[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19671-19687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6061, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over 
     the international land and maritime borders of the United 
     States.

  Pending:

       Frist amendment No. 5036, to establish military 
     commissions.
       Frist amendment No. 5037 (to Amendment No. 5036), to 
     establish the effective date.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, with instructions to report back forthwith, with 
     an amendment.
       Frist amendment No. 5038 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit H.R. 6061 to the Committee on the Judiciary), to 
     establish military commissions.
       Frist amendment No. 5039 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit H.R. 6061 to the Committee on the Judiciary), to 
     establish the effective date.
       Frist amendment No. 5040 (to Amendment No. 5039), to amend 
     the effective date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I have 2 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Commending Senator Alexander

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note that the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee, Senator Lamar Alexander, is in the Chamber. I am sure 
he has already spoken this afternoon, but I was not present because I 
was attending another meeting.
  Senator, if you do not feel good this afternoon, I don't know what we 
are going to do in the Senate in terms of qualifying you to be happy. I 
don't know what else we will do to make you happier than what we are 
going to do tonight or during the next week or so on this competiveness 
measure.
  Senator Alexander came to the Senate, and before his first term has 
expired he has taken the lead, without anyone wanting to run around and 
try to figure out who should get the lead, on this mammoth piece of 
legislation. It falls automatically that Lamar Alexander deserves the 
credit for getting it started. It was his idea. He recruited the junior 
Senator from New Mexico.
  They asked me, as members of my committee, if they could take the 
proposition of what we could do to better America's position in a 
competitive world, if they could take that to the Academy of Sciences 
to get a report so we could adopt a report during this calendar year.
  Believe it or not, they did that. As a result, 71 Senators 
cosponsored the legislation. As a result, we will have introduced a 
bill today that almost takes care of every recommendation that 
committee made to the Congress. We are having it introduced officially 
by the leadership this evening. It will be held and passed by this 
Senate before we adjourn this year.
  Imagine that, for a Senator who has just come to the Senate. If he 
cannot say and put up whatever he puts up, matters of high esteem, 
completed by him, something that he can be proud of, that is this 
legislation.
  There will be a day when it passes that he can be happier, but he 
will be overjoyed today when he sits down and thinks for a moment of 
what is accomplished for America to get moving to develop our brain 
power where we could, where we can, as we can, and as we should, 
without any doubt.
  I compliment the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He 
is overly generous. I learned as a staff aide in the Senate that if an 
idea has many fathers and many mothers, it has a much better chance of 
moving along than if it just has one.
  Senator Domenici is being overly modest about his own role. This 
would not have gotten to first base--by ``this,'' I mean the 
competitiveness legislation--had not Senator Domenici created the 
environment in which it could succeed, and if he and Senator Bingaman 
had not had such a good partnership and been able to work together, set 
a good example and have been willing to step back and allow other good 
ideas that were progressing through the Commerce Committee and the HELP 
Committee.
  It has been a remarkable exercise in restraint for many distinguished 
Senators, some among the most senior Members of the Senate, and at a 
time when politics is at a pretty high level.
  I thank the Senator for what he said. It means a lot to me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a summary of the National Competitiveness Investment Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Summary of the National Competitiveness Investment Act

       The National Competitiveness Investment Act is a bipartisan 
     legislative response to recommendations contained in the 
     National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' 
     report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate 
     America'' report. Several sections of the bill are derived 
     from proposals contained in the ``American Innovation and 
     Competitiveness Act of 2006'' (S. 2802), approved by the 
     Senate Commerce Committee 21-0, and the ``Protecting 
     America's Competitive Edge Through Energy Act of 2006'' (S. 
     2197) approved unanimously by the Senate Energy Committee. 
     Accordingly, the National Competitiveness Investment Act 
     focuses on three primary areas of importance to maintaining 
     and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 
     (1) increasing research investment, (2) strengthening 
     educational opportunities in science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate 
     school, and (3) developing an innovation infrastructure. More 
     specifically, the National Competitiveness Investment Act 
     would:
     Increase research investment by:
       Doubling funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
     from approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $11.2 
     billion in fiscal year 2011.
       Setting the Department of Energy's Office of Science on 
     track to double in funding over 10 years, increasing from 
     $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in 
     fiscal year 2011.
       Establishing the Innovation Acceleration Research Program 
     to direct Federal agencies funding research in science and 
     technology to set as a goal dedicating approximately 8 
     percent of their Research and Development (R&D) budgets 
     toward high-risk frontier research.
       Authorizing the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology (NIST) from approximately $640 million in fiscal 
     year 2007 to approximately $937 million in fiscal year 2011 
     and requiring NIST to set aside no less than 8 percent of its 
     annual funding for high-risk, high-reward innovation 
     acceleration research.
       Directing NASA to increase funding for basic research and 
     fully participate in interagency activities to foster 
     competitiveness and innovation, using the full extent of 
     existing budget authority.
       Coordinating ocean and atmospheric research and education 
     at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
     other agencies to promote U.S. leadership in these important 
     fields.
     Strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, 
         engineering, mathematics, and critical foreign languages 
         by:
       Authorizing competitive grants to States to promote better 
     alignment of elementary and secondary education with the 
     knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary 
     education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces, 
     and grants to support the establishment or improvement of 
     statewide P-16 education longitudinal data systems.
       Strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science 
     teachers by establishing training and education programs at 
     summer

[[Page 19672]]

     institutes hosted at the National Laboratories and by 
     increasing support for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st 
     Century program at NSF.
       Expanding the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at 
     NSF to recruit and train individuals to become math and 
     science teachers in high-need local educational agencies.
       Assisting States in establishing or expanding statewide 
     specialty schools in math and science that students from 
     across the State would be eligible to attend and providing 
     expert assistance in teaching from National Laboratories' 
     staff at those schools.
       Facilitating the expansion of Advanced Placement (AP) and 
     International Baccalaureate (IB) programs by increasing the 
     number of teachers prepared to teach AP/IB and pre-AP/IB 
     math, science, and foreign language courses in high need 
     schools, thereby increasing the number of courses available 
     and students who take and pass AP and IB exams.
       Developing and implementing programs for bachelor's degrees 
     in math, science, engineering, and critical foreign languages 
     with concurrent teaching credentials and part-time master's 
     in education programs for math, science, and critical foreign 
     language teachers to enhance both content knowledge and 
     teaching skills.
       Creating partnerships between National Laboratories and 
     local high-need high schools to establish centers of 
     excellence in math and science education.
       Expanding existing NSF graduate research fellowship and 
     traineeship programs, requiring NSF to work with institutions 
     of higher education to facilitate the development of 
     professional science master's degree programs, and expanding 
     NSF's science, mathematics, engineering and technology talent 
     program.
       Providing Math Now grants to improve math instruction in 
     the elementary and middle grades and provide targeted help to 
     struggling students so that all students can master grade-
     level mathematics standards.
       Expanding programs to increase the number of students from 
     elementary school through postsecondary education who study 
     critical foreign languages and become proficient.
     Develop an innovation infrastructure by:
       Establishing a President's Council on Innovation and 
     Competitiveness to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote 
     innovation and competitiveness in the public and private 
     sectors.
       Requiring the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     study to identify forms of risk that create barriers to 
     innovation.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, although most cannot hear it right now, 
I want to say how much all in the Senate appreciate the extra hours and 
the skill with which the staffs met and worked through August and over 
the last several weeks to bring the three committees together. Senator 
Ensign played a major role, and his staff did. There were many staffs. 
This was not a bill that Republicans wrote and Democrats looked at or 
vice versa. We did it together.


                       Future of Higher Education

  Mr. President, today the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, 
made an important speech at the National Press Club. In her remarks, 
she discussed the report from her Commission on the Future of Higher 
Education. This commission was chaired by Charles Miller, who was the 
former chairman of the board of regents of the University of Texas 
system and a leader in education reform at all levels.
  I am very impressed with Secretary Spellings. I know her job. I once 
had it. I do not think we have had a more effective Secretary of 
Education. I am very impressed with Mr. Miller. I know about his work 
in Texas as part of a group of business leaders over the last 20 years 
who have led the country in terms of helping to set accountability 
standards in elementary and secondary education.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to read Secretary Spellings' 
speech from today.
  Secretary Spellings is the first U.S. Secretary of Education to 
assume the role of lead adviser to coordinate all of higher education. 
I am glad she is doing that because almost every Department of the 
Federal Government has something to do with higher education. 
Currently, no one is the lead person for that. It ought to be the 
Secretary of Education. She stepped up to do it. I applaud her, and I 
applaud President Bush for asking her to do that.
  The Secretary's recommendations in her speech today are sensible and 
respect the prerogative of Congress to make major changes in higher 
education policy. In plain English, she laid out some very good 
recommendations, but she recognized that is one branch of Government, 
we are the Article I branch of Government, and if there are major 
changes in policy, we will make them here, and then it is their job to 
implement it.
  But among the strong recommendations in her report are the following: 
Simplify the financial aid system. We are already doing that, having 
worked with the Secretary on a commission, and it is included in the 
higher education bill that has not passed. That is a very good 
recommendation. Another recommendation is expanding more access to more 
students. The initial cost estimates of her commission's report suggest 
its recommendations might cost $9 billion or $10 billion more in terms 
of Pell grants. That is a lot of money, but it is an important goal.
  Another recommendation is increased competitiveness. The Secretary's 
commission spent quite a bit of time urging the Congress and the 
country to adopt the recommendations of the Augustine commission, to 
adopt the recommendations of the Council on Competitiveness, and to 
adopt the President's recommendations on competitiveness. That was a 
help in getting us come to the point in this body where tonight Senator 
Frist and Senator Reid will introduce the National Competitiveness 
Investment Act.
  The Secretary's committee recommended less regulation for higher 
education, which is something I want to talk a little bit more about in 
a moment. I thoroughly agree with that. And, of course, another 
recommendation is to find ways to reduce costs, which every family who 
has a student headed toward higher education thinks about. In our own 
family, where we have two new grandchildren who are less than 1 year of 
age, the parents--our children--are already thinking about it: How in 
the world are we going to pay for college out of our budgets in 18 
years? That is at the top of almost everyone's concern.
  I want to wave one bright, yellow flag, a cautionary flag, at one 
troubling aspect of the report of the Secretary's commission. That is 
best captured by the following sentence on page 13 of the commission's 
report, and I quote: ``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary 
education system has no comprehensive strategy, particularly for 
undergraduate programs, to provide either adequate internal 
accountability systems or effective public information.''
  ``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary education system has no 
comprehensive strategy. . . .'' The commission apparently believes that 
is a weakness. I believe that is a strength. I believe that is the 
greatest strength of our higher education system. The key to the 
quality of the American higher education system is that it is not one 
system, but that it is a marketplace of over 6,000 autonomous systems, 
independent systems.
  These autonomous or independent institutions--such as the University 
of Tennessee, or Fisk University, or the Nashville Auto Diesel College, 
or Yeshiva University--these institutions are regulated primarily by 
competition--competition for students, for faculty, and for research 
dollars--and by consumer choice, which is fueled by generous Federal 
dollars that follow more than one-half of American college students to 
the institutions of their choice.
  There is, in addition, a system of independent accreditation to help 
regulate these independent and autonomous institutions. To be sure, 
there is still plenty of the traditional kind of command-and-control 
Government regulation. That is very hard to get away from. Every State 
has a regulatory body, such as the Tennessee Higher Education 
Commission. And each of the 6,000 institutions I described that accepts 
students with Federal grants or loans must wade through over 7,000 
Federal regulations and notices. Those regulations exist today.
  The president of Stanford University has said that 7 cents of every 
tuition dollar is spent on compliance with Government regulations. The 
last thing

[[Page 19673]]

