Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent to proceed for only about 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator for taking the chair for just a couple of minutes so I can speak about a bill I have introduced along with Senator Brownback. He is the lead sponsor. There will be others on the bill as well. We had sponsored the bill last year. I want to make a brief statement about it.

It is a good bill in an area where we often do not see consensus, but I believe this bill will promote consensus. It is the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. It is based on the scientific evidence, which I think is a matter of common sense as well, that children in gestation, unborn children in the womb, do at a certain point acquire the capability of feeling pain. What the bill says is that before an abortion can be performed on a child who has been in the womb for 20 weeks or longer, the abortion doctor has to inform the mother that the child will feel pain and will, in fact, feel intense pain if the procedure is performed, and then inform her that if she wants to go ahead anyway, the child can be given an anesthetic so that that pain is not felt.

Apart from the fact that the scientific evidence indicates children at this point can feel pain, I have a personal stake, if you will, in this. Before we were blessed with the three children we have, my wife had several miscarriages in a row. It was pretty obvious what was growing inside of her was a person. It makes sense to me to believe at a certain point that a child can feel pain, and 20 weeks is actually a pretty conservative estimate of when the child is able to feel that kind of pain.

I see no reason a doctor about to perform such a procedure would not want to make it known, or a woman who is considering undergoing it would not want to know that fact to make a decision.

Mr. President, you know me and my view on this issue overall. I believe unborn children are people. I look forward to and long for the day where we believe there is room in our hearts and our homes and our laws for them and their moms. We are not there in that fundamental sense, but we are at a point where we can work on legislation like this which has support broader than either the pro-choice or pro-life side. This is legislation which is really designed to perfect the current law that says women should be able to make a choice. Then they should be able to make an informed choice.

I hope that is what we do. I hope we have an opportunity to bring it up on the floor of the Senate, and if we do have an opportunity to have a reasonable debate, we will pass it with a large margin. I hope to have that done in this Congress. I am proud to have cosponsored it.

Mr. President, has the Senator from Alabama finished?

I will yield.

Mr. President, I was happy to yield to my friend. I thought he was finished or I would not have sought the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Wyden and myself to speak about a resolution we are submitting to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz, where more than 1 million people were murdered at the hands of the Nazis. Sixty years ago tomorrow, allied forces successfully liberated the most notorious of Nazi death camps, freeing those who managed to live in the most deplorable of conditions and yet somehow survive the greatest evil the world has ever witnessed.

For 5 long years at Auschwitz, men, women, and children arrived in cattle cars from all parts of Europe. Whether young or old, rich or poor, they were systematically stripped of their dignity before being murdered because of their religion and their deeply held faith in God. But 60 years ago tomorrow the genocide ended and the gates to freedom were opened.

With the passage of time, people tend to forget the events of the past, particularly if those events occurred well before their birth. The survivors of Auschwitz are elderly and they are dwindling in number, but their stories of how good successfully triumphed over evil will live on in our history and our hearts.

The resolution Senator Wyden and I introduce today commemorates Auschwitz and urges all Americans to remember those who were murdered there, murdered for nothing more than practicing their religion. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations never to forget that horror.

I am pleased to say leaders from around the world, including Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, are traveling to Poland for tomorrow's commemoration ceremony. They will be joined by survivors who are still able to make the trip out into the Polish countryside.

I hope this resolution will serve as a reminder that the Senate, indeed all Americans, remembers the events of 60 years ago tomorrow. It is also my hope that when anti-Semitism rears its ugly head, the world will feel a collective responsibility to stand up and speak out against religious hatred. That at least will give meaning to the sacrifice of those who were murdered and incinerated in the ovens of Auschwitz.

Mr. President, I am informed that the resolution has been cleared on both sides. I am very pleased to hear that. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 18, which was submitted earlier today, the resolution about which I have been speaking.

Mr. President, since I am going to ask on behalf of the leader the resolution be agreed to, I want to express my gratitude to his office and the Democratic leader's office for their expeditious handling of this resolution, and also Senator Wyden and all those who have cosponsored it.

On their behalf, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the able.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing this bill, which will allow more owners of hybrid electric vehicles, or HEVs, to have access to HOV lanes on Federal highways. For all of us who have a desire to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and encourage the use of renewable energy, this bill represents a step forward towards achieving those goals.

The language that is currently in the highway bills passed by the House and the Senate allows hybrid vehicles that achieve a 45 mile-per- gallon fuel economy highway rating to use HOV lanes. Any hybrid that achieves that kind of fuel economy certainly deserves to get that status, because it is a very impressive fuel economy rating and represents a substantial improvement over non-hybrid vehicles. What the 45 mile-per-gallon standard fails to take into account, however, is that many larger hybrid vehicles achieve a much larger fuel economy improvement over their internal combustion engine counterparts, and thus save more energy, than smaller vehicles which manage to meet the standard but are a less drastic improvement over their non-hybrid counterparts.

