[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14898-14914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 TOM LANTOS AND HENRY J. HYDE UNITED STATES GLOBAL LEADERSHIP AGAINST 
   HIV/AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Menendez, will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Following his remarks, Senator Domenici will be recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Following his remarks, Senator Kyl will be recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                            Oil Price Myths

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are all aware of the seriousness of 
the oil crisis. Gas prices are more than three times what they were 
when President Bush took office. High prices are forcing some 
businesses to cut back or close and forcing some families to choose 
between putting a gallon of gas in the tank and putting a gallon of 
milk on their kitchen table.
  People are demanding honest solutions to our oil crisis. But 
President Bush, John McCain, and their allies on the other side of the 
aisle have only decided to perpetuate myths, which is what brings me to 
the floor.
  They have told us offshore drilling will lower gas prices tomorrow. 
They have told us oil companies could produce more if we hand over even 
more Federal land and water to them. When people spoke about the 
dangers of drilling, they claimed no oil was spilled after Hurricane 
Katrina and that drilling off the shore of one State would not affect 
all the other States around it.
  I am here to clear up these myths before it is too late and they take 
a life of their own.
  Myth No. 1: Drilling immediately brings down gas prices. The biggest 
myth, a myth that has been repeated over and over on the floor of this 
Chamber, is that opening our shores to drilling will somehow lower the 
price of gasoline. Let's get one thing straight; drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf will do nothing to bring down gas prices--not now, 
not ever.
  While President Bush is suggesting that drilling will bring down 
prices at the pump, his own Energy Information Administration admits 
drilling will have no effect. The reason is the amount of oil involved 
is a drop in the bucket compared to what we use every day.
  Let me put offshore production in perspective. Since April of this 
year, Americans have responded to extraordinarily high gas prices by 
using over 800,000 barrels of oil less than we did 1 year ago. That is 
the most significant and sudden drop in oil demand since the 1970s. Yet 
what have we seen since April? We have continued to see record gas 
prices.
  In recent weeks, in response to record oil prices, Saudi Arabia has 
increased its production of oil by 500,000 barrels each and every day. 
What has been the effect on gas prices? They continue to go up.
  So how does the Bush/McCain drilling plan compare to these recent 
events? If we open all our shores to oil production, the first drop of 
oil would not be seen for over a decade. Offshore oil production would 
peak in the year 2030 and only at 200,000 barrels a day. To put that 
number another way, the amount of gas we could get from offshore 
drilling is equivalent to a few tablespoons per car per day.
  So let's look at the totality of this. If 800,000 barrels per day in 
reduced demand by Americans combined with an increase of 500,000 
barrels per day of Saudi production--a total shift of 1.3 million 
barrels a day--doesn't lower gas prices, how does 200,000 in the year 
2030 lower gas prices? If we have seen a shift of both a reduction in 
demand and an increase in that supply by 1.3 million barrels a day, and 
the price still goes up, how is it that 200,000 barrels in 2030 is 
going to do anything? It is a myth.
  The second myth we hear is that if oil companies could only lease 
more Federal land and water, they would produce more oil. The fact of 
the matter is the oil industry has already leased 68 million acres of 
land, where they have not produced--for the most part--a single drop of 
oil. The oil companies clearly think there is oil there or else why 
would they be leasing the land? But they are not using it.
  This chart is an example of where all that oil is located. I know our 
Republican colleagues have these little sayings, and they are going 
around with patches on their lapels saying ``find more, use less.'' 
This is what they should be telling the oil companies: Find more and 
use less. In fact, they are not even pursuing that which they already 
have access to.
  To get an idea of the scale involved, here is a map showing how much 
territory the oil companies control in the Gulf of Mexico. The red part 
of the map represents unused acres. It is a huge portion of the gulf 
region, going completely undeveloped, which they already have leases 
and access to.
  Here is an even more impressive map--a map of how much of the Western 
United States oil companies control. The black portion shows where 
companies are exploring and, again, the red is where they are. As you 
can see, the red far exceeds the black portion of the map. These oil 
companies control an enormous amount of land. When you add it all up, 
it is an area more than 12 times the size of my home State of New 
Jersey.
  So why are oil companies asking us to hand over more land, when they 
have so much land that is already unused? It seems to me there is only 
one explanation: Oil companies aren't actually in a rush to drill in 
those areas, but they are in a rush to control as much Federal land as 
possible before their friends in the White House leave.
  Let's talk about myth No. 3. In order to convince us to let this plan 
go through, big oil and their supporters want us to believe a third 
myth, which is that offshore drilling presents no

[[Page 14899]]

threat to our environment and to the economies of States, such as New 
Jersey, where tourism is the second multibillion dollar part of our 
economy.
  Many of my colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle, 
including Senator McConnell and Senator McCain, have repeatedly denied 
that oil spills could happen. They have denied repeatedly that 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused any oil to spill.
  The picture I have here was taken not by me but by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. It shows what happened after the hurricanes: a massive oil spill 
that was set on fire to assist in the cleanup effort, as indicated in 
this photo.
  I don't know what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
consider ``significant spillage,'' but I know if I saw this scene on 
the New Jersey shore, I would consider it a disaster.
  In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused devastation on a massive 
scale. The EPA, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Coast Guard all agree 
that the storms caused 700,000 gallons of oil to spill into the Gulf of 
Mexico and over 7 million gallons of oil to leak onshore from the 
infrastructure that supports offshore drilling.
  When oil spills in those quantities take place, it is not isolated to 
a small area. Some suggest certain States may want to drill and other 
States may not want to drill off their coast, but the devastation 
spreads far and wide. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, the 
spill was 600 miles wide. The IXTOC I spill in the Gulf of Mexico 
traveled 600 miles. That is why the decision to drill cannot be left to 
a single State, because the State's actions affect all the other States 
in proximity to it.
  An oil spill off the coast of Virginia could wash up as far away as 
Maine. It could devastate the coastline from South Carolina to New 
York.
  In my home State of New Jersey, the shore generates tens of billions 
of dollars in revenue each year and supports about half a million jobs.
  New Jersey families and businesses cannot afford the risk of a 
disaster on the scale of the Exxon Valdez crash or the spills after 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, with sticky crude washing up on our 
beaches, killing our wildlife, collapsing property values, and 
destroying our economy in the process.
  Let's be honest. If there is drilling off our shore, it is not 
guaranteed that there would not be a major spill. These facts show that 
to be quite to the contrary. Disasters have happened before and they 
will happen again. The question is, Is the risk of a significant 
disaster worth the insignificant amount of oil that might come with the 
drilling? That answer is, clearly, no.
  Now, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say, drill 
more and ultimately conserve some, I say our need is to act more and 
talk less. Let's do something that really does something about gas 
prices.
  If we are going to bring down gas prices, we need a better plan. 
First, we cannot wait until the year 2030 to get the type of relief we 
need in terms of offshore drilling. We need to lower gas prices now. 
The last time we opened lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, with huge 
amounts, ultimately, what happened? That was a year and a half, 2 years 
ago. Did prices go down after we opened that section of the gulf? No. 
They went up. We cannot wait.
  The supply-and-demand equation for oil is basically the same as it 
was a year ago--that is what testimony before the Congress tells us by 
even the oil executives--and prices have skyrocketed.
  We need to check the unchecked speculation on the oil trading 
markets, which has driven oil prices higher. We need to see to it that 
our commodities markets are functioning fairly, so prices come down 
from their artificial highs. Yes, we offer drilling. But let us drill 
on the 68 million acres the oil companies have already leased to bring 
down the price of oil, not just use it to pad their books and inflate 
the price of their stock.
  Together with Senators Feingold and Dodd, I have introduced 
legislation that sends a simple message to oil companies about the 
Federal land they lease: Use it or lose it.
  The bill mandates that oil companies either produce on or seek to 
develop their existing Federal leases or make way for someone who will. 
Most importantly, we need to break our dependence upon oil. Here is the 
bigger picture: We can only ever produce a fraction of the oil we use 
as a country.
  The only way for us to protect ourselves from rising gas prices is to 
end our dependence on oil, and that means making immediate, substantial 
investments in renewable fuels and conservation.
  We should all get behind legislation, which our colleagues are 
opposed to, to expand tax credits for renewable energy producers. In 
order to boost vehicle efficiency, we should create stronger incentives 
for plug-in hybrids, support advanced battery research and research 
into cellulosic fuels.
  It is time we fully funded mass transit at the level it deserves. We 
can do all this in the time President Bush would have us wait for 
minimal oil production along our coastlines.
  Let's be clear. This coastline drilling plan is not a serious 
proposal to help American families today. It is exploitation of pain at 
the pump to give yet another handout to the oil companies.
  It is long past time to stop repeating the myths that lie at the 
bottom of it. Instead of buying into this overhyped, oversold plan, if 
we work together, we have the ability and ingenuity as a country to 
secure our energy future once and for all.
  It is that aspiration that we should, in fact, pursue. It is time we 
decide on a plan that looks out not just for the future of the oil 
companies but for our future as a nation. That is why our colleagues 
should join us in pushing the big oil companies to pursue drilling on 
the 68 million acres they have, ensure that they use billions in 
subsidies and tax breaks they have been given to invest in renewable 
energy and refineries, not stock buybacks to boost their pockets, 
tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to immediately increase 
oil supplies, and hopefully by doing so lower prices and stop the 
market manipulation that is taking place in the marketplace. Let's get 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to pursue this vigorously.
  Finally, let's aspire to be something more than just today's crisis. 
Let's use the ingenuity of America to break our dependence not only on 
foreign oil but on domestic oil as well.
  We can do all of these things. We are the people on the face of the 
Earth who are can-do. It is time for us to begin to deal with that 
rather than try to pursue a course of action that will do absolutely 
nothing about reducing gas prices, do absolutely nothing about breaking 
our dependency on foreign oil, absolutely nothing in terms of our 
domestic economy and security.
  Those are the choices before the Senate, and I trust we will make the 
right ones.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just caught some of the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I don't know whether I will be 
able to answer them today, but obviously, in the course of the next few 
days or weeks, I will answer every single one. Most are covered in what 
I will talk about today.
  In the course of the United States of America and the use of crude 
oil and natural gas as part of the transportation base of our country 
for automobiles, trucks, and the like, and at the same time the natural 
gas that has been produced that is being used by our chemical industry, 
the heating and cooling of our houses, and all kinds of things, and now 
some for automobiles also, in the course of that, yesterday was a 
remarkable day. After 27 years of moratorium on offshore exploration 
imposed on a year-to-year basis by the Congress and 18 years placed by 
the President, the executive branch of Government, which is not year to 
year but as long as the President wants it, we had the President of the 
United States taking off that Executive order putting a moratorium on 
85 percent of the offshore properties in the continental

[[Page 14900]]

U.S. owned by every single American. We had the President take off the 
moratorium and challenge the Congress to do likewise because without 
lifting the moratorium, whether it is the executive branch or the 
legislative branch, we cannot explore for oil and gas that we own.
  I regret to say that we have been so far off base in terms of 
deciding where we would spend our money to help determine our course, 
where we are going, that we have not spent the money to go out and find 
the inventory, to do an inventory of this huge offshore resource, 
including off the California shores, all the way around the Atlantic 
and Pacific where there must be billions of barrels of oil that are 
going to be developed over the years and literally trillions upon 
trillions of natural gas Btu's that are going to be discovered. We 
decided there was plenty of oil and gas in the world, so we could put a 
moratorium on because we were frightened of what would happen if there 
would be spills. We were scared of what would happen if oil might spill 
out of one of the pipelines.
  I say to everyone, during this 27 years, more or less, of moratoria, 
there has been a part of the offshore that has been open. The part that 
has been opened is singularly marked by a huge production of crude oil 
and natural gas for the people of America, principally off the coast of 
Texas, Louisiana, and a little bit of Alabama and Mississippi. But it 
has yielded literally millions upon millions of barrels of crude oil 
for America and literally scores of natural gas, that little bit that 
is open.
  How much is open, so we will have it straight? Mr. President, 15 
percent, 1-5; 85 percent has a moratorium on it. We have not 
inventoried it because we didn't want to spend the money. It cost a 
little bit of money to inventory it. So we have a sloppily done 
estimate that says we have an awful lot of oil and natural gas on that 
85 percent. It is estimated that there are somewhere between 17 billion 
and 18 billion barrels. This Senator thinks that is so low that if we 
were to do an inventory, I think it would be twice as much or more that 
the American people own and we are not doing anything with.
  So, yes, indeed, it was a remarkable day when President Bush lifted 
that moratorium and said to us: You do likewise. Specifically, the 
President was saying to us: Do something that will tell the world we 
are going to start producing and get that done in a way that will cause 
those who are in the fields of buying and selling oil and gas and 
producing it to understand that there is another new, huge reserve 
coming onboard in due course, some of it in a few years, some of it 
over the long haul, but that it is there and America is going to use 
it.
  In response to the President, the majority leader of the Senate, who 
has been my friend for a long time, announced that he will introduce 
his own bill. I heard the Senator from New Jersey alluding to parts of 
it. Probably tomorrow, he said. His bill will focus principally on the 
idea that speculators are driving up the price of oil, even though 
speculators are only responding to the same supply-demand concerns that 
everyone else is. In fact, recently Warren Buffett, the great 
businessman, explained the spike in gas prices by saying:

       It's not speculation, it's supply and demand. We don't have 
     excess capacity in the world anymore and that's what you are 
     seeing in oil and gas prices.

