Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. May I ask my time?

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent following my remarks and Senator Dayton for 20 minutes, Senator Hatch be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr President, soon the last remaining items of business on the legislative calendar for the 10gth Congress will be taken up and the current session of Congress will end. When it does, several of our colleagues will be returning home and leaving public service. We will miss them and we will especially miss the good ideas and creative spirit they brought with them to add to our work here in the Senate. One of our colleagues we will all miss is Bill Frist, our good friend from Tennessee. In his two terms of service he has compiled quite a remarkable record of accomplishments as one of Tennessee's Senators and as majority leader here in the Senate. Bill's interest in serving in the Senate began while he was attending Princeton as an undergraduate. He was an intern in the House when Representative Evins of his home State encouraged him to run. But, before you do, he said, do something else for 20 years or so. Then you will be ready to run for office. He knew that was good advice so he began a career that interested him and challenged him as much as politics did. Bill Frist became a surgeon and established a reputation as one of the best transplant surgeons in the Nation. We were fortunate that he chose that path in life, because his in depth knowledge of the practice of medicine and our Nation's health care system has been an invaluable addition to the debates we have had on those issues. His familiarity with health care from the perspective of the physician and his concern about rising costs as a member of the Senate helped to guide our efforts as we took up these and other matters in committee and on the Senate floor. In the years he has served in the Senate, he has put his medical skills to practical use several times. When a gun battle had taken the lives of two Capitol Police officers, he went to the scene to help. Although he was unable to save the lives of either officer, he was ultimately successful in saving the life of their assailant. On another occasion, we were fortunate to have him with us when Strom Thurmond collapsed on the Senate floor and needed assistance. Finally, he was able to revive and save the life of one of his own constituents who had been the victim of a heart attack. Many of our constituents remember Bill Frist the days in 2001, when the Senate was attacked with anthrax. Once again, Bill Frist was there to provide support and encouragement, and in that calm, reassuring manner of his, let the Nation know that we were doing everything we could to minimize the present danger and return the Senate to our normal pattern of work as soon as possible. The anthrax attack was a challenge that had never been faced before in the Congress, and Bill Frist showed his credentials as a leader during that difficult time for us all. During his service in the Senate, Bill has taken an active role in the consideration of a great many thorny and complicated issues that regularly come before the Senate. We were fortunate to have a doctor as our leader because, on many occasions, it was only Bill's bedside manner that helped him to forge agreements and develop bipartisan agreements on the Senate floor. Looking back, the record will show that one of Bill's greatest successes was the Medicare drug benefit. This new addition to the Medicare program is helping seniors to pay for their prescription drugs and it is having a great impact on the quality of the health care we provide our Nation's seniors. Although it is still going through its initial stages as it is introduced to the public, and we are working to ensure people understand the benefits it provides them, there is no doubt that we wouldn't have had a prescription drug benefit program enacted into law at all--if not for the role Bill Frist played in the effort. Working with program opponents and organizations in the public sector that opposed the new program, Bill was able to resolve many of the doubts and uncertainties that surrounded it, and ultimately, get it enacted by the Congress and signed into law. In addition, and in what was perhaps his biggest achievement, Bill led a successful effort to pass an initiative to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. He had a heartfelt interest in the legislation and firsthand knowledge of the problem it was designed to address because he had done volunteer medical work for many years in Africa. His witness of the impact of the disease on the population of that country inspired him to do everything he could to address and try to put an end to the suffering it caused. Bill can be very proud of the great result he achieved in that effort. That initiative is his legacy and it will save more lives over the years than we will ever be able to count. The record is clear. During Bill Frist's service in the Senate, especially his years as majority leader, the Senate and the Nation have faced challenges and addressed issues we had never had to deal with before. The war on terror. the detention of terrorists, the quality and definition of life, the future of our Nation's school system, partial birth abortion, stem cell research and so many more controversial issues have found their way onto the Senate floor for our consideration. Through it all, Bill Frist's knowledge, deep understanding of the issues involved, and determination to develop a consensus on them, so typical of his leadership style, enabled the Senate to be a pro-active and fully involved deliberative body. The