To illustrate this, take the 2005 model Honda Civic HEV, which gets just over 45 miles-per-gallon. This represents less than a 40 percent improvement over the comparable internal combustion model. The 2005 Ford Escape HEV, on the other hand, is a truck, so it gets fewer miles per gallon than a Civic, between 35 and 40. However, this is a 75 percent improvement over its internal combustion engine counterpart, and in addition, the Escape HEV emits 3-4 tons fewer greenhouse gases every year than the non-hybrid.

There is no reason to discriminate against these larger, American- made hybrids like the Ford Escape. They are truly engineering marvels and are so clearly beneficial for the environment. The bill that I have sponsored will give States the discretion to open up their HOV lanes to hybrid vehicles that achieve a substantial increase in fuel economy relative to comparable gasoline vehicles, or achieve a substantial increase in lifetime fuel savings relative to comparable gasoline vehicles. It creates a minimum standard of improvement necessary for hybrids, but gives States the option of increasing the requirements. This bill also allows States to open HOV lanes to single occupancy advanced lean burn vehicles that achieve at least a 25 percent increase in fuel economy relative to comparable gasoline vehicles and that are certified to Clean Air Act Tier 2 standards.

I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree that we should do all we can to encourage the use of renewable energy in our country, and hybrid vehicles are an important part of that. The people who drive these vehicles are doing their part to help clean up the air and increase energy conservation, and we should give more people an incentive to buy these vehicles by giving them access to HOV lanes.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to salute the citizens of Warrensburg, MO, in celebration of their 150th anniversary as an incorporated town.

The town of Warrensburg was incorporated in 1855 as a community proud of its heritage and loyal to the ideals, traditions and institutions that have contributed to the success and growth of the city.

Warrensburg prides itself as being a self-contained city with a vibrant employment base, excellent education system, active cultural scene, and many civic events and activities for residents to enjoy.

Warrensburg serves as the county seat for Johnson County, and is currently home to 17,075 residents who are served by an excellent school system which has been accredited with Distinction in Performance by the Missouri State Board of Education. The Warrensburg School System has also been named a Gold Medal School, ranking them among the Nation's top 18 percent of schools.

The community is also the proud home of Central Missouri State University, which has provided quality postsecondary education for more than 130 years. This comprehensive university annually serves nearly 14,000 students from all over the State, Nation, and world, and offers more than 150 areas of study at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

The city's heartland work ethic and community pride make it a great place to do business, with several local companies which have grown into national and international prominence aided by the exceptional workforce and affordable business climate. Warrensburg is home of EnerSys, G.E. Transportation Systems, ThyssenKrupp Stahl Company, Swisher Mower, Bomag Paving Products, and the world headquarters of both Sigma Tau Gamma Fraternity and Carlyle Van Lines.

Warrensburg is also proud of its rich diversity, with over 35 different languages spoken within the Warrensburg School District, and over 30 faith communities gathering for worship and service each week.

Warrensburg is also the boyhood home of John William ``Blind'' Boone, the legendary ragtime composer and piano player; home of the first gasoline-powered, push lawn mower invented by Leonard Goodall; the original self-propelled mower and the zero-turning radius riding lawn mower both invented by Max Swisher, who remains a Warrensburg resident; and Errett Lobban Cord, inventor of Cord Automobiles.

Finally, Warrensburg is also the hometown of Old Drum, the hunting dog for which Senator George Graham Vest's ``Eulogy on the Dog'' was delivered, coining the idea that ``man's best friend is his dog.''

I am honored to share Warrensburg's proud history and its sesquicentennial anniversary as a town with my colleagues, and I wish the people of Warrensburg all the best for the future.

Madam President, I rise today to talk briefly about a resolution Senator Schumer and I have cosponsored in the Senate which we introduced yesterday. It is about the Till case.

I want to summarize for you the Emmett Till case. I don't normally read things on the Senate floor, but, in reviewing the notes from our office for the press conference that we had the other day, I really could not find a better statement for the background of this case than the notes. So I am going to read just a couple of paragraphs.

It is a story that I will preface by saying it has to shame every American. It is a hard story to listen to--a story from a time that thankfully was a very different time in this country but a story that has reached across the 50 years since it happened and is calling for action now.

In August 1955, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African American was visiting family in Money, MS, from Chicago and allegedly whistled at Carolyn Bryant, a white woman. On August 28, Roy Bryant, Carolyn's husband, and his half brother, J.W. Milam, kidnapped Emmett from his uncle, Moses Wright's, home. They beat him, dragged him to banks of the Tallahatchie River and shot him in the head. Bryant and Milam then fastened a large metal cotton ginning fan and dumped his body into the river. Three days later, Emmett's body was pulled from the river and returned to his mother, Mamie Till, in Chicago. Mamie Till made a very courageous decision at that point. She decided to leave his casket open for 4 days to show the public what had happened to her son.

