To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers.

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

Amendment No. 2283, as further Modified

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2283, As Further Modified

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

[[Page S11979]]

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

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

[[Page S11980]]

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

Amendment No. 2324

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

[[Page S11981]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2279, as Modified

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

Amendment No. 2299

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional public health funding)

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

SEC. __. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING.

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

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

Amendment No. 2301

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2327

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2248, as Modified

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

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

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

[[Page S11982]]

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

Amendment No. 2250, as Modified

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2215, as Further Modified

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for community health centers)

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

Amendment No. 2276, as Modified

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2262, as Modified

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

[[Page S11983]]

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2259

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

[[Page S11984]]

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

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

[[Page S11985]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

YEAS--46

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

NAYS--50

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

NOT VOTING--4

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

Amendment No. 2216

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

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

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

(Purpose: To provide for a limitation on funds)

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

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

[[Page S11986]]

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

AMENDMENT NO. 2287, as modified

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

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

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

[[Page S11987]]

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

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

Amendment No. 2300

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

[[Page S11988]]

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

Vote on Amendment No. 2287, as Modified

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

YEAS--41

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

NAYS--56

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

[[Page S11989]]

Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

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

Amendment No. 2299

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

Amendment No. 2300

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

YEAS--41

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

NAYS--56

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

NOT VOTING--3

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2230, as Modified

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

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC.__ LIMITATION ON TRAVEL AND CONFERENCES.

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

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

Amendment No. 2282

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a national family reunification initiative)

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

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

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

[[Page S11990]]

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

Amendment No. 2289, as Modified

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2295, as Modified

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2234, as Modified

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2280, as Modified

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

[[Page S11991]]

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

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

Amendment No. 2272

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

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

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

mathematics and science education

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

[[Page S11992]]

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

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

cdc's arthritis program

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

COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING GRANTS

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

office of men's health

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

[[Page S11993]]

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

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

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

[[Page S11994]]

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

THIMEROSAL

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

[[Page S11995]]

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

[[Page S11996]]

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

[[Page S11997]]

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

[[Page S11998]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

YEAS--94

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

NAYS--3

Conrad
Ensign
Inhofe

NOT VOTING--3

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

[[Page S11999]]

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

Rosa Parks Federal Office Building

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

[[Page S12000]]

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

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

[[Page S12001]]

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

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

[[Page S12002]]

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

____________________