[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23683-23738]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

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

  Pending:

       Sununu amendment No. 2214, to provide for the funding of 
     the Low-Vision Rehabilitation Services Demonstration Project.
       Sununu amendment No. 2215, to increase funding for 
     community health centers.
       Reed modified amendment No. 2194, to provide for 
     appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program.
       Gregg amendment No. 2253, to increase appropriations for 
     the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by 
     $1,276,000,000, with an across-the-board reduction.
       Thune modified amendment No. 2193, to provide funding for 
     telehealth programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa and I 
have been conferring on our schedule this morning. We have a number of 
amendments lined up. The first amendment will be offered by Senator 
Byrd on title I, scheduled for 10 o'clock. We are pretty close to being 
on schedule. There may be some intervening business.
  I want to take this opportunity to urge our colleagues to come to the 
floor and offer amendments. A cloture motion was filed yesterday with 
advance notice to all Members. It will be voted on tomorrow. Under the 
rule, Members have until 1 o'clock today to file amendments. At the 
moment, we have openings in the afternoon. So we urge our colleagues to 
come forward with their amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with my chairman in that regard. 
The only other observation I make, we are not encouraging a lot of 
amendments. We are just saying if you have amendments come over and do 
them this morning or this afternoon so we can finish up the bill, 
hopefully, by tomorrow. I know there are some important amendments--
Senator Byrd certainly has one coming up on title I--that we need to 
address in this bill.
  Again, I am hopeful, if people do have amendments, that they will 
come over. And, again, Members need to know amendments have to be filed 
by 1 p.m. today to be considered under the cloture motion.
  Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Reed, needs to make a modification to his amendment, and I know, also, 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, wants to offer an amendment 
before we begin Senator Byrd's amendment. Senator Byrd has been kind 
enough to yield to them a few minutes so we can get that done before he 
proceeds on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                    Amendment No. 2194, as Modified

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to 
amendment No. 2194, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2194, as Further Modified

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send a modification of this amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 158, after line 21 insert:
       In addition to amounts appropriated under any other 
     provision of this Act, for making payments under title XXVI 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8621 et seq.), $2,920,000,000, which amount 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.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman, be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2220

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2220 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2220.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 stop gap coverage for low-income Seniors and 
disabled individuals who may lose benefits or suffer a gap in coverage 
  due to the implementation of the Medicare part D prescription drug 
                                benefit)

       On page 153, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       In addition, for making payments to States for the 
     provision of coverage for prescription drugs under State 
     Medicaid plans (notwithstanding section 1935(d)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act) or under separate drug assistance 
     programs to individuals who have attained age 65 or are 
     disabled, and whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the 
     national poverty level or who are eligible for medical 
     assistance under the State Medicaid plan under a ``medically 
     needy'' or other ``spend down'' eligibility category, 
     including such individuals who are eligible for benefits 
     under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act, 
     receiving assistance under a State drug assistance program, 
     or receiving coverage under an AIDS Drug Assistance Program, 
     to ensure that such individuals do not lose coverage for 
     prescription drugs or suffer a gap in such coverage due to 
     the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
     under part D of title XVIII of such Act, and for making 
     payments to providers of items and services under the State 
     Medicaid plan, including pharmacists, community health 
     centers, rural health clinics, hospitals, critical access 
     hospitals, and physicians, for reimbursement of uncompensated 
     costs associated with the provision of medically necessary 
     drugs for such individuals, $2,000,000,000: Provided, That a 
     State shall not receive such payments unless the State 
     notifies the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not 
     later than December 31, 2005, of the State's plan for the 
     provision of such coverage: Provided further, That a State 
     shall not receive such payments unless

[[Page 23684]]

     the State notifies such individuals and providers of the 
     availability of such coverage: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount 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.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I talked about this amendment earlier 
today. It provides stopgap coverage for low-income seniors and disabled 
individuals who may lose their benefits or suffer a gap in coverage due 
to the implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and we come 
back to the amendment to discuss it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand Senator Byrd will now offer his 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his 
remarks that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on amendment 
No. 2194.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from West 
Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection if the Senator wishes to 
proceed at this time. Am I recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has been 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator, as I may, without any objections, 
for 10 minutes, and I retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 10 minutes.


                Amendment No. 2194, as Further Modified

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Gregg offered an 
amendment to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, LIHEAP, by $1.276 billion yesterday. He will offset the 
spending by an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent to all other 
programs funded by this bill--cuts to programs that protect the public 
health of our Nation, cuts to research to cure diseases, cuts to 
educational programs that help children reach their potential and build 
bright futures, and cuts to labor programs to help our workers remain 
competitive in the global economy. These cuts are very difficult and, 
indeed, I think should be avoided at all costs.
  This is the wrong level of funding for the LIHEAP bill and, second, 
it is the wrong way to go about paying for these costs.
  First, Senator Gregg based the amount of funding in his amendment on 
a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to the appropriators in September. 
We were pleased to be joined by 43 of our colleagues in requesting 
$1.276 billion in emergency spending for LIHEAP. Since that time, 51 of 
our colleagues have joined us to vote for an increase in spending to 
$5.1 billion, the full authorized amount. At this point, a majority of 
the Senate is on record supporting a much higher level of funding for 
the State grant program.
  The second point about Senator Gregg's amendment is that the $1.276 
billion level of funding requested in our letter is different from the 
money we have been discussing and voting on in the last several days. 
The $1.276 billion was for emergency funding that could be used by the 
President at his discretion. This would give the President the ability 
to target assistance to the States most in need of additional funding 
based on increases in energy prices and weather conditions.
  Senator Gregg's amendment adds the additional funding into the State 
block grant program, not the emergency discretionary program. 
Ironically, because of the formula allocation of this program, the 
cold-weather States that Senator Gregg and all of us are attempting to 
help this winter may see only slight increases in funding.
  I have been provided with different analyses of the LIHEAP formula 
and what States will gain and lose under the Gregg amendment. This, I 
must say, is a rather arcane formula which produces at least two 
interpretations. Based on data from the Department of Health and Human 
Services and a preliminary analysis by CRS, States, such as Minnesota, 
Washington, and Wisconsin, will see no increase in funding under 
Senator Gregg's amendment. Iowa will see an increase of under 3 
percent. Oregon will see less than a 7.5-percent increase, and Maine 
less than 10 percent, hardly the targeting we need to ensure these 
States are prepared for the cold weather that is upon us and the high 
energy prices.
  Under a second scenario, another analysis--and this is according to 
the Economic Opportunity Study also based on data from Health and Human 
Services--States, such as Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, South 
Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana, may receive only a 
slight increase under the Gregg amendment and less funding than they 
received last year when these States received both their block grant 
allocation and emergency funds. This will be less funding when energy 
bills are rising 50 percent, and the Gregg amendment is proposing $1 
billion in increased spending.
  The reason there are at least two different scenarios is because of 
the complex nature of this formula. The current LIHEAP formula favors 
funding to cold-weather States up to $1.97 billion in appropriations. 
For funds above that level, a new formula determines the allocation of 
funding. This new formula directs funding to warm-weather States in the 
South and Southwest. Therefore, cold weather States in New England, the 
Midwest, and the North will see fewer additional dollars despite the 
increase offered by Senator Gregg. Cold weather States that need a 
substantial increase in assistance now to address rising energy prices 
will not get the funding they need under the amendment of Senator 
Gregg.
  The amendment Senator Collins and I offered adds $2.92 billion to the 
State LIHEAP block grant program. This funding, coupled with the money 
currently provided in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will provide a 
total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the level authorized in the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. This law was passed by this Congress and signed 
into law by the President just 3 months ago. The $5.1 billion level of 
funding acknowledges the program needs and would fully satisfy the 
demands caused by this winter and rising energy prices or at least go a 
substantial way to satisfy all the demands throughout the country. Our 
amendment adds the $2.92 billion to the block grant program which 
provides direct assistance to the States. Our funding level is 
sufficient to ensure both cold weather and warm weather States get the 
funding they need.
  The other problem that the $1.276 billion level raises is, because of 
income data, because of cold weather, because of the number of 
Americans who qualify, we need every dollar we can get to help 
Americans this winter, particularly seniors. There are 32 million 
households eligible for LIHEAP assistance under the law, and yet we are 
serving only 5 million. So this is a situation where demand far exceeds 
needs even at robust funding levels, and at the $19.9 billion level, it 
is dramatically unsatisfactory. Seniors just received a $65 adjustment, 
but this is totally inadequate to deal with the soaring energy prices 
in all the cold States of this Nation. So I believe we have to do much 
more. In fact, the majority of the Senate believes that, in supporting 
a higher level of $5.1 billion total appropriation level for LIHEAP.
  The other point I think is disturbing about the approach of the 
Senator is it would pay for this by cutting programs across the board, 
cutting very important programs that are necessary for all of us.
  As the chairman, Senator Specter, pointed out, this is a barebones 
bill. It does not even have increases for inflation, and we are 
literally robbing Peter to pay Paul if, in fact, we support the 
approach of the Senator from New Hampshire. This support for across-
the-board cuts will leave behind 37,000 needy students who could be 
served by title I and will reduce IDEA funding for special education by 
$98 million. It would drop the Federal share of excess special 
education costs from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 17.8 percent 
in fiscal year 2006. It would mean a $63 million cut in the level for 
Head Start,

[[Page 23685]]

$32 million below the level of last year, and here we have a program 
that would be serving, as a result, 4,400 fewer children.
  We face a challenge this year, a particular challenge after Katrina, 
of ensuring that the second surge from that disaster, the surge of high 
energy prices and cold weather, does not leave families vulnerable. 
That is why I am so pleased that the majority of the Senate supports 
our approach of $5.1 total appropriation, and we hope, as the votes 
come, that we will reach the 60-vote margin we need to prevail. I hope 
we can, in fact, reach that margin.
  I will join, again, Senator Collins in urging all our colleagues to 
support our amendment.
  Mr. President, I also commend and thank Senator Byrd, first for his 
kindness in yielding to me and second because his title I amendment 
will increase funding. I thank the Senator for his valiant work in this 
regard and his concern for those who need that type of funding for 
their education and their future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.


                           Amendment No. 2275

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report,
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2275.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for title I of the Elementary 
                  and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

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

     SEC. __. ADDITIONAL TITLE I FUNDING.

       In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under this 
     Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000,000 for carrying out 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), of which--
       (1) $2,500,000,000 shall be for targeted grants under 
     section 1125 of such Act; and
       (2) $2,500,000,000 shall be for education finance incentive 
     grants under section 1125A of such Act.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the 
Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to 
educate these disadvantaged students.
  Hear me, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's 
disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate 
them. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 4 years ago--
how short are our memories--it promised--get this--we promised to give 
schools the funding they would need to help every young person in this 
country to succeed in the classroom. I wish I had that when I was 
starting out in a two-room schoolhouse 80 years ago. That promise has 
not been kept. We have not even come close, and there is no better 
example of that broken promise than the title I program.
  Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. Did 
you hear, Senators? Title I is the most important Federal education 
program we have. It helps the students who need help the most--who need 
help.
  When Caesar was about to drown, Caesar said:

       Help me, Cassius, or I sink!

  Here is a program that is not well. It needs help or it will sink--
help for the millions of children who are being left behind.
  It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will 
hold schools accountable--yes, hold schools accountable for improving 
student performance. They should be held accountable. That is why when 
Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act it authorized specific 
funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2007. But 
every year--now get this--every year when it is time to appropriate the 
money, we have come up short.
  This chart here beside me tells the story. Focus your eyes on this 
chart. Here is the title to the chart, ``Falling Behind On `No Child 
Left Behind.''' How about that? ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left 
Behind.''' The numbers are in billions, billions of dollars. Take a 
good look at this chart, I say. This chart tells the story, a pretty 
sordid story. The first year of the law, fiscal year 2002--this bar 
right here--the No Child Left Behind Act authorized $13.5 billion. 
There it is, the first year: $13.5 billion authorized. How much did 
Congress appropriate? Congress appropriated just $10.3 billion. The 
blue shows $13.5 billion authorized. The red shows we fell short. We 
only appropriated $10.3 billion.
  In fiscal year 2003, watch this gap. The gap grew wider. The blue 
line shows that Congress authorized $16 billion, the blue bar, but 
Congress appropriated just $11.7 billion. There was $16 billion 
authorized, $11.7 billion appropriated.
  Each year, as one can see on this chart, Congress has fallen further 
and further behind, behind in its promise to America's most needy 
students.
  The authorized amount for fiscal year 2006--that is where we are 
now--appropriating moneys for fiscal year 2006, the authorized amount 
is $22.75, way over here on the chart, $22.75 billion. But the amount 
in this bill is just $12.8. Look at it. That is $10 billion less than 
the law promised to these disadvantaged students and to the schools in 
which they study. What a shame, $10 billion less--$22.75 was 
authorized, $12.8 billion was appropriated.
  What a gap, $10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born--$10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born. What a gap. What a gap, $10 billion. That is enough to 
provide the full range of title I services to more than 3 million needy 
students who are currently being left behind by our Nation's schools. 
And at the current funding level in the Senate bill, they will continue 
to be left behind.
  We got a hard look at some of those disadvantaged students during 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Those disasters cast a bright light on a 
part of America that many people would like to pretend does not exist--
a part of America where the school buildings are crumbling, where there 
are not enough good teachers, and students are afraid for their own 
safety. These are real live people, live students who have a future, 
who have a horizon out there, who have a vision, and yet we are not 
keeping our promise to them. They are being left behind.

     I took a piece of plastic clay
     And idly fashioned it one day
     And as my fingers pressed it still
     It moved and yielded to my will.

     I came again when days were past,
     The bit of clay was hard at last.
     The form I gave it, it still bore
     And I could change that form no more.

     I took a piece of living clay
     And gently formed it day by day
     And molded with my power and art
     A young child's soft and yielding heart.

     I came again when years were gone,
     He was a man I looked upon.
     He still that early impress wore
     And I can change him never more.

Never more, never more.
  That is what we are talking about, a piece of human clay, human clay.
  We are leaving those children behind.
  Those are exactly the kinds of students who are being left behind 
today and they are exactly the kinds of students who can be helped by 
title I.
  America can do better. I say America can do better for these 
students. That is why I am offering this amendment to increase funding 
for title I. I wish I could increase this program by the entire $10 
billion to fulfill this commitment, our commitment, the commitment we 
made when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I know 
I wouldn't get enough votes from the other side of the aisle, I have to 
say. They are all good people over on the other side. They are all 
patriotic people. They are good citizens and they are dedicated to the 
service of the

[[Page 23686]]

people. But I realize I can be wrong sometimes. I think they are wrong. 
I don't think some of them will vote for this. We will see.
  I am proposing instead that we get halfway there. We are just going 
halfway--$10 billion shortage--$10 billion shortage in our promise for 
the children, the disadvantaged children of this country, $10 billion 
short. I am going to ask for half of that, at least try to close half 
the gap, half of it.
  I am proposing that we get half the way there, that we close the gap 
over 2 years: $5 billion now, $5 billion the following year. I am 
proposing we get halfway there, that we close the gap over 2 years by 
adding $5 billion.
  That is enough to fully serve more than 1.5 million disadvantaged 
students who the administration would leave behind, and we would leave 
behind. These children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and 
receive the complete range of instructional services called for under 
the No Child Left Behind Act. States will benefit from this amendment--
your State, Mr. President, your State, my State.
  In my own State of West Virginia, schools would receive a total 
increase of just $800,000 for title I if the bill is passed as it is 
now. Under my amendment, those students in West Virginia would receive 
an additional $39 million above the bill. Tennessee would receive an 
additional $78 million.
  Do you hear me? The people of Tennessee--are you listening? Are you 
listening? Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million.
  Pennsylvania--are you listening? Pennsylvania is the State of which 
Benjamin Franklin was once president. Yes. Old Ben Franklin. 
Pennsylvania would receive an additional $185 million.
  Louisiana would receive an additional $111 million; Mississippi, an 
additional $62 million.
  I offered a similar amendment 2 years ago and those who opposed my 
amendment argued then that Congress is under no obligation to fund 
title I at the authorizing level because authorizations are only 
guidelines. Title I is not your average authorization program. Most 
educational authorizations don't put requirements on States and local 
school districts, but the title I program in the No Child Left Behind 
Act puts more requirements on our Nation's schools than any law in the 
past 35 years.
  This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all 
students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 
years. That is all students. That is all students, not just those in 
the affluent suburbs. No, not just those in the affluent suburbs, but 
poor students in Appalachia. That is where I come from, you see. When I 
was a boy I would have been included, Robert Byrd. And the gulf coast 
includes children with disabilities. Do you hear me? Hear, listen. That 
includes children with disabilities. And it includes students of all 
races. How about that? And ethnicity. How about that? All races, all 
ethnicities.
  Schools must leave no child behind--not your child, not my great-
grandchild. And if schools that receive title I funds fall short of 
this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make 
adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 
consecutive years--listen to this--have to give students the option of 
transferring to another public school. Yes. That means the school has 
to redirect money it would have spent for instruction and use it--for 
what?--for transportation instead.
  This past school year, almost 11,000 schools and districts in the 
country failed to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight 
years.
  Did you hear that? Almost 11,000--11,000--schools and districts in 
this country failed this past year to make adequate yearly progress for 
at least 2 straight years.
  The penalties get more severe the longer the school fails to make 
adequate yearly progress. Ultimately, if a title I school falls short 
for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over--get this--the school can be 
taken over by the State, or the entire staff can be fired.

       Help me, Cassius, or I sink.

  These are serious penalties. The entire staff can be fired. There is 
the door. There is the door. The entire staff can be fired and 
replaced. That gets pretty tough. That hits close to home.
  These are serious penalties, and I support them. I believe it is high 
time that we hold schools accountable for their performance and getting 
their act together. I believe it is high time we hold schools 
accountable for their performance. But--here is the conjunction 
``but''--I also believe that if we in the Congress are going to demand 
that schools raise student achievement, we, I, you, Senators, all 
Senators, all Members of the other body, if we are going to demand that 
schools raise student achievement, we have a responsibility to provide 
those schools with the additional resources that they need to improve.
  That is what we are talking about on this chart. We are falling 
short. We are falling behind in the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Unfortunately, as I say, we are not keeping our promise. In fact, for 
most school districts, Federal funds are moving in the opposite 
direction. In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school 
districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. 
What a shame. How about that. Look at that.
  Listen. Hear me. I will say that again.
  In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts 
received less title I funding than they did the year before. In fiscal 
2005, two-thirds of school districts took a cut in title I funding.
  If Congress passes the Senate bill as it stands now, most districts 
will receive less title I funding for the third year in a row. That is 
not what Congress promised. That is not what Congress intended when it 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The funding level for title I in this bill is a betrayal of the law 
and it is unfair to all people in this country who are working so hard 
to implement the law. Parents and teachers want their schools to be 
held accountable. They want every child--not just this one or that one 
but every child--to succeed. They are holding up their end of the 
bargain. Are we? Are we holding up our end of the bargain? It is time 
for the Congress to do the same.
  I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in 
that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave 
no child behind. What is more important than our children? What is more 
important than the education of our children?
  I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word 
to the people, didn't we? Yes, we gave our word to the people when we 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Let us keep our word.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to 
the comments by the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It 
is always a treat to listen to Senator Byrd, hear a little Roman 
history, hear a tune from time to time, and hear the lengthy experience 
that Senator Byrd brings to this august body.
  He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952. Before that 
he had been a legislator for the State of West Virginia. He was elected 
to the Senate in 1958. We were reminiscing the other day about his 
having served with President Truman, only for a few days, because 
President Truman did not run in 1952. President Eisenhower did. And 
Senator Byrd always very carefully denominates the service ``with'' as 
opposed to ``under.'' That is exactly correct. I share his insistence 
on parity.
  When they wrote the Constitution, Congress was article I, not the 
executive branch. It did not come in until article II, and the 
judiciary, not until article III. But the Supreme Court has sort of 
rewritten the Constitution more than once.
  Now, if we were to rewrite the Constitution, they would be article I. 
I don't know where the Congress would be, they have taken away so much 
of our authority. We have lost our authority under the commerce clause.

[[Page 23687]]

  The Supreme Court wrote an opinion in a case called United States v. 
Morrison involving the legislation on protecting women against 
violence; notwithstanding a mountain of evidence, a voluminous record, 
they said it was insufficient, and they disagreed with our ``method of 
reasoning.''
  It surprised me, in preparation for the hearings from Chief Justice 
Roberts, to know that Congress had a defective method of reasoning. I 
didn't know that until I read that in the Supreme Court opinion. 
Somehow when you move from the columns of Congress, the Senate, lined 
up directly with the columns of the Supreme Court, you lose some 
reasoning capacity in the interim--which I doubt very much. Then when 
they interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act, Justice Scalia 
said they were tasking the Congress, getting us to do our homework, 
that we had not made a sufficient record.
  So when I listen to Senator Byrd talk about the Constitution and 
about our duties, it is with great interest. I recollect a few years 
back when Senator Byrd chaired the Committee on Appropriations and I 
had the audacity to challenge his mark. It was not done by any Senator. 
I thought I had that standing. I looked at my Commission of Elections, 
and I had that standing. I got 3 votes out of 29: Senator D'Amato, 
Senator Kasten voted with me. Senator Kasten was not here at the 1992 
elections, so it was a long time ago that Senator Byrd looked across 
the table in S-128, the appropriations room, and said: Someday you may 
be chairman, you may set the mark.
  I am not too far away and have not gotten there yet to be chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  We wrestle with these appropriations budgets. It is really a tough 
job. This subcommittee of the bill we have today for $145 billion has 
to fund education and health, which are our two major capital assets. 
If you do not have good health, you cannot do anything. If you cannot 
have a good education, you cannot move ahead in this world. Senator 
Byrd and I have both benefited from a good education. I didn't come 
from a school quite as small as his. I went to high school in a town of 
5,000, Russell, KS, where Bob Dole had gone to high school. However, 
education is the key to the future and I know that, and I appreciate 
that.
  We have struggled mightily to make the best allocation we can with 
the priorities ahead. As I listened to Senator Byrd talk about title I 
of No Child Left Behind, I would like to see the funding increased on 
No Child Left Behind. I would see our priorities on a budget of $2.6 
trillion arranged differently if I set the priorities.
  Maybe someday I will get to be chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and can set the priorities. But even as I say that, 
there is so little of that money in discretionary spending that so much 
of the authority of the Committee on Appropriations is taken away. We 
have to do the best we can. We labored mightily to craft the best 
priorities we could.
  There will be a number of amendments. There was an amendment offered 
yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, on Pell 
grants. I would like to have had more money for Pell grants. I said if 
Senator Kennedy can show the priorities of what could be cut, I would 
be glad to consider that.
  As I listened to Senator Byrd today, I would like to have $5 billion 
more and accept his amendment and see more money go to title I and No 
Child Left Behind, but the money simply is not there.
  I have to disagree with my distinguished colleague when he says there 
has been a betrayal of the promise. I don't think the authorization 
constitutes a proposition. The authorization is always higher than the 
appropriation. In the dark ages of the past, my colleague--Senator 
Harkin is returning to the Senate--the dark ages of the past when 
Senator Harkin was chairman of this subcommittee, Democrats took 
control in that fateful time, the spring of 2001, and controlled the 
budget process 2001 and 2002 for about a 17-month period. I took a look 
at what the figures were at that time. I noted the authorization on 
title I for fiscal year 2002 was $13.5 billion, and the appropriation 
was $10.35 billion. I understood that because we crafted that bill 
together.
  When I say the ``dark ages'' I say it only in jest. Senator Harkin 
and I have worked coordinately. With all the bickering that exists in 
this Senate--and it is a lot--there is a deep trench here that crosses 
the aisle on many days in the Senate but not when Tom Harkin and Arlen 
Specter or Bob Byrd and Thad Cochran or Ted Stevens work on a bill. We 
cross the partisan line.
  Senator Harkin and the Democrat-controlled Congress could not fund it 
all the way up to the authorization. And in 2003, again, when Senator 
Harkin was chairman of the subcommittee, the authorization was $16 
billion and the appropriation was $11.689 billion.
  I took a look at the funding for the 5 years of the Bush 
administration and compared it to funding in the 5 years of President 
Clinton's administration. As to title I, under the Bush administration, 
the budget request for fiscal year 2006 is $13.342 billion; President 
Clinton's last year at $8.357 billion. There was an increase during the 
Bush years of $4.985 billion.
  With President Clinton, I compared from 1997 to 2001. In 1997, the 
budget request by the President was $7.165 billion, and President 
Clinton's last year it was $8.357 billion. So there was an increase 
during President Clinton's watch of $1.192 billion.
  I cite those figures only to point out President Bush has not done 
too badly by comparison to President Clinton. They both struggled as 
well.
  When we look at the total funding on education, President Bush's 
budget for 2006 is $56.219 billion, going back to 2001 as a base, 
$40.088 billion, the education budget request by President Clinton has 
increased $16.131 billion.
  If you take a comparable period for President Clinton and use the 
fiscal year 2001 figures of $40.088 billion contrasted with fiscal year 
1997, $25.829 billion, there was an increase of $14.259 billion.
  Now, these figures are subject to differences of inflation. They are 
not exact. But it ought to be understood, or at least the point I seek 
to make is that it is not a political matter. When it comes to 
education there is recognition by both parties that it is a very high 
priority item.
  On the comparison, I find fault with neither party. Both Presidents 
have tried to do what they could with a lot of conflicting problems. 
Certainly, when Senator Harkin was the chairman of the subcommittee, he 
did his best. We worked together. When I had an idea, I would bring it 
to him and we would try to work it out. When he had an idea, he would 
bring it to me and I would try to work it out.
  We have been talking about the avian flu issue, which we will talk 
about later. I was in my hideaway--that is a small Senate office for 
somebody watching on C-SPAN2, where you go to hide to try to get some 
work done, instead of your office where you are surrounded by many 
assistants who want answers to their specific problems which are the 
most pressing of the day.
  The phone rang. It was Senator Harkin trying to prepare an opening 
statement for the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings. We have other 
work to do besides this big appropriations bill. It was quiet until the 
phone rang. It was Senator Harkin. Would I take a call from Senator 
Harkin? Of course, I will take a call from Senator Harkin, put him 
through.
  We talked about avian flu and what we are going to do. He had some 
good ideas on avian flu, and we will discuss that in some detail a 
little later today.
  Wherever he has an idea, and I am the chairman, I am all ears. If I 
can accommodate Senator Harkin, I am going to do so. He was hard to get 
off the phone this morning. That happens from time to time. He was 
giving me a very heavy pitch. I tried to interrupt him at one point and 
said: Tom, I hate to say this, but I think you are right.
  It didn't stop him, he kept going, kept going. About 30 seconds after 
I said that, he stopped, and said: Yes, you said I was right.
  I said: That's right, Tom. Can we finish this conversation and 
continue it in

[[Page 23688]]

the Senate when we have the issue before the Senate?
  In conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--while I 
would like to agree with Senator Byrd and I would like to see $5 
billion more, we do not have the money under the allocation. If anybody 
has any ideas about how to rearrange the priorities, I am willing to 
listen.
  It is customary for the allocation, the appropriation, to be under 
the authorization. That happens whether Democrat or Republican. You do 
not put on a villain's hat necessarily because you are in one party or 
the other. We will continue the struggle and continue to try to do our 
best on education.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his 
contributions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as always, it is a joy and interesting to 
listen to my friend and colleague, my chairman, talk about the past and 
what we have done together. He is right, we have worked together 
closely. I followed his lead on a lot of things, such as when Arlen 
Specter, back in the mid-1990s, wanted to do double funding for NIH. He 
took the lead on that. I did what I could to help. And we got the job 
done under his great leadership.
  So we have worked together on a lot of different things. And where we 
have had differences, we have had differences, but we have always been, 
I think, upfront and open about those differences. While I love Arlen 
Specter dearly, and respect him greatly, he is not my twin, he is not 
my clone, so we do have different ways of approaching things once in a 
while. And that is the way it ought to be around here. There should not 
be, as he said, this big gulf between us, but there ought to be an 
honest airing of differences of views on how we ought to approach 
things.
  Take the Byrd amendment, for example. I stated earlier, when we first 
brought the bill to the floor, that Senator Specter had done a superb 
job, and he was always open with my staff and me in crafting and 
putting together this bill. I said when you are dealt a bad hand, you 
have to do the best you can. And Senator Specter did. So in terms of 
the bill itself and how it is crafted, I do not have problems.
  What I have problems with is our allocation. That is where I have 
problems. Since I did not support the budget, I said at the time we 
laid the bill down the other day: Look, if people are going to come 
here with amendments that offset and jiggle things around in the bill, 
I will not support it because we worked very hard, Senator Specter 
worked very hard, to craft a bill that was fair in terms of what we had 
to deal with. So I would not support amendments which jiggle things 
around. But if someone has an amendment they want to offer which would 
not jiggle things around, but add money--which I understand takes 60 
votes to waive the Budget Act--I am going to be for that because I 
don't agree with the Budget Act. I don't agree with what the budget 
calls for.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't either.
  Mr. HARKIN. So I will support the Byrd amendment because he is not 
trying to take money from one pot and move it to another; he is saying 
the budget was wrong. We ought to waive it and put the money in.
  Now, with all due respect, again, to my friend from Pennsylvania, in 
going back over the history of this, I wish to point out that the Byrd 
amendment only closes 50 percent of the gap between the authorization 
level and what is in the Senate bill.
  I have here a chart that shows the authorization and the 
appropriations levels going back to fiscal year 2002. Senator Specter 
made mention there was an interim period there when our party was in 
charge for about a year, so we were in charge of the budget and the 
appropriations at that time.
  I point out that at that point our appropriations were a little over 
70 percent, maybe about 75 percent of the authorization level. Today, 
we are less than 40 percent of the authorization level. So what Senator 
Byrd has said is the authorization level is going up, our 
appropriations are staying flat. We now have this huge gap. We are 
trying to close this gap. It is not 100 percent. It is about 50 percent 
of closing that gap, and that would tend to bring us back to about 
where we were 3 or 4 years ago, in terms of the difference between the 
authorization level and the appropriations level.
  Now, there is one other thing that happened during this period of 
time. The Congress passed something called No Child Left Behind, a new 
mandate on the States, a new mandate that States had to do in 
education. Now, I am on the authorizing committee for education. At 
that time, Senator Kennedy was our chairman. I can remember sitting at 
the White House, and I can remember sitting up here in meetings 
discussing No Child Left Behind, I say to my friend from West Virginia, 
and about what it was going to cost.
  The White House, through their representatives, agreed on what level 
we would fund No Child Left Behind. Now, that was only authorization 
because it was an authorization bill. But we were told by the White 
House that they would meet these authorization levels. One of the 
reasons I voted for the bill, not that I was enamored with it, but I 
felt the White House had made a commitment they would fund No Child 
Left Behind at the levels we agreed to. We agreed with the White House: 
These levels? OK, yes, we agree at these levels.
  Here they are. This level, right here, $22.75 billion for fiscal year 
2006. That is what we agreed upon. Yet our appropriation for this year 
is $12.8 billion. That is why I said it is about--well, I said 40 
percent. I made a mistake. It is a little over 50 percent. But in 
fiscal year 2002, we were at about 75 percent of funding, and that was 
at the beginning of No Child Left Behind.
  So what Senator Byrd is trying to do is make us live up to what we 
had agreed to do, with both the White House and the States. I dare say, 
any Senator here who goes home and talks to their State government, 
talks to their school districts--go out and talk to your school 
districts and find out what they are saying about No Child Left Behind. 
They are saying: Wait a minute. You put all of these mandates on us. 
You said you were going to fund it. Now you are not, and now we are 
being penalized because we can't meet the goals of No Child Left 
Behind.
  We have put them in kind of what they call a catch-22 situation: 
Darned if you do; darned if you don't. Either way, you lose.
  So that is why I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment. The budget 
needs to be waived. We need to meet our commitments on this.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of my colleague 
from Iowa, in support of the amendment being offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia. It was only a few years ago that I offered an 
amendment, during the authorizing bill, to fully fund title I. That 
amendment carried with over 70 votes to fully fund title I in this 
Chamber. It was only a matter of months ago. That was an authorization 
bill. It was not the appropriations bill. All of us are certainly 
adults, and we know the authorizing levels do not always meet with the 
appropriations. But we have gone on record supporting this.
  I wish to underscore the point the Senator is making and the Senator 
from West Virginia made; and that is, I hear it. My State, in fact, has 
filed a lawsuit on the No Child Left Behind Act because of restrictions 
being required of them.
  Now, again, similar to the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from 
West Virginia, I have great respect for this law because it is a civil 
rights bill, in my view. It says we should no longer tolerate social 
promotions of children. We ought to be insisting there ought to be 
accountability at every single level.
  The essence of the bill Senator Kennedy and others drafted, that we 
were a part of, I think is sound. I think history will prove it to be 
such. The great

[[Page 23689]]

shortcoming is not the failure of the law. The law is sound. It is 
sensible. It makes sense. The failure is as the Senator from Iowa and 
the Senator from West Virginia pointed out; and that is, we have not 
lived up to the commitment we made.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. DODD. We turned around and voted overwhelmingly for that law. 
President Bush wanted it. The Department of Education wanted it. The 
Congress wanted it. We said: This is what we will do. Yet month after 
month, since enactment of that legislation, we have failed to meet that 
obligation. That is the great tragedy in all of this, not the No Child 
Left Behind law, but the failure of the Congress and the President to 
say to the people of our respective States: This is what you must do. 
And by the way, we will be here to see to it the funding is there to 
support those efforts. We have gone on record in this body, and we are 
now denying our own record if we turn down this amendment offered by 
Senator Byrd.
  I wish to reinforce the point made by the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. He 
was also on the education committee and was involved in those 
discussions during No Child Left Behind. The Senator from Connecticut 
chaired the education subcommittee there, so he knows full well the 
commitments that were made at that time by the White House and the 
Congress to fund it. Senator Kennedy was absolutely right, we are not 
doing what we agreed to do in this regard.
  Mr. President, prior to yielding the floor, might I ask, what is the 
pending business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Byrd amendment is the pending 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2283

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd 
amendment be temporarily set aside. I have an amendment I send to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2283.

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

    (Purpose: To make available funds for pandemic flu preparedness)

       On page 222, at the appropriate place at the end of Title 
     V, insert the following:

                              TITLE     .

     SECTION 101.

       (a) From the money in the Treasury not otherwise obligated 
     or appropriated, there are appropriated to the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention $7,975,000,000 for activities 
     relating to a pandemic influenza epidemic during the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, which shall be available 
     until expended.
       (b) Of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)--
       (1) $3,680,000,000 shall be for stockpiling of antivirals 
     and necessary medical supplies relating to pandemic influenza 
     and public health infrastructure, of which not less than 
     $600,000,000 shall be for grants to state and local public 
     health agencies for emergency preparedness;
       (2) $60,000,000 shall be for global surveillance relating 
     to avian flu;
       (3) $3,300,000 shall be to increase the national investment 
     in domestic vaccine infrastructure including development and 
     research;
       (4) $750,000,000 shall be for improving hospital 
     preparedness and surge capacity and health information 
     technology systems and networks to improve detection of 
     influenza outbreaks;
       (5) $75,000,000 shall be for risk communication and 
     outreach to providers, businesses, and to the American 
     public;
       (6) $100,000,000 shall be for research and CDC lab capacity 
     related to pandemic influenza; and
       (7) $10,000,000 for surveillance of migratory birds for the 
     occurrence of influenza.
       (c) This title shall take effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.