Tens of thousands of people paid their respects in person and the press published photos of Emmett's mutilated corpse around the world. In September 1955, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam stood trial for Till's murder in Mississippi. An all white, male jury acquitted both men, after several women and African Americans were barred from serving on the jury; they reached their verdict after only 67 minutes of deliberation. Emmett's uncle Moses Wright, and another resident of the town, Willie Reed, both testified in court. As a result they were forced to flee to Chicago because their lives were in danger following their testimony. Worldwide, there was tremendous outrage at the murder and subsequent acquittal. In November, Wright and Reed returned to Mississippi and testified before a grand jury investigating the pending kidnapping charges against Bryant and Milam. But the grand jury refused to indict those men.

On January 24, 1956, Look magazine published an article in which both Bryant and Milam described the murder in detail. They received $4000 to tell their story. Look published a subsequent article, where Milam stated that he did not regret the killing.

Both Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam lived the rest of their lives as free men and died of natural causes; Milam died in 1980 and Bryant in 1990. Mamie Till died in January 2003. Keith A. Beachamp--a documentary film maker from Fort. Greene, Brooklyn--found new evidence about the case, including never-before-heard eyewitness accounts, while making his documentary which will air soon, ``The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till.'' The witnesses claim that there were several other people involved in the murder plot and that some of these individuals are still alive.

Mamie Till lived in Chicago until she died in January of 2003. She was rather close to Congressman Bobby Rush who was a colleague of mine when I served in the House. When Congressman Rush found out about this documentary, he introduced a resolution calling for the Justice Department to reopen this case and determine whether it was still possible to prosecute some of these other individuals who, according to Mr. Beachamp, were indeed involved in this crime. Since these other individuals were never tried, much less acquitted, it would still be constitutionally possible to prosecute them, especially in the Federal court, because there had never, unfortunately, been Federal actions or Federal indictments brought against any of these individuals who were involved.

Senator Schumer was considering filing a companion resolution in the Senate earlier this year. He approached me to see if I wanted to cosponsor it with him. I was very interested in doing that. We both had contacted the Justice Department before we were able to sponsor that resolution. I am pleased to say the Justice Department did reopen the case, that was in May, and the Justice Department has been investigating ever since.

This week Congressman Rush, Congressman Charlie Rangel, Senator Schumer, and I have sponsored in the House and in the Senate a new resolution calling on the Justice Department to devote whatever resources are necessary to investigate this matter expeditiously and report back to the Congress and to do justice after 50 years.

I am sorry to say--I am ashamed to say--that Mamie Till tried over and over again for almost 50 years to get the Federal Government to do something, which she was unable to do so, particularly in the 1950s when this evidence was fresh, when a Federal charge could have been brought without violating the constitutional rule against double jeopardy, but it was not brought. For that, the Federal Government has to accept responsibility.

We do not know what an expeditious and complete investigation will reveal. I suppose it is possible either other people were not involved in this or that a case cannot be made against them at this late date. What we do know is that any remaining witnesses, people who might have been coconspirators in this terrible tragic crime, are getting older. If a case is to be made, it must be made soon because witnesses may die, evidence may become even more stale and unusable.

Justice needs to be done for a lot of reasons, in part because, as Congressman Rangel says, you have to confront these kinds of crimes, these kinds of tragedies, these wrongs if you are ever to get past them, in part because there may be murderers at large who need to be brought to justice, in part because it is only through the courage of Mamie Till and the courage of Moses Wright who, in 1955, followed their convictions and protested publicly about this. It took enormous courage for that mother to keep that casket open so the world could see what happened. It took enormous courage for Moses Wright to walk into that courtroom and testify against these white men, but he did it.

As a result, this whole incident was one of the seminal events that led to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and the 1960s with all the progress we have achieved as a result of that.

It is owing to these individuals and to their courage that we do the right thing after all this time. I certainly intend to continue doing whatever I can to make certain the Justice Department is held accountable for taking action. I know Senator Schumer feels strongly the same way. This is a subject I intend to bring up with Mr. Gonzales as his confirmation process moves through the Senate. I certainly hope he is confirmed and I do intend to support that. I think he will make a great Attorney General. But I want to make certain that he is personally aware of this and personally committed to devoting such resources as are necessary, as expeditiously as possible, to see that justice so long delayed is now done in this case.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to discuss a provision in the bill about which I think there was strong bipartisan agreement, because it will lift a significant burden off of minority contractors around the country who wish to do business with the Government.

Now, as Senators know, the program under which you get certified as a minority contractor in the Federal Government is called the 8(a) Program. State and local governments have similar certifications for contracting as a minority contractor with those governments. This presents a serious problem for minority small businesses seeking to do business and to take advantage of goals or set-aside programs because they are, after all, small businesses. They have to get recertified today, having gotten recertified under the Federal Government, under State government, and recertified under local government. It is a time- consuming and expensive process.

