Has the chairman seen this report?
  Mr. SPECTER. I have. And I say to the Senator that the bill before us 
provides funding for a number of programs that are consistent with the 
academy's report. One such program I know my colleague is familiar with 
is the Mathematics and Science Partnership, MSP, program that provides 
grants to improve basic student performance in math and science through 
a variety of programs and activities. Many of the program's allowable 
activities, like summer institutes for teacher training, are specific 
activities the National Academy recommends we pursue in order to 
enhance our children's development in science and math. The committee 
has provided a total of $178.5 million for mathematics and science 
programs in fiscal year 2006. The House-passed bill includes $190 
million for this program.

  We are, of course, working under a tight budget with this bill, but I 
want my colleague to know that as we move to conference, I will work to 
ensure this program, and other similar math and science programs 
receive the highest possible amount of funding.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman. I have heard from my State's 
superintendent that MSP grants have gone a long way in Ohio to support 
programs the Ohio Science Institute, which is a statewide professional 
development opportunity for science teachers of grades 3-10, and the 
Ohio Mathematics Academy Program, which is a statewide professional 
development opportunity for mathematics teachers in similar grades.
  As the chairman and many of my colleagues are aware, I am a fiscal 
conservative and understand the deficit and funding constraints we 
face.
  Yet, in light of the National Academy's report and other studies that 
point to our Nation's declining rank in science and math students, I 
don't know of too many other programs that deserve our focus and 
investment more than those that will prepare our children to compete in 
the global marketplace.
  I thank the chairman for his commitment to science and math education 
programs as we move to conference on this appropriations bill. I hope 
his commitment to quality science and math education will extend even 
further down the road, as we prepare our budgets for the next fiscal 
year.


                        cdc's arthritis program

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and Senator 
Harkin for all of their work on this bill. Mr. President, as you know, 
arthritis is the Nation's leading cause of disability, and it impacts 
the lives of 44 million Americans including 300,000 children. Very few 
people know, however, that people with rheumatoid arthritis die 5 to 10 
years earlier than those without arthritis. In 2003, arthritis claimed 
the lives of 9,500 Americans.
  In response to this national epidemic, the CDC, and over 90 national 
organizations developed the Nation's first ever public health blueprint 
to fight arthritis--the National Arthritis Action Plan. Following 
release of the plan in 1998, the committee, under your leadership, 
established an arthritis program at the CDC and supported a cooperative 
relationship between the agency and its partners. This partnership has 
supported several significant elements of the NAAP and continues to 
play an instrumental part in reducing the pain and disability of 
arthritis for millions of Americans. It is my understanding that the 
committee has included sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2006 
appropriation for the CDC to sustain this collaboration with its 
partners at the same level.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my good friend from Georgia for his remarks. I 
am very proud of the role the committee has played in establishing and 
expanding the arthritis program at CDC. I believe deeply in the vital 
role of the CDC and its partners in this important battle and, yes, the 
committee has provided funds to sustain this cooperative relationship.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank my friends, the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia and the chairman, for their words and just take a moment 
to add my endorsement for this important program I am very proud of the 
role this subcommittee has played in the reduction of the arthritic 
pain and suffering experienced by so many Americans.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the chairman.


                  COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING GRANTS

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I first want to thank Chairman Specter and 
Ranking Member Harkin for their diligent work on the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill. Budgets are very tight these days and I appreciate 
how well the chairman and the ranking member were able to address so 
many of the important issues in this bill. With all of this in mind, I 
want to enter into a colloquy to clarify a key issue concerning this 
measure.
  Our Nation's community colleges are critical to our economy. So many 
men and women across our country have lost their jobs, and our 
traditional manufacturing industries have been hit especially hard. In 
the midst of this economic transition, community colleges have been a 
real beacon of hope. In North Carolina, for example, workforce 
development programs at Piedmont Tech and Forsyth Community College, 
are training former tobacco and textile workers for new, well-paying 
jobs in health care and biotechnology. Community colleges are leading 
the way training workers for the high growth, high demand jobs of the 
21st century.
  I am so grateful, as I know the community colleges across the Nation 
are as well, for Chairman Specter's efforts to fully fund the 
President's request for Community-Based Job Training Grants in last 
year's appropriations process. Unfortunately, having reviewed the 
provisions contained in the House-passed Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, 
the Department of Labor and I are very concerned about the future of 
this program.
  The House bill designates $125 million in funding for fiscal year 
2006 while at the same time rescinding $125 million of fiscal year 2005 
funding for the program. This cuts the program in half for both fiscal 
years and dramatically reduces the number of dislocated workers our 
community colleges can train. Achieving the greatest possible funding 
amount for this program must be a top priority. I know that Senator 
Cornyn is strongly supporting increased funding for this program and I 
thank him for his efforts to help community colleges.
  The Community-Based Job Training Grant Program is providing much-
needed funding for community colleges across our country and in my home 
State of North Carolina. Just last week, the Labor Department announced 
grants for 70 community colleges in 40 States, exhausting the $125 
million pot of available money allocated for this program. Nationwide, 
388 colleges applied for this funding, and in North Carolina, just one 
of the 16 applicants, Haywood Community College, was selected to 
receive this funding. We all know that grant programs are very 
competitive; still, this funding is clearly not coming close to meeting 
the needs of our community colleges. They are on the front lines, 
training workers and helping grow our economy, and we can and should do 
better to assist them in this endeavor.
  Can the chairman assure me of his commitment to the funding of this 
program for fiscal year 2006?
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the senior Senator from North Carolina for her 
continued interest in this critical program. I want to assure her that 
the Senate Appropriations Committee strongly opposes the House 
rescission to the Community-Based Job Training Grants, and we are 
committed to funding the program at the highest level possible within 
the existing budgetary constraints. I thank the senior Senator from 
North Carolina.
  Mrs. DOLE. I thank the chairman for his work on this critical issue.


                         office of men's health

  Mr. CRAPO. I want to express my appreciation for the chairman's 
efforts, and those of the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Harkin, 
in working to ensure the health and well-being of Americans everywhere. 
As you know, a

[[Page S11993]]