                           Amendment No. 2275

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now return 
to the Byrd amendment and that it be the pending business of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, wishes to speak for 5 minutes. If I may 
take 5 seconds.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leaders on education: Senator 
Byrd on Title I, Senator Dodd on the Head Start program, and Senator 
Clinton on IDEA. As I did yesterday, I pay tribute to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, Senator Specter, because when education issues have 
been before the Senate, he has voted for increases in funding.
  But the Senator from West Virginia will remember, during the budget 
consideration, this body asked for $5 billion more in education 
funding. The budget went to conference. We did not get $5 billion. We 
did not get $4 billion. We did not get $3 billion. We did not get $2 
billion. We did not get $1 billion. We got zero.
  Now we have the opportunity, with the amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia, to do something for the neediest children 
in this country. Those are Title I children.
  In the early 1960s, this Nation made a commitment and said: For the 
poorest of the poor children in this Nation, we are going to recognize 
a national responsibility. Those were Title I children. We have, over a 
long period of time, tried to focus on improving opportunities for the 
most disadvantaged students. But as my friends and colleagues on our 
Education Committee said, we heard the President of the United States 
say: We are going to do even more for those children with the No Child 
Left Behind Act. Instead what we have seen is a failure to meet that 
commitment.
  One of the most important reasons for supporting the Senator from 
West Virginia, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from New 
York on their amendments is that we find, when we provide this help and 
assistance, it works. You have positive results.
  I refer you to what has happened in my own State of Massachusetts. 
Today, in my State of Massachusetts, we are No. 1 in the country for 
fourth graders and tied for first for eight graders on the Nation's 
Report Card because we did a real No Child Left Behind, the Education 
Reform Act, 8 years before the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into 
law. The reforms included smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, 
and supplementary services. Parents were involved in decisionmaking. 
This is what the Senator from West Virginia wants to do. He wants to 
make sure the whole country can catch up and make sure we keep the 
commitment we made when this President signed the No Child Left Behind 
Act and said we were going to have proficiency guaranteed to all the 
children in this country. The Senator from West Virginia says: Well, we 
are not going to leave the more than 3 million children behind who will 
be left behind without his particular amendment. I thank the Senator 
from West Virginia for offering the amendment. I hope the Senate will 
adopt it.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of and pay tribute to 
our leader on Head Start, the Senator from Connecticut, who used to be 
the chairman of our children's caucus. He has been the battler and 
fighter for the program. Every study shows that the money invested in 
children at the earliest age is the most productive and useful in 
education. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade, less 
likely to need special education services, and more likely to complete 
school. I also applaud the work of the Senator from New York on IDEA. 
We are far behind in meeting our responsibility to many of the children 
who

[[Page 23690]]

have faced some of the most difficult challenges--those who have both 
physical and mental disabilities. The amendment offered by the Senator 
will go a long way to providing the resources needed to ensure that 
students with disabilities receive the resources they need to succeed. 
I applaud her efforts.
  With these amendments on Title I, Head Start and IDEA, we have an 
opportunity to speak about the future. Education is about opportunity. 
It is about fairness. It is about competitiveness. And it is about 
national security. Hopefully, the Senate will go on record and support 
these three measures. Our children and our schools need our help. They 
need it now more than ever, and so does the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to approve all three of these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will vote quickly. But 
before it does, I thank the Senators who have just spoken, particularly 
the manager of the bill, Mr. Specter. He is an outstanding Senator. I 
have seen this Senate turn over more than 3 times, complete turnover of 
100 Senators more than 3 times. I tell you, my friends, I have never 
seen a more eloquent, more dedicated Senator to his State, to his 
people, to the people of this country, to his work here, than Senator 
Specter. I admire him. Some day when he runs for reelection, I may make 
a little contribution to him. I will leave that for another time.
  I also thank my colleagues. What splendid colleagues they are. 
Senator Dodd, traveling in the wake of the Senator from Connecticut who 
signed the Constitution of the United States. What a man, Roger 
Sherman. And then the Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. What a 
great State that was and is. Read your history on the Revolutionary 
War, those times. Someone talked recently about the people of my 
generation who saw World War I, who lived through World War II and the 
Vietnam War, the other wars we have participated in, the Great 
Depression. My, these are great Senators. I can see their pictures out 
there on the medallions in the room just outside this Chamber. And the 
chairman and ranking member of this committee, my, what Senators they 
are. They are right, and they are right to oppose it in saying we don't 
have the money. I know they are right. But Congress could shift those 
priorities.
  How about the big tax cuts for the wealthy? How about the war in 
Iraq? How much are we spending there in treasure, to say nothing of the 
blood that is being spilled? Yes, we could do better, but we are doing 
the best we can under the circumstances now. I don't fault the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. I admire him. If I were in his position, I would 
understand his responsibility.
  My responsibility is to try. We can do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation for fiscal year 2006 and, therefore, is not in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, for which I voted, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my preference to stack the 
votes, unless the Senator from West Virginia would like to have a vote 
now.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I prefer to have the vote now.
  Mr. SPECTER. All right. In deference to the Senator from West 
Virginia, we will accede to his request. It would be my hope--I talked 
to Senator Harkin about this--that to the extent we can, while we have 
people here ready to offer amendments--we have just worked out a time 
agreement with Senator Dodd, 45 minutes equally divided for his 
amendment--while we have Senators in the Chamber ready to proceed, we 
do so to the extent we can, unless there is a circumstance which 
requires a different outcome.
  I understand Senator Alexander may have a related issue. I have just 
been informed about that. May I suggest to the Chair that we hear from 
Senator Alexander to see how it impacts on the vote before we move 
ahead with the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it would be my purpose to introduce an 
amendment that would increase funding for title I to the level 
President Bush has recommended. I propose that we set aside the pending 
amendment so that I may introduce that amendment. Perhaps we could vote 
on those two amendments.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he 
would be agreeable to a time limit of, say, 30 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Certainly.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I propose that we vote on this amendment. 
The Senator can still offer an amendment if he wishes to do so after 
this vote. Let's go. I ask for the vote. I object to any request to set 
this amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Under the regular order, we will then proceed to a vote, 
objection having been heard. We will entertain Senator Alexander's 
amendment at the earliest time the managers can. May I remind my 
colleagues that this is going to be a 15-minute rollcall vote, with 5 
additional minutes. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote yesterday. Let's see 
if we can beat that record. I know we are going to proceed. I will talk 
to my colleagues, and we will work out the sequence.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that will be the case. We have been 
trying to be responsive by being here to offer amendments when we have 
been asked to be here. It sort of throws off our schedule for the day. 
But I am happy to talk to my colleague.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we have worked out a procedure 
where there will not be either a side-by-side or second-degree 
amendment offered. The Senator from Tennessee would like an opportunity 
to speak for 10 minutes on it, and we will hear Senator Alexander for 
10 minutes and then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment. So I ask 
unanimous consent at this time that Senator Alexander be recognized for 
10 minutes, that we then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment, and 
then we proceed to take up the Dodd amendment and seek to proceed with 
the order we have established.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, may I also 
suggest the amendment offered by the Senator from New York be able to 
follow the Dodd amendment? Can we lock these in?
  Mr. SPECTER. Let us hold off on this. There may be some amendment on 
the Republican side. I doubt there will be, but I don't want to have a 
series of amendments on both sides.
  I think that would be agreeable, but I would not want to be bound to 
it at this moment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
vote on the Byrd amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to offer his 
amendment, after which point there would be a vote on the Dodd 
amendment, after which point if there is a Republican amendment that is 
to be brought up and disposed of; if there is not, the Senator from New 
York be recognized at that point to offer her amendment, followed by a 
vote.

[[Page 23691]]


  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not intend to press this issue if we can't get agreement, but I would 
like to stack the Dodd amendment, say, behind the Clinton amendment so 
we can save time.
  Let me restate the understanding. There will be 10 minutes for 
Senator Alexander, and there will be a vote on the Byrd amendment. We 
will then proceed to a Dodd amendment. If there is no intervening 
Republican seeking recognition to offer an amendment, we will proceed 
to the Clinton amendment, and we will discuss at a later time the 
sequence of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention to 
object, Mr. President, as I understand it, 10 minutes will be utilized 
by the Senator from Tennessee for remarks only.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is correct. The Senator from 
Tennessee will speak in opposition to the Byrd amendment and in support 
of the budget point of order, but he will just make a statement. 
Nothing will be offered.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further objection? If not, the 
Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy 
of allowing me--and the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from 
Connecticut--allowing me 10 minutes to speak.
  Mr. President, I am here in support of the budget point of order of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania to the Byrd amendment. Let me see if I 
can say in just a few minutes why I support that.
  I would like to ask the Chair if he will let me know when I have 1 
minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Absolutely.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the question is funding for the title I 
program, Federal funding for our public schools across the country that 
helps disadvantaged children. It is a very important program. I heard 
the Senator from West Virginia describe the importance of it. I agree 
with him about the importance of the program, but to try to put things 
into perspective, let me make a few points.
  First, the Senator from West Virginia, if I am not mistaken, is 
suggesting we spend $5 billion more, $2.5 billion a year on this 
important program. But he has not found some other place in the budget 
to reduce the spending. So this is $5 billion beyond the budget, and 
this comes at a time when all of the committees of the Senate have been 
working hard on deficit reduction. In the agriculture committee, in the 
education committee, in almost every committee, we are working at 
deficit reduction. Because we are at war, because we have had three 
terrible hurricanes, because we have new homeland security needs, and 
because entitlement spending--mandatory spending--is growing out of 
control, we are all trying to do a good job of living better within our 
means. So we are working to have a deficit reduction of $35 billion, 
and this would add another $5 billion in the opposite direction.
  The second point I would like to make to put this into perspective is 
that, as important as this program is, the Federal Government is not 
the principal source of funding for K-12 education. We only spend 7 or 
8 percent. States don't spend money for national defense by and large, 
and we don't spend much money for K-12. We spend 7 or 8 percent. The 
State and local governments have the major responsibility for our 
elementary and secondary schools.
  The third thing I would like to mention to put things in perspective 
is that money isn't everything. The top five State spenders in terms of 
dollars, total dollars for kindergarten through the 12th grade, have 
the widest achievement gaps between White students and Minority 
students, Hispanic students and African-American students. For example, 
in Massachusetts, a State which spends about $9,500 per student, there 
is a 33-percent gap between White and Minority students. In 
Connecticut, which spends even more, more than $10,000 per student, 
there is also a significant gap between White and Minority students. So 
even the States that spend the most money do not get the best results. 
Money is not everything.
  Another point to put this in perspective: we are spending more on 
education in our country today than at any time in history--more than 
we did when we had a surplus, more than we did when we were not at war, 
more than we did when we didn't have big hurricanes and a terrorist 
attack and homeland security concerns. And Federal increases for K-12, 
even though they are a smaller part of the pie, have gone up more 
rapidly than State increases over the last several years.
  For example, in Tennessee, my home State, there is $50 million a 
year, $25 million of it new money, for teacher training, to help 
teachers become highly qualified.
  Now, that is a lot of money. Those are Federal dollars. It would be 
enough money to give every teacher about an $858 pay increase a year. 
So the State could choose to use that money to help all of those 
teachers go to the community college or some other program to become 
better trained teachers, or the State could use those Federal dollars 
to give every Tennessee teacher an $800 pay raise based on some merit 
program. So there is a lot of new Federal money.
  The other argument that I heard a great deal about was that we are 
not funding up to the level of authorization. Mr. President, that is a 
convenient political argument, but let us think about what we mean by 
that. I do not have the figures--I wish I did--of how much money we 
have authorized to be spent for all the programs of the federal 
government. But if we spent all the way up to that authorization, which 
thankfully we don't, there would not be enough printing presses in 
Washington, DC, to print that much money. We almost never spend up to 
the authorization for every defense program or for health or for HIV/
AIDS or for any other part of the Federal budget. We have set an 
authorization level as sort of a top, a maximum, and then we 
appropriate every year what we can afford to spend based upon the needs 
that we see.
  So the idea that we are not appropriating to the authorization level 
is not a valid basis upon which to cast this vote. Also, I think it is 
important to note that there is a lot of money already appropriated by 
the Federal Government that is unspent. The Department of Education has 
some figures on that. The most conservative estimate is that prior to 
this year, so not even counting money appropriated in this fiscal year, 
there is 1.7 billion Federal dollars that we have appropriated to State 
and local governments for schools that is waiting to be spent, which 
raises the question: Shouldn't we be cautious about how much more we 
spend?
  Now, the budget that we are acting on would add $100 million to title 
I, bringing the number up to 12.8 billion Federal dollars, or a 47-
percent increase since the last year of President Clinton. That is a 
big increase, and just to put this in perspective again, I have this 
chart. I think to be fair about it we would have to say President Bush, 
this President, and the Congress with which he has served in the last 2 
years, have been good friends to title I.
  During President Clinton's time in office, 8 years, the increase was 
$2.4 billion. President Clinton cared about education. I know that; I 
served with him when he was Governor. We worked together on those 
things with other Governors, too. And he felt it was important over his 
8 years to increase title I by $2.4 billion. I salute him and those 
past Congresses for having done that. But if we are going to salute him 
and those past Congresses, I think we ought to pat ourselves on the 
back a little bit, and this President, because in this President's 
first 4 years he increased funding by $4 billion. And so did the 
Congress. So it is $4 billion for the first 4 years of Bush, $2.4 
billion for the 8 years of Clinton.
  Now, one may say, well, this was after No Child Left Behind was 
enacted; it should have gone up. And that

[[Page 23692]]

is correct, it should have gone up. I was not here when that happened, 
but the Congress looked at that and said we made a new commitment. We 
need additional dollars for title I. We need additional funds for IDEA. 
We need additional funds for teacher training. We need additional funds 
for some of the things we have asked the States to do. So we have 
increased funding for title I over 4 years by 47 percent--over 5 years.
  So including this budget, title I would be up to $12.8 billion, or 47 
percent since the last year of President Clinton.
  I am here today agreeing with the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia that title I is an immensely important program. I am proud of 
the fact that the Congress and President Bush have over the last 4 
years increased it by $4 billion. That builds on significant increases 
in title I that have been approved by Congress during the time of 
President Clinton and even before that. It may be that as time goes on 
and we see the need, and we are not in the middle of a war and we don't 
have three hurricanes of Titanic proportion and homeland security 
becomes less of a risk, we will have more money available. But in these 
times I believe the proper thing to do is to devote this amount of 
money to title I and support the budget point of order of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senators for giving me this 
opportunity to speak before the vote.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Byrd amendment. This amendment would increase funding for title I by $5 
billion. The No Child Left Behind Act authorized $22.7 billion in 
fiscal year 2006 for title I, which serves low-income, disadvantaged 
students and schools across the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill falls 
$9.9 billion short. This modest $5 billion increase is only half of the 
difference between the authorized amount in NCLB and the Senate bill 
level.
  I strongly believe that one of the Federal Government's primary roles 
is to improve education for disadvantaged students. Without adequate 
funding, we will put States, school districts, teachers and ultimately, 
students, at an even greater disadvantage as many will be unable to 
meet the requirements in the new law and it will be the students who 
will suffer. I hope my colleagues will support this important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the unanimous 
consent agreement it is now appropriate to have a rollcall vote.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, one more reminder. This is a 20-minute 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 2275. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
Warner).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Corzine
     Dayton
     Martinez
     Nelson (FL)
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
51. 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. The amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. We are now prepared to proceed with the Dodd amendment. 
I ask unanimous consent that we limit the time on this amendment to 45 
minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                    Amendment No. 2283, as Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, before we proceed to the Dodd amendment, 
I believe the pending amendment is my amendment. I have a modification 
at the desk. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2283), as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To make available funds for pandemic flu preparedness)

       On page 169, line 18, strike ``$183,589,000: Provided, That 
     120,000,000'' and replace with ``$8,158,589,000: Provided, 
     That 8,095,000,000''

  Mr. HARKIN. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendments be in order on the Dodd amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 2254

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I understand that we have a 45-minute time 
agreement on this amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, that is correct.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2254 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
     Stabenow and Mr. Dayton proposes an amendment numbered 2254.

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

     (Purpose: To increase appropriations for Head Start programs)

       On page 162, line 1, strike ``$9,000,832,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,153,832,000''.
       On page 162, line 7, strike ``$6,874,314,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,027, 314,000''.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Head Start Program, which is what this 
amendment is about, is, of course, very familiar to all Members. The 
Head Start Program began some 40 years ago. Ed Zigler from the State of 
Connecticut, who hails from Yale University, was the father of the Head 
Start concept and idea. I think it goes without saying that with the 
reforms that have been instituted over the last number of years, Head 
Start has been a very successful program during the past 40 years.
  There have been modifications to the program that I think have even 
strengthened it over the years. Literally thousands of American 
children,

[[Page 23693]]

who would otherwise not get a good start in their educational process, 
have been benefitting as a result of Head Start.
  Annually, there are some 900,000 children in the United States who 
are involved in some 18,000 programs across the country. That is 
serving about one in four of the eligible children under Head Start.
  Over the years, there have been various amendments that have been 
offered to fully fund Head Start or to raise the amounts considerably 
to increase the number of eligible children who could receive a Head 
Start Program. That is not my amendment today.
  I should have begun these remarks by thanking my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. He has been recognized already by the Senator from West 
Virginia and the Senator from Iowa for his support of these programs 
and ideas over the years. In fact, some 24 years ago, when he and I 
arrived as newly minted Senators in January of 1981, we formed together 
something called the Children's Caucus in the Senate. Senator Specter 
and I were the chair and co-chair of that caucus, to raise the level of 
awareness about issues affecting one in four Americans who are 
children. We had a variety of ad hoc hearings. We did not have any 
funding. We did not have the means to actually go out and solicit 
public support for our efforts to highlight some of these issues.
  The very first ad hoc hearing Senator Specter and I ever held dealt 
with latchkey children, afterschool programs, childcare, the related 
issues for single parents or both parents working. We were trying to 
get those children to have a good start to provide some resources and 
support for them. We went on to hold a variety of different hearings 
over the number of years thereafter. He was a great advocate and a 
great supporter of those programs. He continues to be today.
  Today I recognize that in fact the committee has had a modest 
increase in the Head Start Program of some $31.2 million. I am 
appreciative of that. My amendment merely raises that amount by $153 
million to make sure we do not have a decline or loss in services for 
the 900,000 children being served. This amendment is designed to 
protect about 20,000 children who would fall out of the Head Start 
Program if we were not able to keep pace with the rising costs of 
administering these programs.
  Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Durbin, 
Kerry, Murray, Corzine, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Stabenow, and Dayton be 
listed as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. The idea is just, if we can, to get these levels of support 
and funding up because of the rising costs of running these programs.
  Energy costs are going up on the average in Head Start Programs by 15 
percent. Transportation costs are going up 16 percent. Health insurance 
in some places has gone up as high as 25 percent. Training for staff is 
up 4 percent. Facility maintenance is up 9 percent. Services for 
children with special needs, of course, continues to rise.
  This amendment does not expand the program. It is not going to add 
100,000 children to the Head Start Program. It is just designed to make 
sure that we do not see the program deteriorate, that we do not force 
children presently in the program to be dropped because we are unable 
to meet the predictable inflationary costs of about 2.7 percent in Head 
Start Programs across the country. That is the rationale for it. It is 
not an excessive amendment at all. It is a realistic effort to try to 
do what we can to see to it that these children are going to get the 
kind of start they deserve.
  To make my case, I want to point out two studies. One was done a 
number of years ago. It was a survey done of kindergarten teachers 
throughout the United States. These were asked, How ready are children 
when they come to kindergarten? How ready are they to learn? Over 50 
percent of kindergarten teachers in the United States, when surveyed 
and asked that question, responded that the majority of children were 
not ready to learn when they entered kindergarten.
  There are a variety of reasons for that. We are not going to solve 
the problem overnight. But we do know now, after 40 years, that 
children who are in a Head Start Program clearly benefit and have a 
much higher degree of success than children in similar circumstances 
who do not participate in programs.
  We know, for instance, that Head Start children are more likely to 
maintain grade level performance in elementary schools and on into 
secondary schools. We know that Head Start children stay out of the 
juvenile justice system to a far higher degree than children who are 
not in those programs. We know that children in the Head Start Program 
are less likely to become abusers of substances, either alcohol or 
drugs. We know these children, who are involved in Head Start Programs 
are less likely to become teen mothers.
  In statistic after statistic, we find these children who get the 
benefit and advantages of a Head Start Program have a greater 
likelihood of success. It is not a guarantee of success. There are 
obviously children who do not make it. But we know after 40 years this 
program works pretty well.
  Again, I am not suggesting today we expand the program. I have tried 
that in the past. All I am asking my colleagues today is to say for the 
coming fiscal year can we do what is possible to avoid some 20,000 
children who are presently in the program from falling out of it?
  The second study I want to point out has just come out in the last 
several days. I do not know if my colleagues have yet received these in 
their offices. My colleagues, Senator Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman 
of New Mexico, went to the National Academy of Sciences a couple of 
months ago. If I can paraphrase their request, they said to the 
National Academy of Sciences: Would you mind telling us, over the next 
number of years, what are the 10 things we ought to better prepare to 
handle the math, the science, and the technology demands of our Nation?
  I am not going to recite the full study here, which is entitled 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' I will just list some of the 
authors. The chair is Norman Augustine, the retired chair of Lockheed 
Martin; Craig Barrett, chairman of the board of Intel Corporation; Rick 
Levin, the president of Yale University; the president of MIT, the 
president of DuPont company, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute--it is just an incredible list of distinguished Americans and 
academicians who worked over a period of time, I think 3 or 4 months, 
to come out with a series of recommendations.
  I will not go through all of their report. You will get it and it is 
worth looking at. There were some very dramatic recommendations and 
ones we should take very seriously.
  Their findings come in this smaller pamphlet entitled ``Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm.'' In the first paragraph, these distinguished 
Americans say:

       We are worried about the future prosperity of the United 
     States. Although many people assume the United States will 
     always be a world leader in science and technology, this may 
     not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas 
     exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which 
     a lead in science and technology can be lost, and the 
     difficulty of recovering a lead once lost if, indeed, it can 
     be regained at all. This Nation must prepare with great 
     urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security.

  It continues, but I think that language directly bears on the 
amendment I am offering today. The No. 1 suggestion they make--I don't 
think they necessarily prioritize it, but the first suggestion is to 
train and put into the field 10,000 teachers a year in math and the 
sciences. The goal is that each one of these teachers might educate 
1,000 students over a career, so that over time a million students in 
our country would benefit from a tremendous education in science and 
math and engineering.
  If America is going to avoid exactly what these distinguished 
Americans have warned us against we must prepare teachers and children. 
Let me go

[[Page 23694]]

back to the statistic I mentioned a moment ago, that if the 
kindergarten teachers of America are right, half of children entering 
kindergarten today are not ready to learn. It is one thing to have 
teachers, but what if you don't have the students who are ready to 
learn? If we know that Head Start kids are more likely to be prepared 
for school, stay in school, stay out of trouble, avoid substance abuse, 
don't become teen parents, then we ought to be doing what we can to 
keep those 900,000 kids in the program. We know full well that Head 
Start, after 40 years, does make a difference.
  We can do a lot better. We can do so much better if we start making 
these modest investments. We know the modest investments in these 
programs pay huge dividends. Should we not try to stop some erosion in 
this program? That is all I am offering today, a modest 2.7-percent 
increase, a little more than $150 million to just keep the number of 
children in the program there for the coming fiscal year. Then, I hope, 
in the coming years when our fiscal condition is much stronger and 
better certainly than it is today, we can do more to see that these 
children have a chance to go on.
  Someday I want to come back and offer an amendment again, as I did 
years ago, to make sure every eligible child can get in a good program 
like Head Start and Early Head Start. I wouldn't try that today. I know 
my colleagues cannot accept that. I understand the budget realities. 
But can we not find $153 million? We are spending $6 billion a month in 
Iraq. That doesn't include Afghanistan. My colleague from Tennessee and 
I and Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy recently worked on a package for 
1 year to help out some 400,000 students who have lost their schools as 
a result of Katrina and Rita--mostly Katrina. It was a great idea. 
Let's put aside our differences. Let's make sure these kids can get 
going so they do not miss a year because the schools have been washed 
away or destroyed.
  But there are not hurricanes and natural disasters all over our 
country, thank the Lord. But these children in Head Start, in many 
ways, live in a disastrous situation every day. They live in chaos, 
many of them. They live in families and neighborhoods where it is 
amazing that anyone can come out of them intact. Head Start has reached 
into these communities and provided a safe place, a harbor for children 
with talents and abilities. If you go to a Head Start Program you see 
the children are bright and they want to learn and they overcome 
obstacles, as their parents do every day, to give them a chance to get 
going. I don't want some kid in a Head Start Program to be dropped out 
this year who could have become that engineer or that scientist who 
becomes that CEO of Intel or who becomes the head of Lockheed Martin or 
becomes the president of RPI or Yale University. And they are there. 
These kids are not just in the private schools. They are not just in 
the affluent neighborhoods. Talented Americans are in every 
neighborhood in America, and we ought to be able to do better for these 
children. We ought to be able to say: This year things are tough, we 
can't expand the program. But we are not going to lose any kids. We are 
not going to leave any child behind in a Head Start Program.
  Listen to the warnings of this report. It can happen with abruptness, 
and once lost, very difficult to regain. So while we expand the pool of 
teachers, while we do everything we can to give kids a chance to learn, 
we have to make sure these kids are ready to learn. Head Start, for 40 
years has done that.
  It has made it possible for kids to become ready to learn. Not that 
they make it in every case, again, but we know without any question 
today that the difference between a child who is in an Early Head Start 
or Head Start Program and a child who is not is the likelihood the Head 
Start participant will avoid the obvious pitfalls that can happen so 
quickly in a young person's life. There is a greater likelihood they 
will go through it.
  I am offering this amendment today, pleading with my colleagues, 
let's not lose 20,000 kids. We have not yet even begun to discuss this 
``Rising Storm'' report. I like big ideas, and one of the reasons I am 
so fond of my colleague from Tennessee is because he likes big ideas. 
He wanted to come to the Senate to grapple with a big idea, and this is 
a big idea. I am sure he has not, nor am I, endorsing every dotted I or 
crossed t here. But it is a very big idea. Head Start is a big idea 
that Ed Zigler had 40 years ago, and today there are some 900,000 
children in this country who benefit from it, less than 50% of those 
who are eligible. It is a big idea that needs to be protected. We need 
to be thinking about both parts of the equation--we need teachers and 
we need students. We can do a lot better, in my view, if we try to do 
both. We are not going to deal with this report this year. But it seems 
to me we know Head Start works and the success we have had with it, and 
knowing the costs that the nearly 19,000 programs across the country 
are facing--energy, transportation, health insurance, training for 
staff; all of these increases ranging from 15 percent to 25 percent in 
the next year. Just to try to keep these programs whole, to hold them 
harmless, is something I think is worth doing.
  Therefore, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my 
colleagues with the hopes that there will be enough votes maybe to 
overcome the budget considerations. Again, I say to my colleague from 
Pennsylvania and my colleague from Iowa, you have a thankless job. I 
know it is not easy to have Members like myself coming over, making 
these cases to you. But my hope would be in some instances, 
particularly this one, that we would undertake the responsibility of 
trying to at least keep the program alive.
  Barbara Tuchman wrote a wonderful book years ago. She is no longer 
with us. She wrote a number, but one of them is called ``The March of 
Folly,'' and it mostly dealt with strategic military questions, going 
throughout past history. Her point was that nations commit folly when 
they engage in behavior they know is unwise yet they pursue it anyway. 
This is a different kind of problem than a mistake you make when you 
didn't know it was a mistake until later. But the follies, according to 
Barbara Tuchman, were when you knew you were making a mistake and you 
went ahead and did it anyway.
  In a sense, for us not to keep these programs whole is the ``March of 
Folly'' when it comes to America's future. We know, we know it as well 
as we know anything in this body, that the key to America's success has 
been based, throughout its 220-year history on an educated population. 
I have said this maybe 1,000 times; 201 years ago, Thomas Jefferson 
said:

       Any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free

       Expects what never was and never possibly can be.

  If that was true in the beginning of the 19th century, here we are in 
the beginning of the 21st century with all the explosions of advances 
around the globe. If we don't make these investments, if we don't do 
everything possible to educate our children, knowing that the failure 
to do so puts this Nation at risk on every level, is in fact the 
``March of Folly.''
  It could be a new chapter for Barbara Tuchman were she alive today 
and writing the sequel to her own book. To not support these efforts, I 
think, leads us on a path that these distinguished academicians and 
others have strongly identified in their report.
  Again, read their words on the opening page, if you will, of ``Rising 
Above the Gathering Storm.''

       We are worried about the future prosperity of the United 
     States. Although many people assume the United States will 
     always be a world leader in science and technology, this may 
     not continue to be the case. Inasmuch as great minds and 
     ideas exist throughout the world, we fear the abruptness with 
     which the lead in science and technology can be lost and the 
     difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can 
     be regained at all. This Nation must prepare with great 
     urgency to preserve the strategic and economic security.

  Those words are about as clear as they could be. Head Start is an 
integral part of that, in my view. There is a

[[Page 23695]]

sense of urgency that ought to be about it.
  My hope is again that my colleagues will see their way through to 
supporting this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, listening to the passionate 
presentation by the Senator from Connecticut, I agree with virtually 
everything he said but nothing more than when he said that Senator 
Harkin and I have thankless tasks.
  It is very hard to reply to what the Senator from Connecticut has had 
to say about the importance of Head Start without agreeing with him, 
and his reminiscences back to January following the 1980 election when 
18 new Senators came to the Senate--16 Republicans and 2 Democrats. I 
was one of 16, and Senator Dodd was one of 2. His class has maintained 
50 percent representation. Our class is down to one-eighth, 12\1/2\ 
percent. Senator Dodd and I formed the Children's Caucus. He wasn't a 
chairman anywhere because he was in the minority. He wanted to have a 
gavel--at least half a gavel. I chaired the Juvenile Justice 
Subcommittee. We talked and formed a caucus. I think we did very good 
work. I think some of the work we did has followed its way into Head 
Start and very important juvenile programs.
  As Senator Dodd has said, it is a thankless job to manage this bill, 
to make allocations of $145 billion among education, health care, and 
labor and work safety. We have done the very best we could in our 
allocations. It has been crafted, as I said, jointly by Senator Harkin 
and myself.
  Over the years, I have been and still am a steadfast supporter of 
Head Start. We have in this budget almost $7 billion for Head Start, a 
very substantial sum of money. Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 
2004, we have doubled Head Start.
  Nothing would please me more than to be able to accede to the request 
by the Senator from Connecticut, which is, as he accurately stated, a 
moderate request. Yesterday, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, offered an amendment on Pell grants which I thought was a good 
amendment. We had Senator Byrd's amendment this morning for increased 
funding on education title I, which is a good amendment. It is 
difficult not to be able to support these amendments. But in my job, it 
is necessary to take the allocation which the budget resolution gives 
us and make the allocations as best we can.
  If Senator Dodd had some suggestion as to an offset--that is, where 
we could move some money from one account to another on the basis of 
priority--I would be glad to consider whatever he had to say. But I am 
constrained to stay within the limits which the budget resolution has 
provided. That requires, much as I dislike to, raising a budget point 
of order.
  Much as I dislike doing so, I raise a point of order under 302(f) of 
the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment would put the authority 
and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and, 
therefore, is out of order.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, much as I regret, I move to waive the 
appropriate sections of the Congressional Budget Act, and 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. DODD. Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains on 
this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor's time has expired, and 17 minutes 
20 seconds remains on the other side.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from New York is going to offer an amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we are going to move to the amendment 
by the Senator from New York.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside temporarily and the vote in relation to 
this amendment be determined by the majority leader after consultation 
with the Democratic leader and that we move ahead to the amendment to 
be offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I appreciate the chairman's kindness 
in arranging this. As I understand, we have by unanimous consent set 
aside the pending amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2292

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Dayton, 
     Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
     Corzine, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2292.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for part B of the Individuals 
                    with Disabilities Education Act)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $3,958,901,143 for 
     carrying out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
       

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I come to the Chamber today to offer 
an amendment to provide much-needed resources to help educate the most 
needy of our students in New York and across America.
  At the outset, I would like to recognize some of my colleagues who 
have been extraordinary leaders on behalf of children with special 
needs, starting with my colleague from Connecticut who is still here on 
the floor, Senator Dodd. He has been a longtime leader in the fight to 
increase Federal funding for special education. In that fight for years 
have also been Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Jeffords, Hagel, and others 
who have come to this Chamber repeatedly championing the right of those 
with special needs and reminding us that the noble effort we undertook 
as a nation to require that children with disabilities and special 
needs be given the education they deserve, to have as a mandate that 
has been placed upon our local school districts. It is a noble and 
worthy undertaking to require that no child literally be left behind, 
but it is a burden that we should recognize that our local districts 
struggle with every school year.
  I began working on special education issues as a very young lawyer 
literally just out of law school many years ago working for the 
Children's Defense Fund. I worked on a project where I walked door to 
door in communities, knocking on doors and asking people if they had 
school-age children. We had realized when looking at census data 
compared to school enrollment data that we were missing hundreds and 
thousands and on a national basis millions of children. They were not 
in our schools. What I found as I went from home to home was alarming: 
Children with disabilities back in 1973 and 1974 were not being sent to 
school. They were being kept at home because the schools were unable to 
care for them, to meet their needs. Many of them were thought to be 
uneducable.
  I remember going into an apartment on the second floor of a wooden 
house in New Bedford, MA, to meet a lovely young girl of about 12 in a 
wheelchair, just as bright and smart and curious as you could imagine 
any child could be, who had never been to school. There were no 
accommodations in those days for children or adults in wheelchairs. She 
was at home day after day. I remember meeting another child who

[[Page 23696]]

was blind, and her parents didn't want to send her over to the State 
school for blind children which was some distance away, so she was at 
home.
  We recorded all of these children with their needs, and we presented 
a report by the Children's Defense Fund which was used by leaders in 
this body to argue for and eventually pass the 1975 Education for All 
Handicapped Children Act. That is today known as IDEA, Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  This watershed act--no country had ever tried to open the doors of 
its education system to children with special needs--was an 
extraordinary accomplishment for our Nation. It promised every child 
the right to a free, appropriate public education. Senator Jeffords and 
Senator Kennedy actually helped to author that bill, and Senators Dodd, 
Harkin, and others have been fighting to make sure it lives up to its 
promise ever since.
  Today, Senator Dodd and I are seeking to honor that original promise, 
the pledge to provide up to 40 percent of the per-pupil expenditure for 
students with disabilities. Today, the Federal Government provides less 
than 25 percent, which makes it very difficult for schools to provide a 
high-quality education to students with disabilities.
  In short, after 30 years, the Federal Government still fails to live 
up to the promise we made in 1975 to every child, to that child's 
family, and to the school districts of America.
  This amendment will provide close to $4 billion. That is the 
difference between the amount appropriated in the Senate bill and the 
amount promised in IDEA. For New York, that would mean $243 million 
extra.
  Lack of funding for this mandated program, as important as it is, has 
serious implications for local communities. School districts do not 
have a choice about whether they comply. They are legally required to 
do so, and they should be. They have to provide the necessary services 
that ensure every child with special needs receives that free, 
appropriate public education.
  Throughout New York, I have spoken with many educators, teachers, 
principals, and superintendents who work hard every single day to make 
IDEA a reality for the children in their care. But the other reality in 
today's difficult budget times is that it is increasingly difficult for 
our schools to meet the mandate of IDEA without cutting other 
educational services for all the other children in the school district. 
I am talking about essential services such as teachers' salaries, 
programs that enrich the curriculum, and afterschool programs. 
Oftentimes the cost of special education is the driving force as to why 
school districts seek increases in property taxes.
  I will give an example from my own home county. In Westchester County 
we just learned the Children's Rehabilitation Center, a wonderful 
program that serves children with disabilities such as cerebral palsy, 
spina bifida, Down's syndrome, is closing. That leaves parents 
scrambling to find other arrangements. The parents are understandably 
concerned about the impact of this closure on their children.
  Our local newspaper, the Journal News, in a recent op-ed about the 
situation, said the following:

       Hearts of compassionate people, of course, go out to the 
     [parents]. But there are public-policy implications also at 
     play here that many, if not most, taxpayers may not realize.