American higher education needs is a barrage of new Federal regulations 
requiring sending new data to Washington so someone here can try to 
figure out how to improve the Harvard Classics Department or the 
Nashville Auto Diesel College, both of whose students are eligible for 
Federal grants and loans.
  I believe the overregulation of higher education is the greatest 
deterrent to maintaining the quality of American higher education, and 
that autonomy, competition, and choice are the greatest incentives to 
excellence.
  I would, therefore, wish to lead the bandwagon or be on the bandwagon 
or push the bandwagon for more deregulation and to increase the 
autonomy of institutions of higher education and to preserve 
competition for research dollars and to give students the broadest 
array of education choices possible.
  Today in America we are doing that much better than any other country 
in the world. It is instructive that China and several European 
countries are deregulating their overly bureaucratized colleges and 
universities to try to catch up with the quality of ours. Of course, 
better information informs choices. And, of course, easier transfer 
policies between or among institutions could increase opportunities. 
Much is to be gained from research that will help institutions measure 
what value their classes add to students.
  But I do not want rules about transfer policies to diminish 
institutional autonomy. I do not want to see rules from Washington 
substitute for choice and competition as the principal regulators of 
the quality of our colleges and universities. I do not want to see even 
more tuition dollars go to pay for complying with costly Government 
regulations instead of to improving research and teaching in the 
classroom.
  By design or luck, the United States has created a magnificent 
marketplace environment that has resulted in, by far, the best higher 
education system in the world with remarkable access for students of 
all incomes. Our goal should be to improve that system, not to replace 
it with some command-and-control structure.
  Mr. President, I spoke before the Secretary's Commission on December 
9 of 2005, and I hope that those remarks were useful to the Commission.
  Mr. President, I want to comment that it is important to keep all of 
this discussion in some perspective. For example, there is a great 
concern about the rising cost of tuition. Secretary Spellings, in her 
remarks, says she wants to know why. Well, I know why it has gone up. 
It has gone up because State funding for higher education has been 
flat. It has actually gone down in many cases. As State funding of 
colleges and universities in Minnesota or Tennessee or South Dakota has 
gone down, colleges and universities have had to raise their tuition to 
have enough funds to maintain quality.
  Now, of course, there are plenty of ways to reduce costs, and we need 
to push that and encourage that. And the Secretary has many suggestions 
for that. She is right about that. But let's not overlook the fact that 
Federal spending for higher education has gone way up in the last 
several years, but State spending has been flat. If anyone wants to 
know why your tuition bills are higher, it is because your Governors 
and your legislatures have not been paying their fair share of what it 
takes to have a quality system of higher education in America. I talked 
about that in my testimony to the Commission, and I hope they listened 
to that. I hope the Administration and my colleagues understand that as 
well.
  For example, during the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004, State 
spending for Medicaid, which is where the Governors have to put most of 
their extra money, was up 36 percent; State spending for higher 
education was up barely 7 percent. As a result, tuition went up 38 
percent.
  There is another way I think about it. When I left the Governor's 
office nearly 20 years ago in Tennessee, Tennessee was spending 51 
cents of every State tax dollar on education and 16 cents on health 
care--mainly Medicaid. Today, instead of 51 cents on education, it is 
40 cents on education. And instead of 16 cents on health care, it is 26 
cents on health care. So if we do not get control of Medicaid spending 
here in this Chamber, and in the other Chamber, one of the unintended 
consequences will be that we will drive down the quality of higher 
education all across America because it will not have appropriate State 
funding and we will not create the new jobs that will help us compete 
with China and India.
  On the question of cost, two other things: One is, I ask unanimous 
consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record a short column by 
the president of the University of Maryland, William E. Kirwan, who 
discusses State funding that I have just talked about, and talks about 
what some colleges and universities are doing to reduce costs to help 
control the rise of tuition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2006]

                       Security Through Education

                         (By William E. Kirwan)

       A national security crisis is brewing, and if our country 
     doesn't take immediate action, it could be devastating for 
     the future of the United States.
       Consider these facts: Worldwide, the United States ranks 
     seventh in high-school completion rates and ninth in the 
     percentage of high-school graduates who enroll in college. Of 
     every 100 current eighth-graders in America, just 18 will 
     receive a college degree during the next 10 years. Based on 
     current participation and completion rates, the education 
     pipeline reveals alarming holes.
       The ``prescription'' for what ails education in this 
     country enjoys widespread consensus: Improve the performance 
     of our primary and secondary school students and provide 
     access to affordable, high-quality higher education to more 
     people. But how the country goes about filling this 
     prescription is a matter of significant debate.
       Clearly, a ``fix'' to the problem requires the combined and 
     coordinated efforts of various sectors. Central to the 
     effort, however, must be higher education. Higher education, 
     after all, prepares the teachers for the schools and sets the 
     standards for the degrees.
       What should higher education do to help plug the holes in 
     the education pipeline and enable our nation to address its 
     most pressing long-term national security issue: the 
     development of a robust and superbly educated workforce?
       First, higher education must become more engaged in 
     improving primary and secondary school performance. Colleges 
     and universities need to encourage more students to pursue 
     teaching careers and, in partnership with local school 
     districts, better prepare prospective teachers with the 
     content knowledge and pedagogy skills to succeed. 
     Universities must work more effectively with the K-12 sector 
     to ensure that student assessment in high school is closely 
     aligned with college entrance requirements, and that the 
     transition from high school to college is as seamless as 
     advancement from 11th to 12th grade.
       The best way to achieve such transformational changes is 
     through so-called statewide K-16 councils, which bring 
     educational leaders from all levels--superintendents, 
     principals, university presidents, deans--together with 
     business and community leaders on a regular basis to develop 
     reform agendas. Such an approach is working in Maryland and a 
     few other states.
       As a second means of plugging the holes, state governments 
     and higher education need to rethink the way they distribute 
     financial aid. During the past two decades there has been a 
     huge shift in the allocation of university-based aid, away 
     from students with demonstrated financial need and toward 
     high-ability students--often from upper-middle-class 
     families--whom universities seek in order to improve their 
     SAT profiles and ``vanity'' rankings. Too many low-income 
     students are either discouraged from attending college or 
     must work such long hours that their progress toward a degree 
     is unreasonably delayed or, worse, terminated.
       Fortunately, we have seen several ``enlightened'' 
     universities--including the University of North Carolina at 
     Chapel Hill, Harvard University, the University of Virginia 
     and the University of Maryland, College Park--introduce 
     programs to ensure that students from families at the lower 
     end of the economic ladder can graduate debt-free. At the 
     University System of Maryland, we recently adopted a policy 
     requiring that students from families with the lowest levels 
     of income graduate with the lowest debt. Planned expenditures 
     on institutional need-based aid by USM institutions have 
     increased more than 30 percent in the past year.
       Finally, higher education--especially public higher 
     education--must learn to operate with a more cost-conscious 
     budget model. Most others sectors have experienced 
     significant productivity gains through rigorous attention to 
     cost containment. Higher education can no longer afford to 
     ignore this strategy.

[[Page 19674]]

       Investment of state funds in higher education on a per-
     student basis is at a 25-year low. It has fallen from about 
     $7,100 in 2001 to just over $5,800 in 2005. As state 
     investment on a per-student basis has declined, the tuition 
     burden on students and their families has increased. In more 
     than a quarter of our states, tuition revenue is now greater 
     than the state's investment in its public colleges and 
     universities. In the coming decades, areas such as health 
     care, energy, and social services for an aging population 
     will require an ever greater proportion of available tax 
     dollars, accelerating the decline in public investment in 
     higher education.
       With that decline and without serious attention to cost 
     containment, colleges and universities will face two highly 
     undesirable alternatives: Accept more students at generally 
     affordable tuition levels and see quality erode or protect 
     quality by driving up tuition to levels that will be 
     prohibitive for low-income students.
       With the leadership of its Board of Regents, the University 
     System of Maryland has incorporated cost containment as a 
     formal part of its budget development process. These efforts 
     have reduced the ``bottom line'' by more than $40 million for 
     the system's 13 institutions during the past two years.
       Filling the holes in America's education pipeline must 
     become an urgent national priority. Nowhere is strong, 
     unified action more necessary than at our colleges and 
     universities. In partnership with other sectors, higher 
     education must be held accountable for embracing its role and 
     responsibilities to help improve K-12 education, increasing 
     its need-based financial aid substantially, and containing 
     costs more aggressively. If this doesn't happen, U.S. 
     leadership in the global economy will erode. Perhaps even 
     more threatening, our national ethos of social upward 
     mobility will be lost and we will devolve into a two-tier 
     society with a permanent underclass.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Sometimes we talk so much about the high cost of 
higher education where families hear that and think no one can go to 
college. I was president of the University of Tennessee. Tuition has 
gone up there for the reasons I just talked about. But today tuition at 
the University of Tennessee, which is one of the leading research 
institutions in this country--the manager of the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory--is $5,300 a year. It is $5,300 a year for tuition at the 
University of Tennessee. That is more than a lot of people have, but 
that is a very good bargain in today's marketplace.
  Volunteer State Community College, a public 2-year college--we 
encourage many people to go to community colleges, and then to our 
research universities--the tuition there is $2,383 a year.
  At Tennessee State University, in Nashville--an excellent 
institution--it is $4,300. It is the same story in many other States. 
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for North Carolina 
students--one of the best universities in the world--it is $4,500 a 
year. At the University of Phoenix--a different kind of university, but 
I had a distinguished scientist from the University of Texas tell me he 
looked at colleges of education all over America, and he thought the 
college of education at the University of Phoenix was as good as any to 
get your teacher's degrees--the comparable cost there for a year's 
tuition is about $6,669. They do things a little differently, but they 
provide an education and a service that many people are asking for, and 
I think that reflects the strength of our autonomous system of higher 
education.
  Now, if you want to go to Harvard, it is a lot more. If you want to 
go to Vanderbilt, it is a lot more. But the rest of that story is, if 
you show up at Harvard, or if you are admitted to Vanderbilt, and you 
do not have the money, they are going to do their best to help you pay 
for that.
  So I would hope as we talk about the cost of higher education that we 
recognize that many of the State institutions are reasonably priced, 
that the failure of State funding over the last several years is the 
principal culprit in the rising increase for public schools, and that 
we do not get carried away up here in Washington by thinking if we pass 
some more regulations here, somehow we are going to solve the problem, 
and we are going to make our higher education system better.
  My main point is this: Our greatest threat to quality higher 
education is overregulation. And our greatest incentive for it is 
deregulation, choice, and competition. Those are the incentives I would 
like to preserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Energy Independence for America

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as we wind down this legislative session in 
this last week, we have a lot of work to do on the agenda. We have 
bills dealing with port security, Homeland Security appropriations, 
Defense appropriations, and border security, which is the subject of 
discussion right now, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and those are 
probably going to be the things on which we can find consensus. We can 
add to that the issue of how we deal with detainees and continue to 
acquire high-value intelligence that will enable us to prevent future 
terrorist attacks. That legislation is coming down the pike, too. So we 
have a lot of things to vote on in the last few days before the 
election. And the assumption, of course, is that we will probably come 
back in after the election to wrap up some of the outstanding issues.
  There are other pieces of legislation that could be dealt with in 
this period--legislation that is without controversy, legislation that 
has been acted on by the House of Representatives and on which there is 
broad bipartisan agreement. It seems to me, at least at this point in 
the legislative session, that in order to get these bills through, it 
is going to take considerable agreement on both sides of the political 
aisle, with enough critical mass behind them to get them through.
  I have a bill that fits into that category. I have come to the Senate 
floor on a couple occasions to speak about it. It has been cleared by 
the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 to 9. Now it is sitting 
here, and Senator Salazar from Colorado and I have a substitute 
amendment to that, and as soon as it is picked up and the Senate passes 
it, it goes back to the House. The House has indicated that if we send 
it back, they will pass it. Then we can put it on the President's desk.
  The bill has to do with an issue that I think is on the minds of a 
lot of Americans--energy independence. It is a fairly straightforward 
issue. As I have explained previously on the floor, it has to do with 
closing the gap in the distribution system between the production of 
ethanol, the supply of renewable energy in this country, and the demand 
for it, the ultimate consumer of renewable energy.
  Right now, as you know, in the last year we passed an energy bill 
which required, for the first time ever, certain use of ethanol in this 
country--7.5 billion gallons by 2012. We are ramping up to that level 
now. In South Dakota, we already have 11 ethanol plants. We have three 
under construction, and in a short period we will be at a billion 
gallons a year--just in South Dakota. If you add to that the production 
underway in the Chair's home State of Minnesota and other States in the 
Midwest, there is a tremendous amount of ethanol that is in the 
pipeline. We have now a requirement that States around the country have 
to meet that 7.5 billion. I think we also have a ver robust demand for 
it because people in this country realize that if we are going to get 
serious about energy independence, we have to begin shifting away from 
some of the types of energy that we get from other places around the 
world. This is American energy, homegrown energy, renewable energy. We 
can raise it every year. We have a corn crop every year that can be 
converted into gallons of ethanol. We have other types of biomass 
materials that, raised in places such as the Midwest, are on the cusp 
in terms of the technology that will soon be available. One is switch 
grass. There is a research project at South Dakota State University 
right now looking at the probability in the near future of having the 
essential ingredients and processes that will enable us to make ethanol 
out of switch grass, something that is in abundance in the upper 
Midwest.

