Floor Statements

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 306, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005; provided that there be 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the HELP committee; provided further that the only amendment in order, other than the committee-reported amendment, be a substitute which is at the desk, and following the use or yielding back of time the substitute amendment be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage without any intervening action or debate at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. President, this is a bill that has been about 5 years in the works. It was introduced by Senator Snowe, who was joined by Senators Frist, Gregg, Kennedy, myself, and others. It has been introduced a number of times, but in 2003 this bill was passed by a vote of 95 to nothing. The only difference between that bill and the one before you today is deletion of a provision that makes conforming changes to the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that a small number of health insurance plans, known as church plans, do not discriminate on the basis of genetic information.

We are removing the church plan provision because at the last minute yesterday a concern was raised that the language caused what is called a blue slip problem, which relates to the constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the House. There is considerable disagreement as to whether the church plan provision has a revenue impact and whether there is, in fact, a blue slip problem. In my opinion, there is no jurisdictional or constitutional problem with this simple conforming amendment.

The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate took great pains to draft the bill within its own jurisdiction and was disappointed that these concerns were raised at this late date. In the interest of moving this bill and creating the important protections that it guarantees, we are removing the questioned language.

It is my understanding and hope that the House of Representatives will address the question of church plans when it takes up genetic information nondiscrimination legislation. Certainly no one believes that health insurance plans run by churches and other religious organizations should discriminate against individuals on the basis of genetic information. I am confident that when Congress has worked its will and delivered a genetic information bill to President Bush, which he requested, church plans will be treated the same as employer group health plans and individual health plans.

I am pleased that this bill is finally here for debate and we will be able to take it through the process. Again, it is an important step toward eliminating discrimination based on genetic information in both health insurance and employment decisions.

This bill was reported unanimously last week by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It is identical to S. 2283 in the last Congress, which passed 95 to nothing with strong administration support. The purpose of this legislation is to protect individuals from discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information. It would accomplish this by preventing health insurers and employers from taking any action that would affect an employee's health or employment benefits based on genetic information an employer might discover.

Establishing these protections will allay concerns about the potential for discrimination, and it will encourage individuals to participate in genetic research and to take advantage of genetic testing, new technologies, and new therapies. The legislation will provide substantial protections to those individuals who may suffer from actual genetic discrimination now, or may have some reason to be concerned about it in the future. These steps are essential to fulfilling the tremendous promise of genetic research and science.

The science of genetic technology has seen an explosion of progress in the past few years.

Just 2 years ago, for example, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and elsewhere finally completed assembly of the human genome. What had seemed impossible for so long came to pass. Suddenly, with great fanfare and the attention of the international scientific community, the announcement was made. The human genetic code had been broken.

Among other effects, the work of the Human Genome Project and sister efforts elsewhere has accelerated the ability of scientists to discover genetic ``markers'' for many serious and significant diseases that we may be able to avoid with the proper care and preventive treatment.

Unfortunately, great change such as this sometimes carries with it not only great promise, but also a potential for misuse. That occurs when what should be an exciting breakthrough becomes at the same time a source of fear. For example, some individuals who should have welcomed the new ability to test for markers of inherited diseases instead encountered fear that such information might also be used to deny them insurance coverage or employment security.

Ironically, for some, what could have been a life-saving tool became instead a means to harm the very people it was designed to protect. For too many, it was simply better not to know. Allow me to recount just a few real-life examples, drawn from testimony before NIH panels investigating this issue:

One woman, who suffers from a rare liver disorder, found that both she and her children were rejected by a major insurance company, even though both children were only passive carriers of the disease and would never suffer from it. Only after a news organization contacted the insurer was the denial reversed.

In another example, a woman with a family history of breast cancer found that she, too, carried the genetic marker for that disease--and as a result chose to have a precautionary mastectomy and hysterectomy. After that, her employer received a $13,000 annual increase in his small company's health insurance bill.

As a result, this woman's employer asked her to switch to her husband's insurance and told her that if she did so she would get a raise. Fearing that a switch in coverage would jeopardize her ability to be covered at all, she refused. The employer then raised the premium amounts charged to all his employees.

These accounts, and others like them, make the point very strongly for the need for us to act. Simply put, we need to act now to save lives.

We have before us today an important bill that will address the fault in the system and correct it. It was carefully crafted to alleviate the problems faced by people like those I have mentioned. It was designed to calm the fears of those who are hesitant to subject themselves to genetic tests, knowing that what safeguards are in place may prove to be inadequate. It is a bill to restore their confidence in the system and their faith that the process is fair.

Only if we pass this legislation now will we truly be able to encourage the scientific progress in this field. The science of genetics may well hold our best hope for combating many of our worst afflictions. However, genetics, like the rest of science, will progress best when ideas and information are freely exchanged.

As a former small businessman, I am sensitive to the concerns raised by some in the business community that this legislation might impose new liabilities on employers. I am confident, however, that after they become familiar with the provisions of this bill, such critics will see that it has been carefully written such that its enactment will reduce the risk that an employer will ever be dragged into court to face a claim of genetic discrimination.

It will not do this by letting employers and insurers off the hook. Far from it. Rather, what this bill will do is reduce litigation because its rules are clear, the exceptions are responsible, and the procedure is fair.

Simply put, neither will employees become victims of discrimination nor will employers be sued unreasonably. Why? Because this bill sets a standard for conduct that is easy to understand and easy to follow. We are far better off setting the rules of the road clearly and ``up front,'' rather than allowing them to be set piecemeal through litigation.

We also must act now to ensure legal uniformity and consistency nationwide. About half the States today have laws governing genetic information. However, these laws differ significantly from one another and do not always fully address the problem.

Once this legislation is signed into law we will have a clear, concise and uniform policy on genetic information that will make clear what is and is not an acceptable use for genetic information.

Over the course of the last Congress, I had the pleasure of working on this legislation with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank the majority leader and Senators Snowe, Gregg, Kennedy, Jeffords, and others for their good efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. It will make a difference in more lives than we will ever know.

If we pass this legislation, and pass it we must, we will have taken a great step forward and ensured that the initial breakthroughs of Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick, and the more recent ones by the National Genome Project, will continue to reap benefits for generations to come.

We will finally have a uniform policy in place to ensure that information retrieved from genetic testing will remain confidential and off limits to those who would be tempted to use it to discriminate.

As genetic technology continues to develop in the years to come, the beneficial impact on the public health and our individual lifestyles promises to be enormous. Enactment of the bill before us today will help America secure the realization of that promise.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her persistence, her enthusiasm, her perseverance, and particularly her reasonableness in dealing with this issue, recognizing how important it is and how important it is to get it done now.

I say to the Senator, you have just done tremendous work at pulling everybody together. I recognize that effort. Without your efforts, this would not have been possible. So I thank you for bringing it to this point.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes for purposes of a colloquy with my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma.

