National Dairy Equity Act of 2004

Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off- shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants.

In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry- level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent rather than the current 5.6 percent.

Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all- time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in American workers. These policies need to be changed.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade.

The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip.

Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring.

The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a foreign country?

A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be deductible from corporate gross income.

If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit.

I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government has adopted.

Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the American programmer will be paid.

The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace him.

The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped hundreds of thousands of displaced workers.

But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade deserve the same benefits.

This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm.

Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''-- those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves overseas.

Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment at wages comparable to their previous positions.

Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy.

This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially lower profits or return to shareholders.

In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit.

The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit.

In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.''

If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, pending before the Senate is legislation that marks a major step forward in addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Although in my view we have been slow to come to terms with the enormity of the problem, we now have a broad bipartisan consensus on the urgent need for increased funding to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, which is reflected in two proposals before the Senate: H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 and S. 1009, the United States Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Act of 2003.

While they are broadly similar in their provisions, one, in my view, will equip us better with the tools we need. That is S. 1009, which I am cosponsoring. Within its overall authorization figures of $2.8 billion for fiscal year 2004 and $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2005 for HIV/AIDS initiatives, it obligates specified amounts for bilateral programs, The Global Fund to Fight Aids Tuberculosis, TB, and Malaria, The Vaccine Fund, The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, tuberculosis programs and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative. It promotes an integrated and balanced approach to fighting the disease, while at the same time embracing a wide range of established HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. Indeed, S. 1009 is designed to complement and support existing development and relief funds, which have already proved their value.

Today in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the globe we confront the tragic consequences of ignorance about HIV/AIDS, indifference to its effects and delay in marshalling worldwide efforts to contain and ultimately to eliminate it. First diagnosed in Los Angeles just over 20 years ago, it rapidly spread worldwide, especially as major mechanisms of transmission, like blood transfusions and unsterilized needles, were overlooked. While concerted efforts of the medical community and the public at large have helped control the number of new cases and reduced the death rate, the disease continues to spread in some parts of the world. According to the most recent report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 3.5 million people were infected last year in Africa alone.

If not effectively treated, HIV/AIDS takes a truly terrible toll. In economic terms, the pandemic has turned back the clock on decades of development gains, creating a vicious cycle that exacerbates poverty among the already poor and reduces others to poverty. It displaces or marginalizes populations, making them even more susceptible to HIV infection. In South Africa, where the epidemic's grip has been especially deadly, AIDS has caused major social and economic disruption. What began as a health issue is now also a development crisis.

In every country where HIV/AIDS rages out of control, all sectors are affected. Public health services have been particularly hard hit, because the demand from the services of public health workers has increased. IMF indicators suggest that in the most afflicted countries health services have been overwhelmed by the epidemic, even as the number of patients is projected to double over the next few years.

HIV/AIDS has hit hardest in countries with limited budget resources. Scarce funds have been allocated to rising health care costs, at the expense of other critical public services. Additionally, because the disease debilitates and incapacitates well before it kills, and because it crosses all socioeconomic lines, it has effectively deprived struggling governments of a generation of civil servants--of urgently needed leadership, experience and expertise. This loss of human resources constitutes a new and insidious form of brain drain that governments can ill afford as they work to promote economic growth, alleviate poverty and improve the quality of life for its citizens.

Education in the affected countries has been particularly hard hit. Even if the demand for education falls over time as fertility rates decline, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain pupil- teacher ratios at constant levels. IMF indicators suggest that by 2010 the proportion of newly trained teachers replacing teachers who have died of AIDS will reach a staggering 67 percent--two in every three. The magnitude of this tragic epidemic further complicates the challenge of raising literacy rates in the developing world. The World Bank estimates that even absent the impact of HIV/AIDS, 55 of the world's poorest countries will be unable to achieve universal primary enrollment by 2015.

HIV/AIDS affects the private sector just as much as the public sector. As mortality rates rise and the working-age population declines in size, employers lose trained, experienced and productive workers. Medical care, death-related benefits and also absenteeism--a very important factor--all contribute to rising personnel costs.

The macroeconomic impacts are clear. When the HIV infection rate exceeds 5 percent in a country, HIV/AIDS begins to have significant economy-wide impacts. At least 24 African nations, along with Haiti, now fit into this category. The consequences are grim. UNAIDS estimates a loss of more than 20 percent of GDP by 2020 in the worst affected countries. The number of destitute families will rise as they face lower incomes, greater numbers of dependents and sharply higher healthcare expenditures. The ripple effects of continued reductions in labor, savings, and investment will mean lower economic output in the affected countries, inevitably slowing economic growth and causing trade balances to deteriorate further.

The economic ramifications of HIV/AIDS are one aspect of the crisis; the human dimension is another. According to UNAIDS, 42 million people worldwide are living with HIV. Of these cases, more than 28 million are in Africa alone. In 2002, 5 million people were newly infected with HIV; 28 million people have thus far died from the disease; 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS without having contracted the disease themselves. Given the high mortality rates among young adults, the orphan population will inevitably increase; a recent report issued jointly by UNICEF/UNAIDS/USAID estimates that by the end of this decade the number of orphans will reach 25 million, an increase of nearly 80 percent. Social support systems in the affected countries are tragically inadequate in the face of the crisis. Children thus become part of a vicious cycle, with no one to care for them, still vulnerable to the disease, seeking to survive in a gang or militia--exacerbating social problems in these countries.