results he achieved during his years of service in the Senate will be his legacy and help provide the foundation for the work we will do together during the 110th Session of Congress. Now Bill and his wife Karyn will have the time they have always wanted to spend with their children as Bill considers his next opportunity for public service. Bill Frist has been a major part of our day to day routine in the Senate for 12 years and we will miss his presence, his influence on our legislative routine, and his expertise on the issues we have considered on the floor. paul sarbanes Mr. President, there is always an element of sadness that touches us all when we come to the end of a session of Congress. As the clock winds down on the final hours of our legislative activities, it also signals the time when several of our colleagues will be retiring and ending their years of service in the U.S. Senate. One of our colleagues who will be leaving at the end of this session is my good friend Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. I remember when I first came to Washington years ago. I wanted my staff and I to hit the ground running, so I was reading up on the people who would be my colleagues in the Senate. One name caught my eye--Paul Sarbanes. It was noted that Paul was a brilliant man who was one of the Senate's most noted authorities on the detached nuances of finance. As the Senate's only accountant I found that comment to be a badge of honor. I knew Paul must be wearing it with great pride. I knew I would. I took an instant liking to him. Through the years Paul and I served on the Banking Committee together. Our 8 years of service there gave me an opportunity to come to know him and appreciate his skills as a legislator. He has a great ability to solve complicated problems by piecing together workable solutions and then reaching out to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to forge an agreement that could be passed and signed into law. As I came to know him, I came to greatly respect him, the hard work he puts into his job every day of the year, and his commitment to serve his constituents which directed his every effort on the Senate floor. A few years ago I had the chance to work with him one on one as we crafted the provisions of what came to be known as the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. We became good friends during the process and developed a mutual respect for each other's positions on the issues. That was back during the days when several scandals had rocked the accounting and financial industries of our country. Determined to find a solution, Paul rolled up his sleeves and went to work. I don't think anyone gave him much of a chance to succeed, but those were people who didn't know him or his determination to find a way to solve a problem once it had captured his attention. As he began to work on his bill, he knew he wouldn't be able to pass it without the help of some Senate Republicans. On the other side of the aisle, we knew we couldn't get anything through the Senate without the support of several Senate Democrats. So Paul reached across the aisle and got us all to work together to bring his bill to the Senate floor where it was ultimately passed and signed into law. As he worked for the people of Maryland and I worked for the people of my State, we found, despite our political and philosophical differences, we were always able to find common ground on the 80 percent of every issue that unites us. That is why Paul has a well earned reputation here in the Senate for his willingness to work out problems for the greater good. He is known for his ability to navigate through partisan waters and arrive at solutions which are appreciated by the thoughtful majorities of both sides of the Senate. If you ask me, those are the abilities that have proven to be the secret of his success. Back home, his constituents appreciate his workhorse style. He has served Maryland in the Senate for almost three decades and through it all he has earned the support of the people back home for his hard work and determined effort to make their lives better. The issues that were important to the people who sent him here always led Paul to the Senate floor to take up the cause and do everything he possibly could to protect and promote the interests of those who were counting on him to get results. Needless to say--more often than not--he did. Now three decades of service in the Senate have come to an end and Paul is returning home to Maryland. I know we will all miss his ingenuity, his creativity, and his ability to focus our efforts and lead on both local and national issues. It is a well known adage that all politics is local and that is a lesson that Paul learned and practiced as a master craftsman. Now he and Christine will have time to enjoy their families together, and be a part of all that Maryland has to offer. I have a hunch he will not be slowing down so much as changing direction. I also expect I will continue to hear from him from time to time on matters that will still draw his interest. It is a phone call expect and look forward to receiving in the years to come. jim jeffords Mr. President, as the session draws to a close and we complete the consideration of the bills before us by casting our final votes of the session, I rise to express my gratitude and best wishes to one of our colleagues who will be retiring when the final gavel brings to a close the current session of Congress. Jim Jeffords, my good friend from Vermont, has decided to return home so that he can spend more time with his family. Although I will miss him, as will we all, I understand the reasons for his