  Guy Caruso, the Administrator of the Energy Information Agency, said 
speculation was not driving the increase in prices.
  Just today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said:

       If financial speculation were pushing all prices above the 
     level consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand, 
     we would expect inventories of crude oil and petroleum 
     products to increase as supply rose and demand fell. But, in 
     fact, available data on oil inventories shows notable 
     declines over the past year.

  These experts say that speculation is not the main reason for this 
surge.
  What really struck me was the majority leader announced he would not 
allow amendments at all to his bill. Let me make sure we say this on 
the first day after the President raises the moratorium, and so the 
moratoria that are left are all dependent on Congress. Whenever 
Congress is ready, Congress can change them. And if Congress doesn't do 
something, those moratoria will all expire at the end of this fiscal 
year. That is the first day of October. They will expire. We will have 
to act to keep them on.
  But here we have the majority leader announcing that he would not 
allow any amendments to his bill that we haven't seen yet--not a single 
one, said he. I can't believe the people of this country are going to 
buy that, that one man, instead of the Senate, one man in his capacity 
as majority leader can say to the Senate: Take it or leave it. Here is 
my bill. It hasn't been produced by any committee. It is the bill of 
the leader of the Senate, and it principally says: We are going after 
speculators, so it is not going to produce any oil, from what we can 
see, and he says there will be no amendments.
  I really don't believe, I repeat myself, that when the American 
people understand that out there for use, for development in the world 
market of oil and gas supply sits all this offshore development 
potential, and here stands the majority leader of the Senate and he 
says: So long as you do it my way, there will be some impact, some 
change, but it will only be what I say and not what anybody else 
thinks--we have already said on our side--and we are not just a few 
people; we are 49 out of 100. We have already said we want to produce 
more oil and gas offshore and we want to share the royalties with the 
States so that as we go about asking California if they would like to 
lift the moratorium and put a 50-mile limit, they could assess with 
experts how many hundreds of millions of dollars that State is going to 
get from royalties, in exchange for which the American people are going 
to have oil and gas drilling off that shore. All across the country, 
down in the South where we have a moratorium, the same thing can 
happen. There can be an honest, bona fide look by the States under our 
proposal. But that won't happen.
  The occupant of the chair is one of the most reputable and fair 
Senators around. He wouldn't like to see that happen. He is listening 
attentively: Is that what I am for as a Democrat? Is that what I am 
going to do, say we are running this like the U.S. House, except we 
don't have a committee to police the bills because it was never in our 
power to do it, but our majority leader is going to be the one who 
decides what we take up. You can't amend a bill he puts on the floor on 
this energy crisis, this offshore oil which is in a huge new abundance 
that we own that sooner or later is going to add substantially to the 
supply and thus have an impact on the price of oil and gas for the 
American people.
  I don't really think the majority leader is going to be able to 
prevail on this issue. Understand, he is going to have to have a vote 
on a continuing resolution because we are not doing any appropriations 
bills. Come time for that continuing resolution, they have to extend 
all of these moratoria because those appropriations bills they are 
having votes on are not going to get to the floor of the Senate. So we 
are going to have a continuing resolution around here and have to get 
the votes on it, excepting that I understand right now that the 
majority leader wants to bring his own bill to the floor, lay it up, 
and not let anybody amend it.
  Yesterday he talked about this: You do it my way. Why? You won't get 
a chance to vote. Why? Because you lose because you cannot get 51 
Senators to vote with you and do nothing to liberate for use these 
huge, huge billions and billions of barrels of oil and natural gas in 
abundance.
  As all of my colleagues know, I have been around here about 36 years. 
Some people say that can't be right, but it is, and I am about to make 
it the last, soon. I have had a hand in passing a lot of bills. For 
many years, I passed a Budget Act every year. I don't think I missed 
but once. I was there doing that for about 18, 20, 26 years. You all--
even new Senators have seen what an ordeal that is. If I look stooped 
and worn out, it is because I did that for so long before I got this 
wonderful job trying to

[[Page 14901]]

do something about the energy crisis. And we have done a lot. It is 
just that the energy crisis is pervasive. You can do a lot, and nobody 
knows you have done anything.
  I have had a hand in passing a lot of bills, and I have seen what 
happens when one party decides it can dictate to the other. 
Unfortunately, that is what is happening now. On the most important 
economic issue of our time, the majority leader has decided that he 
alone--he and he alone--is the only person here who can make energy 
policy. The rest of us might as well go home. We can't offer any 
amendments and we would be lucky if he even let us have a good debate.
  Why? The majority leader knows that one of our ideas is to allow each 
individual State to decide if it wants to explore for oil and gas. 
Eighty-five percent of the land in the continental United States is 
currently off limits for oil. The President lifted his 85 percent; the 
same number remains under moratoria from the legislature.
  Republicans want to change that. I am pleased that I think some 
Democrats want to change that. This area is laden with billions of 
barrels of American oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, so 
the majority leader knows if you were to have a vote on this subject on 
the floor, he may not win. He may not win. And I believe the American 
people will have a lot to say about who wins when they understand this 
issue plain and simple. The offshore has always been open to 
development under certain rules until you put on a moratorium and we 
now have one on, put on by the legislature, and it ought to be taken 
off. Republicans want to change it and I am pleased to say that, 
talking to Democrats, I also believe there are some of them who want to 
join us.
  The majority leader knows if we were to have a vote on this subject, 
he may not win. I put it the other way, he may lose. And even if he 
does win, the American people will not like it, since the vast majority 
of them agree with us that America ought to be producing more oil 
through deep-water exploration. The American people are clamoring for 
it. They do it in Norway, Brazil, Great Britain, and many other 
nations. So Americans are asking, why not here?
  I have heard all kinds of excuses as to why we should not open up the 
new areas. The latest one, according to the majority leader, is----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have heard all the excuses I have ever heard of. I 
want to close with one. The other side says they are going to put in 
some language that says to those companies that own leases: Use it or 
lose it. They don't have to put that in their new law because there is 
already a ``use it or lose it'' provision. I say to my friend, Senator 
Kyl, all of those companies that have leases have either a 5- or 8- or 
10-year lease. In each of those leases it says: When the lease expires, 
if you are not producing, you lose the lease. That is: Use it or lose 
it. So already all the leases say by the time the lease expires--and 
they are not long leases. They are 5s and 8s and 10s.
  If you talk about a lot of property not being used, it is because 
they are going through different phases of evaluating the property to 
get it ready for the final decision whether to drill the hole. So we 
are not worried about that. We contend that there is no ``use it or 
lose it'' necessary because it is already the law under which they 
serve today.
  There is nobody sitting on it. It is $140-a-barrel oil. If you were 
to sit on that, as an oil company, you would be held responsible to 
your board and your stockholders for wrongdoing because you ought to 
get on with producing it so you don't lose it because it already is a 
``use it or lose it,'' and we do not need any new rules.
  The President's action yesterday places the ball firmly in our court. 
It is a decision we have to make soon because the existing moratoria on 
offshore exploration expire at the end of September. But in order to 
address any of these problems, the Senate must be able to function as a 
deliberative body. As long as we are blocked by the majority from 
offering amendments to virtually every bill that comes before us, we 
simply can't do that. It is not the right way to govern.
  The American people are paying a very high price. We know it. We have 
to make sure the American people find out--and first, that those who 
disseminate the news find out that in fact this should be open for 
debate. Republicans will be reasonable, but we want some amendments and 
we want to vote on the disposition of this property which belongs to 
everybody. Some of it may have great quantities of natural gas and 
crude oil. We have to make some decisions other than: Do it my way. I, 
the leader, have a bill. It will be that bill or no bill.
  I am sorry to say to my good friend, the leader, he was not that way 
before. He should go back as a leader the way he was before and not 
think he can do that. He does not own the Senate. He does not run the 
Senate in that manner. We didn't give anybody that authority and we 
ought to get on with an understanding and agreement in the normal way 
that we have always done it and see how this comes out. It will 
probably come out right for the American people if we do that. It will 
become an asset for them. It will help bring down the prices, and 
certainly it will take millions of dollars we would otherwise be 
throwing away and we will keep it for ourselves as we keep some of 
these oil and gas revenues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the assistant Republican leader is 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. President, are we currently in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the bill.
  Under the previous order, the minority whip is recognized to offer an 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 5082

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5082.

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

 (Purpose: To limit the period during which appropriations may be made 
  to carry out this Act and to create a point of order in the Senate 
against any appropriation to carry out this Act that exceeds the amount 
                    authorized for fiscal year 2013)

       On page 129, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     ``(b)'' on page 130, line 3, and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 401 of the United States 
     Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 
     2003 (22 U.S.C. 7671) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$3,000,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008'' and inserting 
     the following ``--
       ``(1) $40,000,000,000 for the 4-year period beginning on 
     October 1, 2008; and
       ``(2) $10,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Point of Order Against Any Appropriation That Exceeds 
     the Amount Authorized.--
       (1) Point of order.--Subject to paragraph (2), it shall not 
     be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     contains an appropriation to carry out this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act that exceeds the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated for such purpose under this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act.
       (2) Waiver and appeal.--
       (A) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to 
     sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (1).
       (c)


[[Page 14902]]

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl 
be recognized for up to 5 minutes for debate only, and that following 
his remarks, Senator Klobuchar be recognized to speak for up to 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the agreement be 
amended by also providing that Senator Judd Gregg would follow Senator 
Klobuchar.
  Mr. CARDIN. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it will only take me 5 minutes to describe 
this amendment. If we need to have debate about it later, we can 
certainly do that.
  This is an amendment to the bill. The bill, recall, provides for an 
authorization of $50 billion over 5 years. If you divide $50 billion by 
5 years, you get $10 billion a year. All my amendment does is to 
provide that, at least in the last year of the 5 years, the 
appropriation to fill the authorization would be limited to $10 
billion. If it were more than that, there would be a point of order 
that would lie against that.
  The reason for the amendment is twofold. First, the House of 
Representatives provides for an annual authorization of $10 billion per 
year for 5 years. The Senate bill doesn't break it down that way. We 
are open as to that. I am not trying to limit what the appropriations 
would be during years 1 through 4, but what I am saying is the fifth 
year would be $10 billion, exactly one-fifth of the amount authorized.
  The second reason is this. Frequently in the reauthorization of 
legislation we take as the baseline the last year of appropriations. I 
want to make sure if we are authorizing $50 billion that when we get to 
the end of this, the baseline for the next year is at least not going 
to exceed $10 billion, which would be one-fifth of the $50 billion. It 
turns out under the existing program we have not limited ourselves to 
that degree of discipline. The existing law authorizes $15 billion over 
5 years. You would think that would be $3 billion year. If you think 
that, you would be wrong. What the Appropriations Committee has done is 
to appropriate more money than that authorized. In the last year, the 
current year, for example, there is about $6 billion that has been 
appropriated as a result of which, over the 5-year period, the total 
amount appropriated is just under $20 billion. That is $20 billion 
appropriated for a $15 billion authorization.
  All I am trying to do is to keep us honest here. If we are saying 
this is going to be a $50 billion authorization--I think that is way 
too much money--let's leave it at $50 billion. All my amendment does is 
to say in the last year, the appropriation to fulfill that would be 
limited to $10 billion. I think that is eminently reasonable.
  To those who say, ``We are going to oppose all amendments to the 
bill, let's just do it the way it was written,'' I say think for a 
moment. You are going to make people feel a lot better about this if 
there is some discipline in our spending in furtherance of the 
authorization. There is some degree of skepticism, at least by some on 
my side, that Congress will restrain itself to the level of 
authorization.
  This amendment doesn't go as far as the House in setting an amount 
every year, but it does at least set an amount for the last year. 
Theoretically, we could appropriate more than $50 billion. In the first 
4 years you could appropriate $12 billion a year. This amendment 
doesn't prevent that. But I do want to say in the last year we confirm 
the discipline of limiting it to $10 billion.
  That is the extent of my amendment. I hope my colleagues will approve 
it. We don't need a great deal of debate time, as far as I am 
concerned. If somebody wants to argue against it, I wish to have the 
last word and then have a vote on it as soon as is agreeable to the 
Members on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator yields back his time.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, 
is recognized.