Yes, that is correct.

Madam President, yes. In the type of situation described, the legislation would prohibit the insurer from discriminating against both the mother and the child because of the result of the genetic test of the child. It is the intent of the legislation to prohibit insurers from denying coverage to either a child or the child's family members based on the results of prenatal testing.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his careful concern and the depth with which he has been into the bill and the vast knowledge he has as a doctor which helps to get all those different perspectives that bring bills together. We thank him for his efforts.

I yield myself 6 minutes.

Answering the question of ``why do this bill now'' is very important. The most persistent question from the business community about this bill, and the most reasonable, is why now? Why should we create a new basis for lawsuits for a subject area where there is no record of abuse, on information that employers do not want or need, to prevent fear over hypothetical situations? Let me address this critical question head on because I asked it myself at the onset, and I have answered it to my satisfaction.

First, we are not legislating in the area of the unknown but in the area of hope. Genetic information holds the key to better diagnosis, better cures, better lives for all of the world's population. We have determined that a serious impediment to this progress is fear, fear that the information derived from the genetic tests will be used to harm the individual, fear that the usage of the information is creating reluctance and that it is leading to refusal to take tests. Every refused test is progress delayed for all mankind because it is only through testing that scientists will amass the knowledge to find the diagnostic tools and cures we so desperately desire. Considering the potential for discovery and the employer protections we have built into this legislation, I am confident we have struck the right balance. But the question remains, why now? Why not wait for greater proof of fear and abuse?

There are several reasons. For well over half the States, it is not too early to take action. We are seeing developed a hodgepodge of State laws that address the handling of genetic information and the banning of its use in the workplace and in insurance. There are patterns to these laws, but there are enormous inconsistencies. Likewise, Federal law is inconsistent. The Americans with Disabilities Act covers genetic matters if they are ``regarded as'' a disability, but the determination is subjective and likely to evolve on a case-by-case basis. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended in 1991, are also implicated.

In short, many questions remain over what is and what is not covered by existing Federal and State law. And history has taught us that unanswered questions breed lawsuits. With this legislation, we seek to answer questions and prevent litigation. We have the opportunity to write a clearly defined set of rules for the collection and preservation of genetic information and carefully proscribe its usage. That will prevent mistakes and abuse. Before anyone develops the desire or reason to harm our fellow citizens, a clear-cut set of rules established at the infancy of this amazing field of science will do greater good for businesses and insurers and the public than waiting for common law to develop.

I remind my colleagues and my friends in the private sector that lawyers are already looking for opportunities to sue for genetic discrimination under State laws, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and under many other laws written for other purposes--hoping to cash in on this developing area of the law. This is one area where it is not appropriate to let nature take its course. I am not willing to abdicate this policymaking function and wait for the courts to decide on how laws should apply to a field of science that didn't exist when the laws we are talking about were written. That is the job of Congress.

It is also important to observe that there are few victims as of yet in this field of science and law, and that is a good thing. We want to keep it that way. The rules established in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination

Act are clear and fair. We distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate use of genetic information in the workplace. We ensure confidentiality and make it clear how employers are to do that. And from my perspective, most importantly, we have included every essential safeguard and exception to prevent this law from becoming a litigation nightmare for businesses.

In conclusion, let me state that it is no coincidence that the first major civil rights bill of this new Congress deals with a truly 21st century issue. While genetic discrimination may not be widespread at this time, this legislation ensures that discriminatory practices will never become common practice.

From the past, we have learned from employees, employers, insurers, and others all work best together when the rules are clear and opportunities for personal achievement and health are available. This legislation tells everyone what is expected of them and avoids the trip wires and uncertainty of some of our existing laws.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I have here a copy of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 2003, which was submitted by Senator Gregg, who was chairman at that time. We did not do a new report this time. The reason we did not is because the bill has not changed between then and now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to consult this report, Senate Committee Report 108-122, not only because of its excellent background and analysis, but also because it clearly illustrates much of the thinking and work behind why this bill was drafted as it was.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Statement of Administration Policy, issued today, regarding genetic information be printed in the Record. The administration favors enactment of the statement this legislation and this statement gives some explanation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, reserve the remainder of the time, and suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for his efforts on this bill. He was actually the committee chairman who made sure that all the parties came together, which around here is no small task, and came up with this package that does what our purpose was. He did it with such diligence, care, and completeness.

Rather than take the time to put out a new committee book about the bill, we used his book. It gives an explanation, and it also shows that the bill didn't need to be changed from what he had. So it is actually Senator Gregg's efforts that brought this bill to the floor and brought it in this complete fashion and moved it along so quickly. We thank him for all of his information and help.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I tell my friend that I do acknowledge that title XVIII of the Social Security Act is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The matter before the Senate makes amendments to the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act and the Public Health Service Act. The section to which you have raised concerns was included as a conforming amendment to ensure consistency in Federal policy. I want to reassure my friend that I have every intention of respecting the jurisdiction of all Senate committees and will endeavor to consult with him on all matters before my committee that touch on the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. I ask my friend to provide me the same courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to finish this up.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and all others who have spoken today. It has been a very positive day. I thank the Presiding Officer for the care with which he reviewed this bill and the issues he brought up and the resolution that I am sure we have gotten.

I would be very remiss if I did not thank the staffs of all of those people who help us dig into these issues to be sure we are doing the right thing. They bring some different perspectives that add to coming up with the right solution.

I particularly thank those people from the committee on both sides of the aisle for their efforts. I thank Kim Monk, David Thompson, Bill Pewen, David Bowen, Holly Fechner, Sean Donohue, Ilyse Schuman, Andrew Patzman, David Nexon, Adam Gluck, Carolyn Holmes, Kate Leone, Ben Berwick, Jennifer Duck, and Steve Northrup.

I particularly mention Katherine McGuire, who is the new staff director, who was able to put together all of the personnel we needed and then a committee retreat, as well as coordinating and moving all these things along, so we could be at this point this soon.

We thank all those people for their individual efforts as well as the team efforts they put in.

At this point, I think we are ready to move on. I yield the floor and thank everybody for their participation.

Amendment No. 13

(Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

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

Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for the 109th Congress adopted by the committee on February 2, 2005.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The class action system in our country is broken. Over the past decade, class action lawsuits have grown by over 1,000 percent nationwide. This extraordinary increase has created a system that produces hasty claims that are often unjust. Lawsuits that have plaintiffs and defendants from multiple States are tried in small State courts with known biases. This leads to irrationally large verdicts that make little sense legally or practically.

The U.S. Constitution gives jurisdiction to the Federal Government when cases involve citizens of differing states. It makes sense, that, in a case involving plaintiffs from Wyoming and Alabama and defendants from New York and Idaho, that no party be given the inevitable ``home- court'' advantage that comes when a case is tried in your backyard. Regrettably, for years, Congress has required all plaintiffs to be

diverse from all defendants. In large class action lawsuits, with plaintiffs or defendants from states throughout the Nation, it is increasingly difficult for this requirement of complete diversity to be met.