The provisions in the bill which reauthorize several of the Small Business Administration programs also contain a provision about which we had unanimity on both sides of the aisle which provides that once a business is certified as an 8(a) contract on the Federal level, it does not have to go through recertification on the State and local levels in order to do business in programs which are federally funded.

This is going to save minority small businesspeople many thousands of dollars and, in many cases, make it possible for them to participate where otherwise they would not be able to, and enlarge their opportunities to do business with the Government.

It is a piece of legislation that I have worked on throughout this Congress, and I am very pleased and grateful to the chairman and ranking member, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the Small Business Committee in the House and Senate for agreeing to it.

I want to establish for the purpose of legislative history that the purpose of it, again, is to make clear that once a minority small business is certified as an 8(a) contractor on the Federal level, they are automatically certified as a minority contractor in State and local programs which receive Federal funds.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters of support from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, the Minority Business Council of St. Louis, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart, to mourn the loss of Komninos ``Gus'' Karellas, who was known and loved by so many in the community of Mexico, MO. Though cut tragically short, his was a life surrounded by a strong family and a strong community, and he was a great example of an immigrant who came to America and took advantage of every opportunity this country gave him.

Gus was a native of Greece, and he ran away from home as a teenager with only a few cents to his name. He emigrated to American in 1965 via Oakland, CA, and even though he did not speak English very well then, he managed to succeed against all odds. He ended up in Iowa working at a pizza restaurant, where he met Jimmy and Angelo Aslanidis, who became his good friends. They ended up moving together to Columbia, MO, where Gus worked at the University of Missouri for a short time before the three of them helped start the G&D Steakhouse.

In 1971, Gus Karellas and his wife Mary moved away to help manage a new G&D Steakhouse in Mexico, MO. Gus bought the restaurant one year later and spent nearly every single day there, becoming a familiar fixture to the residents of Mexico for the next three decades. His popularity with people led some of his family to give him the affectionate nickname of ``Governor Gus.''

Guy instilled his strong work ethic in his family, and friends say nothing made him prouder than his children Michael, Nick, Joanna, and Andy, who is an aide in my office. I have come to know Andy very well in the two years he has worked for me, and he is an accomplished young man with an immense sense of pride and gratitude for his family.

Gus was robbed and murdered as he was leaving his restaurant several days ago. Since then, hundreds of people--friends and family, regulars of the restaurant, or even those who just casually knew Gus Karellas-- have visited the restaurant, creating a makeshift memorial of flowers, candles, and cards to the man they came to know and love.

Gus Karellas was a loving husband and dedicated father, a good neighbor and good friend to many. He will be missed by all who loved him. May he rest in peace and may God comfort his family and friends in their grief at his loss.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute the members of the Metro St. Louis Chapter of the Project Management Institute, in celebration of the chapter's 10th anniversary.

The Metro St. Louis chapter of PMI is dedicated to providing its members with services and forums to further the field of project management within the St. Louis region.

Internationally, PMI supports over 125,000 members in 140 countries. PMI members practice and study project

management in many different industry areas, including aerospace, automotive, business management, construction, engineering, financial services, information technology, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications.

Over time, PMI has become, and continues to be, one of the leading professional associations in project management. PMI's professional certification of Project Management Professional, or PMP, is highly respected across numerous industries. Professionals who have earned this credential are recognized daily for their value-added contributions to the organizations they serve.

The St. Louis chapter was founded on October 14, 1994, as the 71st chapter of PMI. At that time, the chapter had 24 charter members. Today, the St. Louis chapter is recognized as one of the fastest growing national chapters with over 600 members, more than 100 of whom have become certified PMPs. The chapter's board members and volunteers host monthly dinner and educational meetings, and they provide ongoing support for special events including national speaker presentations and PMP certification workshops.

The members of the St. Louis chapter are working professionals from regional businesses that include Fortune 500 companies, Federal, State and local government agencies, as well as mid-to-small size companies, start-ups and not-for-profits. Their efforts are important to the overall success of the region. I am honored to share their accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish them all the best for the future.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a provision in the pending tax bill that will benefit tens of thousands of families, mostly African-American families, a provision based on the Sickle Cell Treatment Act, S. 874, that I introduced last year with my friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Before I discuss the provision, I thank the leader and also our distinguished majority whip for their hard work in advocating for the inclusion of this provision in the conference report. It is very important legislation. Certainly, it is bipartisan and bicameral legislation, designed to help treat and find a comprehensive cure for sickle-cell disease, a genetic disease that affects primarily, but by no means exclusively, African Americans.

I am very pleased that the provision enjoys the strong support of many prominent children's health groups, African-American groups, union groups, church groups, and medical groups in general.