  The paper went on:

       The reality is this. All children have a right to an 
     education, one that is in the home district or as close as 
     possible. Public education, and transportation to it, are 
     paid for by a combination of local, state, and federal 
     funding. When a desperately needed program like Children's 
     Rehabilitation Center scales down, and even if accommodations 
     are made for those affected, the impact is well beyond an 
     individual family and employees--it affects the entire 
     community and, quickly, local school districts. And, yes, 
     that means higher property taxes.

  A similar situation is occurring in Bethlehem, NY, where property 
owners are facing a 7.9-percent increase in their tax rate for the 
coming school year, in part, to pay for increased special education 
costs. Under the new rate, a homeowner whose property is assessed at 
$100,000 will be charged $203 more this year than last year.
  According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 
Pennsylvania is considering a proposal for additional funding for 
special education that would enable property taxes to be cut in half.
  I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come 
to the Senate and argue this amendment breaks the budget, raises the 
deficit, and could increase Federal expenditures. The truth is, quite 
simply, this amendment would lower taxes for New Yorkers and for all 
Americans who pay property taxes because it will relieve some of the 
pressure on local communities. The choice before the Senate today is 
not between this amendment and lower taxes for Americans. The choice, 
as it impacts many communities, is between this amendment and higher 
local property taxes. The total tax burden for American families will 
stay roughly the same. We will succeed only in shifting the 
responsibility for raising revenue to overburdened localities and 
homeowners, struggling to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind and 
the 30-year-old mandate of IDEA.
  This amendment is particularly critical today because the cost of 
special education has increased substantially in both absolute and 
relative terms. Today, 15.3 structures in New York public schools have 
special needs. The National Center for Education Statistics reports New 
York's demand for IDEA has consistently increased over the last decade 
and a half. Since 1991, the percentage of children between ages 3 and 
21 served by IDEA has increased by over 43 percent. We have, at the 
same time, increased by 61 percent the number of children receiving 
these services. Nationwide, the upward trajectory has been even more 
dramatic. Our country has experienced a 73-percent increase in the 
number of students in IDEA between 1976 and 2002. According to CRS, the 
Congressional Research Service, the cost of ``regular'' education has 
increased 4 percent in constant dollars since 1985, while the cost of 
special education has increased 10 percent.
  Part of the reason is because we have also witnessed dramatic 
increases in the rates of diagnoses of particular types of 
disabilities. Before 1985, for instance, only 4 to 6 of every 10,000 
children were diagnosed with autism. Today, 1 in 1,000 is considered a 
conservative estimate. We should not be discouraged by this increasing 
need for services. Part of the reason more children are being 
identified is as a result of our paying more attention to children with 
disabilities. One of the programs we have turned to over the last 
several years, the Preschool Grants and Infants and Toddlers With 
Disabilities Program, helps identify children earlier, which in turn 
helps them get better educated and learn how to deal with their 
particular disability. It goes hand in hand. It is a good news and 
challenging news story. The good news is we are reaching out and 
finding out about what disabilities children suffer from. But the 
challenge is, how we are going to take care of their needs?
  We still have a lot of work to do on student assessments. We know 
from State assessments there is a large gap between the performance of 
students receiving special education services and their nondisabled 
peers. Wide gaps also exist in the performance of students with 
disabilities who attend high-need school districts compared to school 
districts with greater resources. And a great percentage of minority 
students are identified as having disabilities. Once identified, a 
greater percentage are placed in more restrictive special education 
settings.
  We must remain accountable for the promises we made these children. 
Under No Child Left Behind, we are testing these children. We are 
publishing the results. We are telling school districts, you cannot 
come to us and say you have to discard the scores of our children with 
Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy. We are saying, we expect you to 
educate all of your children. I am very supportive of that. However, in 
order to do that, we have to be fair to the school districts and give 
them the resources they need to fulfill this mandate.

[[Page 23697]]

  We are in the year 2005. We cannot blame the economy. We cannot blame 
the war in Iraq. We cannot blame Katrina and Rita in failing to make 
good on our promise for special education funding. This has been going 
on for 30 years, through good times and challenging times. Now more 
than ever we need to invest in the education of children with special 
needs. I hope we will do just that. It is time we step up and put the 
Federal Government on record to fulfill its promise and provide the 
resources, help districts keep down property taxes, help them meet the 
needs of these children.
  I hope if there is a budget point of order, which I fully expect 
there to be, that my colleagues will vote in favor of fulfilling the 
promise of IDEA and opposing the budget point of order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with the Senator from New York 
about the tremendous importance of special education. That has been a 
priority of mine since becoming chairman of the subcommittee.
  In the 1996 fiscal year, the Federal contribution was 7.3 percent. 
Since that time, through fiscal year 2005, we have raised it to 18.5 
percent. We are still a good bit shy of approximating a 40-percent 
figure, but when we look at the funding for IDEA, there have been very 
marked increases as we have moved along, with an increase one year of 
$1.3 billion, another year $1.1 billion. We are now at a position where 
the total funding for IDEA has come up very dramatically but candidly 
is not as far as I would like to see it. We now stand in a range of 
funding of $10.7 billion.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from New York increases funding 
by $3.959 billion, almost $4 billion. Like the amendment offered by 
Senator Dodd for Head Start, I would like to see the money for IDEA. 
Last year, Senator Dayton offered an amendment for $11 billion which--
even that draws a smile from my colleague from Connecticut. Or the 
amendment offered by Senator Byrd for $5 billion, or the one yesterday 
for Head Start.
  A few years ago, after managing this bill for some time, I made a 
determined effort to become chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations. It seems to me a good place to be so when these votes came 
up I would be free to cast a vote to exceed the budget limitations, 
since it takes 60 votes. That means if you take 44 Democrats and 
Senator Jeffords and 14 votes possible, you can be with the good guys 
and still not bust the budget. That luxury is not enjoyed by the 
manager, however. It is one of the footnotes in the manager's book, you 
cannot raise a point of order and vote against a point of order. It 
presents a very difficult voting record for reelection to vote against 
Head Start, against education funding, against Pell grants, and against 
special education.
  I have stayed with this Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Education 
because it is important. Senator Harkin and I have led the way on 
funding for NIH. We have some very important funding for the Centers 
for Disease Control. But I think we have done a great deal with this 
budget, to the maximum extent possible. Each year it becomes much more 
difficult. The increase of $100 million for special education this year 
is insufficient. I wish there were more money that could be advanced. I 
am well aware that the education for special education, disabled, and 
handicapped puts people in the mainstream of American life and improves 
the quality of their life. It is important.
  But when we have a budget resolution that is thought out--and I voted 
for the $5 billion Senator Kennedy wanted to add to education which 
would have given money. It was a 51- to-49 vote. I was importuned by 
the Republican cloakroom with great pressure to change my vote and make 
it 50 to 50 so that amendment would go down. I stayed with Senator 
Kennedy's amendment. If we had had $5 billion more, we could have 
accommodated what Senator Clinton wants and what Senator Dodd wants and 
some of Senator Byrd's request, but we do not have the money.
  My duties require me to raise a point of order, which I now do 
formally, but I will desist because I see Senator Dodd on his feet for 
a short speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I will wait until you make the point of order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation under fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution and therefore 
is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. 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 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 Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will, if I may, take a few minutes in 
support of the amendment by my colleague from New York. I am a 
cosponsor of this amendment. As she very graciously pointed out, over a 
number of years, a number of us have worked on this issue. But my 
colleague is much too humble. The fact that she has only been in this 
Chamber a little short of her first term belies her interest in this 
subject matter, which goes back years.
  As she pointed out, she was a lawyer working with the Children's 
Defense Fund. I know our mutual friend, Marion Wright Edelman, has had 
this issue on the agenda for years and years and years. While the 
Senator from New York is a relatively new Member of this Chamber, she 
is not a newcomer to this issue. I am delighted she is taking the lead 
on this issue this year to highlight the importance of this issue.
  She made all the important arguments. Again, I think the Senator from 
New York and I both agree, saying to our friend from Pennsylvania: We 
don't want you to go anywhere. We like the fact you are the chair. You 
won't mind if the Senator from New York and I might prefer that Senator 
Harkin were the chairman of the committee and you were the ranking 
member of that committee. You will appreciate our desire to be in the 
majority, not in the minority, on these issues. But we appreciate 
immensely the deep commitment of the Senator from Pennsylvania on these 
issues, not just intellectually but passionately as well. And that is 
understood.
  But, certainly, as you understand and we understand the situation you 
are in, you must understand, as well, the position we feel so strongly 
about; and that is, the people who rely and count on us to come up here 
and raise these issues to try to see if we can't do a bit better.
  I know within the Budget Act the restraints are there. But we all 
know as well that we can make choices here in this Chamber. We can make 
choices about revenue raising, about different priorities within our 
overall budget. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that 
it is impossible for us to do this. It is not impossible for us to do 
this. If the will of a majority here exists--or in this case a 
supermajority to overcome the Budget Act--we can do this.
  It is a matter of choices we all get asked to make every single day. 
They are not easy choices--I understand that--from time to time, 
although I think the case for special education is so profoundly clear 
that it ought not be that difficult. We all appreciate the position the 
manager of the bill is in when he offers, as he must, a point of order 
because what we are suggesting does break the ceiling. But that should 
not be a restraint on anyone else who has the opportunity to make a 
choice about whether they think this issue has merit.
  The Senator from New York has pointed out there has been a number of 
people over the years--Republicans and Democrats--who have supported 
increasing funds for special education.

[[Page 23698]]

The Senator from New York rightly goes back and talks about a not too 
distant history--this is not ancient history--when millions of our 
fellow citizens, merely because they were confined to a wheelchair, 
because they had a physical disability, had a learning disability, were 
deprived the opportunity to receive an education in our country.
  It was only 30 years ago we decided it was important we provide an 
opportunity for every child--every child--to reach his or her potential 
and that our educational system ought to be able to accommodate those 
children, and to see to it they have the opportunity to become as 
independent and as successful as their God-given talents would provide 
them. That has been a great success in our country.
  Back not that many years ago, only 20 percent of children with 
disabilities ever got an education. Imagine that. It is not that long 
ago. The Senator from New York has pointed out how she met children, 
when she was doing her work early on, who were in wheelchairs, children 
who were blind.
  My oldest sister Carolyn--whom many of my colleagues have met; I know 
my colleague from New York has met--was born legally blind. She just 
retired after 41 years of teaching. She holds two masters degrees in 
early childhood development. She ran and taught in Montessori schools, 
and taught, in the late 1950s, in the Whitby School in Greenwich, CT, 
with Nancy Rambusch, for those who follow Montessori and educational 
issues.
  But for the financial situation of my family and my parents, who 
could go out and provide an opportunity for my sister Carolyn who was 
born in the 1930s, I would hate to think what might have happened to my 
sister under different economic circumstances. What I also regret, as 
well, is what those children over those 41 years would have lost from a 
remarkable human being who taught them.
  Today, many of these children across our country who have a physical 
disability, a learning disability, can go out and achieve great 
success. I know, for instance, a great new airline in the country--
JetBlue, I think it is called--the man who started that company lives 
in my State of Connecticut. He has nine children. He is dyslexic. 
Nelson Rockefeller, who presided over this Chamber as Vice President of 
the United States, who was a former Governor of the State of New York, 
which my colleague who has offered this amendment represents, was 
dyslexic. He had a difficult time reading a speech. Yet think of the 
achievements he reached. Again, economic circumstances gave him 
opportunities.
  What we are saying today is we do not want to deprive these families, 
these individuals, of the opportunity to achieve their potential and to 
serve our country, not just themselves because we have all benefited as 
a result of the last 30 years of educational opportunities.
  My colleague from New York makes a very good point. I have often said 
if you go back to any community, any county in the United States today 
and ask them: What could we possibly do to be of help to you?--now, 
there are unique circumstances. There may be a road or a bridge or a 
dam or some special project. But I promise you, I don't care whether 
you go from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania to South Dakota to New York, 
walk into a county or small town and ask, What are the things we can 
help out with, and you will hear about No Child Left Behind. That may 
come first. But I will tell you what is either first or second, unless 
there is some special need that exists in that community. It is special 
education, and particularly if you go to rural communities, small 
towns.
  I know in my own State, if you go to meet with the first selectman or 
selectwoman and ask, What is the cost, you may find that you have one 
or two special needs children whose educational costs distort the local 
budget. And it can throw their budget all out of whack. What it does, 
unfortunately, as well, is it sort of singles out these families and 
children as if somehow they are culpable for creating financial 
difficulty to their community or their county.
  We made a promise 30 years ago. We made a promise that we would pick 
up the cost of 40 percent of the special educational costs. We are now 
at about 18 percent. What the Senator from New York offers us would get 
us to a little more than 24 percent, for 1 year, by the way. This is 
not an amendment that provides the funding in the succeeding years. It 
would result, without any question, I can tell you, in rural 
communities in my State, in lowering property taxes, without any 
question whatsoever. I suspect that would be true in larger communities 
as well, but certainly in smaller communities, in rural areas in the 
country, if we could begin to meet our obligation.
  We are not creating an obligation here. We are merely fulfilling one. 
We could actually make a huge difference in a tax that is very onerous 
to most people in the country--rising property taxes. That occurs 
because of, primarily, education costs, in most areas. It is the 
education budget that drives the property tax increases more than 
anything else.
  So if you are interested in reducing some of the taxes on our people, 
particularly on one that affects middle-income and lower income people, 
who could really use the break, then you ought to be supporting the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York; not to mention, of 
course, the advantage and the benefit that our country receives because 
we are providing an opportunity for children who can make such a 
difference in our society.
  The other day I was talking with my colleague, Senator Isakson. I 
think Senator Isakson made this point. If he didn't then I stand 
corrected. But I believe it was Senator Isakson. We were talking about 
special education and the importance of these programs, and I was 
recalling that not that long ago I went to a program in Connecticut 
where there is an effort to integrate special needs children with 
mainstream children. Part of the day these children are also in special 
classes. Seeing special needs children interacting with their peers was 
a wonderful thing to see.
  I wish all of my colleagues could have been with me that morning to 
see the children who are not special needs children and what an 
education they are getting sitting in a classroom with children who 
have learning disabilities or other special needs. You can see these 
children defend, understand, help, reach out, and recognize the talents 
of their fellow classmates--in a wheelchair or having a learning 
disability because of some mental retardation--and see how proud they 
are to be in a classroom with these kids, how proud they are of their 
accomplishments and what they can do, even under limited circumstances.
  I cannot put a line item in the budget for you on that one. There is 
no way I can calculate the cost of what it means for a child to 
understand that a fellow classmate of theirs--in an elementary school, 
by the way--is learning and doing their best. What a better citizen, 
what a better person that child without those needs is because of that 
experience. It is an incredible thing to see, to watch children caring 
for each other. What better adults they are going to be when they are 
grown up in society, understanding that not everyone who is a part of 
this country--with all the great success we attribute to our own 
Nation--are without problems.
  This amendment is designed to do what we can to see to it that we 
provide more help to these communities and to these families and these 
children whom we all agree and understand deserve our support. We don't 
want to go back, obviously, to the days when we excluded as many as 80 
percent of the children in this country with disabilities from 
receiving an education. We are not doing that, but we have a choice 
now, in the next few hours.
  We have a choice to make on Head Start. We have a choice to make on 
special education. It can be done. Don't go home to constituents and 
say it was impossible for us to do it. It is not impossible. It is 
possible. It is a question of whether you want to make the choice to 
make it possible. That is the difference. That is what we are asking 
here to do.

[[Page 23699]]

  Again, I commend my colleague from New York and thank her immensely 
for offering this amendment. I look forward to someday getting some 
real success in all of this. But this is a major step forward, and I 
commend her for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who has been such 
a great leader on this issue, for his eloquent, passionate explanation 
as to why this amendment is so important. I also thank the chairman for 
his very eloquent and moving statement and appreciate his leadership on 
this and so many other issues over the years.


                           Amendment No. 2313

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside to call up amendment No. 2313.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 2313.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 payments to the New York State Uninsured 
  Employers Fund for reimbursement of claims related to the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and payments to the Centers for Disease 
 Control and Prevention for treatment for emergency services personnel 
                   and rescue and recovery personnel)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $125,000,000 shall be available and shall remain available 
     until expended to replace the funds appropriated but not 
     expended under chapter 8 of division B of the Department of 
     Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
     Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United 
     States Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-117), and of such amount, 
     $50,000,000 shall be made available for payment to the New 
     York State Uninsured Employers Fund for reimbursement of 
     claims related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 
     and for reimbursement of claims related to the first response 
     emergency services personnel who were injured, were disabled, 
     or died due to such terrorist attacks, and $75,000,000 shall 
     be made available to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention upon enactment of this Act, and shall remain 
     available until expended, for purposes related to the 
     September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In expending such 
     funds, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention shall give first priority to the existing programs 
     coordinated by the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and 
     Environmental Medicine, the Fire Department of New York City 
     Bureau of Health Services and Counseling Services Unit, the 
     New York City Police Foundation's Project COPE, Police 
     Organization Providing Peer Assistance, and the New York City 
     Department of Health and Mental Hygiene World Trade Center 
     Health Registry that administer baseline and follow-up 
     screening, clinical examinations, or long-term medical health 
     monitoring, analysis, or treatment for emergency services 
     personnel or rescue and recovery personnel, and shall give 
     secondary priority to similar programs coordinated by other 
     entities working with the State of New York and New York 
     City.
       On page 116, line 10, strike ``$3,326,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,201,000,000'' in lieu thereof.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                    Amendment No. 2215, as Modified

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have a technical modification to one of 
my amendments that has been pending. It is amendment No. 2215. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, that 
amendment be called up, and I be allowed to submit the modification to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is 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 
     $198,560,000. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, amounts appropriated under this Act shall be reduced by 
     0.14 percent.

  Mr. SUNUNU. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking 
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have a request from Senator DeMint for 
15 minutes of morning business. This would be a good time to 
accommodate that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2228

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2228 already filed at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2228.

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

   (Purpose: To ensure the scientific integrity of Federally-funded 
           scientific advisory committees and their findings)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to request that a candidate for appointment to a 
     Federal scientific advisory committee disclose the political 
     affiliation or voting history of the candidate or the 
     position that the candidate holds with respect to political 
     issues not directly related to and necessary for the work of 
     the committee involved.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to disseminate scientific information that is 
     deliberately false or misleading.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lautenberg, 
Feingold, Bingaman, and Kennedy be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, all of us benefit from scientific 
information and advice provided by many Federal agencies. When we go to 
the Centers for Disease Control Web site to read about infectious 
disease threats or turn to the National Cancer Institute to learn about 
the latest in cancer treatment, we have confidence that we are being 
provided with honest, accurate, and objective information. We rely on 
scientists and medical experts serving the National Institutes of 
Health to make wise decisions based on real science, not politics, to 
ensure that our investments in medical research will improve the health 
of Americans for generations to come.
  The amendment I offer seeks to ensure that the American people will 
continue to benefit from the best possible scientific advice and 
information from the Government's scientific advisers and from the 
Federal agencies themselves. First, the amendment prohibits the use of 
Federal funds to ask candidates for appointment to scientific advisory 
committees to disclose their voting history, their political 
affiliation, or their opinions on unrelated

[[Page 23700]]

political topics. When the Federal Government seeks expert medical and 
technical advice, it should look for the very best experts. It should 
not limit itself to only those experts who voted for a particular 
political candidate or who agree with any President's policies or who 
support the death penalty. That is not how we, in our personal lives, 
would go about choosing a doctor. It should not be the way our 
Government seeks out expert scientific advice.
  It appears this is exactly what has happened in a number of 
instances. In the year 2002, Dr. William Miller, professor of 
psychology and psychiatry at the University of New Mexico, was denied a 
position on the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after he 
admitted that he had not voted for the President. Dr. Miller was also 
asked for his views on abortion rights and the death penalty. This was 
for an appointment to the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.
  In March 2004, the White House screened a nominee to the Arctic 
Research Commission, an advisory panel on issues that include Arctic 
drilling. According to the candidate, Dr. Sharon Smith, a professor of 
marine ecology at the University of Miami:

       The first and only question was, ``do you support the 
     President?''

  Following incidents such as these, the National Academies of Science 
convened a committee to study how the Government should select its 
science advisers. Earlier this year it issued a report that said 
candidates for scientific advisory positions should find it 
inappropriate to be asked to provide nonrelevant information such as 
their voting record, political party affiliation, or their position on 
particular policies. The report goes on to compare these types of 
questions to asking candidates about their hair color or their height.
  My amendment would prohibit the use of Federal funds to ask these 
inappropriate political questions of medical and scientific experts. My 
amendment also prohibits the use of funds to disseminate scientific 
information that is false or misleading. This ensures that Americans 
can continue to have full confidence and trust that scientific 
information provided by the Federal Government is honest, accurate, and 
objective.
  There is reason to be concerned. In one notorious incident, the key 
findings section of a 2003 report on health care disparities was 
rewritten and edited to leave out conclusions about the seriousness and 
pervasiveness of racial and ethnic disparities in health care. In fact, 
the word ``disparity'' itself was edited out. The word appears 30 times 
in the original draft, only twice in the edited version.
  Joseph Betancourt, a Harvard professor who served on two Institute of 
Medicine panels on inequity in health care, said:

       I admire the Administration's ability to look at the 
     positive, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the truth.

  Eventually, the Department of Health and Human Services admitted it 
made a mistake and agreed to release the original, more honest version. 
This kind of incident should not happen again. My amendment prohibits 
the use of funds to disseminate scientific information that is 
deliberately false or misleading. This amendment makes sure that all of 
us can continue to have full faith and confidence in the scientific 
information that is being provided by our Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to support scientific integrity in Federal 
agencies by voting for the amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That authority has already been granted.
  Mr. DeMINT. If I may, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 
minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified when he has a 
minute remaining.


                            Fiscal Concerns

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about the 
need for fiscal responsibility and the need to pass a deficit reduction 
bill to get our fiscal house in order. These are serious times, 
difficult for our country and for many of our citizens. Americans are 
demanding bold and immediate action.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, made some important remarks on 
the floor last week. I want to associate myself with them. Senator 
Coburn talked about a distant rumble, a rumble at the grassroots level, 
the sound of hard-working Americans who are getting increasingly angry 
with out-of-control Government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse.
  This rumble is becoming a roar, and it is the sound of the growing 
frustration of the American people. It is a sense of increasing disgust 
about blatant overspending, our inability to make the tough budget 
choices the American people make every day, and our unwillingness to 
make priorities rather than spending our children and grandchildren's 
future.
  I am very pleased the Senate Republicans are developing a deficit 
reduction package that will cut Government waste and reduce Federal 
spending. The fiscal discipline comes at a critical time. There are 
many wasteful practices of Government, and I will look at one of them 
today in Medicaid.
  In New York, there was a dentist who overbilled Medicaid, claiming to 
perform as many as 991 procedures in a single day. It was also reported 
that school officials in New York have enrolled tens of thousands of 
low-income students in speech therapy without the required evaluation. 
This created more than $1 billion in questionable Medicaid payments for 
their districts. In fact, one Buffalo school sent over 4,000 students 
into speech therapy in a single day without talking to them or 
reviewing their records.
  In Illinois, another dentist cheated Medicaid out of more than 
$200,000 in bogus payments. This man falsely claimed to treat abused 
children in the care of the State's child welfare agency for 7 years.
  In California, a Medicaid fraud scheme involved more than 15 clinical 
laboratories that illegally billed over $20 million for tests that were 
never authorized by physicians.
  In Florida, an ophthalmologist wrote prescriptions for a single drug 
worth over $2 million over a 2-year period.
  The list goes on and on. We are talking about Medicaid fraud and 
abuse, not medical care for the poor. The Government Accountability 
Office reports that perhaps 10 percent of all Medicaid spending is 
questionable or fraudulent.
  We must stop this waste. The Republican deficit reduction package 
will create some needed accountability to this program.
  I have heard objections to these savings from those who believe that 
these savings will fall on the poor. This is absurd. We are trying to 
catch a thief, not hurt the poor. If we let billions and billions 
continue to be wasted, stolen, or embezzled, that will hurt the poor. 
This is a small amount compared to the overall budget. This plan, this 
total deficit reduction plan we are talking about, which includes the 
changes in Medicaid, will reduce mandatory spending by only $35 billion 
over 5 years, which is less than one-half of 1 percent of total 
spending this year.
  These spending reductions represent only about one-third of the 
reductions Congress passed in 1993 and 1997. In 1993, Congress passed a 
reduction package that trimmed about $78 billion. That is 2.6 times 
greater than what we are talking about today. Unfortunately and 
curiously, many Democrats who supported this larger effort in 1993 are 
opposing our modest downpayment today.
  In 1997, Congress passed a reduction package that trimmed about $89 
billion. That is over three times greater than what we are talking 
about today. Unfortunately and curiously, many Democrats who supported 
this larger effort in 1997 are opposing our modest downpayment today.

[[Page 23701]]

  This plan, this $35 billion reduction, is a small amount to ask in 
the context of our total budget, and it is only a downpayment on our 
future deficit. We need to do much more.
  I cannot understand why some of my Democratic colleagues will not 
support this modest effort, given all the waste, fraud, and abuse we 
have in Government today. I find this opposition intriguing because 
many of these same Senators supported similar measures that were far 
more substantial. In fact, in 1993, they thought $78 billion in savings 
was not big enough. Here is a quote from Senator Kerry from 
Massachusetts:

       My own personal view is we have not cut enough where we 
     could have and should have cut more.

  And Senator Dorgan from North Dakota:

       I favored a more robust deficit reduction by cutting 
     another $100 billion in wasteful or low-priority spending.

  Senator Biden from Delaware:

       Specifically I want more spending cuts.

  In 1997, when Congress cut $114 billion, my Democratic colleagues 
applauded it and some wanted more. Senator Byrd of West Virginia said:

       If the budget resolution included only the aforementioned 
     spending reductions, I would likely be standing on the floor 
     today declaring my unequivocal support for its passage.

  Senator Conrad from North Dakota:

       I rise to support the budget agreement. I believe it is a 
     modest step--I want to emphasize ``modest''--in the right 
     direction.

  And Senator Durbin from Illinois:

       This budget package cuts 115 billion over 5 years, without 
     excessive new burdens on seniors . . . This budget cuts only 
     $13 billion from Medicaid over 5 years . . . On balance . . . 
     the spending package . . . [is] worthy of support.

  I think it is important to note that 33 of my current Democratic 
colleagues were in the Senate at the time and supported the deficit 
reduction package. I am deeply troubled by the apparent flip-flopping 
around here. We hear a lot of talk from my Democratic friends about the 
need to keep our fiscal house in order, but then they offer amendment 
after amendment to increase spending.
  Mr. President, I know this is difficult to read from where you sit, 
but these are the amendments to add to the budget this year by 
Democrats which totaled $460 billion.
  During the debate on the budget resolution, they tried to increase 
spending by $192 billion--here on our Democratic ``spendometer.'' 
During debate on the emergency supplemental, they offered amendments to 
increase spending by another $10 billion. During the debate on the 
various appropriations bills, they tried to increase spending by 
another $253 billion. I think all of this shows us something, something 
the American people understand very well: Democrats are not for keeping 
our fiscal house in order. They are for higher spending and higher 
taxes. Rather than making modest reductions today, they prefer to 
spend, spend, spend. This new spending sets them up to tax, tax, tax. 
We need to wake up. We cannot keep spending and taxing, taxing and 
spending.
  There is no problem too big for America to solve if we have the 
commitment and the strength to do it. The time for excuses and 
obstruction is over. I am here today to appeal to every Senator to 
support our deficit reduction package that will help cut the cost of 
Government so we have all of our strength to secure America's future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came here to speak on another subject, but 
I have to comment on the statements made by my distinguished colleague.
  The American people are smart enough to understand what is going on 
in this country. The House of Representatives and the Senate are 
controlled by Republicans. The White House is controlled by a 
Republican. All the agencies of Government are headed by individuals 
appointed by this President. For someone to come and lecture us on 
spending when both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans and 
the President is a Republican takes a lot of nerve.
  Of course, we are all opposed to Medicaid fraud and abuse. Of course, 
there are programs that need to be implemented. But I say to my 
distinguished friend from South Carolina, the President has the tools 
to do that right now, without any new laws. The tools are there. Have 
his Justice Department do something about it. In fact, some time could 
be spent on that, for sure.
  My friend spoke about some of the things going wrong in the State of 
New York. I would suggest that my friend look at this White House as to 
what is going wrong. The person who was in charge of procurement at the 
Office of Management and Budget was led away in handcuffs because of 
alleged corruption. When this President took office 5 years ago, the 
10-year surplus was expected to be about $5 to $6 trillion. This has 
been squandered in 5 years; squandered. In 5 years of this President we 
have a debt now--not over 10 years but right now--of $8 trillion. So 
don't lecture us on a spendometer.
  This Government is controlled by Republicans. What happened when we 
had a Democrat in the White House? Some of the time we had a 
Democratic-controlled Senate, 2 years during President Clinton's 
administration we had Democratic control of the House of 
Representatives. What happened? In 1993 his Budget Deficit Reduction 
Act passed. How did it pass? Without a single vote by the Republicans 
in the House and without a single vote by the Republicans in the 
Senate. A tie had to be broken by Al Gore, Vice President of the United 
States. What happened after that, this country went on the most 
prolonged economic boom in the history of the country. In the last 3 
years of the Clinton administration the debt was being paid down by 
some half a trillion dollars. We were spending less money than we were 
taking in.
  So don't lecture us on how money is to be spent. This White House has 
squandered trillions of taxpayers' dollars.
  I did not come up with the verbiage describing the budget that is now 
going to be reconciled in the next couple weeks. I didn't come up with 
the verbiage. The leading Protestant churches in America came up with 
the verbiage that the budget is immoral. And that was before Katrina 
hit us. If this budget was immoral then, it is really immoral now.
  What are we going to do? What do the Republicans want to do? I say to 
the American public, they want to cut more. What do they want to cut it 
from? Not the elite of America, but the poorest of the poor, starting 
with Medicaid, programs for the poorest of the poor. The people 
suffering the most from Katrina are still suffering. I was with some of 
them in the House of Representatives yesterday. They came and met with 
us. One woman lost her job. She was a janitor. The school is gone. She 
has applied for Medicaid. They turned her down because we can't get our 
bill out of this Senate. In the House, they apparently want to cut 
student aid as part of reconciliation. And to top it off, Republicans 
in the House and Senate want to give more tax cuts to the rich. If they 
want to have a better looking program around here, wash out some of 
that.
  So I want everyone to know that when someone comes to the floor and 
makes statements that are basically without foundation, we are going to 
respond to them. We don't have to stand and be lectured to about the 
White House, the House, and the Senate squandering the legacy of this 
last administration--namely, the Clinton administration--without our 
ability to respond. Don't give me a spendometer. Give me the ability to 
get the spending of this country in order. For 5 years, we have seen it 
go out of whack.
  I want to say one other thing about the statement made by my friend 
from South Carolina. He talks about amendments offered by Democratic 
colleagues on different pieces of legislation. With rare exception, 
those all had offsets. So what that means to the American public is it 
wold not have cost the American public any more because it was offset 
by spending cuts in other places.
  Again, I want everyone to understand, when statements are made that

[[Page 23702]]

I think are without foundation, keeping in mind we have a Republican 
President, a Republican House of Representatives, and a Republican 
Senate, either this Senator or someone on this side will be available 
to answer those statements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be calling up a series of 
amendments. Before I do that, I visited with the chairman of this 
subcommittee. I have four amendments to offer. I ask unanimous consent 
that we not exceed 45 minutes on them, equally divided between myself 
and those opposing this amendment. I think a couple of these amendments 
will probably be accepted. One of them will have some significant 
debate; the other one probably will not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, what was the request? Mr. 
President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2231

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2231.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2231.

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

  (Purpose: To require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking 
   contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
 accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint 
  statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having 
               been approved by both Houses of Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained 
     in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
     accompanying H.R. 3010 shall also be included in the 
     conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 3010 
     in order to be considered as having been approved by both 
     Houses of Congress.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been 
accepted on four appropriations bills thus far. When it was last voted 
on, it was accepted 55 to 39 by the Senate.
  It simply is an amendment that says we ought to know what we are 
voting on. We call it the sunshine amendment. The procedure is 
oftentimes on conference reports that come back to the Senate, we know 
what we have in there, we know what is in the conference report, but we 
are not aware of what the House earmarks are in those appropriations 
conference reports.
  This is simply an amendment that says those conference earmarks ought 
to be made available to Members of the Senate so they can, in fact, 
know what they are voting on in an appropriations conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think the idea offered by the Senator 
from Oklahoma, that all of the earmarks be specified in the conference 
report, is a very sound idea. The earmarks from this bill have 
traditionally and always have been properly identified.
  I am very pleased to accept the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2231.
  The amendment (No. 2231) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2233

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for HIV Vaccine Awareness Day 
                              activities)

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2233.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2233.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for 
     any activities associated with HIV Vaccine Awareness Day.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, all this amendment does is say that money 
spent for HIV vaccine research ought to be spent on HIV vaccine 
research. There has been $5.2 million spent in the last 4 years to 
create an HIV Vaccine Awareness Day. It is not used for recruitment of 
candidates. It is not used for recruitment for anything other than to 
celebrate the fact that we are working on an HIV vaccine.
  I believe it is very important that dollars for research on HIV go to 
research on HIV and a vaccine, in particular. The hope is that sometime 
in the next 5 to 10 years, we will have a vaccine. We do not have a 
cure for HIV, no matter how hard we work, how many hundreds of millions 
of dollars we are putting into that. And for us to have spent $5.2 
million over the last 4 years and another million dollars over the next 
year in promotional activity to make Americans aware that we are 
working on an HIV vaccine is an improper placement of the dollars being 
spent.
  I believe the dollars will be better spent toward HIV vaccine efforts 
rather than an effort to make people aware of that fact.
  I hope the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania will 
accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of the advertisements, I have 
one in my hand, is to set the stage for recruiting people, as 
represented to me, to use the vaccine when it is developed. This ad, 
for example, pictures a man which says:

       I'm fighting to stop a killer. HIV is a killer. I'm a 
     witness. I have buried babies, I have buried old people and 
     young people, people like me, people like you. HIV is 
     serious. So my life's work is helping others learn about it 
     and prevent it. Today, thousands of research, medical 
     professionals, and volunteers are committed to discovering a 
     vaccine that prevents HIV and stopping this epidemic. To them 
     I say, I'm with you.

  This ad tries to stimulate awareness of what is being done, an 
ultimate tool in finding people who will be volunteers.
  NIH has run this ad. What I suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma is 
that we set the amendment aside and take a closer look at the purposes 
NIH has in mind in using it. Then we can revisit it and decide whether 
to accept it or whether to contest it and have a vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be happy to set the amendment 
aside, but I have to let you know we have looked at all the ads. There 
has never been recruitment of anybody for vaccine trials in any of the 
ads they have ever run. The American people ought to be asking, why 
would we be spending $1 million a year? Everybody in this country knows 
HIV is deadly. There is no lack of knowledge on that issue. To spend $1 
million on HIV Vaccine Awareness Day is $1 million to help people with 
HIV through the ADAP program, $1 million to fund an extra research 
model or it is $1 million to fund three researchers on an HIV vaccine a 
year.
  I believe we would be well advised to prioritize the money that is 
going there. I would be happy to set this amendment aside, as per the 
chairman's request.
  I am adamant that I think that we are not spending the money 
properly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask to set it aside and move on to the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2230

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2230.

[[Page 23703]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2230.

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

              (Purpose: To limit funding for conferences)

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

     SEC. 517. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR CONFERENCES.

       (a) Department of Labor.--Of the funds made available for 
     the Department of Labor under the heading ``Departmental 
     Management, Salaries and Expenses'' in title I, not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for expenses related to 
     conferences, including for conference programs, staff time, 
     travel costs, and related expenses.
       (b) Department of Health and Human Services.--Of the funds 
     made available for the Department of Health and Human 
     Services under the heading ``Office of the Secretary, General 
     Departmental Management'' in title II, not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for expenses related to 
     conferences, including for conference programs, staff time, 
     travel costs, and related expenses.
       (c) Department of Education.--Of the funds made available 
     for the Department of Education under the heading 
     ``Departmental Management, Program Administration'' in title 
     III, not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     related to conferences, including for conference programs, 
     staff time, travel costs, and related expenses.