                             Climate Change

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as you noted, I come from the State of 
Minnesota and the State of Minnesota is a State that believes in 
science. We brought the world everything from the Post-it note to the 
pacemaker. We are the home of Mayo Clinic and the University of 
Minnesota. We believe in science. As a former prosecutor, I also 
believe in evidence. What we have been hearing from this 
administration, time and time again, whether it is about energy 
policy--where they have actually done literally nothing the last 8 
years when it comes to pushing us forward to where we should be when 
you look at the rest of the world with technology and hybrid cars and 
electric cars and new gas mileage standards which came out of this 
Congress, or whether it is about climate change, which I am about to 
address today--they have been living in an evidence-free zone. It is 
time to bring out the evidence.
  The administration made headlines twice last week in its ongoing 
effort to do nothing about climate change. We learned there was 
political interference with science--political interference with the 
evidence and the facts. We also learned the administration will not 
issue the global warming regulations mandated by the Supreme Court.
  I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Some of 
my colleagues might recall last fall when Dr. Julie Gerberding, the 
Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, was invited 
to testify before our committee. She was invited to testify on how 
climate change could impact public health. Unfortunately, her testimony 
that she delivered was markedly different from what she and her staff 
at the CDC had prepared. The Office of Management and Budget got its 
hands on the speech and removed about 7 pages that discussed the impact 
of global warming--7 pages redacted. These pages included explanations 
and descriptions of the links between climate change and heat stroke, 
weather disasters, worsening air pollution, allergies, food and 
waterborne infectious diseases, mosquito and tickborne infectious 
diseases, and food and water scarcity. I would say those things seem 
very relevant to the job of the head of the CDC, and something she 
should be allowed to testify about when it comes to climate change.
  Well, at the time there was brouhaha because someone leaked the 
actual testimony, a whistleblower brought it to our attention.
  At the time, the White House claimed they needed to edit it because 
of its ``broad characterizations about climate change science that 
didn't align with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
Report.''
  Last fall, we provided a number of examples of how her testimony was, 
in fact, closely aligned with that report. Her testimony, in fact, 
included the statement that:

       The west coast of the United States is expected to 
     experience significant strains on water supplies as regional 
     precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted.

  She went on to say:

       Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, 
     severity, distribution, and duration.

  In fact, the IPPC has found that ``warm spells and heat waves will 
very likely increase the danger of wildfire.''
  So they were completely consistent, and I do not have to tell anyone, 
you do not have to read a report on what has been going on in 
California in the past 2 weeks.
  Global warming did not cause these fires, but it certainly 
intensifies the three main causes of wildfires: high temperatures, 
summer dryness, and long-term drought.
  Minnesotans know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Let's 
face it, the Bush administration did not change Dr. Gerberding's 
testimony because of concerns regarding accuracy. They did not worry 
about if it matched with that record because it, in fact, exactly did. 
They did it for political reasons.
  So it was no surprise to me when the news broke last week that both 
the Office of the Vice President and the President's Council on 
Environmental Quality had actually stepped in to

[[Page 14903]]

interfere with her testimony. This revelation came to us from Mr. Jason 
Burnett, a former Deputy Administrator of the EPA, who informed 
Chairman Boxer that he had been approached by the Council on 
Environmental Quality staff and asked to work with the CDC to remove 
from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of 
climate change.
  Upon reviewing the original testimony, Mr. Burnett came to the same 
conclusion we have reached since: The science was correct. He did not 
think he should alter the statement. He was not operating in an 
evidence-free zone. He wanted the facts out there. He wanted 
information out there.
  I am sorry to report that even though the administration has been 
caught redhanded in this behavior, time and time again, it has not 
stopped them from continuing their interference with scientific facts. 
Last week we learned the Office of Management and Budget has been 
sitting on an e-mail from that same former Deputy Administrator of the 
EPA regarding the endangerment of public health or welfare from global 
warming.
  The OMB received this e-mail, and once they realized what it 
contained----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The OMB received this e-mail. Once they realized what 
it contained, they first tried to make Mr. Burnett take it back, and 
then they actually tried to bury it.
  We also learned last week of the administration's decision to leave 
office without taking any regulatory action to address climate change. 
This is wrong. The bottom line is that this White House is leaving it 
to the next President to show leadership, to show leadership on energy, 
and to show leadership on climate change.
  I cannot say it more plainly than this: Our climate is changing. If 
we do not act to stem the tide, it will have grave and disastrous 
impacts on every single facet of our lives, from our health, to our 
economy, to our foreign policy.
  It should begin with science, it should begin with evidence, it 
should end with science, and it should end with evidence. That is how 
we will come to the right policy outcome. We cannot have the wool 
pulled over the eyes of the American people anymore.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5081

  Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5081.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5081.

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

    (Purpose: To strike the provision requiring the development of 
 coordinated oversight plans and to establish an independent Inspector 
         General at the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator)

       On page 38, strike line 15 and all that follows through 
     ``(e)'' on page 40, line 20 and insert the following:''.
       (e) Inspector General.--
       (1) Establishment.--Section 11 of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the Coordinator of 
     United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS 
     Globally;'' after ``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Office of the U.S. 
     Global AIDS Coordinator,'' after ``Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission,''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013, to carry out the duties of the Inspector 
     General of the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator.
       (f)

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment, I do not know why we are 
taking up this amendment at all. It is an amendment which is going to 
try to make funds spent under this bill be responsibly spent. It sets 
up an IG to review how these funds are spent.
  We are taking a program which we presently spend $15 billion on and 
we are tripling it, we are doing more than tripling it, we are taking 
it to more than $50 billion. I know the taxpayers of America would hope 
and expect that when we take a program and radically expand it in this 
manner, we would expect that those dollars be spent efficiently and 
effectively.
  Now, we put inspectors general into a lot of different programs 
around here. There are programs which spend less than $20 million that 
have inspectors general tied to them. It is only reasonable that if you 
are going to take a program and radically expand it, the way this 
program is being expanded, which will lead to significant pressure to 
push money out the door, and, unfortunately, that quite often leads to 
instances where the money is not well spent, that you should have 
someone looking over the shoulders of the folks who are spending the 
money and saying: Is this money being spent for what, first, it was 
intended to do, which is to help people in nations who are suffering 
from the plague of AIDS, specifically, and, secondly, that people who 
are the recipients of those dollars are handling those dollars in a way 
where the dollars are not being wasted or handled in a corrupt manner.
  Now, one of the unfortunate factors involved in the PEPFAR Program is 
that many of the countries which receive PEPFAR funds are countries 
which have governments which are not all that committed to integrity 
and are not transparent at all. In fact, a corruption index by 
Transparency International took a look at the various countries around 
the world to determine which countries are basically corrupt and which 
are not; which have governments that function under the rule of law and 
which do not, and which governments end up with a large amount of 
patronage, waste, and fraud when they manage their funds.
  This map shows that conclusion of that index. The darker the colors 
get on this map, the more problematic is the nation relative to the 
issue of transparency and integrity in their government. Well, as you 
look at this map, you maybe cannot see it, but there are little yellow 
stars on the countries which are going to be receiving most of the 
PEPFAR funds or are presently receiving PEPFAR funds.
  Almost all those countries are nations which have serious issues on 
transparency and where the governments have some questions about 
integrity and management and waste.
  So it is very reasonable that we should put in place an inspector 
general within the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator to make sure 
these dollars, which are fairly significant--in fact, they are dramatic 
when you look at the increases--are being spent well. You know, 
American taxpayers and most Americans are extremely generous people. We 
as a nation are generous. There is no other nation in the world that 
has stepped up to the AIDS fight, especially in Africa, the way we 
have. I congratulate this Administration for taking the lead on that. I 
congratulate Senator Lugar for being one of the leaders on this effort 
and Senator Biden.
  They are reflecting, the President and the leadership of the Foreign 
Relations Committee are reflecting the inherent nature of the American 
people, which is to try to help people out who have problems. We 
recognize AIDS is a scourge, and it is a terrible situation, especially 
in these African countries.
  But the American people also expect that when they are generous with 
their dollars, as they are being under this program, and have been 
under this program, that these dollars are going to be

[[Page 14904]]