silent health crisis is currently affecting America's men. On average, 
American men live shorter and less healthy lives than American women. 
Men lead in each of the 15 major of death in America except Alzheimer's 
and have a life span of almost 6 years shorter than their female 
counterparts. While this health crisis is of particular concern to men, 
it is also a concern for women whose fathers, husbands, sons and 
brothers feel the physical, financial and emotional effects of poor 
health. Men's health is also a concern for employers who pay the costs 
of medical care, and lose productive employees. In addition Federal, 
State and local governments must often absorb the enormous costs of 
premature death and disability, including the costs of caring for 
dependents left behind.
  There are a number of ailments of particular concern to men. Prostate 
cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in the United States 
among men, accounting for 33 percent of all cancer cases. An estimated 
230,000 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer this year 
alone, and approximately 30,000 will die. Prostate cancer, 
unfortunately, is not the only health threat facing men. Over 8,000 
men, ages 15 to 40, will be diagnosed this year with testicular cancer, 
and 390 of these men will die of this disease in 2005.
  Fortunately, many of these conditions are treatable if detected early 
enough. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 and thanks to 
early detection and treatment was able to beat the disease. I had 
prostate specific antigen, PSA, tests and other recommended tests every 
3 to 6 months after my surgery. Last year, my doctors detected a slight 
rise in PSA, and I underwent successful radiation treatment. Because I 
caught and treated the onset of this disease early on, I was able to 
beat it, again. Appropriate use of tests such as PSA exams and blood 
pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol screens, in conjunction with 
clinical exams and self-testing, can result in the early detection of 
many problems and in increased survival rates.
  Unfortunately, many men are not taking the steps necessary to protect 
themselves and their families from these devastating conditions. 
Statistically, women visit the doctor far more often than men. Too 
often, men fail to get routine checkups or health counseling, and they 
often ignore symptoms or delay seeking medical attention when sick or 
in pain. In addition, when men do seek care, embarrassment can often 
prevent them from openly discussing health concerns with their 
physicians.
  To increase men's health awareness I have introduced legislation to 
establish an Office of Men's Health under the Department of Health and 
Human Services. This office would be based on the Office of Women's 
Health, currently operating within HHS, which has done a fantastic job 
of assisting women in identifying and battling many conditions common 
to women. Educating men, their families, and health care providers 
about the importance of early detection of male health problems can 
result in reducing rates of mortality for male-specific diseases, as 
well as improve the health of America's men and its overall economic 
well-being. While an Office of Men's Health is not a cure-all, it will 
assist men to focus on many health problems that can be treated 
successfully if diagnosed early. Prevention and early detection can 
only happen with increased public awareness, something the proposed 
office hopes to provide. I yield to the distinguished chairman to 
elaborate on this point.
  Mr. SPECTER. I, too, recognize the importance of correct information, 
prevention, and early detection in health care. Clearly, efforts must 
be made to encourage men to address their health problems in a 
confident, timely, and meaningful manner. I encourage the 
administration to work with my distinguished colleague to establish an 
Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have filed an amendment at the desk which I had hoped 
the Senate would vote on prior to passage of this bill. Unfortunately 
given the current parliamentary situation, the only way for a vote to 
occur on the important issue of fiscal responsibility is by suspending 
the rules. My amendment would not be in order at this time and 
therefore my option is to move to suspend rules XVI and XXII. Although 
clearly that motion is within my rights as an individual Senator, I do 
not believe that is the best way for this body to proceed. Our rules 
and precedents govern how we operate on these appropriations, bills and 
I think that we should work within that framework. Therefore, I am not 
going to make that motion because it is not an appropriate way for the 
Senate to address this amendment. I will say, however, that the Senate 
will vote on this issue. I will be back on this floor at the first 
opportunity available to this Senator and the Senate will work its will 
on this language.
  Mr. FRIST. I greatly appreciate the Senator's commitment to this 
issue. It is imperative that this Congress exercise fiscal discipline 
and I concur that an important step must be to control spending, while 
securing our Nation's defense. Next week, the Senate will do just that 
as we act on the first deficit reduction package in a decade. I am 
certain that the Senator from Oklahoma will continue to pursue his 
efforts. There will be ample opportunities, including the deficit 
reduction bill, for him to exercise his rights to do so, in a manner 
that does not violate the spirit of the Senate rules. I look forward to 
him bringing this important issue before the Senate in the future.


                  Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman the need to amend the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act, RECA.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CRAPO. As my colleagues are aware, the National Academy of 
Sciences, NAS, released a report on April 28 of this year calling on 
Congress to establish new scientific criteria for decisions about 
awarding Federal compensation to people who have developed specific 
diseases, including certain cancers, as a result of exposure to 
radioactive fallout from U.S. nuclear weapons tests. I wholeheartedly 
agree with them.
  When Congress passed RECA 15 years ago, an important first step was 
taken to provide compassionate assistance to those directly affected by 
nuclear testing conducted by the United States. However, it soon became 
clear that a legislative remedy which was bound by geographic 
restrictions, and not scientific evidence, was not sufficient to fully 
rectify the problem at hand. This was confirmed in 1999, when Senator 
Hatch introduced his amendments to expand RECA and include affected 
counties in Arizona.
  Today, the NAS has determined that residents in counties and States 
far from the original Nevada Test Site were not only exposed to 
radiation, but may even have been exposed to much higher levels than 
those in currently eligible areas. In fact, there are areas in my 
native Idaho that have demonstrably higher incidence of thyroid dosage 
of radiation than any other county currently covered by RECA. It seems 
unconscionable to me that people living in these areas are not 
currently eligible for compensation.
  Those affected are not asking for special treatment, they are simply 
asking for fairness. As R. Julian Preston, director of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Carcinogenesis 
Division, stated, ``To be equitable, any compensation program needs to 
be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must be treated 
alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on the latest 
science.''
  To rectify this inequity, I think it is of utmost importance that 
Congress take up my legislation, S. 998 to include the State of Idaho 
as an affected area under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
  Additionally, it is incumbent upon Congress to address the long-term 
challenges faced by the RECA program. The NAS report makes several 
specific recommendations, chief among them that Congress should 
establish a new process for reviewing individual claims, based on 
probability of causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used 
in the courts and other radiation compensation programs. It also 
recommends that the RECA program be expanded to include workers 
involved in uranium milling and ore transportation. I urge you to join 
me in implementing these suggestions of the NAS into legislation.

[[Page S11994]]

  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this issue and 
recognize that he has legislation pending in Congress to address the 
needs of affected Idahoans. I say to my friend and colleague that I 
will work with him to identify necessary improvements and to respond to 
findings contained in the NAS report. I also urge the administration to 
work diligently to help those still in need.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the distinguished chairman.


                               THIMEROSAL

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Addressing my distinguished colleagues from 
Pennsylvania and Iowa, the subcommittee Chairman and ranking member, I 
wanted to talk with you about the need to study further the issue of 
thimerosal in vaccines and whether there is any association with autism 
and other autism spectrum disorders. As you know, autism is a neuro-
developmental disorder characterized by severe impairments in language 
development and socialization. The American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, 
says that currently 1 in 166 children has autism or an autism spectrum 
disorder. Some in the autism community attribute this rise to changes 
in the vaccine schedule which began in 1990. Three of the four vaccines 
between 1990 and 2000 given to American children at the 2,4, and 6 
month doctor visit contained thimerosal which is a vaccine preservative 
that is 50 percent mercury by weight. Mercury of course is a known 
neurotoxin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of this issue.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am aware of this issue too. I note that thimerosal has 
been out of childhood vaccines since 2001. I understand that the AAP 
doesn't think there is a link between thimerosal and autism and that an 
Institute of Medicine, IOM, report indicated that the committee didn't 
believe thimerosal caused autism. Of course, this does not mean there 
isn't an association. We should recognize that few diseases have direct 
causes attributed to them.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I believe that we must at least consider an 
association between thimerosal exposure and autism. I understand the 
rate of autism has risen perhaps 800 percent since 1990 and although 
there could be a number of reasons including better diagnostics, this 
coincided with an increased exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, which 
again is 50 percent mercury by weight.
  I have talked to Director Gerberding at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, CDC, which is our Nation's premier public 
health organization. She said that there is room for further study. I 
note that thimerosal is still in our influenza vaccine. And we want 
people to get that vaccine.
  Mr. HARKIN. What does the Senator propose?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Under the Senator's distinguished leadership, the 
committee has increased the NIH budget to 29.4 billion dollars, an 
increase of over $1 billion from last year. I applaud those efforts. 
Accordingly, under his leadership the budget of the National Institute 
of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, has increased from $644 to 
$667 million.
  I would ask that the NIEHS lend its expertise in heavy metal toxicity 
and to work in cooperation with the CDC to study, using respected 
expert independent researchers, whether there is any association 
between thimerosal and autism.
  I note that we now have a Vaccine Safety Datalink, VSD, a 
computerized CDC database that has followed 7 million vaccinated 
children in 7 managed care organizations throughout the United States 
from 1990 on to see if they develop diseases of any type, including 
neuro-developmental disorders. Some experts suggest this database could 
provide answers regarding the thimerosal-autism link. The Institute of 
Medicine, IOM, regards the VSD as a unique data base with which the 
public should become familiar. I would expect that the VSD would be 
used in further studies.
  My staff and I have talked with two former NIEHS directors. They 
support additional effort to study the association between thimerosal 
and autism. They assure me that NIEHS would be able to administer a 
grant for carefully selected expert independent researchers to join in 
the study of the VSD with the CDC. And because transparency of research 
has been an issue in this debate, NIEHS cooperating with CDC would be 
able to put together a panel of toxicologists, doctors, expert 
representatives from the autism community, and public health advocates 
to advise the study. They did this with the NIEHS' Breast Cancer 
Research Centers Program. That is, they involved the affected 
community.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree we should make an additional effort to resolve 
this issue.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I also agree we need to make progress through a 
study on this issue. It certainly is not going away.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. If this issue is resolved it will be because all sides 
are comfortable with the science and epidemiology of thimerosal and 
autism. The science and epidemiology of thimerosal and autism is not 
clear up to this point.
  Can I have assurance that the chairman and ranking member will work 
to insert report language in conference that urges NIEHS to fund 
collaborative studies on the VSD between outside researchers and the 
CDC?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will work hard to make this happen.
  Mr. HARKIN. I too will work hard to make this happen since this is an 
issue important to the Senator and the Nation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senators.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of final passage of 
the Senate version of the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill. This legislation is an 
improvement over the House-passed bill and over the President's request 
in many areas. However, it still vastly underfunds a number of crucial 
programs. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their work to produce this bill under tight fiscal 
constraints. However, we can and should do better for the many 
Americans who depend on the programs that are funded by this important 
appropriations bill.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted two amendments I worked on. One 
was an amendment I cosponsored that the Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins, offered, to provide much-needed funding to improve access to 
dental health in rural and underserved areas, and the other was an 
amendment I offered to increase public access to automatic external 
defibrillators in schools. I have worked with my colleague from Maine, 
Ms. Collins, for a number of years to secure funding for these 
important programs, and I hope to see these provisions carry through to 
the conference report.
  I regret that the Senate missed a number of opportunities to improve 
this bill, including by rejecting amendments that would have increased 
funding for a number of elementary and secondary education programs, 
including title I, after-school programs, and special education. Year 
after year, Congress and the President fail to provide the promised 
funding for these and other education programs as local school 
districts continue to struggle to make ends meet under shrinking State 
and local education budgets. The President's budget requests for each 
of the fiscal years since the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted have 
fallen far short of what was authorized by this law. And while Congress 
has improved upon these budget requests and provided funding for a 
number of the programs that the President proposed to cut, NCLB 
programs are still funded at far less than their authorized levels.
  Yet despite our broken promises to these school districts, we still 
require them to comply with a variety of Federal mandates. And during 
this school year, the stakes have been raised even further because the 
2005-2006 school year is the first under which schools are required to 
implement the NCLB mandate to test students in grades three through 
eight in reading and math. It is past time that we hold up our end of 
the equation and give States and school districts the resources they 
need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed.
  With regard to higher education, I was proud to support the amendment 
offered by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that would have increased 
the Pell Grant maximum by $200 to $4,250 per year. This would have been 
a good down payment on the ultimate