  Mr. COBURN. This is a very straightforward amendment. Growth in 
conferences in the Federal Government has exploded in the last 6 years 
in this country. Over the past 5 years, the Department of HHS has spent 
$300 million on conferences.
  The idea of conferences and using communication to put forward ideas, 
to promote health, to promote programs is a good idea, but the expanded 
growth of these programs through each of these departments, Labor and 
Health and Human Services, has grown exponentially at the same time 
that technology has grown even greater. There is a lack of utilization 
of those technologies in a time of budget duress, in a time of 
tremendous debt, in a time where last year we added $546 billion to our 
children's debt, and we are struggling with Katrina.
  This amendment caps the conference costs for each of these 
departments so that the other moneys can be used in more productive 
ways. It forces creativity through conferences. It promotes 
videoconferencing. It saves millions of dollars in travel and hotel 
costs and still allows the flexibility of the Departments for 
conferences, but does it with the technology we have today, a smarter, 
more current, and more effective means of accomplishing communication 
with which each of these agencies is charged.
  I will limit my comments to that and respond should the chairman and 
ranking member have questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Department of Health and Human 
Services opposes this amendment saying that they are important for 
their work and best practices. I note that a similar amendment was 
offered on the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD appropriations bill 
and that it was agreed upon by a voice vote.
  Before taking a definitive position, I would like to conduct a 
further inquiry with HHS. In preparation for this bill being on the 
floor, we have an idea of the amendments which are going to be offered, 
and we have information provided by the administrative agency. I 
understand the logic of the position of the Senator from Oklahoma. I do 
not want to abandon the agency without giving them an opportunity to 
present in a fuller way their ideas. We will consult with them and come 
back to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. COBURN. My only request is that the Senator would allow my staff 
to be there as they make this presentation. We have done significant 
research on their expenditures on these conferences, and we would love 
to have the opportunity, if the Senator so allowed it, for us to 
participate as they make their presentation.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would think it mandatory that the Senator's staff be 
present.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SPECTER. Of course. The Senator and his staff are welcome to 
whatever information we have. We want the Senator to know what it is 
every step of the way. I believe in full disclosure. Let us find out 
what the facts are. It has always been a point of mine that if one 
comes to an agreement on the facts, they can almost always come to an 
agreement on policy that flows from the facts. We will set up a meeting 
jointly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2232

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2232.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2232.

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

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the AIDS drug assistance program)

       On page 139, line 16, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided further, That in addition to amounts otherwise 
     made available for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs 
     authorized by such section 2616, the Secretary shall transfer 
     $60,000,000 from the amount appropriated under this Act for 
     the construction and renovation of the facilities of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out such 
     Drug Assistance Programs:''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment does not save us any money 
but saves hundreds of lives. Some 5 years ago, we embarked on making 
major changes at the CDC through a construction program, through 
advancing the facilities there by increasing the capabilities of the 
CDC. At the end of this fiscal year, September 30, they had unspent 
moneys in excess of $240 million going toward this construction budget. 
This year, the President asked for $30 million to be in that 
construction budget. The House passed $30 million in the construction 
budget. I believe we have in this bill $225 million for additional 
construction moneys, making available almost $500 million for 
expenditure in the next 12 months.
  This amendment is a simple amendment. It is backed by thousands of 
groups in the country, and it says while people are dying from HIV, 
they cannot get medicines under the ADAP program because we cannot fund 
it significantly. We have multiple States with people on waiting lists. 
We have multiple States that cap the available benefits. It is a death 
sentence to those people with HIV today. This moves $60 million from 
that account into the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, a vital program to 
keep people working, to keep people active, and to make the lifesaving 
drugs available to those people with an infection of HIV who have no 
other access to lifesaving drugs.
  I believe priorities ought to be directed toward the emerging disease 
program at the CDC. As a matter of fact, that building is complete. It 
is in the works. We are working to finalize all of that. This $60 
million, which still brings us down to $165 million plus the $240 
million that is in the account, will put us at $400 million still for 
CDC to move forward, and we will do something that has never yet been 
done since ADAP started: We will have enough funding to make sure 
everybody with HIV in this country has the medicine they need to stay 
alive.
  I know it is a controversial question for my fellow Senators from 
Georgia. The CDC happens to be there. This puts no risk to the CDC 
expansion in Colorado, as it is directed in the budget. It puts no risk 
to that whatsoever. I believe we ought to be thinking about people, not 
buildings.
  We have moved on the emerging diseases portion of this. This will not 
slow

[[Page 23704]]

down any of that construction. It will, however, maybe slow down the 
Japanese gardens and the tremendous waterfalls and all of the gardens 
that are going to be there.
  One other thing, the CDC has just completed a $62 million visitors 
center. I am asking for $60 million for people who have HIV, who are 
never going to get to visit the visitors center. I do not know how we 
spent $62 million on a visitors center for the CDC, but I believe that 
priority is wrong when people are dying from HIV and do not have the 
available medicines.
  I yield until a further time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
just for an announcement?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Oklahoma 
is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  I have been trying for some time to get an amendment in, and it is at 
the desk. I am not going to ask that it be brought up right now, but I 
am going to announce that regardless of the procedure that is used, I 
am going to get a vote on it between now and the passage of this bill. 
It is a one-sentence amendment that says: Beginning with fiscal year 
2007 and thereafter, all nondefense, nontrust fund discretionary 
spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal years without a two-
thirds vote of the Members.
  It is very simple and straightforward. I am not going to do it right 
now, but I will do it before final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. We would be glad to accommodate the senior Senator from 
Oklahoma. We can handle that amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. The reason I cannot stay, I chair the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. We have a very large hearing. I 
will be there for the rest of the afternoon.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we will find a time which is convenient 
to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.
  On to the pending amendment, it is always difficult in the floor 
debate when we talk about facts to know what the facts are. My training 
is that we want to find out the facts, so we have a trial and present 
witnesses, the witnesses testify, and then we find out what the facts 
are.
  I do know this about CDC because I visited the facility about 5 years 
ago and found it in shambles. I have seen a lot of Federal 
installations. I have never seen one as ramshackle as the Centers for 
Disease Control. We saw premier scientists with their desks in the 
corridors. We were advised that there were many toxic substances which 
were not properly secured. It was a mess. I then consulted with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services--this goes back a few years, as 
I say--and no attention had been paid to it.
  Senator Harkin later made a similar visit, and that year, on an 
immediate basis, my recollection is we appropriated $175 million. Then 
we took a look at their plans for very extensive renovation when we had 
appropriated seriatim substantial sums of money.
  When the Senator from Oklahoma says that monies have not been spent, 
it is represented to me that contractors will not contract with the 
Federal Government unless they know the money is in hand. 
Understandably, unless there is authorization and appropriation, nobody 
wants to do business with some Federal employee who makes 
representations without having the cash in hand. That is the advice 
which is coming to me.
  The landscaping is said to be very modest, which would not include a 
Japanese garden. I would like to inquire more to find out about it. 
From what I have seen of the officials at the Centers for Disease 
Control, Dr. Julie Gerberding is an extraordinary public servant. I 
know that when I have wanted some information on the problems of 
pandemic flu, I had to find her in Bangkok, where she was making an 
international survey. I know when we had a deadly botulism in western 
Pennsylvania a couple of years ago, I called her up and she came on a 
weekend to Beaver County, Pennsylvania. I do not think it was just 
because the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee was calling; 
that is the kind of service they perform.
  They wrestle with HIV, SARS, and hurricanes, and now they are 
wrestling with pandemic flu. Among the many people in the Federal 
Government whom I have dealt with--and there have been quite a few in 
the course of my time--I would rate Dr. Gerberding, who is the head of 
it, very highly.
  Having mentioned Japanese gardens, I have just been handed a note 
from my staff that says it does have a Japanese garden. Well, I wish to 
inquire further. Maybe there could be a less expensive exotic garden 
than a Japanese garden.
  I do, at my risk, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his tenacity 
and for his sharpness in digging up wasteful spending. I do believe 
that on this one, he is on the wrong track, but the Senators from 
Georgia are present, and I know they want to be heard. I think the 
distinguished ranking member wants to be heard. So I will yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join my chairman and support his views 
on this amendment. He correctly stated a lot of the history of how this 
has come about. Between the two of us, as we have alternated as 
chairmen of this subcommittee, it has been a strong bipartisan effort, 
not just between the two of us but on both sides of the aisle for a 
long time, to bring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 
Atlanta's facilities up to the 21st century.
  I remember having gone down in the 1990s. I had seen this movie 
``Outbreak'' starring Dustin Hoffman. It supposedly had taken place at 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. I was quite 
taken by all of the containment facilities and how modern it was in 
this movie, and I wanted to go down and see all this. Imagine my 
surprise when I went down to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and I asked to see these wonderful facilities that were in 
this movie and I was told the movie producers had come down to film the 
movie there, saw the facilities, and said no one would ever believe 
these ramshackle buildings are our Centers for Disease Control, so they 
went out and built their own movie set to make the movie.
  I went around and looked at their buildings, some predating World War 
II, in which the most virulent specimens of viruses and other things 
were being dealt with. There was a tremendous concern about safety. We 
perhaps didn't think about it in terms we are thinking about it now, 
but in terms of terrorist activity, about someone being able to abscond 
with some of those very lethal strains, plus the environment for 
scientists to be able to work down there.
  After looking at this and consulting with one another, and others, 
and with probably three administrations, Republican and Democratic, it 
was decided we needed to bring these buildings up to the 21st century. 
We embarked on that and we are about through bringing them up. They are 
state of the art, as they should be.
  We have always prided ourselves in America of being on the leading 
edge--not on the edge, being way out in front of everyone in our 
medical research, but also in terms of the Centers for Disease Control. 
I don't know that there is any institution in America dealing with 
health and safety that is called upon more around the globe to do 
something than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Whether 
it was SARS a few years ago--think about it. We prevented SARS from 
coming to America. We did. The Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention did. They are called upon all over the globe, whether it is 
for Ebola, swine flu, of course now the avian flu, a pandemic that may 
be confronting us shortly.
  These buildings need to be finished. We have the plan. We have gone 
through. We have had our oversight

[[Page 23705]]

hearings and we found they came through on time and under budget, so I 
think we ought to finish it.
  I would say the AIDS Drug Assistance Program the Senator is talking 
about is a good program. I have no problems putting money into those 
programs if they are good programs. But to take it from the Centers for 
Disease Control for that is--talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul, you 
are invading one entity that goes to control and prevent diseases and 
illnesses in America and putting it into another one. It doesn't make 
much sense. I think we ought to finish our projects, be proud of the 
buildings that are built there, be proud of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention and what they do for America and for the world.
  I am opposed to this amendment. We ought to finish the job we started 
on. I don't know about Japanese gardens. I don't know that much about 
gardens and stuff such as that. But, you know, if I might make a minor 
observation, I remember traveling through the Soviet Union years ago 
and looking at all the government buildings built in Moscow and places 
such as that, East Germany. They were stark, sterile, concrete block 
buildings. Who would ever want to work there? They were ugly; 
depressing. Is that what we want to build here?
  As I said, I don't know much about Japanese gardens, but this is the 
premier facility in the world regarding health and disease prevention.
  I understand that the building in question where this garden is--in 
fact, I went down and saw it. It is designed to emphasize healthy 
living. The stairs are located on exterior walls to increase daylight 
and to encourage daily physical activity. We talked about that with Dr. 
Gerberding. The green space around the building includes a stream fed 
by water runoff collected from the building to make the area inviting 
for exercise. I remember seeing that. I didn't think it was a Japanese 
garden; I thought it was a green space. But it is to get people out, 
exercise, walk more. As far as I am concerned, the more green space and 
the more daylight and the more exercise people get there, the better 
off we are. That is what they are preaching, right? They are preaching 
to us to do more exercise to stay healthy. I guess they are going to 
start doing that more on their own at the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention.
  I understand what the Senator from Oklahoma wants to do here. If he 
wants to increase money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, that is 
all well and good, but not at the expense of taking it away from the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have to leave the floor to chair a 
subcommittee hearing. I want to spend 2 or 3 minutes.
  No. 1, the head of the CDC, Dr. Gerberding, I know very well as the 
former head of the President's Commission on HIV/AIDS in this country.
  No. 2, her submission to Congress for building funds this year was 
$30 million.
  No. 3, the total budget for CDC is $4.5 billion. We are asking that 
we take $60 million in construction money and slow it down and save the 
lives of thousands of people in this country by making available drugs 
to them.
  We need the facilities at CDC; I am not debating that. This is about 
saving lives and the priorities of putting that money in a place where 
it will save lives.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the chairman and the Senator from 
Georgia for their collegiality in working on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
of my good friend from Oklahoma. He and I were elected to the House 
together and we fought many battles over there, not unlike what he has 
brought to the Senate, and I wound up voting with him a number of 
times. But in this case I must oppose him, mainly because I think he 
has the facts wrong.
  I want to say to the chairman and ranking member, since my days on 
the House side when I had to go to the then-chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee over there, who has jurisdiction of CDC, after 
I would talk with him I would come over here and visit with Senators 
because this has been such an important project that we have embarked 
on. Both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have been very supportive 
of the work down at CDC, not just the construction program, which I 
want to talk a little bit about but also of the ongoing work down 
there.
  Nobody, even my friend from Oklahoma, would disagree that the work 
being done at CDC is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Were it 
not for the great support of Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, I am 
not sure we would be in this position today. I can only emphasize how 
important that work is by telling the American people, as we talk about 
this issue and talk about CDC, that on September 11, after the 
terrorists struck New York City, there were two planes that were 
authorized to be in the air. One was Air Force One. The other was an 
airplane commissioned by the CDC to carry CDC medical workers to New 
York City. That is how important a priority it is in our country. That 
is why it is important that we make sure the employees at CDC have the 
availability of working in first-class facilities.
  Most of the laboratory facilities at the Chamblee, GA location of CDC 
are in a state of extreme disrepair and require immediate repair or 
modernization. Perhaps the laboratories in the worst condition are 60-
year-old wooden former temporary military barracks from the World War 
II era and previous to that, that are on the verge of collapse and 
could be repaired only at an expense greater than the value of the 
facilities. I want to show you a couple of examples of what it looks 
like at the CDC if we take money away from the CDC building program to 
put it towards the ADAP program, as this amendment calls for. These are 
some of the facilities that will go lacking and the construction 
project will be delayed for the buildings which will house these 
facilities.
  Here is a main environmental health lab at Chamblee, in a World War 
II barrack. If you will notice, there appears to be a shield of some 
sort here. This shows the roof above this shield that extends all the 
way up to the roof. The reason it is there is because there is a leak 
in the roof. When the water comes through, it leaks into this funnel, 
which is this shield, and you will see a pipe connected to that shield 
and it takes the water to the outside.
  Here is a typical infectious disease lab at the Roybal Campus 
adjacent to Emory University. This shows not just the crowded 
conditions in which the most sophisticated scientists in the world 
operate, but it also shows you it is not adequate for the type of work 
that needs to be carried out to prevent every kind of infectious 
disease that exists in the world today. That is because the CDC is not 
called on by simply other States in America; it is called on by every 
country around the world when illness occurs.
  This is a pretty typical facility. These are not facilities that have 
been replaced. These are facilities that exist today.
  A quick personal anecdote. I will never forget the first time I went 
to the Chamblee campus a few years before we embarked on this building 
program. I walked into what then was a World War II barrack. It now has 
been replaced. There was a shower curtain, and it wasn't one of those 
$540 shower curtains. This had been purchased by the individual 
scientist working in that building. That shower curtain was put over a 
piece of equipment and it was about 5 feet, I guess, above the 
equipment itself. When I asked what that was for, they pointed to a 
hole in the roof and said, The roof leaks and there is nothing we can 
do about it. Here we have a piece of equipment worth about $1.5 million 
that sits right under there. It has to be there because of the design 
of the lab inside the building. That shower curtain was purchased by 
the individual scientist to make sure that not only the equipment was 
not damaged but, obviously, that the working papers on that scientist's 
desk were not destroyed by water coming in and leaking on it. But we 
have

[[Page 23706]]

since torn that building down and we have replaced it.
  Expensive and sensitive equipment has literally fallen through the 
floors at some of these facilities. In addition, most of the remainder 
of the CDC's laboratories are more than 40 years old and are incapable 
of handling the dangerous viruses encountered over the last 25 years, 
such as Ebola virus, hantavirus, and Dengue fever. This raises concerns 
that these facilities will be severely outmatched in the future by 
undiscovered biological threats, which we have most recently 
experienced with the threat of anthrax in the past years, and the 
disasters that occurred on September 11. The Asian bird flu or any 
other highly pathogenic avian influenza is currently an issue for 
agricultural health and animal disease experts, but should this virus 
mutate to allow for human-to-human transfer, the control and efforts to 
limit its spread will fall squarely under the purview of the very 
entity that this amendment would seek to cut, the CDC.
  The three prongs critical to managing an animal-borne pandemic--DHS, 
CDC, and USDA--must all be equipped with the necessary resources to 
effectively address potential outbreaks in a timely and efficient 
manner. This amendment will jeopardize a critical element in this 
effort.
  During the 1997 Hong Kong avian flu outbreak, CDC was forced to 
create emergency laboratory space by displacing researchers working on 
other diseases. With additional funding, CDC will be much better 
prepared to respond to such emergencies as a terrorist attack using 
smallpox virus, anthrax, a worldwide flu pandemic or a large-scale 
exposure to deadly toxic chemicals. A delayed or slow response from CDC 
may increase public panic or anxiety in an emergency situation and cost 
human lives.
  One of today's most serious potential threats to our national 
security is bioterrorism. The CDC is an integral part of the homeland 
defense because of its ability to identify, classify, and recommend 
courses of action in dealing with biological and chemical threats. The 
CDC master plan will address the current and future needs for surge 
capacity for responding to large public health emergencies.
  In addition to working in asbestos-laden facilities, many highly 
trained scientists perform their research in facilities that lack 
safety features, such as sprinkler systems and adequate electric and 
airflow systems. The poor conditions of the facilities have damaged the 
Agency's ability to recruit and retain the world-class scientists upon 
which CDC relies to serve the American public.
  The multiyear master plan has received wide bipartisan support in the 
House and Senate. In the past, addressing these deficiencies has 
greatly benefited all Americans by enhancing CDC's ability to respond 
to emergencies as well as providing the desperately needed facilities 
required for the day-to-day public health and research activities.
  The fiscal year 2006 funding will continue to substantially enhance 
the CDC's ability to build the new infectious disease laboratory, which 
will include greatly needed biosafety level 4 ``hot lab'' construction 
of a new environmental toxicology lab and greatly needed security 
updates.
  Let me tell you about the master plan to which I referred a couple of 
times.
  Back in 2001, probably at about the time Senator Specter said he went 
to CDC--and I am sure Senator Harkin was there about that time--they 
observed the condition of the facilities at CDC, both at the Chamblee 
Campus, as well as the Roybal Campus. Those buildings were in total 
disrepair, and in bad need of replacement.
  Again, the examples which I alluded to, the personal anecdote as well 
as what I have shown in pictures, still exist, particularly throughout 
the Chamblee Campus.
  Under the leadership then of Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, and subsequently 
under Dr. Gerberding, the CDC developed a master building plan. What 
they did was unique to any governmental agency that I have ever engaged 
with since I have been in Congress for 11 years now; that is, they went 
out and had an architect draw a master plan for a specific set of 
buildings. It involves a number of buildings where we are going to 
consolidate laboratories as we tear down these World War II barracks. 
That master plan not only had the buildings drawn, but they also went 
further than this and had the plans and specifications themselves sent 
out for bid. And they now have a contract on each one of these 
buildings. That is the master plan.
  Originally, we were scheduled to complete that $15 billion master 
plan over 10 years.
  Senator Isakson, who was then a Member of the House, and myself, 
along with our entire delegation, in a bipartisan fashion, came to our 
leadership in the House and to the leadership in the Senate and said, 
rather than doing this over 10 years following September 11, we need to 
consolidate this to five years and let our scientists have the ability 
to do a better job in a first-class facility.
  So we decided to go with a 5-year plan as opposed to a 10-year plan.
  Each year, we have asked for $300 million to try to complete that 
plan. We have been successful for a number of years in getting $250 
million.
  I have to say that every year--the Senator from Oklahoma is right--
the budget that comes over from the President is very low because they 
know we are going to plus-up that amount of money; we have done it 
every year because we need the facilities. Every year we have had $250 
million, beginning with fiscal year 2002. In 2002, 2003, 2004, and 
2005, we funded $250 million for CDC in Atlanta, to speed up this 
master plan. This year, because of the tight budget conditions that we 
are in, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin allocated $200 million 
instead of $250 million for this master plan.
  Let me respond very quickly to this Japanese garden issue. I will 
tell you what the Japanese garden is. In parts of Georgia, if you drill 
a hole in the ground when building, you sometimes hit granite rock. In 
this case, part of the area on the Roybal Campus where we are carrying 
out the master plan, there is rock under the surface. It was necessary 
to blast that rock out. When they blasted the rock out, instead of 
hauling that rock off, Dr. Gerberding said, Let's take that and develop 
an area for our employees to utilize during the day, to exercise, as 
Senator Harkin referred to, and go out and eat lunch. I guess what we 
have out there is a gardedn of some sort that must have a Japanese 
``tinge'' to it, and that is why it is referred to as ``the Japanese 
garden.'' It looked to me like a nice place where employees could go 
out in the open air and have lunch. I have seen them out there doing 
this.
  I am going to let Senator Isakson address a couple of other specific 
items that have been suggested as being somewhat wasteful spending. 
They are hard-working, dedicated employees. If we are going to continue 
to recruit the very finest that the world has to offer, we ought to at 
least be able to spend a little bit of money and take advantage of the 
contours of the land to give them a nice place to go out and sit on 
their break and at lunchtime.
  I sympathize with the Senator from Oklahoma when he says that we need 
to continue spending money on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. We have 
responded to that in the Congress. We have maintained a level amount of 
spending for CDC in Atlanta, for the completion of our master plan over 
the last 5 years. The ADAP appropriations for 2001 was $589 million. In 
2002, that rose to $639 million; then $714 million; then $748 million; 
and in the 2005 appropriations, it was $793 million. In 2006, we expect 
$797.5 million.
  It is not like we haven't been increasing the funding for ADAP. We 
have, and we need to continue to do so, but not at the expense of 
providing the most premier medical scientists and researchers in the 
world with a facility within which to work.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Again, I say to Senator Specter and Senator Harkin that under their 
leadership, we do have the most premier medical research facility in 
the world

[[Page 23707]]

located in Atlanta, GA, today, and we need to continue to provide the 
funding for this master plan, which we will now complete in another 
couple of years. We should be able to continue to attract the very 
finest and best that the world has to offer. We also need to ensure 
that Americans are safe, when the avian flu presents a threat, that our 
scientists are able to respond, as they are doing today, and that they 
have the habitat within which to work, allowing them to do the very 
best job they can do to protect Americans and to protect the world from 
the health hazards that exist.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself entirely with the 
remarks of my colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Chambliss.
  I rise for two specific reasons. The first is to correct some 
statements that have been made to be factual that are not and, second, 
to take issue with the contention that the amendment before us places 
people before buildings.
  Before I do either, however, I want to pay particular praise and 
attention to Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. My first visit ever to 
the Senate was as a Member of Congress, shortly after my election, when 
I came to the offices of both these Senators, accompanied by Bernie 
Marcus, Oz Nelson, and other executives who led a private sector focus 
on what we are discussing and debating today; that is, the fact that 
the world's premier health care and disease prevention facility was 
crumbling and in shambles.
  These corporate leaders came to these two Senators and came to us, 
along with Dr. Jeffrey Copeland, with a plan to remake and rebuild the 
CDC so that it could carry out the jobs of the 21st century in health 
care.
  Ironically, that visit was a year and half before September 11, 2001. 
But fortunately, it was a year and half before that tragic day because 
all of the research that was done that helped us in the identification 
of the anthrax problem that we had was done right there in CDC, to deal 
with monkeypox, to deal with avian flu, to deal with the West Nile 
virus--all of these diseases we have, in part, been able to deal with, 
with the new facilities built in this 5-year building program.
  I commend Senators Harkin and Specter for their leadership and for 
their support.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment based entirely on the facts 
which have been presented which are not correct. I will deal with the 
facts first.
  The statement has been made on this floor that $200 million in 
construction money is sitting idle at the CDC. There is $200 million 
for construction at CDC, which is absolutely essential to complete 
Building 23 and start Building 24, in addition to the $171 million that 
is included in this appropriation.
  As Senator Specter said early on, contractors don't contract until 
all compensation for construction can be made. We did the seed-planting 
money in the previous appropriations bills in this Congress. Now it is 
time build Building 23, which is the Infectious Disease Building.
  It is incorrect to characterize money that is there today as being 
excess funds. It is part of the cash flow that we have appropriated 
over a 5-year plan to complete this project.
  Second, and most importantly, the statement was made that CDC had 
spent $60 million of the money on a welcome center.
  I happen to know where that came from. That came from a newspaper 
article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which was, on its face, 
absolutely incorrect. The $60 million building is the Global 
Communications Center, which was Building 19, which was the first thing 
we completed to allow the United States of America and the CDC to be 
able to meet a pandemic, a terrorist attack, and communicate 
simultaneously and seamlessly throughout the world to stop the death 
and destruction of Americans, as well the lives of human beings 
throughout the world. It was an absolutely incorrect statement made in 
the media. There is no welcome center, but there is a state-of-the-art 
communications center that allows us to instantly respond to the 
threats we know only too well--whether it be threats of human beings 
like those on September 11 who attacked us, or threats that lie await 
in poultry and birds in Asia that may materialize into an avian flu 
human-to-human transfer.
  Both the statements of $200 million being on deposit or $60 million 
being spent on a welcome center are incorrect in the way they were 
presented. The money in this bill of $200 million for this 2006 budget 
is to provide $171 million to complete Building 23, which is the 
infectious disease laboratory, another $21 million for Building No. 24, 
which will be one of the last buildings to go into place--this is the 
planning and design money--and $7.5 million for maintenance of these 
facilities.
  Last, the characterization that this amendment is about putting 
buildings before people's lives, with all due respect, there is a fact 
that should be shared today. All decry AIDS, and I commend the Senator 
from Oklahoma for wanting to put $60 million in AIDS drugs for those 
who cannot afford them, but to do so and claim that CDC spend this on a 
building when they could be spending it on AIDS patients is a travesty.
  This year, the CDC, on its own, will deploy, of its money and that of 
other governments and other resources around the world, over $1 billion 
in its prevention efforts for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or 
AIDS. There is no organization in the world that is more on the leading 
edge of the prevention of AIDS and its treatment than the Centers for 
Disease Control. In fact, to take this $60 million away from the 
building laboratory that is designed for infectious disease study would 
do more harm to patients with AIDS than would help to move it to drug 
programs for patients with AIDS. It is an improper characterization and 
it is an improper prioritization of money that is appropriated.
  As the Senator said in the beginning presentation of his amendment, 
this does not save a dime of expenditure. It just moves some money 
around. There are some places we ought to do it. The distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma is right many times in his criticism and the 
characterizations he presents, but he is 100 percent dead wrong in 
terms of this amendment.
  I respectfully submit the facts to the Senate, and I ask my 
colleagues to reject the Coburn amendment on the CDC and continue our 
commitment to the health care of the people around the world and the 
safety and security of American citizens by continuing to fund the 
world's premier health care, health prevention, and health resource 
facility, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
Coburn amendment be set aside and we proceed with another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending amendment is set aside.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and the distinguished ranking member for ceding me this time. 
I call up amendment No. 2244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2244.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, 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 the production and mailing of a corrected 
                       Medicare and You handbook)

       On page 156, line 2, strike ``Funds.'' and insert ``Funds: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary, by not later than 
     January 1, 2006, shall produce and mail a corrected version 
     of the annual notice required under section 1804(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-2(a)) to each 
     beneficiary described in the second sentence of such section, 
     together

[[Page 23708]]

     with an explanation of the error in the previous annual 
     notice that was mailed to such beneficiaries.''.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, recently the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services sent to 42 million Medicare beneficiaries this 
handbook, ``Medicare & You,'' to describe a myriad of plans providing 
prescription drug coverage. There are an enormous number of plans in 
Minnesota--over 40 plans. I have tried to go through the book myself. I 
have had my staff try to explain it to me. I think I am a reasonably 
intelligent American, but this is extremely complicated and it will be 
very challenging to many Medicare beneficiaries. That is going to be 
compounded by the fact that there is a very serious error in the tables 
that will apply to 17 million Americans whose incomes are low enough 
that they qualify for partial subsidy for their premiums.
  The question in the column heading is ``If I qualify for extra help, 
will my full premium be covered?''
  Under every single plan, the answer is listed as ``yes.'' That is 
incorrect. Only about 40 percent of the plan offerings--those with 
premiums below the regional average--will be covered. The other 60 
percent will be only covered up to that amount, and anything above that 
the beneficiary has to pay, but that is incorrectly described here. Yet 
CMS refuses to correct the error by a subsequent mailing.
  My amendment requires them to do so and would transfer such funds as 
necessary from their administrative accounts so it is offset. It is 
essential to all beneficiaries and the integrity of the plan.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2245.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2245.

  Mr. DAYTON. 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 fully fund the Federal Government's share of the costs 
    under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional 
     $12,375,000,000 for carrying out part B of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), in 
     order to fully fund the Federal Government's share of the 
     costs under such part.

  Mr. DAYTON. This amendment increases the Federal funding for IDEA, 
special education, to what was promised 28 years ago, 40 percent of the 
cost of State and local governments.
  I can only speak for my State, but that money would be desperately 
needed and very well used. It would amount to about $250 million in 
additional Federal funding for K-12 education for my State to keep the 
promise that has been broken. It has cost about $12 billion above what 
has been committed so far.
  I recognize the distinguished chairman and ranking member have made 
this a priority and have increased funding, and we have made some 
progress in the last few years. But we are still less than 20 percent--
less than half--of the commitment for special education made almost 
three decades ago.


                           Amendment No. 2289

  Finally, I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment 
No. 2289.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAYTON] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2289.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for disabled voter access services under 
                   the Help America Vote Act of 2002)

       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 $10,000,000 shall be for payments to States to 
     promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which 
     $5,121,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and 
     advocacy systems for voters with disabilities.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts made available under this title for the 
     administration and related expenses shall be reduced by 
     $15,121,000 from other services.

  Mr. DAYTON. This amendment provides additional funding to State 
governments and agencies involved with Americans with disabilities to 
allow them access to vote. The Help America Vote Act of 2003--landmark 
legislation, bipartisan legislation--unfortunately, has not been funded 
to the level necessary to help States and local governments comply with 
this requirement. This is a modest amount, $15 million, offset by the 
increase in the administrative costs, so it would result in a reduction 
for administration but would be money we committed that has not been 
forthcoming.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2239

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2239.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2239.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 funding for the purchase of rapid oral HIV tests)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     use amounts appropriated under title II for the purchase of 
     not less than 1,000,000 rapid oral HIV tests.

  Mr. SANTORUM. This is an amendment that is to instruct the Department 
of Health and Human Services to purchase of no less than 1 million 
rapid oral HIV tests.
  As we all know, the problem of HIV and the spread of HIV continues to 
be a problem. Experts tell us that over half of all new HIV cases are 
as a result of someone who was unaware of their HIV status. The idea is 
having better testing out there, along with oral testing where it does 
not require any drawing of blood or needles--obviously, for a lot of 
folks that is a concern. This provides a safe effective way to be able 
to get these results in a timely fashion to give people the notice they 
need before they engage in an activity that might cause the further 
spread of the HIV virus.
  I understand from my colleague from Pennsylvania, this is an 
amendment he is willing to accept. If there is no discussion, I urge 
agreement of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment as outlined by my colleague 
from Pennsylvania provides for 1 million HIV oral rapid tests. The 
funds are provided for within the amounts already in the bill. These 
tests are essential. He correctly states my agreement and acquiescence. 
I join my colleague in urging agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2239) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2241

  Ms. CANTWELL. I call up amendment No. 2241 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.

