A bill to provide for a one year extension of programs under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act.

Earlier this afternoon, there were comments made in the Senate by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton. Some of those comments distressed me a little bit. We have been trying to get the Ryan White Care Act, which passed out of committee and passed on the House floor, to pass in the Senate. This is one of those rare bipartisan, bicameral bills. We worked it out in advance with the House so the bill the House passed is essentially the bill we passed out of committee. It is a modernization act that would ensure equitable distribution of funds for HIV/AIDS treatment in the United States.

I am compelled to discuss some of the points that the Senator from New York made today about the Ryan White Care Act and our bipartisan bicameral legislation. I will talk about each of her claims in turn.

Senator Clinton claimed that when you look at the funding for the whole bill, New York is not receiving the most funds per case. I don't doubt those figures. However, those are deceptive numbers. As an accountant, I have to point that out. They are deceptive for two reasons. First, her statement dealt only with funds per AIDS case. We have been talking about including HIV cases as well. Why would she neglect to include HIV? I assume it is because 25 States have 50 percent of their HIV/AIDS cases not being counted today because those individuals have HIV, which has not progressed to AIDS.

Please note that all of my numbers have included both HIV and AIDS. We must include HIV in the funding formulas. Before, including only AIDS made sense because we were just waiting for people to die. Now, we have lifesaving treatment for those with HIV; therefore, we must count each person who can receive lifesaving care.

Additionally, Senator Clinton is looking at more than just the formula funding. Her figures include funding for community health centers, health care providers, providers who reach out to women and children. Thus, her figures include a lot of extra funding that is not at the heart of the debate.

If Senator Clinton wants to rely on these numbers, numbers outside of the formulas, then she can do so under the current bill. She can trust that the other portions of the CARE Act will assist those who she is saying are being harmed by the bill.

As for her claim that her State has not spent Ryan White funds for things such as dog-walking, I will note that the Senator from Oklahoma provided information for the record regarding that.

Now, Senator Clinton further claims that New York only carried over $3 million. Well, I find that surprising, given that New York, on the average, has carried over $29 million.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document from the Health Resources and Services Administration documenting the funds carried over for New York.

Now, the Senator from New York mentions her 1-year extension bill. I will also discuss the Senator's 1-year extension, her resolution for Ryan White, her solution that would simply delay the reauthorization for another year. It simply says to those States that have not been getting adequate funds: We do not care about you, and you are not going to get adequate funds. We are going to re-debate all of this again next year. We are not even going to move toward making it fair.

The underlying bipartisan, bicameral bill has a provision providing 3 years of hold harmless funds for New York. For 3 years, New York will not have to follow the formula. They would like to have 5 years. The 3 years already in the bill is at the expense of the other States. The 5 years would be at the expense of the other States, although I will cover a question that was asked yesterday in a little while.

This is not a time to delay. This is a time to act. We absolutely cannot delay the much needed updates to current formulas that ensure that all Americans with HIV and AIDS are treated fairly and have access to life-sparing treatments no matter their race, their gender, or where they live.

We have a chart that shows the losses that would occur under current law versus the gains that would occur after this reauthorization. The red States here are going to lose significant funding under the current law, beginning on October 1. One hundred thousand Americans are going to be left out. The chart on the right, the blue chart, shows the gains under the Ryan White authorization. All States gain except five, who lose less funds under the reauthorization than they would under current law. Only two of the five are asking for a difference.

The time is now or never. As soon as the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, thousands of Americans will begin losing access to life- sparing treatment unless we pass this bill now. This amendment does not address this fact. This amendment would extend a formula that will cause dramatic reductions in funding to many States and thousands of Americans.

The House has passed this critical legislation, and now five Senators must decide if they will stand in the way of bipartisan legislation with broad support--a bill that will ensure equitable treatment for all Americans living with HIV and AIDS. I would say, I believe that is down to four Senators now.

Now, my second problem with the bill of the Senator from New York is that it shuts out Americans infected with HIV and does not provide them with equal access to treatment. Rather, it focuses on outdated funding formulas that only examine AIDS, not the full spectrum of the disease.

Just like her numbers on funding per person, the Senator from New York refuses to acknowledge those with HIV. This chart shows that today, in over 25 States, half of the cases in those States are not counted because those Americans only have HIV, not AIDS. These States receive funding for less than half their total HIV/AIDS cases because of the current, outdated, failed formula. Half the Nation does not receive enough funds to provide the most basic care to their residents. Now, my third problem with the bill of the Senator from New York or the Senator from New Jersey is that it ducks the key issue. Rather than more equitable distribution for funding and more equitable access to treatment for all Americans, my colleagues supporting this bill are simply throwing more money at the problem, assuming it will ensure more equitable access to lifesaving treatments. We know this is simply not the case because it does not solve the inherent flaws in the funding formulas.

Now, this chart shows that under the current law, more than 3 percent of Ryan White funding is returned to the Treasury each year. That is more than 3 percent--much of this coming from New York and New Jersey, the very States that objected to the passage of the bill that would more equitably distribute funding across the Nation.