Available statistics tell only part of the story, since AIDS often goes unreported. There is no system of accessible AIDS testing and many cases go undiagnosed, given the sensitivity and social stigma too often surrounding AIDS. On the basis of what is available, however, experts agree that in Africa alone the disease threatens an entire generation that will either be lost to HIV/AIDS or severely affected by plummeting life expectancy, collapsing social institutions and decimated workforces.

As we consider our approach to AIDS, our recent experience with SARS should be instructive. With SARS we have learned in a few months what it took years to understand about HIV/AIDS: awareness, early intervention and international cooperation are critical factors in keeping the disease from spreading and in saving lives. We must apply the lessons we are learning from SARS to our efforts to treat and control HIV/AIDS.

A person infected with the HIV/AIDS virus may appear to show signs of the flu, or no symptoms at all for months or even years. Yet diagnosed in time, the disease is treatable. In the industrialized world, for example, research and intervention have reduced mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus to less than 2 percent. Rigorous testing and surveillance can keep the blood supply safe. Effective, low-cost interventions have been developed. In high-risk groups in industrialized countries intensive education, vigorous political action and extensive drug therapy have been combined to bring the disease largely under control. Now we must

apply these strategies in the developing world, where the disease is raging out of control. Of the total HIV population worldwide, 95 percent live in the developing world. While there is no cure, we know that prompt intervention mitigates the terrible effects of the disease.

S. 1009 is not directed exclusively to HIV/AIDS; it includes important provisions addressed to tuberculosis and malaria. Unlike HIV/ AIDS, which was first diagnosed less than a quarter-century ago, these two terrible diseases have been known and feared for centuries. Tuberculosis claims nearly 3 million lives every year--more than all other infectious diseases combined. Among HIV/AIDS patients, it is the single most common cause of death. In fact, HIV patients are up to 50 percent more likely to convert the latent form of TB into the active, contagious form. Unlike many other infectious diseases, tuberculosis is an airborne disease transmitted like the common cold. Nearly one-third of the world's population is already infected, and cases of multidrug resistant strains, which are far more difficult and expensive to treat, are rising. Overall, tuberculosis is responsible for 25 percent of all preventable deaths in the developing world. S. 1009 authorizes $150 million for fiscal year 2004 and $170 million for fiscal year 2005 for programs devoted to tackling TB.

The developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa is also in the grip of resurgent malaria, as resistance grows to traditionally effective antimalarial drugs. Resurgent malaria is estimated to cause 1 to 3 million deaths annually, and WHO projects between 300 to 500 new cases every year. S. 1009 authorizes $105 million for fiscal year 2004 and $125 million for fiscal year 2005 to malaria programs and to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

With the worst effects of the pandemic still to come, S. 1009 is timely and urgent. It will help to stop the terrible downward spiral in living standards in the countries it has ravaged, and the destabilization that occurs when families and communities are torn apart. It can save lives.

We can beat back this disease. In my view, S. 1009 provides us with the tools most urgently needed by those on the front lines in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is vastly superior in its provisions to H.R. 1298. Nonetheless, I will work with my colleagues to strengthen the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the pending legislation.

I think it is important for the Senate to endorse the work of the House on the issue of international AIDS funding.

As with many of our colleagues, I was absolutely thrilled to hear President Bush use the State of the Union Address as an occasion to display his leadership on the critical issue of the pandemics of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa, the Caribbean, and the developing world.

We must give President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretaries Powell and Thompson a lot of credit for urging the Congress and American public to give a higher priority and more resources to these deadly, intertwined epidemics. An estimated 30 million of our African neighbors are infected with HIV. About 11,000 Africans become infected each day.

Tragically, of the 25 million who have died due to HIV infection worldwide, about 20 million, or 80 percent, were Africans. Unfortunately, it is likely that many more millions will follow them to an early death unless significant efforts are made to turn the tide of these epidemics. For example, about 40 percent of the citizens of Botswana are infected with HIV and the infection rate in many other countries is in the 1-in-5 and 1-in-4 range.

The Bush administration deserves a lot of credit for making this issue a priority at a time when the Federal budget is once again facing severe strains.

If our Nation takes a leadership role in helping nations in the developing world address the problems associated with infectious diseases such as HIV, TB, and malaria, these nations will remember us as an ally who helped them when they most needed aid.

Let me be frank. There are many citizens in the developing world who sometimes question the motives of the United States in international affairs. We saw this dynamic at play in the debates leading up to and in the aftermath of the recent war in Iraq.

It seems to me that in undertaking this important public health initiative at this time when we are once again struggling to regain control of the Federal budget--there can be no question that the motive of our country is nothing more than to try to help millions of people from perishing from a group of deadly infectious diseases that threaten to destabilize sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean for decades to come. If such longtime NATO allies such as France and Germany do not see eye to eye with us on certain aspects of Mideast policy, perhaps they and the rest of the developed world can agree with us that now is the time to roll up our sleeves and make the commitment of necessary resources to help those developing nations fight the interconnected scourge of HIV, TB, and malaria.

This is exactly the type of challenge that President Bush will issue at the upcoming G-8 meeting. I hope and trust that the leaders of these countries will work together with us on reversing the course of these epidemics.

I have been active in developing legislation related to AIDS since the onset of the epidemic. In my former capacity as a member--and chairman--of the Senate Labor Committee, I was a coauthor of the Ryan White CARE Act, the Terry Beirn AIDS Research Act, and worked to increase appropriations for research and services related to AIDS.

I am a conservative. I share the concerns many have expressed that this bill could fund activities with which we disagree. To be clear, I very much disapprove of many of the behaviors by which HIV is transmitted.