well used; they are not going to end up in the pocket of some cousin of 
somebody who is going to be running the program; or not end up in a 
Swiss bank account or not end up going for somebody's new Mercedes or, 
alternatively, they are not going to go into an NGO, a nongovernmental 
organization, which rather than being an efficient provider of care, 
turns out to be simply a place where a lot of money is spent on 
administration, instead of a lot of money being spent on trying to cure 
or address the problem of AIDS.
  One of the ways we accomplish that, to make sure we have accurate 
accountability, is through the use of inspectors general. Now, some 
will say: Well, there is already an inspector general who can be 
responsible for this money. Well, those inspectors general who would 
logically have jurisdiction over these dollars are spread thin in their 
responsibility; they have a lot of other accounts to cover. It is not 
like this is a small account. Under this bill, this account explodes.
  So we have actually set up inspectors general in other accounts which 
are much smaller and had no problem with that. Inspectors general do 
not cost a lot of money actually, and they get a pretty good return on 
the investment, usually, because these individuals set up small offices 
of people who have oversight of the dollars that are being spent. They 
usually end up saving enough money to easily justify their existence.
  But we have an inspector general, for example, in programs such as 
the Smithsonian Institution, which is not very significant compared to 
PEPFAR; programs such as the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is 
almost nonexistent on a spending level compared to PEPFAR; we even have 
an IG for the Denali Commission, and obviously for the Library of 
Congress and National Archives; two organizations which I suspect do 
not need an inspector general because they are pretty well managed 
organizations, to say the least. But we put inspectors general in those 
positions in order to make sure the American tax dollars are 
efficiently, effectively, and appropriately used and that the programs 
that are supposed to be addressed are addressed.
  Well, there is resistance, for some reason, to putting an inspector 
general into this program. I cannot understand it. I mean, it is just 
logic that you would, when you are expanding a program at this rate, do 
that, put an inspector general in. So I would hope there would not be 
opposition to this amendment, that it would be accepted, that we would 
take this responsible action.
  If we do not, I have to ask the question: What is all this new money 
going to be spent on? Is there some plan we have not been informed of 
that is of a nature that does not want to have oversight, that does not 
want to have a legitimate review of the way the money is spent?
  Are there groups out there thinking they are going to have this money 
and have the influence to basically stop before it even starts the 
accountability of those groups? Are there countries out there that fall 
into that category? It would seem there would have to be if there is 
resistance on the inspector general program for this proposal.
  So that is why I hope it will be supported. On the side issue, which 
is actually not a side issue, it is an overriding issue, but it does 
not relate so much to the inspector general. On the spending side, this 
initiative in PEPFAR is a huge expansion of a program, just massive. 
This year we are going to go from a budget deficit last year that was 
$177 billion to a budget deficit that is already projected by CBO as 
being well over $400 billion.
  Because of the slowdown in the economy, which has slowed revenues, 
because of the slowdown in the economy, which is putting more pressure 
on us to come in and support various activities in the marketplace such 
as our banking industry and our housing industry, that number will 
probably even go up, probably well over $400 billion, we could be 
headed to a $450 or $500 billion deficit in 1 year, this year, 1 year, 
a massive expansion in the deficit which fundamentally undermines our 
Nation and, in the long run, it adds to our debt.
  These young people down here who are pages today are going to end up 
picking up that bill. It is going to be passed to them. So we do have 
to be very responsible when we decide to expand programs in the face of 
the deficit because all this new spending that is going to come in on 
PEPFAR is either going to be borrowed or it is going to have to come 
from other programs.
  Now, let me try to impress upon people how big this expansion is. In 
relation to our foreign aid account, which I have jurisdiction over, to 
some degree, because I am the ranking member of the Foreign Aid 
Committee in the Appropriations Committee. This is a pie chart that 
shows today's international development aid program. PEPFAR represents 
a fairly significant portion under today's funding level, which is at 
$15 billion authority. It represents about a quarter of what the 
foreign aid funding is.
  Well, after we pass this bill or after this bill gets passed, because 
I am not planning to vote for it in its present profligate state, even 
though I support the basic program and would support a reasonable 
increase in it, PEPFAR is going to represent about 77 percent of all 
foreign aid development money.
  The question becomes, what happens to all these other accounts? If I, 
as ranking member, and Senator Leahy, as chairman of this committee--
and maybe that will be reversed next year; it has been reversed in the 
past--are responsible for dividing up this development aid money, how 
is it going to work? We are going to receive an allocation. That is 
what we will get from the full Appropriations Committee after the 
Budget Committee acts, of which I also happen to be ranking member. I 
don't expect that allocation to be increased by 25 percent. There has 
never been a whole lot of enthusiasm for dramatically ramping up 
foreign assistance in this body. So I don't think we are going to see a 
20- to 25-percent increase in our allocation, which is what it would 
cost to fully fund PEPFAR and keep that funding from impacting the 
other programs.
  The last couple of years we have received an increase--3 percent, 5 
percent, 4 percent. Let's presume we continue with that increase level. 
Let's presume we get the increases we have received in the last couple 
of years which have been bigger than most other accounts have received 
in the Federal Government that are not related to defense. That is 
still going to leave literally somewhere around $8 billion--
potentially, $6 to $8 billion, by my guesstimate--we are going to have 
to find somewhere else, if we are going to fully fund the PEPFAR 
Program.
  People say this is an authorization. We pass authorizations all the 
time. Everybody knows that is a number put out there for the political 
purpose of making a statement about how important the program is.
  In this instance, that is probably not the case. When you are talking 
about funding AIDS and the fight against diseases such as malaria in 
Africa, there is a consensus that we need to be aggressive and 
participate. I fully expect this authorization will be very close, if 
not fully funded. So where are we going to get the money? We are going 
to have to take it out of other foreign aid accounts because of this 
threefold increase, going from a $15 billion program to a $50 billion 
program. That is a tripling of the program.
  The accounts that are going to be impacted are pretty popular 
accounts. They are going to be cut. We are going to have to cut funds 
to Israel. We will have to cut funds to Egypt. We will have to cut 
educational and communications funding we are making in the Middle East 
and in the Arab world to try to communicate our message over the 
message of al-Qaida and the radical Muslim fundamentalist movement. We 
will have to cut the Foreign Agricultural Service, the international 
narcotics and Andean initiatives, the migration and refugee assistance 
disaster program. The USAID organization itself will be cut 
significantly, operations and people on the ground. Child survival and 
health programs will be cut. Obviously, the Millennium Challenge will 
be cut, and sustainable development assistance programs will

[[Page 14905]]

have to be cut. They will simply have to be cut. You can't produce 
these types of funds for PEPFAR at this rate of increase without making 
reductions. I believe PEPFAR is a program that is a success. I believe 
we as a nation have done the right thing and stepped up to what was our 
responsibility as a nation. I certainly support a reasonable increase 
that is, as the administration suggested at one time, around $30, $35 
billion as a 5-year number. That is a pretty big increase. That is 
double. But this bill goes too far; $50 billion is simply too much for 
this budget and for the Appropriations Committee, on which I have some 
responsibility, to handle, unless we will start running a surplus where 
we can find funds. I put out that red flag.
  This is a feel-good vote. Everybody is going to vote for it. People 
want to make a statement. But this statement is going to have 
consequences. I suspect a year from now, when people insist on full 
funding for this over the next 5 years, people will be a little upset 
about the accounts that will have to be reduced into in order to 
accomplish that full funding. That is a red flag I am putting out.
  The issue I am talking about today is whether we will put in place a 
process where the American taxpayer, no matter what the final dollar 
figure is, can have some confidence that money going into these 
nations, which have been identified as having fairly significant 
problems, for the most part, with the way they handle money, is going 
to be efficiently and effectively used so that we actually do care for 
people who have AIDS, so that we do get money out to that mother and 
child who suffer from these conditions.
  I certainly hope Members would look favorably on this amendment, put 
in place an IG on an account that is fairly significant and a lot 
bigger than a lot of other accounts that have inspectors general and 
which cries out for review because it is going into areas which are not 
quite as stable as the National Archives. The National Archives is 
pretty stable. The Library of Congress is a pretty stable place. You 
pretty much can figure out what is going on there when money goes to 
those folks. But when you send money into some of these nations which 
are governed, in many instances, by people who are not subject to the 
rule of law as we are, or to transparency rules as we are, you need to 
think about having somebody look over the shoulder of the folks 
spending the money to make sure the American taxpayer gets what they 
pay for and that this deep commitment by Americans to compassion, 
especially on the issue of AIDS, leads to actual positive action rather 
than simply people going out and wasting taxpayers' dollars or using it 
in a fraudulent way.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I would say, 
to begin with, I clearly agree with the oversight goals he seeks to 
achieve. But the underlying bill we are considering today creates a 
strong inspector general infrastructure for PEPFAR, and it constructs 
it at less cost than the proposal made by the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  To begin with, PEPFAR has set a high standard for results-based, 
accountable development programs both within our own Government and in 
the international community. PEPFAR has been among the most evaluated 
of new programs in the U.S. It has been the subject of five GAO reports 
already completed, with a sixth on the way, examining operations and 
expenditures. The inspectors general of the Department of State and 
USAID have so far conducted evaluations of 10 of the 15 focus countries 
of PEPFAR. These inspections have occurred in South Africa, Guyana, 
Nigeria, Tanzania, Haiti, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Ethiopia, and Kenya. 
The Institute of Medicine conducted a congressionally required 
multiyear evaluation entitled ``PEPFAR Implementation: Progress and 
Promise.'' Another review is required by this bill we consider 
presently. The inspector general of Health and Human Services is 
currently conducting an extensive financial audit on all PEPFAR funding 
received by HHS from the State Department for the fiscal years 2004 
through 2008. The Peace Corps, beginning in September, will be 
conducting an internal management assessment on PEPFAR implementation 
in Ethiopia.
  Clearly, officials are paying close attention to how PEPFAR money is 
being spent. This is particularly important given that various agencies 
all apportion funds through the office of the Global AIDS coordinator. 
It is their money, and they know they must account for it. That is why 
our bill calls on the Global AIDS coordinator to expend some $15 
million to fund these IG efforts to ensure that they have adequate 
resources.
  Based on a recommendation from the State Department inspector 
general, the U.S. Global AIDS coordinator has formally requested that 
the inspectors general of PEPFAR agencies submit a joint memorandum 
describing options, feasibility, and estimated costs of conducting a 
collective independent financial audit of U.S. Governmentwide PEPFAR 
funds.
  The State Department's inspector general has confirmed that he is 
acting on this request and will be inviting all PEPFAR IGs to come 
together to develop plans by the end of July.
  In addition to the additional funding of inspector general 
operations, the managers' bill requires the submission of an annual 
coordinated audit plan by the Department of State, USAID, and the 
Department of Health and Human Services in relation to PEPFAR, in 
collaboration with all PEPFAR implementing agencies and the GAO.
  In this context, a stand-alone inspector general for PEPFAR, 
suggested by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire in his 
amendment, may not be the best way to evaluate the program. I believe 
we now have a strong system of oversight already in the bill that 
recognizes the participation of many agencies in our antidisease 
programs. I believe we should retain that system.
  I would point out that I share the distinguished Senator's views with 
regard to economies, but I am suggesting that the inspector general 
results that he anticipates can be achieved for less money. This is why 
I have outlined, tediously and laboriously, specifically all of the 
audits that have already been conducted, plus the ones now being 
coordinated by the Department of State. I take seriously, as I think 
all Senators do, the thought that these moneys must be carefully spent 
in whatever country they may reside. I would simply say this is why I 
have enumerated the 10 countries in which extensive examination has 
already occurred, with the five to go to be completed shortly.
  Finally, clearly the Congress does have to make choices with regard 
to expenditures. We all take that responsibility seriously. I come, as 
do many Senators today, as an advocate for the PEPFAR Program, for all 
of the reasons we have expressed in outlining the introduction of the 
bill. In very quick review, they come down to the saving of hundreds of 
thousands of lives, the alleviation of extraordinary suffering on this 
Earth, and from the standpoint of our foreign policy, one of the 
strongest ways in which the United States has made an impact on a 
number of countries in which our public diplomacy or diplomacy of any 
sort has not been very successful in the past. We make an impact 
because people in those countries know that we care. We do care for the 
people, but we also care for the relationships and for the roles these 
countries play in the formulation of world peace and in preservation of 
a world in which we all do better.
  Therefore, the PEPFAR Program does have merit and, I believe, 
extensive popularity not only in our country but in so many other areas 
of the world in which we have served. That does not obviate for a 
moment the need to carefully detail precisely the results that I 
believe we have tried to take account of, and I believe have done so 
with economy in the underlying bill.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LUGAR. Of course.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that presently the inspectors 
general

[[Page 14906]]