Again, you will see here that under the current law, New York is receiving $509 per case more than the national average. Under the new bill, they would still get $304 more than the average case per person across the United States. And they have an average $29 million unspent. New Jersey, the other State, is receiving $310 above the national average. They would still get $88 above the national average. This bill does not get to equity. This bill moves toward equity. And it does not move there until 3 years from now. Other bills we have done start transitioning immediately.

Now, I am surprised that the Senator from New York or New Jersey would offer a bill to increase funding, ignoring the outdated formula issues, only to increase the inequity of the program and allow more funds that could save lives to be returned to the Treasury each year. Why would we offer more money to States that are already grossly overpaid and unable to spend their money and increase the disparities of outdated funding formulas, further harming those States with an emerging crisis?

This amendment would have us give a few States even more money than they are receiving now, while the majority of the States will receive significantly less funding over the next year. The Senators from New York and New Jersey want to extend this inequity rather than fixing the formula, fixing the formula now, fixing it before the tomorrow-night deadline, to allow fair and equitable treatment and access to care for Americans who have none now.

I can tell you that the HIV/AIDS community and families want this bill now. Now, perhaps my colleague can explain why she wants to give more money to States that cannot spend what they already have, while taking money away from States that are struggling, as we speak, to provide the basic life-sparing treatments to their residents. We are talking about life and death here. It seems they want to throw money at States where the epidemic started and ignore the areas where the epidemic has spread, underfunding areas in a growing crisis.

When you look at the money being spent, what we are talking about in this amendment is saving institutions, not saving people, not saving lives. This is not an economic development bill. This is not meant to assure that institutions that might be interested in providing these services still get the same amount of funds to do so even though they do not have as many people to provide the services to as they are being paid for.

I wish putting more money into the program could fix these inequities but, unfortunately, these inequities stem from outdated funding formulas and a lack of accountability. We must address the problem at its core and ensure that we are not denying the growing number of minorities and women living with HIV and AIDS equal protection under the Ryan White CARE Act.

Now, another comment by the Senator from New York was that she needs more money because it is more expensive to provide care in New York. The big cost driver is HIV/AIDS medication, costs that are similar in every State. Therefore, I do not understand that claim, unless it is protection of the institutions rather than the people.

I have another unanimous consent request that I intend to propound, and I, again, am hoping that someone will be here to object who is actually objecting to the bill instead of sending a surrogate who has had to go through this ritual several times already, even though he supports the bill, because the request earlier, of course, was to have a chance to vote on the bill of the Senator from New York and the Senator from New Jersey. And I am going to offer that. I am going to offer a short time for debate and a vote on that and then a vote on the bipartisan, bicameral bill that has already passed the House.

I am hoping that somebody actually involved in the substitute bill will come to the floor to either agree or object. That should be fair. They can have a vote. It seems reasonable to me. But it really ought to be the people offering the amendment who say they have the better idea, even though it leaves out the HIV folks, hundreds of thousands of Americans. This amendment doesn't even provide a quick fix for 1 more year, because it keeps the flawed formulas that will cause tremendous funding shortfalls in place. They will come back in another year then and ask for 5 more years of being held harmless.

I want to get a vote on the bill that includes HIV and follows the patient.

We need to do that. We need to do it today, not tomorrow, not next month. Tomorrow night, a bunch of States will be in crisis--and their residents with HIV/AIDS will begin losing access to care. I would imagine in their amendment they have slipped in a little thing to protect the States that will fall into a trap tomorrow. But let's not just throw money at the problem, let's do the right thing for the long- term, for the entire Nation. Let's solve the formula. Let's do what we have done on a number of other bills that have gone through my committee, which is to look at the formula and say: What is fair to all the States?

I have to say, there are some people on my committee and others in this body who have said: If I look at the charts and I see what is happening to my State, yes, I may lose some money, but we are trying to come up with a solution that solves a problem across this country. And that is what we are here for, to solve problems across the country. I can tell you that the HIV/AIDS families and community want it to be fair and want the bill we have been asking unanimous consent on for several days now.

So I will be asking for unanimous consent. I will throw in this opportunity to have a vote on the other bill, to see if people want to do more of the same or if they want to fix this over a period of time, again, holding all States harmless for 3 years before we move into a transition to full fairness.

Just last night the House passed this critical, bipartisan, bicameral legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 325 to 98, and sent it to us to act upon it immediately. The House understood the critical, time-sensitive nature of this legislation. Now the Senate must act quickly to reauthorize this critical program by September 30; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of individuals in States and the District of Columbia will lose access to lifesaving services. The only thing standing between us and the President's signature to enact this bill is a Senate vote on the House bill--or perhaps a Senate vote on the possible substitute amendment and then a vote on the House bill.

Now, I have asked the Senate to move this critical legislation two other times. Currently, four Senators from two States are blocking a vote and thus may prevent many individuals and families from receiving critical AIDS and HIV treatment under a more equitable program.