Why does the bill have such broad-based appeal? Because it would make a real difference in the lives of families who have struggled with this disease, as well as others who are high risk for getting it.

Here are a few statistics about sickle-cell disease: About 1 in 300 newborn African-American infants are born with sickle-cell disease. More than 2,500,000 Americans have the sickle-cell trait. They do not necessarily have the disease but they have the trait and therefore may pass the disease on to their children. Sickle-cell disease is the most common genetic disease that is screened in American newborns. People with the disease have red blood cells that contain abnormal types of hemoglobin and therefore the shape of the cell changes into a sickle- like shape, hence the name of the disease.

Blood cells with that shape have difficulty passing through the blood vessels or carrying the nutrients or oxygen the body needs. Tissue that does not receive a normal blood flow eventually becomes damaged and can cause potentially life-threatening complications.

There are many side effects or complications because of the disease. Stroke is probably the most feared effect of sickle-cell disease, especially for children. It may affect infants as young as 18 months old. The important thing to remember is that sickle cell is a sneaky disease. It can show up in ways one would not normally associate with the disease.

I have spoken, for example, with parents whose kids had periodontal disease that was very difficult to treat because it is treated with antibiotics and the blood does not carry the antibiotics as well to affected areas when the patient has sickle cell.

While some patients live without symptoms for years, many others do not survive infancy or early childhood.

There are often severe episodes of pain for people suffering with the disease.

I became personally involved with the effort because of a doctor from St. Louis--a hero, I may add--Dr. Michael DeBaun, who treats children with sickle-cell disease. When I met him and his patients, I was struck by the hardship the disease places on not only the patients but the families of the patient members as well, and primarily on the children who must receive blood transfusion after transfusion to stay alive.

About one-third of children with sickle-cell disease suffer a stroke before age 18. These children require frequent blood transfusions, sometimes 15 to 25 units a year, in order to prevent subsequent strokes. I think especially of a young man I have come to know in the course of working on this legislation, Isaac Cornell Singleton.

Isaac is about 10 years old. He is from Missouri. He is one of Dr. DeBaun's patients and he attends fifth grade at Gateway Elementary School in St. Louis.

Every 4 weeks Isaac goes for blood transfusions at St. Louis Childrens Hospital with Dr. DeBaun. In fact, he has a permanent port installed in his chest to allow for the transfusions, which is one of the reasons he has to limit playing contact sports like basketball and on the playground with other children. If anyone knows Isaac, they know the limitations on his activity and playing sports is, for him, probably the worst aspect of the disease with which he is afflicted.

Last school year, Isaac missed school for several weeks at a time, including because of three hospitalizations, because he had severe episodes of pain associated with the disease. Sickle cell affects his decisions every day. He takes medication daily. He has to drink a lot of water to lubricate his cells. He is careful not to overexert himself, and he gets plenty of rest.

After spending time with Dr. DeBaun in his clinic and after consulting with him about how Medicaid deals with sickle cell, I knew we could make the system better for kids such as Isaac. So last April Senator Schumer and I introduced the Sickle Cell Treatment Act. Our friends and colleagues, Congressman Danny Kay Davis from Chicago and Congressman Richard Burr from North Carolina, introduced the companion bill in the House.

I cannot overemphasize the outpouring of support we have received for this bill. I knew this disease had affected communities of people for decades, but I had no idea how deep the impact was or how great the need was people felt for help in trying to struggle with this disease. In fact, one of the problems is there has been so little visibility with regard to sickle cell, so little attention paid to it, that there is a lot of ignorance even within the African-American community about what the disease does and how to deal with it.

I think one of the greatest aspects of the bill so far has been to raise the level of attention to the disease. I think that already has helped and the legislation itself will help in informing people. I will go into that in a minute.

As an example of the kind of communications I received, Allyce Renee Ford of Blue Springs, MO, wrote, and I am paraphrasing her a little:

I was so pleased to read of your bill to increase Federal

funding for treatment of sickle cell disease. My twin sons

were born with sickle cell in 1973. They suffered with this

debilitating disease for all of their lives. They both lost

the battle to painful complications of sickle cell related

problems in 2002.

Please believe me, Senator Talent, it is a very painful,

life constricting disease, both for the victim and for

their families.

Even though I do not have any other children to lose to

this disease, I mourn for all the other parents who will lose

their children in the future . . . today, tomorrow, some day,

they will lose them.

Thank God there will be some help for sickle cell disease

victims.

Why are so many people, so many groups, so many medical personnel supporting this bill? Because it is critical to help the historically underserved population, many of whom may not know they carry the trait or have the disease until it has already affected them.

The underlying legislation has the support of dozens of African- American children's groups, health advocates, as well as union and church groups. I am not going to read the whole list but it includes the Congressional Black Caucus and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America--I thank the Sickle Cell Disease Association for their tremendous help in writing this bill and getting it passed--the American Medical Association, the Catholic Health Association, the National Association of Childrens Hospitals, the National Baptist USA, the NAACP, and many other groups as well.