In the system we have created, we see lawyers seeking out victims instead of victims seeking out lawyers. We see lawsuits being adjudicated in a select few courts with proven track records for delivering large verdicts instead of lawsuits being tried in courts with the most appropriate jurisdiction.

S. 5 is a step in the right direction. It eliminates the lottery-like aspect of civil liability that individuals now face by moving interstate cases to the federal level. If passed, S. 5 makes it so that class action cases involving citizens from Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Texas will not be adjudicated at a courthouse in Madison County, Illinois. In the same vein, it ensures that cases involving folks from Illinois, Arkansas, and Mississippi are not decided in a State court in Wyoming. These are interstate cases and should decided without a home state bias that can exist in some State courts.

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and its provisions regarding the filing of interstate cases, they could never have imagined that our court system would be used someday to engage almost every sector of the U.S. economy in just three counties. That statistic should be a wake up call that something is dreadfully wrong and that the system is not working as the designers intended. By placing cases in Federal court, we avoid the forum shopping that has become so commonplace over the past few decades. S. 5 gives the defendants in a lawsuit a chance to have their day in an impartial court.

While State courts undoubtedly have their place, and in many instances operate more effectively than Federal courts, a select few have become notorious for delivering outrageous verdicts. Consequently, many of our most costly class action lawsuits end up in these courts. This should not be the case.

S. 5 will not only benefit the defendants, it will also make the system more fair for the plaintiffs. Weak oversight of class action lawsuits has created a system that returns less than 50 cents on the dollar to plaintiffs in a case. Compensation, when compared to actual economic loss, is approximately 22 cents per dollar. Settlement notifications are often times so confusing that plaintiffs do not understand what they are receiving. Plaintiffs are signing off on agreements they do not even understand, with even less understanding about how to challenge the settlement. They are getting a raw deal.

I am pleased that the Class Action Fairness Act addresses this problem by including a ``Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights.'' The ``Bill of Rights'' includes a provision requiring the Federal court to hold a hearing and find that a settlement is fair before it can be approved. It includes provisions that make more fair what have become known as ``coupon settlements,'' in which the attorneys receive real money and the victims receive the equivalent of a Sunday newspaper clipping.

S. 5 works to reign in the only people who covertly benefit from the way the class action system works today, a select group of defense attorneys who seem more interested in profits than process. These lawyers are more concerned with reaching a settlement than helping their victims. They push for quick class certification, and once they have crossed that hurdle, they push for a quick settlement by threatening the defendants with large monetary verdicts that have come about in past cases.

In the face of these ridiculous verdicts, defendants settle quickly. They know the stars are lined up against them if the case goes all the way to trial and often times, by agreeing to coupon settlements, the defendants pay only a fraction of the stated damages. The Class Action Fairness Act takes steps to change this practice. It takes steps to ensure that when a settlement is reached, the lawyers and the defendants do not come out ahead when the victims come out behind.

Is S. 5 perfect? Absolutely not. It does not require that individuals opt-in to class action lawsuits. It does not require sanctions be brought against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits over and over again. There are a number of provisions that I believe should be included in the bill that did not make the cut.

But S. 5 is the true example of a bipartisan compromise. S. 5 takes into account the wants of the various parties. It took a lot of give and take to get to this point, and now, we have a bill that does some good. We have a bill that takes a first step toward reforming our court system to make it more fair for both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

I look forward to voting in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act later today, and I will encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be our next Secretary of State. I am pleased to echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues--Dr. Rice's accomplishments are inspirational, and she sets an amazing role model for young people in our Nation today.

We are considering a person for Secretary of State with an impressive educational resume, a person who has lived through some of the most trying eras of our history and who represents the best of America. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is more than well qualified to be Secretary of State. She served 6 years as the Provost of Stanford University. Under President George H. W. Bush, she was Director and Senior Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

With her experience the last 4 years as National Security Adviser to President Bush, she comes prepared for this position like no other person could. She knows our President and his foreign policy and national security issues. She will arrive at a new job with a full understanding of the President's plan for our chief diplomat.

I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Rice during her tenure as National Security Adviser. In 2001, Dr. Rice played an instrumental role in the Senate's passage of S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001, a bill I introduced in 2000. S. 149 was a strong bill that would have modernized our national export control system for dual-use items and technology. The bill, which required a risk-based analysis of proposed exports and emphasized transparency and accountability, garnered vocal support from the President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and our National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleeza Rice. The support of Dr. Rice underscored the strength of the bill's national security provisions. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass S. 149 into law before adjourning the 106th Congress.

As such, I look forward to working again with Dr. Rice in her new capacity as Secretary of State on issues related to export controls. In her new role, I believe she will be a leader within the interagency process on dual-use

exports, as well as an effective leader for the Office of Defense Trade Controls, ODTC, which administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, and maintains the munitions list--a list of items controlled for defense purposes. Dr. Rice's experience on the National Security Council has well prepared her for a job that will require a fair and realistic approach to controlling both defense and dual-use exports.

We must ensure that our export control system keeps sensitive items and technology out of the hands of the terrorists and other bad actors. At the same time, we must also make sure our troops and allies, who are fighting every day for freedom and democracy, have access to the best and most technologically advanced tools of our time. This will take forward thinking from all the Departments responsible for controlling defense and dual-use items, including the Department of State. Our export control policy must take into consideration the fact that the U.S. military and private high-tech companies are codependent Private companies are pushing the technological envelope for both militarily critical and civilian products. And we must work toward a system that allows these companies to continue growing and developing so as not to stifle the military's rate of technological advancement. I believe Dr. Rice will provide an intelligent and knowledgeable voice in this endeavor.

I have been disappointed with the comments made by some of my colleagues. While we all certainly have the right and duty to disagree on policy and procedures, the nature of some comments have gone beyond what is appropriate for this body. I strongly believe the character of Dr. Rice and her integrity are above reproach. The criticism heard here, unfortunately, reaches beyond the Senate and far beyond Washington.

I remind my colleagues that when we speak on the Senate floor, our words are heard by brave men and women serving overseas. Our words are heard by their families and their friends who make it possible for them to serve our Nation so well. I hope we all remember that as we debate the merits of our foreign policy and the nomination of Dr. Rice.

I am pleased to again state my support for the nomination of Dr. Rice. Her experience, her dedication, her integrity, and her character will make her a good representative of our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt, who has been the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to serve as our next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

President Bush chose wisely when he nominated Governor Leavitt for this important post. He is a strong leader and an able administrator and his record provides the proof for his ability to get results.