for Defense, for Labor-HHS, the State Department, and the USAID all 
have line responsibility for PEPFAR; is that not true?
  Mr. LUGAR. That is essentially true. Each has responsibility for 
those programs that are a part of their jurisdiction and their funding.
  Mr. GREGG. It is also my understanding that every one of those 
agencies which I have listed has billions--and in the case of HHS and 
Defense, hundreds of billions of dollars--to be sensitive to as to how 
they are being spent.
  The only IG who I believe has done any reports of those five who 
theoretically have been charged with that responsibility of overlooking 
PEPFAR spending is, as I understand, USAID, which is using a small 
number of its membership to do that, and spending, I think, less than 
$1.5 million a year on that program.
  So doesn't it make sense that we should acknowledge the fact that 
these very large entities--Defense, Labor-HHS, USAID, and State--
probably on their radar screen of relative issues are not going to 
place PEPFAR very high and we should have, instead, an individual in an 
office which does place it right at the center of its responsibility to 
make sure the money is being spent well?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a----
  Mr. GREGG. That was a question.
  Mr. BIDEN. That was a question? Oh. I am sorry.
  Mr. LUGAR. And my response, at least, would be that very clearly each 
of the agencies does take it seriously. But I have outlined how all are 
to be brought together by our Federal Government in a coordinated way. 
It appears to me the inspector general function occurs in this manner 
with the same results and for less money than the Senator's amendment 
would suggest, and that is that an independent effort going outside of 
all of this is not productive in terms of savings, either on the face 
of it or in terms of fraud and abuse that might be found. But that, 
obviously, is the nature of our debate, and I respect the Senator's 
opinion.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Although the question was not asked of me, before the 
Senator leaves the floor, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if I 
could point out one of the problems--this may well have been mentioned, 
and I apologize if it has--but essentially what the Senator is 
suggesting is going to require us not only to set up a new agency, but 
an agency that does not have any experience overseas and an inspector 
general who will basically start from scratch.
  These are two binders full of the reports, which I hold in my hands, 
that have been done thus far by the present system of the three 
different agencies: State, Health and Human Services, and AID. They 
have considerable experience in going into the field overseas, knowing 
their way around. Part of this has to do with knowing your way around.
  I used to have a friend who was a great basketball player. He wasn't 
the brightest candle on the table intellectually, but he had a great 
expression. He said: You gotta know how to know. These guys know how to 
know. They know where to look. They have been doing some versions of 
this overseas for the last 30 years in the case of State and AID.
  I am not going to dare suggest this material be printed in the 
Record, but I have here two large binders full of reports of the IGs, 
the coordinated efforts here, mostly done through State and AID, of 
overseeing these programs. The last point I will make: It is 
overwhelmingly in their interest to see that this money is spent well 
because it affects so many other aspects of their ability to provide 
the kinds of services the 150 account provides out of the whole effort 
we have for development and diplomacy.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for being kind enough to hang 
around and listen. To use President Reagan's expression, ``If it ain't 
broke, don't fix it''--it ain't broke. It costs more money to fix it, 
in my view. I believe the agencies in place, coordinating their 
efforts, have vastly more experience in knowing where to look and 
determining whether the money is being spent as intended.
   Mr. President, the Global AIDS program is operated in this way: a 
special coordinator, Dr. Mark Dybul, sits in the Department of State, 
and provides policy development and guidance to the agencies in the 
field implementing the program.
  The main agencies implementing the program in the field are the 
Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, or CDC.
  Ambassadors in the field, in every country where PEPFAR operates, 
provide overall supervision.
  So there are three main agencies involved--the Department of State, 
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development.
  There are others, such as Peace Corps and the Defense Department, but 
these are the big three.
  All three agencies--State, AID and HHS--already have an inspector 
general. These were created by Congress a long time ago.
  In the last several years, the volume of audit and inspection reports 
prepared by these entities on the PEPFAR program and the President's 
Malaria Initiative fills these two large binders, which run hundreds 
and hundreds of pages in length.
  The AID inspector general alone has conducted 25 audits and made 
nearly 100 recommendations.
  The State Department inspector general has reviewed PEPFAR activities 
at 10 overseas posts during embassy inspections.
  In the last 3 years, there have been five GAO reports, and another 
one is underway.
  The Global AIDS coordinator, Dr. Dybul, has formally requested that 
the PEPFAR agency inspectors general get together on a collective 
financial audit.
  In other words, there is already a lot of work that is being done. 
But in order to ensure that it continues and indeed increases, the bill 
before the Senate has a provision on this very point--a provision that 
the Senator's amendment would strike.
  It requires the three inspectors general from these agencies to come 
up with a coordinated annual plan to review the programs under this 
act. And then it provides $15 million that is specifically allocated to 
this work, out of the $50 billion in this bill.
  So we have already addressed the Senator's concern in a way that 
builds on an existing structure, which will save taxpayer dollars and 
will ensure a coordinated effort.
  The Senator's amendment, by contrast, requires us to build a whole 
new outfit from scratch.
  It calls for $10 million in annual funding, or $50 million over the 
life of the bill--almost as much as Dr. Dybul's own office spends to 
manage the entire program.
  As everyone knows, these programs are implemented overseas, not only 
in the 15 ``focus countries,'' but dozens of other countries.
  The inspector general for the Agency for International Development 
has several overseas offices--including two of them in sub-Saharan 
Africa, in South Africa and Senegal--that do the bulk of the audit 
work.
  The State Department inspector general sends teams out to inspect 
every embassy every 5 years or so. During these inspections, they 
review aspects of the PEPFAR program.
  How will this new office be able duplicate this existing 
infrastructure? Where will these overseas offices be located? What are 
the startup costs for all this?
  Do we really need a special IG for every $6 billion program we create 
in the Government? Why do we bother to fund the permanent IGs?
  Where will staff be recruited for this new IG? The community of IGs 
in the Government is already struggling to find competent auditors and 
investigators. The new IG will almost certainly end up poaching staff 
from existing IGs, thereby weakening those offices. Is that a result we 
want?

[[Page 14907]]

  I think it makes no sense to start over, when we have existing 
outfits that can do the job. I oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forgive me. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a question. I have a question, if 
the Senator from New Hampshire would yield.
  I understand I was put in order to speak after Senator Lugar. Could 
someone clarify the order we are speaking, please, because I most 
certainly do not mind waiting.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK, Mr. President, then I will go ahead and take the 
floor, then. Thank you for recognizing me.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the Senator from Louisiana, there is no 
order to that effect.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CARDIN. Would the Senator yield for a moment?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would.
  Mr. CARDIN. I think it was the intention to allow the Senator from 
New Hampshire to finish on his statement.
  How much time does the Senator from New Hampshire need to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire had been 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Yes. I think he was seeking to finish on his amendment. 
And then the Senator from Louisiana was supposed to follow the Senator 
from New Hampshire. So the proper order would be to allow the--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized, 
and the Chair will announce the order.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would be more than happy to wait. I 
was given some other information, and I apologize to the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, I am not sure what has happened here, 
but I was seeking recognition. I do not believe I had lost the floor, 
and I think it is inappropriate that I was taken off the floor. I am 
not going to continue this debate at this point, and I will yield to 
the Senator from Louisiana and let her proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.


                            High Gas Prices

  Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to speak, actually, on a 
different subject, and I am very sorry that the wires got crossed about 
the debate that is on the floor because I know it is very important to 
try to pass this bill we are speaking about before we leave this week. 
But there is another issue that is very important to our constituents 
as well. That is the issue of high gas prices in America.
  I know there are many people who are concerned on this Senate floor 
about our foreign policy and about contributions to foreign countries. 
I most certainly put myself in that category. But, in my view, there is 
nothing more important than energy policy right now in the United 
States--the prices people are paying at the pump--and the debate that 
is going on on this floor, in committees, and behind the scenes on 
energy. I most certainly had a great deal of conversation with my 
constituents when I was home over this past weekend.
  In fact, in the time I have been back, I have spoken with Democrats 
and Republicans who have expressed very similar concerns, that the 
question most asked, the topic of most interest, is not about foreign 
aid, it is not even about the war in Iraq, although that is a very 
important point. The American people are interested and focused on 
energy prices: our consumers, our small businesses, our manufacturers, 
as well as our major industries, such as airlines and domestic 
manufacturing.
  So I think it would be important for us to spend as much time as we 
can on the floor debating the issues that are most important. I hope we 
can resolve the previous issue. Again, I apologize if I came to the 
floor too prematurely. But I do want to share a few thoughts about 
responding to some of the things that have been said by the Senator 
from New Jersey and the Senator from Washington State who spoke earlier 
this morning, and the Senator from New Mexico who was here an hour ago 
talking about the Republican proposals for energy.
  I think while we fumble--and I do not think that is an inappropriate 
word at all because that is what is happening--as we fumble with not 
getting our energy price right in this country, the people are paying a 
premium at the pump. We have to stop fumbling this ball and try to make 
some strategic passes to move this ball down the field.
  This is election-year politics at its worst. Our energy policy has 
fallen victim to a partisan stalemate. I hope we can, in the next 
couple of weeks, move forward together to a place that can immediately 
start reducing the price of gasoline. I think there are steps that can 
be taken to get quick results, and then most certainly steps that can 
be taken to reduce that price over time.
  I believe also there are people of good will on both sides of the 
aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who realize we are in a place we have 
not been before in quite some time. That place is an economy that is in 
a very fragile circumstance right now based on extraordinarily historic 
high energy prices.
  This economy was not built, this model was not built, to sustain 
these high prices. There is a European model--although the pain is 
significant in Europe--that can sustain it because they have some 
pressure point relief. They have mass transit. They have more 
sophisticated nuclear power. They have some other technologies that we 
have not. They can sustain something longer than we can. But we have to 
act.
  I have been proud to be part, in the last few weeks, of a specific 
discussion that has five Democratic Members and five Republican 
Members--the Gang of 10. I have been part of these gangs before. I 
guess sometimes it is not good to be part of a gang, but in this case I 
think these are good gangs to belong to because these are gangs of 14 
and gangs of 10 who are trying to help the Senate find its way.
  I do not profess to have every answer. I do not even have every 
question. But I do know something about energy policy as a member of 
the Energy Committee for 10 years. And I do know a lot about our 
domestic production and what we are doing and what we are not doing and 
what we should be doing more of because I happen to represent a State 
that does a tremendous amount of production.
  It is time for action, not for studies; for action, not for talk. On 
the floor of the Senate, as we continue to debate energy policy, I hope 
we can do more production and more conservation.
  I want to put up a chart that I think is very illustrative of our 
situation. I want to say unequivocally as a Democrat that I think in 
many instances the Democratic Party has been wrong on the issue of 
production. I also want to say that I think the Republican Party has 
been in many instances wrong in their lack of aggressiveness on 
conservation.
  Again, I am not saying I have been right on every one of these 
issues. There are votes I would like to take differently. No one is 
perfect in this policy. But fundamentally Democrats have not supported 
enough domestic production, and fundamentally Republicans have not 
supported enough conservation and new fuels. It has gotten us into more 
than a jam; it has gotten us into a lot of pain and a lot of 
unnecessary suffering.
  There is much that can be done to move us forward, which is why our 
group has come together--five Democrats and five Republicans--to try to 
move both parties to the center for some sensible center solutions.

[[Page 14908]]

  But I want for a few minutes to start with the facts about where we 
are drilling offshore and where we are not because there are so many 
charts that are brought to this floor and they are little pieces of the 
country or they are one little section to try to sway people one way or 
another. So I thought I would bring the whole enchilada--the whole 
enchilada.
  As shown on this map, this is it. This is Canada--all of it--and the 
United States of America--all 50 States. There is no fudging here. I 
hope the camera can get a big look at this entire map of Canada and the 
United States--all 50 States.
  If you notice, the area in blue is all of the area of the 
congressionally mandated and--up until 1 o'clock yesterday--
Presidentially mandated moratoria. The entire coast of the United 
States of America: off limits to drilling, off limits to exploration, 
of what might actually be there.
  So if anyone comes to this floor and says they know what is 
underneath these blue sections, I am going to stand here until they 
have to admit they don't, because they do not. No one can know. I don't 
know; the Energy Department doesn't know because there has never been 
an inventory conducted on one inch of this blue space, except for the 
purple right here. Even though some of us have been trying literally 
for decades to get an inventory, which has been put in the energy 
bills--as my colleagues know, every 10 years or so we manage to get 
one; it takes a lot of pain and suffering on the Senate floor to get 
any kind of energy bill, but every 10 years we are lucky enough to get 
one--there is an inventory provision in the bill, but it gets taken 
out, by Democrats primarily and some Republicans, who don't want to 
have an inventory because they don't even want to think about domestic 
drilling off their shores.
  Then in the last energy bill we kept the inventory provision. 
However, I wish to announce on this Senate floor right now--and I am 
sorry I don't have the language, that the inventory was conducted--the 
inventory was conducted, but we would not allow the use of seismic 
equipment.
  I will be finished in a minute. I see the leader here. I am going to 
wrap up in 30 seconds because I know he has an important announcement 
to make. It would be like saying to a doctor: Go find the cancer, but 
you can't do a biopsy and you can't have a microscope. You cannot 
search for oil and gas without using seismic methods. So the fact is--
and I am going to conclude, because I know the leader is here and I am 
going to wait until he finishes what he has to say for me to finish--
but no one in America would know what is here because we have never 
looked. I have other chapters to this speech, but I see the leader is 
here so I am going to stop.
  I thank the Chair.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 6331

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana for yielding while I make this 
unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House 
the veto message on H.R. 6331, it be considered as read, it be printed 
in the Record and spread in full upon the Journal, held at the desk, 
and that the Senate consider the veto message at 5:30 p.m. today, 
Tuesday, July 15; that the time from 5:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. be equally 
divided and controlled between the leaders and their designees, with 
the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes; that at 6 p.m. 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, the objections of 
the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes, and then I will be happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            High Gas Prices