departure. There is nothing more important than family and the bonds between us and our children--and grandchildren--are stronger than any other in our life. As the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I will miss Jim's 'good ideas, his commitment to making a difference, and his strong determination to make our education and health care systems operate more effectively and efficiently. He was an important presence on the Committee and he and his staff were always willing to work long and hard on the initiatives they proposed to help make our Nation a better place for us all to live. Looking back, 1974 was a good year for both Jim and me. I was elected to my first term as Mayor of Gillette, WY, and Jim was elected to his first term in the House of Representatives. We both took office full of great hopes and dreams as we looked forward to doing everything we could to make a difference in the lives of the people we were elected to serve. From the beginning, Jim was very clear on his mission in Congress. He had come here to make sure that our most precious resource--our children--were well taken care of. For Jim, the issue of education was not something he took lightly. It was a commitment that came from his heart. He took the problems of our schools personally and he was determined to do something about them. He wanted everyone to have the same advantages in life that he had. That was his goal and it inspired him and drove his active involvement in the consideration of the education issues that would come before the House and the Senate. Jim's passion for education not only drove his work on the subject in Congress, but it also led him in the years to come to serve as a tutor at a public school on Capitol Hill each week as part of a literacy program he created. That program reaches out to involve us all in supporting our public schools. Its philosophy is simple. Anyone can make a difference in our schools. All it takes is a little investment of our time and a willingness to share our talents with the students of a local school. Not long after Jim had taken his oath of office in the House, he began working on what was to be one of his greatest successes, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA as it has come to be known. Over the years IDEA has ensured that students with disabilities have equal access to a good education--and a promising future. Thanks to this landmark legislation those living with disabilities will receive the education, support and encouragement we all need to help us become all we can be and reach our full potential in our lives. As he served in the House, Jim's commitment to working today to make things better for us all tomorrow led him to fight for meaningful environmental protections, a more effective and responsive health care system, and a sound fiscal budget that didn't overspend our present resources and leave a bill behind for future generations to pay. That is the philosophy that directed and guided Jim when he ran for and won a seat in the Senate in 1988. It wasn't long after he had taken the oath of office for his new position that he began working on the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act--another part of his legislative passion that will continue to be a key part of his legacy in the Senate. Even though he had just begun his service in the Senate at the time, his good ideas and commitment to the protection and preservation of our natural resources made him an important part of the team that would write and promote this important bill. No one was surprised that Jim was a key Member who was involved in so many difficult and important projects as soon as he arrived in the Senate. He preceded me as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and, under his leadership the committee took a close look at our schools and the quality of the education we provide our children. It considered how we might improve the training we provide our Nation's workers so that they might find and keep better and better jobs. And, it continued to look for ways that we might provide support and empower those living with disabilities so that all Americans are able to maximize their potential and live their own version of the American dream. Back home, Jim has deep roots in his State that date back for generations. His father was a Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court and I am sure he learned a great deal about politics, life and the law from his Dad. In addition, coming from Vermont, Jim has a great understanding of the challenges faced by small and rural States and the local industries they depend on to keep local and State economies healthy and strong. It has been said that Jim knows as much about the dairy industry as anyone directly involved in it in his State. He knows firsthand that one size fits all solutions that work well for the big States, all too often penalize the smaller ones and leave them without the support they need to address the same problems the large states face. In the years to come, when I think of Jim I will remember how he shared his dream of a better America with us. By daring us to dream, too, he encouraged us to work together so that the future would be a brighter one for us, our children and our grandchildren. There is an old saying the Native Americans in Wyoming know well. We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children. It's a philosophy that Jim took to heart and put into practice every day during his many years of public service.