I have known Governor Leavitt for some time. We worked together far back in my public service career when he helped found the Western Governors University. His service as Utah's Governor gives him a wealth of experience in the challenges of providing access to affordable health care. As a Governor of Utah, his state had a diverse mix of both a very rural and a very urban population. Accordingly, he brings diverse views on how to handle a wide variety of issues. As a westerner, he also understands the particular health care problems that affect folks who live in those rural areas as well as the more rural frontier areas.

His perspective will serve him well as Secretary. We have much work to do together with Governor Leavitt. We need to improve our health care system and increase patient safety through better and more widespread use of information technology. We need to ensure that the medications we take are safe and effective. We need to redouble our efforts to protect our Nation from the present danger of bioterrorism. We need to strengthen our health care safety net to protect the most vulnerable among us, and perhaps most importantly we need to do everything we can so that more affordable health insurance options are available to working families and small businesses. That important task will include making our medical liability system work better for patients and providers.

I am pleased that I will have the opportunity to work with Secretary Leavitt in my new capacity as chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. My committee is looking forward to working with Governor Leavitt to craft solutions to the health care challenges we face as a nation. During his confirmation hearing, he agreed to informally sit down with Senator Kennedy and I and others who are interested to informally discuss some of these solutions.

I believe we will succeed in meeting the shared challenges because Secretary Leavitt has succeeded in every step he has taken in his career. More importantly, Secretary Leavitt has great appreciation of the importance of the family, which is the cornerstone of

our society and the basic building block of our communities. Governor Leavitt is both a good man and a strong leader. I look forward to working with him on the health care issues that affect our families so directly.

I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Governor Leavitt as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the other side has yielded back their remaining time. Knowing no other Republican wishes to speak, I yield back the remainder of our time, as well.

I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is actively working in all four of those areas as specified in the title of our committee as there are major initiatives that need to be accomplished in each of those areas.

I have found that each Member who is working on an issue in any of those four areas--and I am not just talking about members of the committee, I am talking Senators as a whole--believe their issue should be the first issue to come up in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. As Chairman, I believe that we should work like the National Institutes of Health; that is, those issues that stand the best chance of making progress will get a higher priority. We will be working in all of these four issue areas because they are immensely critical to the people of the United States.

As a brand new Committee Chairman, I am asking all of my colleagues that when a Member has an idea in the areas of health, education, labor, or pensions, that you share it with me. I can bring the Member up to date on all of the people who need to work on that issue so I can get them involved. It would be most appreciated. In addition, it would allow us to work prime pieces of your bill into any committee bill that comes out.

On a number of issues out there, there are multiple groups, and in many cases, bipartisan groups, working on their own bill. The way we will have to address those, of course, is to have the committee be the referee on which sections of which bills get into the final bill. I can assure Members we will look most favorably on Members who have shared with us in advance. If it is a matter of who is going to get the credit, I don't care on that. I will help preserve credit for your idea.

It would be helpful for me as the new chairman to have some kind of an idea of what Members are working on and what the timeframe is. We will let Members know how we are working on the same issue and our timeframe for the issue.

I have four outstanding subcommittee chairmen, and they have already sat down, looked at a list of things they need to accomplish, and together we have set some priorities and have begun to put together action plans on each of those bills. I have met with Senator Kennedy to take a look at the 20-plus bills that need to be reauthorized before September 5. We are trying to organize those so that we can get as many of those completed as possible and to see where there is agreement; and where there is agreement, perhaps we can move them along faster allowing us the opportunity to concentrate on the other bills that need more work.

I didn't say the ones which we are in opposition to--because I know on most issues around here, if there is not agreement on the two conflicting ways to move a bill forward, there is often a third way that can be derived. A lot of the time the way committees work, as we get involved in an issue, is if there is a section that people do not agree on, quite often we can have those Members interested in that section go off for a little bit and hammer it out. Typically, they come back with the third way that they can agree upon. Quite often the committee agrees on it as well.

In committee, usually, we can get agreement on 80 percent of an issue. Generally, the 80 percent is what is passed through the committee if there is bipartisan support, if it appears to have bipartisan support. Unfortunately for the American public and television, when people see us debate in the Senate it is on that other 20 percent, the 20 percent we did not agree on in committee, and for political reasons may not agree on no matter how long the debate continues. When we vote, after all the amendments are tallied, quite often we go back to the 80 percent that came out of committee with bipartisan support.

I am suggesting to my colleagues that if we can go by an 80-percent rule, do the 80 percent we agree upon in committee, bring it to the Senate floor, and wrap it pretty quickly, then we can skip that other 20 percent. Overall, we could get a lot more done around here. In addition, it would be more collegial and it would lead us to being able to get more things done on a bipartisan basis.

So we are going to be trying that in this committee and seeing how it works. I hope it does not turn out to be the grand experiment that failed. I hope it turns out to be a model for a way we can have a Senate that is more agreeable and working towards solutions for the American people.

That is the approach we have taken on every issue that has been mentioned here today. We have already been working on action plans for those things to see if there is a way we can come up with an 80-percent package. If we can, we will move them along much faster than what people expect. But it will take a lot of work and a lot of concentration and, incidentally, quite a few hearings, too.

I have learned under Senator Graham and Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby--those are all Banking Committee chairmen--that one of the ways to handle an issue is to try to get together everybody you can who is an expert on the particular area you are doing and draw on their knowledge--these are practitioners who have actually worked in the trenches on the idea--and gather the information from them and see if there is not, again, an 80-percent agreement.

There should not be a shortage of ideas in the United States. We are the idea country. If we can find some way to simmer those down and put them out as legislation, that helps people. That is what the HELP Committee is all about.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and seeing what sorts of things we can do to help health care in the United States so we can have more accessible, lower cost, higher quality health care. As you can tell from previous discussion, that covers a whole range of issues. The Presiding Officer at the moment, of course, is interested in the associated health plans, and so are a whole lot of other people in the Chamber.

We have talked about drug reimportation. We have a bill in that comes out of a task force, Senate file 4. It comes out of a task force last year that was led by Senator Gregg, who is my predecessor as chairman of this committee, a diligent, hard-working, knowledgeable task force leader who helped us put together about 15 bills that would do exactly what I talked about: increase access, reduce costs, help the quality. Those are included in a bill. It is not definitive, it is not the final answer, but it is a starting point for us to go on this great debate.

In education, we are going to do an education piece that makes sure people understand there are lifelong education

opportunities, that school is never out, that learning never ends. We have Head Start, which is preschool education. Of course, we have No Child Left Behind in our jurisdiction.

We are concerned about the number of high school dropouts there are today. We are also concerned about the Higher Education Act, which needs to be reauthorized, and the Perkins Act, which provides funding. All of those are things that need to be done. We have combined them in Senate file 9, with the Workforce Investment Act, which you will recall came through this body 2 years ago. Two years ago, it came through. The committee passed it out by unanimous consent, and it passed this body unanimously. But I think partly because of the Presidential election years, we were not allowed to have a conference committee. We were blocked from having a conference committee. That is an essential piece in making sure people have jobs.