That being said, early on in this epidemic, I learned the wisdom of the old adage, ``Hate the sin, but love the sinner.''

High-risk behaviors--for example, intravenous drug abuse--are hard to break. But, as a society, can we use behaviors with which many of us vigorously disagree as an excuse to abandon our responsibility to help individuals who are trying to kick their dependency on drugs? I think not.

It is important to employ proven public health strategies to prevent the spread of HIV, even if some of these techniques and educational messages can be viewed as controversial if taken

out of context of a public health crisis. We must also recognize geographic differences in what strategies are most proven and acceptable. Appropriate public health education prevention and education tactics are often different in Salt Lake City and New York City, or for that matter, Ho Chi Minh City.

There was a spirited debate in the House over the proper balance between abstinence and other risk reduction techniques such as the role of condoms. I don't want to replay the whole debate over the rule that 33 percent of prevention funds must be devoted to reenforcing an abstinence message. I believe in abstinence. I also am mindful of the fact that in some geographic regions such an inflexible rule may not represent an optimum use of prevention dollars.

There are elements of the House bill that I do not like. But I must salute the efforts of Chairman Hyde and Representative Lantos for working so long and hard to find a consensus and get this legislation out of the House.

Let me just add that I have heard the frequent--and not unjustified complaints to my mind--of the House leaders who observe that they are often faced with the prospect of passing what they consider watered down Senate versions of legislation after the House has taken action. It is well known that the House majority leadership views the tax legislation we just adopted earlier this evening to be a prime example of this dynamic.

When all is said and done, the Constitution set forth a bicameral legislative body with different membership criteria and different election cycles. It is not surprising that it is often the case that the House and Senate come up with different legislative provisions. In the normal case, these differences can be ironed out by the vehicle of a conference committee.

However, sometimes the regular order of the conference report is in tension with outside events. The case of the upcoming G-8 meeting is just one of those circumstances. As my friend Chairman Hyde wrote in an op-ed piece earlier this week, the development of a Senate version of the bill--normally a positive--may have a material adverse effect of the very type of international cooperation that the bill seeks to kindle and redouble.

As Congressman Hyde noted, ``A new bill only delays the pressure on House and Senate appropriators to pony up the $15 billion requested by the President over the next five years. . . .

`` . . . for the President in his meeting with G-8 leaders in June, a new bill only delays an opportunity he will have at this meeting to use enactment of this legislation to leverage support for worldwide AIDS efforts from our wealthy partners.''

We need to take this view into account. I say this as one for whom the version of the bill developed and introduced by Senators Lugar, Kerry, and Biden is more attractive than what emerged from the House. All in the Senate should commend Senators Lugar, Kerry, Biden, and Frist for their longstanding leadership in this area. From a purely public health standpoint, I think their legislation has a number of advantages over the House bill that we are taking up on the floor today.

I also have the utmost respect and praise for what the House accomplished by passing a bill that resolved a number of very difficult issues that lingered for many months. I want to associate myself with the remarks made earlier today by Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden in which they took the position that, despite the Lugar-Kerry-Biden bill's many virtues, the bottom line reality is that to go to conference with a new Senate version of the bill is to risk losing a critical opportunity at the G-8 meeting.

Our majority leader, Dr. Frist, who has spent so much of his own time helping the people of Africa, also noted that the bill he called up may not be the perfect bill, but it represents a major step forward in advancing the program that President Bush laid out in the State of the Union Address.

As the great philosopher Mick Jagger once noted, you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you find you get what you need.

I think that the President's $15 billion proposal and the House bill are exactly what the people of Africa and the Caribbean need. Although I can think of some ways to refine the House language--as Senators Lugar, Kerry, and Biden have suggested, my view is that we can not let the perfect become the enemy of the very good.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1298. It is a good bill. The House worked for a long time and came up with a product of which we can all be proud and supportive. We will have ample opportunity in the months ahead and during the appropriations process to fine tune this legislation. But I agree with Senator Frist, let's get this done job done.

Now is the time to send the President to France with an enacted bill with which he can attempt to leverage additional support from our closest allies. Being able to put the $15 billion bill on the table as a finished product will do much more benefit than a progress report on the Conference Committee.

I believe that H.R. 1298 will be viewed as an important step forward with respect to public health. I cannot help but think that many of the developing world--the very same people we want to enlist with us to fight the battle against terrorism and to resist the entreaties of those who seek to undermine the role of America in world affairs--will take note of our action tonight. They will see that, even at a time when the domestic U.S. economy is struggling to recover, Americans found both the will and wallet to launch a major humanitarian effort against diseases that are severely lowering the quality of life in the developing world.

Mr. President, I support H.R. 1298 as a clean bill. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill without amendment.

Why am I speaking on this subject? Why I am so committed to the swift passage of this bipartisan global AIDS bill? No one in my family and none of my close friends has AIDS. Nor have I traveled to Africa to care for people suffering from AIDS, as has our distinguished majority leader, Dr. Frist.

Well, I am speaking on this subject for one reason and one reason only: I believe that passing this bill as soon as possible is the right thing to do. We have a responsibility to fulfill--and an opportunity we cannot squander.

Millions of people are dying needlessly. We have the ability to make an investment that will save millions of lives and give hope and security to millions more. Doing nothing is not an option.

We live in a highly interconnected world. Today more than ever, creating a more peaceful and secure environment for the people of one region translates into more peace and security for people around the globe. By increasing our commitment to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, we also will be helping our nation and the rest of the international community. The world awaits our response.