I appreciate the number of my colleagues who have been on the floor to talk about the people in their States who are dying because they are on a waiting list and cannot get the treatment, because they have had huge influxes of population, huge increases in the number of people who have been infected by HIV and AIDS. We cannot let that happen. We cannot continue that. We cannot continue to say: Well, if we have been shipping money to one part of the country, we are going to continue to ship money to that part of the country even though the problem has shifted. So four Senators are blocking us.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work of the Senators from California on this legislation. I appreciate their willingness to continue to talk to us to address their concerns. They have indicated they are no longer objecting to this legislation. I thank them. However, this bill, due to other objections, is still not moving forward.

This legislation ensures that Federal moneys are distributed more fairly and the dollars will follow the person. This is something our outdated funding formula failed to do. Hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS, who live in these States, will be needlessly harmed if a few Senators continue obstructing good policy.

What is more, these four Senators will not come to the floor to defend their objection to this critical legislation at a time when we are talking about it. So today I will ask again for the Senators from New York and New Jersey to come to the floor themselves, lodge their objections, listen to the unanimous consent request, where I am going to offer them the right to have a vote on their bill, in exchange for the right to vote on the bill that came out of committee--the bill that is bicameral and bipartisan.

Now, as part of the unanimous consent request, I am also allowing those Senators to offer that amendment, of course, the opportunity for them to put forward their best solution for dealing with the concerns they have. We have run hundreds of programs trying to come up with the most equitable way to do this. The one we are presenting is the one we found that had the most people to support it. I was told this is identical to the bill introduced by the New York and New Jersey delegations this week. That is the amendment we would be voting on. This bill and/or amendment is not a solution; rather, it is a harmful delay, putting off what we should and must do today.

These States simply raise objections about what funds are received this year compared to last year. These States were grossly overpaid last year and will continue to be overpaid next year. However, they will no longer be grossly overpaid under the bill I am proposing. These few Senators keep saying they will lose money under the reauthorization. No matter the dollar formula they say they may lose on a given day, it doesn't add up to the amount of dollars they would stand to carry over from the current flawed formula. The State of New York would carry over an average of $150 million over 5 years.

According to GAO data, even with the formula adjustment that will allow for more equitable treatment, save lives in more places, New York would still carry over about $115 million based on their past spending. In the past, New York and New Jersey have been able to under-spend hundreds of millions of leftover dollars. At the same time, 25 other States are struggling to provide even the most basic life-sparing medications to their residents living with HIV/AIDS. Because of the current flawed formula, this amendment doesn't even count Americans living with HIV. New York can afford to generously offer more than 495 different medications to their residents. That is 23 times the number of medications that Louisiana is able to offer their HIV/AIDS residents because of a lack of appropriate funding. While New York offers a range of elective drugs, many other States are unable to provide the basic life-sparing treatments that every American should have access to. This is indefensible. New York carries over an average of $30 million each year; yet, 25 other States are having significant difficulty providing the basic drugs to all of its eligible residents. Eleven States have waiting lists--that is right, residents in 11 States are unable to receive life-sparing treatments because their States do not receive appropriate funds.

New York, in 2005, spent an astonishing $25 million on administration costs for just two titles of this law. That is more than the entire amount of money received by 38 States in 2005 for those two titles to provide care to their residents with HIV/AIDS. This inequity must be addressed, and it is addressed in this reauthorization. Stalling now because a couple States stand to lose a fraction of the money they already cannot spend is indefensible. Lives are at risk and a solution is on the table today. A solution has been passed by the House and is before us now.

I hope those four Senators will defend their objection and allow a vote on their amendment. The continued expansion of the AIDS epidemic in this country is a certainty. While the epidemic continues in the urban areas in the country, the number of new cases not diagnosed in small urban, suburban, and rural areas are reaching alarming levels. As the epidemic expands in all these areas, local health care systems have often been unable to meet the growing demands for medical and support services.

The problems created in rural areas are often similar to those experienced in large cities. However, these problems are exacerbated by poor health care infrastructure and limited experience with HIV/AIDS care. The lack of trained primary care providers, the absence of long- term care facilities, the scarcity of resources, and a scattered population are additional obstacles that may be faced in a developing, coordinated outpatient service program.

If New York thinks it is more expensive to handle a new problem, they ought to deal with the distances these people have to travel in some of the rural areas to get care for some of the most basic ailments. Small areas are

also often not able to provide the specialized services required by some persons with HIV. When primary services are unavailable, individuals and families must travel long distances to receive the necessary care. Furthermore, rural health care systems must address not only the epidemic but also other conditions, including substance abuse, mental illness, and sexually transmitted diseases which they may be poorly equipped to deal with.

Thus, as we think of the problem today in its expansion into rural areas, we must provide the same effort to those areas we did for urban areas in the early 1990s. We must target resources to those in need and assure that those infected with HIV and living with AIDS will receive our support and our compassion, regardless of their race, gender or where they live.

Finally, I want to answer the question posed by the Senator from Minnesota last night. Senator Dayton asked what it would cost to give these States, over the next 5 years, the same amount of money as they receive presently. Alarmingly, to keep those States whole, it would cost $614 million a year. That is over half a billion for the next 5 years.