I am fascinated that this generation that is in school now probably will not have the kinds of jobs our parents had where they went to work at one place, they worked there their entire life, and they retired from there. The generation in school now is going to probably have 14 different careers, and 10 of them have not even been invented yet. So there is a tremendous challenge to having learning capability and capacity and flexibility so this generation, this generation that is in school right now, will be able to get the best jobs in the world, not the best jobs in the United States, the best ones in the whole world so that any job that happens to be outsourced is one of the low-skilled jobs, one of the low-paying jobs, not the best of jobs. But that is a huge challenge for us, and it is one we will be working on with a primary objective to solve in the education portion of the committee.

In the labor portion of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we want to make this a safer country for the workers. I put forward several recommendations for ways that can happen, ways we can provide more help to small businesses so they can know the best way to keep their employees safe rather than beaten over the head and fining them after the fact. We need to have them do the prevention, not the penalties. There is some common ground there that we can work on.

Of course, in the area of pensions, this is a very interesting year because a lot of pensions need a lot of help. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which I have already met with, has a huge challenge ahead of it to make sure people who have been putting into pension plans wind up with a pension. We do not want to have a large Government bailout. We want to have the pensions operate the way they were designed but with a backup so the worker does not get left behind. It is a huge work area. I am looking forward to the task.

With cooperation from everybody in this body, we can have some great bipartisan efforts that will make a difference to every single person in this country.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, rising health care costs and access to affordable health insurance are among the biggest worries Americans face today.

Health care costs are increasing faster than any other basic service in American society. Today, 44 million Americans lack health insurance at any given point during the year, and between 20 to 30 million of them are chronically uninsured.

My Republican colleagues and I will soon be introducing one of our priority bills for the coming Congress. This legislation, the Healthy America Act of 2005, will bring together an aggressive and innovative set of health care solutions. These solutions build on the already impressive health care record of the last Congress--principally delivering Medicare prescription drug coverage to seniors and making tax-free health savings accounts available to all Americans.

Our bill will include many of President Bush's health care reform priorities, as well as the proposals developed last year by the Senate Republican Task Force on Health Care Costs and the Uninsured, of which I was proud to be a member.

At the heart of this legislation are measures aimed at restraining health care costs, increasing access to care, and improving health care quality.

Toward this end, one of our--and the President's--topmost priorities is comprehensive reform of America's costly, unfair, and chaotic medical liability system. Our bill will ensure fair and rapid compensation to injured patients, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and limit excessive and costly damage awards.

Also especially important, I believe, is the creation of a new national framework for establishing personal electronic health records and for exchanging health information securely and privately. As the new chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee I will be working closely with my colleagues in the coming months to develop legislation that will speed the adoption of standards and enable systems to ``talk'' to each other--reforms that eventually will save billions of dollars and, potentially, many thousands of lives.

Other critical features of this legislation include a commitment to reforming the struggling small group and individual health insurance markets, expanding the availability of health savings accounts, HSAs, creating targeted tax credits to help Americans purchase private health insurance, and expanding America's Community Health Centers and related facilities.

Mr. President, this legislation will be a solid foundation and a promising beginning as we begin this new Congress. Together with my colleagues and with the President, I will work tirelessly to assure that health care costs, access, and quality are at the forefront of our priorities in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. President, as reports continue to appear in the media, there can be little doubt that a critical area of homeland security, and one on which I will be focusing as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is the issue of bioterrorism. It is clear that we cannot separate the need for a strong national biodefense from other aspects of emergency preparedness.

Last summer, when President Bush signed the Project Bioshield Act into law, he called bioterrorism and efforts to use modern technologies against us the greatest danger of our time. The threat posed by bioterror has not gone unnoticed by terrorists and those who wish to do us harm. That is why we must continue to do everything we can to ensure our ability to respond to the use of biological weapons.

In the months to come, my Committee will be working together to develop the strategy we will need to provide for a strong national biodefense. We will be exploring a number of options in that effort, like providing incentives to increase private sector participation in the development of bioterror countermeasures and biopreparedness tools. We will also be examining ways to strengthen our domestic vaccine industry and increase the overall readiness of our public health system.

While I commend its intent, I declined to cosponsor S. 3, the Republican leadership bioterrorism bill introduced today. I look forward to developing bipartisan legislation to strengthen our national biodefense system in our Committee. Senator Burr, who will be heading the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, will be an important part of that effort. I am also looking forward to the input of my fellow Committee members, including Senators Kennedy, Gregg and Hatch, as well as Senator Lieberman, who, while not a member of my Committee, has made this a priority of his work in the Congress and put a great deal of thought and effort into the area. In the coming weeks and months, I will also be convening a number of discussions with critical stakeholders and experts as we develop our legislation.

Together, I am confident we can build on the work Congress and President Bush began with the Project Bioshield legislation and do what is necessary to ensure that we are as prepared as we possibly can be for the ever-present and constantly changing threat of bioterrorism.

Mr. President, last week we had an opportunity to be a part of a truly historic event. As we gathered together on the west front of the Capitol, a huge crowd joined us along the Mall and down Pennsylvania Avenue to witness the inauguration of President Bush. It was a great moment for America as the President took his oath of office. Later, in what was one of the best inaugural speeches I have ever heard, he outlined his vision for the future and the theme for his second term.

It filled my heart with pride to hear him speak about freedom and the role America would continue to play in helping to bring its bright light to bear on the darkest regions of the world. As he spoke, I was pleased to hear him also renew, his commitment to our Nation's education system and to bringing the highest standards to our schools. The President made it clear that such an effort was an important part of making sure that every American has a stake in our future as a nation. Without it, the American dream we have shared for many years may be reduced to a nightmare for future generations.

Clearly, we can't allow that to happen. That is why I am pleased to join, with the distinguished majority leader, Dr. Frist, and my friend and colleague, from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation we have written to address that need and ensure a brighter future for our children. Among the goals our legislation seeks to address is the importance of strengthening our public education system, ensuring parents are involved in the process and, above all, giving our teachers the support they need to obtain the results we must have if our children are to have the best chance to succeed in life.

The legislation I am introducing today continues the work we began with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. That bipartisan legislation made it clear that we had high expectations for all public school children. It made making sure those expectations were met the center of our Federal education policy. That policy has had good results. Children all over the country, including minority children, are improving their reading skills. Their math scores are getting better. In another 2 years, when science is included in the State assessments, I believe we will see that students are doing better in that subject, too. Thanks to the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act that we all had a hand in, we are continuing to see more and more positive results in our schools.

Although our record of success is impressive, there is still room for more improvement. According to the most recent National Assessment of Education Progress, over 25 percent of twelfth grade students could not read at grade level. Only two-thirds of students entering the ninth grade are expected to complete high school within 4 years. That is a dire forecast for our future, but it need not be so if we stick to the goals we have set and work to achieve them.