[[Page S11995]]

goal of increasing the maximum to $9,000 by the 2010-2011 school year, 
as I proposed with Senator Collins earlier this year. While Senator 
Kennedy's amendment was not successful, I will continue to work toward 
this goal of increasing grant aid and reducing the burden of debt to 
keep the doors of higher education open to as many Americans as 
possible.
  While funding for other higher education programs were not as 
generous as I would have hoped, I was encouraged that the 
Appropriations Committee rejected the harmful cuts proposed in the 
President's budget. The President had proposed eliminating or cutting 
important programs that prepare disadvantaged students for college, 
support their successful completion of college, and provide financial 
assistance to help them afford higher education, such as the Leveraging 
Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program; TRIO programs; the 
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, GEAR 
UP; the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program; and 
Perkins loans. I consistently opposed these reductions during both the 
budget and appropriations processes, and I am pleased that this bill 
preserves funding for all of these programs.
  Another reservation I have about this bill is its failure to 
adequately provide a much needed increase in funding for the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP--an increase that would simply 
bring the funding level up to the fully authorized amount. Despite 
predictions that home energy costs this winter will increase between 30 
and almost 70 percent, for the third time in a month, the Senate failed 
to help working families and seniors afford skyrocketing home energy 
costs when it defeated Senator Reed's efforts to increase LIHEAP 
funding. The lack of higher LIHEAP funding is greatly troubling and I 
will continue pursuing opportunities to help people in Wisconsin and 
across the country receive the assistance they need to stay safe and 
warm this winter.
  While this bill is far from perfect, I will support it, and I very 
much hope that the final version of this bill will provide adequate 
funding for the many important programs contained in it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today the Senate accepted two modified 
amendments that I authored.
  Amendment 2230, as modified, will reduce the amount appropriated for 
travel, conference programs and related expenses at the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS, by $15 million. Currently $68 million 
is available for these activities.
  The $15 million saved by this revised amendment would ensure 
sufficient funding for travel and conference expenses that may be 
necessary while recognizing that the current amount spent on these 
activities by HHS is excessive and can be reduced.
  In 2005 alone, HHS spent $68.5 million on conferences. This is a 50 
percent increase in conference spending during a 5-year period. At a 
time when our Nation is fighting a global war against terrorism, 
recovering from the most expensive natural disaster in our history, and 
facing an ever growing debt that now surpasses $8 trillion, we must be 
more frugal with the taxpayers' dollars we have been entrusted and 
prioritize how they are spent.
  This amendment ensures that a greater amount of Federal health 
dollars will actually be spent on health care, which should be the goal 
of HHS.
  In the context of the $2.5 trillion Federal budget, $15 million may 
not seem like much until you put it into a real world perspective.
  According to the American Institute of Preventative Medicine, the 
average doctor visit costs $55. The $15 million saved by this amendment 
could be made available to pay for nearly 273,000 doctors visits in the 
next year.
  The 2004 Census Bureau report on Income, Poverty, and Health 
Insurance in the United States shows that 45 million Americans are 
without health insurance.
  The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a 
health plan covering a family of four averaged $9,950 in 2004. For 
single coverage is $3,695 annual average premium.
  The $15 million saved by this amendment could provide 1,500 American 
families of four or 4,060 single Americans with health insurance for a 
year.
  HHS spends significantly more on conferences than any other Federal 
department. In fact, the total spent on conferences by HHS in 2005 is 
comparable to the amount spent by the Energy Department, Education 
Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, Labor Department and Transportation Department 
combined.
  In 2002, HHS spent $3.6 million on a single conference, the 
International AIDS Conference, held in Barcelona, Spain, to which 236 
HHS employees traveled to attend. Then-Secretary Tommy Thompson was 
among the HHS employees who traveled across the globe for this 
conference and was scheduled to speak. Yet he was prevented from doing 
so by activists that turned what was intended to be a scientific 
gathering into a political statement.
  Members of Congress rightfully were outraged that the Secretary was 
treated so rudely at a conference that cost the U.S. taxpayer millions 
of dollars.
  In a May, 2003, letter to members of Congress, Secretary Thompson 
reassured that HHS ``will work to further reduce our costs associated 
with that event, while continuing to assure essential scientific 
personnel can attend this meeting.'' He went on to note that ``the 
Department is currently revising the HHS travel manual, which will 
formalize international and domestic travel policies to ensure frugal 
use of taxpayer money. My staff is taking unprecedented steps to ensure 
American taxpayers will no longer be asked to foot the bill for 
wasteful HHS spending, including in the area of travel. . . . Every 
trip proposal is . . . evaluated on an individual basis by a member of 
my staff to guarantee that taxpayer money is not wasted.''
  Despite this pledge, HHS has continued to spend more and more on 
conferences and to send hundreds of employees to participate in the 
same conferences.
  In 2004, HHS sent 100 or more employees to at least 59 conferences, 
including 1,036 to a conference in Orlando, Florida.
  Just this past August, HHS was listed as a primary sponsor of the 
2005 conference of the Harm Reduction Project, an organization that 
supports tacit legalization of drugs. Among the sessions at this 
federally supported conference was ``We Don't Need a `War' on 
Methamphetamine'' and the discussion groups include ``Tweaking Tips for 
Party Boys.'' ``Tweaking'' is the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A 
tweaker is a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, 
and is irritable and paranoid.
  HHS officials later denied ``sponsoring'' the conference, although 
the Department provided taxpayer dollars for it and sent six employees 
to participate.
  As a practicing physician, I believe that Federal funds expended to 
support this conference would have been far better spent providing 
treatment to those suffering from addiction.
  This is just one example of taxpayer dollars that have been misspent 
on conferences.
  The bottom line remains that at a time when important health care 
programs are faced with financial difficulties, we do not have the 
luxury for excessive spending on conferences. While Congress is trying 
to control the growth of spending on important health programs like 
Medicaid and Medicare, we should first impose restraints on 
nonessential spending at HHS including conferences.
  Conferences may provide interesting opportunities for bureaucrats and 
others to network and exchange information in person, but they do not 
make people well or provide life saving health care.
  Furthermore, in the modern telecommunications era, it is unnecessary 
to spend time and resources to finance so many conferences. 
Teleconferences and video conferencing, for example, can save money 
while allowing the same type of interaction and information sharing at 
a mere fraction of the cost.
  The second amendment, No. 2336 as modified, directs the Secretary of 
HHS and the Secretary of Education to estimate improper payments as 
required by the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and report to 
Congress on specific actions taken to estimate improper payments within 
60 days of this bill being signed into law.