[[Page 19675]]

  This movement toward renewable energy, American-grown energy, is long 
overdue. People are demanding that we begin to move in that direction. 
We have a renewable fuel standard, as a result of the Energy bill that 
passed, which is a great success for moving in that direction. We have, 
as I said, a lot of production now that is currently on line, with 
additional plants under construction. What we are missing is the method 
by which that ethanol or other renewable fuels--bioenergy--is 
distributed to consumers in this country.
  Right now, we have about 180,000 filling stations in America, and 
only about 800 of those make available E85 or other alternative fuels. 
If you do the math on that, that is 1 filling station for every 10,000 
cars that are currently capable of using E85 or some other form of 
alternative energy. The Auto Alliance--and probably Members of this 
Chamber have seen them--has run ads in some of the publications in town 
saying that today there are 9\1/2\ million cars on the road that can 
use alternative sources of energy. ``Flex-fuel vehicles'' is how we 
refer to them in most cases. If you look at the 9\1/2\ million cars 
already on the road and those currently in production, the car 
manufacturers are gearing up to come up with more vehicles that can run 
on alternative sources of energy, primarily 85. We have an enormous 
opportunity out there, a great potential for increasing usage of 
ethanol and renewable fuels, thereby lessening our dependence upon 
foreign sources of energy, which has implications for our economy, for 
our national security, and foreign policy.
  This is a win-win. This is flatout a no-brainer for America and for 
the Senate. Yet we have a hold--a secret hold--by someone on the 
Democratic side that is preventing this bill from moving forward.
  Mr. President, I understand the traditions and the rules of the 
Senate allow for that sort of thing to happen, but whoever it is--and I 
have my suspicions about who it is--who has a hold on the bill, I wish 
they would come forward and defend that hold. This is a 
noncontroversial piece of legislation which has broad bipartisan 
support, has passed the House with a 355-to-9 vote, and is ready for 
action in the Senate. But as of right now, it is being held up by 
someone on the other side. Again, I don't know who that is. I would 
like to know who that is and have the opportunity to visit with them to 
find out what their objection is.
  The reality is that this is a piece of legislation which makes so 
much sense for our economy and, as I said, for our need for energy 
independence, to have American energy so we can get away from our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is good for the 
environment. There are so many benefits to moving this legislation 
forward. Again, it is heading in a direction that gets us away from 
dependence upon foreign energy and more energy independence in this 
country.
  I come to the floor to urge my colleagues--it has been cleared on the 
Republican side. It is ready for action in the House. It is teed up to 
go there; we have talked with our colleagues in the House. It passed 
once there.
  The amendment Senator Salazar and I have offered, the substitute 
amendment, is a modification of that bill, but it keeps in place the 
basic concept of the bill. Very simply, in terms of explanation, it 
provides up to a $30,000 cash incentive for fuel retailers to install 
pumps that would provide E85 or other types of energy. The average cost 
to install that pump is somewhere between $40,000 and $200,000, 
depending on where you are in the country. We believe the convenience 
stores and the gas stations across this country would take advantage of 
this if it were in place. It would do something about this ratio I just 
mentioned where we have 1 filling station for every 10,000 cars in this 
country that are capable of running on E85 or some other form of 
alternative energy.
  Again, I commend this to my colleagues in the hopes that we can move 
ahead. We have a few days left this week before everybody heads home 
for the elections. We don't know what will happen with the elections. 
This is legislation which, as I said, is broadly supported on a 
bipartisan, bicameral basis and has the support of the auto 
manufacturers across the country and the National Association of 
Convenience Stores. I submitted letters previously for the Record 
expressing the support of the entire ethanol industry and environmental 
groups. I think it has been cleared on the Republican side, and I hope 
that whoever on the Democratic side who has placed a hold on the bill 
will make that known so we can discuss what the objection is and, 
hopefully, clear it for action so we can get something meaningful done 
about the issue of energy security before Congress goes home for the 
elections.
  Mr. President, I raise the issue again, and I urge and ask and 
request that my colleagues work together to accomplish what I think is 
a very important objective before we leave for the election; that is, 
moving America in the direction of lessening our dependence upon 
foreign energy, becoming energy independent, and helping to address the 
issue of high gas prices in this country. This bill would do that. I 
simply ask my colleagues to work with me to get that done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chair.


                        Mental Health Parity Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in just a few weeks while we are in 
recess, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the untimely death of 
our former colleague from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone 
died at the age of 58 in an airplane crash about 4 years ago. Paul and 
his wife Sheila and daughter Marcia were on their way to a campaign 
event in Eveleth, MN on October 25, 2002 when their plane crashed in a 
wooded field 2 miles short of the airport. We mourn for the surviving 
children Mark and David and for the families of the campaign staffers, 
Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy, and for the families of 
the pilots flying that fated aircraft.
  Paul's tragic and premature death silenced one of the leading voices 
in America on the issue of mental illness. Paul Wellstone understood 
the devastation that mental illness can bring: the stigma, the 
alienation, the broken families and, sadly, even broken lives.
  In 1992, together with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Paul 
introduced legislation to require insurance companies to offer the same 
coverage for treating mental illness as for physical illness. The 
Mental Health Parity Act was passed and signed into law in 1996. The 
final version of the bill sadly was watered down and fell short of 
Paul's earliest goals.
  A new bill to eliminate these disparities in insurance coverage was 
introduced in the last Congress. The Paul Wellstone Treatment Act 
attracted widespread bipartisan support: 69 Members of this Chamber and 
245 Members of the House--a clear majority supporting Paul Wellstone's 
legacy. But unfortunately, during the past 2 years, this bill was not 
called for passage and did not pass.
  Today I am honored to be joined by Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, 
Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Mark Dayton of 
Minnesota in submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, first to 
remember Paul Wellstone and honor his legacy, but also to publicly 
commit to finishing his work on mental health equity legislation.
  Mental health disorders are the leading cause of disability. Without 
treatment, the consequences of mental illness for the individual and 
for all of us are staggering: disability, unemployment, substance 
abuse, homelessness, inappropriate incarceration, suicide, and wasted 
lives. The economic costs of untreated mental illness is more than $100 
billion each year in the United States. In my home State of Illinois, 
close to 4 million people, or 30 percent of the population, are 
affected by some form of mental illness each year, including 
depression. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young 
people 15 to 24. Seventy-seven percent of adults with severe mental 
illness are unemployed.
  Now, the good news is this: Mental illness is treatable but only for 
the

[[Page 19676]]

people who have access to sound diagnosis and care. We have a good 
start, thanks to the Mental Health Parity law that Senators Wellstone 
and Domenici led to enactment in 1996. Our next challenge is to build 
on the work Paul Wellstone left behind.
  Current law requires insurers offer mental health care and offer 
comparable benefit caps for mental health and physical health, but it 
does not require group health plans and their health insurance issuers 
to include mental health coverage in their benefits package. It doesn't 
prevent insurers from setting higher deductibles, higher copays, and 
fewer services covered for mental health illness. I commend Senators 
Kennedy and Domenici for their work in this Congress on working toward 
a consensus for reaching mental health parity for Americans.
  I called Senator Domenici last week to tell him I was submitting this 
resolution and to cheer him on so that during the next session of 
Congress we can give the right tribute to Paul Wellstone and, more 
importantly, as Paul would see it and I see it as well, hope to 
millions of Americans.
  This resolution honors Paul Wellstone. It commits us to continuing 
his work to ensure equity for people with mental illness. Paul fought 
against discrimination in any form. His life work was dedicated to 
creating a world in which everyone, regardless of race, religion, 
economic status, or health or mental health status, would be treated 
fairly and equally. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and 
renew our commitment to ensuring mental health parity.
  Paul Wellstone was often quoted as saying:

       I don't think politics has anything to do with left, right, 
     or center. It has to do with trying to do right by the 
     people.

  That was what Paul Wellstone said. And now we will have our chance in 
the next session of Congress to honor that commitment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
submitting this resolution both on the legacy of Paul Wellstone and, in 
particular, focusing on this issue of mental health parity.
  Paul Wellstone and I disagreed on a lot of issues. One of the great 
things about Paul Wellstone is that even if you disagreed with him, you 
admired his passion--his passion which was reflected when we had our 
debates. He was always energized. He was real. He was very real.
  One of the things he was very passionate about was mental health 
parity and doing the right thing for millions of Americans. His Senate 
family has been touched by the tragedy of mental illness--touched. 
Millions of Americans have been touched or impacted by the tragedy of 
mental illness. The reality is there is treatment available. We can 
deal with this. We can lift up lives to make people whole and 
productive. There is a path to do this. There is a path that my 
predecessor laid out with the help of Senator Domenici in the early 
1990s. We made some headway, but we didn't go far enough. We know what 
the voids are. We know what the gaps are. We have a path to get there. 
We are close. The problem is ``close'' may be good in bocce ball, but 
it is not good in legislation.
  I have been here 4 years. It is one of my hopes that on one of the 
things that Senator Wellstone and I fully agreed on, which is the 
importance of providing true mental health parity, is that we can get 
it done. We are not there yet. We need to get it done. I hope that as 
we move forward and when we come back and finish this session--we are 
not going to get it done now, but I hope folks will reflect on what is 
the right thing. It is the right thing. With this resolution we are 
honoring the legacy of a great Senator, we honor the legacy of someone 
who had great passion, and we do the right thing for millions of 
Americans.
  Let us get mental health parity through. It is the right thing and I 
hope we can get it done. Again, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
raising this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I at the outset thank my colleague from 
Minnesota who was quick to join with his colleague Senator Dayton as a 
cosponsor of this resolution.
  Many times politics divides us, but when it comes to an issue such as 
mental illness, we are all in this together. I know my colleague from 
Minnesota has probably had the same experience I had, of raising this 
issue at a town meeting or a public meeting, and then I almost 
guarantee you that before you leave that hall, someone will come up to 
you and ask if they can speak to you privately to tell you the story of 
a child or a spouse who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or who 
has committed suicide. It touches so many of us. What Paul Wellstone 
was trying to remind us of is that mental illness is not a curse, it is 
an illness, and an illness that can be treated. Why shouldn't we 
include it in our health insurance for Americans so that every family 
can be spared the suffering that comes with mental illness today.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota for joining me on this 
resolution.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank and commend my friend and 
colleague, the assistant Democratic leader from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin, for submitting the Senate resolution honoring the memory of the 
late Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota, my friend of 22 years, my 
colleague and mentor for my first 2 years in the Senate.
  I also thank Senator Coleman, my present colleague, for his 
cosponsorship of this resolution and making it a bipartisan statement. 
I am proud to join as a cosponsor of the resolution.
  It is hard to believe that it has been almost 4 years--it will be on 
October 25, 2006, when we will not be in session--since the terrible 
plane crash occurred that took the lives of Paul Wellstone, U.S. 
Senator from Minnesota, his wife and partner of 39 years, Sheila 
Wellstone, his daughter Marcia; the Democratic Party associate chair 
from Minnesota, Mary McEvoy; one of Paul's longtime valued Senate 
staffers here in Washington, Tom Lapic; and a young Minnesota aide, 
Will McLaughlin, as well as two pilots.
  One of Paul's most important causes was that of mental health parity. 
The illness of a family member made this a very personal cause for him, 
as well as his compassion for those throughout this country who suffer 
from some form of mental illness and are unable to get the treatment 
they deserve and which is medically available because insurance 
companies will not pay for and treat mental illness with the same 
parity they do other physical health problems.
  Senator Wellstone found a valuable partner in the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici. Together they worked on a 
bipartisan basis for several years against the fervent opposition of 
the medical insurance industry to pass mental health parity 
legislation.
  In the aftermath of Senator Wellstone's death, then-majority leader 
of the Senate Tom Daschle succeeded in getting through the Senate the 
Wellstone-Domenici legislation, which passed the Senate but 
unfortunately hit opposition by the House of Representatives. And once 
again the medical insurance industry prevented one of Paul's 
legislative dreams from becoming law in 2002.
  Despite assurances beginning in January of 2003 from the new Senate 
majority leadership that the Senate would act on successor legislation 
in honor of Senator Wellstone and pass mental health parity, despite 
the best efforts of Senator Domenici, who was then joined on our side 
of the aisle by Senator Kennedy and our own caucus leaders, Senator 
Reid and Senator Durbin, the Senate has neither considered as a body 
nor passed mental health parity in either the 108th Congress or the 
109th Congress.
  In other words, during the last 4 years following Senator Wellstone's 
terrible tragedy, the Senate has not acted to pass this legislation.
  That is why Senator Durbin's resolution today is so timely and so 
important in these final days of the 109th session. It states that 
Senator Wellstone should be remembered for his compassion and 
leadership on social

[[Page 19677]]

issues, and the Congress should act to end discrimination against 
citizens of the United States who live with a illness by passing 
legislation relating to mental health parity as a priority for the 
110th Congress.
  One of Paul's favorite quotes was that of a rabbi many years ago who 
concluded by saying: If not now, when? If not now, unfortunately, then 
at least in the 110th Congress, over the next 2 years, it is my fervent 
hope, although I will not be here, and even though my colleague, 
Senator Paul Wellstone, will not be here, his spirit will continue to 
carry this legislation forward, and with the leadership of Senator 
Durbin and others who have championed this cause in the Senate and with 
greater understanding perhaps on the other side of Capitol Hill in the 
House about the importance of this legislation to millions and millions 
of Americans, this would be one of Senator Wellstone's proudest 
moments. It would be one of the Senate's and Congress's great 
accomplishments, if mental health parity were to be made the law of 
this country for the millions of those who would benefit from it.
  I again thank Senator Durbin.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
I would like to say by way of question through the Chair that I thank 
my colleague from Minnesota. I can recall when he first came to the 
Senate serving with our mutual friend, Paul Wellstone. It must have 
been tough to be that close to a dynamo. The man had boundless energy 
and committed to so many good causes.
  The Senator from Minnesota has carried on the fine tradition for your 
State. I thank the Senator for joining us in this resolution.
  Hope springs eternal, and maybe during the lame duck session Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Domenici will be able to give us some good news 
that will make us proud on this important issue.
  I thank the Senator for his words today.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Senator Wellstone was 
an eternal optimist. I share the Senator's hope that something might be 
possible this year. If not, this resolution passing on that 
responsibility to the 110th Congress is very timely and appropriate. I 
am glad to cosponsor it.