  Ms. LANDRIEU. So, Mr. President, to continue, the case is and the 
facts are--and anybody here who wants to actually know the facts, let 
me repeat again: There is no one who can tell us--not an oil executive, 
not a bureaucrat--excuse me, not even a government official under a 
Republican or Democratic administration--who could say with certainty 
what might be here because there has simply not been enough 
exploration. There have been scattered seismics taken back in the 1960s 
and 1970s, but as a general rule.
  Now, this is going to be hard for the American people to understand 
or believe is true, but I am saying it is true and I can give them the 
information. You see these yellow and red sections right here off of 
our coast? This is Canada here, this is Cuba right here, and this is 
Canadian. This is where Canada is drilling offshore, which is actually 
closer to the Maine coast than we will allow drilling off of the Maine 
coast. This is offshore Canadian production and exploration. That is 
underway now off the shore, because Canada knows what the United States 
doesn't know, which is that offshore oil and gas drilling can be done 
in a responsible way that protects the pristine coastlines, that 
protects the environment, because our technology has so greatly 
improved since the 1940s. It is sort of like being stuck in the space 
program and saying we couldn't possibly go to space because we don't 
have the technology. We have developed the technology. We can go into 
deep areas and do it safely.
  I know the Presiding Officer has not generally been a supporter of 
drilling off of his coast, and I am very respectful of that position, 
as well as many other Senators. The good news is we don't have to drill 
off of every coast. We have a big coastline here. We don't have to 
drill off of every part, but the secret or the smart approach is to try 
to identify maybe 10--not 100; maybe 10, maybe 5, but something more 
than zero--to begin looking for places to drill for oil and gas. Cuba 
is going to be leasing land closer to Florida for China to drill on 
very shortly; closer than America is going to be allowing us to drill 
off the coast of Florida. When Americans are paying $5 at the pump, 
that is going to be very hard to explain to them, how China is coming 
to waters closer to Florida to get oil for its people and our Congress 
will not allow us to get some of this oil to replenish the supply.
  If anyone wants to come to the floor and debate with me that 
production doesn't matter, that supply and demand have no place here, 
then I am looking forward to that debate. I don't hold myself out to be 
an expert on markets, but trying to convince people that supply and 
demand is not operative here is like trying to explain to our voters 
that gravity doesn't exist. They don't buy it. They are not going to 
buy it. You could tell it to them 100 years long and they are not going 
to buy it because it is not true and they gut-check know it. It 
absolutely has an impact, supply and demand, and we don't have enough 
supply.
  Now, can we absolutely drill our way out of this? The answer is no. 
We cannot drill our way out, but we can drill more, we can drill more 
safely, and we can in some places drill rather quickly--not in all 
places. I am going to show my colleagues where we can drill more 
quickly to have an impact. We must also, as we gear up to do that, put 
our foot on the accelerator on conservation, because we have been slow 
in that area. We have done a lot of studies. It is like going to the 
tip of the water and before you dive in, we have been dabbling our toe 
in the water. We have to jump in on conservation, and I think we can do 
it.
  I see the Senator from Indiana. Let me wrap up in 1 minute.
  I wish to show in Louisiana where a lot of our gas and oil is coming 
from. We know a lot about this because we have been drilling there for 
40, 50 years. When my colleagues come to the floor--this is what I am 
showing, which is pretty dramatic. This is the infrastructure necessary 
to produce oil and gas. Each of these pink dots is an oil well; the 
blue represents pipelines. Quickly, in Louisiana and Texas we permit 
for the drilling of oil and gas. We permit for these pipelines and we 
do it very quickly. All day long we lay these pipelines and we drill 
for oil. In

[[Page 14909]]

other States when you try to go do this, States that aren't used to 
this, it takes them so long because the infrastructure is not there. I 
understand that.
  So as a result, this is the only place we are basically getting our 
gas--from Louisiana. Lucky for us, because a lot of it goes to the 
Northeast. We send a lot of our oil and gas to the Northeast. We know 
the prices are high there, but we are sending about as much as we can. 
We can send more, but it takes infrastructure. So when people say to 
me--and I will wrap up with this--it doesn't matter if you open 
drilling, you can't get the oil in 30 days or 60 days, that is true, 
because it takes wells, it takes pipelines, it takes trucks, it takes 
concrete. The oil does not jump out and into people's automobiles, but 
you can lay this infrastructure, you can lay these pipelines, and you 
can do it safely. We made a lot of mistakes doing this, and so did 
Texas, but the good news is we are learning from our mistakes and we 
know how to do it better and we know how to do it more safely, and we 
can.
  I am not going to take up any more of my colleagues' time because 
everybody has other issues to discuss as well, but I am going to come 
back every day as this debate goes forward and talk about the truth 
about production and what is actually being produced in this country 
and how much more can be produced, as well as pushing the conservation 
side, which most certainly has to be done to get our supply up and our 
demand down. I think this is a crucial issue, not only in this 
reelection, but for the future of the country.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to talk about, 
and I will be glad to offer it now. I see the chairman on the floor. If 
he wishes to make a statement, that is fine.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's amendment is in 
order. We have signed onto it. I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5073

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
5073, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] offers an amendment 
     numbered 5073.

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

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(a) of the United States 
     Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 
     2003 is amended by striking ``2004 through 2008'' and 
     inserting ``2009 through 2013''.
       (b) Malaria Vaccine Development Programs.--Section 302(m) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2222(m)) is 
     amended by striking ``2004 through 2008'' and inserting 
     ``2009 through 2013''.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. However, the bill that is 
before us today--the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bill--is a far 
cry from our original proposal to combat AIDS in Africa.
  PEPFAR is one of our most successful foreign assistance programs. 
Since enactment in 2003, it has provided lifesaving treatment to 10 
million people afflicted by HIV/AIDS, including children orphaned by 
AIDS. It has prevented 7 million new HIV infections and is on track to 
support treatment for an additional 2 million people. This is a 
successful program, and I am proud to have supported it. Through 
PEPFAR, the United States continues to be a leader in international 
assistance. With our generosity, we have created strong partnerships in 
countries where 5 years ago AIDS threatened to destroy entire 
generations. I wish to see us remain a leader in this effort, and it is 
because of this that I am concerned about the substantial changes made 
in the program in both the House and Senate reauthorization bills. 
These are not small changes made to a program to increase authorization 
levels or the number of patients treated in a bill; these are 
substantial changes that would jeopardize the success of the program as 
well as compromise the integrity of America's foreign assistance.
  Aside from tripling the current funding levels, which I will address 
in a minute, the focus of the bill seems to be less on prevention and 
treatment of AIDS and more on development assistance. I am not opposed 
to development assistance, but I do not believe an emergency global 
AIDS bill is the place to address issues such as water sanitation and/
or the inheritance rights of women.
  It detracts from the focus of the bill and shifts away funding from 
the core components of the program: treatment and prevention. They are 
what have made PEPFAR successful.
  I oppose any efforts to weaken them or to needlessly shift money away 
from them to other lower priority programs.
  This is why I was shocked and disappointed that both the House and 
the Senate committee-passed bills removed the AIDS treatment and 
prevention mandates.
  Why would you remove language in a Global AIDS bill that would 
require the money to be spent on the treatment and prevention of AIDS? 
Is it not the purpose of the bill to prevent and treat AIDS?
  Two months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with several doctors 
and patients from Uganda. Through their firsthand account, I could see 
how PEPFAR dollars, when used wisely, can combat the spread of AIDS and 
be used to provide lifesaving treatment.
  One of the women I met with told me how PEPFAR saved her life. 
Through the program, she was able to treat this deadly disease in a way 
that enabled her to live a normal life. She now has a job and provides 
for her four children. In speaking with her, I was not only struck by 
her conviction for life but her insistence that I continue to work to 
strengthen the reauthorization of PEPFAR. Like me, she knew the changes 
made to the program could severely weaken its effectiveness and 
jeopardize its future success.
  This woman is a living example of how PEPFAR can be successful if 
implemented as the program originally intended. Through her conviction, 
I, along with several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, 
worked to fix this bill. We were able to make some improvements, such 
as restoring a treatment mandate that is still lower than the current 
program levels--but many problems still exist.
  When so many Americans are facing economic problems at home, I have a 
hard time needlessly tripling the funding for this program. This is not 
the level requested by the administration. This is not even the level 
that the Congressional Budget Office says can be spent down by PEPFAR 
organizations within 5 years. This is $15 billion more than that.
  To put that in context, this is triple the amount of money needed to 
fund the reauthorization of our domestic health care program for 
children, which is called SCHIP.
  I know many Kentuckians would like to see this program reauthorized.
  This is reckless spending, plain and simple. We owe it to the 
American taxpayer to be better stewards of their tax dollars. We should 
know where our taxpayer dollars are going--or not going--as in the case 
of Senator DeMint's amendment on abortion.
  We should also prioritize our funding for global AIDS. We need to 
ensure that these funds reach the neediest countries and not those that 
can afford their own space and nuclear programs, such as China and 
Russia.
  At a time when China is tripling--I say tripling--their defense 
budget and

[[Page 14910]]

manipulating their currency, I have a hard time spending billions of 
dollars in China to provide funding for treatment that we could use at 
home for our own AIDS programs.
  Unfortunately, this is another example of how the so-called PEPFAR 
reauthorization bills have gone so far outside the original intent of 
the program. This is why I am offering my amendment.
  The Bunning amendment simply reauthorizes the current program for 
another 5 years, while also continuing to fund the development of a 
malaria vaccine.
  It maintains our original commitment to support the global fight 
against HIV/AIDS.
  I urge my colleagues today to join me in my support for the current 
PEPFAR Program. I ask them to support my amendment so we can ensure 
that this program continues to be successful within the original scope 
of the program as intended by Congress and by the President.
  Madam President, before I yield the floor, I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I respect the Senator from Kentucky and 
understand his position. I am pleased to see his strong support for the 
intention of the PEPFAR legislation. But as appealing as the Senator's 
amendment is, it belies a very important underlying point. Originally, 
this was authorized for $15 billion. At the time of the authorization, 
it was clear to everyone that was not nearly sufficient to deal with 
what is a worldwide dilemma, a worldwide problem. There is also 
recognition that it is not like you can isolate AIDS to a single 
country. The notion that we became clearly aware of, as knowledge of 
this disease became more apparent to the world at large, is that this 
has no borders. It has no geographic bounds. It has no ideological 
component. We hear statements that sound very appealing, such as: Why 
should we help a country like China deal with AIDS? We have the 
technology and the medical capability and PEPFAR and the world 
organizations know how to deal with it in ways that individual 
countries, including developed and developing countries such as China, 
don't.
  What happens in China affects what happens in the rest of the world. 
The idea of us not being part of the world effort to stem the spread of 
AIDS in China--or Russia, for that matter--impacts on the well-being of 
all humanity and, specifically, American citizens along the line. That 
is a generic point I wished to make.
  Let me be more specific. This would slash funding from the $50 
billion mark we have proposed to a $15 billion mark, which would be 
cutting current assistance substantially. It also assumes that the 
United States or the U.S. Global AIDS coordinator or our other partners 
have not learned anything in the past 5 years. In fact, we have learned 
a great deal. The Lantos-Hyde Reauthorization Act, which we are voting 
on now, and amendments to it, seeks to build on the current progress we 
have made.
  The Senator outlined the real progress, but we ought not to freeze in 
place or, worse yet, set backward the progress we have made.
  This bill draws heavily on several reports that have been 
commissioned by the Congress. The GAO, which is Congress's watchdog, 
and the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences, both recommended substantial changes in current 
law in order to improve our programs. This bill acts on a number of 
those recommendations. First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out 
that the earmarks established in 2003--it would come back, as I 
understand it, in the proposal by my colleague from Kentucky--were 
actually impeding our progress in fighting AIDS, in some ways.
  These earmarks set specific percentages for spending on HIV/AIDS 
prevention, treatment and care and, further, they set percentages on 
certain kinds of prevention activities.
  In 2003, these earmarks may have served their stated purpose. For 
example, they emphasized the importance of treatment at a time when 
treatment was almost unheard of in parts of the world. They also 
underscored the ideas that abstinence and being faithful were key 
components of HIV prevention programs. Those principles were important 
and they are now well established.
  But the Institute of Medicine also found that such rigid earmarks 
have ``adversely affected implementation of the U.S. Global AIDS 
Initiative'' and ``have been counterproductive.''
  The GAO also found the 2003 earmarks effectively pitted some of these 
earmarks against other very highly valued prevention efforts that 
should be under way to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to 
child. As a result, fewer funds were available to expand programs to 
prevent transmission of the disease from HIV-infected mothers to their 
children. Every day, for example, over 1,000 children are infected by 
HIV.
  The reauthorization bill removes or modifies most of those earmarks 
in order to promote the approach that better allows each country to 
fight its own epidemic. Balanced prevention strategies are still 
important, but they also allow for new science to be brought to bear on 
the problem.
  Let me say this. One of the things we found--remember, when we first 
started discussing this program on the floor, there was overwhelming 
resistance to many countries in Africa to even acknowledge that they 
had a problem. There was resistance in other parts of the world to 
acknowledge that they had a problem. It was viewed as somehow 
negatively reflecting on the people of a country or on the society and 
the governance of that society if there was an acknowledgement of the 
degree to which this disease was prevalent in their country. In order 
to get it going to begin with, we did a lot of things to sort of break 
through that membrane of resistance that existed out there. To that 
extent, the original notions were very productive and positive.
  We have gone way beyond that now. The problem is larger than we 
thought when we first initiated this program. Let me conclude by 
quoting the administration's position on the bill that Senator Lugar 
and I are proposing for our colleagues today:

       The administration strongly supports S. 2731, the Tom 
     Lantos-Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, and the 
     managers' substitute amendment for this bill, both of which 
     would reauthorize PEPFAR and ensure the continued success of 
     this program. . . . S. 2731 would reauthorize the emergency 
     plan in a manner consistent with the program's successful 
     founding principles and would maintain a continued focus on 
     quantifiable HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care goals.