Mr. ENZI. Parliamentary inquiry: I think I have the next 45 minutes under the unanimous consent.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Now, the Senator from New York mentions her 1-year extension bill. I will also discuss the Senator's 1-year extension, her resolution for Ryan White, her solution that would simply delay the reauthorization for another year. It simply says to those States that have not been getting adequate funds: We do not care about you, and you are not going to get adequate funds. We are going to re-debate all of this again next year. We are not even going to move toward making it fair. The underlying bipartisan, bicameral bill has a provision providing 3 years of hold harmless funds for New York. For 3 years, New York will not have to follow the formula. They would like to have 5 years. The 3 years already in the bill is at the expense of the other States. The 5 years would be at the expense of the other States, although I will cover a question that was asked yesterday in a little while. This is not a time to delay. This is a time to act. We absolutely cannot delay the much needed updates to current formulas that ensure that all Americans with HIV and AIDS are treated fairly and have access to life-sparing treatments no matter their race, their gender, or where they live. We have a chart that shows the losses that would occur under current law versus the gains that would occur after this reauthorization. The red States here are going to lose significant funding under the current law, beginning on October 1. One hundred thousand Americans are going to be left out. The chart on the right, the blue chart, shows the gains under the Ryan White authorization. All States gain except five, who lose less funds under the reauthorization than they would under current law. Only two of the five are asking for a difference. The time is now or never. As soon as the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, thousands of Americans will begin losing access to life- sparing treatment unless we pass this bill now. This amendment does not address this fact. This amendment would extend a formula that will cause dramatic reductions in funding to many States and thousands of Americans. The House has passed this critical legislation, and now five Senators must decide if they will stand in the way of bipartisan legislation with broad support--a bill that will ensure equitable treatment for all Americans living with HIV and AIDS. I would say, I believe that is down to four Senators now. Now, my second problem with the bill of the Senator from New York is that it shuts out Americans infected with HIV and does not provide them with equal access to treatment. Rather, it focuses on outdated funding formulas that only examine AIDS, not the full spectrum of the disease. Just like her numbers on funding per person, the Senator from New York refuses to acknowledge those with HIV. This chart shows that today, in over 25 States, half of the cases in those States are not counted because those Americans only have HIV, not AIDS. These States receive funding for less than half their total HIV/AIDS cases because of the current, outdated, failed formula. Half the Nation does not receive enough funds to provide the most basic care to their residents. Now, my third problem with the bill of the Senator from New York or the Senator from New Jersey is that it ducks the key issue. Rather than more equitable distribution for funding and more equitable access to treatment for all Americans, my colleagues supporting this bill are simply throwing more money at the problem, assuming it will ensure more equitable access to lifesaving treatments. We know this is simply not the case because it does not solve the inherent flaws in the funding formulas. Now, this chart shows that under the current law, more than 3 percent of Ryan White funding is returned to the Treasury each year. That is more than 3 percent--much of this coming from New York and New Jersey, the very States that objected to the passage of the bill that would more equitably distribute funding across the Nation. Again, you will see here that under the current law, New York is receiving $509 per case more than the national average. Under the new bill, they would still get $304 more than the average case per person across the United States. And they have an average $29 million unspent. New Jersey, the other State, is receiving $310 above the national average. They would still get $88 above the national average. This bill does not get to equity. This bill moves toward equity. And it does not move there until 3 years from now. Other bills we have done start transitioning immediately. Now, I am surprised that the Senator from New York or New Jersey would offer a bill to increase funding, ignoring the outdated formula issues, only to increase the inequity of the program and allow more funds that could save lives to be returned to the Treasury each year. Why would we offer more money to States that are already grossly overpaid and unable to spend their money and increase the disparities of outdated funding formulas, further harming those States with an emerging crisis? This amendment would have us give a few States even more money than they are receiving now, while the majority of the States will receive significantly less funding over the next year. The Senators from New York and New Jersey want to extend this inequity rather than fixing the formula, fixing the formula now, fixing it before the tomorrow-night deadline, to allow fair and equitable treatment and access to care for Americans who have none now. I can tell you that the HIV/AIDS community and families want this bill now. Now, perhaps my colleague can explain why she wants to give more money to States that cannot spend what they already have, while taking money away from States