                               Estate Tax

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning one of my Republican 
colleagues came to the floor to talk about what appears to be the 
favorite topic of most Republican Senators: the estate tax. No matter 
what we are talking about on the floor, whether it is immigration 
reform, making America safe from terrorism, dealing with issues 
involving the funding for our troops, port security, without fail, you 
can count on one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying 
to wedge in to this queue with what many of them consider to be at 
least equally important: the issue of the estate tax.
  So my colleague came to the floor and mentioned my name over and over 
again as if I were his opponent. I would say to my colleague there are 
many Senators who disagree with his position, but I will be happy to 
address it for a moment or two.
  The simple fact is this: If an American and a spouse have assets 
valued at less than $2 million at the time of their death, they will 
never pay one penny in estate taxes--not one. So if you ask who 
benefits from this repeal of the estate tax, well, sadly it turns out 
to be some of the wealthiest people in America. If you took 1 percent--
that is 1 out of 100--estates in America, people who die each year, 
only one-fourth of those will ever pay any estate tax. It is a very 
small number of people who have done very well in their lives in 
America who may end up paying estate tax.
  I want my position to be clear. There is an exemption under the 
estate tax, an exempt amount that you can leave to your heirs, that 
will not be taxed. I think we need to increase that and regularly 
increase it to reflect reality. It is true, the real estate we own has 
gone up in value while we have lived there, businesses have increased 
in value, farms have increased in value, and I think the exemption 
should be increased as well.
  Where I have a problem is where we have people who are very well 
off--multimillionaires--who end up owing the Government--in fact, owing 
their country--something for their success, and they will be left in a 
position with the proposal from the other side of the aisle where they 
may have no estate tax liability whatsoever.
  The majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, has said he is for 
total repeal of the estate tax--total repeal so that Mr. Bill Gates of 
Microsoft, who has done so well and made so much money, would pay 
nothing back to America by way of estate tax when he passes away. Well, 
Mr. Gates is not asking for that. Many people who are well off are not 
asking for that. They understand this country has been very good to 
them, and they are also prepared to pay back so that future generations 
have a chance to succeed as well.
  My colleague came to the floor and talked about farmers and is 
concerned about farmers. I am from downstate Illinois. A few years ago, 
after hearing all of the debate about estate taxes, I wrote to the 
Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Farmers Union, and asked them: Tell 
me of any farm that you know of where the farmer's survivors had to 
sell the farm because of paying Federal estate tax. There was not one 
single instance in my State. They couldn't find one. Now, I understand 
some of those farmers may have to sell off a portion of their land or 
some of their acreage to pay their taxes at the time that the spouse 
finally passes away. But as far as losing farms, that is something that 
is said over and over again, but neither the Illinois Farm Bureau, the 
Farmers Union and, in fact, the American Farm Bureau could find a 
single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of 
estate tax liability.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 123 family-owned 
farms and 135 family-owned businesses would pay any estate tax at all 
with a $2 million family exemption level.
  So we often have to stop and wonder why are we dwelling on this or 
why are some Members of the Senate continuing to dwell on this. If 
their sympathy is for those who are struggling to survive in America, 
they should focus their spotlight not on the wealthiest among us but 
those who are struggling at lower levels.
  Let's take a look at some of the realities, the economic realities in 
America today. This chart shows what has happened over the last 6 
years. The minimum wage has been frozen under President Bush and this 
Republican Congress for 9 years. During that 9-year period of time, the 
President's pay has been increased substantially, pay for Members of 
Congress increased $31,600, and the $5.15 an hour minimum wage has not 
gone up.
  It is always interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle seem to think that it is fine for those making the lowest 
wages in America, some of them working very hard each day, to have no 
increase in their pay for 9 straight years, while they are struggling 
to make ends meet. They come to the floor and talk to us about those 
who have made millions of dollars in their lives and whether they will 
have to pay any taxes. I think it is a misplaced priority.
  If we take a look at some of the real household income of Americans 
across the board, you can see what has happened from 2000 to 2005. Real 
household income has declined by $1,273. It means the average family, 
working hard, paying off the costs of living--utilities and mortgages, 
energy costs, education costs--is working harder and falling behind 
each and every year.
  Our economic policies in this country really are not focused where 
they should be. We should be focusing on this middle-income American 
family that is struggling to make ends meet in a very difficult time.
  The distribution of wealth in America has changed substantially over 
the last several years. The distribution of earnings has become even 
more unequal. When you look at this situation, you see the years 
between 1995 and 2000 with a violet color, 2000 to 2005 with the red. 
So in the year 1995 to 2000, the last

[[Page 19678]]

term of President Clinton, you can see there was an increase in 
earnings, weekly earnings for full-time workers, across the board. All 
of these violet bars above show, for example, a 9.6-percent increase, a 
7.4-percent increase. So in that 4-year period of time, we had the 
distribution of earnings increasing.
  Now look at the period of time under President Bush. During that time 
period, in each of these categories of income in America, we have seen 
that earnings have been declining or rising very slowly, as they are at 
the highest levels of income in America
  Take a look at the wealth as well under the tax breaks given under 
this administration the last several years. This is the Bush economic 
record: a $38,000 tax break for people who are making $1 million a 
year, but for middle-income families making $50,000 to $100,000, their 
tax break under the Bush administration has been $55, and for those in 
the lowest income categories a tax break of $6.
  You can see where the priorities have been when it comes to taxes. 
But ask the average family making about $100,000 a year--let's take 
that as an example. Let's take someone who is a teacher and whose 
spouse may work part time, bringing in some income to the family, and 
together they make $100,000 a year. They have raised their kids and 
spent good money sending them to school. Then the kids apply to 
college. The families are inundated with a stack of forms--most 
families have seen them--to apply for student loans and students 
grants. Those making about $100,000 a year will find it difficult to 
apply for any financial assistance. So the students, their sons and 
daughters who finally got into the school of their dreams, may face an 
unconscionable debt.
  Some students put off their education. Some give up on the best 
schools. Some go on to school and graduate with a mountain of debt, a 
mountain of debt which was made worse this year when, on July 1, a law 
signed by President Bush increased the interest rates on student loan 
debts by 2 percent. It doesn't sound like much, except it means the 
payback for that student loan has now been increased by 20 percent over 
the life of the loan. It means these students, borrowing money to go to 
school, deeper in debt, will now be paying off their student loan debt 
into their 50s. Imagine that student graduating today--23, 24 years 
old, maybe--looking ahead to 20 or 30 years of paying off student loan 
debt. Finally, in their early 50s, they have paid it all off, and now 
they have a few years to contemplate their retirement.
  What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong is students and 
families in middle-income circumstances are bearing this burden, and 
this burden is increasing, as I will show, as the cost of college 
education increases. So instead of talking about a $38,000 tax break 
for someone who makes $1 million a year, we believe on this side of the 
aisle that we should allow the deductibility of college education 
expenses. If you can deduct the amount of interest you pay on your home 
to encourage home ownership, why shouldn't a family be able to deduct 
some of the costs of college education from their tax expenses so we 
can encourage students to go on, further their education, and make this 
a better country? It is a question of tax priorities: on one side of 
the aisle, estate tax relief for those in the highest income 
categories; on this side of the aisle, we are talking about relief when 
it comes to tax deduction for the real cost of college education 
expenses.
  Most of the families I represent in Illinois were quick to tell me, 
during the August break, how bad gasoline prices were. We know in the 
last 5 years they have increased 104 percent. They started coming down 
in the Midwest, but I think there is a false sense of security here. A 
lot of people were sacrificing to put more gasoline in the car, but we 
still don't have a national energy policy, and there is no guarantee 
that a few weeks from now those gasoline prices will not go back up 
again because we have no bargaining power.
  We are so dependent on foreign oil today that we can't say to those 
who gouge us and those who want to really charge us the most that there 
is anything we will do about it. And this administration has not really 
called the oil company executives in, Exxon and others, to explain the 
absolutely unprecedented level of profits they took as the gasoline 
prices went up. That industry made more money more quickly than any 
industry in America, and they reached higher profit levels than any 
industry had recorded previously. Yet this administration sat back and 
said w can do nothing about it as Americans and families and businesses 
and farmers paid the price. As the cost of gasoline goes up, as prices 
have in the last several months, families have faced that sacrifice. 
Now comes the heating oil season for many, and that may again increase 
the cost of expenses for these families.
  Take a look at what has happened as well when it comes to family 
health insurance premiums under this administration. Family health 
insurance premiums have increased 71 percent in the last 5 years. That 
means the average premium for family health insurance went from $6,348 
when President Bush took office to $10,880. Is it any wonder families 
are feeling the squeeze? These premium increases, of course, translate 
into another $300 or $400 each month that a family has to come up with 
just to have the same health insurance as last year and maybe less 
coverage.
  Have we discussed expanding health insurance or making it more 
affordable on the floor of the Senate? Only once and just for a few 
days. I salute Senator Enzi, Republican from Wyoming, chairman of the 
HELP Committee, for bringing a health insurance proposal to the floor. 
We had another proposal here. We tried, if we could, to work out 
something ahead of time to have a bipartisan approach. We didn't get it 
done. I hope that in the next Congress, we can find a way to bring real 
relief on a bipartisan basis to families that are struggling with these 
health insurance premiums.
  I mentioned earlier the cost of education and student loans. This 
graph shows what has happened under this administration since the 
President took office with regard to the increased costs of college. 
They have gone up $3,688, the average annual cost of a public 4-year 
college, tuition, fees, room, and board. So there was a 44-percent 
increase in just this 5-year period of time under this administration, 
increase in college cost. Again, wouldn't our Tax Code be more sensible 
if we helped families pay this difference, if we helped them put their 
kids through college to get a good degree and a good life and 
contribute to this country? Wouldn't that be a higher priority in terms 
of our Tax Code than whether Bill Gates is going to end up being 
excused from paying an estate tax when he passes away?
  There is also a concern as well with retirement plans. Take a look at 
what has happened in the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, 3.7 million 
fewer Americans have retirement plans. The number of workers with 
employer-sponsored retirement plans has gone down from 56.2 million to 
52.5 million, which means more vulnerability.
  A lot of people who had paid into a retirement plan through the 
course of their work experience believed that they had paid their dues, 
taken the money out of their check every week, and that the day would 
come and they would see it, that they would finally get to retire and 
relax. Then came mergers and consolidations and corporate sleight of 
hand and legal work, and the next thing you know a lot of these 
pensions started disappearing. So many families are concerned, 
concerned about when or if they can retire.
  You read the stories in the paper all the time in Illinois and every 
other State about those who had their future plans wrecked when they 
lost their pension benefits. It has happened at the airlines. It has 
happened in so many industries across our country. We know it makes a 
real difference in life. A lot of people who thought they would be 
spending their time worrying about where to go fishing now are acting 
as greeters at stores around America and trying to find part-time jobs 
just to keep it together.
  We need to do something about retirement in this country, and one 
thing

[[Page 19679]]