As the cries for help from Africa increase, and the world watches to see what we will do, President Bush has challenged the Congress to provide the assistance that would begin to rid the world of this deadly menace.

If we pass this bill, we will provide the people of Africa with hope for a better and more secure future. If we do not, history will not soon forgive--or forget--that a nation blessed with all the resources we have at our disposal failed to act when we heard the cries of the people of Africa.

Let me remind my colleagues what the President has challenged us to do. He asked us to send him a bill that would prevent 7 million new infections--or 60 percent of the projected new infections in the target countries. He asked for a bill that would treat 2 million HIV-infected people in the target countries--as opposed to fewer than 100,000 today--using the latest advances in drug therapy. He also asked for a bill that would provide care and comfort for 10 million HIV-infected people and AIDS orphans.

The bill before us today would do all of these things. It represents the first global effort to provide advanced anti-retroviral treatment on such a large scale in the poorest and most afflicted countries. This bill also would make the successful Ugandan model of prevention--in other words, putting abstinence first--the basis of our global prevention strategy.

The bill would require accountability and transparency from both the Global Fund and our bilateral efforts. The recent GAO report on the Global fund raises some legitimate concerns about how this 16-month-old organization manages its contributions and monitors its projects. The bill before us would mandate careful scrutiny of and accounting for how the Global Fund spends the contributions it receives.

In short, this bill both reflects American values and recognizes that we need the active involvement of all countries in the struggle against AIDS. It also reflects a bipartisan compromise. This bill passed the House 375 to 41, with only 1 Democrat in opposition.

Now I realize that no one is completely satisfied with this bill. I have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might prefer to change one section or another to make it a better bill. However, we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We don't have time to let the legislative process drag on while people around the world are dying--waiting for us to act. Time is not on our side--or theirs!

I know many of my colleagues strongly support the Global Fund. President Bush supports the Global Fund too. In fact, his Secretary of

Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is the fund's new chairman.

The President has pledged to continue our commitment to the Global Fund even as he proposes expanding and targeting our bilateral country- to-country initiatives to fight AIDS. By providing both bilateral and multilateral funding, this bill doesn't pin all of our hopes--or our taxpayers' money--on any one approach to addressing this crisis.

If you support the Global Fund, you know that the Senate's delay would mean a missed opportunity to increase the international commitment to fighting AIDS globally.

The United States is the single largest donor to the Global Fund. As of April 1, the United States had pledged nearly half of the $3.37 billion in total pledges to the Global Fund. We have already appropriated $650 million to the Global Fund, and we have pledged an additional $1 billion over the next 5 years.

We are already doing more than our fair share for the Global Fund. What we need to do now is to encourage the rest of the international community to step up to the plate.

President Bush is traveling to France next month for the G-8 Summit. This summit is a meeting of the political leaders of the world's largest economies. When would there be a better time to encourage other countries to increase their own contributions to the Global Fund?

If you are concerned with the future viability of the Global Fund, you also should be concerned about passing this bill now. Our swift action will demonstrate our commitment to seeing this battle through. It will also give the President a great tool with which to leverage additional funding from other nations.

On the other hand, amending this bill will result in a lengthy conference with the House. If we don't get this bill to the President until the summer, we will miss a golden opportunity to encourage more financial support for the Global Fund from the G-8 members. If we don't finish action on this bill until the fall, then the State Department will have lost the time it will need to get ready for the coming year's appropriations for our expanded bilateral AIDS initiatives.

Clearly, these are not artificial timelines. Even less artificial are the timelines that AIDS places on a person's life and a family's future.

In the 3 months since President Bush announced his emergency plan, nearly 800,000 people have died from AIDS. In those 3 months, 1.2 million people have been infected with HIV, and more than 175,000 babies have been born with the virus. Every day we spend debating this bill on the Senate floor or in a conference with the House means more lives lost--lives that could have been saved had we acted sooner.

Our Founding Fathers were never more inspirational than when they wrote that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights-- and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Swift passage of this bill will again show the world that these aren't just words on a piece of paper. Swift passage will again show that these words apply to every citizen of every country--not just our own.

In Africa and the Caribbean, the scourge of AIDS is robbing people of their natural rights. We know the thief is a virus. We also know how we can stop this thief from stealing the lives of people--from stealing fathers and mothers from their children. But with this knowledge comes an obligation to use it.

For so long we could only treat the symptoms of AIDS and provide comfort to the dying. Today, we have the ability to fight back against HIV itself. Today we have medicines that can effectively halt the evolution of HIV and help people live a normal life. In other words, we have the technology and the know-how to stop AIDS from killing people, destroying families, and destabilizing societies.

By sending this legislation to the President, we will save the lives of millions of people and liberate them from the tyranny of AIDS. And we will demonstrate, once again, that we are a principled nation that leads through actions, not words.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan bill and send it without amendment to the President.

Mr. President, I congratulate everybody who was involved in the bill. This was not easy work. There were a lot of different personalities and opinions. It is a huge issue with a lot of detail. There is a lot of room for error and misunderstandings and different amendments.

I am so pleased that people on both sides of the aisle worked through all the difficulties, both ends of the building worked through all the difficulties, and that we arrived at this position.

I particularly congratulate the majority leader for the outstanding job he has done through all the years he has worked on AIDS. This would not have come to our attention and a vote tonight if it had not been for the diligence of Senator Frist.

I also thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for all the work he has done on the bill. He has been through more variations of this bill than almost anybody, except Senator Frist, and was willing to find a position that would get this bill passed. He did that in the best kind of spirit and took some stands against a bill that had his name on it. That is very difficult work for a Senator to do, and he did it in the best spirit of making sure we were taking care of the work.