[[Page 23709]]

  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2241.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, 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 establish a Congressional Commission on Expanding Social 
                       Service Delivery Options)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.(a) There is established a Congressional 
     Commission on Expanding Social Service Delivery Options 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
       (b)(1) The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of 
     whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Members of the Commission shall be appointed from among 
     individuals with demonstrated expertise and experience in 
     social service delivery, including, to the extent 
     practicable, in the area of reform of such delivery.
       (3) The appointments of the members of the Commission shall 
     be made not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (4) Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (c) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     designate 1 of the members appointed under subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) as a co-Chairperson of the Commission. The majority 
     leader of the Senate shall designate 1 of the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(1)(B) as a co-Chairperson of 
     the Commission.
       (d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (2) The Commission shall meet at the call of either co-
     Chairperson.
       (3) A majority of the members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (e)(1)(A) The Commission shall conduct a thorough and 
     thoughtful study of all matters relating to increasing 
     beneficiary-selected or beneficiary-directed options for 
     social service delivery in Federal social service programs, 
     including certificate, scholarship, voucher, or other forms 
     of indirect delivery. The Commission shall review all 
     relevant Federal social service programs in existence on the 
     date of the beginning of the study, including the initiatives 
     of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The 
     Commission shall determine program areas, among the Federal 
     programs, for which it is appropriate and feasible to 
     implement full or partial beneficiary-selected or 
     beneficiary-directed options for the delivery of the social 
     services.
       (B) In making determinations under subparagraph (A), the 
     Commission shall seek to promote goals of--
       (i) expanding consumer and beneficiary choice in Federal 
     social service programs;
       (ii) maximizing the use of governmental resources in the 
     Federal programs; and
       (iii) minimizing concerns relating to any precedent under 
     the Constitution regarding the participation of faith-based 
     providers in the Federal programs.
       (2) The Commission shall develop recommendations on program 
     areas, among the Federal social service programs, for which 
     it is appropriate and feasible to implement full or partial 
     beneficiary-selected or beneficiary-directed options for the 
     delivery of the social services.
       (3) Not later than 11 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the Speaker 
     and minority leader of the House of Representatives and the 
     majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, which 
     shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and 
     conclusions of the Commission, together with its 
     recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     actions as it considers appropriate.
       (f)(1) The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act 
     at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive 
     such evidence as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this section.
       (2) The Commission may secure directly from any Federal 
     department or agency such information as the Commission 
     considers necessary to carry out this section. Upon request 
     of either co-Chairperson of the Commission, the head of such 
     department or agency shall furnish such information to the 
     Commission.
       (3) The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (g)(1) Each member of the Commission who is not an officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government shall be compensated at 
     a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of 
     basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each 
     day (including travel time) during which such member is 
     engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 
     All members of the Commission who are officers or employees 
     of the United States shall serve without compensation in 
     addition to that received for their services as officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       (2) The members of the Commission shall be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
     authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     their homes or regular places of business in the performance 
     of services for the Commission.
       (3)(A) The co-Chairpersons of the Commission, acting 
     jointly, may, without regard to the civil service laws and 
     regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as may be necessary to enable 
     the Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (B) The co-Chairpersons of the Commission, acting jointly, 
     may fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rate of pay for the executive director and 
     other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (4) Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the 
     Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 
     without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (5) The co-Chairpersons of the Commission, acting jointly, 
     may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for 
     individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (h) The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date 
     on which the Commission submits its report under subsection 
     (e).
       (i)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Commission for fiscal year 2006 such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section.
       (2) Any sums appropriated under the authorization contained 
     in this subsection shall remain available, without fiscal 
     year limitation, until expended.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a commission, a bipartisan 
bicameral commission, that will be set up as a result of this amendment 
that would undertake a comprehensive and thoughtful review of Federal 
social service programs and make recommendations that would be 
appropriate to provide beneficiaries more choice in how they receive 
their social services that are paid for from the Federal Government.
  One of the things I hear as I work in communities that heavily rely 
on social services, a lot of places where they would like to get social 
services--community-based organizations, in some cases faith-based 
organizations--are not able. They either do not qualify for Federal 
funds or do not have the technical expertise to get Federal funds. The 
President has put forward a faith-based initiative. The Congress has 
passed charitable choice legislation. We have done a lot to try to get 
more providers in social services involved, and even in some areas 
provide more flexibility--such as vouchers for certain services that 
are out there so people can take that voucher and get the services from 
qualified places.
  There is still a level of frustration out in the community. I think 
we need to do a more comprehensive job in looking at how we address the 
issue of giving people choices as to how they get their social 
services. I think this is a way to bring some of the best minds that we 
have into the social service delivery area, folks from both the House 
and the Senate and the White House, appointees, to sit down and look to 
see, is there a better mousetrap than the current system of social 
service delivery? Is there a better way for us to restructure some of 
these programs to give more efficient and effective services at less 
cost and with more consumer buy-in and choice?
  One of the reasons some of our social services plans do not work very 
well is people do not interface well with the

[[Page 23710]]

delivery systems in place right now. This commission would be tasked to 
determine how we can, in fact, remove some of these barriers to folks 
who do not access the social services systems.
  One of the big problems we have continually with a lot of our 
programs--whether it is health programs, housing programs, 
rehabilitation programs, or other programs--is we have large segments 
of the community that simply do not participate. They may be eligible 
for services, but they do not participate in the services. So we have 
to figure out: How do we better reach these people? How do we better 
make these services available in such a way that we can actually start 
reaching people in how they live their lives and in a way that meets 
their needs?
  As far as the money for this commission, I have asked that it be such 
sums as may be determined by the committee. Hopefully, they will 
allocate such resources they have available to stand up this 
commission. But, to me, it is important we get better utilization. For 
my mind, just giving more money to the different Departments to figure 
out ways to advertise or to do things to bump up their enrollment in 
some of these programs has been tried in the past, and it basically 
does not work very well. I think we need to at least have some of our 
best minds look at this together, as to how we could redesign this 
system and get recommendations given to the Congress as to how we can 
do a better job providing services.
  With that, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my colleague and I were just discussing 
the amendment. I believe it is acceptable.
  I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the first time I have seen this 
amendment. This is setting up a congressional commission on expanding 
social service delivery options. I have no problem with that.
  But the way it is spelled out and everything, I would ask the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, the author of the amendment, has this been brought 
up before the authorizing committee? Has there been any hearing on 
this? Has there ever been a hearing on this, or has the authorizing 
committee acted on this at all? This is authorization on an 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, we have discussed it with the members of the Finance 
Committee which, as you know, I am a member of. To my knowledge, I am 
not aware of any objection on the part of the Finance Committee as to 
this particular provision. I will be offering a couple other amendments 
promptly which are under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee 
which they do object to, which I will just offer and withdraw. But to 
my knowledge, they have not objected to this particular amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator. I personally do not have any 
problem with it, but this is something I think--I always have a little 
question when any Senator, on this side of the aisle or that side, 
anywhere, has a pretty thick amendment that involves commissions and 
how you select commissions and what they do.
  I have not even had a chance to read this amendment. I don't even 
know what is in it.
  Again, I ask my friend from Pennsylvania, has this amendment, in its 
present form, been submitted to either the Finance Committee or the 
HELP Committee? They probably share jurisdiction there. Have they 
looked at it to see if there are any objections to this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, to my knowledge, we filed the amendment. 
My staff has discussed it, I know, with the Finance Committee. I do not 
know about any other committees. This is not a bill I introduced and 
has gone to committee. This is something I have brought up on this 
bill.
  So to answer your question, I think, as directly as I can, no, we 
have not filed this with the Finance Committee as a bill to have them 
review it as a bill in committee, if that is your question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from 
Pennsylvania--well, you have offered the amendment. That is fine. The 
amendment is at the desk. I wonder if we might put off voting on this 
amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to have the chairman and ranking member of 
the Finance Committee, and perhaps the HELP Committee because it 
perhaps crosses both--to have them at least take a look at it. If it is 
fine, then I do not care.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, am I correct, has the Senator from 
Pennsylvania laid down the amendment? Is the amendment at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, if 
this can be given to the chairs and ranking members of those 
committees, to have them look at it, and if it is fine, then I have no 
objection. As I said, I have not had a chance to look at it, and it is 
not in my jurisdiction at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I perfectly understand what the concerns 
are of the Senator from Iowa and would be happy to work with him over 
the next several hours to get that amendment cleared.


                           Amendment No. 2237

  Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2237 be called up and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments have been set aside. 
The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2237.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. The next two amendments I am 
going to be talking about are amendments that I have offered and on 
which I want to have a discussion. They are in the subject area of this 
appropriations bill, but they are provisions that, as my colleague from 
Pennsylvania advised me, rightfully belong as amendments to a welfare 
bill.
  But as Members of this Chamber know, we have not had the privilege in 
the Senate of having a welfare bill come across this floor, even though 
the welfare bill of 1996 expired a couple of years ago. We have passed 
extension after extension. As a result of that, the work requirements 
in the welfare reform bill of 1996--which have been so effective in 
transforming the lives of millions of Americans who were trapped in the 
welfare system--those work requirements in most States have gone away 
because the requirements only required that 50 percent of the caseload, 
at the time of the passage of the bill, had to be working.
  Well, we reduced the caseload more than 50 percent, therefore the 
work requirements went away for the caseload that is remaining. So many 
States have begun to sort of go back to the pre-1996 provision of 
welfare. It is easier for States to do that. Work programs cost money 
to the States. Other initiatives to try to help people get out of 
poverty, they cost money. So if you do not have to spend that money as 
a

[[Page 23711]]

State, if you can just simply continue to pay out the money and not 
have to provide all these other services, it is a lot cheaper for 
States to do. In fact, that is what States did for years upon years 
upon years, as the welfare rolls grew.
  There is still a time limit, so that is a good thing. That causes a 
lot of people, in spite of the lack of effort in many cases by States, 
to move themselves off of welfare because of the limits on the ability 
to get relief. But I believe we can do better. So I have many times 
come to the floor of the Senate and asked for consideration of the 
bill, asked for a specific number of amendments, and, candidly, we have 
had objections from both sides of the aisle. I think that is 
unfortunate.
  So as a result, I have brought forward amendments to this bill on two 
programs that I think are vitally important in the next step on 
welfare. We did a great job in the welfare reform bill of 1996 in 
providing an economic path to recovery for millions of Americans, in 
providing incentives to work. We made work pay more than staying on 
welfare. In many cases prior to that, that was not the case.
  We also did a lot in providing strict time limits and giving States 
very tough provisions to require work as a way of getting people out of 
poverty, instead of simply just allowing them to be maintained in 
poverty. It gave them a requirement that a certain percentage of the 
caseload had to be at work. That is all for the good. We saw the rate 
of poverty from 1996 to the year 2001--until we had, unfortunately, a 
recession in this country--we saw the rate of poverty go down, and go 
down dramatically.
  One of the greatest indicators is poverty among African-American 
children. Poverty among African-American children, in the year 2001, 
was the lowest ever recorded--lowest ever recorded--and was a dramatic 
decline from one of the highest rates ever recorded, which was in the 
mid-1990s. So you can point directly to this act as a way of helping to 
alleviate poverty.
  But I think what we have found since 1996, yes, we have had economic 
successes, but still there are people struggling at the margins of 
society. One of the reasons that is the case is, even though we now 
have moms who have gotten jobs--and it was predominantly moms who were 
on welfare--what they have not gotten is families brought back 
together. What we have not seen is an increase in the amount of family 
unification, moms and dads coming together and marrying and raising 
children in poor communities.
  In fact, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has not changed 
substantially at all in most of these communities. The amount of 
fatherlessness in these communities continues to be of epidemic 
proportions. And we now have folks on the left and the right writing 
about this. This is no longer just a conservative cabal when we talk 
about family unification; families, mothers and fathers raising 
children. Now even those on the left have said there is no longer an 
argument. Children raised in healthy, stable, two-parent married 
families do better.
  It should be a social policy to encourage those kinds of 
relationships for the benefit of children, for the benefit of mothers, 
for the benefit of fathers, for the benefit of neighborhoods, for the 
benefit of the country. Yet when it comes to that here in Washington, 
DC, when it comes to public policy that helps build those strong 
relationships, that helps nurture and foster those relationships of 
marriage and fathers taking responsibility for their children, the 
Government stands in absolute neutrality.
  We do nothing to promote stable marriages. We do nothing, other than 
attach fathers' wages and get child support and establish paternity. We 
do nothing to help nurture and bring fathers back into the lives of 
their children and into productive and healthy relationships with the 
mother of their children.
  What I have suggested, in both amendment No. 2237 and No. 2238, are 
two initiatives that are better placed and will be placed and will be 
debated in full on the welfare bill. One is a healthy marriage 
initiative. The second is a fatherhood initiative. Both would provide 
funding.
  Let's review some of the statistics of the impact of marriage. This 
was done by the Brookings Institution. Those on the other side of the 
aisle will know that the Brookings Institution is not often cited on 
the Republican side of the aisle. It shows you that the debate is over. 
There is no debate anymore about the impact of marriage and the impact 
of having fathers involved in their children's lives. I talked about 
the effectiveness of five factors in reducing poverty rates. We hear a 
lot of talk on both sides of the aisle--unfortunately, more on the 
other side of the aisle--about reducing poverty. Hopefully, that will 
change soon.
  In 1992, we did what was, in fact, the most effective thing in 
reducing poverty, this study found. The most effective thing was not to 
double cash welfare payments. Some on the other side of the aisle have 
suggested that all we need to do is pay people more from the 
Government. If we give them more, they will get out of poverty. Wrong. 
That doesn't work. In fact, the percentage reduction in poverty rates, 
if we doubled cash welfare, would only decrease the poverty rate by 8 
percent.
  What did work? Full-time work. Full-time work decreases the poverty 
rate by 42 percent. We have done that. We have required work, not full-
time work, but we require 20 hours. The bill that is being proposed, 
that we have yet to bring to the floor, requires 24 hours. But we have 
required work, and it is working to take people out of poverty.
  What is the next biggest factor in reducing poverty? Again, according 
to the Brookings Institution report, an increase in marriage. We did 
something to require work. Many States have more generous welfare 
benefits than what is prescribed by the Federal Government. In fact, I 
know there is some money out there for healthy marriages, but very few 
States and very little Federal money goes to do anything about helping 
to improve the health of marriage among the poor. It is vitally 
important that we recognize that there is a direct social-policy, 
social-service-community, child-mother-father benefit for encouraging 
healthy marriages. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny. This 
Congress has not spent a penny on something we know could reduce 
poverty by 27 percent and, more importantly, provide more stability in 
the lives of children, reduce domestic violence, and improve the lives 
of millions in communities across America. We will not spend a penny 
this year. That is why I offered the amendment, because I want to spend 
more than a few pennies, because we know it has an impact.
  What impact does it have? Let's look at the benefits of marriage for 
children: better school performance and less dropouts; fewer emotional 
and behavioral problems; less substance abuse; less abuse or neglect; 
less criminal activity; less early sexual activity and fewer out-of-
wedlock births. I am not too sure I know anybody who doesn't think all 
of those things are good. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny.
  Think of all the things we spend money on in Washington. One of the 
things you hear most when you go back home is all the waste, fraud, all 
the money we throw at projects for which people have no rhyme or reason 
as to why we spend the money. Yet here is something that we know will 
help children, mothers, fathers, neighborhoods, will build on a 
stronger America, and we don't spend one red cent.
  You might ask the question: Why is that, Senator? Why don't we spend 
any money on this? Let me tell you what some of my colleagues on the 
Finance Committee have said. The response was: Well, who are we to 
impose our values on other folks; who are we to suggest that marriage 
is something the Federal Government should be concerned with; that is a 
private matter.
  Is this a private matter? Is less substance abuse a private matter? 
Is less abuse and neglect a private matter? Is less criminal activity a 
private matter? This isn't a private matter. We are talking about 
policies that have a direct impact on the health and safety of

[[Page 23712]]

children. It is not a private matter. Supporting healthy marriages is a 
public good. If you think about all the other things we spend money on, 
I can't imagine anything that would be a more valuable expenditure than 
to provide more stable families for children growing up in poor 
neighborhoods.
  The second amendment is an offshoot of the first. That is to try to 
bring fathers who have children out of wedlock back and get them 
involved in their children's lives--not necessarily to marry, but to 
have them involved. I was at a conference within the last year where 
Jason DeParle, a writer from the New York Times, was giving a talk. He 
was talking about a book he had written, following three women in 
Milwaukee, WI, post welfare reform of 1996. He wrote about many things, 
about how welfare reform is working in some ways and not in others. One 
way he talked about where it wasn't working was with regard to fathers. 
There was a question from the crowd about who these dads are. We are 
not talking about the best neighborhoods in America when it comes to 
crime, wealth. We are talking about a lot of dads who, yes, were or 
even are incarcerated, were or still are dealing with addiction, 
dealing with unemployment, dealing with a whole host of other maladies 
that affect large segments of our population.
  The question was: Do we want these dads involved in the lives of 
these children? I thought that was a bold question. Jason's answer was, 
in a word--I won't quote him, because I didn't write it down--well, 
they may not be the best role models of dads, but they are still their 
dads. These children, like all of us children, want to be loved by 
their dads. They need that love, as imperfect as it is. As a dad, I 
know how imperfect it can be. We all do. But it is still your dad.
  These programs are not perfect. We are not bringing ``Father Knows 
Best'' Robert Young dads back into the home. We understand that. But 
these children still long for their dad. Do we have a Federal program 
that helps bring dads back into the home? Do we spend any Federal 
dollars to help reunite fathers with their children, in spite of all 
the benefits that we know about two parents? No, we don't. We will 
spend more money on daycare, billions more on daycare. We will spend 
more money on afterschool programs, Head Start Programs, early 
programs, late programs, noon programs. We will spend all sorts of 
money on Government programs. But will we spend a penny to help reunite 
a father with his children? No. Who are we to impose our values, is the 
line I hear.
  Did anyone ever ask a kid whether he wants his dad back? What kind of 
value is that? We need to start thinking about how important it is for 
young children growing up in a hostile world in poor neighborhoods in 
America to have a shot to be with their dad and to start funding those 
groups who are out there--and there are hundreds across America who are 
working hard every day on a shoestring--to help dads be a dad.
  I can't offer this amendment because it is authorizing on an 
appropriations bill. We aren't going to get a welfare bill, so kids 
across America are going to have to wait a little longer while Congress 
decides whether we want to take the time to help find their dad. 
Hopefully we can find the time sometime soon. The kids are waiting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2291

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2291 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2291.

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

  (Purpose: To restrict the use of funds to implement or enforce the 
       interim final rule with respect to power mobility devices)

       On page 178, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. __.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to implement or enforce the interim final rule published in 
     the Federal Register by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services on August 26, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 50940) or any 
     corresponding similar regulation or ruling--
       (1) prior to April 1, 2006; and
       (2) on or after April 1, 2006, unless the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services publishes--
       (A) by not later than January 1, 2006, a proposed rule with 
     respect to motorized or powered wheelchairs, followed by a 
     45-day period to comment on the proposed rule; and
       (B) by not later than February 14, 2006, a final rule with 
     respect to motorized or powered wheelchairs, followed by a 
     45-day transition period for implementation of the final 
     rule.
       (b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with 
     respect to a covered item consisting of a motorized or power 
     wheelchair furnished during 2006, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall reduce the payment amount otherwise 
     applicable under section 1834 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395m) for such item by 1.5 percent.
       (2) The payment reduction provided under paragraph (1) for 
     2006--
       (A) shall not apply to a covered item consisting of a 
     motorized or power wheelchair that is furnished after 2006; 
     and
       (B) shall not be taken into account in calculating the 
     payment amounts applicable for such a covered item furnished 
     after 2006.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would delay 
the implementation of the Medicare reimbursement for all power mobility 
vehicles for a period of 6 months. It has been cleared by Senator 
Harkin. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2291.
  The amendment (No. 2291) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2260

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2260.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] for Mr. 
     Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 2260.

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

 (Purpose: To permit an alien to remain eligible for a diversity visa 
beyond the fiscal year in which the alien applied for the visa, and for 
                            other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.(a) This section may be cited as the ``Diversity 
     Visa Fairness Act of 2005''.
       (b)(1) Section 204(a)(1)(I)(ii) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)) is amended by 
     striking subclause (II) and inserting the following:
       ``(II) An alien who qualifies, through random selection, 
     for a visa under section 203(c) or adjustment of status under 
     section 245(a) shall remain eligible to receive such visa or 
     adjustment of status beyond the end of the specific fiscal 
     year for which the alien was selected if the alien--
       ``(aa) properly applied for such visa or adjustment of 
     status during the fiscal year for which the alien was 
     selected; and
       ``(bb) was notified by the Secretary of State, through the 
     publication of the Visa Bulletin, that the application was 
     authorized.''.
       (2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a visa 
     shall be available for an alien under section 203(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) if--
       (i) such alien was eligible for and properly applied for an 
     adjustment of status under section 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255) during any of the fiscal years 1998 through 2005;
       (ii) the application submitted by such alien was denied 
     because personnel of the Department of Homeland Security or 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to 
     adjudicate such application during the fiscal year in which 
     such application was filed;
       (iii) such alien moves to reopen such adjustment of status 
     applications pursuant to procedures or instructions provided 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of 
     State; and
       (iv) such alien has continuously resided in the United 
     States since the date of submitting such application.
       (B) A visa made available under subparagraph (A) may not be 
     counted toward the numerical maximum for the worldwide level 
     of set out in section 201(e) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)).

[[Page 23713]]

       (3) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     on October 1, 2005.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has been cleared with Senator 
Harkin. It relates to the Diversity Visa Fairness Act and strikes the 
language that allows aliens to only be eligible for immigrant visas 
during the fiscal year in which they apply and makes the applicants 
eligible for immigrant visas despite the end of the fiscal year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this deals 
with immigration. On that immigration committee, I am sure others have 
had an opportunity to see it. I wonder if the Senator could just let me 
have a few minutes to look at it prior to making that request.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been advised by staff that this 
has been signed off by the Senator from Massachusetts as well as 
others. But of course, if he would like a chance to review it--
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure I will not object, but just the way it was 
described, I didn't understand it the way it had been explained to me. 
If the chairman would extend that opportunity, I would appreciate it.


                           Amendment No. 2268

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 2268.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2268.

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

(Purpose: To amend section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
 to reduce the residency requirement and limit the adjudication period 
  for the naturalization of aliens with extraordinary ability so that 
  such aliens may represent the United States at international events)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.(a) Section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1427), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g)(1) The continuous residency requirement under 
     subsection (a) may be reduced to 3 years for an applicant for 
     naturalization if--
       ``(A) the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved 
     petition for classification under section 204(a)(1)(E);
       ``(B) the applicant has been approved for adjustment of 
     status under section 245(a); and
       ``(C) such reduction is necessary for the applicant to 
     represent the United States at an international event.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjudicate 
     an application for naturalization under this section not 
     later than 30 days after the submission of such application 
     if the applicant--
       ``(A) requests such expedited adjudication in order to 
     represent the United States at an international event; and
       ``(B) demonstrates that such expedited adjudication is 
     related to such representation.
       ``(3) An applicant is ineligible for expedited adjudication 
     under paragraph (2) if the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     determines that such expedited adjudication poses a risk to 
     national security. Such a determination by the Secretary 
     shall not be subject to review.
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other fee authorized by law, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall charge and collect a 
     $1,000 premium processing fee from each applicant described 
     in this subsection to offset the additional costs incurred to 
     expedite the processing of applications under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) The fee collected under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     deposited as offsetting collections in the Immigration 
     Examinations Fee Account.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) is repealed on 
     January 1, 2006.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
Senator Levin and will allow aliens of extraordinary abilities who will 
represent the United States at an international event to complete the 
citizen requirement process in less time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I understand this has been cleared, too, with Senator 
Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I understand. I just hope the appropriate committee 
of jurisdiction has looked at it, too.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it has been represented that the 
appropriate Senators have signed off.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2268) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2260

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised further that as to 2260, 
where the Senator from Massachusetts had asked for some time to take a 
look at it, we have his assent at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. No objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2260 is the pending amendment. Is 
there further debate on the pending amendment? If not, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2260) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:05, 
there be 10 minutes equally divided with respect to the two pending 
LIHEAP amendments, provided further that following that time, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments: Senator 
Reid, 2194; Senator Gregg, 2253 as modified; Senator Dodd, 2254; 
Senator Clinton, 2292; Senator Coburn, 2232; provided further there be 
no second-degree amendments in order to the listed amendments prior to 
the votes, and prior to the vote it be in order for Senator Specter to 
modify the Gregg amendment on his behalf. And I further ask there be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided between each of the votes listed 
after the first vote. Mr. President, I ask that after the first vote, 
the votes be 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, so that there will be no doubt and all 
Senators will be on notice, we will start the vote at 4:15, and the 
first vote will be 15 minutes, with 5 minutes additional, limited to 20 
minutes, and each vote thereafter will be 10 minutes with a 5-minute 
addition, limited to 15 minutes, and the request will be made that 
Senators remain in the Chamber to complete the votes on those five 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is my intention now that I would speak for 15 minutes, 
at which time I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield the floor 
and Senator Kennedy be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier today, on behalf of myself, 
Senators Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, Obama, Bayh, Kohl, Mikulski, Clinton, 
Johnson, Dayton, and Byrd, I laid down an amendment dealing with 
preparing this country for an avian flu pandemic. The amendment that we 
laid down today and that we will be voting on tomorrow will allow the 
United States to dramatically step up preparation for an avian flu 
pandemic.
  Last month, I offered and the Senate approved an amendment to the 
Defense appropriations bill that provided $3.9 billion for preparation 
for such a pandemic. At that time, there was some discussion as to why 
we were putting it on the Defense bill; it should go on the Labor-
Health and Human Services bill. At that time, we didn't even know if we 
would have this bill up.
  Well, the bill is in the Chamber, and this amendment appropriately 
belongs on this legislative vehicle in our jurisdiction. So the 
amendment that was laid down that I offered earlier today is 
essentially a more robust version of that earlier amendment again based 
on more and better information we have obtained since that time.
  There is a broad consensus in the scientific community as to the 
steps we need to take to get ready for a potential pandemic. Reflecting 
that scientific consensus, the amendment we have laid down will do four 
broad things.

[[Page 23714]]

  First, as our first line of defense, it will dramatically step up 
international surveillance of avian flu outbreaks overseas.
  Second, it will ramp up our vaccine production infrastructure here in 
the United States.
  Third, it will give us the resources to build up stockpiles of 
vaccines that are currently believed to be effective against the flu as 
well as building up stockpiles of antiviral medications.
  Fourth, it will strengthen our public health infrastructure at the 
Federal, State, and local level, which today is simply not equipped to 
cope with a major pandemic.
  Some have suggested that we be patient, that we wait for the 
administration to put forward a plan to fight avian flu, but we have 
already waited too long as a nation. We have been warned now for almost 
8 years to get ready.
  We had been warned about a lot of other things. We were warned for 
years that the levees in New Orleans would fail in the case of a major 
hurricane. Yet the Federal Government did not do anything. And the 
Federal Government has not come forward with any action plan now 
regarding the avian flu pandemic possibility. Even within the last 
year, as the threat of this pandemic becomes more urgent and immediate, 
there still is no plan.
  So today, with the alarm bells ringing at full volume, we in Congress 
cannot in good conscience wait any longer. We need to act. If the 
administration offers a plan at a later date, that is fine. We will 
almost certainly include the basic elements encompassed here. We are 
all talking to the same people, whether it is the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention or NIH or the major drug companies. We know what 
we have to do. So if we take action now in this appropriations bill 
with the amendment we have offered, then we will have already passed an 
appropriation, we will not have lost any time, and we will be able to 
go forward as rapidly as possible.
  There is no question the United States right now is woefully 
unprepared for a major outbreak of human-to-human transmitted avian 
flu. We have already had two disasters. We had 9/11, we had Katrina, we 
were unprepared for both despite clear warnings that we had.
  Similarly, we have been warned in no uncertain terms about avian flu, 
but our preparations are inadequate. As many of my colleagues know, 
avian flu, or H5N1 as it is called in the scientific community, has 
passed from bird to bird. What started in a small area of Southeast 
Asia has now extended we know to as far away as Greece, Turkey, and 
Romania. Recently, one bird in Great Britain died and was examined and 
found to have H5N1. We know that the avian flu has been detected in 
Indonesia and in Japan and in the Philippines, in China, in Russia. It 
is only a matter of time before these migratory birds cross paths and 
the avian flu is now in Canada and the United States and South and 
Central America.
  This is a virulent form of flu. One hundred percent of the birds, the 
chickens and the birds that have gotten this have died, 100 percent. 
Fifty percent of the humans who have come down with avian flu have 
died. Now, thus far we only know of one case, one certified case where 
the flu virus has gone from a human to a human. Only one case. But that 
has warned us that it is capable of doing so.
  Now, it is not sustained, it is not widespread, but scientists tell 
us it is only a matter of time. And we do not know how much time we 
have. We know as we say it has killed 50 percent of the individuals it 
infected. A nightmare scenario, a kind of 21st century Black Death is 
not difficult to picture. Indeed, most experts say it is not a matter 
of if but when. So we have to ask some tough questions now: Where do 
our preparedness efforts stand? Can we do better?
  First, look at global surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control 
is doing a great job working in concert with the World Health 
Organization and governments in affected regions to detect the disease 
and help stop its spread. This is our first line of defense--
surveillance and quarantine in the area in which it occurs. The sooner 
we can identify it and quarantine it, the better off we will be. To put 
it in other terms, better to find H5N1 over there than home.
  The good news is we have experience. The Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention kept SARS from coming to the United States with this 
procedure. But we do not have adequate personnel, we do not have the 
resources in place in other countries to make sure that we detect as 
rapidly as possible an outbreak of avian flu. We can and we must do 
better to protect our people.
  Second, the status of our capacity to produce vaccines in the United 
States, unfortunately, is all bad news. It is astonishing when we tell 
people we only have one plant in America capable of producing flu 
vaccines. And that plant uses an egg-based technology. Right now, in 
the event of a worldwide pandemic, the United States would have to rely 
on imported vaccines, vaccines that other countries might not be 
willing to send to us. After all, the first responsibility of any 
government is to protect its own people, and if this pandemic starts, 
every government is going to want to protect its own people first. So 
we are vulnerable. We are playing catchup ball. We need to help private 
industry develop more vaccine manufacturing capacity, and we need to do 
it in a way in which we can produce enough vaccine rapidly to deal with 
a major outbreak.
  Some say it would take many years to produce a non-egg-based, cell-
based production capacity. I don't accept that. This is a matter of 
incredible urgency. We have to do better, and we can do better. Our 
goal should be to have research and production capacity to isolate a 
virus, convert it to a vaccine, produce enough vaccine for nearly 300 
million Americans, and do it within 6 to 9 months. Right now we are a 
long way from reaching that goal. This amendment we have offered will 
put the money forward to get that process moving rapidly to develop 
cell-based technology for the production--the rapid production--of 
vaccines in this country.
  Third, as I mentioned, we need an aggressive program of purchasing 
and stockpiling vaccines and antivirals. Unfortunately, the United 
States is way behind. I am indebted to Senator Kennedy for producing 
this chart. I want to show it here. The World Health Organization a few 
years ago suggested that countries stockpile at least 25 percent 
antivirals to cover their population. Look what some other countries 
did: Australia, 20 percent; Britain, 25 percent; France, 25 percent; 
Japan, 17 percent; the United States, 1 percent. We only have enough 
antivirals to cover 1 percent of our people. It is unconscionable. So 
we need to play catchup ball here also. We need to stockpile--and that 
is what this amendment will do--to provide the funds to begin to ramp 
up the production of these antivirals.
  Roche is a drug company. I met with them. They publicly announced--
they hold the patent; they produce most of it overseas--they are 
willing now to let other generic companies produce this under license 
to them.
  We need to get the money out there right now to buy them from those 
companies so they can start producing the antivirals now. Not next 
year; now. That is what this amendment provides.
  Fourth, and last, public health infrastructure. Right now our public 
health infrastructure is simply not capable of dealing with either a 
bird flu pandemic or even an act of bioterrorism. Even if we had an 
adequate stock of vaccines or antivirals, what good does it do if we 
don't have the public health infrastructure to identify, isolate, and 
deliver the antivirals and the vaccines?
  Again, the President's budget this year cut $120 million from State 
public health agencies. This amendment does not just restore that. We 
need to do a lot more than that. We need to make major new investments. 
We need to hire more public health professionals--epidemiologists, 
physicians, lab technicians, and others.
  We also need to dramatically increase the surge capacity of 
hospitals. As Dr. Rick Blum, the president of the American College of 
Emergency Room Physicians, recently said:


[[Page 23715]]

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

  The emergency room--if we have an avian flu pandemic, that is where 
people will go. And most victims of avian flu might need ventilators to 
help them breathe. Right now there are only 105,000 ventilators in the 
entire United States, and three-quarters of them are in use on any 
given day.
  We have our work cut out for us. We face enormous technical and 
logistical challenges, and there is no time to waste. The time for 
planning and planning and planning and planning is over. It is now time 
to act. This amendment would provide, as I said, nearly $8 billion for 
a comprehensive national effort to prepare our people for an avian flu 
pandemic. I know that sounds like a lot of money, but keep in mind, it 
is less than 2 months of our expenditures on the war in Iraq. When this 
avian flu pandemic--I don't say if; when. Scientists tell us it is not 
a question of if, it is a question of when. When it hits, we have to be 
ready to protect our people. That is what this amendment does.
  Again, I hope as we move forward we can get this amendment adopted 
and get the money out there. It does not have to be spent now. It is at 
the Secretary's discretion, but at least it is there and they can move 
on it rapidly to do what we all know is necessary to protect our people 
in this country.
  I have used my 15 minutes. I want to reserve 15 minutes for Senator 
Kennedy.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may be recognized very briefly. I 
know the remainder of the time is reserved for Senator Kennedy. We are 
16 minutes away from 4:05 p.m.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment or two. I 
commend the Senator from Iowa for his foresight on moving ahead on the 
pandemic issue. He and I have been discussing it for several days. I 
think it is difficult to proceed without knowing what the 
administration's plans are.
  As the Senator from Iowa correctly notes, action has to be taken. 
When the administration decides on a plan and picks a figure, there is 
going to have to be congressional action, and we are nearing the end of 
this session. A supplemental or an emergency appropriations bill is 
always difficult to structure. So there are sound reasons to take a 
look at it now and make some judgment.
  We have been in touch with the White House on a number of occasions 
to try to find out what the position is of the administration. So far 
they are unprepared to give us an answer. We are working to see if it 
is possible to structure an appropriation, subject to the Secretary's 
discretion, and how it will be in consultation and would be an 
emergency. There is no doubt there ought to be planning now for this 
emergency.
  What the proper figure is I don't know. That is a figure that would 
be more within the scope of understanding, knowledge, and projection of 
the administration, and the experts at CDC and NIH.
  I wanted to make those few comments. We are going to carry this over 
until tomorrow. I know the administration will be aware of what is 
happening on the floor today, and perhaps that will motivate them or 
enable them to come forward to help us grapple with this issue and find 
some realistic and practical solution at this time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate my chairman's remarks. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask if the Chair will be good enough to let me know 
when I have 3 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.


                            Wage Protections

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President a few moments ago, as I understand, the 
President of the United States reversed his course on the incredibly 
damaging decision to suspend wage protections for workers rebuilding 
the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, known as the Davis-Bacon 
provisions. These are the prevailing wage provisions, the age-old 
policy that the Government should not drive wages below the prevailing 
wage in a particular community.
  The prevailing wage for construction is $8 in Mississippi, $9 in 
Alabama, and $10 in Louisiana. That would work out to $16,000, $18,000, 
$21,000 a year as the prevailing wage. That's not too much for workers 
who are trying to rebuild their homes and rebuild their lives.
  I applaud the decision the President has made on that issue.


                    Amendment No. 2283, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before speaking on the current Harkin 
amendment, which I strongly support for the reasons I will outline, I 
want the Senate to know that our HELP Committee, under the chairmanship 
of Senator Enzi, and the subcommittee, under the chairmanship of 
Senator Burr, has been working on this issue, but from a different 
angle.
  Right now we need appropriations, which are included in the Harkin 
amendment. And we will also consider--hopefully favorably--the Burr-
Enzi legislation, which deals with a range of issues involving patent, 
compensation, and liability issues that are all related to encouraging 
companies to enter the market.
  These are different approaches, and each is enormously important in 
its own way. I thank the chairman of my committee, Senator Enzi, who 
always is tireless in his courtesies and his outreach to the members of 
the committee on his side as well as ours, and to Senator Burr for 
working with us. I am very hopeful that if we can schedule and pass 
that legislation, and get this appropriation included today, we will, I 
believe, have the best of all worlds.
  Looking at this issue globally, there are various components. We have 
the resource aspect of it, we have the public health aspect of it, and 
then the aspect that is related to providing incentives for the private 
sector. Hopefully, we will deal with all of those before the end of the 
term.
  I believe strongly, as Senator Harkin pointed out, that we must take 
action now on this legislation, to ensure that we'll have sufficient 
resources to deal with the purchasing aspects and also the limited, but 
extremely important, public health provisions which are included in 
this legislation.
  One provision provides for the global detection of this pandemic, as 
well as domestic detection, should it come to the United States. It 
also provides the resources to contain and respond to the danger by 
improving surge capacity, and developing an overall plan so we are able 
to effectively deal with this issue.
  We have been on notice for years. This chart is going to be difficult 
to read for those viewing: ``The U.S. missed the warning signs of the 
flu pandemic.'' In 1992, the Institute of Medicine pointed out:

       Policymakers must realize and understand the potential 
     magnitude of an influenza pandemic.

  This is when we began to detect the dangerous indicators of this 
pandemic:
  In 1997, there was an outbreak in Hong Kong.
  In November 2000:

       Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key 
     issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines 
     and antivirals.

  This comes from a GAO report which found that very few States have 
made the kind of downpayment that is required to protect individuals 
from this pandemic.
  Again, in May 2002, according to the World Health:

       Authorities must understand the potential impact and threat 
     of pandemic influenza.

  Then in December of 2003, there was an outbreak in South Korea.
  In January 2004, there was an outbreak in Vietnam.
  The reason the World Health Organization and the European Union have 
been so concerned about this is because of the danger of this 
particular flu strain.
  This chart indicates the death rate from this flu strain. In 
Cambodia, it has been 100 percent; in Thailand, 71 percent; in Vietnam, 
44 percent; an overall average of 50 percent. We are

[[Page 23716]]

talking about dozens of cases, not hundreds, not thousands, not 
millions. But if this strain mutates and easily spreads human-to-human, 
we are talking about potentially a great threat.
  I know the Senator from Iowa, myself, Senator Reid, our leader, 
Senator Obama, and Senator Durbin are frustrated about this issue.
  This is a General Accounting Office report that was published in 
October 2000, ``Influenza Pandemic. Plan needed for Federal and State 
response.''
  The General Accounting Office reviewed what the needs were and 
suggested to Congress and the Administration that we respond. Five 
years later, we are finally getting some action on the floor of the 
Senate.
  In this chart, we can see what has happened in other countries. In 
comparison, the U.S. stockpile of antiviral medicine is inadequate. 
Senator Harkin pointed out what other nations have done. This is a 
sample: Australia has antiviral medicine for 20 percent of its 
population; Britain, 25 percent; France, 25 percent; Japan, 17 percent; 
and the United States, we only cover 1 percent of our population.
  We are faced with whether we should take action or not take action.
  This is a list of the various countries that have developed 
nationwide plans: Japan, October 1997; Canada, February 2004; Czech 
Republic, 2004; Hong Kong, 2005; Britain in March of 2005.
  I point out the British plan, I am not going to include it in the 
Record, but I will include it by reference. It is some 95 pages long. 
It sets the scene and provides the overall framework for the UK's 
response to an influenza pandemic. It is based on the current advice 
for national pandemic plans from the World Health Organization. The 
response is divided into phases, starting with work to be done before a 
potential pandemic emerges, followed by a step-by-step escalating 
response to the pandemic.
  The plan goes on:

       Advanced planning is essential to establish and rehearse 
     contingency arrangements and identify and address gaps in our 
     preparedness so we are in the best possible position to 
     manage the emergency and to ameliorate its impact.