These advocates know this legislation will make a difference in the lives of sickle-cell-disease children and their families in four key ways. First, the bill increases access to affordable quality health care. The provision that is in this tax bill provides funding to currently eligible Medicaid recipients for physician and laboratory services targeted to sickle-cell disease that either are currently not reimbursed or are underreimbursed by Medicaid. The bill enhances services available to sickle-cell patients. A provision in the bill allows States to receive a Federal 50/50 funding match for nonmedical expenses related to sickle-cell treatments such

as genetic counseling, community outreach, education, and other services. This is crucial because right now to get compensated for counseling, education, or outreach regarding sickle cell, the services have to be provided by the physician.

Unfortunately, there are not very many physicians in this field. They are extremely busy. They do not have the time to sit down and do this kind of counseling with the patients. Many of them heroically make the time, but there are limits to the number of hours they have in the day. So if this counseling can be provided by nonphysicians, other personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the disease in various outreach centers and places, we can reach out and let people know what this disease is, whether they should get screened for it, what the symptoms are, how they can manage their diet and their lives so as to minimize complications, and many other things that are crucial.

This disease management provision allows hospitals and clinics to do outreach with nonmedical personnel to educate high-risk communities about the disease. It also allows nonmedical personnel like counselors to spend time with sickle cell families and spend time discussing how to manage the disease. In particular, I have talked with parents who have this problem. This will help experts in this field assist families in navigating through the health care maze so they can get the services they need.

The bill also creates 40 sickle cell disease treatment centers around the country. It authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to distribute grants for up to 40 health centers nationwide at a cost of about $50 million for the next 5 fiscal years so we can have outreach centers in all parts of the country where there are substantial concentrations of people who are at high risk for the disease. It could mean a health center grant in almost every State. The grant money could be used for purposes including education, treatment, continuity of care for sickle cell disease patients, and for training health professionals.

Finally, the bill establishes a sickle cell disease research headquarters. It creates a national coordinating center which will also be operated by the Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate and oversee sickle cell disease funding and research conducted at hospitals, universities, and community-based organizations.

This will focus on efficiency so we can share information about the disease and about outcomes around the country, and accountability to make sure taxpayer dollars are being spent properly in funding good research on sickle cell disease.

Taken together, the components of this bill will make a real and tangible difference in the lives of thousands of American families. I hope this bill is a first step. We have once again Senator Schumer and I and Congressman Davis and Congressman Burr and all those who have helped us with this, and we ended up with more than a majority of the Senate sponsoring this bill, divided almost evenly between both sides of the aisle.

We look on this as a first step. This bill is going to begin laying the infrastructure for outreach centers, for advocates, for counselors around the country to help families who are struggling with this disease, and to lay the basis for the next step--whether it is additional funding for research or helping people who are coping with the disease so these families and these patients who are struggling with sickle cell disease know they are not alone.

It is one of the more important things Congress has done this year. I can tell you based on my personal experience that it will encourage the many thousands of people around the country who have felt so alone as they struggle with sickle cell disease.

Today, we have truly done something for the public good in including this in the conference report. I am hopeful at some point we will have a chance to vote on it, and I am confident we will pass it.

Mr. President, I thank you for your personal assistance, and I thank the Senate for indulging me in these comments.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I am certainly not going to object, but will the majority leader yield for a minute?

I had intended to make a few remarks as in morning business when I thought we would be staying in session for several more days. I figured I had a lot of time to do it. I am certainly glad that the leaders have been able to work out an arrangement to the contrary. But I wonder if your wrap-up request could include allowing me to speak as in morning business, if the Senator from Nevada does not mind, for maybe 20 minutes. It will not take any longer than that.

I do not think there will be much time before the vote tomorrow.

Afterwards we are all going to be trying to catch planes, so I ask if I could have a few minutes.

I appreciate it.

I was busy making notes. If I could ask the majority leader, would that include a few minutes for me to do morning business?

Yes.

Mr. President, I am very grateful to the majority leader and the Democratic whip for allowing me this time. I am sorry to run in breathless at the end of the evening to ask for it. I thought I would have an opportunity, perhaps in the wee hours of the morning, to make this statement. I think it will be evident when I get into it why I want to do it now. I will explain that also.

Let me say I agree completely with the statement of the Senator from Nevada regarding the staff. I have presided, myself, during this weekend, on several occasions. I am grateful to the staff for coming in and sorry to keep them a few minutes later than they would otherwise have to stay. I just want all the staff to know that, in compensation to them as a small token, if they would like to come to my desk after we adjourn, I have plenty of Russell Stover candy, pecan rolls and almond rolls--and low carb candy also, I say to the majority leader. I am more than happy to share it with all the staff who worked so hard this weekend.