It is one of the more universal bills we have done since I have been in the Senate.

I congratulate everyone for coming together and finishing this bill.

Mr. President, I respectfully respond to my colleague that clearly we can pass the bill now, and that would end the session. I would hope we would do that. If Members wish to continue offering amendments, I will do the best I can to encourage each amendment be defeated so we will have a clean bill.

In any event, I hope it will not be long, and with the cooperation of all Members we can expedite it.

I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, let me clarify that if $2 billion is spent in the first year for bilateral HIV programs and if 20 percent is for prevention, only $132 million will be involved in the abstinence programs. I simply say, it is a fairly small amount.

When the President addressed this issue at the White House, he specifically said, there are three elements. There is abstinence, faithfulness, and condoms. He said all three. There is a liberal amount of money for a lot of flexibility.

I don't argue with the distinguished Senator from California. I just say essentially the language accomplishes that.

Once again, we are faced with the fact that if we are determined to amend it, we are back into the problem with the House, which debated this. This was an important part of the compromise that brought those 375 votes in favor of the bill.

I yield back our time.

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. President, just as a matter of common sense, the U.S. Government will attempt to purchase pharmaceutical products of the highest quality at the best price. But I would just simply urge my colleagues to consider the fact that mandating this, while it appears reasonable, and has some reliance upon the World Health Organization's pilot program, we ought to recognize that the World Health Organization actually dealing in countries with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS does not guarantee the quality of the medicine. It is probably unable to do that.

The facts are--and I respect the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and, likewise, the Senator from Wisconsin; they have experience, I am sure, in the field looking at these programs--the testimony of people I have visited with at Indiana University, who have been in the field, indicates that the whole idea of the treatment is a very provisional situation.

We are grasping as a world at what works. And this is why flexibility has been encouraged thus far. We also are simply up against the fact that the problem is so overwhelming that attempting to obtain pharmaceutical products from anybody around the world has been extremely difficult. And a good number of pharmaceutical companies have been prepared to make enormous price concessions. And most physicians then point out, you need a physician to help the patient make certain the doses are right, the combination of drugs is right, the discipline of dealing with this is correct.

It is not a matter of mandating the lowest cost drugs, and failing to do that denying people treatment. The fact is, 80 percent of the people with AIDS in the world are getting no treatment at all. That is why we are trying to pass a bill tonight as opposed to having several months more discussion, attempting to perfect the bill. I have said from the beginning, as Dr. Frist, that all of us could perfect this bill in a number of ways. Our problem is to get a bill through two Houses now so it might be of some benefit to our President in his diplomacy and advocacy as he approaches the other wealthy countries of the world, starting at least on the first of January, if not before.

Therefore, Mr. President, I am hopeful that Members understand the importance of getting drugs at the best price and mandating the highest quality and attempting to get as many companies all over the world interested in this as we can. But the amendment, it seems to me, once again, obstructs the fact of getting any bill at all, any relief for the people we are talking about. Therefore, I ask Senators to vote no.

Senator Boxer, 10 minutes, evenly divided.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for information now on the time limits on the two amendments.

On the Dodd amendment?

Mr. President, I am unfamiliar with the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California. I have listened carefully to her argument, and obviously the bill before us addresses the needs of women and orphans in a great number of places. I must argue again, I suspect that the best in this case should not be the enemy of the better.

We have a bill here that I believe is sound on these issues. As we have admitted again and again, each one of us might perfect it in various ways. The distinguished Senator from California is attempting to do so now. But I encourage Senators to vote against the amendment for the same reasons I have encouraged Senators to vote against each of the perfecting amendments--realizing that each one of us, in the event we were to write the bill, could do better. But we have two bodies working on a procedure whereby we are on the threshold of having a significant breakthrough for the people we are attempting to assist and save.

The Senator has made an eloquent case for why we ought to have action now and ought to encourage other countries to join us. I ask Senators, once again, to oppose the Boxer amendment.

We yield back our time.

Mr. President, I will make a short comment and yield to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

I point out, without for a moment arguing with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the urgency of Latin America, our friends right here in the Caribbean, that the language of the bill with regard to the United States coordinator does list 14 countries, but it also then has these words: ``and other countries designated by the President.''

It appears to me this language is fairly flexible. It might have been better if all of the countries had been listed, but it does enumerate the Latin American countries that the Senator from Connecticut has pointed to and gives the power of the President to designate other countries.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and then the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time on our side. Before doing so, may I clarify with the Chair that the only two remaining amendments are to be offered by the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Clinton, and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and that these will have voice votes at the conclusion of the two amendments, and then we will have final passage on a voice vote. Is that interpretation correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the only two remaining amendments be amendments of Senator Clinton and Senator Biden, with voice votes to follow, and a voice vote on final passage.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, the Senator from New York has made a very eloquent and important statement, and I appreciate it. My response has to be the one I have made throughout the evening, and that is that it is different, and it will cause conference. In my judgment, there is merit in what she has to say. That has been true of many amendments this evening. But it is something that I must oppose. I am hopeful Senators will vote no on the Clinton amendment.

Mr. President, I have been listening to all of this information. Let me simply say that, throughout the evening, I have asked Senators to vote against amendments. That was based upon the feelings of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, who passed the bill--namely, my friends Henry Hyde, Tom Lantos, and likewise in the course of this debate, I have mentioned conversations with the President himself, who wanted this bill unamended so there would not be a need for a conference and for difficulty. I have not been apprised by anybody at the White House, or in the House leadership, of any other situation.