[[Page S11996]]

  The Improper Payment Information Act was enacted in November 2002 for 
the purpose of finding and eliminating payments that should not have 
been made, or were made for incorrect amounts, by government agencies.
  This law requires that all agencies, at the very least, perform a 
risk assessment of all programs and activities to determine whether or 
not a program is at risk of making ``significant'' improper payments.
  ``Significant'' as defined by the Office of Management and Budget 
means at least 2.5 percent of all payments made are improper, and the 
absolute dollar figure associated with that 2.5 percent or more, totals 
at least $10 million.
  Federal programs and activities deemed to be at ``significant'' risk 
of making improper payments their respective agencies are required 
under the Improper Payments Information Act to first, develop a 
statistically valid estimate of improper payments; and second, develop 
a corrective action plan for all programs where the improper payment 
estimate exceeds $10 million annually. This corrective action plan must 
also contain annual targets for reducing improper payment levels.
  At the end of each fiscal year, agencies are to report the results of 
the Improper Payments Information Act activities in their Performance 
and Accountability Report PAR; and submit them to Congress. The 
Improper Payments Information Act exempts no agency from compliance.
  Improper payments--which include inadvertent, fraudulent, and 
irresponsible payments--are costing the taxpayers at the very least, 
over $45 billion each year. Even worse, this $45 billion represents 
only 17 of 70 agencies that are currently reporting improper payment 
information as required under law.
  The Medicare program, which is already reporting, makes up nearly 
half--$21.7 billion--of the government's $45.4 billion reported 
improper payments for fiscal year 2004.
  The magnitude of the Government's improper payment problem is not yet 
known because some of the largest programs are not reporting, as 
required by law.
  Medicaid, with outlays that exceed $175 billion annually, is one of 
the programs that is not reporting. The Medicaid program has been 
required to report improper payments under the Office of Management and 
Budgets, OMB, A-11 Circular requirements since 2001; and under the 
Improper Payments Information Act since 2002, yet it still has made no 
estimate of its improper payments.
  In its November 2002 Performance and Accountability Report, Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that it would be able to 
report improper payments for the Medicaid program by 2006; however, 
they have pushed that date back to 2008--six years after the date by 
which they were to have begun reporting improper payments.
  Similarly, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program 
has not even been able to estimate when it will be able to report 
improper payments for a law that has existed since 2002.
  TANF spent over $17 billion in fiscal year 2005 ($18.6 in outlays).
  Foster Care spent $6.4 billion in fiscal year 2005.
  State Children's Insurance Program spent $5.129 billion in fiscal 
year 2005.
  Child Care Development Fund spent $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2005.
  Title I, within the Department of Education, spent $22.916 billion in 
fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 2005 outlays: $21.18 billion.
  This amendment does not debate the merits of any of these programs, 
it simply demands compliance with transparency and accountability 
measurements for expenditures already in existing law.
  After all, eliminating improper payments ensures more funds actually 
reach those who are intended to benefit from these programs while 
protecting the taxpayer. However, we must first understand the 
magnitude and source of the problem to correct it. We can only do this 
if all agencies are monitoring and reporting their improper payment 
information.
  Together these amendments make small, yet important steps, towards 
making federal agencies more fiscally responsible and accountable.
  I thank Chairman Specter for accepting these amendments and his 
commitment to fight for inclusion of these provisions in conference 
with the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme 
disappointment at the acceptance of amendment 2315 to the Labor and HHS 
Appropriation yesterday. My disappointment stems from the fact that I 
objected to considering amendment 2315 both verbally and by letter. And 
my objection was ignored.
  Senator Specter, the manager of the bill, acknowledged the mistake 
and promised to respect the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. However, 
a Member on the other side refused to allow the mistake to be 
rectified, an unfortunate and unfair action.
  For the past several Congresses, I attempted to work with the 
appropriators and other Senators to ensure that they do not encroach 
upon the jurisdiction of the Finance committee.
  Unfortunately, the practice continues as it did yesterday.
  These provisions are not without consequence. They are often written 
without clear knowledge of all the relevant facts. As a result, 
problems often occur as they are implemented.
  I really appreciate the fact that Senator Specter is willing to work 
with me on this issue and I fully expect that the provision will be 
taken out during conference.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, a majority of Senators, 54 in 
fact, voted for an increase in funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, to bring the funding to the authorized 
level of $5.1 billion we approved in the 2005 Energy bill. But because 
it was a procedural vote requiring 60 votes, this very important 
amendment failed.
  I want to thank my colleagues who voted with me as the days are 
relentlessly marching toward winter . . . the clock is ticking as the 
thermometer edges ever downward . . . snow and cold have already come 
to my State or Maine, raising the stakes for those who may have to 
choose between heating their homes and the other necessities of life. 
It would be unconscionable for Congress to adjourn for the year without 
providing critical, additional assistance for LIHEAP at a time of 
skyrocketing fuel because of the disruption of a vast amount of our 
energy infrastructure caused by disastrous hurricanes in the Gulf. I 
will continue to work with the White House to secure funding in the 
next supplemental appropriations bill.
  There should be no mistake--this is an emergency and a crisis we know 
is coming, and it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to stand 
by and allow it to occur. It does not take a crystal ball to predict 
the dire consequences when home heating oil in Maine is $2.52 per 
gallon, up 59 cents from a year ago . . . and kerosene prices average 
$2.95 a gallon, 75 cents higher than this time last year. Some 
projections have a gallon of heating oil reaching $3.00! And we are now 
informed that even rolling blackouts on very cold days this winter may 
be a possibility because of a high demand for electricity.
  So, understandably, we are already hearing the mounting concern--
``how will I pay for home heating oil when it's 30 percent more than 
last year, and I struggled to make ends meet then?'' ``How will I 
afford to pay half again as much for natural gas?'' People need to know 
now that they can count on us for assistance.
  This is a necessity of life--so much so that 73 percent of households 
in a recent survey reported they would cut back on, and even go 
without, other necessities such as food, prescription drugs, and 
mortgage and rent payments. Churches, food pantries, local service 
organizations--they are all hearing the cry, and the leaves have barely 
fallen from the trees. The fact is, countless Americans, many on fixed 
incomes, don't have room in their budget for this sudden surge in home 
heating oil and natural gas prices but, surely, in looking at our 
national priorities, we can find room in our budget to help Americans 
stay warm this winter.
  Because of the supply disruptions caused by the hurricanes at a time 
when prices were already spiraling up, prices have been driven even 
higher

[[Page S11997]]