It is not possible just to provide increases to New York and New Jersey due to the funding distribution; therefore, to ensure that everybody receives as much money per person with HIV that New York is currently receiving, it would cost over $3 billion--if we went to equity, it would cost $3 billion, or a 30 percent increase in Ryan White funding to maintain States' funding level that are grossly overpaid and unable to spend the money they do receive.

Our obligation as Senators is to the people of the United States. We still have four Senators who continue to obstruct the Senate from passing a bill because of the September 30 deadline--a bill which passed the House 325-to-98, a bill that can save more than 100,000 lives, including the lives of the growing number of women and minorities who are afflicted by this devastating disease, and provides the money to where it is needed most.

As I said last night, this is not an economic development project. The bottom line is simply, where States have more people with HIV/AIDS, they should get more money. Where States have less people with HIV/ AIDS, they should get less money. As we all know, the Ryan White program provides critical health care services for people infected with HIV and AIDS. These individuals rely on this vital program for drugs and other services. We need to pass this legislation so we can provide them with the treatment they desperately need.

I urge the Senators who are holding up the bill to stop playing the numbers game so the Ryan White CARE Act funding can address the epidemic of today, not yesterday.

I ask the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, who has been actively involved in the HIV/AIDS discussion for years. In fact, he selected the Ryan White name for this bill many years ago when he chaired this committee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 9 minutes remaining?

I thank the Chair, and since there is a Senator now here from one of the two states objecting to us moving on with the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act, I would like to propound the unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6143, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the only amendment in order be an amendment by Senator Lautenberg, which is the text of S. 3944, with 30 minutes of debate equally divided. I ask consent that following the disposition of that amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read the third time and passed, a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am sorry to hear the objection. We have been trying to find a way, any way, to be able to move on to a vote on this bill that is bipartisan, bicameral. It has already passed the House and I am sure it would pass here. So I am really disappointed.

Mr. President, I allocate 5 minutes of time to the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.

Mr. President, for the last few seconds I am going to just mention that the bill by the Senators from New York and New Jersey was introduced on Tuesday. Surely they have had time to think about having that amendment debated and voted on in that amount of time. I am really disappointed that they won't give some kind of an answer that will allow a vote on that amendment. If that is what they need for cover, that is OK with me. I just need to get this done.

New York and New Jersey are stealing the future from those with HIV, and that just cannot happen in the U.S. Senate. We have to worry about all the people from all of the United States, and that is what the reauthorization would do. That is why it is important to do it. I have asked those questions numerous times now trying to find a way to bring this bill up for a vote, and am being denied in every way--I am not being denied--those with HIV, those with AIDS, their families are being denied the right to have a vote on this bill in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many

of their jobs are being shipped overseas.

We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can achieve the American dream once again. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy.

America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us.

We are now ranked 28th out of 40 nations in math education.

Since 1975, we have dropped from 3rd to 15th in the world in producing scientists and engineers.

A recent report shows that high school and college graduation rates in the United States have dropped below the average for other developed countries.

Federal investment in research and development has been shrinking as a share of the economy, and government research programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy all have less funding this year than they did three years ago.

At the same time, fast-growing countries like China, Ireland and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. For example, China's total research and development investments rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually.

Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to master our own destiny in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our families, to our economy, to our Nation, and to our national security.

Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation.

The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations.

The National Association of Manufacturers also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive.

It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track.

I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues today to introduce the National Competitiveness Investment Act. It is a modest proposal, but it represents an important down-payment on the commitment and sustained investment needed to keep America competitive in the years to come.

The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports and includes many provisions based on those in the Right TRACK Act, which I introduced earlier this year.

The bill takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. It is often federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs, and the bill doubles basic research funding by the National Science Foundation over the next five years. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding at the Department of Energy as well.

The legislation also creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The council will bring together the heads of Federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland, known as the Celtic Tiger, has already had success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council last year.

The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage a renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are only three dozen licensed nuclear reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand.

These are important investments, but there is more we can do. We should act to renew the research and development tax credit as soon as possible. The incentive provided by the tax credit has led to quality jobs, better, safer products, greater productivity and a stronger, more robust national economy. A growing number of countries who recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that these incentives will continue to be there, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy.

These investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years. To ensure Americans are prepared to hold these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology.

Although international comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, a closer look shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students.

On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrialized nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high- income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed.

If we close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we should fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act.

We must also invest in teachers. The National Competitiveness Investment Act recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in the schools with the greatest need so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations.

Research shows that having a high quality teacher is one of the most important factors in a child's success in school. But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field, such as math education, physics or engineering. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math or a related field.

The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high need school districts.

It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources will go where they are needed most.

The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers.

Recruitment and training are the first steps, but we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in classrooms once they are there. We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort.

In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject.

The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they face after graduation from high school. According to a recent study, the Nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school.

Many States have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. This bill provides grants to assist States in those efforts. The grants would support state PreK-16 councils that bring together stakeholders from all levels of the education community, from the business sector, and from the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face.