We want to make sure we continue to set high expectations of what all students can achieve, regardless of their background. This needs to be a common theme in all our Federal education programs. All students can learn and every child can be a star pupil. It is not just a slogan. It is a philosophy that our teachers need to put into practice every day in the classroom. It must then be echoed by every student's parents each evening at home at the dinner table.

We need to make sure Federal programs emphasize accountability, but we also need to make sure we do it in a way that makes sense. Many Federal programs designed to serve the same population of students have different requirements. We can help our teachers serve their students better by reducing the amount of time they spend outside the classroom on activities that don't help our children learn. Federal program requirements should not work against the, goal we have set of improving student achievement.

It is important to provide flexibility to the States so they can manage Federal program dollars and address their unique needs in the most effective manner possible. We need to let leaders at the State and local level make the important decisions about this country's education, because they are at the level closest to the people--and closest to the classroom where we must continue to get good results from our efforts.

The needs of rural schools must also continue to be addressed. Schools in rural States like Wyoming have unique needs and serve smaller populations. They can't be administered like the large schools of the big cities in the East. One-size-fits-all policies that may work in large population centers are all too often doomed to fail in the smaller towns and cities of the West.

Although funding will be a key in the effort to address these issues, the Federal Government provides only a fraction of education spending in this country. For K-12 education, the Federal investment is still around 8 percent. The rest of the money comes from States and local districts. We need to trust these educators and administrators to work on behalf of the children in their charge. We must ensure they have the tools they need to serve their students and help all children in their area succeed.

We also want to support lifelong learning opportunities for students at every stage in their life. Education is

changing; the way we approach learning has to change as well. Federal programs should reflect these changes and help our students adapt to them. Las year, more than 70 percent of college students were considered ``nontraditional.'' Our education system needs to address the needs of adult learners, as well as children who take the more ``traditional'' track in education.

We want to create a strong link between education and the workforce. Businesses are creating and filling good jobs with good candidates, and we want to make sure we are filling those jobs with American workers.

In our technology-driven economy, school can never be out. It is estimated that 60 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. It is also estimated that the average worker leaving college today will switch careers 14 times in their life, and 10 of those careers haven't been invented yet.

To address those needs, we need a system in place that can support a lifetime of education, training, and retraining. As tomorrow's workers change careers, they will need to learn new skills, or to apply their current skills in new ways. Our postsecondary institutions will play a critical role in supporting these students, as they do now through a number of Federal education programs.

High school dropouts are the most at-risk school population in the workforce. We must look at Federal efforts to reform high schools to make sure we are keeping students in school. We need to make sure that students are leaving high school with a diploma, a quality education, and the strong foundation of reading, writing, math and science skills that will help them succeed in the workforce. We must also reach out to those who do not have high school diplomas to give them an opportunity to increase the level of their skills so that they, too, have a chance to succeed in life. We can do that by increasing their awareness of and involvement in lifetime of learning programs.

In this bill, we have also included language to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. That will help an estimated 900,000 unemployed workers each year get back to work and provide American workers with the skills they will need to be competitive in the global marketplace. That will help them land the good jobs that will be created in the years to come. Our legislation will also support the needs of businesses including small businesses looking for skilled workers. In addition, the bill will strengthen the role of public education institutions in the Federal workforce preparation effort, including our community colleges.

As we work on this and other education legislation, we must ensure we are focused on getting the results that will help our children succeed in life. We can do that by incorporating high expectations, accountability, flexibility for our States in administering Federal assistance, and a lifetime of learning opportunities, into our education policies. If we do that, every child's life will be a success story and everyone will have the freedom to live their own version of the American dream.

As we continue to work on improving our Nation's education system, an educated citizenry will continue to be our goal. It will never be enough to provide our children with a diploma. We must provide them with the skills they will need to compete for and win the jobs of tomorrow and keep them.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring before the Senate the nomination of Margaret Spellings to be the Secretary of Education.

On January 6, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing to review the qualifications of Ms. Spellings for the position. As chairman of the committee, I am pleased to note that the committee members found her qualifications to be exemplary and well suited to the Cabinet level position. She has been enthusiastic and well informed.

As the President's domestic policy adviser, Ms. Spellings was instrumental in developing the No Child Left Behind Act, and other important legislative initiatives.

Today I stand with Senator Kennedy, the ranking member and the former chairman of the HELP Committee, in bipartisan support of her nomination. I thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for helping us bring this nomination to the floor in a very timely manner.

In addition, I am joined by Senator Alexander, who will be the chair of the HELP Committee's Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development.

We look forward to working with Ms. Spellings in her new position.

I yield the floor.

I concluded my initial statement, and I will see if another is necessary.

I yield to the ranking member if he so desires.

Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from Tennessee as he might consume.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his total enthusiasm on this issue. We are so fortunate to have him as the chair of the Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood. You have just seen a demonstration of the passion that he puts into education. Of course, he has covered it from the perspective of being Governor, of being a college president. Probably more important, he has covered it from the perspective of being the Secretary of Education of the United States. Now as a Senator, he is going to make a difference in policy by pursuing that committee vigorously, as we can tell from his comments.

I also appreciate the earlier comments of Senator Kennedy and the tremendous cooperation that we have had not only on the hearings that we have had but also on the personal discussions on the workload that we have by September 5, when 28 reauthorizations expire. We have to get those done.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

I have been requested by the Senator from Tennessee to yield 3 minutes to discuss the issue that has just been brought up.

I yield 2 minutes for a quick response. This is a very important topic. Everybody has a common interest in making sure there is a quality in education all the way through. I would appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon, briefly.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need to conclude this debate.

We have had a wonderful afternoon talking about some of the basic education policies that we need to be on top of for the kids of this country. I am excited about the bipartisanship that has been shown in this discussion this afternoon.

We have had a pretty good covering of a lot of the different issues that will be coming before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But, of course, the real purpose of this discussion was to have a very brief discussion on the approval of the nomination of Mrs. Spellings to be our Secretary of Education. I am pleased there were no adverse comments during the entire time that we allowed, and there were none at the hearing we had for her.

During that hearing, we discussed the President's education agenda and the future of the educational system. We asked Mrs. Spellings a lot of questions about her views on these issues and about her plans to continue to improve our schools. We were all impressed with her answers.

It was evident from the comments of the Members there that Mrs. Spellings enjoys strong bipartisan support. I think that has been shown here today, too.

As her record clearly shows, Mrs. Spellings is no stranger to the issues of education that will affect every child and every schoolroom throughout the United States.

As the President's domestic policy adviser, Mrs. Spellings was the key part of the effort to emphasize the accountability and the importance of getting results in the classroom as part of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Thanks to that important legislation, our Nation's classrooms are more effective. They are more efficient. They are places of learning, and our children are benefiting from that.