we do not need to do is privatize Social Security. Privatizing Social 
Security is, of course, supported by the President but not by the 
American people. They know the math doesn't work. Taking money out of 
the Social Security trust fund for people to experiment with their 
investments is going to weaken that fund unfortunately. They will be 
unable to make the payments our Social Security retirees need. If there 
is ever a time when we need Social Security to be strong, it is now, as 
we see fewer and fewer Americans with retirement plans.
  The number of Americans without health insurance has gone up 
dramatically under this administration, from 39.8 million Americans 
with no health insurance to 46.6 million Americans. Those who are 
insured will tell you many times that their health insurance is not 
very good. They come up to me at town meetings in Illinois and talk 
about frightening scenarios where someone in their family had a serious 
illness, a diagnosis, and then when they tried to pay off the medical 
bills, it turns out the health insurance fought them all the way. These 
health insurance companies are spending a lot less on care and a lot 
more on battles with the people who have the health insurance, denying 
coverage whenever they can. So we have to really get back to this issue 
as part of the priorities of this Congress. I am sorry that this 
Republican Congress has not really come up with assistance that many of 
these Americans need with health insurance
  Overall, as we go through this litany, you can understand as you go 
through this litany why this next chart is where it is today. In the 
last 5 years, under this administration, household debt has gone up 
over $26,000. Because Americans are struggling to make ends meet, 
because the cost of college and health care and gasoline and heating 
your home has gone up dramatically, Americans have had to borrow more 
and more just to keep up. They are right on the edge, trying to pay off 
very expensive credit card debt.
  There has been a 35-percent increase in household debt in the last 5 
years for the reasons I mentioned earlier, from an average inflation-
adjusted debt per household of $75,000 to over $101,000. This debt is 
hanging over the heads of many Americans, and if there is any rock in 
the road that Americans families trip over--if someone gets sick, loses 
a job, a divorce, something unforeseen--they are going to find 
themselves then facing default on their debt and even higher interest 
rates.
  While this has been going on for the average American, employee 
compensation has gone down some 4.6 percent. So while all the debts 
have been piling up, the compensation that is being given to 
individuals has been going down. Meanwhile, corporate profits are up 8 
percentage points. So we can see that the share of corporate income 
going to profits and employee compensation has gone in opposite 
directions, and those directions do not benefit those families that are 
struggling to get by.
  Those who run the corporations are doing quite well, thank you. In 
the last 5 years, the pay for the chief executive officers of major 
corporations in America has gone up over $1.6 million individually. 
This average pay here of $5.2 million when the President took office is 
now up to $6.8 million. So while the pay for employees is going down 
and expenses are going up, in the boardrooms the median CEO 
compensation has gone up substantially.
  When you take a look at the tax cuts under this administration, their 
economic record, tax cuts are over 150 times larger for millionaires 
than they are for most households in America. So we gave the tax cuts 
of $103,000 for those in the highest income levels and $684 for those 
making less than $100,000 a year. So the so-called tax cut program has 
not really helped those families struggling the hardest.
  What has happened to employment, creation of jobs in America, is 
illustrated by this chart. We have seen the average annual growth rate 
of nonfarm employment in America under every President. You have to go 
back to Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression to see a decline of 6 
percent in employment in America. You will see the lowest number of any 
President since Herbert Hoover has been registered by this 
administration, in the creation of jobs. That is the average annual 
growth rate of nonfarm employment. It is the slowest job growth in 
America in over 70 years.
  The other sad reality is, while all of these things have taken place, 
this represents the famous wall of debt which Senator Conrad of North 
Dakota has brought to our attention over and over again. When President 
Bush took office, our national debt was $5.8 trillion. Today, it is 
over $8.5 trillion--a dramatic increase in America's debt in a 6-year 
period of time. With policies which this administration supports and 
many on the other side have been arguing for, we can see America's debt 
reaching $11.6 trillion in 2011. So in a 10-year period of time, we 
will have virtually doubled--not quite but almost doubled--the debt of 
America, which means we are leaving a burden for our children, a burden 
with which they will have to deal--a burden with which they will have 
to deal as we see more and more baby boomers in Social Security and 
Medicare. As we see fewer people working, those who remain in the 
workforce will not only have to face their own personal challenges 
economically, but they will have to deal with the debt that we are 
leaving behind.
  If this is fiscal conservatism, I don't understand the meaning of the 
term.
  Why is it that we have reached this point? Sadly, the economy is not 
going as planned. We are facing a war which costs between $1.5 billion 
and $3 billion every week, and the other side continues to come to the 
floor and ask for something that no administration has ever asked for 
in the history of the United States--a tax cut in the midst of a war. 
That is what the Senator from this morning was suggesting. He wants to 
cut the estate tax. By cutting the estate tax there will be less 
revenue for our Government, the war will continue, and our debt will 
grow. These numbers will have to be adjusted upwards for the debt we 
are going to leave our children.
  Yesterday we had a hearing with the Democratic Policy Conference to 
discuss the war in Iraq. We had two generals and a Marine Corps colonel 
who spoke to us. They spoke on a lot of things that we need to do to 
make America safer and make sure we win this war in Iraq. But one thing 
that MG John Batiste said I really thought was important. He said--and 
I think we all believe--that America can rise to a challenge. America 
can meet a challenge. We have done it so many times in our history. We 
have won wars when we were not expected to. We put a man on the Moon 
when a lot of people scoffed at that possibility. We developed medical 
breakthroughs which no one would have dreamed of. We led the world in 
computer technology development and in so many areas one by one. 
Whether it was in agricultural production or in industrial development 
or innovation we have led the world. We have led the world because 
leaders have stepped forward--a President has stepped forward and 
challenged us and said we need to stick together, we need to work 
together to reach the goal.
  General Batiste said yesterday--and I paraphrase his actual 
testimony, but I believe what he said. He said that what we need to be 
reminded of is we can meet any challenge as a nation. We need to be 
reminded, as well, if we are challenged and work together, we can win 
this war on terrorism. And he said it is going to involve sacrifice. It 
is not the first time Americans have been asked to sacrifice. They have 
done that many times. I believe that spirit of sacrifice is what is 
needed to make sure we keep America safe from terrorism and safe from 
other threats.
  I see that Senator Ensign has come to the floor. I don't know whether 
he wishes to take the floor at this time. But I mentioned his name 
earlier. I commended him for bringing the health insurance issue to the 
floor. I hope in the next session that we can work together to try to 
find some bipartisan compromise to deal with this health insurance 
challenge. It is still out there and getting more challenging every 
day. Senator Enzi of Wyoming, as Republican chair of the committee,

[[Page 19680]]

may have been the first one to bring the health issue to the floor of 
the Senate in the 10 years I have been here. I commend him for that.
  Although we didn't see eye to eye on all of that, I hope we come back 
together and sit down and try to find some common bipartisan approach 
no matter who is in charge of the Senate in the next session.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Ryan White Hiv/aids Treatment Modernization Act

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous consent 
that the Senate pass S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment 
Modernization Act.
  Just last week, we made a unanimous consent request to pass this 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation. That means Members from both sides 
of the aisle and both ends of the building have agreed to the language 
in this reauthorization. It passed out of the House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce last week. However, Senators from three States are 
blocking the vote that would speed reauthorization programs that 
provide life-sparing treatment to individuals suffering from HIV and 
AIDS.
  We have to pass this bill. If this bill is not reauthorized by 
September 30, several States and the District of Columbia will be 
slated to lose funds. People who have been counting on the money for 
HIV and AIDS will lose money on September 30. Therefore, Senators from 
three States are holding up a bill that would help Connecticut, 
Georgia, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, 
Maine, Oregon, Washington State, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, 
Maryland, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, 
not to mention some of the towns, major cities, and some of the States 
that would be gaining revenue as we move the money to areas where the 
current AIDS and HIV cases are. People with HIV and AIDS who live in 
the States I just mentioned will be hurt if a few Senators continue 
blocking this reauthorization.
  As we all know, the Ryan White program provides critical health 
services for people infected with HIV and AIDS. These individuals rely 
on vital programs for drugs and other services. We need to pass this 
legislation so we can provide them with the treatment they desperately 
need. I urge Senators who are holding up this bill to stop playing the 
``numbers game'' so that the Ryan White legislation can address the 
epidemic of today--not yesterday.
  I mentioned that we changed the formula to follow the people. The 
HIV/AIDS epidemic affects more women, minorities, and more people in 
rural areas and the South than ever before. While we have made 
significant progress in understanding and treating this disease, there 
is still much to do to ensure equitable treatment for all Americans 
infected with HIV and AIDS. We must ensure that those infected with HIV 
and living with AIDS will receive our support and our compassion, 
regardless of their race, regardless of their agenda, regardless of 
where they live; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this key 
legislation and to stop playing the numbers game so we can assist those 
with HIV in America.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request S. 2823

  Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 2823, the Ryan White Act. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Enzi substitute at the desk be agreed to; 
the committee-reported amendment No. 578, as amended, be agreed to; the 
bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; and any statements related to the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I object, not on my account but on behalf 
of some of my Senate colleagues who, I stress, want to join with the 
program.
  I commend the chairman for his leadership on behalf of this 
legislation and the support of the reauthorization, but they object to 
the permanent reduction in funding for their respective States which 
would occur under the formula the chairman referenced. They share my 
hope, along with the chairman, that this issue can be satisfactorily 
resolved for all concerned before the expiration, September 30, so that 
this--I think we all agree--very important and valuable program 
benefiting all of our States can continue uninterrupted.
  I do object on their behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. ENZI. I am sorry to hear we have an objection. We need to find a 
way to work through this objection. I have been working desperately 
across the aisle with Senator Kennedy, who has been joining me in this 
effort to help get it out of committee. We have been trying to find a 
way that the formula would work. One of the ways was to include in the 
bill 3 years of hold harmless for them to finish updating their system 
to the point where if they truly have the HIV numbers, they will truly 
get the money. If they don't have the HIV numbers, yes, they will lose 
the money.
  Now, I don't know if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that our 
Ryan White reauthorization bill increases the funding for Minneapolis 
by $2 million and $2.5 million for the whole State. It is a net 
benefactor. There have been increases in HIV and AIDS cases in 
Minnesota, and this would move money to where the cases are. That is 
where the numbers show that his city and State would be significant 
beneficiaries.
  I have a lot of statistics I can go through, but I wonder if the 
Senator is also aware that these increases are due to the inclusion of 
HIV/AIDS in the funding formula and that Minnesota has more HIV cases.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, again, to make the record clear, I am not 
objecting on my own account but on behalf of my other Senate 
colleagues. I thank the chairman for that improvement in the funds that 
are going to Minnesota. I strongly support the program and intend to 
vote for it.
  I thank the chairman again for his leadership and his continuing 
efforts to get this important legislation reauthorized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification.
  I will ask the Senator for his help. He said he would vote for the 
bill. Anything we can do to move this forward. We have put a 3-year 
hold harmless in there for everyone.
  On September 30, the world falls apart for a number of people. 
California, for one, will lose $18.5 million of their funding. There 
are a number of big losers. There are no big losers if we pass the 
bill, provided the numbers back up what they have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, by objecting to moving this bill, we need 
to look at the real lives that are getting ready to be harmed. Not only 
is the funding for the program going to be cut to the poorest of the 
poor by the formula in the preexisting Ryan White Act, but also the 
money for New York and California is going to be cut. The New York 
delegation, for example, argues that updating the formulas is 
devastating their State's infrastructure. A closer look reveals that 
the impact on New York, like other States with large urban areas, is 
not so great.
  The national average funding per AIDS case in 2006 was $1,613. New 
York's average was $2,122--33 percent more than the national average. 
Under the corrected funding formulas, the national average in 2007 
would be $1,793; New York's would still be higher at $2,107, just 5 
percent less than the State currently has, so people who are getting no 
treatment now, especially minority women where this disease has ravaged 
and is growing at a larger proportion, do not have access to any care.

[[Page 19681]]

  What we are really saying is to avoid a 5-percent cut, we are going 
to eliminate access for large numbers of minority women in this country 
who are infected with this virus and have no access to drugs, have no 
access to treatment today because the dollars have not followed the 
epidemic.
  The political response to this, even though it might be parochial, is 
wrong for this country. It is wrong for those who have no benefit today 
to continue to be denied benefits because some group might lose a small 
percentage when, in fact, a very large number of people are going to be 
benefited by the new Ryan White fund.
  We need to be very careful. The last Ryan White law was very specific 
in what is getting ready to happen. The number of people waiting for 
drugs is going to shoot through the ceiling if we do not pass the bill 
because of the funding formula that was in there to force us to pass a 
bill.
  What we have said is we are going to object on parochial interests, a 
4- or 5-percent cut, but the reason we are going to object, we do not 
care that other people are going to have no care, no treatment, no 
drugs, no access, so what we are really doing is we are not taking away 
any significant care, but we are markedly reducing an opportunity for 
life for those who are the least able to care for themselves.
  Just a couple of other examples. The New York Times noted that out of 
this $2,107, we have dog-walking paid for through AIDS funds, we have 
candlelight dinners paid for for AIDS recipients--this at the same time 
an African-American woman in Atlanta, in Greensboro, or in Tulsa cannot 
get the lifesaving drugs she needs for tomorrow, the drugs that will 
save her life, allowing her to continue to be a mother.
  There have been a lot of people who have worked very hard to get Ryan 
White reauthorized. I thank them personally for that. It diminishes the 
Senate when we think of the parochial and not the whole.
  The long-term former funding for Ryan White was based on AIDS cases. 
The new funding is based on HIV and AIDS cases. This new funding in 
this new bill says that 75 percent of the money has to go to 
treatment--we have never had that before--to really make a difference 
in people's lives.
  I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to do this bill, 
but my disappointment is nothing compared to the people who aren't 
going to get care, who aren't going to have a future, who aren't going 
to have a life if this is not changed. I thank the chairman for his 
hard work. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his work and 
Senator Jeff Sessions, as well. This is a disease which is moving hard 
and heavy to minority communities, to the South. If we do not recognize 
that they ought to have equal rights for treatment and care, there is 
something wrong with us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this is, plain and simple, about whether 
this Senate is going to allow legislation to go forward to reauthorize 
Ryan White, that allows the funding to follow the patients. What an 
incredible thought, that we would be here at a stalemate over whether 
health dollars follow the individual HIV-positive and AIDS patients.
  In North Carolina, we have gone on an aggressive program for 
volunteer testing. The amazing thing we found out is that of those 
individuals now tested, 30 percent have full-blown aids, meaning that 
the options we have, that the health community has, are minimal from a 
standpoint of how we stop that disease in its tracks and give them any 
quality of life.
  We are making the steps in North Carolina to try to identify the 
individuals who should be on a regimen of drugs. But by not allowing 
this bill to come to the floor for debate, we are denying the Senate 
the ability to bring the bill up and to consider the merits of it, and, 
yes, to amend it if we want to, to live with the majority of this body 
as to whether we change the funding formulas from what the committee 
has decided; which is, the funding should follow the patient.
  My colleague from Oklahoma is an OB/GYN by profession. He has the 
medical degree. He understands the specifics of it. And the one thing 
that Tom Coburn has drilled in me over and over and over again is that 
to deny these individuals the ability to have the regimen of drugs that 
are available is to give them a death sentence. To deny this 
legislation to come up on this floor is to give a death sentence to 
somebody in America.
  The likelihood is that some of those individuals with that death 
sentence live in North Carolina. Seventy-two percent of new North 
Carolina cases reported in 2005 were minority clients. Women of color 
in the South are 26 times more likely to be HIV positive than White 
females. In 2004, 66.7 percent of people living with AIDS in North 
Carolina were African American--the fifth highest rate in the Nation. 
The national average was 39.9 percent.
  What is unique about this challenge of the demographic shift in where 
HIV and AIDS is affecting the U.S. population is that, for example, in 
North Carolina, in many cases, it is in rural North Carolina. The 
challenge is not only how you match the dollars for drugs with the 
patient, it is how you supply the transportation to the patient to get 
to the clinic where, in fact, they get their drugs. To deny the ability 
of the Senate to come to the floor and debate this bill, to bring it up 
and to address the merits of this formula change, to suggest that there 
is something wrong with allowing the funding to follow the patient--I 
am not sure I get it. I thought that is why America sent us here.
  In 2004, North Carolina's contribution of $11.2 million a year 
represented the seventh highest among all States for ADAP programs in 
absolute dollars, and the second highest contribution as a State in 
percentage. Nobody can look at North Carolina and say we are not doing 
our share and more for the people who live in North Carolina.
  But what we are denied by our inability to debate this legislation, 
to amend it, if some want to amend it, is to say that North Carolina 
will have to continue to make a bigger investment on the part of our 
State because certain States do not want to give up their Federal 
dollars, even though they no longer have the pool of HIV and AIDS 
patients.
  In 2004--one comparison I will draw for this body--in Massachusetts, 
there were 8,254 individuals living with AIDS; in North Carolina, we 
had 7,245. Total Federal spending in Massachusetts for individuals 
living with AIDS was $18.6 million. In North Carolina, it was $8.1 
million--$10 million shy of Massachusetts, with an affected AIDS 
population 1,000 less than Massachusetts. That one statistic shows the 
inequity that exists in the formula that we currently have within Ryan 
White.
  One simple change means that funds will now follow the patients. That 
the concentration of dollars will go into the communities that affect 
the individuals who are infected with this disease.
  I am not sure that many of us have stopped to focus on the fact that 
when the Federal Government makes an investment or the State government 
makes an investment to make sure that AIDS patients have the 
medications they need, we eliminate two hospital visits a year. A 
person living with AIDS today untreated will likely visit the hospital 
twice in any given year, for a week's stay each, once for a retinal 
infection, the second time for pneumonia. The average of those two 
stays is about $33,000
  For an investment of slightly over $10,000 a year--part by the 
Federal Government, part by the State government, part by private 
entities--we can eliminate those two hospital visits.
  So the inability to bring up this legislation, the inability to 
debate a change in Ryan White, an inability to let the money follow the 
patients means not only will New York keep their pot of money or 
California keep their pot of money, but it means North Carolina is 
going to pick up, in unrecoverable hospital expenses, about $22,000 per 
year per patient for whom