I want to talk a little bit about overtime. I have not talked about overtime on the floor of the Senate despite the fact that there has been a lot of controversy over it. There are a lot of reasons I have not to this point. I have had other priorities. But the overtime regulations that went into effect about 6 weeks ago are actually, of course, having an impact in the United States. In other words, they are now the law. People are having to comply with them. Employers are having to comply with them.

So we have reached a new stage in the controversy over those rules because we don't have to speculate anymore what their impact is going to be. We know what their impact is because they have become law. What we are finding is that these overtime regulations, as many of us thought and as the Secretary of Labor said over and over again, are working the most significant enlargement of overtime pay, the most significant increase of overtime coverage in the history of the overtime law, at least since 1938.

I wanted to say this on the floor of the Senate before we left because I think it is owing, in particular, to the Secretary to say it. She has been criticized by many outside of this body and some in this body. They have said these overtime regulations the Department has issued would restrict overtime for people. It is not working that way, and there are a lot of us who knew it wouldn't work that way, which is why we always voted to allow that process to move forward.

So I want to say this evening, and I am going to go through the reasons why and then talk about what exactly is happening out there in my 20 minutes, but I want to repeat, these overtime regulations, far from restricting overtime coverage, are working the most significant enlargement in overtime protection since 1938.

I want to explain now why those of us who have some familiarity with this field of law always thought that would be the case. I read these proposed regulations when they came out about a year ago. I looked at them and said to myself, as a person who used to practice labor and employment law, my gosh, there are going to be a lot more people getting overtime under these regulations than have gotten it before. Let me explain why.

This is a rather arcane field of law, but it is possible to understand it. You have to start from the assumption that unless the law provides otherwise, every employee in the country is entitled to overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week. You are entitled to overtime unless the law exempts you from overtime, so the bigger the exemption, the less the overtime. When we talk about exemptions expanding, we are talking about overtime restricting, and it is important to keep that in mind.

We start from the proposition that all employees are covered by overtime. The law exempts management employees. It has always been an aspect of the law that if you are in management, if you are one of the people who run the company, you are not entitled to mandatory overtime.

So how does the law define management? First of all, to be a management employee you have to be salaried. If you are paid by the hour, you get overtime. It doesn't matter what else your job may entail, you get overtime. So you have to be salaried.

Second, you have to be salaried above a certain level. This is very significant because it has changed. Under the old regulations, before the new regulations were issued and took effect, under the old regulations, if your salary was below about $13,000 a year you automatically got overtime. You could not be considered management unless your salary was at least $13,000 a year. That wasn't much protection because just about everybody in the country who worked full time and got a salary earned more than $13,000 a year. But the new regulations raised that threshold to $23,600. What the law is now, if you get paid a salary of less than $23,600, you get overtime protection. You get mandatory overtime regardless of what the rest of your job may entail.

When I saw that, I knew immediately that there were going to be tens and tens of thousands of people who had been exempt, whose overtime had been denied them legally under the old regulations, who would now get it automatically. I am talking about people who work as assistant managers of restaurants or in some cases you might be a line leader in a plant or you might have some other job which looks like it may be management so you got exempted under the old regulations. But where you were not paid $23,600, automatically those people come under protection.

It is not enough to be paid a salary above $23,600 or above the threshold, whatever it is, to be considered management, and it never has been. The first step is, are you paid a salary? Is it above that certain level? If it is, you might be exempt. You might not be entitled to overtime if you fell into one of several categories of management.

I am not going to go through them all, but let me take two very briefly. One of them is if you were an executive. If you got a salary above the threshold and you were an executive, you were not entitled as management to overtime.

How do you define executive? The old rule said--I hope you are sticking with

me here, Mr. President, and through you, all the vast numbers of Senators who are here on the floor listening to this--if you got paid a salary above the threshold and under the old regulations you supervised at least two people--and by ``supervising,'' the law meant you did at least one of the things that typically supervisors did. So it might be directing their performance on the job; it might be deciding what their schedules were, when they could come in to work, when they took vacations; it might be training them on the job. If you did any of those things and you supervised two people and you had a salary above $13,000, you were exempt from coverage.

You can see that covered a lot of people, a lot of your first-line supervisors. Think about this for a second. A lot of your first-line supervisors, your shift foremen, your line leaders, your assistant managers, they get paid above $13,000, they have two people underneath them, and they decide, for example, when you come in to work or which clothesrack you should be working on, if it is an assistant manager in a clothing store, right? So those people were exempt from overtime.

Now under the new regulations you have to be paid at least $23,600, you have to supervise two people, and then here is the thing: You have to hire or fire or effectively recommend the hiring or firing of employees. If you don't do that, you are not exempt, under that exemption anyway.