These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards and innovative curricula that engages our children in learning to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level that allow students to learn the practical applications of math and science. I am proud that the National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science, Boston is at the forefront of these efforts.

In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country.

It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. But if students are to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades.

To address these needs, the bill provides grants to enable institutions of higher education and local educational agencies working in partnership to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education.

All of these programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is more we can and must--do.

A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Eighty percent of the fastest growing jobs in this country will require some postsecondary education. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72 percent higher on average than for those with only a high school diploma.

But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four year college because they cannot afford it.

When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort.

In recent decades however, Federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants provided don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, 77 percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years it's 20 percent. The Pell Grant now covers less than 35 percent of the cost of attending college.

To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system.

Earlier this year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds instead were used to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans.

I know many of my colleagues agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy.

We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families.

American workers are facing global competition that is fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans.

First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack even basic labor standards, like child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. And it's not fair when companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers.

We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the

world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules

Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to those American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. In the manufacturing sector alone, we've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class.

Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition fair warning so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment.

Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. We must raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union.

If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on, and give workers greater job security in the present, and better opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families.

The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. It represents only the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to build on and sustain if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. I am proud that the bill has strong bipartisan support, and that support is critical to ensuring these proposals become a reality.

In 2001, there was strong bipartisan support to significantly increase funding to improve our schools through the No Child Left Behind Act. But President Bush's budget this year would mean a cumulative shortfall of $56 billion in funding since that bill was enacted, and this year he proposed cutting education funding by $2 billion.

In 2002, we promised to double NSF funding, but last year's appropriation was only two-thirds the level we agreed to four years ago--nearly $3 billion short of staying on track to that goal.

Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments needed to fully support these important proposals.

Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. When we were called into action in 1957 with the Soviet Sputnik launch, we rose to the challenge by passing the National Defense Education Act and inspiring the nation to ensure that the first footprint on the moon was by an American. We doubled the federal investment in education.

We need the same bold commitment to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges of today and tomorrow. The National Competitiveness Investment Act will start to put America back on track. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Republicans have an extra 15-minute slot.

I have been allocated in that slot.

I would assume that the Senator from New Jersey has had adequate time to look at the unanimous consent request that I presented earlier, and I will be making that unanimous consent request again. He must be ready to debate the AIDS bill that New York and New Jersey have proposed, and I am ready to grant time to have a vote on that bill as well as the bipartisan, bicameral bill passed by the House last night. I have no fear of that. This Nation has a lot of problems with HIV and AIDS that need to be taken care of. There is one bill that does that fairly--a bill that the House overwhemingly passed. A bill with a comprehensive, fair and equitable solution. There is another one that merely extends the time where we keep doing the same thing that we have been doing. A quick fix that would give us the same results that we have been getting--people across the country are dying because of not getting treatment, because of unfair, inequitable funding formulas that ignore the new, emerging epidemic of HIV in rural areas and the Southeast.

I am happy to yield for a question.

I thank my neighbor from Colorado. As we set it up earlier, we have been alternating times. I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak right after the Senator from New Jersey. I know he turned down the unanimous consent request earlier. I am hoping that he will accept the unanimous consent this time.

Tomorrow is a very critical time for people in the United States. These States, the red states in this chart in particular, will start losing significant funds at midnight tomorrow night if the current failed formula is not fixed. California loses $18.78 million; Connecticut, $3.2 million; the District of Columbia, $6.93 million; Delaware, $1.52 million; Georgia, $9.68 million; Illinois, $12.48 million; Oregon, $1.38 million; Pennsylvania, $9.25 million; Washington, $2.42 million; Maryland, $11.64 million. We can fix this formula tonight. A solution, passed overwhelmingly in the House, is before us now.

I appreciate the letter that I got from the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, reminding me that this goes into effect tomorrow and asking me to get the Ryan White bill done.

Now, when we reauthorize this program by using the bill that came out of my committee and passed overwhelmingly in the House, there will be some changes to the formula--saving many States from significant and critical losses. Instead of California losing $18.78 million, they will gain $15.38 million because the money is going to follow the cases, and they are not going to get the penalty that they would have under current law. I have the chart that shows the gains for a number of States. All the ones that I mentioned would have gains instead of losses. So this is a critical piece of legislation to all of these States.

We are talking about unfairness and inequity. This isn't the only bill on which we are changing formulas so they more accurately address the problems they were meant to address. The reason we have reauthorizations is so that on a regular basis we can review the monies going to States, see how it is allocated, see if it needs to be allocated on a different basis so that it is more fair. Our committee ran several hundred evaluations to see different kinds of formulas at the suggestion of members of the committee and Members of the Senate to see what the fairest way would be to do this bill.

Now, not only did we pick the fairest way to transition, by holding those States harmless for 3 years, but we chose the fairest formula in the long-term that ensures that Americans with HIV/AIDS get the treatment they need on an equitable basis no matter their race, gender, or where they live. I have to tell my colleagues, there is not another bill we have done that allows this kind of inequity--under current law--to continue to give those States time to prepare for the formula shift. Of course the States that do not obtain equality for 3 years are usually pretty upset. They think that the equality ought to come in much earlier in the process.