[[Page 19682]]

we could not provide the medicine. So not only are we not investing the 
Federal money wisely because it is being invested in communities that 
do not have the patient population anymore, we are turning around, and 
the Federal Government is picking up, in the case of North Carolina, 
60-plus percent of the Medicaid expense, or of the disproportionate 
share of the hospital expense in DSH payments, or, in fact, the 
hospital is sitting there with a $33,000 bill and somebody unable to 
pay for it, and potentially it gives them a collection problem.
  This is an opportunity for us to fix something that is broken, for us 
to do something that every person, every Member of the Senate 
understands the equity and the fairness of; and that is, if we are 
going to make a Federal investment, let's make sure the dollars follow 
the individuals who are affected with HIV and AIDS.
  This is an opportunity for us to understand that AIDS does not 
recognize State borders, that it does not recognize the difference 
between sexes or ethnic backgrounds, that it has now infiltrated rural 
areas the same way it did urban areas years ago when we were reluctant 
to come to this floor and talk about it.
  This is a health problem in America. It deserves our attention today. 
It demands that we change the formula to make sure as many Americans as 
possible who are infected with AIDS are, in fact, treated, in part with 
the money we devote out of the taxpayers' pockets to do it. The 
inability to bring this legislation up--to stand up and suggest that we 
would like to bring it up, and there is an objection--is to say, no, we 
do not want to debate it. Why? Because they do not want to fix it. They 
would rather allow a death sentence to be applied to somebody, to many 
people, across this country.
  So as Dr. Coburn said, dogs can be watched, midnight dinners can be 
had, but the fact is, this legislation is focused on how we get 
lifesaving drugs to individuals who are infected with HIV and AIDS. My 
hope today is that Members who are scared to have this debate will come 
to the floor and lift their hold, will agree to the unanimous consent 
request, and come down and have a debate on this and try to defend--try 
to defend--these numbers, try to tell me that having $18 million for 
1,000 more HIV/AIDS patients is fair. In fact, it is not fair.
  We are obligated--we are obligated--as Members of this body to change 
the formula so it represents where the best investment can be made, and 
to where the American people look at it and know we have responded in a 
fair and equitable way.
  I thank the chairman for the committee's commitment to do this 
legislation, for the work of the chairman and his leadership in, quite 
frankly, coming up with a very difficult bill to address the input of 
many different regions of the country and many different States. But 
the same population--a population that was infected with HIV/AIDS, 
regardless of where they live, regardless of where they grew up, 
regardless of what their skin color is, regardless of whether they are 
male or female--they ought to be equitably treated as it relates to the 
distribution of Federal funds available for them to access lifesaving 
treatments and drugs for their disease.
  My hope is that at the end of this day the Chair, the committee, but 
more importantly the individuals who are infected across this country, 
will, in fact, win and we will pass this legislation and change this 
unfair funding formula
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. The 
increase in knowledge that I am sure he has created across the 
country--and also the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma--both of 
them have made an excellent case for why we need to do this. We need to 
do it immediately. We need to do it for people who have HIV/AIDS. I 
would note that the person who raised the objection to us adopting the 
bill is not from one of the three States that have a hold on the bill. 
I would hope those people would take a look at the situation in their 
State, and take a look at the fact they are getting more than the 
average number of funds being expended on patients across the rest of 
the country, and see that the surpluses their States are running at the 
end of the year greatly exceed the rather minute loss they would have, 
and that they would agree for us to move forward on this bill and get 
it in place before that September 30 deadline that is going to be 
devastating to 13 States that will lose money for having done the right 
thing.
  Now, having said that, I know there will be people who will say the 
Republicans cannot get anything done. Well, that particular issue, and 
many others are not Republican issues. They are issues of the United 
States. And that is one on which we worked across the aisle and had a 
great deal of agreement on. And I have to thank Senator Kennedy, the 
ranking member on my committee, for the extreme work he did to help us 
find, among the thousands of formulas we looked at, the one that was 
the most fair so it would follow the patients. I do appreciate the work 
he has helped us do in the committee during the year.


                 Accomplishments of the Help Committee

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk 
about what the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has 
done this year. This Ryan White reauthorization is extremely important, 
but it is not the only bill we have been working on. Because of the way 
we have done our work, some people may not be aware of what has been 
done. In fact, I know that to be the case.
  This is a committee that has worked across the aisle. When you work 
across the aisle, a lot of times you can work out many of the 
difficulties, and when you work out the difficulties, there is not a 
big floor debate. And when there is not a big floor debate, there is 
nothing for the media to write up about the blood; consequently, it 
does not get coverage. So I want to correct that here today, and I 
would like to discuss the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee's accomplishments for the 109th Congress.
  We have heard some claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. Well, I 
am here to assure American workers, retirees, students, and parents 
that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done a 
great deal to help you live more secure, productive, and healthy lives. 
Of course, we have more to do, but I am proud that during a time of 
intense partisanship on Capitol Hill, the HELP Committee has produced a 
lengthy list of legislative accomplishments.
  Looking back over the past 2 years, most of these victories 
materialized when Senators were willing to work across party lines and 
across the Capitol to put finding a solution in front of exploiting an 
issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of bills and 
reports filed by the HELP Committee in the 109th Congress be printed in 
the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                REPORTS FILED BY THE HELP COMMITTEE, 109TH CONGRESS, FIRST AND SECOND SESSION (2005-2006)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Bill No.                      Ordered rpted.      Date rpted.        Written rpt.         Cal. No.                  Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. S. 265 (Reau. Trauma Care)...............           2/9/2005           2/2/2006            109-215                359
2. S. 285 (Children's Hosp. Graduate Medical           2/9/2005          5/11/2005             109-66                 98  Passed Senate, Amended 7/26/
 Ed. Prog.).                                                                                                               2005, Referred to Energy &
                                                                                                                           Commerce 7/27/2005 (H.R.
                                                                                                                           5574).
3. S. 288 (High Risk Health Insurance Pools)           2/9/2005          2/10/2005                 No                  2  Passed Senate, 10/19/2005,
                                                                         7/29/2005            109-121                      (amdt. to H.R. 3204) P.L. 109-
                                                                                                                           172.
4. S. 302 (NIH).............................           2/9/2005          5/26/2005             109-75                117  Passed Senate, 7/27/2005,
                                                                                                                           Referred to Energy & Commerce
                                                                                                                           7/28/2005.
5. S. 306 (Genetic Info . . . ).............           2/9/2005          2/10/2005                 No                  3  Passed Senate, Amended 2/17/
                                                                                                                           2005, Received in House, Held
                                                                                                                           at desk 3/1/2005

[[Page 19683]]

 
6. S. 172 (Amend FDA-re: Contact lenses)....           3/9/2005          7/27/2005            109-110                177  Passed Senate, 7/29/2005,
                                                                                                                           Passed House 10/26/2005.
                                                                                                                          P.L. 109-96.
                                                                                                                          11/9/2005
7. S. 250 (Carl D. Perkins).................           3/9/2005           3/9/2005                 No                 39  P.L. 109-270
                                                                         5/10/2005             109-65                 39  8/12/2006.
8. S. 525 (Caring for Children).............           3/9/2005          8/31/2005            109-130                199
9. S. 544 (Patient Safety)..................           3/9/2005         Discharged  .................  .................  Passed Senate, Amended 7/21/
                                                                                                                           2005, Passed House 7/27/2005
                                                                                                                           P.L. 109-41.
                                                                                                                          7/29/2005.
10. S. 655 (Centers for Disease Control.....          4/27/2005          6/27/2005             109-91                140  P.L. 109-245.
                                                                                                                          7/26/2006
11. S. 898 (Patient Navigator)..............          4/27/2005          5/25/2005             109-73                115  P.L. 109-18; (H.R. 1812).
                                                                                                                          6/29/2005.
12. S. 1021 (WIA)...........................          5/18/2005           9/7/2005            109-134                203  Passed Senate, Amended 6/29/
                                                                                                                           2006.
13. S. 518 ( . . . Prescription Electronic            5/25/2005          7/29/2005            109-117                187  P.L. 109-60; (H.R. 1132).
 Reporting).                                                                                                              8/11/2005.
14. S. 1107 (Head Start)....................          5/25/2005          8/31/2005            109-131                200
15. S. 1317 (Cord Blood)....................          6/29/2005          7/11/2005            109-129                156  P.L. 109-129; (H.R. 2520).
                                                                                                                          12/20/2005.
16. S. 1418 (Health IT).....................          7/20/2005          7/27/2005            109-111                178  Passed Senate, Amended 11/17/
                                                                                                                           2005, Referred to Energy &
                                                                                                                           Commerce 11/18/2005.
17. S. 1420 (Medical Device User Fees)......          7/20/2005          7/25/2005            109-107                173  P.L. 109-43; (H.R. 3423).
                                                                                                                          8/1/2005.
18. S. 1614 (Higher Education)..............           9/8/2005         11/17/2005                 No                300
                                                                         2/28/2006            109-218                300
19. S. _ (Defined Benefit Security).........           9/8/2005          9/28/2005                 No     \1\(See Below)  H.R. 4 Pension Protection Act,
                                                                                                                           P.L. 109-280.
20. S. 1873 (Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine         10/18/2005         10/24/2005                 No                257
 and Drug Development Act).
21. S. 1902 (CAMRA).........................           3/8/2006           9/5/2006            109-323                585  Passed Senate 9/13/2006.
22. S. 1955 (Health Insurance Marketplace             3/15/2006          4/28/2006                 No                417
 Modernization and Affordability Act of
 2006).
23. S. 2803 (Mine Improvement and New                 5/17/2006          5/23/2006                 No                439  P.L. 109-236 (6/15/2006).
 Emergency).
24. S. 2823 (Ryan White HIV/AIDS                      5/17/2006           8/3/2006                 No                580
 Modernization Act).
25. S. 860 (American History Achievement              5/17/2006
 Act).
26. S. 3570 (Older Americans Act Amendments)          6/28/2006          9/19/2006  .................                616
27. S. 3546 (Dietary Supplements)...........          6/28/2006           9/5/2006            109-324                586
28. S. 707 (PREEMIE Act)....................          6/28/2006          7/31/2006            109-298                541  Passed Senate 8/1/2006.
29. S. 757 (Breast Cancer and Environmental           6/28/2006          7/24/2006            109-290                530
 Research Act).
30. S. 3678 (Pandemic and All Hazards                 7/19/2006           8/3/2006            109-312                583
 Preparedness Act).
31. S. 843 (Combating Autism)...............          7/19/2006           8/3/2006            109-318                578  Passed Senate 8/3/2006.
32. S. 2322 (RADCare).......................          9/20/2006
33. S. 1531 (Keeping Seniors Safe From Falls          9/20/2006
 and TBI).
34. S. 3771 (Health Centers Renewal Act)....          9/20/2006          9/25/2006  .................                639
35. H.R. 5074 (Railroad Retirement Technical          9/20/2006          9/21/2006  .................                630  Passed Senate 9/25/2006.
 Improvements).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\(Status--Was combined with a Fin. Cmte. bill and introduced as a Senate Bill on 9/28/2005 as S. 1783--Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005.
  Passed Senate amended 11/16/2005. (See also H.R. 28301, H. Res. 602); H.R. 2830--House disagreed to Senate amendment/agreed to a conference on 3/8/
  2006.)