  On page 5, it talks about the various aspects of the plans: 
communication, surveillance, information gathering, the public health 
response, measures to reduce the health impact, vaccination, health 
service response, civil contingency, workforce education and training, 
essential preparatory work. All of this outlined in the UK, in Great 
Britain.
  Here is Canada's plan. It is 87 pages long. What does this plan 
address? This is what they have: Who is responsible for the pandemic 
planning? It lists those in charge. Why is this an important health 
issue? It outlines why it is a health issue. What preparations are 
being made? It outlines all of the preparations that are being made. 
What needs to happen in a comprehensive response? It outlines all of 
those. What will be involved in a recovery from a pandemic? It has an 
entire section, all outlined here.
  Where is the United States? Where is our response? The USA is the big 
question mark, and that is what we find unacceptable. That is why the 
Harkin amendment is important to adopt. It has provisions dealing with 
antivirals and vaccines; it has the needed global interventions; and it 
has the detection needed here in the United States. It has the surge 
capacity and public health provisions that need to be expanded. Senator 
Burr indicated that hearings on public health provisions will take 
place after we pass this legislation, which is all well and good. But 
we need to act now.
  Each country with a national plan includes important public health 
components. We would not be meeting our responsibilities unless we did 
likewise.
  This proposal recognizes that we have a responsibility to move 
forward on this and provides the resources necessary to get started. 
This particular proposal works to fulfill the recommendations of the 
World Health Organization, with $3 billion for antivirals and $3 
billion in vaccines. There is flexibility in these allocations and in 
the allocations for the public health provisions.
  So I would hope very much that the Senate would accept this. It is a 
modest downpayment. As I mentioned, there are several aspects of the 
battle. One certainly is the stockpiling of the vaccines and 
antivirals. It is enormously important that the resources are there. A 
downpayment in terms of the public health is also very important. And 
we must provide incentives for industry to encourage vaccine 
development and production. That is following along with the Enzi-Burr 
proposal, and all of us owe a debt of gratitude to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. We are all working together to have a 
bipartisan proposal that we will be able to act on.
  If we have positive action on the Harkin amendment, and a positive 
result on the Enzi-Burr proposal, at the end of this session, the 
Senate will have made a very strong downpayment in preparing this 
Nation. We eagerly await the administration's proposal, but quite 
frankly, I do not think we can delay any longer.
  Other countries have moved ahead. At this time, we have only 
stockpiled 1 percent of the total amount of antivirals that we will 
need. This is the issue. Now is the time for action. I am very hopeful 
that this amendment will be accepted.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that 
my amendment, which is the second amendment to be ordered, be called up 
and that the other amendments be set aside so I can modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2253, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2253), as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy 
    Assistance Program by $1,276,000,000, with an across-the-board 
                               reduction)

       On page 158, strike lines 12 through 21 and insert the 
     following:

     bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, $3,159,000,000.
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds are for the 
     unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or more 
     States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of the Act: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount 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.


              general provision--reduction and rescission

       Sec. __. (a) Amounts made available in this Act, not 
     otherwise required by law, are reduced by 0.982 percent.
       (b) The reduction described in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to amounts made available under this Act--
       (1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home 
     energy assistance''; or
       (2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant 
     Assistance'' (with respect to amounts designated as emergency 
     requirements).
       Sec. __. (a) There is rescinded an amount equal to 0.981 
     percent of the budget authority provided in any prior 
     appropriation Act for fiscal year 2006, for any discretionary 
     account described in this Act.
       (b) Any rescission made by subsection (a) shall be applied 
     proportionately--
       (1) to each discretionary account described in subsection 
     (a) to the extent that it relates to budget authority 
     described in subsection (a), and to each item of budget 
     authority described in subsection (a); and
       (2) within each such account or item, to each program, 
     project, and activity (as delineated in the appropriation Act 
     or accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering 
     such account or item).
       (c) The rescission described in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to budget authority provided as described in subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home 
     energy assistance''; or
       (2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant 
     Assistance (with respect to amounts designated as emergency 
     requirements)''.


[[Page 23717]]

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we return to regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  There is now 10 minutes of debate equally divided on the LIHEAP 
amendment. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I have proposed an 
amendment that would raise LIHEAP funding to a total of $5.1 billion. 
That is absolutely necessary as we approach the winter with rising fuel 
prices, rising natural gas prices. Our amendment will help all States. 
I want to make it very clear all of our funding goes into the State 
block grant program, so no State will be disadvantaged.
  My colleague from New Hampshire has introduced a complementary 
amendment that does not provide, in my view, sufficient funding. At his 
level of funding, States such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin 
will receive no new money. I think that is unfortunate because those 
States and the citizens of those States deserve the kind of support 
that will be necessary this winter.
  Fifty-three Senators have already joined us to support the increase 
in LIHEAP spending to the $5.1 billion total mark. I hope they will 
continue to support us. There is a second storm surge coming from 
Katrina, and that is rising energy prices that have overwhelmed 
vulnerable families throughout this country.
  In addition, my colleague from New Hampshire is proposing to fund 
this with an across-the-board cut. That across-the-board cut will 
disappear in conference. As Chairman Specter has pointed out, this bill 
is bare bones. When the conferees arrive and look at the funding for 
Head Start and look at funding for other critical programs, I do not 
think they are going to allow this supposed increase in LIHEAP funding. 
Also, we are paying for this LIHEAP increase by taking away valuable 
programs: 37,000 students in title I will be denied services because of 
these cuts. We are going to reduce IDEA spending. We are going to 
reduce Head Start spending. We are essentially robbing Peter to pay 
Paul, taking from some who need to give to others who need. That is not 
fair. It is not appropriate and it is unnecessary.
  This is an emergency. Just as the storm damage in the gulf was an 
emergency, this is an emergency. I urge support of the Reed-Collins 
amendment and opposition to the Gregg amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. First off, I would note that the amount that is in my 
amendment is the exact amount which the Senator from Rhode Island asked 
of the Appropriations Committee less than a month ago. It is the exact 
amount that the Senator from Maine asked of the Appropriations 
Committee less than a month ago. It is the exact amount that 41 other 
Senators sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee and asked for 
relative to LIHEAP costs, low-income energy costs.
  Why was that amount chosen? It was not picked out of the air. It was 
chosen because that is the amount necessary in order to hold harmless 
the various low-income energy programs across this country, in order to 
cover the costs of the increase of fuel oil estimated in September, 
which was actually at a higher cost level than today. So this actually 
will represent more money than is necessary in order to keep these 
programs whole. It will actually represent additional money. It 
represents over a 48-percent increase in funding. That is a rather 
dramatic increase.
  In addition, this amendment that I have proposed is paid for. Our job 
should be to set priorities in this Congress. We should say, what is 
the priority? Well, I happen to think one of the priorities is making 
sure that senior citizens, people who live on fixed incomes, low-income 
individuals who are trying to heat their homes in this very difficult 
winter, with prices being high and with the winter already upon us--at 
least in New Hampshire we had some significant snow yesterday--that 
they will have the ability to have a program which covers those costs. 
But we should pay for it.
  What have I suggested? I have suggested a less than 1 percent cut 
across the board in all the other programs in this bill. That is the 
logical and appropriate way to pay for this increase in funding which 
is needed, an increase which is the exact amount of money that was 
asked for by the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Maine, and 
other Senators who felt the need, as I do, for a commitment in this 
account.
  So it is a reasonable step. My bill is a reasonable action. I would 
also note one other thing. The Senator from Rhode Island and the 
Senator from Maine have offered an amendment which because it is so 
over the top from a budget standpoint, so outside the budget structure 
which we have, is subject to a budget point of order. As Budget 
chairman, I am fairly familiar with these.
  Those budget points of order are put in place to discipline 
ourselves, and of course it is to set priorities. My amendment is not 
subject to a budget point of order, an emergency point of order.
  So let us remember that when we are voting on this, if my colleagues 
want to have a realistic chance of getting a significant increase in 
funding for the low-income energy program, they should vote for my 
amendment because it is only going to take 51 votes to pass it; 
whereas, the amendment from the other side will take 60 votes.
  Remember that the number I have put into this amendment is the number 
which was actually requested by the sponsors of the first amendment, 
and therefore it is a reasonable number. It is not an arbitrary number. 
It is a number that makes sense.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  There is 2 minutes 49 seconds remaining.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
yielding a couple of minutes.
  Here they go again. Every year, Senators on that side of the aisle 
say they want to increase funding for LIHEAP and other things, but they 
want to take it out of other programs. These amendments are phony. 
These across-the-board cuts will never get passed into law.
  My good friend from New Hampshire says: Well, it is just 1 percent or 
just 2 percent or whatever it might be. Let's take a look at what the 
Senator from New Hampshire's cuts really mean. He said it will not 
affect anybody. Well, it is a .98-percent cut. That does not sound like 
much, but in terms of No Child Left Behind, it means that 39,400 kids 
will not be served by title I. I guess they do not count. It means that 
we will cut special education by $105 million. It means that 9,300 Head 
Start kids will not get Head Start programs. That is why this amendment 
is phony. That is why we have to adopt the Reed amendment.
  Again, the Senator from New Hampshire always said he wanted to 
increase funding for special education. Right now the Federal 
Government is paying 18.6 percent of the excess costs of special 
education. We are supposed to go to 40 percent. Under Senator Gregg's 
amendment, the share will drop to 17.8 percent. We will go in the wrong 
direction. So we will never reach the goal of full funding for special 
education if we adopt the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. 
So do not be fooled by these across-the-board cuts. It hurts people. It 
hurts poor kids. It hurts special education. And it hurts title I kids. 
We do not want to hurt them in order to give money for low-income 
elderly so they can buy heating oil and pay their gas bills this 
winter. That is unfair. It is unconscionable. The best way to go is to 
adopt the Reed amendment.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. REED. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 38 seconds remaining.
  Who seeks time? There is 1 minute 31 seconds remaining.

[[Page 23718]]

  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is in order to raise a point of order 
as to the Reed amendment. Since I have spoken in favor of it, I ask my 
colleague, Senator Crapo, to raise the technical point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con Res. 95 
of the 109th Congress--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will cease. A budget point of 
order has to be raised at the conclusion of debate. It cannot be raised 
at this time.
  Mr. CRAPO. I will withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. What is the time status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 5 seconds left to the 
Senator from New Hampshire, 38 seconds left to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will respond briefly--because I only have 
a minute, I will have to do it briefly--to the point of the Senator 
from Iowa. What is happening is that we are suggesting that we should 
put approximately a $3 billion hole in the budget to pay for heating 
costs. Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay for it if we 
do not set the priorities here and offset the costs? I will tell you 
who is going to pay for it--our children are, because we have to go out 
and borrow that $3 billion. So what we are essentially saying is we are 
going to take $3 billion from our children to pay for heating costs 
this winter for seniors and other people who are on fixed incomes. We 
should be responsible for that here this year, not be passing it on to 
the next generation to pay that cost through a debt, financing it 
through debt.
  Clearly, offsetting this spending makes sense, and my amendment does 
exactly that. It offsets it in a reasonable way, less than a 1-percent 
across-the-board cut, less than 1 percent in order to fund a very 
important program, increase funding for a very important program to 
assist seniors and other folks who are on fixed incomes and low 
incomes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, quickly, Senator Collins and Senator Gregg 
and I are trying to put more money in the State block grant program. 
Mr. President, $1 billion will not provide assistance in many States 
that need it now, Wisconsin and other States that are going to see a 
very difficult winter. Only by supporting our amendment will we reach 
all the States, all the people who need it. These cuts, as Senator 
Harkin suggested, are illusory; they will not be made. Frankly, I don't 
think it is appropriate, when we are trying to help poor people in the 
wintertime to heat their homes, we think about offsets; we think about 
that when we are providing tax cuts for very wealthy Americans.
  I urge passage of Reed-Collins and the rejection of the Gregg 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 
of the 109th Congress, I make a point of order against the emergency 
designation contained in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the 
purposes of the pending amendment.
  I 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 were ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I remind all our colleagues, under the unanimous consent 
agreement, we are now going to proceed to have five rollcall votes. The 
first will be 15 minutes and 5, the other four will be 10 and 5. 
Pursuant to our arrangements, the time limits will be enforced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Murkowski
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
43. 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 emergency designation is removed.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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.


                Amendment No. 2194, as Further Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
budget authority outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation for fiscal year 2006, and it is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we were 3 minutes over on that vote. We 
will try to hold this next vote in line with 15 minutes, as the 
unanimous consent agreement provided a 10-minute vote with an 
additional 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2253

  We are now proceeding to vote on Gregg amendment No. 2253.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply note that this amendment increases 
the funding for the low-income assistance program by $1.27 billion, 
which is the number 41 Senators asked for the amount of increase. That 
means the program will effectively have been increased by about 48 
percent. It will allow for the program to be held harmless, and, in 
fact, it will probably put extra money into the program beyond holding 
it harmless.
  In addition, this is paid for, so we are setting priorities. We are 
not passing this additional spending on to our children through debt, 
which means it is not subject to a point of order.
  In addition, it is the responsible way to approach this. As a 
practical matter, if you expect to increase the funding for low-income 
assistance programs, this will be your best vote to do it because this 
will only take 51 votes; the other votes took 60.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page 23719]]


  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment would appropriate $1.2 
billion into the State block grant program for LIHEAP. That would mean, 
because of the arcane nature of the formula, States such as Minnesota, 
Washington, and Wisconsin will see no increase, Iowa will have under a 
3-percent increase, and Oregon has less than a 7.5-percent increase.
  In sum, the States that need this help right away, the cold-weather 
States, will see little help from the amendment.
  Moreover, his amendment is funded by cutting valuable programs--Head 
Start, education for disabled Americans, a host of programs--that 
cannot be made up.
  As our chairman and ranking member said, this amendment probably will 
be disregarded in conference because they will not fund but be taking 
away what very little exists already--title I, Head Start, and a host 
of other programs.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. We will try again for 
a real LIHEAP amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2253), as modified, was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2254

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be, by previous consent, 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Dodd amendment.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we discussed this amendment sometime ago. In 
the past, I have offered amendments to fully fund Head Start. This 
amendment does not do that. This amendment adds $153 million 
specifically to deal with the inflation that will affect the cost of 
the 19,000 Head Start Programs across the country.
  There are 900,000 children in Head Start. If this amendment is not 
adopted, the estimates are that 20,000 to 25,000 children will be 
dropped from the Head Start Program across our country.
  We all know that a Head Start child is more likely to finish school, 
less likely to end up in the juvenile justice system, less likely to be 
a substance abuser, less likely to become a teenage parent. We know it 
is not perfect, but after 40 years, Head Start works. This is not to 
expand the program, but let us not lose the children today who are part 
of that program.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Head Start Program is very valuable. 
It has received priority attention from our subcommittee. We more than 
doubled Head Start between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2004. 
Regrettably, there are no funds to stretch further.
  If the Senator from Connecticut had an offset, wanted to discuss 
priorities, I would have been glad to do that. But we have to stay 
within the budget. Therefore, with great reluctance, I have raised the 
point of order.
  Mr. President, it should be noted that the last vote was less than 13 
minutes. I would ask all of my colleagues to stay in the Chamber. We 
now have another 10-minute vote, with a 5-minute extension.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. 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) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52.
  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.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                      Rosa Parks Federal Building

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 260, S. 1285, a 
bill to designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott 
Street in Detroit, MI, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building.'' Rosa 
Parks passed away this past Monday at the age of 92, one of the giants 
in American history. It is very fitting that we pass this bill naming 
this building. I ask that the bill be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I never 
thought I would see the day that I would stand to object to such a 
meritorious proposal as my distinguished colleague has offered.
  Mrs. Parks has been dead but 3 or 4 days. For 3 years, I have been 
trying to get the new courthouse annex here in Washington, DC named for 
Judge William B. Bryant. Judge Bryant is an African American. He is 94 
years old. Let me tell you about this distinguished individual. Born in 
Alabama----
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order. I hate to interrupt my 
colleague from Virginia, but we have a

[[Page 23720]]

unanimous consent request to proceed with----
  Mr. WARNER. I reserved the right to object, and I ask the respect of 
the manager to allow me to state my case.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  He graduated from Howard University in 1936, 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.
  However, there are rules in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee which do not permit courthouses to be named for living or 
sitting judges. But it is interesting, before the current Chairman of 
the Committee took over, the rule was waived in certain cases. I am 
aware of more than 20 instances when this discretion was used to name 
Courthouses for living and sitting judges. As a matter of fact, I know 
of some instances where Members of this Chamber have gotten around the 
rule by attaching naming resolutions to bills in other committees of 
the Senate. We can all agree that Rosa Parks is deserving of the 
recognition to have a building named after her. Today I ask this body 
the simple question, why is she more deserving today than she was last 
week?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have been 
informed by the chairman of the committee, he has no objection to this. 
Senator Stabenow would agree to your amendment, that your judge be 
included in the resolution.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I send to the desk an 
amendment and ask if it would be included in the unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to modify 
my request to include the Warner amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
state the position we have on the committee. I have chaired this 
committee for 3 years. As the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
knows--he used to chair the same committee, as did the minority 
leader--we have a rule that we don't name courthouses after anyone who 
is living. I am going to object to this. However, if you want to have a 
vote on this, I will record myself as opposing it because I am not 
going to break the record. I think it is a good rule to keep. That is 
my position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Rosa 
Parks naming and the Bryant naming are very important measures. I would 
support both of them. But I believe as long as we have this rule in the 
committee, unless the committee will change the rule, I would be happy 
to join with my colleague from Virginia in suggesting a change in the 
rule to permit----
  Mr. WARNER. If I could ask my distinguished colleague, were you not 
faced with the same dilemma several years ago and managed to get a 
courthouse named for a sitting judge in your State by action of the 
Appropriations Committee?
  Mr. BOND. What was the judge's name?
  Mr. WARNER. I have talked to the Administraive Office of the Courts, 
and I will get that answer to the Senator.
  Mr. BOND. I must renew my objection. I look forward to a discussion 
with the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I renew my request to pass the Rosa 
Parks Building designation. I renew my request to pass that. Rosa Parks 
is one of the great civil rights leaders of our time, a great heroine 
who has now passed away at the age of 92. She deserves this 
recognition. I very much hoped that we could have a unanimous vote in 
support of honoring this very important woman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is an easy way out of this. Let's 
don't make it complicated. Let's go ahead. He will have an amendment to 
this bill, have a vote on that. I will record myself as voting no. It 
will pass. I am sure it will pass. Everybody agrees, as far as Judge 
Bryant and Rosa Parks are concerned, that we want this to happen today. 
But I will object to that in terms of UCing it. I want to have a vote, 
and I will be recorded no. That solves the problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. If we had a voice vote, the distinguished chairman of the 
committee could still be recorded as voting no; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. If I understand, has the Senator amended her request to 
accept my amendment?
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I did do that. There was an objection to that. So 
I renewed my unanimous consent request for the Rosa Parks Federal 
Building.
  Mr. WARNER. I have to object if the Warner amendment is not included 
in the unanimous consent agreement.
  Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to include a revised unanimous consent 
for Senator Warner.
  Mr. REID. She has included yours.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I 
want to say, this debate has everybody on this floor thinking about 
what is going on with reference to other things being held up by this 
Senate on holds that we don't even know the name of the person holding 
them. This is not this issue, but there are many of them. I have the 
Deputy Secretary of Interior for 7 months waiting to be confirmed, and 
there is some hold somewhere. I think we ought to all begin to 
understand that that has to stop. Today reminds me that I am going to 
be looking at it, and perhaps I will stop every bill until we get some 
of these that are being held up for no reason to be released. I hope 
this one succeeds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, are we considering the appropriations 
bill for

[[Page 23721]]

Labor-Health and Human Services-Education?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. We are. We have a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SPECTER. Are we under a unanimous consent agreement binding this 
Senate to proceed with five consecutive votes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
  Mr. SPECTER. I was prepared to listen for a while. But this has gone 
on, and we are having more collateral issues. I press my request for 
regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for regular 
order?
  Mr. REID. There is a unanimous consent request pending before the 
Senate at this time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have already objected to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection to the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Does a call for regular order 
require unanimous consent? Regular order means the order has been 
decided to proceed. I insist on the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  There are now 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Clinton 
amendment No. 2292.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Clinton amendment? The 
minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 
260, the Rosa Parks Federal Building, be read three times, passed, the 
motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with the amendment to it 
affixing the William B. Bryant Annex to that. It is my understanding 
that this will be done by voice vote. Those who don't like it can tell 
the Chair that, and it will be a no vote. I ask unanimous consent that 
this matter be called now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I ask for a voice vote, Mr. President.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what I would like to do is urge the 
adoption of the Warner amendment to the underlying bill.
  Mr. REID. That is what I tried to do. That is what I did do.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. Let's do it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended.
  The amendment (No. 2330) was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 
   Bui1ding and United States Courthouse located at 333 Constitution 
Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``William B. Bryant 
                                Annex'')

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       SEC.  . (a) The annex, located on the 200 block of 3rd 
     Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, to the E. 
     Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and United States 
     Courthouse located at Constitution Avenue Northwest in the 
     District of Columbia shall be known and designated as the 
     ``William B. Bryant Annex''.
       (b) Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
     paper, or other record of the United States to the annex 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``William B. Bryant Annex''.

  The bill (S. 1285), as amended, was read the third time and passed, 
as follows:

                                S. 1285

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROSA PARKS FEDERAL BUILDING.

       The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
     Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILLIAM B. BRYANT ANNEX.

       The annex, located on the 200 block of 3rd Street Northwest 
     in the District of Columbia, to the E. Barrett Prettyman 
     Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 
     Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia 
     shall be known and designated as the ``William B. Bryant 
     Annex''.

     SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the annex referred to 
     in section 3 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``William B. Bryant Annex''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Rosa Parks and Judge William B. Bryant are 
two venerable figures in our Nation's movement toward equality for all 
Americans. I am proud that the Senate has taken the opportunity today 
to recognize and celebrate these two extraordinary individuals. I 
commend Senator Stabenow for introducing this bill to name a Federal 
building in Michigan after Rosa Parks, a cherished civil rights leader. 
I also commend the efforts of Senator Warner, who has worked with me 
for the past 3 years to name the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 
United States Courthouse in Washington, DC, the ``William B. Bryant 
Annex.''
  Judge Bryant's service to the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia is truly historic. He continues to perform duties 
as a senior Federal judge at the age of 93. He began his legal career 
with the belief that lawyers could make a difference in eliminating the 
widespread racial segregation in the United States. He became a 
criminal defense lawyer in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was 
soon recognized by the U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a 
defense attorney. The U.S. Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he 
became the first African American to practice in Federal court here in 
the District. Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the 
Federal bench in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge 
for the United States District Court in DC.
  Naming the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse after 
Judge Bryant is a fitting tribute to this distinguished jurist. Much 
like Judge Prettyman, Judge Bryant has had an illustrious career in 
public service and on the bench. I thank my colleagues for honoring 
Judge Bryant's service.


                           Amendment No. 2292

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time on the Clinton amendment?
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this next vote is to add $4 billion to 
the IDEA account. This amendment moves us closer to that mandate 
imposed upon school districts in 1975, a worthy and noble undertaking 
to ensure that every child be given an appropriate public school 
education. This amendment moves us closer to fulfilling what Congress 
said it would do: provide 40 percent of the funding for special 
education. This will help school districts lower property taxes. It is 
the kind of commitment we owe to children and their parents and to 
relieve the burdens of taxpayers.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate is not in 
order.
  The Senator from New York may continue.
  Mrs. CLINTON. So, Mr. President, now that the Senate is in order, let 
me just request that we pass this amendment to add money to IDEA, which 
is something we all hear about everywhere we travel in our States to 
provide necessary tax relief to property

[[Page 23722]]

tax owners and provide the resources that are needed for the special 
needs of special education students.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Clinton amendment. This amendment would fully fund IDEA for this year 
by adding $4 billion, the difference between the amount appropriated in 
the Senate bill and this year's authorization level. As a proud co-
sponsor, I am hopeful the Senate will act today to set IDEA on a path 
toward full funding.
  Despite substantial increases in IDEA funding over the past several 
years, the Federal Government has not lived up to its commitment to pay 
for 40 percent of the costs of special education. This is one of the 
top concerns of educators in Wisconsin. As a result of this funding 
shortfall, local school districts continue to devote a large part of 
their budgets toward special education, which makes it more difficult 
for them to adequately fund other vital education programs. This 
problem has only gotten worse as financially strapped States and local 
governments are cutting funding for education in order to balance their 
budgets. This amendment would provide much needed relief. My home State 
of Wisconsin would benefit from an additional $70 million in special 
education funds. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
subsequently making good on our commitment to special education 
students and their teachers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with what the Senator from New 
York has said about the importance of special education, and I only 
wish our allocation were larger so we could provide for more money for 
special education. Special education has received priority attention by 
the subcommittee. In 1996, it was less than $3 billion; now it is more 
than $11 billion. We have to live within the budget as enacted by the 
Congress, and that means, regrettably, the point of order has been 
filed that it exceeds the budget limit, and I must therefore oppose the 
amendment and ask my colleagues to sustain the point of order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. 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) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
53. 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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2232

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided before 
a vote on the Coburn amendment No. 2232.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that will transfer $60 
million to save the lives of people who are infected with HIV. There is 
no question where I get this money. It is a good goal. Enhancing the 
CDC, the buildings, the development of that, is all good. We have been 
on a fast track to do that in 5 years. That ought to continue.
  What I am saying with this amendment is, since this amount is eight 
times what the President requested, we ought to put saving lives right 
now in this country at this time ahead of speeding up buildings. If my 
colleagues agree with that, then they ought to be supporting this 
amendment. If they do not, do not support it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Coburn amendment 
that would have increased funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance 
Program by cutting needed funding for the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, CDC.
  I have long supported, and will continue to support, increased 
funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program to assist those 
suffering from HIV/AIDS in West Virginia and across the Nation. 
However, I could not support the Coburn amendment that would have 
reduced funding to upgrade and modernize the public health facilities 
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA.
  The current facilities at the CDC are in a state of extreme 
disrepair. This is unacceptable at a moment when we face a possible 
avian flu pandemic which could threaten millions of American lives. The 
CDC serves on the frontlines of our Nation's defense and preparations 
for such a flu outbreak.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
from Senator Coburn. For five years now, this President and this 
Republican Congress have prioritized tax cuts for the rich at the 
expense of urgent national priorities. It has left us with so many 
unmet needs.
  The amendment offered by Senator Coburn asks us to choose between two 
vitally important national priorities--protecting our national security 
or providing increased assistance to people living with HIV and AIDS. 
We shouldn't have to do that, and a responsible Congress wouldn't force 
our hand.
  An epidemic of HIV and AIDS continues to ravage communities--
especially communities of color--across the country. Approximately 1 
million individuals live with the disease and they struggle every day 
to make ends meet and to afford the medical care, medicines, and other 
supports they need to live healthy and productive lives.
  The Federal AIDS Drug Assistance Program gives needy individuals the 
help they need. It is a vital part of our safety net for people living 
with HIV and AIDS, and it deserves more Federal support.
  I look forward to working with Senator Coburn soon on the 
reauthorization of the ADAP program as well as reauthorization of the 
other vital programs in the Ryan White CARE Act. We need to expand our 
commitment to the whole of the CARE Act programs so we can improve 
lives of people living with HIV and AIDS.
  But this amendment isn't the right approach. It is irresponsible and 
dangerous. It proposes to increase funding for the ADAP program by 
cutting our investment in the Centers for Disease Control--the 
frontline Federal agency in the battle against bioterrorist threats and 
avian flu that threaten the health and safety of all Americans. In the 
past they fought and protected us

[[Page 23723]]

from the SARS virus and their expertise is often called upon to protect 
others across the world from Ebola and other deadly viruses.
  Senator Harkin has outlined the need for modern facilities for the 
CDC. They cannot fight 21st century threats in 20th century buildings.
  It is wrong to cut $60 million from CDC construction appropriations 
at this time when so many public health threats are converging on us 
and I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. SPECTER. Time is yielded to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
While I agree with the need to continue to fight AIDS, the program to 
which this money is transferred----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Georgia has the time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the fund to which Senator Coburn seeks 
to transfer this money is already funded in this bill to the tune of 
almost $800 million. It is not as if we are ignoring the very noble 
issue he is seeking to improve, but the fact is that we embarked on a 
multiyear plan at the CDC to improve the quality of the buildings where 
our most sophisticated and important researchers and scientists work on 
critical issues. It is imperative that we continue with this plan.
  I yield to my friend from Georgia for the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, with all due respect, this is not a 
choice of putting buildings ahead of people or people ahead of 
buildings. This is a choice of maintaining the commitment to save the 
lives of our children and grandchildren in the future against pandemics 
and terrorist threats in the future.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, well intended, is wrong. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 seconds remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if you have HIV today and you don't have 
health insurance and you are standing in line to get HIV retrovirus 
therapy and heart therapy and they tell you they don't have enough 
money, you are out of luck. In this country, where we have invested so 
much in this disease, to put anybody out of luck--we have invested a 
lot of money in the ADAP program, but it is not enough, and people are 
dying every year in this country because we are not doing it. It is 
time we should do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 5 seconds.
  To my colleague, we will be calling up amendment No. 2259 later on to 
add $74 million to the ADAP program, but we will not take it out of 
CDC. That is the amendment we ought to vote for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2232.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  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) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 85, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--14

     Burr
     Chafee
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Lugar
     McCain
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--85

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2232) was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today I was on the floor and 
offered amendment No. 2220 that was set aside. We were supposed to have 
a vote on that this evening. It was not in the queue. I ask unanimous 
consent that the vote on amendment No. 2220 occur before the cloture 
vote tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. LOTT. I object on behalf of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  What is the will of the Senate?
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2287

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I call up 
amendment 2287, which I will then set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mrs. Boxer, for 
     herself and Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 2287.