Mrs. Spellings believes, as I do, that every school can be a good one, and every student can be a star student.

It is no secret that good skills lead to good jobs. Maintaining those skills through a lifetime of learning will lead to a good career.

That has been my experience as a father of three college graduates, and also the husband of a wife who got a college graduate degree on line from the University of Wyoming while we were here in Washington. There is a little time difference between here and Wyoming. A lot of her classes started pretty late at night. But she stuck with it and got a graduate degree. All of us are proud of her for that.

I am proud of all three of my kids who have their degrees. One of them is a teacher. She has gotten a couple of degrees since she became a teacher. One of those got her a certification to be a principal.

I get comments from that lobby very strongly. I am so pleased with the comments I get.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention my sister, who is a business major for the Sheridan School District, which is one of the big school districts in Wyoming. She is actually the smartest of us two children. She is also an accountant and does an outstanding job of keeping track of every dime of education money and informs me of ways we messed up the law when we were doing that. I get a lot of good advice from there.

But it is also my hope as a grandfather of a little boy who looks at me with trusting eyes certain that his grandpa has it under control-- and just looking at him, I can tell that he is counting on his grandpa and the other parents and grandparents of this body to ensure that he receives the kind of education he will need to find a good job, and the constant training and upgrading of skills to ensure that he will be able to keep it.

I was just reading a book called ``The Jobs Revolution.'' A child starting school today probably will not be able to do like his parents or grandparents did, starting one job and continuing that for 30 years and then retiring. The average child starting school today will have 14 different careers. Here is the key part: Ten of those haven't even been invented yet, which means the level of education that we have now has to have the flexibility to teach them to get the continuing education to get the new jobs so that the best jobs are maintained in the United States.

Someday my grandson will take his place in the workplace, and we must make available to him, and to every worker who will give our workforce an advantage, a lifetime of learning to ensure that the United States retains its competitive edge in the global market.

Mrs. Spellings understands this--the fact that the workplace isn't what it used to be.

In this global, technology-driven economy, school can never be out. Today's workplace demands an ever-changing workforce that can adapt to the requirements and skills of the new high-tech jobs that are in such high demand.

Keeping workers' abilities current will be vital if they are to continue to find every job they will need to support their families and maintain consistently higher standards of living.

As chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I am looking forward to working with Mrs. Spellings on these issues and many more--such as the importance of using advanced technology to improve our rural schools.

As we work to address this and the other challenges of rural school systems, we must continue to be flexible in our approach.

That is the only way we can ensure every child has access to a quality education and that our school systems are run in a manner that makes more sense for the population they serve.

Having spoken with Mrs. Spellings, I am certain she shares my concern about rural education and that she will work together with this Congress to continue to make the changes that will be needed to keep our educational system and the lifetime of learning it must provide moving forward.

As committee chairman, I am honored to be able to join the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Kennedy, in supporting the confirmation of Mrs. Margaret Spellings to be the next Secretary of Education.

I am extremely pleased that we worked in a bipartisan manner in order to have Mrs. Spellings confirmed by the date of the President's second inauguration.

Today, this body has the opportunity to confirm an excellent nominee with the skills, with the experience, and the character to help bring our students of all ages and backgrounds along the pathway to fulfill their own version of the American dream. I am confident we can do so, and provide our children and students of all ages with an effective advocate at the Department of Education.

Thank you, Mr. President. I think all Members who wish to speak on this have spoken.

I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining on both sides be yielded.

I ask the Senate to proceed to the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to express my congratulations and note for the Record the achievements of Dr. Steven F. Barrett who has just been named the Wyoming Professor of the Year. This prestigious honor is the only national award that recognizes the performance of college and university professors who have produced outstanding results as undergraduate teachers and mentors.

As an assistant professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Wyoming, Dr. Barrett has served as a role model for his colleagues on the school's academic staff, as well as the students he teaches in his classes. His unique teaching style gets students more involved in their classes and increases their commitment to the successful completion of their education.

Dr. Barrett played a key role in the effort to improve the electrical and computer engineering curriculum. He revived courses in biomedical engineering and image processing that had not been taught for years. He also served on a committee to establish a computer engineering degree at the university. Thanks in no small part to his efforts, the degree was approved by the university trustees in 2000, and the first students graduated from the program in 2001. Wyoming students now have the chance to obtain a degree in one of the fastest growing job industries. That will help to improve their future chances for success and the ability of our workforce to compete in an ever changing job market.

Dr. Barrett's dedication to his profession extends far beyond his efforts to establish the computer engineering degree. To ensure his students have the skills they will need to prepare them for post graduate life, he has upgraded the department's course work and laboratory activities involving microcontrollers, which are small self- contained computers. When he couldn't find a textbook he liked for the degree, he contacted a close friend and former colleague to help him write a text that he could use in his classes. He has gone on to write another textbook and is in the process of completing a third. He truly does exemplify the characteristics needed to get students excited about education and what they need to do to reach their greatest potential.

Dr. Barrett's classes provide his students with a unique opportunity not only to learn, but to take a more active role in the process by helping to teach what they have learned. He applied for and was able to secure funding from the National Science Foundation for a program that improves the interaction between undergraduates and those with assistive technology needs. Through the program, students have had the support and encouragement they needed to develop a workshop to teach assistive technology professionals how to adapt off-the-shelf toys to assistive technology teaching aids. His students were also involved in the effort to create a 50-page workshop manual that they then used to help teach the workshop to assistive technology professionals across the state of Wyoming. By giving students these life experiences, they can more readily see the positive impact of the skills they have developed in the effort to improve the lives and education of others.

Wyoming can be very proud of professors such as Dr. Barrett who are such an integral part of our Wyoming school system. His dedication to the future of his students and his enthusiasm for teaching continues to improve the quality of the education Wyoming students receive in our schools, and better prepares them for the challenges they will face in their postgraduate years.

Mr. President, the Internet plays a critical role in today's global economy. It allows us to work harder, faster, and more efficiently. With the click of a mouse, we can seal business deals, send birthday cards, and buy cars. We have come to rely on its ability to connect us with people and places around the world. Today Congress cleared an important piece of legislation that will help keep the internet affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Today's passage in the House of S. Con. Res. 146, which amends S. 150, signals the end of months of long and difficult negotiations. I would like to commend my colleagues, Senators Allen, Wyden, Alexander, Carper, Voinovich and McCain for their commitment to this issue. Their hard work has allowed us to pass a fair and reasonable moratorium on internet access taxes. The moratorium will protect all Internet users, regardless of connection platform, while ensuring that states and localities do not lose billions in tax revenue.