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I joined the HELP Committee when I was first 
elected to the Senate in 1997. It was natural for me because of my 
small business background as an owner of family shoe stores. I had 
firsthand experience with burdensome government regulations, inadequate 
health care coverage for my workers, and adversarial workplace safety 
laws. I was energized about finding common sense solutions rather than 
more Washington bureaucracy.
  Now, another reason I joined the HELP Committee is because its broad 
jurisdiction touches nearly every American.
  Now, there were a lot of vacancies on the committee when I signed up. 
I asked why there were so many vacancies, and I was told, well, that is 
a contentious committee. I thought I knew what contentious committees 
were because I served on the labor committee in Wyoming. I found out 
that there is another level of contentious. I wanted to work with my 
colleagues to find smart solutions that would address some of the most 
important challenges faced by my constituents in Wyoming and, of 
course, other people across the country. I came from Wyoming as a firm 
believer in my 80-20 rule. The way that rule works is that we can 
usually find agreement on 80 percent of any issue. We agree across the 
aisle on about 80 percent the issues that comes up. Now, we are 
probably never going to reach agreement on the remaining 20 percent.
  Unfortunately, for America, what they get to watch on any bill is the 
debate on the 20 percent we don't agree on, and probably will never 
compromise on. That is what makes this body seem so contentious--the 20 
percent that we don't agree on, even though 80 percent can get done. 
The committee process will enable us to find that 80 percent, and that 
has been a principle that has guided my chairmanship.
  I was honored and humbled when my colleagues selected me to chair the 
HELP Committee nearly 2 years ago. Since my chairmanship began, the 
vision for both the full committee and the subcommittees is to craft 
legislation that provides lifelong opportunities for people to be 
healthier, more competitive, and to be more secure at school, work, and 
in retirement.
  Because we have such a broad jurisdiction, the HELP Committee has had 
an aggressive legislative schedule in the 109th Congress. Over the past 
2 years, together with the subcommittees, we have held 57 hearings and 
reported 36 bills out of committee; 21 of these proposals were approved 
by the Senate and 12 were signed by the President and became public 
law. We also reviewed and approved 352 nominations that require Senate 
confirmation. I thank my colleagues, including their staffs, for doing 
the work needed to maintain this aggressive pace.
  In this Congress, the HELP Committee has been privileged to have in 
its ranks active subcommittee chairmen and engaged members. This is 
largely the reason the committee has had legislative success. I thank 
them for their dedication, and I applaud them for the joint success as 
a committee. Our ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and I may disagree on 
a number of issues, but we have worked hard to find common ground and 
we share a commitment to improving the health, education, work, and 
retirement security of Americans.
  The number of bills acted upon by the HELP Committee is certainly 
impressive. However, the numbers alone don't begin to tell the story of 
how the committee's activity will improve the lives of Americans now 
and in the years to come. One of the committee's most significant 
accomplishments came on August 17 of this year when President Bush 
signed into law the Pension Protection Act. That act marks the most 
comprehensive change to pension law since 1974. The Pension Protection 
Act is a real victory for working Americans who spend a lifetime 
working hard and saving for retirement. It dramatically strengthens 
pension funding rules and helps curb record pension failures. In doing 
so, the act better protects the retirement dreams of 45 million 
Americans. Not only were single employer fund rules significantly 
overhauled, but the rules regarding hybrid pension plans were finally 
clarified, and multi-employer funding rules were changed as well. The 
proposal strengthens current law and will better help Americans prepare 
and plan for retirement. It provides workers the security of knowing 
that

[[Page 19684]]

moneys earned for retirement will be there when they are ready to 
retire.
  It also secures the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and secures 
that corporation without picking the pockets of taxpayers to keep the 
agency solvent. This legislation was no small undertaking. It took a 
year and a half of hearings, 5 months of deliberations in conference, 
and countless hours of negotiations on each provision of the bill.
  Fortunately, pension issues are almost always handled in tag team 
fashion, involving both the HELP Committee and the Senate Finance 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. While 
this tag team approach is a great asset and helped us get the bill 
through the Senate, it meant a complicated and extraordinarily large 
conference involving four committees in the House and Senate and 27 
conferees.
  Together with my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, Finance Committee 
Chairman Grassley, ranking member Senator Baucus, as well as HELP's 
Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee Chairman DeWine, and Ranking 
Member Mikulski, our committees collaborated with House counterparts to 
make this sweeping reform happen. Because of this teamwork, the law 
passed the Senate 93 to 5. The result was a policy and a process that 
was truly bipartisan. Total floor time for the bill--Senate debate and 
conference report debate--totaled about one hour and fifteen minutes 
equally divided.
  Some may think the conference took a long time to conclude, but 
history proves that it was ended in record time. The last big pension 
conference occurred in 1994. The conference was appointed in March of 
that year, but did not conclude until December. Prior to that, the most 
recent conference took place in 1987 and operated in the context of 
budget reconciliation. Again, that conference commenced in March but 
didn't end until December.
  This year, our conference began in March and ended in July--just 5 
months compared to a 10-month conference for earlier bills. 
Comparatively speaking, the Pension Protection Act conference finished 
quickly, but the impact will be felt for generations.
  Another major accomplishment of the HELP Committee was the enactment 
of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, MINER. From the 
tragic loss of life in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky 
came the first reforms of mine safety laws in 28 years. These tragedies 
brought together leaders from the mining industry, from government, and 
from the labor unions, and helped to forge a commitment to improve mine 
safety. I traveled to the Sago mine with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, 
and Isakson. We met with the families of the miners who lost their 
lives. We met with other miners who worked there, and we met with 
people in the union. I felt a commitment to those families and miners 
in this country to try to ensure that this would never happen again.
  The committee approved the MINER Act on May 17, and the President 
signed the bill in June. That has to be one of the fastest, most 
comprehensive changes to any safety law. I can't emphasize enough the 
cooperation of unions and company executives, and Republicans and 
Democrats.
  Protecting the health and safety of those who work in the mining 
industry need not be a partisan issue. Mining, and coal mining in 
particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to 
national energy security. Ensuring the safety of our miners is 
essential to protecting and preserving the industry and protecting the 
workers. I especially thank Senators Kennedy, Isakson, Byrd, 
Rockefeller, and McConnell for the tireless effort they extended. Their 
efforts contributed in large part to this proposal becoming law.
  I should mention that the debate on the Senate floor was 1 hour 
equally divided with two votes. So nobody saw that. Nobody saw that 
debate, but it makes a significant difference for all the people in the 
country--the mining bill. You never saw any debate on the floor. It 
passed unanimously without debate. It passed in the House under 
suspension with limited debate--the same bill.
  Sometimes the things that get done by unanimous consent that 
everybody agrees on nobody ever finds out about, except the people it 
does benefit; they know. That is why it is worth doing it that way. For 
a bill that has objections around here, there are ways to overcome it 
if you get 60 votes for it. But that is usually about a 3-week process. 
A unanimous consent doesn't use up much time, but it gets things done.
  The committee has also made tremendous strides related to education 
and job training. This session the HELP Committee initiated a 
comprehensive effort to authorize legislation that enhances knowledge 
and skills and helps American workers become leaders in the global 
economy. Some estimates suggest that 60 percent of the jobs created in 
the next decade will require skills that only 20 percent of the workers 
today currently possess, and 80 percent of the jobs will require 
education or training beyond high school. Eighty percent of the jobs 
will require education or training beyond high school. That is where 
the world is going. It is changing fast.
  One important component of this effort is the reauthorization of the 
Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. It was signed by the 
President in August, and it will help close the gap that threatens 
America's long-term competitiveness. The act addresses the needs of the 
Nation's changing workforce and prepares Americans for highly 
technical, higher-paying jobs. The reauthorization also made changes 
that will increase accountability at the State and local levels and 
will establish stronger links with businesses to build partnerships 
with high schools and colleges so they can better meet the needs of the 
changing workforce.
  For many people, participation in these programs can mean the 
difference between a job with no possibility of advancement and a 
successful career. Passage of this legislation was a significant 
accomplishment. Again, limited floor debate, no debate on the 
conference report; unanimous consent across the aisle.
  Another piece of this comprehensive effort is the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act. As my colleagues know, the mandatory portions 
of the higher education law were reauthorized in February under the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. Before I elaborate, I want to stress 
that it is critical to reauthorize the remaining discretionary programs 
under the act, which I intend to make a top priority for 2007. We have 
the bill out of committee but haven't had the floor time to do the 
debate on it. I am making that a top priority for 2007 because 
postsecondary education is the key to the future success of our 
students, our communities, and our economy.
  As I stated earlier, we reauthorized the mandatory components of the 
Higher Education Act through the budget reconciliation process. We 
found over $20 billion in savings by eliminating corporate subsidies 
for lenders and reworking the interest rate structure for many 
borrowers, among other revisions. A portion of the savings was used to 
pay for over $9 billion in enhanced students benefits. The law makes 
higher education more affordable for students who finance part of their 
education through loans by reducing borrow origination fees and 
increasing loan limits.
  Another benefit is a $4 billion grant program for postsecondary 
students who major in science, math, and certain national-security-
related foreign languages. These funds are dubbed ``SMART grants'' and 
are an important part of making higher education more affordable for 
low- and middle-income families. We invested resources where we need 
them the most, which will help ensure we have a workforce that can 
compete globally.
  I was in India earlier this year and saw firsthand what Thomas 
Friedman discusses in his book, ``The World Is Flat.'' It doesn't take 
long to figure out that by sheer numbers alone, India has only to 
educate 25 percent of its population to have more literate and educated 
people than the total population of the United States.

[[Page 19685]]

  By using the reconciliation process for these higher education 
reforms, the HELP Committee was able to produce meaningful deficit 
reduction. In fact, I am proud the HELP Committee led the entire 
Congress in deficit reduction and produced $15.5 billion in savings 
over five years. That is 40 percent of the entire Deficit Reduction Act 
of 2006. It is not right to overspend now and pass the bill on to our 
children and grandchildren to pay later.
  I thank Chairman Gregg for his leadership on the Budget Committee and 
for his contribution on the authorizing committee that helped make the 
meaningful deficit reduction a reality.
  Enactment of the Perkins reauthorization and the mandatory revisions 
of the Higher Education Act were critical components of a comprehensive 
effort to strengthen knowledge and skills. However, this effort also 
includes the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The 
reauthorization is essential because it will help train American 
workers to fill the good jobs being created so we can continue to be 
leaders in the global economy.
  The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act has been a 
priority of mine since I chaired the Subcommittee on Employment and 
Workplace Safety in the previous Congress. Last Congress, I worked 
tirelessly to report the legislation from the committee, only to be 
held up on the Senate floor when it came time to appoint conferees. 
Now, that means the bill made it out of committee and cleared the 
Senate floor. The House passed a different version, so we need a 
conference committee to resolve the differences. However, we weren't 
allowed to appoint a conference committee. That was 2 years ago. Mr. 
President, 900,000 new jobs could be trained under that program. This 
year, once again, I have been procedurally hamstrung in my efforts to 
move to conference. The bill must be completed. It made it out of the 
committee unanimously. It made it through the floor of the Senate, 
again unanimously. That means everybody agreed with what is in the 
bill. Now the only problem left is we have to reconcile that with what 
the House passed.
  America is facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as 
a nation to compete on the world stage. This bill sends a clear message 
that we are serious about helping our workers and our employers remain 
competitive and about closing the skills gap that is putting America's 
long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.
  Our commitment to lifelong learning never ends. It begins with giving 
our children the proper tools for a start down the pathway that leads 
to their education. The committee approved improvements to Head Start 
this last year, and the completion of this process is one of my top 
priorities.
  On the health front, eight committee bills were signed into law by 
President Bush. One of the most significant new health care laws is the 
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The new law is a 
culmination of 6 years of work in response to the Institute of 
Medicine's 1999 report that found that nearly 100,000 Americans die 
needlessly every year due to medical errors.
  The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act creates a protected 
legal environment in which patient safety organizations can analyze why 
medical errors happen and develop strategies to stop those errors from 
happening again. The law provides critical legal protection for 
doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who might fear coming 
forward with information about mistakes because the information could 
be used in a lawsuit against them.
  This new law is the first important step toward creating a new 
culture of safety and continuous quality improvement in health care.
  This new law is one of just several important pieces of legislation 
the HELP Committee produced in this Congress. I would mention again 
that this too took zero debate time on the floor. Another one is the 
Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005, 
which will help patients with chronic diseases team up with health care 
experts who can help them find their way through the maze to the best 
treatment offered in this often complex health care system. Again, no 
floor debate time.
  The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 supports the 
creation and maintenance of cord blood stem cells. Stem cells obtained 
from umbilical cord blood have already shown great promise in treating 
cancers, leukemia, and other diseases, and this law will accelerate our 
work in those areas. I have already had people who have reported back 
to me that their life may have been saved by that particular act 
already. I think we had 5 minutes of debate time on that bill.
  The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 
2005 enables physicians and other prescribers to find out whether 
patients are abusing and diverting narcotics and other dangerous drugs. 
Instead of enabling these patients and their self-destructive habits, 
physicians will now be able to identify them and treat them.
  The State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2005 renewed a key 
law that funds State high-risk health insurance pools. These pools 
create access to health insurance for otherwise medically uninsurable 
individuals and are an important part of our strategy to make health 
insurance available to more Americans. The President also signed a bill 
to amend the Public Health Service Act and strengthen the National 
Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  Finally, we passed two key laws to preserve access to medical 
technology. The Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 
prevented the FDA's medical device user fee program from expiring. 
Without this law, patients' access to the latest medical innovations 
would have been compromised. Congress also acted to protect children 
from dangerous, unregulated cosmetic lenses, often used as part of 
costumes, by providing for the regulation of these lenses as medical 
devices.
  The HELP Committee members worked together with our House 
counterparts in a bipartisan, bicameral way to complete action on these 
laws. I personally thank all of the committee members on both ends of 
the building for their active participation in this process.
  We also scored a victory on the Senate floor this summer related to 
health insurance. Together with Senators Nelson and Burns, I introduced 
legislation that would allow business and trade associations to band 
their members together in small business health plans and offer group 
health coverage on a national or statewide basis. It would give small 
businesses the capability to group together across State lines to 
effectively negotiate against big insurance companies. It would bring 
down insurance rate significantly, particularly in the area of 
administrative costs.
  This legislation, the Health Insurance Marketplace and Modernization 
and Affordability Act, is a direct response to the runaway costs that 
are driving Americans and businesses away from the health insurance 
marketplace. In May, this legislation received 55 votes on the Senate 
floor--a clear majority. Unfortunately, obstructionists used arcane 
Senate rules requiring 60 votes for passage to defeat consideration of 
the bill. I count this as a victory for the HELP Committee because the 
policy is supported by the majority of the Senate. This will not be a 
victory for Americans until it is signed by the President.
  Enacting the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and 
Affordability Act will be a top priority for the HELP Committee and me 
personally in the 110th Congress. I intend to act on this legislation 
early next year and continue to work across party lines to find the 
solution that produces 60 votes in the Senate. The HELP Committee has a 
role to play in making employer-sponsored health care more accessible 
and affordable. Employer-provided health insurance is voluntary, and it 
is in critical condition. Sixty percent of the country's employers 
offer insurance today. That is down 9 percent from just 5 years ago. 
And the cost of health insurance for companies has nearly doubled in 
that same period, with employers expected to pay an average of $8,167 
per employee family