and are directly affecting low income Mainers and how they will be able 
to pay for their home heating oil, natural gas, propane and kerosene 
this winter. A recent Wall Street Journal quoted Jo-Ann Choate, who 
heads up Maine's LIHEAP program. Ms. Choate said, ``This year we've got 
a very good chance of running out.''
  Mr. President, 84 percent of the applicants for the LIHEAP program in 
my State use oil heat. Over 46,000 applied for and received State 
LIHEAP funds last winter. Each household received $480, which covered 
the cost of 275 gallons of heating oil. The problem this winter is that 
the same $480 will buy only 172 gallons, which a household will use up 
in the first 3 to 4 weeks. What will these people do to stay warm for 
the 4 or 5 months left of winter? The water pipes will freeze and then 
break, damaging homes. People will start using their stoves to get 
heat. The Mortgage Bankers Association e1ects that the steep energy 
costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes 
beginning later this winter. My State is expecting at least 48,000 
applicants this winter season, so there will be less money distributed 
to each household unless we can obtain higher funding for the LIHEAP 
program.
  Ms. Choate says that Maine plans to focus on the elderly, disabled, 
and families with small children, and is studying how to move others to 
heated shelters. This is why our efforts are so very important. And it 
isn't just Maine, it is going to happen in all of the Nation's cold 
weather States. Quite simply, without increased funding, we are forcing 
the managers of State LIHEAP programs to make a Solomon's choice.
  The Federal Department of Energy has predicted that homeowners who 
use oil for heat and propane will spend 30 percent more this year than 
last, and natural gas users will spend 48 percent more. According to 
the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, heating costs for 
the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 for 
the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last 
winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004.
  For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, 
which is an increase of $611 over last year's price and $643 over 2003-
2004. This is the largest increase in home heating prices in over 30 
years. This is why passing our amendment was so very important.
  Congress recently passed an Energy bill which is now law. In that 
bill, we authorized $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program. My goal is to 
see that this is totally funded. We simply have to show that we meant 
what we asked for--and totally fund the LIHEAP program.
  The facts are that LIHEAP is projected to help 5 million households 
nationwide this winter. But that's only about one-sixth of households 
across the country that qualify for the assistance. So this is a 
perennial fight we wage even when prices aren't as high as today. And 
now, that battle becomes all the more pivotal. The cold weather won't 
wait--and neither should we when it comes to helping citizens survive 
through the winter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations bill is the last of the regular fiscal year 
2006 appropriations bills to come before the Senate for consideration.
  Last year, seven of the regular appropriations bills, including the 
Labor, Health and Human Services bill, were not debated individually by 
this body but rather they were inserted into one large, unamendable 
omnibus package. As I have said on many occasions, the processing of 
regular appropriations bills in such a manner is not the way the Senate 
is supposed to operate. I am always very disappointed when the Senate 
resorts to appropriating by omnibus bills. We are the Senate. This is 
the Senate. A deliberative body it is supposed to be.
  Last year, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill was 
included in the omnibus package. This is a different year now. This 
year, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bill was fully debated here on the floor and amended as 
a stand-alone bill. What a difference.
  This bill has been on the floor all week, and Senators have enjoyed 
their right to debate and amend such important language.
  I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, and the distinguished 
Senator who acts on this side of the aisle to help manage this bill, 
Senator Specter and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Harkin.
  This is such a comprehensive bill. It covers a lot of programs and 
activities of the Government--three Departments, and the Social 
Security Administration. When you include mandatory spending, this bill 
funds nearly 25 percent of the Federal budget. This bill impacts every 
citizen in this country in one way or another. Just think about it: 
labor issues, health issues, human services issues that provides basic 
humanitarian services for the neediest of our citizens, as well as 
education issues.
  As we complete our debate on the Labor, HHS, and Education 
Appropriations bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator 
Harkin. They are a good team on this bill. They have been working 
together on this subcommittee for so long that they seem to sometimes 
complete each other's sentences. They hold numerous hearings throughout 
the year. They gather knowledge from a wide array of experts throughout 
the country. That is what they do. This subcommittee pours over the 
testimony, over the reports, the studies, and other related data 
throughout the year, and its recommendations are reflective of that 
careful and thorough review.
  I have never seen a chairman of a committee more fair than Senator 
Specter has been. Every Senator who wanted to call up an amendment had 
an opportunity to do so. Senator Specter did not seek to cut off any 
amendments. No. He was very fair, very considerate, very courteous. And 
look what a wonderful job he and Senator Harkin have done on this 
committee. My thanks, my congratulations to both of them.
  I also extend my thanks to their fine staff. Those staffers worked 
hard. I appreciate their dedicated service to the Appropriations 
Committee and to the Senate.
  I will take 1 minute, or maybe a little longer, to comment briefly 
about the upcoming supplemental request which I understand the White 
House will be transmitting to the Congress tomorrow. This will be the 
third disaster relief supplemental related to Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. This request is expected to include $17 billion for various 
programs and agencies on top of the $62 billion Congress has already 
approved.
  In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Congress 
approved both of the President's supplemental requests. In each case, 
Congress approved the bill within 1 day of receiving the request, with 
no debate and no amendment. Of course, disastrous emergency situations 
such as that which occurred in the gulf coast region require immediate 
action by the Congress. However, the White House has waited 7 weeks to 
send up its third request. The White House should not assume that the 
Congress will simply rubberstamp their request.
  I hope the Senate leadership will commit to the Senate that we will 
have an opportunity to debate and amend the third disaster relief 
supplemental bill. A $17 billion supplemental should not simply be 
shoved into an unamendable conference report. There should be an 
opportunity to debate such issues as whether low-income energy 
assistance should be provided to all States impacted by increased fuel 
prices, prices that continue to grow as a result of Hurricane Katrina. 
The Senate should also have an opportunity to debate how the Katrina 
supplemental will be paid for. I hope Senators will be afforded this 
opportunity.
  I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my very good 
friend from the State of Mississippi, Thad Cochran. What a decent man, 
what a decent chairman he is. What a good job he has done this year 
processing these appropriations bills. All 11 of the fiscal year 2006 
appropriations bills have been debated individually and separately by 
the Senate. Why is this? This is due in large part to the steadfast 
determination of the chairman, Senator Cochran. He is a very determined 
man. He did not give up. He

[[Page S11998]]

did not give in. He kept on pushing ahead.
  That reminds me of two frogs that fell over the rim of the crock in 
which there was milk. The milk was in the crock. Two frogs fell off 
into that. One immediately kicked a couple of times, turned over on his 
back with his belly up, gave up, that was all. That frog was gone. But 
the other, what did it do? It began kicking, kicking, and he kicked and 
kicked and kicked until there was a little ball of butter. And he 
kicked a little more, and the ball grew bigger, larger. So the frog 
then climbed upon the ball of butter and jumped out. It jumped out.
  That goes to show that if you keep on kicking, you will churn the 
butter. How about that?
  Chairman Cochran didn't give up. He just kept on kicking, and he 
churned the butter. He just kept on pushing forward.
  That determination of his paid off. I congratulate Senator Cochran 
for his success in getting all of the regular appropriations bills 
processed through to the floor, individually and separately.
  So let me say it again.
  What a job Chairman Cochran has done this year.
  I also thank the joint leadership of the Senate, Senator Frist and 
Senator Reid, for working with Chairman Cochran and with me in 
scheduling the necessary floor time which enabled us to get on with 
these bills and debate them.
  Chairman Cochran has worked with the House Appropriations Committee 
chairman in determining a schedule for completion of all the 
conferences on our regular appropriations bills by November 18. I think 
that is a realistic schedule. I am encouraged that we will be able to 
reach that goal.
  While I am not pleased that the appropriations bills significantly 
underfund critical domestic programs for education, for homeland 
security, for health care, and for our crumbling infrastructure, I am 
pleased that the Senate at least had the opportunity to fully debate 
these issues.
  I thank the distinguished Senator who sits in the Chair this evening, 
presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb that is 
so reminiscent of a day in June when the distinguished Senator's father 
sat in this Chamber also. I liked him. I like him, too.
  So I say to the Senator from Rhode Island who presides over the 
Senate this evening, keep on doing good work, Excelsior, ever up. I 
thank the Senator. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is a good 
Senator. He used to be my neighbor. He is a good neighbor, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     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