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

(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.).
       (b) Offset From Title I Departmental Management.--The 
     amounts appropriated under title I under the heading 
     ``Departmental Management'' for salaries and expenses shall 
     be reduced by $51,900,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2259

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2259 for Senator 
Smith and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator froom New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), for Mr. Smith 
     and himself, proposes an amendment numbered 2259.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page 23724]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program 
        within the Health Resources and Services Administration)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts provided in this title for 
     the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within the Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, there shall be appropriated an 
     additional $74,000,000 for such program.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2218

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2218.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2218.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 increase funding for advanced placement programs)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional 
     $18,500,000 to carry out part G of title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6531 et seq.).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering with 
Senator Hutchison and also with cosponsors Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, 
Murray, and Salazar. I ask unanimous consent that all those Senators be 
listed as cosponsors on amendment No. 2218.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly describe the amendment. 
It increases funding for the advanced placement programs to the level 
the President requested in his budget, submitted to the Congress 
earlier this year.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask that amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  According to a recent report issued by the National Academy of 
Sciences, NAS, the scientific and technical building blocks of this 
Nation's economic strength are eroding at a time when many other 
Nations are gathering strength. In no uncertain terms, the NAS 
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century 
expressed ``fear'' that our ability to lead in science and technology 
can be lost abruptly, and that once lost, it may be very difficult to 
regain, if at all.
  The NAS report issued a number of recommendations to strengthen the 
economic security of this country. Among the highest priorities, the 
NAS urged that we increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-
12 mathematics and science education. My amendment seeks to do that by 
increasing funding available for advanced placement programs.
  According to the NAS report, the vast majority of students in this 
country will never take an advanced math or science course while in 
high school. Evidence shows, however, that the intensity and rigor of a 
student's high school coursework is directly related to the student's 
success in college and beyond. Students who take a solid college prep 
curriculum are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more 
likely to earn a college degree.
  In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality of a high 
school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a bachelor's 
degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do college-bound 
students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all students benefit 
from more rigorous coursework.
  Accordingly, it is critical that all of our young people have access 
to rigorous coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands 
of post secondary education and a competitive workforce.
  NAS urges us to expand the pipeline--increase the number of students 
taking advanced science and math courses, such as AP-IB. Accordingly, 
we must create additional opportunities and incentives for middle-
school and high-school students to pursue advanced work in math and 
science. NAS recommends quadrupling the number of students in AP or IB 
math or science courses to 4.5 million by 2010.
  Moreover, I believe we all know that the quality of the teaching 
force is paramount to improving student achievement. A great teacher 
can not only help a student develop critical, analytical, and problem-
solving skills, or mastery of a particular subject, but can motivate a 
student to pursue a career in the field.
  Unfortunately, this country is facing a shortage of highly qualified 
math and science teachers.
  According to the NAS report, the vast majority of high school 
students in this country are being taught science and math by teachers 
without certification or a degree in the subject being taught. In fact, 
a U.S. high school student has a 70 percent chance of being taught 
English by a teacher with a degree in English while the same student 
has about a 40 percent chance of being taught chemistry by a teacher 
with a degree in chemistry.
  The NAS report recommended that we strengthen the skills of 250,000 
teachers through training and educational programs. One of the critical 
steps in reaching that goal is through increased training for 
instructors in the Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate--
AP-IB--Programs. NAS recommended that we train an additional 150,000 
AP-IB and pre AP-IB instructors to teach advanced courses in math and 
science.
  The FY 06 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill presents a critical 
opportunity to begin implementing some of the recommendations. We must 
invest in the economic security of this great country.
  This amendment seeks to increase funding for advanced placement 
programs in the underlying bill by $18.5 million, to a total of $51.5 
million. This level of funding, which is the same as the level 
requested by the administration, would help train additional AP-IB 
teachers, and help more low-income students take AP-IB courses.
  NAS recommends we invest in excess of $400 million to achieve these 
goals. Therefore, this amendment only resents a down payment, however, 
toward meeting the committee's recommendation, but would demonstrate 
our commitment to our children and grandchildren that we do not take 
their prosperity and security for granted.
  The NAS advises us to prepare with great urgency to preserve this 
Nation's strategic and economic security. By investing in AP, we can 
provide the foundation for students to be internationally competitive. 
This amendment is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2219

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2219.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2219.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 increase funding for school dropout prevention)

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

[[Page 23725]]

     Department of Education under this Act shall be reduced by 
     $4,900,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, and Salazar be added as cosponsors of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. This is an amendment to maintain current funding for 
the school dropout prevention program that is authorized under No Child 
Left Behind. The underlying bill would completely eliminate funding for 
dropout prevention, which I think would be a terrible mistake. This 
amendment is essential in order that that not occur. Nationally, only 
two-thirds of our 9th graders will graduate from high school with a 
diploma after completing the 12th grade. And, only about 50 percent of 
our Nation's African American, Hispanic, and Native American students 
will graduate with a high school diploma alongside their classmates.
  Sadly, a recent report by Educational Testing Services, ETS, makes it 
clear that the dropout crisis is actually getting worse; the high 
school completion rate has been steadily declining in 43 States. Even 
more alarming, the report concludes that students are dropping out at a 
younger age, meaning dropouts are even less educated now than in 
previous years.
  Yet, while dropout rates continue to rise, the Federal Government's 
response has unfortunately diminished. According to a recent GAO 
report, the Department of Education has done very little to help States 
increase graduation rates, and in fact, has failed to disseminate 
information about effective dropout prevention strategies.
  GAO found that the Department of Education had failed to rigorously 
evaluate the effectiveness of various State and local interventions 
designed to increase high school graduation rates. As a result, schools 
and districts may not be using the most effective approaches to help 
their students stay in school and graduate.
  In addition, Congress has significantly cut funding for the school 
dropout prevention program in recent years. The underlying bill, 
however, completely eliminates funding for dropout prevention, 
ostensibly because local school districts can use part of their Title I 
funds for dropout prevention.
  It is clear, however, that an allowable use of Title I funds is 
insufficient to stem the tide, as dropout rates continue to rise. The 
ETS report concludes that our failure to provide adequate resources for 
school dropout prevention is ``social dynamite.''
  The response of the Federal Government to this crisis is wholly 
inadequate, and in fact, is moving in the wrong direction. Dropout 
rates continue to climb, and the economic consequences are devastating 
for our younger and less educated population of dropouts. The reality 
is that in 2002, a high school dropout earned less than $23,000 per 
year, not enough for a family to be self-sufficient and pay for the 
basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, and health care.
  Moreover, I believe this dropout crisis places our economic security 
in peril. How will this country continue to compete in a global economy 
when only two-thirds of our high school students graduate high school. 
An educated workforce is the foundation for our future economic 
strength.
  I am offering this amendment to the FY 06 Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill to add $4.9 million to maintain funding for dropout 
prevention, representing the current funding level. This amount is 
offset by amounts made available to the Department of Education for 
administrative expenses and salaries.
  I believe this offset is reasonable, given that in the past few years 
alone, the Department of Education has spent millions of dollars on 
public relations contracts and grants to promote certain Department 
policies and priorities, some of which violated Federal law. I believe, 
however, reducing the dropout rate is a higher priority than promoting 
the Department's own agenda. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Again, I ask to have that amendment laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2262

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2262.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2262.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 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 $9,600,000 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 $10,300,000 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 $5,700,000 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) School Dropout Prevention.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, an additional $5,000,000 for school dropout 
     prevention programs under part H of title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6551 et seq.).
       (e) 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 $6,500,000 for English as a second language 
     programs and civics education programs under the Adult 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.).
       (f) 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 
     $13,000,000 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.).
       (g) 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, $9,900,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions 
     under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Salazar be added as a cosponsor of this amendment, No. 2262.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for just a very few minutes 
on this amendment. Then I see there are other Senators seeking 
recognition. I will not delay them long.
  This is a very important amendment on which I will request we 
actually have a rollcall vote tomorrow. It is an amendment to invest an 
additional $60 million in eight different programs, in a combination of 
eight different programs. They are very important to the Hispanic 
community in this country. The eight programs are migrant education, 
English language acquisition programs, the High School Equivalency 
Program, the College Assistance Migrant Program, Dropout Prevention, 
English as a Second Language Programs, local family information 
centers, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program.
  The amendment is strongly supported by the Hispanic Education 
Coalition, which is an ad hoc coalition of national organizations 
dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 
million Hispanics living

[[Page 23726]]

in the United States, including groups such as the National Council of 
La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. The National PTA is also a very strong 
supporter of the amendment.
  The Title I Migrant Education Program was established to provide a 
compensatory education program designed to deal with the difficulties 
encountered by children of migrant workers as a consequence of their 
mobility. Some of these children attend three or four schools in a 
single school year.
  They have a great need for coordination of educational services among 
the States and local districts where they live, often for short periods 
of time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so 
that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of 
school.
  The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000 
students were identified as eligible for the program in fiscal year 
2001. Additional funds are necessary to ensure that these children are 
able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. 
This amendment will provide an additional $9.6 million in needed 
funding.
  This amendment would also increase funding to States and local school 
districts in order to ensure that as many of the 5.5 million children 
with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high 
levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State 
academic standards as all children.
  Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all 
50 States based on the number of limited English proficient, LEP, and 
recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective 
language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and 
regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and 
providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This 
amendment requests an additional $10.3 million for Language Acquisition 
Grants, which restores the program's funding to its fiscal year 2003 
level.
  This amendment would provide modest increases for the High School 
Equivalency Program, HEP, and the College Assistance Migrant Program, 
CAMP. The HEP helps migrant students who have dropped out of high 
school earn a GED. The CAMP assists migrant students in their first 
year of college with both counseling and stipends. These programs 
provide farmworker migrant students with education opportunities and 
support that will help them to become productive members of society.
  Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged youth in this 
Nation. Current estimates place the dropout rate for migrant youth at 
between 50 and 60 percent. Before CAMP, there was no record of a child 
of migrant farm workers ever having attended college. Both programs 
have been very successful in helping migrant students become productive 
members of society.
  According to the Department of Education, in 2003-2004, almost 10,000 
students were served by HEP CAMP, and 63 percent of the HEP 
participants received a GED, and 84 percent of CAMP students completed 
their first year of college in good standing. This amendment provides 
an additional $5.7 million for these programs.
  The Dropout Prevention program helps States and school districts to 
implement research-based, sustainable, and coordinated school dropout 
prevention and re-entry programs in order to raise student achievement. 
At a time when schools are focused on narrowing achievement gaps 
between differing subgroups of students, it seems that Congress would 
want to retain Dropout Prevention, a program specifically aimed at 
providing schools with the tools to help students achieve a high school 
degree.
  Support for Dropout Prevention is even more significant when 
considering that the primary source of Federal funding for public 
schools, authorized through the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, focuses 
mainly on elementary schools. More than 90 percent of Tit1e I funds--
the principal NCLB program--are directed to elementary schools. Such an 
emphasis on elementary education is necessary and appropriate, but 
equally important is continuing an investment of resources throughout 
the education continuum in order to meet the needs of middle level and 
high school students.
  The Dropout Prevention program is the only Federal program actively 
working to reduce the Nation's dropout rates, and, as recent headlines 
tell us, it is a problem that is far more severe than previous data 
indicated.
  A report by the Urban Institute finds that only 68 percent of all 
students in the public high school class of 2001 graduated. 
Furthermore, it states that only 50 percent of all black students and 
53 percent of Hispanic students graduate. Nearly half of all black and 
Hispanic students do not graduate from high school. This is a problem 
that has reached enormous proportions. The Dropout Prevention program 
was eliminated in this legislation. This amendment restores $5 million 
to this program.
  The Local Family Information Centers program was authorized under the 
No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of Title I students, 
including English language learners, with information about their 
children's schools so that they can help their children to meet the 
high standards we have set under NCLB.
  The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their 
local and State school officials accountable and become more involved 
in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding 
for these centers by $13 million.
  The need for increased funding for English as a Second Language, ESL, 
is evident by the growing demand for services and the lack of resources 
to meet that need.
  Enrollment in Adult ESL has increased 105 percent over the past 10 
years, yet there is a lack of programs and funding to ensure that all 
who desire to learn English have access to appropriate services.
  Currently, community-based organizations must piece programs together 
with volunteer labor and facilities. The need for more targeted 
services is overwhelming. Demand for English-language instruction far 
outweighs supply, waiting lists for classes typically range from 
several months to years, and many States do not have the capacity to 
meet the demand.
  The current $70 million in funding is insufficient to meet the 
enormous demand for ESL services. As the labor market continues to 
require English-proficient labor, investing in ESL programs will 
strengthen the labor pool and return a more versatile productive 
workforce. This amendment provides an additional $6.5 million for ESL 
programs.
  Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The 
Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education 
system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that 
nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve 
the largest concentrations of the Nation' s youngest and largest ethnic 
population.
  The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs, mostly in 
California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Illinois, in the next few 
years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic college-age population 
underscore the urgency for immediate, major, and sustained increases in 
Title V funding.
  At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in 
substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new 
workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new 
workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment 
would provide an additional $9.9 million in assistance to these great 
institutions.
  We must do everything possible to provide every child with the best 
education we can. This amendment would provide small, but much-needed 
increases to programs that can make a difference in the lives of 
millions of children. I urge my fellow Senators to support these 
greatly needed programs by providing them with the proper resources. I 
will seek some additional

[[Page 23727]]

time tomorrow before we actually have a vote on this amendment in order 
to further explain to my colleagues the reasons this amendment needs to 
be adopted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes regarding the hurricane in Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                         HURRICANE WILMA DAMAGE

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that 
unfortunately has become all too familiar to us, particularly us 
Floridians, which is the devastating ravages of yet another storm that 
has hit our coastal zone and particularly the State of Florida.
  I have just returned from the State of Florida, from south Florida, 
having traveled there today, with Senator Nelson. I also traveled 
around with Members of the Congress, with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 
Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, and 
Congressman Clay Shaw.
  We went first to Miami, Dade County, where we visited the emergency 
operations center. There we were able to get a briefing and an update 
from people on the ground about the situation there. Unfortunately, 
there, and then again in Broward County and Fort Lauderdale where we 
further visited, the situation seems to be somewhat the same.
  There is widespread damage to people's homes and places of business, 
but the most important and most pervasive problem seems to be the very 
severe loss of electrical power.
  In addition to the electrical power, there is a combination in some 
of the places which also has to do with problems of potable water.
  As I stand here, there are still 2.8 million people in Florida 
without electricity. Nearly 6 million people were without power Tuesday 
morning. We are making some progress, thanks in part to the 
contributions of other States that have responded to this emergency. 
More than 5,000 people from neighboring States are actively working to 
restore power in the lower peninsula.
  Damage in Florida not only began in the area of Naples and Marco 
Island on the west coast, but then it traveled across the rural area of 
our State, across the Everglades and slammed in an angling way, 
covering the Florida Keys before it ever reached the mainland, and then 
Miami, Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, exiting out in 
the area of Palm Beach.
  Regarding those 2.8 million people without power, I am hopeful that 
figure will be dropping substantially in the next several days. That 
will be good news if it happens. In the meantime, there is an area of 
great concern.
  We are being told by the power companies it will be at least a week, 
maybe 10 days, maybe 2 weeks before a substantial number of these 
customers will be restored to power. In fact, the date of November 22 
is now being given as to when all customers will be back on line. That 
is almost a month from now. No power, for many Floridians, means there 
is no way to prepare meals, no hot water in which to bathe or wash 
clothes or dishes, no traffic lights, no way to pump gas, no access to 
cash machines so people might access resources necessary to restock and 
obtain water and food supplies.
  Banks are closed. The schools in many ways would be ready to reopen 
in a matter of a couple of days, but they cannot open until there is 
power. Hospitals are working on generators; however, there is concern 
that these generators will begin to start running low on fuel and there 
is also the ``boil water'' order given to the people of south Florida, 
in counties that are, frankly, having problems with water pressure 
issues.
  There are substantial relief efforts in progress. There have been a 
few glitches along the way. Yesterday, there were long lines of 
exasperated people, which is understandable in the first 48 hours 
following a category 3 hurricane that hit with well over 100-mile-an-
hour winds in some of the most populated areas of the State of Florida.
  I commend our Governor, Jeb Bush, for his preparation before the 
storm ever reached our shores and for the good cooperation that local 
government has been given throughout the State. Even though we have all 
heard reports of long lines at these distribution points and that we 
have run out of supplies too soon, the system is working and will be 
working even better in the coming hours. Improvements have been made 
over the last 24 hours, and we believe more improvements will be made 
in a very short period of time.
  I also commend our Florida National Guard. The Florida National 
Guard, time and again, has answered the call as we have faced storm 
after storm in the State of Florida. Right now we have over 4,000 
members of the Guard who have been activated, helping to distribute 
food and material and assisting local law enforcement and patrolling 
areas, assisting local law enforcement. More troops are being called 
up, I understand.
  There are curfews in effect throughout south Florida, and it is a big 
task to enforce these curfews. Floridians are following the 
instructions and local government officials were pleased to report to 
us how well Floridians were responding to the call for curfew. We hope 
this will continue because the curfews will need to be in effect for 
ongoing days, and we hope the same level of cooperation will be seen.
  FEMA is on the ground in Florida. In addition to helping to provide 
for immediate needs, the administrators have approved individual 
assistance for 10 Florida counties covering an estimated 6.5 million 
people in the State of Florida. That was welcome news to the people in 
Miami, Dade and Broward Counties, that I visited today.
  As far as the overall picture, the extent of the damage, and the 
economic impact, it is hard to get an accurate dollar figure just yet 
because the estimates are still coming in. Just to give my colleagues 
an idea, the preliminary figures, according to the Florida Insurance 
Council, puts the cost of Hurricane Wilma to somewhere close to $10 
billion.
  If that figure holds, it makes Wilma the most damaging storm to hit 
the State this year and perhaps Florida's most damaging hurricane in 
over a decade.
  I also want to underscore that Florida is a State that went into this 
particular storm with a lot on its shoulders already. Before Wilma, 
over 10 percent of Florida's homes were damaged from four previous 
hurricanes last year. Even today, we still had over 20,000 Floridians 
living in some sort of transitional housing. Most of that is a backlog 
of structural repair. Now that number is going to dramatically 
escalate.
  Before Wilma was even a squall, Florida's agricultural damages from 
the last year stood at $665 million. Whole sectors of our agricultural 
industry are devastated. Frankly, it will take years to replant and 
reestablish some of the crops. It is highly likely that this hurricane 
is going to make yet another agricultural season a total loss for 
Floridians.
  I also want to mention S. 939, the Disaster Recovery Act. This bill, 
which has been introduced by myself and several others, is pending 
before this body. It seeks to expedite Federal assistance and assist 
communities in debris removal. This is straightforward legislation. 
Without it, people in communities can be kept waiting for months for 
any assistance. In the case of debris removal, it is an issue of public 
safety that has gone unaddressed for far too long. With the help of my 
good friends from Maine and Mississippi, this bill is now moving 
forward, and I will ask my colleagues to lend their support. This is 
critical legislation, and it will make a difference to millions of 
Floridians and others affected by the recent storms. This bill is 
currently hotlined, and I am hopeful that first thing tomorrow morning 
we will be able to move this bill along.
  Beyond that, I know there is still an appropriate time and place for 
a larger Federal role in this disaster. I ask my colleagues to keep in 
mind that Florida has been hit by eight hurricanes

[[Page 23728]]

and two tropical storms in the last 14 months. Going into this storm, 
we have had a lot of damage from Wilma, and it has only been compounded 
by existing problems and new ones have been created.
  So let me conclude on a brighter note and express appreciation for 
those of my colleagues who have indicated their concern for Florida. It 
is times like these that makes me proud to be a Floridian. We are 
resilient people. What we saw today was folks pulling together. We will 
repair the damage and we will move on. The communities of Florida are 
pulling together, helping one another and reaching out to one another 
in a spirit of cooperation and neighborliness, which I think is 
commendable.
  I think we need to continue to pull together because these are 
difficult days. We are not going to get over this in a matter of 24 
hours or 48 hours. It is going to take some time.
  In the first 48 hours after a category 3 hurricane, it is 
understandable that people's nerves are fraying and impatience is 
setting in.
  However, we are ready for this, and I know we will pull together and 
get through it in the best way possible.
  I believe it is most important to point out that in spite of all of 
this, the Orlando International Airport has reopened for business. The 
cruise ships are coming in and out of Miami Harbor. The fact is that 
the attractions--all in central Florida--were completely unaffected by 
any of this and are open for business. Florida, in fact, is open for 
business. The convention facilities are working. Florida will be back 
to normal in short order. I do hope that people recognize Florida is 
still a wonderful place to visit.
  I thank my colleagues for all of the expressions of support, and I 
look forward to working with them as we try to seek an appropriate 
Federal response to Florida's problem.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2322

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2322.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit payments for administrative expenses under the 
 Medicaid program if more than 15 percent of applications for medical 
   assistance, eligibility redeterminations, and change reports are 
 processed by individuals who are not State employees meeting certain 
                          personnel standards)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may used for Federal matching payments under 
     section 1903(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(a)(7)) for reimbursement of amounts expended for the 
     proper and efficient administration of a State Medicaid plan 
     under title XIX of such Act to a State agency if more than--
       (1) 15 percent of the applications for medical assistance 
     under the State Medicaid plan in any fiscal year quarter are 
     received or initially processed;
       (2) 15 percent of eligibility redeterminations for such 
     medical assistance are initially processed; or
       (3) 15 percent of change reports are received and initially 
     processed,

     by individuals who are not State employees meeting the 
     personnel standards required under section 1902(a)(4)(A) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(4)(A)).
       (b) Exclusion of Applications Received and Processed on an 
     Outstation Basis.--The percentages described in subsection 
     (a) shall be determined without regard to applications 
     received and processed by the Health Resources Services 
     Administration.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
now be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2277

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2277.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2277.

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

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of appropriated funds available for 
                  Community-Based Job Training Grants)

       On page 112, strike lines 17 and 18 and insert the 
     following:

     Workforce Investment Act of 1998; $2,867,806,000 plus 
     reimbursements, of which $1,871,518,000 is available for 
     obli-
       On page 113, strike lines 8 through 13 and insert the 
     following:

     $1,148,264,000 shall be for activities described in section 
     132(a)(2)(B) of such Act: Provided further, That $125,000,000 
     shall be available for Community-Based Job Training Grants, 
     and not more than an additional $125,000,000 may be used by 
     the Secretary of Labor for such grants from funds reserved 
     under section 132(a)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998, to carry out such grants under sec-
       On page 132, line 9, strike ``$320,250,000'' and insert 
     ``$240,250,000, of which $13,248,000 is for such management 
     or operation of activities conducted by or through the Bureau 
     of International Labor Affairs, and''

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment supports the 
administration's request for second-year funding for the Community-
Based Job Training Grant Initiative.
  Although that is a mouthful, this goes to one of the most basic needs 
of our country, and particularly our growing economy.
  For those who are concerned about offshoring and outsourcing of jobs 
to other countries, for those who are concerned about American citizens 
who have not yet attained a living wage in their jobs, this is the 
answer to all of those challenges, and more.
  The primary purpose of the grants that are included in this program 
is to strengthen the role of community and technical colleges and train 
workers for the skills required to succeed in high-growth, high-demand 
industries.
  The amendment covers publicly funded institutions of higher education 
that grant associate degrees. Community-based job training grants are 
awarded to community and technical colleges that demonstrate they are 
engaged in a strategic partnership with business and industry. In other 
words, this is not just the teaching of academic subjects but, rather, 
working with industry to determine what sort of job skills they need 
for the good jobs they can provide, if they can find a sufficient 
number of trained employees to do them.
  Applicants for these grants are required to identify workforce 
challenges and their ability to implement workforce solutions for 
locally identified high-growth, high-demand occupations.
  This amendment will help increase the capacity of community colleges 
to provide innovative job training strategies in local demand 
industries. They will be able to develop training criteria with local 
industry, hire qualified faculty, arrange on-the-job experiences with 
industry, and use up-to-date equipment.
  Community colleges are one of the best kept educational secrets in 
this country. They are adaptable, flexible, affordable, and accessible 
by all segments of the community.
  This amendment will help community colleges train 100,000 new and 
experienced workers in demand industries and then increase the 
retention and earnings of trained workers.
  The Labor Department is committed to making all curricula and 
training techniques developed through the grants available to community 
colleges nationwide so these grants help more than just the direct 
recipient of the grant.
  This amendment will help millions more workers access education and

[[Page 23729]]

training for exciting career opportunities and a brighter future. The 
first grant competition for $125 million was appropriated in fiscal 
year 2005 and was issued in May. Nearly 400 community colleges 
submitted proposals and 70 community colleges in 40 States were awarded 
grants on October 19.
  I am particularly proud that 7 of the community colleges in Texas 
were awarded grants through the first $125 million competition.
  I have long been an advocate of these kind of workforce partnerships 
and initiatives formed with community colleges and local business 
communities because I have actually seen them succeed.
  While in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of 
these initiatives across the State of Texas, in Austin, in Houston, 
Pasadena, Laredo, Beaumont, Sherman, El Paso, Lubbock, and Victoria.
  I remember in particular a young Hispanic woman, a single mom who had 
been a prison guard in Amarillo, TX who, as a result of a program that 
she trained in in an Amarillo community college, was able to increase 
her earnings and brighten her future, as well as get out of her 
somewhat dangerous job as a prison guard to begin working on the 
production line for the V-22 tilt rotor being made at Bell Helicopter 
in Amarillo, TX.
  This is only one example of how we can provide the resources to 
individuals so they can improve their future, improve their skills, and 
satisfy the needs of employers who search, often in vain, for qualified 
workers to take these good and very well paying jobs.
  I know, in consultation with the distinguished floor manager of this 
bill, that this contains an offset that causes some concerns. What I 
would like to do is continue our discussions with Senator Specter, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, the distinguished manager of this bill, as 
we proceed through this process to try to find some way to maximize the 
funds available to this particular program in the conference and 
hopefully restore some of the money that would otherwise be cut. I 
realize the subcommittee is working within allocation caps and we don't 
want to cause any unnecessary concern. But this is an initiative that I 
feel so strongly about, and I think the more our colleagues learn about 
this, the more our colleagues will be supportive of this restoration of 
these funds for this important initiative.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa as we try to work in the conference to try to accommodate and 
indeed try to maximize the funds for this important initiative.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2278

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is now a series of five amendments 
which have been accepted on both sides. I now ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate turn to a series of five amendments which have been 
accepted on both sides.
  I start with an amendment on behalf of Senator Frist, No. 2278, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Frist, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2278.

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

    (Purpose: To increase funding for suicide prevention activities)

       On page 116, line 9, strike ``$132,825,000, together with'' 
     and insert ``$119,825,000: Provided, That amounts provided 
     for in this Act for suicide prevention activities under the 
     Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act (Public law 108-355) shall be 
     increased by $13,000,000: Provided further,'' That''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides an additional $13 
million for suicide prevention activities.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. This is an offset, so we stay 
within our limits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2278) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2315

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up the Durbin amendment on 
point of entry, and yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2315.

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

                (Purpose: To designate a port of entry)

       On page 22, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 517. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in Mascoutah, Illinois, shall be 
     designated as a port of entry.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment which 
designates Mid-American St. Louis Airport in Mascoutah, IL as a point 
of entry. It has been cleared on both sides, and with Senator Gregg.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2315) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2228

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up a second Durbin amendment 
on scientific integrity and yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment 
is pending. If that is the case, I urge adoption of amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2228) was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure the scientific integrity of Federally-funded 
           scientific advisory committees and their findings)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to request that a candidate for appointment to a 
     Federal scientific advisory committee disclose the political 
     affiliation or voting history of the candidate or the 
     position that the candidate holds with respect to political 
     issues not directly related to and necessary for the work of 
     the committee involved.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to disseminate scientific information that is 
     deliberately false or misleading.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2246

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I now call up an amendment by the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, on women's employment data. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kennedy, for himself, Mr. 
Harkin, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2246.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 23730]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that the Current Employment Survey maintains the 
 content of the survey issued prior to August 2005 with respect to the 
            collection of data for the women worker series)

       On page 131, line 18, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That the Current Employment Survey 
     shall maintain the content of the survey issued prior to 
     August 2005 with respect to the collection of data for the 
     women worker series''.


                    Amendment No. 2246, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of 
Senator Kennedy to send a modification to the amendment to the desk. It 
changes the date, it looks like, from August to June.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2246), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 131, line 18, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That the Current Employment Survey 
     shall maintain the content of the survey issued prior to June 
     2005 with respect to the collection of data for the women 
     worker series''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in June 2005, the Department of Labor's 
Bureau of Labor Statistics eliminated the most reliable source of 
employment data on women workers by removing the Women Worker Series 
from its Current Employment Statistics survey. This move--opposed by a 
bipartisan coalition of Senators--blocks collection of key data about 
the status and progress of women in the workplace. I offer an amendment 
today to reverse that decision.
  Comprehensive and accurate information on gender employment is vital 
to ending long-standing economic discrimination against women in our 
society. The facts are painfully clear. Women today earn 76 cents for 
every dollar earned by men. They work disproportionately in lower-
paying occupations, and have far lower lifetime earnings than men. 
Congress, researchers, and policymakers across the country need the 
data collected by the Women Worker Series to understand the true 
dimensions of gender inequality in the workforce, and guide us in our 
effort to eliminate it.
  The Women Worker Series has the best available data on women in the 
workforce. It's been part of a broad-based survey of nearly 400,000 
business establishments that examines the most accurate data 
available--employers' own records. The data are the most reliable way 
to assess monthly changes in employment, and they contain valuable 
insights on women's employment and unemployment in the business cycle.
  The information collected in the survey is indispensable to 
policymakers and researchers. During the comment period conducted by 
the Department of Labor, the comments received were more than 9-to-1 
against discontinuing the series. Every business group that commented 
on the proposed elimination of the data, including the Women's Chamber 
of Commerce and Business and Professional Women, supported continuing 
the collection of the data. Janet Norwood, Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics in both the Carter and Reagan administrations, 
criticized the recent decision to discontinue this collection.
  Many of the comments cited studies that used the data to uncover 
important conclusions about the position of women in the workforce. A 
study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, used the 
data to find that men and women have historically been affected 
differently by recessions, with jobs often shifting from women to men 
during these periods. This study would have been impossible without the 
Women Worker Series.
  The department claims that it has eliminated the series in order to 
reduce the burden on employers responding in the survey. But continuing 
to collect this information would not be unduly burdensome. The gender 
series is only one question in a larger survey that the department 
continues to conduct. According to BLS estimates, the entire survey 
takes only seven minutes to fill out, so the burden imposed by a single 
question is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, most employers are required 
to track the gender of their employees for other purposes, so the 
requested information is almost always readily available.
  The decision to eliminate the Women Worker Series is an insult to 
working women across the country, and can only strengthen the 
discrimination they face in the workplace. At a time when women's 
employment may be changing in fundamental ways, we should be 
expanding--not reducing--our ability to understand the evolving role of 
women in the Nation's labor force. I urge my colleagues to accept this 
amendment and avoid taking an unfair step backward on this very 
important issue for working women across America.
  I ask, unanimous consent that letters in support of the amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   U.S. Senate

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 2005.
     Kathleen P. Utgoff,
     Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Commissioner Utgoff: We are writing to express our 
     concern about the Bureau's plans to discontinue the gender 
     series in the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program, We 
     strongly urge you to continue to collect these data.
       Comprehensive and accurate gender employment information is 
     vital to end the longstanding economic discrimination against 
     women in our society. Women today earn 76 cents for every 
     dollar earned by men. They work disproportionately in lower-
     paying occupations, and have far lower lifetime earnings than 
     men. Congress, researchers, and policymakers across the 
     country need the CBS data to understand gender inequality in 
     the workforce, and guide us in our efforts to eliminate it.
       The recent recession marked the start of the only period of 
     sustained job loss for women in the last forty years. At a 
     time when women's employment may be changing in fundamental 
     ways, we should be expanding--not limiting--our ability to 
     understand the evolving role of women in the nation's labor-
     force.
       The CES data are the best available data on employment 
     trends, and are indispensable to po1icymakers and researchers 
     on the issue, The Current Population Survey is not an 
     adequate substitute, Economists widely agree that the 
     Bureau's Payroll Survey provides a far more accurate view of 
     general employment trends than the Population Survey. As you 
     yourself testified to the Congressional Joint Economic 
     Committee in 2003, ``the payroll survey provides more 
     reliable information on the current trend in wage and salary 
     employment'' than the household survey, because the payroll 
     survey has a larger sample and is linked to the total 
     employment count based on records of the unemployment 
     insurance tax.
       You have indicated that eliminating the gender series is 
     necessary so that the Bureau can reduce the burden of the 
     survey on employers. But that benefit is miniscule compared 
     to the significant loss caused by the elimination of the data 
     series. The gender series is only a small portion of a survey 
     that, by your own estimate, takes only seven minutes to fill 
     out. Companies with 100 or more employees already have to 
     submit EEO-1 forms detailing the gender breakdown of their 
     workforce. In smaller companies, it is little burden to see 
     the number of male and female employees.
       In light of the special importance of the gender series, we 
     urge you to continue to collect and provide these needed 
     data.
           Sincerely,
         Edward M. Kennedy,
         Richard J. Durbin,
         Tom Harkin,
         Christopher J. Dodd,
         Jeff Bingaman,
         Hillary Rodham Clinton,
         Mary Landrieu,
         John F. Kerry,
         Maria Cantwell,
         Evan Bayh,
         Olympia J. Snowe,
         Susan Collins,
         Lisa Murkowski,
         Barbara A. Mikulski,
         Patty Murray,
         Debbie Stabenow,
         Herb Kohl,
         Dianne Feinstein,
         Paul S. Sarbanes,
         Patrick J. Leahy,
         Bill Nelson,
         Ron Wyden,
         Joseph I. Lieberman,
         Jon S. Corzine,
         Barack Obama,
         Tim Johnson,
         Daniel K. Akaka,
         Frank Lautenberg,
         Mark Dayton,
         Ken Salazar.

[[Page 23731]]

           
                                  ____
                                                 October 18, 2005.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We are writing to inform you that 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced on August 5, 
     2005 that it would no longer collect the data on women 
     workers in the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES). 
     These critical data are not collected by any other survey and 
     without it researchers cannot obtain a complete and accurate 
     picture of women's employment. We the 137 undersigned 
     organizations ask that Congress require BLS to continue 
     collecting these data in the Appropriations bill for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
     for FY2006 that is currently being finalized.
       The CES survey is a monthly nationwide survey of payroll 
     records that covers more than 300,000 businesses and provides 
     important industry data. The ``Women Worker Series'' consists 
     of one question in the CES survey: ``Enter the number of 
     employees from Column 1 who are women.'' This one question, 
     however, provides the only accurate picture of whether (and 
     in which industries) women are gaining or losing jobs in 
     response to economic restructuring, changes in the business 
     cycle, variation in labor supply and other factors. Because 
     men and women generally work in different parts of the labor 
     market, data that specifically track how women workers are 
     faring compared to men is essential. Combined data may mask 
     important differences in the experience of women and men 
     workers.
       The reasons that BLS has given for terminating the 
     collection of these data do not hold up under scrutiny:
       There Is No Substitute for the CES Survey: BLS has claimed 
     that ending the Women Workers Series does no harm, because 
     the Current Population Survey (``CPS'') collects extensive 
     data on women's employment status and is thereby an adequate 
     substitute. This is simply not true. The CPS data are 
     collected from households and individuals, whereas the CES is 
     collected from businesses, and thus, according to a former 
     BLS Commissioner, ``provides more reliable information on the 
     current trend of wage and salary employment.''
       There is a High Response Rate for the CES Survey and It Is 
     Not Burdensome for Businesses: BLS claimed that discontinuing 
     the data collection from the single question about women 
     workers would reduce the burden on employers. As evidence of 
     this problem, they misleadingly stated that there was a low 
     response rate to this inquiry. In fact, the response rate to 
     this query is 86%--the second highest of any question on the 
     CES Survey. Further, the only organizations representing 
     businesses that submitted comments to BLS about the 
     discontinuation of this data collection all supported 
     continuing the data collection. Not only are businesses able 
     to respond to these queries easily, but the record shows that 
     they want the data collection to continue.
       Researchers Use This Important Data: In announcing the 
     discontinuation of this data collection, BLS stated that it 
     was not widely used. This is not accurate either. Just this 
     past month, the Center for Economic and Policy Research 
     issued a report, ``Gender Bias in the Current Economic 
     Recovery? Declining Employment Rates for Women in the 21st 
     Century,'' based on the Women Worker Series in the CES. 
     Further, many of the thousands of comments submitted to BLS 
     in support of this data collection came from researchers at 
     such organizations as the New York Federal Reserve Bank and 
     the Consortium of Social Science Associations (including 
     sociologists, political scientists, and others).
       Perhaps the greatest evidence for the importance of this 
     data is the outcry that arose after BLS announced it was 
     going to stop collecting it. News services around the country 
     ran the story. A bipartisan group of U.S. Representatives and 
     Senators opposed the decision. Researchers and women's 
     employment advocates pressed BLS to continue collecting the 
     data.
       In fact, during the original comment period, five thousand 
     comments were submitted--running at least 9 to 1 in support 
     of continuing the data collection. The only comments 
     submitted by employers were in support of the continued 
     collection of the Women Workers Series.
       Despite the overwhelming case in support of continuing the 
     Women Workers Series, and the underwhelming case for dropping 
     it, BLS announced that it would terminate the data collection 
     anyway.
       Congress can, and should, require BLS to continue 
     collecting the Women Workers Series.
       Please support a provision in the Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations bill for FY 2006 to require BLS to continue 
     collecting the Women Workers Series on the CES Survey. This 
     information is critical to understanding the employment 
     status of women in America. Please feel free to contact Heidi 
     Hartmann of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (202/
     785-5100) or Sharon Levin of Women's Prerogative (202/296-
     3818) for further information.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Retired Americans, Alliance for the Status of 
     Missouri Women, American Association of University Women, 
     American Association of University Women, Ballwin-
     Chesterfield Chapter, American Association of University 
     Women, Ferguson-Florisant Branch, American Educational 
     Research Association, American Federation of Government 
     Employees, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Government 
     Employees (AFGE), Local 12, American Medical Women's 
     Association, and Americans for Democratic Action.
       Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, Association 
     of American Geographers, Business and Professional Women/USA, 
     Business and Professional Women/Kentucky, Business and 
     Professional Women/Kirksville, Business and Professional 
     Women/Maryland, Business and Professional Women/Missouri, 
     Business and Professional Women/St. Louis Metro, Business and 
     Professional Women/St. Petersberg/Pinellas, Business and 
     Professional Women/Suburban Maryland, and Business and 
     Professional Women/USA.
       BVM Network for Women's Issues, California National 
     Organization for Women, California Partnership to End 
     Domestic Violence, Catalyst Connection, Center for 
     Independent Living of South Florida, Center for the Education 
     of Women, University of Michigan, Center for Women Policy 
     Studies, Chicago Women in Trades, Cincinnati National 
     Organization for Women, and Coalition for Equal Pay.
       Coalition of Labor Union Women, Common Cause, Communication 
     Workers of America, Consortium of Social Science 
     Associations, Dads and Daughters, Department for Professional 
     Employees, AFL-CIO, Democratic Women's Club of Upper 
     Pinellas, Discrimination Research Center, and Displaced 
     Homemakers Network of New Jersey, Inc.
       Family Tree, Inc., Federally Employed Women, Feminist 
     Majority, Florida Consumer Action Network, Gender Watchers, 
     General Federation of Women's Clubs, Georgia Rural Urban 
     Summit, Georgia Women Work, and Girls Incorporated.
       Honorable Linda Tan-Whelan, Tan-Whelan & Associates, Inc., 
     Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans, Institute for 
     Women's Policy Research, Institute for Research on Women and 
     Gender, Jewish Women's Coalition, Laborers' International 
     Union of North America, Lebanon (MO) Business and 
     Professional Women, and Legal Momentum.
       Maine Center for Economic Policy, Maine National 
     Organization for Women, Maine People's Alliance, Maine 
     Women's Lobby, Maryland National Organization for Women, 
     Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women, 
     Michigan Women Work, Middle Way House, Inc., Minnesota 
     National Organization for Women, Missouri Women's Coalition, 
     Missouri Women's Network, Montgomery County Commission for 
     Women, and MOTHERS (Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights).
       Mothers and More, Mt. Pleasant National Organization for 
     Women, NA'AMATUSA, National Alliance for Partnerships in 
     Equity, National Association of Social Workers, Maine 
     Chapter, National Association of Women Business Owners, 
     National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National 
     Committee on Pay Equity, National Council of Jewish Women, 
     and National Council for Research on Women.
       National Council of Women's Organizations, National 
     Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and 
     Families, National Women's Conference, National Women's Law 
     Center, National Women's Political Caucus, NCA Union 
     Retirees, Negotiating Women, Inc., New Choices/New Options, 
     New Hampshire National Organization for Women, and New York 
     State National Organization for Women.
       Ohio National Organization for Women, Older Women's League, 
     Oregon Consumer League, Oregon Tradeswomen, Inc., PHASE, 
     University of Arizona, Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women, Project IRENE, Sargent Shriver National Center on 
     Poverty Law, Scholar Bound, South Carolina Coalition Against 
     Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, South Dakota Advocacy 
     Network for Women, South Dakota Family Economic Self-
     Sufficiency Project, and St. Louis Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women.
       Teachers as Leaders and Learners Program at The College of 
     New Jersey, Tennessee Healthcare Campaign, The Business 
     Women's Network of Howard County, Tradewomen, Inc., 
     Tradewomen Now and Tomorrow, The Media Project, The 
     Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights & Urban 
     Affairs, The Women's Center at Carnegie Mellon University, 
     The Women's Office, Sisters of Charity, BVM, and The Women's 
     Union.
       United Food and Commercial Workers International Union 
     (UFCW), United University Professions, U.S. Action, U.S. 
     Women's Chamber of Commerce, Wider Opportunities for Women, 
     Women of Reform Judaism, Women Work! The National Network for 
     Women's Employment, Women's Center of Fayetteville, Women's 
     Center of Greater Lansing, and Women's City Club of New York.
       Women's Committee of 100, Women's Edge Coalition, Women 
     Employed, Women For: Orange County, Women in Media and News, 
     Women's Prerogative, Women's Research and Education 
     Institute, Women's Resource Center, Women's Resource Center 
     of Alamance