So we had a number of States that said, How come it gets to be unfair for

that long? We said we are going to try to protect these States so they have a time to transition, so they prepare their systems for the change in the funding.

One of the things that was raised earlier this afternoon was that it is more expensive to live in New Jersey. It is more expensive to live in New York.

It is pretty expensive to live in DC, too, and DC is going to lose $6.93 million, if we don't pass this legislation. If we pass this bill, they are going to gain $4.35 million. It is a change for a lot of States, but it is a change to fairness based on the number of people with HIV/AIDS, not the number of institutions that we have been funding in these States. This program is not for economic development. It is not a way to keep jobs. It is a program to keep patients alive.

On these other bills I have been working on--the Older Americans Act--includes a 5-year transition. Some of the States said, By golly, we have been cheated for years. We ought to get our money faster, but they have agreed to a 5-year transition.

The ones who are losing money have said: Okay, we understand, that is fair. You gave us a time to transition.

We have 9 or 10 bills that my committee has to do that deal with formulas. I can tell you the first reaction of every Senator, including myself, is to say: Print the chart out, see what happens to my State. Naturally, you get upset if your State is not going to get as much money as they got before. But, fortunately, the majority of the Members around here look and say, Is the amount I am getting fair?

Higher costs--I want to go back to that again. What we are providing are the AIDS drugs, and the AIDS drugs cost the same all over this country. It doesn't cost more for an AIDS drug in New York than it does in Wyoming. As for expenses, we only have a couple of big cities in Wyoming--Cheyenne is 52,700-and-some people, that is our biggest city; Casper is next with a little over 50,000, and then it drops off significantly.

If a third of your towns have less than 250 people in them, how many of those do you think have a hospital? How many of those even have a doctor to look at somebody with HIV/AIDS? They have to travel a long way at great inconvenience and great cost. We don't cover that. We cover the treatment.

When we crafted the current funding proposal, we ran dozens of these various formula options to see which was the fairest way to do it, which one created the least amount of disruption. That is how we came up with the current funding formulas in this bill. We are being asked, of course, to consider another bill, introduced on Tuesday of this week by the Senators from New York, New Jersey, and Florida. I believe we should debate this bill. However, I have problems with this bill because what that other bill does is delay this argument over funding formulas for 1 year. It doesn't do the equity for sure at any time. So in our bipartisan, bicameral bill, what we said is we will delay equity for 3 years. Three years is better than 1 year, so I really don't understand why anybody is holding this bill up.

I understand that they lose money. I understand that. However, they are grossly overpaid. As I have shown before, under the current law, the State of New York gets $504 more than the average per patient across the rest of the Nation. New Jersey gets $310 more per person than the average across the rest of the Nation.

Under the reauthorization, New York will still get $304 per person more; New Jersey will still get $88 per person more. As I have mentioned, all of the funds have not been spent every year. So we are saying New York does not want to share even what did not spend.

I can understand Senators being concerned over losing the money. What I am just asking is we take a look at the whole national picture, just like we are taking the whole national picture in some other bills pending before the HELP Committee. For all of those bills, I pledge that during this next year we will have hearings where we look at the formulas in these other bills and see how we can transition more quickly than we have been doing, to move toward equity.

If you have people who are dying of AIDS and you have people who cannot be treated for HIV, you have a real problem. We are not talking about parks or things that might be considered luxuries. We are talking about life and death. The earlier we start treating people, the more chance they have for survival.

Fortunately, very fortunately, there have been a lot of drugs that have been developed for the market that make a difference, now, for those infected with HIV; these drugs will extend their lives. We don't have to wait until they are in the AIDS category to do that. We don't have to do that to give them as good a life as possible. We can start providing life-saving treatment when we know they have HIV. We can positively extend their lives.

That is what we are trying to do with this bill. Under the other bill, introduced on Tuesday of this week, the supporters are eliminating, again, the count of HIV, the ability to treat those with HIV. As far as fairness, don't you think we ought to treat as early as we can with the capability that we have instead of just waiting until they have AIDS and then counting them and pay for them?

The other bill doesn't take into account the HIV folks at all. If I were one of the Senators from those two States, and I have been holding out this long, I would be here yelling too, I guess, because I would have to explain why I was doing what I'm doing--and not just to the people in my State. I would have to be explaining why I was being an obstructionist for life-saving care to the whole Nation. Of course, those outside my State don't get to vote for me, but we do have an obligation to all of those folks across the Nation.

When we have equitable funding formulas, if States come up with a higher HIV/AIDS population than we thought they would have, we may have to put more money into it. But the additional money ought to come with the additional cases. We ought to have some numbers to back up what is happening, and not everyone has the numbers to back up their current funding. We have some waiting lists, waiting lists of people who are waiting for life-saving treatment. But if they look at the waiting list they may say, I am not going to gain treatment anyway, so why would I even get on a waiting list? Thus, there may be thousands more, not seeking treatment because, where they live, we are not treating them equitably. I do know there are some difficulties out there.