  So I say to my colleagues, the starting block from which our friend 
from Kentucky wishes us to return was just that. It was operating with 
what we knew and what we needed at the time to get started. We have 
learned a great deal more since then. We should not, in fact, turn back 
the clock. This reauthorization represents a true bipartisan 
compromise.
  It includes 15 Republican amendments in the bill and suggestions we 
incorporated even before we reached the unanimous consent agreement 
last Friday. From the outset, it was a bipartisan effort. It passed out 
of our Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan way overwhelmingly.
  When the appropriate time comes, I will move to ask our colleagues to 
join me and my colleague in opposing this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to strongly support the 
chairman and ranking member's initiative on the Lantos-Hyde U.S. Global 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization 
Act.
  As we discuss how to support the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS 
Relief, we have the chance to take on the most devastating diseases the 
world has ever known.

[[Page 14911]]

  The death toll from the AIDS epidemic stands at 22 million. Malaria 
will claim more than 1 million lives this year alone, most of which 
will be children under the age of 5.
  This country has seen time and time again how the fate of the 
American people is intertwined with the fate of people all over the 
world. The AIDS epidemic is just one more case of that. More than half 
a million American lives have been lost.
  Not just from a moral standpoint, but from an economic standpoint, a 
national security standpoint, and the standpoint of our own health as a 
nation, the fight against deadly diseases is a fight we are all in 
together.
  Addressing these diseases is not just a humanitarian endeavor, it is 
also in the national security interests of the United States. These 
devastating diseases are a destabilizing force for many countries in 
Africa, and it is in our interest to ensure that sufficient funds are 
available to make meaningful progress in this area. This bill moves us 
closer to that goal.
  The bipartisan bill we are considering offers ambitious but 
achievable targets, including supporting prevention of 12 million HIV 
infections, care for 12 million people with or affected by HIV/AIDS, 
including among those 5 million children, and an antiretroviral 
treatment for an increasing number of persons whose rising target is 
expected to represent at least 3 million lives saved.
  Cutting funding would require a dramatic downsizing of these targets. 
Tuberculosis and malaria combined claim more than 3.6 million lives a 
year. The President's initial proposal of $30 billion did not address 
funding for these diseases, except through the Global Fund. This bill, 
like its House counterpart, does include these diseases and increases 
the treatment goals for persons with HIV/AIDS, as well as for the 
treatment of children, thus justifying the additional authorization of 
funds. Authorization of funds--this is only to say we have the ability 
to go up to that amount. It does not guarantee we will spend that 
amount.
  The amendment that is being offered by the Senator from South 
Carolina would slash the funding of this bill by almost a third.
  While international organizations estimate that achieving universal 
access to antiretroviral medications would demand $40 billion in 
resources--a number the world needs to do all it can to achieve--this 
amendment shaves down America's contribution, putting medication 
further out of the reach of thousands of people.
  I chaired hearings on behalf of the committee. I know Senator Lugar 
was with me during those hearings. This country hasn't gone into our 
greatest challenges halfheartedly. When we entered the Second World 
War, our allies knew we were in it with our hearts and our souls. When 
President Kennedy announced we would go to the Moon, friend and foe 
alike knew that we would not rest until we had allowed mankind to take 
that giant leap.
  This is our chance to show that America is ready to lead. We should 
come together as Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, as human 
beings, to stop this vast catastrophe, to attack it with all that we 
have. This is about our vision for the world, a world where disease can 
be controlled, a world ultimately free from fear.
  If we act today to give PEPFAR full funding, it is more than just a 
powerful statement. We will have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, 
and that--that--is the essence of this debate. That is what is at stake 
right now, pure and simple. It is an expression of our humanity. It is 
an expression of the fulfillment of being able to do the one single 
thing that I think is the highest calling in public service, which is 
to save the life of another. It is an understanding that is in our 
national interests and our national security interests because disease 
knows no boundaries. We have faced that time and time again during the 
course of our history. If we believe this is someone else's problem, we 
are sadly mistaken. This is a chance for us to lead. It is an 
opportunity to do it in a bipartisan way.
  I hope my colleagues will ultimately support the underlying bill and 
certainly oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from South 
Carolina so we can fulfill that obligation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to speak in favor of the bill. 
I inquire of the manager if I need to receive any time allocation. I 
would like to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  I rise to speak in favor of the U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 as it will 
be modified by the managers' amendment.
  I have had the pleasure over the years to work with Senator Lugar and 
Senator Biden. These are men of integrity, knowledge, and, I add, 
wisdom. They have seen a lot, done a lot. I think they have seen a few 
things that work, and I think they have seen a few things that don't 
work. This is one of those rare foreign policy programs that really 
works. Unfortunately, too often they do not.
  While I am here, I wish to recognize the work of my colleague from 
Indiana for getting nuclear material out of the Soviet Union as one of 
those programs that works, and the world is a safer place because it 
works.
  I have seen a lot of foreign policy issues that have not worked. 
Those sorts of things discredit foreign policy, particularly spending 
in the foreign affairs field. This is one of those programs that has 
worked. Because of it, hundreds of thousands of people are alive today 
who would not be alive. If we are able to get this reauthorization and 
some additional support, there will be more who will be alive.
  It is amazing how grateful people are if you help save their lives. 
The approval rating of the United States in Africa is the highest in 
the world, even including North America. I think it is primarily 
because of the health care support the United States does, and this is 
the leading bill to do it.
  I am pleased as well that it is HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. 
Those three are not the only scourges that exist, but they are 
certainly the main ones, and they are ones that if we can go at each of 
them together, we are going to save people's lives. We are going to 
take away a lot of the difficulty--not all of it, by any means--but we 
are really going to help people where they need help, and this bill 
does it.
  We all know that from whom much is given, much is expected. We have 
been given much in the United States. It is not that we don't have 
people struggling here as well because we certainly do. But a number of 
us have traveled to many of these countries where the HIV/AIDS scourge 
has been, and we have had a great deal of difficulty with it as well.
  I have been to places where they have not had any resources to combat 
this disease at all. People wasting and dying in these terrible 
situations just have no hope at all. This gives them hope. This gives 
them help.
  Since its creation in 2003, the Global AIDS initiative, commonly 
known as PEPFAR, has been a bright point of U.S. foreign aid policy. 
The United States has become the world's leader in prevention, 
treatment, and care for individuals suffering from this terrible 
disease. That 2003 law, which I was pleased to support and have 
somewhat a hand in helping it move on through, now needs to be 
reauthorized to continue this success.
  From the beginning of this program, it has been my intention to do 
all that I could to make sure any reauthorization of the Global AIDS 
Program stayed true to its mission. This is a mission that has worked. 
We should not be taking it into other fields. We should stay with what 
this one program has accomplished. Often Government programs, when they 
lose sight of their mission, also lose their effectiveness. This one 
needs to stay true to its mission. I want to be certain it stays with 
this lifesaving program and not slip into other areas, some perilous 
waters that some may want it to do as it will get divisive for this 
body and for the United States.
  Some people may want to push some of these funds over time into 
family

[[Page 14912]]

planning or population control, possibly into abortion. That then 
divides us. Regardless of how one feels about these programs, it 
divides this body. If we can stay with the primary mission of what this 
has been about, it can keep us united. And the people on the ground 
receiving this treatment and assistance need us to stay together and 
stay closely focused on what the mission of this program has been.
  I further want to see to it that fidelity programs, which have proven 
their effectiveness internationally over the last 5 years, will remain 
an integral part of this program, and that recently with the President 
of Uganda and the First Lady--they were the ones who first started this 
program, ABC: A, abstinence; B, be faithful; and C, condoms. They 
started reducing their AIDS rates in Uganda. It worked so well. We want 
to make sure all three of those aspects stay in this program too.
  Again, I am grateful, in working with Chairman Biden and Senator 
Lugar, to keep this bill on its lifesaving course and keep us pulling 
together with the administration on this issue.
  While I, and I am sure many of my colleagues, have additional 
provisions we would like to see included, the carefully tailored 
compromise is a credit to the bill managers.
  On my part, I am pleased to see that abstinence and fidelity programs 
continue to be important components of prevention. The pledge to oppose 
sex trafficking is maintained. That is important. Conscious clause 
protection language is included to prevent discrimination against 
faith-based organizations such as World Vision, Catholic Relief 
Services, and many others that are so key to putting boots on the 
ground in this battle against AIDS.
  I am concerned about the price tag on this overall bill. I do have 
concern about ratcheting it up that much that fast, given our own 
deteriorating economy and the difficulty we have. We have had a slow 
growth rate recently. I am hopeful that can improve, but I think for us 
to look at that big of an increase when we are looking at a 
deteriorating Federal budget situation is not responsible on our part. 
I hope we can get that budgetary number up, but not as high as it is 
put forward in this bill. That would be responsible of us.
  The Global AIDS Program called for by President Bush and brought to 
fruition by a strong bipartisan effort in Congress in 2003 has touched, 
and I might indeed say saved, the lives of many people worldwide. I am 
proud to have supported that 2003 law. I am pleased to be able to 
support this reauthorization effort.
  Let's stay true to the mission, let's get a number that we can hit, 
and let's continue to save lives with the abilities that we have been 
granted as a country to be able to do that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, there are two very important matters 
that will be coming before the Senate this afternoon. The first is the 
legislation we are now considering to strengthen our efforts to fight 
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The second is the President's veto 
of the Medicare legislation.
  First, with respect to the important work that has been done that we 
are discussing on this floor, the United States should take a 
leadership role on behalf of those suffering from HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria around the world. I am very proud that this 
legislation includes portions of a bill that I introduced, the PEPFAR 
Accountability and Transparency Act, to monitor and improve the 
programs we fund so that we know what we are getting for the money we 
spend; that, in effect, we are looking for ``best practices'' so that 
we can learn from what works and discontinue what does not work. It is 
not based on ideology or some kind of personal preference but on 
evidence, on looking for the best evidence to determine how our dollars 
can be used more smartly and making each dollar go as far as possible.
  I am also pleased that this legislation focuses on the needs of women 
and girls. This has been neglected in the past, and I call on my 
colleagues to stand against any efforts to undermine the bipartisan 
consensus to invest more in saving lives and demonstrating the best of 
American values in the eyes of people around the world.
  This is one of the ways we can lead with our values and demonstrate 
clearly that the United States cares about people who are suffering, 
that we are seeking to find common ground to alleviate that suffering, 
and that we are willing to stretch out our hands in partnership and 
friendship. This is an important piece of legislation. I look forward 
to it passing and being signed into law.
  Secondly, later today we will consider the legislation which the 
President vetoed this morning. I find it hard to understand why the 
President did so. He clearly stood against both the doctors of America 
and the patients of America on behalf of the insurance companies of 
America. Personally, I don't understand that kind of calculation.
  Today, we will be joining colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
stand against the cutting of reimbursements for doctors who care for 
Medicare recipients and standing up for making sure there is access to 
care for seniors, Americans with disabilities, and the men and women 
who serve in our military.
  Couched by lofty goals and cloaked in misleading rhetoric, the 
President essentially vetoed health care for seniors, for veterans, and 
for Americans with disabilities. It is a disgrace, but unfortunately it 
is not a surprise. This is a battle which has been waged ever since 
President Johnson signed the Medicare legislation into law 33 years ago 
this month, and long before. I hope today's veto and the narrow margin 
by which we will override it serves as a wake-up call. By seeking to 
undermine Medicare, President Bush and his allies continue an 
unyielding, uncompromising, unrelenting ideological crusade, a long 
twilight struggle to eviscerate Medicare, Social Security, and the 
means by which our Government actually solves problems for the people 
of our country.
  It really comes down to basic values, and it comes down to our 
priorities as a nation. Will you stand with our seniors, with our 
veterans, with our Americans with disabilities? Will you stand with 
hospitals that are already forced to stretch their budgets to the 
limit? Will you stand with the doctors who care for Medicare recipients 
and are already struggling to see more patients in less time every 
single day? Will you stand with the people of this country who need a 
champion in the White House?
  I believe strongly that we have to override this veto. We have to 
make it clear to the hard-working physicians in America that we are 
with you, that we will help by investing in preventive medicine such as 
screening, in health information technology which will limit costs 
while improving care, in new measures that will lead to improved 
quality, and by actually seeing what works and what doesn't work.
  We know that the cuts in reimbursements that the President and his 
allies are seeking will also affect cuts in reimbursement and care that 
is accessible to military families. You see, Medicare sets the 
standards for payments that are used by TRICARE. TRICARE is the program 
that cares for our veterans, cares for Active Duty, cares for family 
members. TRICARE uses the Medicare formula for physician payments.
  I have just finished an incredible experience, crisscrossing our 
country for the past 17 months, and I was inspired each and every day 
by the resolve and the resilience of the American people. I learned a 
lot, and one of the lessons I learned is that Americans are ready, even 
eager to have a government that actually works again, that solves 
problems, that produces results. Thirty-three years ago, our Government 
did that. It wasn't easy and it literally took years, even decades, to 
achieve,