The moratorium on internet access taxes is necessary now because broadband technology is still in its infancy in many parts of the country. In Wyoming, we have a number of small towns where Internet service is limited to 14.4 Kbps dial-up service. At that speed, it takes all day to download one song--a song that was legally obtained, of course. The only way we are going to improve the availability of broadband services in places like rural Wyoming is by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome taxation and regulation. Consumers in every part of the country want and deserve internet access. The internet access tax moratorium will make sure they can afford to subscribe to whatever service is available. I am confident that as more consumers spend their hard-earned money on Internet services, the cable companies, telephone carriers, satellite providers and other Internet service providers, ISPs, will invest more of their money in deploying high-speed broadband services.

Renewing the Internet tax moratorium is important for consumers, but it is also a major issue for states and local communities that rely on certain tax revenue from telecommunications.

These state and local governments have made the decision to tax certain services and, as a former mayor and State legislator, I respect their ability to do so. However, I agree with my colleagues that Internet access is a special service that should be tax free. The difficult part is trying to define what ``Internet access'' actually is. We have spent months listening to telecommunications providers, consumers, and local officials define what telecommunications services are and when and where telecommunications taxes should start and stop. Not surprisingly, the groups have disagreed more often than not. Despite the struggle, I believe we came up with a reasonable compromise on the definition and the grandfather clauses, which will give our state and local governments the time they need to phase out taxes imposed prior to the moratorium.

Now that we have passed the moratorium on Internet access taxes, I am anxious to refocus some of our energy on a bill I introduced in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act would simplify the extremely cumbersome network of State sales and use taxes and help States begin to recover from years of budgetary shortfalls. The bill would authorize States that have signed the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and have passed legislation simplifying their tax system to require all sellers to collect and remit sales taxes.

My streamlined bill, which has 20 cosponsors this year, is a critical bill that many of my colleagues are learning more about and recognizing its growing importance as Internet usage explodes. Two years ago the revenue loss attributed to the Internet sales tax loophole was fairly minimal. Today, the revenue loss has ballooned as online and other remote sales have increased. The States have responded to this budget crisis by signing the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and implementing legislation that drastically simplifies their sales and use tax systems. In fact, 21 States have already signed into law the necessary implementing legislation, while 8 others are currently in the process of doing so.

As the States continue to make progress on reforming their sales tax systems, I would urge Congress to make progress on a bill that will provide to the states the authority they need to collect their own taxes. I intend to introduce the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act again next year and hope to work with the Finance Committee Chair and other members of the Senate to pass it into law.

In the meantime, I am pleased we will have in place a moratorium that recognizes the importance of the Internet and will allow it to grow and prosper in the coming years.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Gregg and Senator Kennedy, Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller for their leadership on this important issue. I also thank my colleagues and fellow conferees from both the House and Senate for their hard work on an issue that is vital to our children's education and their future, as well as ours.

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act into law 30 years ago, it represented the strength of the Federal commitment to ensuring that all students would receive the support they need to reach their full potential. Congress made its position clear: all disabled students would be guaranteed a free and appropriate public education.

This legislation advances that concept that has been preserved in spirit and refined to make it more effective over time. It does so while staying true to the original intent of Congress. I am pleased to be able to support this legislation, and I would like to speak briefly on a few issues that are of great concern to me and the people of Wyoming that I represent.

As a rural State, Wyoming has many small schools where teachers are responsible for multiple subjects. Our special education teachers are in this position more often than other teachers in our State, simply because we do not have a lot of students and our special education classrooms are often very small and include several grade levels. My home county, Campbell County, currently has around 7,000 students. That is an entire county. I am aware that some States have more students enrolled in a single high school than we have in that entire county, which at 5,000 square miles, is bigger than the State of Delaware.

This legislation makes an important clarification to the Highly Qualified Teacher standard established by the No Child Left Behind Act. It defines highly qualified in a way that is consistent with No Child Left Behind, but it also provides flexibility for States, like Wyoming, that have a large number of special education teachers responsible for more than one subject. This change will ensure that disabled children will be taught by a highly qualified teacher and it also recognizes the reality of rural States and the challenges we have in recruiting and retaining teachers.

This bill also provides flexibility for States and school districts who are responsible for the largest portion of special education funding. An important change is the flexibility for States to use the same flexibility provided to districts if they provide 100 percent of the State's non-Federal education spending. Many of our districts in Wyoming and the State as a whole will benefit from this flexibility. They will be better able to support education programs serving our students' best interests, rather than having their hands tied by Federal law.

I am also pleased that we were able to reach consensus on the need to improve the due process and discipline sections under the current IDEA legislation. The amount of unnecessary litigation surrounding the provision of services for students with disabilities has become a burden for many districts, and it has been a problem that disproportionately affects small, rural districts. By adding mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution, we have given parents and schools the tools they need to resolve complaints outside of the courtroom. These changes represent a common sense approach to what has become a serious problem. I believe the revised due process and discipline sections address concerns we've heard from parents of students with disabilities and teachers, principals and administrators. They encourage parents and school leaders to work cooperatively to meet the needs of disabled children, which is in everyone's best interest.

I am pleased that we have been able to finish work on this important legislation before the close of the 108th Congress so these important improvements can be enacted.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the educators, administrators, parents, and children of my home State of Wyoming. Since the implementation of No Child Left Behind in 2001, our students have increased their test scores, proving that our schools are taking the adequate steps needed to ensure academic proficiency for all students, including those who are disadvantaged. The basis of No Child Left Behind is simple. It says that every 4th grader should be able to read, and do mathematics at a 4th

grade level; every 8th grader at an 8th grade level, and every 11th grader at an 11th grade level. But making it work calls for the hard work and dedication of all individuals involved with education--from the parents to the teachers, to the legislators and administrators. By putting the children first, our schools are making the progress needed for students to perform at their intended level, which will help them excel later in life.

The 2004 results of the WyCAS, our State's assessment, show that 47 percent of fourth graders in Wyoming tested as advanced or proficient in reading, 40 percent in writing, and 39 percent in mathematics. While there is still room for improvement, all three are increases from last year's scores of 44, 37, and 37 percent respectively. In addition, 57 percent of the 8th grade students tested as advanced or proficient in writing, almost a 10-percent increase from the previous year, when they scored 48 percent.

A few schools that made tremendous growth this year should be especially proud of themselves. Moorcroft Junior High now has 81 percent of their students proficient in writing as compared to only 38 percent last year. Sundance Junior High also produced exceptional results in math, with 74 percent of their students performing at proficient or advanced level, compared to 39 percent last year.

Improvements have not only been made from last year to this year but over time as well. The 11th graders, who took the WyCAS as 8th graders in 2001, improved their mathematics scores from 32 percent being advanced or proficient to 44 percent. In reading, the results were similar. They jumped from 39 percent as 8th graders to 50 percent as 11th graders.

The results are a good indication that our students are learning and our teachers are working hard to leave no child behind. I am pleased with Wyoming's dedication to education, and I look forward to learning the results of other indicators that No Child Left Behind uses to assure schools are making adequate yearly progress. I encourage Wyoming schools to keep up the good work and continue to put the children first.