[[Page 23732]]

     County, North Carolina, Women's Resource Center of Central 
     Oregon, World of Women SI Inc., Zonta Club of Pasadena, and 9 
     to 5, National Association of Working Women.
                                  ____



                                         United States Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
     Secretary Elaine Chao,
     Department of Labor,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Chao: I'm writing to express my surprise and 
     concern at your ongoing plans to eliminate the women worker 
     series in the Current Employment Statistics program.
       Full and accurate gender employment information is a vital 
     part of ending the longstanding economic discrimination 
     against women in our society. As you know, women today earn 
     76 cents for every dol1ar earned by men. They work 
     disproportionately in lower-paying occupations, and have far 
     lower lifetime earnings than men. By eliminating the CES 
     data, the Department will make it more difficult for 
     Congress, researchers, and policymakers to understand the 
     true nature of gender inequality in the workforce, and harm 
     our efforts to eliminate it.
       I understand that the Department has received nearly 5,000 
     comments about these proposed changes, and 90 percent of them 
     urged you to continue collecting the data on women workers. 
     The CES data are obviously the best sources of information on 
     employment trends, and are indispensable to any analysis of 
     job discrimination against women.
       The Current Population Survey is not an adequate 
     substitute, since it provides a far less accurate view of 
     general employment trends than the payroll survey. The 
     benefit of reducing the burden of the CES survey on employers 
     is miniscule compared to the significant damage caused by 
     eliminating the data series.
       In light of the importance of the series and the broad 
     support for its continuation, I urge you to continue to 
     collect and provide these essential data.
       With respect and admiration,
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy.
                                  ____

                                                February 16, 2005.
     Ms. Amy A. Hobby,
     Bureau of Labor Statistics,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Hobby: On behalf of the 505,000 women business 
     Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP), in accordance with the 
     advisory authority granted us in Public Law 100-553, and on 
     behalf of Chair Marilyn Carlson Nelson and the other members 
     of the National Women's Business Council, I am writing you 
     today to comment upon proposed changes to the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics' Current Employment Statistics survey--in 
     particular the proposal that the information from this survey 
     no longer be made available by gender of worker.
       As you may know, the mission of the National Women's 
     Business Council is to provide advice and counsel to the 
     President and his Administration and to the U.S. Congress on 
     issues of importance to women business owners and their 
     enterprises. In this capacity, we conduct research on issues 
     of importance to the women's community, communicate those 
     findings widely, connect the women's business community to 
     one another and to federal policy makers, and--in so doing--
     create positive change for an estimated 15.6 million women 
     who are engaged in the sole or shared ownership of 
     approximately 10.6 million businesses in the United States.
       Research has shown that among the greatest challenges faced 
     by women in business--in addition to access to capital, 
     training and technical assistance, markets and networks--is 
     being taken seriously as contributors to our economy. One of 
     the most significant ways in which women have achieved 
     visibility, and thus recognition, for their economic 
     contributions has been through the collection and 
     dissemination of statistics monitoring their participation in 
     the workforce, and their progression from non-supervisory to 
     managerial positions, and from there to self-employment and 
     business ownership. The gender-disaggregated information 
     currently available through the BLS' Current Employment 
     Statistics is a vital thread in the fabric of federal 
     government data on the economic contributions of women. 
     Regular, detailed information by industry and location is 
     critical to understanding women's employment patterns as well 
     as their progress (or lack thereof) over time.
       The National Women's Business Council strongly opposes the 
     proposed elimination of the collection of gender-based 
     information from the CES. The elimination of gender as an 
     item in the survey would not save a significant amount of 
     money nor significantly reduce respondent burden, but--on the 
     other hand--it would seriously impede analysis and monitoring 
     of women's progress in the workforce and their contributions 
     to our economy.
       We are supportive of proposed efforts to pursue optical 
     character recognition (OCR) and Web-based technologies to 
     enhance survey response rates, increase efficiency, and save 
     time and money.
       We agree that such technologies have advanced to such a 
     point that they can be reasonably incorporated into the 
     survey methodology.
       The Council welcomes the opportunity to provide the Bureau 
     of Labor Standards our thoughts and comments on these 
     important issues. We look forward to reading the comments of 
     other organizations and interested parties, and you can be 
     assured that the Council will closely monitor this most 
     important issue. Knowledge fuels action, and one cannot 
     responsibly react to and manage that which is not measured. 
     The BLS has played an important role in women's economic 
     development through the information published from the CES, 
     CPS and other surveys. Again, it is vitally important that 
     gender-disaggregated information continue to be made 
     available to federal policy makers, to advisory bodies like 
     the National Women's Business Council, and to the women's 
     business community at large.
           Sincerely,

                                               Julie R. Weeks,

                                               Executive Director,
     Women Impacting Public Policy.
                                  ____



                             Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

                                  New York, NY, February 22, 2005.
     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
     Division of Current Employment Statistics, Washington, DC.
       To the Bureau of Labor Statistics: This letter is in 
     response to the request for public comment on the proposed 
     discontinuation of the Women Workers Series (WWS) from the 
     Current Employment Series. Economists in the Research and 
     Statistics Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
     recently learned of the existence of the WWS and are 
     currently engaged in research using it to study the gender 
     differences that underlie the unusual recent cyclical pattern 
     of employment.
       The attached is a synopsis of preliminary findings that 
     suggest that time series patterns of employment for men and 
     women are different, vary among recessions, and show no 
     evidence of recent convergence. The approach follows recent 
     work by Erica Groshen and Simon Potter (published in the 
     August 2003 edition of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's 
     Current Issues in Economics and Finance) that finds it likely 
     that the recent recession had a stronger cyclical component 
     than previous recessions.
       Gender disparities are of particular interest at the moment 
     because the labor force participation rate for women during 
     the past recession has fallen more than usual and as yet 
     shows no sign of recovery. These results have interesting 
     policy implications if they allow us insight into whether the 
     decline in participation indicates enhanced cyclicality or a 
     secular drop in women's labor force participation.
       Our previous understanding of sectoral reallocations and 
     heterogeneity is based largely on analysis of industry-level 
     CES aggregate data. Household-based data series have too much 
     sampling error to allow analysis by industry much beyond the 
     1-digit level and are not seasonally adjusted. The technique 
     used here relies on seasonally adjusted data with more 
     disaggregation than is available from the Current Population 
     Survey (CPS)--particularly on a timely basis (that is, before 
     the CPS microdata are released). It also requires a long time 
     series, since recessions are rare events. CPS data are sparse 
     before the 1980s.
       The lack of prior use of the WWS may reflect the lack of 
     visibility of the series on the BLS website and in news 
     releases. Indeed, Groshen and Potter learned of its existence 
     only this fall, when they discovered it in the Haver 
     Analytics DLX database. Despite their many years of research 
     in labor economics, neither had encountered it before.
       In light of our experience and intriguing recent findings, 
     we do not support elimination of the WWS. Rather than 
     discontinue an informative series with such a long history, 
     we suggest that the BLS consider highlighting its existence 
     among the community of data users and issuing a periodic 
     release. Use might rise substantially. Such an effort would 
     be the best way to judge the advisability of taking the 
     drastic step of eliminating the WWS at a time when it may be 
     particularly useful for understanding current macroeconomic 
     phenomena.
       Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.
           Sincerely,

                                              Joseph S. Tracy,

                                      Executive Vice President and
                                             Director of Research.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would require the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics to continue collecting data on women workers in the 
current employment statistic survey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2246), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 23733]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. 
     Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 2244.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 the production and mailing of a corrected 
                       Medicare and You handbook)

       On page 156, line 2, strike ``Funds.'' and insert ``Funds: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary, by not later than 
     January 1, 2006, shall produce and mail a corrected version 
     of the annual notice required under section 1804(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-2(a)) to each 
     beneficiary described in the second sentence of such section, 
     together with an explanation of the error in the previous 
     annual notice that was mailed to such beneficiaries.''.


                           Amendment No. 2244

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and we call up amendment 2244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is currently pending.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment requires the Secretary to 
issue a new ``Medicare & You'' handbook. There are many errors in the 
handbook. The book should be reissued and mailed out again. This has 
been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2244) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. SPECTER. With respect to tomorrow's schedule, we will have a 
cloture vote anticipated to be at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                  Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S.1042

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask consent that at a time determined by 
the majority leader, with concurrence of the Democratic leader, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization 
bill, and it be considered under the following limitations: All of the 
pending amendments be withdrawn and the bill be considered as follows: 
the only first-degree amendments in order be up to 12 amendments to be 
offered by each of the two leaders or their designees; provided further 
that the amendments be within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Armed Services or relevant to the underlying bill; further, that these 
amendments be subject to second degrees which are to be relevant to the 
amendment to which they are offered; provided further that first-degree 
amendments be limited to 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual 
form, with any second degrees limited to 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided; provided further that the only other amendments in order other 
than the above-listed amendments be those managers' amendments which 
have been cleared by both managers of the bill.
  I further ask that there be 2 hours of general debate on the bill 
divided between the two managers. Finally, I ask consent that at the 
expiration of that time and the disposition of the above amendments, 
the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on 
passage of the bill as amended, if amended, with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased we were finally able to reach 
a consent agreement on this very important bill that we have attempted 
to address more fully twice in the past, the Defense authorization 
bill. This will allow the Senate to return to the bill and complete it 
in a timely manner, in an orderly manner, with the amendments that are 
relevant to the issue at hand; that is,the issue of providing for our 
armed services. We will look for an appropriate window of time to 
resume the bill. I believe, under the guidance of the experienced 
chairman and ranking member, we should be able to complete that bill 
within 2 or possibly 3 days.
  I thank everyone for working so hard to bring us to this point, for 
their patience and cooperation, and allowing us to go forward with this 
agreement, and I look forward to completion of that Defense 
authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is not the time for protracted debate 
on why we are here, why we are not here. We are here. One of the most 
important bills this Congress must decide every year is this Defense 
authorization bill.
  The majority leader and the two managers of the bill, Senator Warner 
and Senator Levin, know--because I have sent them every letter I have 
sent to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Tennessee--I 
strongly support the Senate consideration of the Defense authorization 
bill since it was unanimously passed by the Committee on Armed Services 
last May. We have a lot to do around here. I suggest there is nothing 
more important than taking care of the U.S. military. This is not the 
way to handle the bill, I recognize that, but it is the only way left 
we can handle this bill.
  I hope the two managers can help work through these amendments. I 
know they are ready to accept scores of amendments once we get to this 
bill. I hope the 12 on each side are amendments that will be good for 
the Senate, good for this institution, and, of course, very good for 
the armed services of our country. If that is the case, it will be good 
for our country.
  As I have said, this is not a time for pointing fingers. I am glad we 
are here even though that is not how I wanted to get here.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished two 
leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, we assure our two 
leaders we will deal with this expeditiously, with the cooperation of 
the Senate. I am certain we can have an armed services bill this year. 
This is a nation at war. We have no alternative.
  I yield the floor.


             Amendments Nos. 2248, 2250, and 2249, en bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we have several amendments to consider 
this evening. I will be very brief.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up three amendments, to talk about 
them in 5 minutes, and then to set a vote whenever it is within the 
purview of the managers: amendment Nos. 2248, 2250, and 2249.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 2248, 2250, and 2249.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2248

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Federal TRIO programs for 
            students affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita)

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

     SEC. __. FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS FOR HURRICANE AFFECTED 
                   STUDENTS.

       (a) Additional Amounts for Federal TRIO Programs.--In 
     addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act, 
     there are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 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.) for students affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita in 
     their respective institution of higher education.
       (b) Offset From Departmental Management Funds.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, amounts made 
     available under this Act for the administration and related 
     expenses for the departmental management for the Department 
     of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
     the Department of Education, shall be reduced, on a pro rata 
     basis, by $5,000,000.

[[Page 23734]]




                           amendment no. 2250

 (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) with 
     preference given to areas at greater risk of the West Nile 
     Virus because of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.


                           amendment no. 2249

   (Purpose: To require that any additional community health center 
funding be directed, in part, to centers in areas affected by Hurricane 
                       Katrina or Hurricane Rita)

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

     SEC. __. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS IN HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA OR HURRICANE RITA AFFECTED AREAS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the amount 
     appropriated under this Act for community health centers is 
     more than the amount appropriated for such centers for fiscal 
     year 2005, then--
       (1) 5 percent of such excess amount shall be directed to 
     establishing or expanding community health centers in areas 
     affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita; and
       (2) 5 percent of such excess amount shall be directed to 
     community health centers serving patients affected by 
     Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first of all, all three of these 
amendments are small in number but important in scope. Each seeks to 
take money that is already appropriated in the underlying bill and 
direct and target it, if you will, to the gulf coast area for some 
extraordinary needs. We have been struggling to find a way to provide 
for the unprecedented natural disaster that has occurred in the Rita-
Katrina areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
  There are many important programs in this bill that seek to send 
important aid around the Nation. There are three programs I have chosen 
to bring to the attention of the Senate tonight in very small amounts 
that could provide great help to the people of our region.
  One is the TRIO Program, which has been extremely successful in 
helping first-generation college students to pursue a degree. Of 
course, we know 80 percent of all jobs in the future will require some 
college. This TRIO Program is federally funded but locally led and has 
been extremely effective, with great support from Republicans and 
Democrats, the House and the Senate.
  The purpose of my amendment is to target $5 million of the money in 
here toward Katrina-related areas--Katrina-Rita--to make sure our 
universities and the thousands of students who have been displaced can 
have a little extra funding to help them at this time.
  The second amendment has to do with community health centers that are 
going to see, because of the good work of the ranking member and the 
chairman, an increase of $105 million in a competitive grant--
additional money for community health centers. One of these amendments 
takes just 10 percent of the increase of $105 million and directs it to 
Katrina-Rita areas, as we have to stand up a new health care system for 
the region. It would be given out by the Department. Again, it is 
another way to not add money but to just direct and target money that 
we are already spending--not taking it away from anyone but targeting 
some of the increase to our region.
  Finally, the third amendment would do the same thing for mosquito 
abatement. We are hopeful we will not get the avian flu that seems 
headed our way. For those in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, we 
worry about the disease that can be spread--West Nile--by mosquitos. 
Our health officials say the mosquito populations, because of the 
extraordinary flooding, have increased by 800 percent. Since October 
18, there have been 81 cases and 6 fatalities. Again, my amendment 
takes money that is already designated and sends $5 million of the $40 
million to the Katrina-Rita areas.
  I ask my colleagues to look favorably on these three amendments. 
Again, they are small amounts of money, but they could go a long way. 
They do not add money to the deficit. They do not take money away from 
anyone else because we are taking a portion of the increase. That 
portion is based on our population in the region.
  It is quite reasonable. I hope the managers will accept them. If not, 
we can have a vote sometime tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 2265, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I call up amendment 2265, and I send a modification to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] and Mr. Feingold, 
     propose an amendment numbered 2265, as modified.

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

  (Purpose: To fund grants for innovative programs to address dental 
                            workforce needs)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. From amounts appropriated to the Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, $5,000,000 shall be available to 
     fund grants for innovative programs to address dental 
     workforce needs under section 340G of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 246g).

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 3 years ago, the Senate enacted and the 
President signed into law the Dental Health Improvement Act as part of 
the health care safety net amendments of 2002. This was legislation 
authored by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and myself which 
authorized grants to States to help them develop innovative dental 
workforce development programs tailored to their specific needs.
  I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from Wisconsin 
to provide $5 million for this important program next year to help 
States improve access to oral health care by strengthening the dental 
workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.
  While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 
50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all 
sectors of our population. Particularly, our low-income families have 
been left out. An estimated 25 million Americans live in areas lacking 
in adequate dental services. Astoundingly, as many as 11 percent of our 
Nation's rural population has never been to a dentist.
  The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce is 
growing older. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will retire 
in the next decade. The number of dental graduates by 2015 will not be 
enough to replace these retirees. As a consequence, many States, 
particularly rural States like mine, are facing a serious shortage of 
dentists. In Maine, there is one general practice dentist for every 
2,300 people in the Portland area. But the numbers drop off 
dramatically in other parts of our State. In Aroostook County, for 
example, which is where I am from, there is only 1 dentist for every 
5,500 people. And of the 23 practicing dentists in Aroostook County, 
only 6 are taking on new patients. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay 
is the most prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer 
than 10 specialists in pediatric dentistry, and virtually all of them 
are located in the southern part of the State.
  The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act authorized a new 
State grant program administered by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration that is designed to improve access to oral health 
services in rural or underserved areas.
  Now, States could use these grants for a variety of programs. For 
example, they might use the grant for loan forgiveness or repayment 
programs for

[[Page 23735]]

dentists practicing in underserved areas. They could also use the grant 
funds to establish or expand community- or school-based dental clinics 
or to set up mobile or portable dental facilities.
  To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could 
use the funds for placement and support of dental students, residents, 
and advanced dentistry trainees. Or they could use the grants for 
continuing education, for distance-based education, and practice 
support through teledentistry.
  Our amendment is supported by the American Dental Association, the 
American Dental Education Association, the American Dental Hygienists 
Association, and other members of the Dental Access Coalition. It is 
also fully offset.
  There is clearly a need to make our oral health care services more 
accessible in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.
  Again, I end my remarks with what I think is a troubling and 
astonishing statistic; and that is, that 11 percent of rural Americans 
have never been to the dentist. This is a serious public health 
challenge, and this modest investment could make a real difference.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Feingold and me in 
supporting this amendment.
  I thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for working so 
closely with us to identify an appropriate offset.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2285

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2285 be called up and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2285.

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

   (Purpose: To insert provisions related to an investigation by the 
                           Inspector General)

       At the end of title II (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) There are appropriated $3,000,000 to the 
     Office of Inspector General to conduct a investigation of the 
     management of the Food and Drug Administration to pursue 
     examples of mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency 
     in the Department.
       (b) The investigation under subsection (a) shall not 
     include any investigation of a former Commissioner of Food 
     and Drugs, but shall include investigation of the actions by 
     the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the over-
     the-counter application for the drug Plan B.
       (c) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Inspector General shall complete the 
     investigation under this section and submit a report to the 
     Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
     and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate on the findings of such investigation.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
     amounts made available under this Act for the Office of the 
     Secretary shall be reduced by $3,000,000 and transferred to 
     the Office of Inspector General to conduct the investigation 
     under this section.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to offer an amendment 
that really need not be offered. In fact, each time I come to the floor 
of the Senate to talk about Plan B and the FDA, I hope it will be the 
last time. I continue to hope that the FDA or Health and Human Services 
will do the right thing and finally put science and safety and efficacy 
over politics. Unfortunately, over the course of the past several 
years, as you can see by the timeline shown behind me, I, along with 
millions of Americans, have been disappointed time and time again.
  I have always supported a strong and independent Food and Drug 
Administration. It is the only way in which the FDA can truly operate 
effectively and with the confidence of American consumers and health 
care providers. Americans have to have faith that when they walk into 
their local grocery store or their local pharmacy, the products they 
purchase are safe, effective, and that their approval has been based on 
sound science.
  They have to be assured that those decisions were not based on 
political pressure or pandering to interest groups. That is why the 
application process for Plan B emergency contraceptives has been so 
troubling to me and many others.
  Back in December of 2003, almost 2 years ago, the FDA's own 
scientific advisory board overwhelmingly recommended approval of Plan 
B's over-the-counter application by a vote of 23 to 4. But the FDA has 
not adhered to its own guidelines for drug approval and continues to 
this day, after all of these actions, to drag its feet.
  In fact, Alastair Wood, who is a member of the advisory panel, said:

       What's disturbing is that the science was overwhelming 
     here, and the FDA is supposed to make decisions based on 
     science.

  It is obvious to me and to many of my colleagues--and to millions of 
American women and men--that something other than science is going on 
at the FDA. It is far past time to get to the bottom of it. That is why 
tonight I am offering this amendment which will shift $3 million from 
the Office of the Secretary to the Office of the Inspector General at 
the Department of Health and Human Services. This funding will help the 
inspector general's office to investigate potential mismanagement at 
the FDA. This investigation will be separate from ongoing 
investigations of the former Commissioner, Lester Crawford, and it will 
include, but not be limited to, over-the-counter application for Plan 
B.
  Let me be clear: The men and women of the FDA work very hard. They 
adhere to the principles of science. They do a job that all Americans 
can be proud of. But their hard work is being undermined and it is 
overshadowed by the Agency's own leadership. If the leadership at the 
FDA and HHS don't take steps to restore the confidence of American 
consumers in the FDA's ability to promote safe and effective 
treatments, then Congress has a duty to step in. The health and well-
being of the American people should not blow with the political winds. 
Caring for the people we represent is an American issue, and part of 
that goal is reassuring that Americans have access to safe, effective 
medicines in a timely fashion.
  Time and time again, I, along with my colleague, Senator Clinton of 
New York, and others, have asked for a decision on Plan B. We have not 
dictated that we want a yes. We have not dictated that we want a no. We 
have simply said: We want a decision. This continued foot dragging--day 
after day, month after month, year after year--is unusual, unwarranted, 
and unprofessional. This continued delay goes against everything the 
FDA's own advisory panel found nearly 2 years ago: that Plan B is safe 
and it is effective and should be available over the counter. There is 
no credible scientific reason to continue to deny increased access to 
this safe health care option, but there is even less reason to deny an 
answer.
  This is not the last word on this issue. The problem with politics 
subverting the FDA's adherence to science and its integrity is so 
profound and so urgent, I intend to use every tool available to me as a 
Senator to make sure that this discussion about our priorities and our 
future is not lost.
  I ask my colleagues to do what we tell the FDA to do, which is to 
make decisions based on science and safety and efficacy true, and we 
don't turn the gold standard we have at the FDA into a mockery. It 
would be a disservice to every citizen, every American who walks into a 
drugstore and counts on the fact that when they buy a drug over the 
counter or a prescription, they know it is safe and effective.

[[Page 23736]]

  This is an urgent matter. That is why I am on the floor to offer my 
amendment, which will simply shift money from the Office of the 
Secretary to the Office of the Inspector General, so we can get to the 
bottom of it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2193, as Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on my 
amendment No. 2193 and would like to speak in support of that.
  I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Crapo, 
Brownback, Talent, Chafee, and Burns, in support of an amendment that 
is pending at the desk that would provide funding to the Office for 
Advancement of Telehealth, located under the Health Resources and 
Services Administration.
  Telehealth is not only an important component of health care in rural 
States like South Dakota; it is important to patients and health care 
providers throughout the United States.
  Telehealth is an innovation that promises greater access and higher 
quality health care with reduced costs. Telehealth uses 
telecommunications and information technologies to provide health care 
services at a distance. These communications and information 
technologies provide people access to quality health care in 
underserved areas.
  Three years ago, Congress enacted a bill called the Health Care 
Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. This legislation was approved 
unanimously in the Senate and passed the House with only five 
dissenting votes. Section 211 of the bill provided the authority for 
Congress to fund at least $60 million for certain telehealth 
activities.
  Sadly, 3 years have passed and Congress has yet to appropriate a dime 
for these important provisions. My amendment provides $10 million for 
the telehealth activities authorized by the 2002 Health Care Safety Net 
Amendments. This is one-sixth of the authorized amount and less than 
one percent--one-seventh of one percent--of the budget for HRSA.
  Specifically, my amendment would appropriate $2.5 million for the 
development of 10 telehealth resource centers. These centers, two of 
which are required to be located in a State with less than 1.5 million 
people, would help assist the telehealth community in breaking down 
barriers to the adoption of telehealth.
  My amendment also provides $5 million for network grants and grants 
for telehomecare pilot projects. In order to be efficient and 
effective, telemedicine must have strong telecommunication networks.
  In addition to these grants, my amendment provides $2.5 million for 
grants to State health licensing boards to develop and implement 
cooperative policies that reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to 
telehealth.
  S. 1418, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act, introduced by Senator 
Enzi on July 18, specifically reauthorizes Section 330L(b) of the 
Public Health Service Act, which allows the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to make grants to State professional licensing boards to 
reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telemedicine. My amendment 
simply appropriates funds for this authorization.
  Last year, the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth within HRSA 
was funded at only $3.9 million. OAT was only able to make 14 
competitive grant awards. The budget for this lead agency for 
telehealth has been cut by \1/3\ over the past 5 years.
  Congress spoke when it passed with broad bipartisan support the 
Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. It is time to put our 
money where our mouth is and start to put some real resources in this 
area.
  Last year, we provided absolutely no funds for the telehealth safety 
net provisions. Surely we can find a way to provide $10 million in the 
entire budget for one of the most promising opportunities to help 
control the rising cost of health care.
  My amendment does not break the budget caps. It merely reallocates 
$10 million for telehealth services from the billions in administrative 
costs in this budget. On July 8, 2005 a letter was sent to Chairman 
Specter and Ranking Member Harkin on behalf of over 200 individuals and 
telehealth organizations across the country, supporting an increase in 
funding for telehealth.
  My amendment answers their call for funding and wider adoption of 
telehealth.
  Telehealth has the promise of delivering quality, efficient health 
care to individuals in remote, isolated or even devastated areas. 
Telehealth applications have been proven effective in extending 
medicine's reach to underserved areas across the Nation.
  The $10 million provided by my amendment, while modest, will have an 
impact on almost every health activity in this giant bill.
  Additionally, my amendment is fully offset by reducing the 
departmental management accounts of the Department of Labor, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Education pro rata by .0065 percent. The Congressional Budget Office 
has declared this amendment as budget neutral.
  This is a very small investment in the future of our Nation's health 
care system. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Of all the things we will debate in this particular bill about how to 
lower health care costs, how to make quality health care more available 
to more people, the promise of telehealth can do more to meet that 
critical objection than almost anything else. This is taking state-of-
the-art technology and thinking, state-of-the-art information systems 
and applying them in a way that can meet health care needs across the 
country, not just in rural areas, but also in urban ones. It is high 
time we took advantage of this incredible asset and put it to work for 
health care needs of Americans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
letter from the American Hospital Association in support of my 
amendment. Some examples of the organizations that support my amendment 
are the following: Home Care Technology Association of America; Center 
for Telemedicine Law; Federation of State Medical Boards, Consumer 
Health Access Through Technology Coalition; American Telemedicine 
Association; National Rural Health Association; Northland Healthcare 
Alliance; University of Missouri Health Care; Northcentral Montana 
Healthcare Alliance; Avera McKennan Telehealth Network; Avera St. 
Luke's; Rapid City Regional Hospital Home Care Department; Horizon 
Health Care, Inc.; Sioux Valley Telehealth; Sioux Valley Visiting 
Nurses; South Dakota Board of Nursing.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                American Hospital Association,

                                                 October 25, 2005.
     Hon. John Thune,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thune: The American Hospital Association, on 
     behalf of our 4,800 member hospitals, health systems and 
     other health care organizations, and our 33,000 individual 
     members, is pleased to support your amendment to the fiscal 
     year (FY) 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education appropriations bill adding $10 million for 
     telehealth activities authorized by the Health Care Safety 
     Net Amendments of 2002. We applaud your effort to fund these 
     activities, which can play a vital role in increasing access 
     to health care services for underserved rural and urban 
     populations.
       Congress overwhelmingly passed the Health Care Safety Net 
     Amendments, and in doing so authorized more than $80 million 
     in grants to help providers overcome technical, legal, 
     regulatory, and service delivery barriers to implementing 
     telehealth programs. Several urban and rural hospitals would 
     be among those who would benefit from these grant programs, 
     which, unfortunately, have never received funding.
       Your amendment will provide a vital downpayment toward the 
     resources needed to implement telehealth programs. These 
     programs have the potential to expand access to

[[Page 23737]]

     health care services, improve training of health care 
     providers, and expand the quality of available health 
     information. As a result, hospitals will be better able to 
     overcome many of the barriers to telehealth technology 
     adoption and work to further improve the safety net for 
     underserved populations, as envisioned by the Health Care 
     Safety Net Amendments.
       We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to 
     ensure passage of this important amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Rick Pollack,

                                         Executive Vice President.


                Amendment No. 2193, as Further Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to 
the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC. __. TELEHEALTH.

       (a) Appropriation.--Of the amounts appropriated to the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration, $10,000,000 
     shall be to carry out programs and activities under the 
     Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     251) and the amendments made by such Act, and for other 
     telehealth programs under section 330I of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-14), of which--
       (1) $2,500,000 shall be for not less than 10 telehealth 
     resource centers that provide assistance with respect to 
     technical, legal, and regulatory service delivery or other 
     related barriers to the deployment of telehealth 
     technologies, of which not less than 2 centers shall be 
     located in a rural State with a population of less than 
     1,500,000 individuals;
       (2) $5,000,000 shall be for network grants and 
     demonstration or pilot projects for telehomecare; and
       (3) $2,500,000 shall be for grants to carry out programs 
     under which health licensing boards or various States 
     cooperate to develop and implement policies that will reduce 
     statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.
       (b) Offset.--On page 137, line 9 strike $480,751,000 and 
     insert $470,751,000.

  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment No. 2300.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, and Mr. Allen, proposes an amendment numbered 2300.

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

    (Purpose: To prohibit funding for the support, development, or 
   distribution of the Department of Education's e-Language Learning 
                             System (ELLS))

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

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION REGARDING THE E-LANGUAGE LEARNING 
                   SYSTEM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act shall be used to 
     support, develop, or distribute the Department of Education's 
     e-Language Learning System (ELLS).

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


                           amendment no. 2213

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
in the failure of this body to approve an amendment offered yesterday 
by Senator Kennedy to increase the financial support provided to 
students though the Pell Grant program.
  Pell Grants represent by far the largest source Federal grant aid for 
postsecondary education and provide necessary financial support for 
many students. My support of this amendment echoes the first piece of 
legislation I introduced in the Senate and a promise I made during my 
Senate campaign. That promise, and that legislation, was the Higher 
Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005, S.697--
the HOPE Act. My statement today expresses my continuing efforts on 
behalf of students who need our support to continue their education.
  Many students know that realizing their dreams depends on a college 
diploma, and, for many, the chance to earn that diploma is dependent on 
the Pell Grant program. As students dream of that diploma, they also 
worry about how to pay for it. The statistics confirm their worries. 
College tuition is rising almost 1 percent a year, and over the last 25 
years, it's gone up more than fivefold. Because of these rising prices, 
over 200,000 students were priced out of college altogether just last 
year.
  Today, need-based Pell Grants are used by 5.3 million undergraduate 
students, and 85 percent of these grants go to families earning less 
than $40,000. Over too long of a period, the amount of these awards has 
not kept up with the spiraling price of tuition or even with the rate 
of inflation. As a result, the current $4,050 Pell Grant maximum is 
insufficient.
  This amendment would have raised that amount to $4,250, and 
represented one step toward making college more affordable for those 
students who have worked hard to keep alive their hope of earning a 
college diploma. Even in this time of shared sacrifice, I believe we 
must continue to support those hopes and the students who deserve a 
chance to turn them into reality. This remains a priority for me. 
Despite yesterday's vote, I will continue to work to increase support 
for our students though the Pell Grant Program.


                                 LIHEAP

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, due to skyrocketing home 
energy prices, millions of low-income households are facing an imminent 
heating emergency this winter. The Department of Energy projects the 
average family to incur heating costs of $1,099 or more this winter; an 
increase of 30-48 percent over last year's heating bills.
  This is a concern, as volatile and record-high energy costs will 
inevitably lead to an increase in the number of missed mortgage 
payments and foreclosures.
  LIHEAP is a very positive, effective partnership between the Federal 
Government, State governments and the private sector.
  Leveraging private dollars to supplement Federal dollars, LIHEAP has 
proven that successful relationships can exist between the government, 
businesses, gas and electric utilities and community-based social 
service organizations.
  While States, local governments and the private sector have 
demonstrated their capacity to develop programs to address some energy 
assistance needs, collectively these programs cannot meet the demand 
for LIHEAP assistance. The need for energy assistance continues. 
However, we must ensure that we are addressing this assistance in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  That is why, along with Senator Carper, I have filed an amendment to 
provide an offset for funding for LIHEAP.
  Specifically, my amendment increases the amount in the LIHEAP program 
by $1.6 billion.
  Because of the severe budget deficits this country is facing today, I 
feel like wherever practical, we need to consider offsets.
  That is why my amendment offsets this increase by using 3 changes in 
tax policy that have passed the Senate on numerous occasions--most 
recently as part of the Highway bill this past May. Unfortunately, 
these offsets were stripped in conference, which is why they are once 
again available for our use here to pay for additional funding for 
LIHEAP.
  I am very hopeful my amendment will clear all necessary procedural 
hurdles to be considered on the Labor HHS appropriations bill. I will 
continue to encourage my colleagues to support a responsible offset for 
LIHEAP funding now and in the future. This is a critical program, but 
we are also facing a critical time with our budget and increased 
deficit spending--both are serious issues that require serious 
solutions.


                           Amendment No. 2212

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I would like to speak on an amendment to 
H.R. 3010 that I was proud to introduce with

[[Page 23738]]

the support of Senator Durbin. This amendment increases funding for a 
program in the Department of Education that has proven success in 
improving student behavior and school climate in thousands of schools 
across the country: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support.
  A problem I hear about from teachers all the time is that disruptive 
students slow down the rest of the class, and can turn our schools into 
places unworthy of our most precious resource--our children. To help 
teachers in doing their important work of educating our children, I 
propose that we expand an innovative program, already being used in 
states such as Illinois, that teaches students about positive behavior 
and expects the adults in our schools to set the same high standards 
for behavior as they do for achievement.
  This system is called Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. 
PBIS is designed to deal with discipline problems in a research-based, 
experimentally-verified way, based on one simple premise: stop problem 
behavior before it starts. The problem might be a general lack of 
discipline, increasing school violence, or a loss of instructional time 
because of behavioral issues. PBIS has shown that schools benefit from 
unified and efficient interventions that specifically teach, model, and 
reward good behavior, while providing consequences for problem 
behavior.
  Kids are smart. When a school has clear and effective expectations, 
agreed to by the adults in the school, they respond positively. When 
the expectations are disputed and ineffective, kids exploit the 
situation.
  PBIS shows positive results. At one school in Illinois, when PBIS was 
implemented, suspensions decreased 85 percent, there was more time for 
teaching, and student test scores increased. It makes sense: with fewer 
disruptions, students can stay on task more, and so learn more. 
Successes such as these have been replicated in thousands of schools 
across the country.
  Today, I am proposing that we expand our support for this technical 
assistance program in the Office of Special Education Programs at the 
Department of Education. PBIS has proven itself, and has already been 
adopted by many schools. Let's give all our children the benefit of 
high expectations and supports for good behavior. Let's give all our 
schools the opportunity to adopt this system. Let's support our kids by 
supporting PBIS.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________