                                NAYS--3

     Conrad
     Ensign
     Inhofe

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Inouye
     Rockefeller
  The bill (H.R. 3010), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator Byrd 
wants to speak for a while. I want to take a couple of minutes again to 
thank the staff, both Senator Specter's staff and my staff. They have 
worked together. I know Senator Specter mentioned them earlier, but I 
will mention them by name again because they should be mentioned: 
Bettilou Taylor, Jim Sourwine, Sudip Parikh, Mark Laiseh, Lisa 
Bernhardt, Candice Rogers, and Rachel Jones on the minority side. On 
the majority side: Ellen Murray, Erik Fatemi, and Adrienne Hallett.
  They do a wonderful job, and they have done so this year, putting 
this bill together, I know staying up long nights and weekends, working 
this out.
  Someone once remarked that Senators were a constitutional impediment 
to the smooth functioning of staff. Our staffs function very smoothly. 
They do a great job, and I hope we have not impeded them too much.
  Last, I want, again, to pay my respects to our chairman, Senator 
Specter, who has done a magnificent job of putting a lot of competing 
interests together. This is a big bill. This covers the Department of 
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of 
Education, and a lot of independent agencies--the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health.
  By the way, I especially want to thank Senator Specter for bringing 
us up on the National Institutes of Health by $1 billion more than what 
was in the President's budget. I think we met our obligations there.
  I say to my friend and my chairman, it has been an honor and 
privilege to work with him all these years. We go back, I think, about 
15 years now, working together. I could not ask for a better chairman 
of this committee. I could not ask for a better working relationship. 
Senator Specter has always been open and aboveboard to make sure we all 
know what is going on. It has been a real pleasure, a real joy to work 
with Senator Specter. I thank him for that and look forward to many 
more fruitful years of working together on issues that really matter.
  Someone once said the Defense Appropriations Committee is the 
committee that defends America. The committee that funds Health and 
Human Services and Education and Labor is the committee that defines 
America. I happen to believe that this committee does define America, 
defines who we are, and what we are about as a people.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. The Senator is right about that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Under the able chairmanship of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, we have defined, once again, that we are going to meet 
our obligations in those areas that make us a caring and compassionate 
and decent people. That is what is in this bill. Again, I thank Senator 
Specter for his great leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate those very 
generous remarks by Senator Harkin, and I appreciate even more his 
cooperation and leadership on this important subcommittee, working with 
health and education, the two major capital assets of Americans, and 
labor and related agencies. It is an important bill, and I think we 
have crafted it about as well as you can, given the limitations of the 
resources.
  There is a lot more I could say, but Senator Byrd is waiting to 
speak, so I will just reference the appointment of conferees.

[[Page S11999]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendments to 
H.R. 3010, request a conference with the House of Representatives on 
the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Michigan wish to speak?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might ask, before my very 
distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia speaks, I wonder 
if I might simply make a statement for just a moment about a unanimous 
consent request that I had intended to offer. I understand there will 
be an objection to it, but with my colleague's consent, I appreciate 
having 2 minutes to be able to make a comment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator, if I 
may, for up to 5 minutes, if she so desires, without losing my right to 
the floor.


                   Rosa Parks Federal Office Building

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to go on record this evening with 
my great disappointment at not being able to bring up under unanimous 
consent a version of the bill that would name a Federal office building 
in Detroit for Rosa Parks. This had originally been offered by my 
colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick of Detroit, a longtime 
friend and colleague of Rosa Parks.
  Originally, last evening, we passed my version of the bill along with 
an amendment, agreed to, of Senator Warner. This evening it is my 
desire to pass the House version of that with Senator Warner's 
amendment, the very same amendment that we have already passed last 
evening, but to place it into the House bill so we could then send it 
back to the House. It would be like the Senate bill that we passed.
  To my understanding, there is an objection on the other side of the 
aisle to doing that. If not, I would proceed to do that. It is the very 
same thing we did last evening, but it would put it into the House 
bill.
  My House colleague, who is the originator of the proposal on the 
Federal office building, would like very much to have us pass the House 
bill and have that be the bill that is sent on to the President. That 
is the bill that I was hoping we would pass here in the same form with 
the Warner amendment that we passed last evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am not fully conversant with all of the 
details on the issues raised by the Senator from Michigan. I have been 
asked by staff to lodge an objection.
  I was present yesterday when we took up that issue. I have not seen 
the level of confusion in this Chamber in the 25 years I have been here 
that was present when the Senator from Michigan asked unanimous 
consent, the Senator from Virginia asked to add on, and then the 
Senator from New Mexico ultimately spoke about holds. It was utter 
confusion in the midst of rollcall votes, trying to move this bill 
along.
  I respect the standing of the Senator from Michigan to make this 
unanimous consent request, but I suggest she defer it until next week 
when the Senators are on the floor who understand what the issues are. 
You have jurisdiction on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
I believe, and Senator Inhofe and I were talking about it today. I do 
not want to stop whatever the Senator from Michigan wants to 
accomplish, but the proper Senators ought to be here to address the 
issue.
  I am the last Mohican around here for Republicans, although they 
could have gotten the Chair, Senator Chafee, to raise an objection. The 
Presiding Officer could suggest the absence of a quorum and raise the 
objection. In fact, I might just refer to him to raise the objection.
  However, having said what I said, I do object, and it is my hope the 
Senator from Michigan will give notice to the Senators who are involved 
and know what is going on, give them notice and a chance to hear what 
you have to say and then the matter can be resolved.
  But I do object.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just respond to my 
distinguished colleague, notice was given. That is how I know there is 
an objection. So I am not rising to make the unanimous consent request. 
I understand there is an objection on the other side of the aisle. I am 
simply standing this evening to indicate my disappointment that we have 
not been able to resolve this here and be able to, in fact, include 
Senator Warner's amendment and be able to send it back to the House of 
Representatives.
  Hopefully, we are going to be able to resolve it another way and be 
able to accomplish what we all wish to accomplish.
  I support Senator Warner's desire and the gentleman he is wishing to 
honor with the naming of a building. Also, certainly it is my goal and 
the goal of my colleague in the House to be able, in fact, to pass a 
bill to send to the President, giving the great civil rights champion 
of our country and the world, Rosa Parks, the respect and honor she 
deserves. It is our hope to have that done prior to her funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am somewhat troubled. Not more than 10 
minutes ago, I say to my colleague, you sat right here and I sat right 
there. We struck an understanding that tomorrow we would rejoin on the 
floor to explain the situation. I said, by that time, as it was my 
understanding that the House would likely have acted upon the measure 
which was passed by the Senate last night, sponsored by the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, who accepted my amendment. I am 
not sure why we are here at this time discussing this matter. My 
understanding was very clearly we would take it up tomorrow morning. 
Just by chance I caught the screen when I walked back to my office.
  Would you kindly advise the Senator from Virginia what took place in 
the 10-minute interval since we left here?
  Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to. This has been a confusing 
situation, I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia. After speaking with you, I spoke with the Congresswoman who 
was concerned about which bill would be going to the President's desk. 
So I was simply rising, not to offer a motion but just to express my 
concern about the dilemma that we are in at the moment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, but we solved, basically, the procedure. 
What troubles me is that the Senate took considerable time last night 
to resolve this issue--in favor of the Senator from Michigan and in 
favor of the Senator from Virginia.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. There is a perfectly adequate bill sitting on the desk at 
the House of Representatives. It can be passed in 5 minutes if not 
less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that the Senator from West Virginia 
has allotted has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. If my distinguished colleague will kindly grant me a few 
more minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I repeat, there is a bill that has been acted upon 
unanimously by the Senate. It is at the House desk.
  This morning was the first time I ever heard that the Congresswoman, 
in whose district this courthouse is, desires to have her bill--not 
your bill. Is that my understanding?
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Why can't the Congressional Record of the debate, the 
traditional report language that accompanies the bill, explain, give 
her full credit or whatever she desires? But to continually come back 
and forth and raise the specter that people are trying to interfere 
with this important legislation in this Chamber, it seems to me, is not 
fair.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, in no way was this meant to 
show disrespect for the Senator from Virginia. We have worked very 
properly together. I was simply rising this evening to indicate that 
the original way to resolve this by including the Senator's amendment 
in the House bill is not something that is acceptable to