Look at the difference. Under the old law you weren't exempt, you were exempt if you got above $13,000 in salary; you supervised two people, and you did anything in terms of the direction of their work. But now you have to get above $23,600, you have to supervise two people, and you have to effectively recommend hiring or firing on a day-to-day basis. That very substantially restricts the exemption, which very substantially increases the number of people who are covered by the overtime laws.

You may be exempt if you supervise people. I just went through that. You also may be exempt if you supervise functions. Under the old law, typically the classic example is somebody who is the lab director in a laboratory. They may not have people under them, but they supervise the lab. But that exemption has been restricted, too, under the new regulations because it always required that you exercise what is called independent judgment or discretion with respect to whatever function you are supervising. But now the independent judgment and discretion must be with respect to something, to an operation that has a significant impact on the workplace. It is no longer enough to supervise a piece of a function; you have to supervise the whole thing. This, too, increases the number of people who are covered by overtime by reducing the breadth of the exemption.

The same thing could be said with regard to the professional exemption. There are many aspects of these regulations which were designed to and do work an enlargement of overtime coverage.

How do we know they do that? Because the regulations have been in effect for 6 weeks and all the general counsels of all the big companies are looking at them. Do you know what they are recommending? They are telling their employers we have to reclassify these job duties. These job classifications, they are no longer exempt from overtime. We have to start paying people overtime.

A survey was recently done among Fortune 500 companies by the HR Policy Association, and the return was this: Half of the Fortune 500 companies said they were going to treat more employees as eligible for overtime. The other half said there would be little or no change.

The University of Missouri at Colombia--of course we all know that fine institution in Missouri--they said 400 to 500 workers would be reclassified as eligible for overtime who were not eligible before.

Sears Roebuck & Company said 2,000 employees will be reclassified as nonexempt, and nonexempt means you are covered. Overtime has to be paid to you.

Burdines-Macy's, 3M, McDonald's, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the University of Kansas, they are all reporting that they are going to reclassify employees so they are covered by overtime, where under the old regulations that Members of this body have been fighting for a year to preserve, these people did not get overtime.

Senator Bond and I were contacted by police sergeants of the St. Louis City Police Department. These sergeants had earlier, under the old regulations, been found exempt, not entitled on a mandatory basis to overtime. They believed, reading the new regulations, that they would be entitled. I believe they have a good case. I don't want to prejudge it. Senator Bond and I asked the Department of Labor to investigate. They are investigating. My prediction is--I can't be certain because this gets down to the details of the job on a day-to- day basis, but my belief is that they will be entitled to overtime unless the police department changes their duties or arranges for them to work under 40 hours a week.

The new regulations contain specific references to police sergeants and firefighters and say they are entitled to overtime as examples of people who would be entitled under the new rule who were not necessarily entitled under the old--this with respect to a regulation that again I say for the last year Members of this body have been saying over and over again will restrict overtime. Yet I tell you and the Senate that it will work out to be the most significant enlargement of overtime since 1938. Not a single company reported that they were going to reclassify people downward to make them exempt. We are aware of thousands and thousands of cases already, in 6 weeks, where we know people are going to be reclassified as covered by overtime when they were not covered before.

We don't yet know--I asked the Department of Labor this today. I asked them if they knew of a single case that had gotten up to their level where a person who had been receiving overtime under the old regulations had lost it under the new. They don't know of a single case where that happened.

It could happen. There is one aspect of the regulation that applies to people who are getting salaries of $100,000 a year or more. I talked with a lady today who worked in Wage and Hour and was responsible for this. She said: As I read it, I don't really think it is going to restrict overtime. It could. I could probably construct a law school hypothetical where somebody in that position lost overtime. It is possible. We may see a handful. I don't believe we will see more than that.

I am not going to go through all these remarks because I know the staff has worked all weekend and I don't want to keep them any later. I thought it was important to say this. It is owing to Secretary Chao and for the hard work she has put in to make this statement and to make clear to the Senate how significant these new regulations are in that they are going to enlarge overtime.

I do think it is important to say also that if the efforts of Members of this Senate who have fought these regulations had succeeded, then these thousands and thousands of people who are now getting overtime would not be getting it. If the bill that has been sponsored-- I understand we are going to vote on it through a voice vote--were to pass, it would mean the withdrawal of overtime protection for all the people in the last 6 weeks who have been reclassified as entitled to it. That would be a great shame. But it will happen because, as I read these regulations and as they are working in practice, they are working a significant expansion of protection for employees around the United States.

I congratulate the Department. They have taken care of inequities that have existed in this system for decades and decades. When you look at the struggle they have gone through, you understand why it was not remedied before now.

This is an arcane and a difficult area. Misinterpretations are possible. I do think many outside this Senate and some inside the Senate have been subject to a misinterpretation of these regulations. I hope I have cleared it up, and I wanted to have the opportunity to do that before we adjourned, until the election.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

I think I will give that 4 minutes as a gift to the staff and to

you. I appreciate your staying afterwards to preside, Mr. President, and I yield my time.