[[Page 14913]]

but when Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law, he sent a very clear 
signal to those who worried about whether they would be able to afford 
to take care of themselves or take care of their parents and their 
grandparents that health care would be available to them.
  We have a lot of work to do in the next years to make sure Medicare 
fulfills its promise. I look forward to working with like-minded allies 
on both sides of the aisle to make it clear that we will stand behind 
Medicare. We will need to be modernized. We will have to make some 
changes so that it works better, so that it emphasizes prevention. But 
you don't start by penalizing the people who take care of those who are 
on Medicare today.
  The doctors and nurses of America do heroic work every single day. 
Our hospitals stand ready to care for those in need. Let's not make it 
more difficult to actually deliver the services that will save lives, 
ameliorate suffering, and extend the quality of life.
  I am hoping that when this vote is held in a few hours, we will have 
a resounding repudiation of President Bush's veto and send a message, 
not only to doctors and nurses and other health care professionals but 
to the people of our country, that we are better than this and we are 
going to stand with you to make sure you have the health care you 
deserve under the program that has meant so much to so many for so 
long--Medicare.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent I am about to 
propound that has been cleared on the Republican side. I ask unanimous 
consent that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
Bunning amendment, No. 5073; further, that the time until 5 p.m. be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5073

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will use a minute or so of this time. I 
believe the Bunning amendment is well intended, but I think the irony 
is the Bunning amendment fails to understand what it was that was 
intended at the first effort to bring forward PEPFAR and get this 
underway.
  As I said, we had a number of nations that needed help badly denying 
the need for help because they viewed it reflected so negatively on 
them as a people and as a nation. So we did a lot of things the first 
time around that now, in the clear light of day, and much broader need, 
and the fact that PEPFAR and the world Global Fund is being embraced by 
the rest of the world, that actually acts as an impediment if we went 
back to Senator Bunning's proposal.
  So at the appropriate time, 5 o'clock, I am going to suggest again 
that my colleagues support a ``no'' vote. We will have an up-or-down 
vote on this amendment and vote no on the Bunning amendment, which 
would quite frankly eviscerate, literally eviscerate the President's 
initiative.
  I will conclude by saying, I am often critical of the President and 
his foreign policy and his aid programs, et cetera. But the President 
of the United States, George W. Bush, deserves great credit. If the 
President did nothing else in his administration, this is justification 
enough for his legacy to be looked back on favorably because of the 
phenomenal and dramatic impact this initiative has had and will have in 
the rest of the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, in the concluding time before the 
scheduled vote, I want to give a statement in opposition to the Bunning 
amendment and also to the DeMint amendment, No. 5077, that was 
introduced earlier today. Both seek to reduce the authorization in the 
pending bill.
  The amendment posed by the distinguished Senator DeMint poses a 
fundamental question with regard to this legislation, which likewise is 
reiterated by Senator Bunning: How much should we authorize for the 
continuing fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis? It is a 
question for honest debate and on which Members may have different 
views.
  The figure of $50 billion in the bill we are debating today rose out 
of bipartisan negotiations between Congress and the White House. It is 
based on what the President and we believe can be spent efficiently and 
effectively in the years ahead.
  It presumes that funding will gradually increase each year over the 
coming 5-year period. Of the $50 billion authorized, $5 billion has 
been reserved for malaria, and $4 billion has been reserved for 
tuberculosis.
  The global impact of malaria and tuberculosis has been underestimated 
for years. And the bill before us takes an important step to invigorate 
these worldwide efforts. As other Senators have observed, this is an 
authorization bill that will be subject to the annual appropriations 
process. It is meant to establish policy and overall parameters of 
spending on the PEPFAR Program.
  Congress may not deem it necessary or possible to spend the entire 
$50 billion over the course of 5 years, but if the funds authorized by 
this bill are being spent efficiently and effectively and productively 
for the lifesaving and life-altering purposes in the bill, I believe we 
should have the authorization in place to spend that much.
  There is no question that the crisis created by these diseases is 
real, that our programs are preserving or improving millions of lives, 
and it is difficult to put the dislocation and human devastation caused 
by AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in context because the impact 
extends well beyond the lives lost.
  The HIV/AIDS pandemic, coupled with the effects of tuberculosis and 
malaria, are rending the socioeconomic fabric of communities, nations, 
and entire continents. The U.S. National Intelligence Council and 
innumerable top officials, including President Bush, have stated that 
the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a threat to our national security and to 
international security.
  Communities are being hobbled by the disability and loss of consumers 
and workers at the peak of their productive, reproductive and 
caregiving years. In the most heavily affected areas, communities are 
losing a whole generation of parents, teachers, laborers, peacekeepers, 
and police.
  The projections of the United Nations indicate that by 2020, HIV/AIDS 
will have depressed the GDP by more than 20 percent in the hardest hit 
countries, and many children will have lost parents to HIV/AIDS or left 
entirely on their own, leading to an epidemic of orphan-headed 
households.
  When they drop out of school to fend for themselves, they lose the 
potential for economic empowerment that education can provide. Such 
dislocation has obvious implications for our efforts to suppress and 
prevent terrorism. It has implications for our ability to expand 
economic opportunity and trade with emerging nations.
  It has implications for our efforts to solidify partners to combat 
climate change and environmental degradation. Countries and regions 
that are prostrate due to the massive incidence of deadly diseases 
cannot effectively address the problems we need them to address. When 
circumstances reach such dire proportions, the countries in question 
can become the source of extreme instability. Therefore, we should 
understand our investments in disease prevention programs have yielded 
enormous foreign policy benefits during the past 5 years, and we look 
forward to extraordinary progress during the coming 5 years. This is 
why I support the $50 billion authorization, appreciating that there 
will need to be constant auditing, constant debate with the White House 
and the Congress on priorities, a tailoring during the appropriations 
process in each year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to try to respond to all

[[Page 14914]]

these statements made since I offered my amendment. It seems that when 
we get a good program going in the Congress, one that is funded 
properly for the first 5 years, we try to expand the program and expand 
the program, and actually, in this expansion, we have differentiated 
the mission of the program.
  The mission of the program originally was to fight infectious AIDS 
and AIDS-related things in every area of the world we could find them. 
It was something the United States wanted to do. This bill before us 
doesn't do that. It takes away a lot of the mandates that we had to 
fight infectious HIV and AIDS in areas of necessity. Instead, it puts 
it into the Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations. The Global AIDS 
Fund at the United Nations, unfortunately, is just in the first year, 
and then you have unlimited sums in years 2, 3, 4, and 5. There is no 
transparency at all in that Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations, and 
we all ought to reexamine and reauthorize this bill as it was 
originally proposed. Then we could go on and fight AIDS around the 
world in countries that need our assistance.
  I beg my colleagues, think it over very seriously and vote for my 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 5073.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 5073) was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today we consider one of the most 
important international assistance bills of the 110th Congress.
  I refer to S. 2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States 
Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 
Reauthorization Act of 2008, or better known as the PEPFAR 
Reauthorization Act.
  Originally created in 2003, PEPFAR was funded at $15 billion dollars. 
At the time, this was the single largest bilateral program ever created 
to address a disease.
  President George Bush should rightfully be commended for creating an 
innovative program designed to support HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, 
and care programs.
  I also wish to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, for their 
persistence and hard work on bringing this bill to the floor of the 
Senate for today's vote.
  The nature and extent of the HIV/AIDS epidemic varies from country 
and region. In some countries in East Asia, the AIDS rate is less than 
1 percent, while in some Sub-Saharan African countries the rate is more 
than 20 percent. In fact, two-thirds of all people infected with HIV, 
some 22.5 million, live in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  When we look at the health care infrastructure of most Sub-Saharan 
African countries, we find little technology, personnel, or physical 
structures. Most, if not all, of these nations are ill prepared to 
address the epidemic.
  AIDS has destroyed many African families, leaving an estimated 11.4 
million children without one or both parents. Many elderly grandparents 
are left to care for the children, draining their meager resources and 
energy. There are many cases where orphans are denied inherited land 
and cattle and ultimately left to fend for themselves.
  With anecdotes such as these, it is vital that we pass S. 2731 to 
continue our efforts to combat AIDS. S. 2731 would require the 
President to establish a 5-year strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and 
malaria. S. 2731 will also intensify prevention, treatment, and care 
programs and include groups particularly vulnerable to the disease such 
as women and young girls.
  S. 2731 will also boost funding for research, public-private 
partnerships, and reinforce vaccine development.
  I have consulted with an organization in my home State of Maryland 
called Jhpiego. Jhpiego is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University 
Hospital and has performed tremendous work in Africa to build the 
health care infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Jhpiego has found 
through its programs that African health care workers need greater 
preservice training in order to bolster national, in-country efforts to 
fight AIDS. For this reason, I worked with the chairman and ranking 
member of the committee to include language to include preservice 
training and capacity building within the overall funding strategy of 
this legislation.
  As the PEPFAR Program matures, it is my hope that so too will the 
skills and numbers of the cadre of African health workers engaged in 
the effort to reduce the prevalence of HIV/AIDS.
  My other amendment allows for the inclusion of American land grant 
colleges and universities and historically Black colleges and 
universities to participate in programs to increase the technological 
and teaching capacity of African professional institutions to prepare 
their students for careers in public health. As the United States 
further engages the global fight against HIV/AIDS, I believe 
sustainability and African leadership are imperative to insure a full 
and respectful partnership and one that will be mutually beneficial to 
America and the states of Sub-Saharan Africa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  I must note that there is a previous order to go to the veto message 
in 3 minutes.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes to speak on the 
vote that will occur at 6 o'clock this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.

                          ____________________