I know the time to vote on Ryan White is now or never because as soon as the clock strikes midnight tomorrow night thousands of Americans will start losing access to the life-sparing treatment unless we pass the bill now. I can't understand why four Senators are denying people suffering from HIV/AIDS to vote on this critical legislation to create a more equitable program.

Earlier today, the Senators from New Jersey and New York suggested that the answer to the inequities in Ryan White is more money. I say we can talk about more money in Ryan White as soon as the States that are hoarding funds allow current dollars to focus on those in need, individuals on waiting lists throughout the country. We have to address the current inequities, not compound them by just adding more dollars to a failed funding formula. We don't want to continue to have the rich States get richer while the poor States get poorer.

The Senator from New Jersey also suggested this bipartisan bicameral bill was not supported by minorities because the National Minority AIDS Council did not support the bill. One council does not capture all the minorities. In fact, over seven minority organizations, including the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Brother 2 Brother, Latino Coalition, League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Minority Health Month Foundation, and the New Black Leadership Coalition support this bipartisan bicameral product.

In addition, 34 other organizations support this key legislation, including key national advocate organizations such as AIDS Action, AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Southern AIDS Coalition.

I ask unanimous consent the full list of supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

May I ask my time?

I would like to propound a unanimous consent request and ask unanimous consent to be able to propound the request.

Unanimous Consent Request H.R. 6143

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6143, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the only amendment in order be an amendment by Senator Lautenberg or one of the Senators from New Jersey or New York, which is the text of S. 3944, with 30 minutes of debate equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendment, the bill as amended, if amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, several of my colleagues and I have joined with the Senate leadership today in introducing important legislation to address the challenges of innovation and competitiveness that our Nation faces. Among the provisions of this legislation is the recognition and expansion of the significant role that NASA plays in our Nation's search for knowledge and excellence.

NASA already has an outstanding track record of achievement in this area. That record exists because individuals and organizations within NASA have taken the initiative over the years to reach for excellence in their work, just as the agency has sought to reach the stars. I am especially proud that the Johnson Space Center in Houston has played a leading role in these efforts. We all know that it takes dedicated and inspired people to make things happen in any great undertaking.

I would like to recognize the dedicated efforts of one of those people, Gregory W. Hayes, who is retiring at the end of the month from NASA after nearly 34 years at the agency and nearly 25 years of supervisory and managerial experience at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Mr. Hayes has made significant and lasting contributions to the Nation's civilian space agency. A few examples will illustrate how the American taxpayer has benefited from Mr. Hayes' distinguished public service career:

His commitment to innovative management of the center's human resources over the decades, including the selection and recruitment of our astronauts as well as the pursuit of innovative workforce practices, has contributed to ensuring that JSC attracts the best and brightest from the Nation's technical talent pool.

His lifelong dedication to encouraging young people's interest in space exploration has taken many forms including partnering with a local Houston school district to develop a new program in which more than 100 JSC employees volunteer to serve as technical advisors to local schools for math, science, and technology.

His instrumental role in establishing the Aerospace Academy--a partnership among community educational systems that helps to increase the number of technical employees and the number of math and science teachers in the area.

His collaboration with the State of Texas to secure funding for the Texas Aerospace Scholars, a program designed to provide hands-on experience at JSC to high school and college students that will ensure the development of a technical workforce ready for the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Hayes also set a compelling example for his colleagues by reaching out to the local community. He served on the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership board for several years, as well as serving as an advisor on its various task forces; his work promoted the health of the community and the Nation's space program.

In recognition of Mr. Hayes' formidable leadership skills, it is not surprising that the Office of the NASA Administrator recruited him to take a leadership role in establishing and executing the agency's path- finding effort known as the Freedom to Manage, F2M, Task Force for Human Resources. That activity was designed to fulfill the President's Management Agenda charter to identify and remove impediments to efficient and effective ways of doing business. In the course of its work, the task force identified more than 100 potential areas for improvement in human resources--dozens of which were immediately implemented through changes to internal policies and practices.

In addition to his extraordinary contributions to the, human resources and education fields, Mr. Hayes, in his capacity as JSC Director of External Relations, demonstrated great initiative and vision in his efforts to proactively reach out to the emerging commercial space sector and seek innovative collaborative arrangements. Recent examples include his efforts to pursue cooperative agreements with companies such as Bigelow Aerospace, which this past summer launched a pioneering low earth orbiting expandable habitat and has opened a satellite office near JSC; as well as an engineering collaboration with SpaceX--one of the winners of the recently concluded COTS awards. These are but two examples of several other significant partnerships with the entrepreneurial space sector that Mr. Hayes has pursued.

These activities not only support the expanding efforts to enhance innovation and competitiveness but are also consistent with the NASA Authorization Act which I introduced last year and which was signed into law last December. This act strongly encourages

the pursuit of partnerships with the commercial space sector. Mr. Hayes has left a legacy for his successors as they continue policies of encouraging effective partnerships with the emerging commercial space industry.