that are struggling, as we speak, to provide the basic life-sparing treatments to their residents. We are talking about life and death here. It seems they want to throw money at States where the epidemic started and ignore the areas where the epidemic has spread, underfunding areas in a growing crisis. When you look at the money being spent, what we are talking about in this amendment is saving institutions, not saving people, not saving lives. This is not an economic development bill. This is not meant to assure that institutions that might be interested in providing these services still get the same amount of funds to do so even though they do not have as many people to provide the services to as they are being paid for. I wish putting more money into the program could fix these inequities but, unfortunately, these inequities stem from outdated funding formulas and a lack of accountability. We must address the problem at its core and ensure that we are not denying the growing number of minorities and women living with HIV and AIDS equal protection under the Ryan White CARE Act. Now, another comment by the Senator from New York was that she needs more money because it is more expensive to provide care in New York. The big cost driver is HIV/AIDS medication, costs that are similar in every State. Therefore, I do not understand that claim, unless it is protection of the institutions rather than the people. I have another unanimous consent request that I intend to propound, and I, again, am hoping that someone will be here to object who is actually objecting to the bill instead of sending a surrogate who has had to go through this ritual several times already, even though he supports the bill, because the request earlier, of course, was to have a chance to vote on the bill of the Senator from New York and the Senator from New Jersey. And I am going to offer that. I am going to offer a short time for debate and a vote on that and then a vote on the bipartisan, bicameral bill that has already passed the House. I am hoping that somebody actually involved in the substitute bill will come to the floor to either agree or object. That should be fair. They can have a vote. It seems reasonable to me. But it really ought to be the people offering the amendment who say they have the better idea, even though it leaves out the HIV folks, hundreds of thousands of Americans. This amendment doesn't even provide a quick fix for 1 more year, because it keeps the flawed formulas that will cause tremendous funding shortfalls in place. They will come back in another year then and ask for 5 more years of being held harmless. I want to get a vote on the bill that includes HIV and follows the patient. We need to do that. We need to do it today, not tomorrow, not next month. Tomorrow night, a bunch of States will be in crisis--and their residents with HIV/AIDS will begin losing access to care. I would imagine in their amendment they have slipped in a little thing to protect the States that will fall into a trap tomorrow. But let's not just throw money at the problem, let's do the right thing for the long- term, for the entire Nation. Let's solve the formula. Let's do what we have done on a number of other bills that have gone through my committee, which is to look at the formula and say: What is fair to all the States? I have to say, there are some people on my committee and others in this body who have said: If I look at the charts and I see what is happening to my State, yes, I may lose some money, but we are trying to come up with a solution that solves a problem across this country. And that is what we are here for, to solve problems across the country. I can tell you that the HIV/AIDS families and community want it to be fair and want the bill we have been asking unanimous consent on for several days now. So I will be asking for unanimous consent. I will throw in this opportunity to have a vote on the other bill, to see if people want to do more of the same or if they want to fix this over a period of time, again, holding all States harmless for 3 years before we move into a transition to full fairness. Just last night the House passed this critical, bipartisan, bicameral legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 325 to 98, and sent it to us to act upon it immediately. The House understood the critical, time-sensitive nature of this legislation. Now the Senate must act quickly to reauthorize this critical program by September 30; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of individuals in States and the District of Columbia will lose access to lifesaving services. The only thing standing between us and the President's signature to enact this bill is a Senate vote on the House bill--or perhaps a Senate vote on the possible substitute amendment and then a vote on the House bill. Now, I have asked the Senate to move this critical legislation two other times. Currently, four Senators from two States are blocking a vote and thus may prevent many individuals and families from receiving critical AIDS and HIV treatment under a more equitable program. I appreciate the number of my colleagues who have been on the floor to talk about the people in their States who are dying because they are on a waiting list and cannot get the treatment, because they have had huge influxes of population, huge increases in the number of people who have been infected by HIV and AIDS. We cannot let that happen. We cannot continue that. We cannot continue to say: Well, if we have been shipping money to one part of the country, we are going to continue to ship money to that part of the country even though the problem has shifted. So four Senators are blocking us. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work of the Senators from California on this legislation. I appreciate their willingness to continue to talk to us to address their concerns. They have indicated they are no longer objecting to this legislation. I thank them. However, this bill, due to other objections, is still not moving forward. This legislation ensures that Federal moneys are distributed more fairly and the dollars will follow the person. This is something our outdated funding formula failed to do. Hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS, who live in these States, will be needlessly harmed if a few Senators continue obstructing good policy. What is more, these four Senators will not come to the floor to defend their objection to this critical legislation at a time when we are talking about it. So today I will ask again for the Senators from New York and New Jersey to come to the floor themselves, lodge their objections, listen to the unanimous consent request, where I am going to offer them the right to have a vote on their bill, in exchange for the right to vote on the bill that came out of committee--the bill that is bicameral and bipartisan. Now, as part of the unanimous consent request, I am also allowing those Senators to offer that amendment, of course, the opportunity for them to put forward their best solution for dealing with the concerns they have. We have run hundreds of programs trying to come up with the most equitable way to do this. The one we are presenting is the one we found that had the most people to support it. I was told this is identical to the bill introduced by the New York and New Jersey delegations this week. That is the amendment we would be voting on. This bill and/or amendment is not a solution; rather, it is a harmful delay, putting off what we should and must do today. These States simply raise objections about what funds are received this year compared to last year. These States were grossly overpaid last year and will continue to be overpaid next year. However, they will no longer be grossly overpaid under the bill I am proposing. These few Senators keep saying they will lose money under the reauthorization. No matter the dollar formula they say they may lose on a given day, it doesn't add up to the amount of dollars they would stand to carry over from the current flawed formula. The State of New York would carry over an average of $150 million over 5 years. According to GAO data, even with the formula adjustment that will allow for more equitable treatment, save lives in more places, New York would still carry over about $115 million based on their past spending. In the past, New York and New Jersey have been able to under-spend hundreds of millions of leftover dollars. At the same time, 25 other States are struggling to provide even the most basic life-sparing medications to their residents living with HIV/AIDS. Because of the current flawed formula, this amendment doesn't even count Americans living with HIV. New York can afford to generously offer more than 495 different medications to their residents. That is 23 times the number of medications that Louisiana is able to offer their HIV/AIDS residents because of a lack of appropriate funding. While New York offers a range of elective drugs, many other States are unable to provide the basic life-sparing treatments that every American should have access to. This is indefensible. New York carries over an average of $30 million each year; yet, 25 other States are having significant difficulty providing the basic drugs to all of its eligible residents. Eleven States have waiting lists--that is right, residents in 11 States are unable to receive life-sparing treatments because their States do not receive appropriate funds. New York, in 2005, spent an astonishing $25 million on administration costs for just two titles of this law. That is more than the entire amount of money received by 38 States in 2005 for those two titles to provide care to their residents with HIV/AIDS. This inequity must be addressed, and it is addressed in this reauthorization. Stalling now because a couple States stand to lose a fraction of the money they already cannot spend is indefensible. Lives are at risk and a solution is on the table today. A solution has been passed by the House and is before us now. I hope those four Senators will defend their objection and allow a vote on their amendment. The continued expansion of the AIDS epidemic in this country is a certainty. While the epidemic continues in the urban areas in the country, the number of new cases not diagnosed in small urban, suburban, and rural areas are reaching alarming levels. As the epidemic expands in all these areas, local health care systems have often been unable to meet the growing demands for medical and support services. The problems created in rural areas are often similar to those experienced in large cities. However, these problems are exacerbated by poor health care infrastructure and limited experience with HIV/AIDS care. The lack of trained primary care providers, the absence of long- term care facilities, the scarcity of resources, and a scattered population are additional obstacles that may be faced in a developing, coordinated outpatient service program. If New York thinks it is more expensive to handle a new problem, they ought to deal with the distances these people have to travel in some of the rural areas to get care for some of the most basic ailments. Small areas are also often not able to provide the specialized services required by some persons with HIV. When primary services are unavailable, individuals and families must