[[Page 19686]]

versus $4,248 5 years ago. My proposal would provide health care 
coverage to over 1 million small businesses and their working families.
  This fall, I am also hopeful the committee can add two more victories 
to our list of accomplishments. That would be the Health Information 
Technology conference agreement and the reauthorization of the Ryan 
White Care Act.
  Right now, my staff is working aggressively with the House to 
complete action on the Wired For Health Care Quality Act conference 
agreement. This legislation will enhance the adoption of a nationwide 
interoperable health information technology system, improve the quality 
of health care, and contain costs. Primarily, it will allow each 
individual to own their own health care record and to carry it around 
with them easily. They will have the permanent record to carry with 
them and release, to the degree they want to, to any health care 
provider. This will contain costs: just between Medicare, Medicaid and 
Veterans, this is expected to save $160 billion a year. The cost to 
implement: $40 billion, one time. A good investment anywhere.
  The committee has also been working in a bipartisan, bicameral 
fashion to complete the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. The 
measure was approved by the HELP Committee in May, and I am hopeful 
that we can swiftly clear compromise legislation through both Chambers 
by December--I was hoping we could pass it today, but I see it has been 
stopped. It is absolutely essential that this clear by September 30.
  The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act will also have a 
significant impact on the everyday lives of Americans. The HELP 
Committee approved this legislation in June, and I am hopeful we can 
complete action on it this year as well. This reauthorization is 
important because it ensures that our Nation's older Americans, 
including 78 million aging baby boomers, are healthy, fed, housed, able 
to get where they need to go, and safe from abuse and scams. We have 
been in bicameral, bipartisan deliberations for several months. Again, 
there is a little hangup on the funding formula. Money has to follow 
the people in all of these programs.
  The committee also conducted various investigations and held several 
oversight hearings that exposed waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal 
programs and used the findings to craft legislation to increase 
accountability. Our first oversight hearing last year focused on how an 
asset management company, Capital Consultants, defrauded workers out of 
approximately $500 million in retirement assets. The findings from this 
oversight effort were addressed in the new pension law.
  The committee also held the first oversight hearing in almost 70 
years on the Randolph Sheppard Act and the Javits Wagner O'Day Act. 
Both programs are supposed to find employment opportunities for people 
with disabilities. The committee's investigation and hearing 
established that some executives were using the programs for their own 
enrichment--making millions while exploiting people with disabilities. 
Following the hearing, Federal law enforcement took action against the 
worst actors, and we have collaborated across party lines to 
systematically overhaul both programs. My goal is to address these 
programs with legislation next year.
  I thank my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their 
hard work these past 2 years. His assistance and cooperation are the 
main reasons we have been able to accomplish many of these priorities. 
We didn't always agree, but we were able to identify common ground to 
advance our mutual priorities.
  I also thank each of our committee members. As I stated earlier, we 
have kept a full schedule. Many of the legislative victories were 
initiatives brought to my attention by our subcommittee chairs or 
individual committee members. Senators were also especially diligent 
about attending the committee hearings and particularly patient when we 
sometimes waited for a quorum during executive session. For the 
remainder of the year, I will be reaching out to each of our members to 
seek feedback on the 2007 agenda, which will serve as the blueprint for 
the year.
  Finally, in closing, I would like to recognize two departing members 
of the committee: Majority Leader Frist and Senator Jeffords. We are 
fortunate they chose to serve, and we are grateful for their 
contributions. Senator Jeffords is a past chairman of the committee, 
and, of course, Majority Leade Frist has been the doctor on the 
committee and provided a perspective no one else could. I am proud of 
the work we have done here on the committee these past 2 years. By 
working together, we have established a track record of success.
  I also wish to compliment the subcommittee chairmen for their 
extremely hard work. We gave them a lot of independence, and they 
didn't disappoint me. They took hold of programs. The competitiveness 
program is one of them that has reached a point where it can now be 
debated and pursued. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did a 
tremendous job of working that bill, along with Senator Ensign, 
collaborating with three different committees on one piece of 
farsighted legislation.
  Senators DeWine and Mikulski have done a marvelous job with the Elder 
Fall Act and Older Americans Act and have worked well together for a 
number of years across the aisle to make sure older Americans are taken 
care of.
  I could go on and mention all of the subcommittees and the work they 
have done. Senator Burr has done some fantastic work on bioterrorism. 
He has put together a fantastic bill that contains new concepts which 
will allow better preparation for any of the possible terrorism acts 
that could happen on our own soil. Senator Isakson, of course, has been 
extremely active in handling labor issues. As I mentioned, he was a key 
player in the miner safety bill.
  It has been an interesting year. I look forward to another 
interesting year. I am looking for suggestions from my colleagues on 
what needs to be done, and looking for that 80 percent that can be 
accomplished.
  Our record of accomplishment is proof that we are a can-do Congress. 
Far from being a do-nothing Congress, we have shown our colleagues and 
our constituents that Congress can and is working hard to improve the 
lives of Americans.
  One of the reasons America doesn't know more about this is because of 
the cooperation that has taken place. We didn't have to debate the 20 
percent we didn't agree on here on the floor of the Senate, and 
consequently there was not a lot of coverage. But just the pensions 
bill and the miner safety bill, either of those, would be a major 
accomplishment for any committee during a 2-year period.
  I am proud of the 12 bills the President signed and the 21 bills we 
got through this body. I think that is a record of accomplishment, and 
I thank all those who participated.
  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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Mental Health Parity

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleague, Senator 
Durbin of Illinois, took the floor to describe a resolution he and I 
submitted and a number of others cosponsored with him to both recognize 
the contributions of our former colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, and 
to, in that resolution which has now been submitted in the Senate, 
commit ourselves to making a mental health parity bill a high priority 
in the next Congress, the 110th Congress.
  I want to join with Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, and Senator 
Dayton, who also spoke on this topic today, in recognizing the 
contribution

[[Page 19687]]

of our former colleague, Paul Wellstone, and to rededicating ourselves 
in his memory to trying to get this mental health parity bill passed 
once and for all.
  It almost seems impossible that it was almost 4 years ago this next 
month when we tragically lost our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone, 
and some others--his wife and others--in that tragic plane crash in 
Minnesota.
  He was a very special individual to all of us. He was one of the best 
friends I ever had. Of course, I think he was to millions of other 
people around America. They thought he was one their best friends also 
because of what he stood for and what he fought for. He was always 
sticking up for the kind of little person--people who didn't have much 
voice or power around here.
  Paul had one burning goal during his all-too-short tenure in the 
Senate, and that was to get mental health put on the same parity as 
physical health. He struggled mightily to get that done.
  After his tragic death in October of 2002, many here talked about the 
need to pass in his memory the Paul Wellstone mental health parity 
bill. We still have not gotten it done. Four years later, we remember 
that political science professor who came to the Senate. He had a great 
impact.
  Paul once said, politics is about what we create by what we do and 
what we hope for and what we dare to imagine. He dared to imagine and 
to fight for the end of neglect and denial surrounding issues of mental 
health, especially access to mental health services.
  Right now, over 41 million persons suffer from moderate or serious 
mental disorders each year. Less than half receive any needed 
treatment. However, 80 to 90 percent of mental disorders are treatable 
by therapies and medications. Paul fought hard with his characteristic 
passion for the Mental Health Parity Act, to end this absurd practice 
of dividing mental health from physical health and putting them into 
different categories under health insurance.
  Mental disorders account for 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability 
for persons age 5 and older. In fact, depression is the leading cause 
of disability in the United States. Tragically, mental disorders are 
also major contributors to mortality. Some 30,000 Americans die by 
suicide each year.
  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, undertreated and untreated mental disorders cost the 
Nation in excess of $200 billion annually, hurting the economy, the 
profitability of businesses, and, of course, our Government budgets.
  For example, a report released earlier this month by the Department 
of Justice found that more than half of all prison and jail inmates, 
including 56 percent of State prisoners, 45 percent of Federal 
prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates were found to have a 
mental health problem.
  We do not treat the mental health; we hire more police. People with 
mental health problems cause problems in society, and they turn, 
perhaps, to crime or illicit drugs to somehow treat themselves and 
their mental disorders and they wind up in our jails. And we pay and we 
pay and we pay for this as a society. More than half of all of the 
people in jails and prison in America have mental health problems.
  A lot of opponents of mental health parity claim it will drive up the 
cost of health care. However, an interesting study released on March 
30, 2006, in the New England Journal of Medicine released results of a 
study that evaluated the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the 
one we are under, to which we all belong. This has provided insurance 
parity for mental health since 2001. The researchers found that when 
the care was managed, the cost of coverage for mental health problems 
attributable to parity did not increase the cost, and the quality of 
the care remained constant.
  Interesting. In our own health benefits program since 2001 we have 
had mental health parity. And guess what. The costs have not gone up, 
and the quality of care has remained constant. The Wellstone Mental 
Health Parity Act is modeled after the mental health benefits provided 
through the Federal program.
  Many cost studies miss something that is very important: they fail to 
calculate and quantify the benefits and savings that will result from 
parity. They fail to weigh the offsetting cost-benefits to employers 
from increased productivity, reduced sick leave, reduced disability 
costs. Indeed, a true comprehensive assessment of the costs of parity 
must take into account the costs of not providing parity, including the 
economic costs in the workplace, the cost to taxpayers of shifting of 
burden to public systems--as I mentioned earlier, our prisons and 
jails--the cost of care of homeless persons, the cost of care of our 
public mental health systems, the increased cost in emergency room 
visits. Add up all that and the cost of not treating people with mental 
illnesses comes to around $79 billion a year.
  When workers suffering from depression receive treatment, many of the 
medical costs decline by $882 per employee per year. Absenteeism drops 
by 9 days. Again, if we provide that care, we are saving money and 
increasing productivity.
  Also, the good news is that millions of people with mental illness 
can recover. I don't know why so many people think once you have a 
mental illness, that person is doomed for life. That is like saying if 
I have a physical illness, forget it, I have to have it for the rest of 
my life. Not true. It is the same for mental health. People have 
problems; they need help; they get it; they get over it. They can 
reclaim their lives if they are provided treatment and support in a 
timely fashion.
  To that end, it is time to do away with the discriminatory practice 
of treating mental and physical illnesses as two different categories 
under insurance. It is time to do away with the barriers to mental 
health treatment and coverage. It is time to pass mental health parity.
  I might remind the Senate, we did pass it once on the 2002 
appropriations bill. I happened to be chairman that year on the health 
appropriations bill. We passed mental health parity in the Senate. It 
got voiced-voted. No one even objected. Imagine that. We passed it. It 
went to conference. We kept it in on the Senate side, but we went to 
conference with the House and we lost it because the House objected to 
it, by two or three votes. By two or three votes in conference we lost 
it. We came that close in 2002 to getting mental health parity.
  What has happened since? Why have we fallen so far backward? Why 
hasn't the Senate, since that time, brought it up? As I said, in 2002, 
we did it. Since 2003, it has not even been brought up. Hopefully, in 
the next Congress, we will bring it up again, we will pass it again, 
like we did before.
  For those who had the privilege of serving with Paul Wellstone, his 
spirit is still very much with us. He still inspires us and he still 
calls us to conscience. Each day that we fail to pass this legislation, 
as we have for years, we are cheating millions of Americans. Each day 
that we do not step up to the plate and provide adequate mental health 
coverage to our citizens, we cheat them from reclaiming their health 
and well-being, and we starve society of the talent, contributions, and 
productivity they have to offer. It is a disservice to society to sweep 
mental illness under the rug and to deny people access and coverage of 
adequate treatment.
  Congress should make the Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment 
Act a priority for the 110th Congress. With widespread support and 
widespread need, passage of this legislation is long overdue.

                          ____________________