I am perfectly willing to accept, on good faith, the assertions of my colleagues who have had these conversations. But for the sake of the Record, when the voice vote comes, I will vote no because I have asked my colleagues to vote no on each amendment. I will continue in that frame of mind.

But I have listened carefully and I understand what, apparently, have been conversations and agreements and I appreciate that.

I know of no reason to extend the debate, unless the majority leader has something.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their diligence and faithfulness in working to this late hour. I thank our leader, Senator Frist; likewise, Senator Daschle. I always appreciate working with my colleague, Senator Biden. We have a good relationship on the committee, and we are very appreciative that the Senate has given us this bill this evening.

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.

No, Mr. President, I will go last.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I, quite frankly, not only agree with every point the Senator has made, but, quite frankly, I have not heard a more compelling case, a more logical case, and a more--how can I say it?-- reasoned indictment of our failure to be willing to confront the House with what I cannot believe, particularly if the President said he supported this, that we would not be able to get it done.

It is true that I believe the House is willing to accept some changes in this bill. The fact is, as the Senator knows, the bill we had did exactly what he is talking about providing for these folks.

Even though everyone says there is no possibility of anything being accepted beyond this, I find it hard to believe, if this body, which passed this before, which unanimously said this made sense, and a President who says he is overwhelmingly concerned not only about AIDS worldwide but about our Latin American friends to our south--remember, he started his whole initiative in foreign policy; he was looking in this hemisphere south.

I realize everyone thinks this would not happen, many think this would not occur, but it is clearly worth taking a chance. I am willing to bet, if it passes, it gets accepted. I cannot imagine it being turned down. I cannot imagine the President of the United States saying he would not accept this amendment.

All these amendments have been important, but there is simply no logic whatever--none--to refuse this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand the regular order is that my amendment on debt relief would be in order now.

Mr. President, the hour is extremely late. The bottom line of this is that this provides for debt relief

for the very countries we are trying to help with AIDS. They are swamped by debt. It is legislation that we have been through before. My staff and I sat with the White House, the National Security Agency. We sat down with the White House today, the National Security Agency representative for hours. We negotiated the exact language.

I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, as we consider legislation today on the global epidemic of HIV/AIDS, I urge my colleagues to think about this: While the poorest nations of the world lack the resources to provide the most basic public health care and the most basic education, they still send money to the international financial institutions established by the wealthiest nations of the world.

The 26 countries currently qualified to receive debt relief under the heavily indebted poor country--HIPC--program continue to pay more than $2 billion annually on debt service.

That money goes to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund here in Washington, as well as other lenders, to pay the interest on loans they have received over the years.

Unless we act now on this HIV/AIDS bill to reduce that debt burden, we run the real risk that the resources we are providing them today will find their

way back, not only to Washington, but to other lenders, such as France, Germany, and Japan.

Deeper debt relief for those poor countries is essential to make the work we are doing on this HIV/AIDS legislation as effective as possible, and to make sure that funds do not leak out through the mandatory spending these countries must do to service their debts every year.

Money is money and the problem of these debt payments is very real for these poor countries. As long as they face these mandatory debt payments, the resources we are providing in this HIV/AIDS bill will be less effective.

But deeper debt relief is also needed because the current HIPC Program is not working.

In fact, last year the Bank and the fund honestly admitted that under the current formula, many countries will simply not reach a sustainable level of debt.

The amendment I am offering tonight aims to make the HIPC Program itself more likely to succeed.

It is essentially the legislation Senator Santorum and I introduced in the last congress, with the support of Senators Frist, Nickles, Chafee, DeWine, and Specter on the majority side, along with Senators Kerry and Sarbanes, Feingold, Murray, and others on this side of the aisle.

Specifically, for the many countries facing a public health crisis-- such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic--we say that no more than 5 percent of their revenues should go to service their debt to other nations and international institutions.

For those who do not face such a crisis, debt service should exceed no more than 10 percent of their budget.

Some debate remains about the most appropriate way to measure a country's ability to pay its debt and still provide basic public goods in the areas of health, education, and infrastructure.

So our amendment gives the administration the flexibility to find an alternative measure that would achieve an equivalent level of debt reduction--a level that these poor countries can sustain.

Only countries that quality for the existing HIPC Program--that sets standards of economic reform and human rights--will participate.

The bottom line is that unless the U.S. and our G-7 partners reduce debt service payment to manageable levels--no more than 10 percent of Government revenue, 5 percent if the country has a major health crisis--these nations will be unable to devote the necessary resources to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

This amendment was part of the HIV/AIDS bill that passed the Senate last year. It belongs on this legislation, too.

Although there is some confusion about how we got there, I believe in retrospect the chairman, quite frankly, unknown to me, was not brought into the loop on this. I assure him the reason I agreed to a voice vote is because we had every Democrat, and I believe from personal discussion we had at least four Republicans supporting the amendment. I understand, without getting into all the detail, the bottom line is the amendment has been signed off on by the White House in direct discussions with my staff this afternoon. I would move the adoption of the amendment.

I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I will respond to what I know firsthand. I can only speak firsthand to the White House. It is my understanding, and it has been asserted to me, that there have been discussions with senior Republicans--I assume that that was shared by everybody, with both the speaker and with Mr. Delay, and that they had signed on to this. But I will respectfully suggest that I yield to Senator Santorum, who may be able to give you a more direct answer. I personally, for the record, have not spoken with anybody in the House of Representatives.