Given his impressive record as public servant, it is not surprising that Mr. Hayes has been the recipient of the Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award as well as NASA's Outstanding Leadership Medal.

On the occasion of Mr. Hayes' departure from his beloved NASA, he can leave knowing that he has left a remarkable record of accomplishment. He serves as an inspiration to NASA's next generation of space leaders who will ensure that the agency utilizes the space shuttle and International Space Station to the fullest extent possible, while developing the next generation human space transportation system and laying the groundwork for the agency's new human space exploration goals of returning to the Moon and then moving on to Mars.

I know I speak for many of my colleagues in paying tribute to the kind of dedication and excellence Mr. Hayes has brought to his government service and in wishing him continued success as he enters a well-deserved new chapter in his remarkable life.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join our distinguished majority and minority leaders in introducing and cosponsoring the National Competitiveness Investment Act. This is an essential and important first step in addressing critical challenges facing our Nation in an increasingly competitive global economy. America must be a leader in scientific research and education. It is in the best interest of both our national and economic security.

This bill renews and expands our national focus on strengthening key areas of research, education, and innovation. It is the product of a truly bipartisan effort, undertaken with the blessing and encouragement of the Senate leadership and by the leadership of the three principal committees with jurisdiction over these matters: the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I am proud to be part of this bipartisan initiative to provide new resources to support these competitiveness programs.

This legislation increases research investment by doubling the authorized funding levels for the National Science Foundation, NSF, from approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. It doubles funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science over 5 years, from $3.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.

Another vital focus of the bill is to strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and critical foreign languages. It authorizes competitive grants to States to promote better coordination of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education, the workforce, and the U.S. Armed Forces. Another key emphasis is strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science teachers through support for the Teachers Institutes for the 21st Century Program at NSF.

As chair of the Science and Space Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, I am especially pleased that this legislation ensures that both NASA and NSF are able to expand their strong traditional roles in fostering technological and scientific excellence. The language we have crafted increases essential NASA funding to support basic research and foster new innovation by calling for full use of existing budget authority that we provided within the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. Under the terms of this legislation, the President could request an additional $1.4 billion dollars in Fiscal Year 2008 for application toward these activities. By directing NASA's full participation in interagency efforts for competitiveness and innovation--under the more widely known term of the American Competitiveness Initiative--this legislation points the way for the administration to now make use of that additional authority in supporting projects that can help meet these important competitiveness and innovation goals.

Mr. President, this bill represents an important first step in our efforts to meet the increasing challenges to our Nation's competitive posture. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this bill and working with us at the appropriate time to ensure its passage by this body and its enactment into law.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to introduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006 would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation.

The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises.

President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas.

Mr. President, I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue and with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my bill to provide a temporary reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and Bill Nelson, for cosponsoring this important and life-saving measure.

I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act and I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. Never have I been as concerned about the future as I am right now.

The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization legislation that has been proposed in both the House and the Senate actually attempts to shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States like New Jersey, where the epidemic first appeared and the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging.

The Committee bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural. This is not the way to go. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to realize the promise of its original intentions.

Today I am introducing an alternative bill to reauthorize Ryan White. My bill has something for everyone in it. This legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act includes provisions that would help remedy funding disparities and permit a temporary extension to allow negotiations to continue.

My bill would simply extend current law through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally it would provide for a 3.7 percent increase in authorizations over the 2006 amounts to account for inflation. Importantly, my bill also protects States

that have not yet transitioned to ``names based'' reporting for HIV cases by giving them an extra year to make that change. Without this protection these States would lose significant money.

Finally, I recognize the need of those States who have a growing incidence of HIV, which is why I include a one-time emergency authorization of $30 million to be distributed to those States who have unmet need and no Title I entities.

The original Ryan White CARE Act provides critical funding to help provide health care and support services for low-income individuals and families affected by HIV or AIDS. Since its enactment in 1990, Ryan White funds have helped millions of HIV/AIDS patients receive the care and treatment services they need to live healthy and productive lives.

The Senate and House bills to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act are named the ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.'' Ironically, it does not modernize the care of folks living with HIV/ AIDS in our communities. Rather, it will bring us back to the early 1990s when the disease was spreading even more rampantly than it is now, and people were dying quickly.

I know firsthand that many of the stakeholder groups, those people who are on the ground providing and receiving services funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, are terrified of what will happen to our system of care should this reauthorization move forward.

In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women, and we rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. And yet, under the reauthorization proposal we stand to lose millions of dollars.

That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us simply to say that this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers, we are talking about lives being lost. I, for one, am not willing to settle for such an outcome.

It's not just my State that stands to lose money, either. New York, Florida, and Illinois all stand to lose millions of dollars under this proposal. All those states that have substantial need.

My bill is clearly not meant to be a permanent substitute for reauthorizing Ryan White. It is meant to give us all more time to continue our negotiations and try to work out a compromise that may keep all of our systems of care in tact.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.