[[Page S12000]]

other colleagues. That was the desire of the Congresswoman whose idea 
it was to name the building in her district. She feels very strongly 
about this, and I was indicating that for the Record. I don't wish to 
have more confusion.
  I very much appreciate the Senator from West Virginia allowing me a 
moment. But in no way was this meant to show disrespect for my 
colleague. We have worked very well together.
  Mr. WARNER. This is a matter that is being followed with great 
interest because of the magnificent Rosa Parks, and the outpouring of 
empathy and sympathy, and so forth. I don't wish to have the 
institution of the Senate appear that it has not acted promptly. It did 
so last night. There is a perfectly legitimate bill at the House desk 
which could be passed in a matter of 5 minutes and be sent to the 
President for signature to honor both Mrs. Parks and Judge Bryant. In 
report language the Senator from Michigan and the good Congresswoman 
can solve it in any way they may wish as to allocate the credit.
  I think to keep coming back to the Senate implying that we can't use 
the bill this body passed yesterday evening is, in a way, diminishing 
the previous action of this institution. It is my understanding that 
tomorrow the House of Representatives will take up and pass the Senator 
from Michigan's bill, as passed by the Senate, to name a federal 
building in Michigan for Rosa Parks and name the new courthouse annex 
here in Washington for Judge William Bryant.
  I must tell you, I have been very patient about this matter. But I 
hope that we understand the agreement between the two bodies to proceed 
in this manner. It has been cleared by both the House and the Senate 
and, as such, is the appropriate course of action.
  For the past three years I have been working with my colleagues, 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Leahy to name the new 
annex to the Prettyman Courthouse here in Washington, DC for Judge 
William Bryant. As I have stated numerous times before, there are rules 
in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that prohibit 
moving through that Committee naming bills for individuals that are 
still living. Prior to the current Chairman of the Committee, the rule 
was waived in certain instances and I certainly feel that the case of 
Judge Bryant warrants such discretion. The Senate spoke yesterday that 
both Rosa Parks and William Bryant are deserving of this great honor.
  I wish to share with the Senate again the story of this distinguished 
jurist, Judge William Bryant.
  A product of Washington, DC public schools, William B. Bryant 
graduated from Howard University in 1936, a classmate of Thurgood 
Marshall and Appellate Judge Spotswood Robinson. He graduated from 
Howard Law School first in his class and then, with no real 
opportunities for African-American attorneys in the District of 
Columbia, served as chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, who later 
won the Nobel Prize. From 1943 to 1947, he was in the Army and rose to 
the rank of lieutenant colonel during World War II. He was a criminal 
defense attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, the first African American 
ever to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Nation's Capital. I was 
privileged to be in the U.S. Attorney's Office during some of his 
tenure there and worked with him. He was a teacher to me and many 
others. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1965. In 1977, 
he was appointed the first African American to be chief judge of the 
U.S. District Court.
  Now at the age of 94, Judge Bryant is serving as a Senior Judge on 
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This 
man, like Rosa Parks, suffered from discriminatory practices and 
persevered, therefore breaking new ground for African-Americans to 
come. When he first began trying cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 
1951, the Bar Association of D.C. did not allow African-American 
members. William Bryant, while trying cases in District Court was 
unable to access the law library at the Courthouse like his white 
colleagues. Despite the obstacles, William Bryant succeeded.
  Over the years this man has been a fixture at that courthouse, first 
trying cases, and for the past 40 years, hearing them as a judge. The 
D.C. Bar and his colleagues have unanimously endorsed the legislation I 
offer today as a tribute to this man's truly extraordinary life, 
legendary career, and service to this nation's judicial system. I wish 
at this point to print into the Record a September 2004 article from 
the Washington Post about Judge Bryant and our efforts to name this new 
annex in his honor:

       A Lifetime of Faith in the Law; At 93, Senior Judge William 
     Bryant Still Wins Plaudits for Dedication to Justice, Carol 
     Leonnig, Washington Post Staff Writer--September 16, 2004
       A few days after the new U.S. District Courthouse opened on 
     Constitution Avenue in the fall of 1952, Bill Bryant walked 
     in to start work as a recently hired federal prosecutor.
       More than a half-century has passed, and Bryant's life 
     remains centered on that stately granite building in the 
     shadow of the U.S. Capitol. It's in those halls that he 
     became a groundbreaking criminal defense attorney, a federal 
     judge, and then the court's chief judge--the first African 
     American in that position.
       Today, at the age of 93, U.S. District Court Senior Judge 
     William Bryant still drives himself to work at the courthouse 
     four days a week and pushes his walker to his courtroom.
       At a recent birthday party for Bryant hosted by Vernon 
     Jordan, fellow Senior U.S. District Court Judge Louis 
     Oberdorfer remarked that there were ``only two people in the 
     world who really understood the Constitution'' and how it 
     touched the lives of real people.
       ``That's Hugo Black and Bill Bryant,'' said Oberdorfer. He 
     had clerked for Justice Hugo L. Black, who retired as an 
     associate justice in 1971 after serving on the Supreme 
     Court for 34 years.
       To honor Bryant's life's work, his fellow judges this past 
     spring unanimously recommended that a nearly completed 
     courthouse annex be named for him. The $110 million, 351,000-
     square-foot addition will add nine state-of-the-art 
     courtrooms and judges' offices to the courthouse and is 
     designed to meet the court's expansion needs for the next 30 
     years. It is slated to open next spring.
       In urging that the building be named for Bryant, his 
     supporters cite his devotion to the Constitution and his 
     belief that the law will produce a just result.
       During a rare interview in his sixth-floor office in the 
     federal courthouse, Bryant reached out for a pocket version 
     of the Constitution covered in torn green plastic lying on 
     the top of his desk. Holding it aloft in his right hand, he 
     told stories of his struggling former clients and made legal 
     phrases--``due process'' and ``equal protection''--seem like 
     life-saving staples.
       Though he needs his law clerk's arm to get up the steps to 
     the bench, he is a fairly busy senior jurist. He handled more 
     criminal trials than any other senior judge last year and 
     still surprises new lawyers with his sharp retorts.
       ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork,'' Bryant said. ``I 
     have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this 
     courthouse.''
       He started down his career path inspired by a Howard 
     University law professor who believed that lawyers could make 
     a difference in that time of racial segregation and 
     discrimination. Bryant said he remains convinced today that 
     lawyers can stop injustice whenever it arises.
       ``Without lawyers, this is just a piece of paper,'' Judge 
     Bryant said, gesturing with the well-worn Constitution. ``If 
     it weren't for lawyers, I'd still be three-fifths of a man. 
     If it weren't for lawyers, we'd still have signs directing 
     people this way and that, based on the color of their skin. 
     If it weren't for lawyers, you still wouldn't be able to 
     vote.
       The most important professions are lawyer and teacher, in 
     my opinion,'' he said.
       Some lawyers complain that Bryant is so rooted in his 
     criminal defense training that he shows some distrust of the 
     prosecution. And his practice of presiding over trials, but 
     asking other judges to sentence the people convicted, has 
     spurred some curiosity. He won't elaborate on the reason, but 
     his friends say he found the new federal sentencing 
     guidelines inflexible and harsh.
       A 1993 study found Bryant was reversed 17 percent of the 
     time by appellate judges--the average reversal rate for the 
     trial court.
       Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan presented the proposal to name 
     the annex after Bryant to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Sen. 
     Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) earlier this year, and they are now 
     trying to get Congress to approve the naming this fall. One 
     member, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has tried to block 
     it, with his staff pointing to a D.C. policy that buildings 
     not be named after living people.
       Norton said numerous courts around the country have been 
     named in honor of living judges, and she said she looks 
     forward to meeting with Inhofe in person to convince him of 
     the wisdom of naming this building, designed by renowned 
     architect Michael Graves, after a barrier-breaking judge.
       ``This is no ordinary naming,'' she said. ``This is a truly 
     great African American judge whose accomplishments are 
     singular. First African American assistant U.S. attorney. 
     First African American chief judge.''
       E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., the son of the jurist for whom 
     the federal courthouse in

[[Page S12001]]