If the Senator will yield. In addition, I agreed with the White House to further amend my amendment to change the effective date, which was a very important element to the White House. They wanted the original language we had in Lugar-Biden that we moved off of to go to the House bill, and in previous language that we had in other bills, including the original bill which came out of the committee and passed out of here. It had language relating to the effective date when countries could qualify to meet the test for this. The White House wanted it tighter, wanted it more stringent.

We took the better part of the afternoon, 3 or 4 hours, negotiating back and forth. We yielded on that point as well. That is the point at which the White House spokesperson from the National Security Agency said to us, ``We have a deal.'' That is when it then got scrubbed. That was even more palatable, I am told, to the speaker and the majority leader. That is as much as I can say firsthand.

Mr. President, this amendment, like this bill, addresses a specific pandemic that demands our attention and our action. According to the most recent data available, at least 20 million people have died of HIV/AIDS globally, orphaning 14 million children. On the African continent, approximately 30 million people have the AIDS virus--3 million of whom are children under the age of 15.

In the spirit of the underlying bill, I have joined my friend Senator Kennedy in cosponsoring this amendment to ensure that this bill saves as many lives as possible. Our amendment will allow for the purchase of many more drugs to treat those suffering from HIV/AIDS, stretching the taxpayers' dollars as far and as effectively as possible.

This amendment allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to go towards the purchase of safe, but less expensive equivalent medications on the global market if they are available. It enables the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to use Federal funds to procure drugs at the lowest possible price on the global market to treat HIV/AIDS patients, provided that they are approved for treatment in the U.S.; the EU; have been selected by the World Health Organization's, WHO, Pilot Procurement Quality and Sourcing Project for HIV-related medicines; or are authorized for use by the country where the product will be used. These are the same qualifications used by the United Nations Global Fund to procure drugs.

This amendment does not give preference to a particular treatment for HIV/AIDS. Patients will not be precluded from receiving the drug treatments that are medically necessary; however, if there is a less expensive equivalent drug included in that treatment, this amendment will require the purchase of that lower-cost drug.

As a proponent of free trade and a staunch supporter of upholding our global trade obligations, I don't believe this amendment violates carefully negotiated agreements on intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organization, WTO, nor does it weaken the position of our trade representatives in future intellectual property negotiations. The language of this amendment closely tracks the most recent intellectual property rights agreements at the WTO.

I urge my colleagues to choose to make treatments available to many more people suffering from this terrible disease and vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, Senate passage of this bill authorizing the expenditure of $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS sends an important message: that the United States is committed not only to making this a safer world, by ending threats posed by terrorists and rogue states, but also a better, more humane world, by helping people in need in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere cope with the ravages of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The spread of HIV/AIDS, and the efforts of the international community to combat it, will be remembered by history as one of the defining issues of our time. Until recently, we have been losing the battle: the disease has infected 68 million people to date. It has already brought disaster to Africa, where AIDS has taken over 20 million lives and has surpassed malaria as the leading cause of death. UNAIDS estimates that by 2020, an additional 55

million Africans will lose their lives to the disease. There are currently 11 million AIDS orphans in Africa. Average life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is currently estimated at 47 years, but it would be 62 years in the absence of AIDS.

These numbers are staggering. The ethical implications of not doing everything in our power to slow the spread of this disease are severe. The most basic morality requires that we commit ourselves to combating HIV/AIDS everywhere. The social and political implications of allowing this disease to claim its grim toll are grave: countries cannot survive the death of a quarter or more of their populations without severe unrest, impoverishment, even radicalization and revolution. In Africa, more women are infected with HIV/AIDS than men; their central role in family life means their deaths have disproportionate effect. Millions of children cannot lose their parents without lasting damage to themselves and their societies. In many countries, the army has higher infection rates than the general population. Mass death among uniformed personnel will have profound implications for political stability and national security in these countries, as armies literally become unable to fulfill their basic duties.

As the CIA assessed in 2000 for the 20-year period through 2020,

At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in

sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a

demographic catastrophe as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases

reduce human life expectancy dramatically and kill up to a

quarter of their populations over the period of this

estimate. This will further impoverish the poor, and often

the middle class, and produce a huge and impoverished orphan

cohort unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and

radicalization.

As the World Bank and others have reported, AIDS affects the most economically vibrant group within society, the working-age men and women who account for most national output. With one quarter of a country's population facing impending death, labor markets would be ravaged, the benefits of education lost, and health-care spending rationed on what should be a society's most fit citizens. Resources that would have been used for productive investments would instead be apportioned for health care, orphan care, and funerals. Decades of gains in social welfare could be rolled back. National productivity and economic growth would be set back for generations.

HIV/AIDS is decimating Africa, but its next frontier lies in Eurasia. More than 7 million people in China, Russia, and India carry the disease, but as we have seen in Africa, an infection rate of that magnitude can jump into the tens of millions within a decade. As Nicholas Eberstadt has written, ``The coming Eurasian pandemic threatens to derail the economic prospects of billions and alter the global military balance.'' Africa's plight alone is reason enough to pass this bill. Given the economic size and military stature of India, China, and Russia, the world will simply not be able to ignore the consequences of the coming AIDS crisis in Eurasia.

Given the scale of human disaster and socio-political turmoil we confront from HIV/AIDS, enactment of the bill before us represents a critical step in the direction of leading the world in a common response to a crisis that affects us all. This bill nearly triples the U.S. commitment for international AIDS assistance. It targets most assistance at the 14 most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean, but can incorporate other afflicted countries if necessary. It demonstrates the United States' commitment to leading a global campaign against a disease that has already killed 25 million people.