     Washington is named, also applauds the proposed annex naming. 
     He said his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and 
     would have endorsed it, too.
       ``Whenever it's discussed, people brighten right up and 
     think it's a great idea,'' said Prettyman, himself a former 
     president of the D.C. Bar Association. ``I'm sorry it's hit 
     this snag. . . . If you were going to have an exception, my 
     personal opinion is you could not have a better exception 
     than for Judge Bryant.''
       William Benson Bryant is hailed as a true product of 
     Washington. Though he was born in a rural town in Alabama, he 
     moved to the city soon after turning 1. His grandfather, 
     fleeing a white lynch mob, relocated the extended family 
     here, including Bryant's father, a railroad porter, and his 
     mother, a housewife. They all made their first home on 
     Benning Road, which was then a dirt path hugging the eastern 
     shore of the Anacostia River.
       Bryant attended D.C. public schools when the city's black 
     children were taught in separate and grossly substandard 
     facilities. Still he flourished, studying politics at the 
     city's premier black high school, Dunbar, then going on to 
     Howard University. While working at night as an elevator 
     operator, he studied law and met his future wife, Astaire. 
     They were married for 60 years, until her death in 1997.
       He and his law classmates--the future civil rights 
     movement's intellectual warriors--worked at their dreams in 
     the basement office of their law professor, Charles Houston. 
     Houston promised the group, which included the future Supreme 
     Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and appellate judge 
     Spottswood Robinson, that lawyers armed with quick minds and 
     the Constitution could end segregated schools and unjust 
     convictions of innocent black men.
       ``I kind of got fascinated by that,'' he said. ``We all 
     did.''
       But when Bryant graduated first in his class from Howard's 
     law school, there were no jobs for a black lawyer. He became 
     a chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, an African 
     American diplomat who later was awarded the Nobel Peace 
     Prize, on a landmark study of American race relations; he 
     then fought in World War II and was discharged from the Army 
     as a lieutenant colonel in 1947.
       His first step was to take the bar exam, then hang out a 
     shingle as a criminal defense lawyer in 1948. His skills soon 
     drew the attention of prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office, who liked him even though they kept losing cases to 
     him, and they recommended that their boss hire him. During a 
     job interview, Bryant made a request of George Fay, then the 
     U.S. attorney: ``Mr. Fay, if I cut the mustard in municipal 
     court, can I go over to the big court like the other guys?''
       No black prosecutor had ever practiced in the federal 
     court--or ``big court,'' as it was called--but Fay agreed. 
     Bryant signed on in 1951 and was handling grand jury 
     indictments in the new federal courthouse the next year.
       Bryant vividly recalls a case from that time involving an 
     apartment building caretaker who was on trial on charges of 
     raping the babysitter of one tenant's family.
       ``I went for him as hard as I could,'' Bryant said, 
     squaring his shoulders. ``I didn't like him, and I didn't 
     like what he did to that girl.''
       So the young prosecutor sought the death penalty, an option 
     then for first-degree murder and rape. He left the courtroom 
     after closing arguments ``feeling pretty good about my case'' 
     and awaited the jury's verdict in his third-floor court 
     office. But when a marshal later called out, ``Bryant, jury's 
     back,'' the judge said, ``I broke out in a sweat.''
       He peeked anxiously into the court, saw the jury foreman 
     mouth only the word ``guilty.'' Bryant learned seconds later 
     that the jurors had spared the man's life.
       ``I was so relieved,'' he said. ``When you're young, you 
     don't know anything. . . . Now I think, murder is murder, no 
     matter who is doing it.''
       He left the prosecutor's office in 1954 and returned to 
     criminal defense with fellow classmate William Gardner in an 
     F Street law office later bulldozed for the MCI Center. They 
     were partners in Houston, Bryant and Gardner, a legendarily 
     powerful African American firm. Ten judges would eventually 
     come from its ranks.
       In those days, Bryant chuckled, he didn't feel so powerful. 
     Judges who remembered his prosecution work kept appointing 
     him to represent defendants who had no money. That was before 
     the 1963 Supreme Court's Gideon decision requiring that 
     indigent defendants be represented by a lawyer--at public 
     expense, if necessary.
       The judge would say, ``Mr. So and So, you say you don't 
     have any money to hire an attorney?'' Bryant recalled. 
     ``Well, then, the court appoints Mr. Bryant to represent 
     you.''
       Some paid $25 or $50. Some paid nothing.
       ``There were weeks we paid the help and split the little 
     bit left over for our groceries,'' he said.
       Bill Schultz, Bryant's former law clerk, said Bryant took 
     the cases ``out of this sense of obligation to the court and 
     legal system. He was very aware of discrimination, and he 
     always fought for the criminal defendants.''
       At the time, blacks were barred from the D.C. Bar 
     Association and its law library. Bryant went in anyway, and 
     the black librarian let him.
       One of his pro bono clients was Andrew Roosevelt Mallory, a 
     19-year-old who confessed to a rape after an eight-hour 
     interrogation in a police station. Mallory was convicted and 
     sent to death row. Defending Mallory's rights, a case Bryant 
     took all the way to the Supreme Court in 1957, made him both 
     nervous and famous.
       He said he fretted constantly about his client facing the 
     electric chair during the two years the case dragged on. 
     ``You talk about worried,'' he said. ``It's something I can't 
     forget.''
       But the Supreme Court agreed with Bryant that a man accused 
     of a crime is entitled to be taken promptly before a 
     magistrate to hear the charges against him. The court 
     overturned Mallory's conviction and handed down a landmark 
     decision on defendants' rights.
       U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a longtime fan of 
     Bryant's, said Bryant's legal talents are on display every 
     day in his courtroom, but lawyers are still taken aback by 
     his factual resolve and clear logic when hearing an audiotape 
     recording of his Supreme Court argument in the Mallory case.
       ``He's clearly a terrific lawyer, but he's mostly a 
     terrific human being,'' Friedman said. ``He sees the best in 
     people, and he really cares about what happens to people.''
       Bryant remembers that when President Lyndon B. Johnson 
     nominated him to be a judge, he felt elated, confident he had 
     earned his opportunity. But Bryant said a different feeling 
     came over him the day he donned the robes.
       ``I was sworn in in the morning that day, and Oliver Gasch 
     was sworn in that afternoon,'' Bryant recalled. ``I told 
     Oliver, `You know, I've been a lawyer for many years, but 
     putting on this robe, I don't feel so sure. This is a serious 
     responsibility.' ''
       Gasch smiled: ``Bill, I don't think it's going to be that 
     hard for you. You know right from wrong.''
       Bryant oversaw some famous cases, and he freely shared his 
     thoughts when he thought something was wrong.
       After presiding over the 1981 trial of Richard Kelly, a 
     Republican congressman caught on videotape taking money from 
     federal agents in a sting operation, Bryant complained that 
     the FBI had set an ``outrageous'' trap for the Florida 
     representative by stuffing cash in his pocket after he'd 
     refused the bribe several times. He set aside Kelly's 
     conviction.
       ``The investigation . . . has an odor to it that is 
     absolutely repulsive,'' Bryant said then. ``It stinks.''
       In handling the longest-running case in the court's 
     history, a 25-year-old case about inhumane and filthy 
     conditions in the D.C. jail, the judge chastised city leaders 
     in 1995. He said he had been listening to their broken 
     promises to fix the problems ``since the Big Dipper was a 
     thimble.''
       In weighing the case of a group of black farmers with 
     similar discrimination complaints against the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture in 2000, Bryant warned a government lawyer 
     that his argument against a class-action discrimination suit 
     wasn't working: ``Either you're dense or I'm dense,'' he 
     said.
       Schultz said the judge simply trusted the combination of 
     facts and the law.
       ``He always said, `Don't fight the facts,' '' Schultz said. 
     ``He thought most of the time the law would end up in the 
     right place.''
       Bryant acknowledges it's hard sometimes to see lawyers 
     struggle to make their arguments when they have the law and 
     the facts on their side.
       ``A judge has a stationary gun, and he's looking through 
     the sights,'' he said. ``Unless the lawyer brings the case 
     into the bull's-eye, the judge can't pull the trigger. Good 
     lawyers bring the case into the sights.''
       Bryant said he was preceded by many great lawyers, which is 
     why the new plan to put his name on a piece of the courthouse 
     gives him conflicting feelings.
       ``I was flattered, but I thought they shouldn't have done 
     it,'' Bryant said. ``There are so many people who were really 
     giants. I stand on their shoulders.''

  I hope that henceforth there is senatorial courtesy--when we decide 
to proceed in a specific manner as we discussed, we would do it in the 
morning, I relied on that, and was about to go handle another matter 
when I noticed that the Senator was on the floor. I am somewhat 
concerned about that.
  I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan for her courtesy in 
combining these two tributes and look forward to the action of the 
House tomorrow. It is truly a wonderful opportunity for the Congress to 
honor two American pioneers. Rosa Parks and Judge William Bryant both 
deserve to be recognized for their lives and contributions our nation's 
heritage. I have no objection to this bill moving forward as amended 
and look forward with great pride to both buildings being named shortly 
for these two pillars of the civil rights movement that brought so much 
to our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you for the courtesy. I am sure we 
will be able to move forward in a prompt way.
  Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S12002]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________