As Uganda in particular has shown, AIDS can be managed and contained. Often the biggest challenges are political will, which has been sorely lacking in much of Africa, and government competence to effectively diagnose and treat victims, backed by a decent health care infrastructure. Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must know that we expect a level of governance, transparency, and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance.

The scale of the AIDS crisis, and the consequences of inaction in the face of a pandemic that threatens the global order, call for the type of bold leadership reflected in this bill. Our commitment must be sustained, and we must enjoy the partnership of other wealthy nations in this effort. We cannot afford to fail.

Mr. President, I reiterate what the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said. As I said at the outset of this week and through this week, the intent is to finish this bill this week. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have requested that we continue. If we are going to finish this bill, which we will, we will finish it tonight. The plans are to finish the bill tonight. I know there are a number of amendments. As my colleagues can see from the amendments so far, the expectations are that we will be able to defeat each amendment as it comes forward.

I encourage the other side of the aisle to look at the amendments. I do not believe we have any amendments on our side of the aisle. I encourage the other side to look at their amendments. This is the first step, at least from my standpoint, in addressing this complex issue. We are taking advantage of an opportunity at this point in time to move forward in the best interest of the United States with the global health community.

I can tell the Senator this is not the bill I started with, and myself, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and a number of us have worked on a whole range of bills--the Lugar-Biden, Biden-Lugar bill. We are going to have plenty of opportunity to address this issue. This little virus, I have said again and again, is going to be with us for the next 30 years. Even if we invent a vaccine tomorrow, we will have plenty of opportunity to refine this bill or the framework upon which this bill was started at a later date.

I again encourage all people who are considering amendments to not offer those amendments. Our intent is to defeat each one. I remind everybody, this is a bipartisan bill.

It did come from the House of Representatives, built on lots of other bills on which we have been working, and only one Democrat and a handful of Republicans voted against this bill. Therefore, I encourage our colleagues to withdraw amendments.

We will be working together in a bipartisan fashion to improve this fight against a devastating virus. The intent is to complete this bill tonight.

Mr. President, indeed I hope the managers can agree on a list of amendments. Again, I know a lot of people--we have been working on colloquies, and we will continue to do that, if necessary, to show what our intent is. Again, I am not sure if a final list has been settled upon. I encourage it to be as small as possible. I inquire of the other side.

Mr. President, I do not believe we have any amendments on our side to be offered tonight. I encourage my colleagues to yield back time, again after careful explanations on their amendments so people know what they are voting on, but yield back time accordingly.

I ask unanimous consent that all rollcall votes be 10 minutes.

I respond by saying I am scared to death to ask the other side how many amendments we actually have. We heard from the Democratic leader that there are four amendments that will likely require rollcall votes.

From our side of the aisle, we have no amendments. We made it very clear what our strategy is, and that is to defeat the amendments. Why? Because it is the clearest way to help the hundreds of thousands of people who we know will benefit if we pass this bill tonight and get it to the G-8 so that the President can use it appropriately.

Mr. President, in regard to the schedule, as mentioned, the votes as outlined will be planned for the remainder of the evening. The vote we are about to have will be the last rollcall vote of the evening. I thank all Members for their patience. We have been here about 17 hours of consecutive voting.

The Senate will not be in session tomorrow. We will return for business on Monday.

That's right, we will not be in session later today. We will return for business on Monday.

On Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. The next rollcall vote will occur at 5:30 on Monday.

Again, this will be the last rollcall vote of the morning.

I agree with the Senator from New Jersey about the critical importance of research on microbicides, and I commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I applaud his efforts to better coordinate research conducted at USAID, CDC, and NIH, and to increase Federal funding. I urge the leadership at NIH to five his proposal prompt and careful consideration.

Mr. President. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership in the area of adoption. She is right to suggest that we focus these programs on an orphan child's

need to find a permanent, loving home. I would be happy to work with her toward this end.

eligibility for assistance

I would be happy to.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his question. This is an important issue. I fully agree that it is essential that information about approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention be medically accurate, including both the public health benefits and failure rates of the approach involved. That is what is intended by this provision. In fact, the provision uses the words ``an organization that is otherwise eligible to receive assistance''. I believe that ``otherwise eligible'' should be interpreted to require explicit assurances by such organization that when it provides information about HIV/AIDS prevention approaches it will meet this standard of accuracy.

Mr. President, I appreciate the points raised by Senator Boxer and Senator Smith and will work with them to ensure that adequate funding is provided for U.S. bilateral TB programs.

Mr. President, what we have just done is significant in many ways. We have addressed for the first time in a comprehensive way one of the greatest humanitarian, moral, and public health challenges this country has ever seen, and, I would argue, the greatest humanitarian challenge we have had to face in the last 100 years.

We addressed this health challenge in a comprehensive way. We addressed it with an authorization for $15 billion over 5 years. It was just a few years ago we were spending a total of $100 million a year, and now it is going to be approximately $3 billion a year.

As has been stated again and again over the course of the evening, the afternoon, and around lunch when we first began talking on the bill, what we have done is shown that the United States is not just a good nation but is indeed a great nation, that we will lead in the global fight against this destructive virus that has killed 23 million people, that is affecting the lives of over 45 million people today, and that, as we have said today, will likely take the lives of 60 million others and will create probably another 40 million orphans over the next two decades.

This is our first step. I congratulate the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for bringing us to this point. Many of us have been working for 3, 4, and 5 years even to bring us to this point. I thank him for his tremendous leadership in accomplishing this goal.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague, Senator Enzi.