travel long distances to receive the necessary care. Furthermore, rural health care systems must address not only the epidemic but also other conditions, including substance abuse, mental illness, and sexually transmitted diseases which they may be poorly equipped to deal with. Thus, as we think of the problem today in its expansion into rural areas, we must provide the same effort to those areas we did for urban areas in the early 1990s. We must target resources to those in need and assure that those infected with HIV and living with AIDS will receive our support and our compassion, regardless of their race, gender or where they live. Finally, I want to answer the question posed by the Senator from Minnesota last night. Senator Dayton asked what it would cost to give these States, over the next 5 years, the same amount of money as they receive presently. Alarmingly, to keep those States whole, it would cost $614 million a year. That is over half a billion for the next 5 years. It is not possible just to provide increases to New York and New Jersey due to the funding distribution; therefore, to ensure that everybody receives as much money per person with HIV that New York is currently receiving, it would cost over $3 billion--if we went to equity, it would cost $3 billion, or a 30 percent increase in Ryan White funding to maintain States' funding level that are grossly overpaid and unable to spend the money they do receive. Our obligation as Senators is to the people of the United States. We still have four Senators who continue to obstruct the Senate from passing a bill because of the September 30 deadline--a bill which passed the House 325-to-98, a bill that can save more than 100,000 lives, including the lives of the growing number of women and minorities who are afflicted by this devastating disease, and provides the money to where it is needed most. As I said last night, this is not an economic development project. The bottom line is simply, where States have more people with HIV/AIDS, they should get more money. Where States have less people with HIV/ AIDS, they should get less money. As we all know, the Ryan White program provides critical health care services for people infected with HIV and AIDS. These individuals rely on this vital program for drugs and other services. We need to pass this legislation so we can provide them with the treatment they desperately need. I urge the Senators who are holding up the bill to stop playing the numbers game so the Ryan White CARE Act funding can address the epidemic of today, not yesterday. I ask the Chair how much time remains.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am very distressed. I have had a lot of success on other bills we are trying to get through. People have been willing to listen to reason and understand the urgency of a lot of the issues, particularly in the health area, but also in the education, labor, and pensions area. As a committee, we work on these things across the aisle and across the building. As a result, we have had 12 bills signed by the President. Of those 12 bills, we have only spent about 2 hours total in the Senate debating them because we work across the aisle and across the building. We work on important issues. We solve the parts we can and we bring them here. This is one of those where we thought we had the parts solved that we could. There are a lot of moving parts to a lot of these things. We work to get as much consensus as we can, but occasionally we reach a sticking point like this. I am really disappointed we have reached a sticking point like this where people are going to die. If, by tomorrow, we have not passed this bill and in case we go longer than tomorrow, I am going to ask the leader to file cloture on this bill so we can see if five Senators can hold up a Senate bill. If we leave tomorrow or the next day, it won't ripen yet, but it can ripen as soon as we can get back. We can spend the time debating it, and those States that are losing money on September 30, while they will not be able to retrieve all the money they will lose, they will have some breathing room for the future. I am desperate. I usually do not have to do that sort of thing. I am willing to do it on this bill. I am very distressed. Usually we are able to get agreement. We went a long ways toward giving concessions to those States. In all fairness, if you do not have the cases, you really should not have the money tomorrow, let alone 3 more years. We have tried to be reasonable. We have tried to help out States. We have run a bunch of formulas to make it as fair as we possibly could and to protect the States as much as we can, but it is time to be fair to the people with HIV/AIDS and to be fair to the families of people with HIV/AIDS. I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I have a unanimous consent that has been agreed to by the majority and minority leader. I yield back all time on the Defense appropriations conference report.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise again today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act, and I will make the formal request in just a few moments. I want to make a few comments first in hopes that some who have a hold on this bill will come down and lodge the objection themselves. Just last week we requested the unanimous consent agreement to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation as it passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. At 9:30 tonight it will pass on the floor of the House, and I expect by significant margins. But five Senators from three States are blocking a vote to create a more equitable program for providing life-sparing treatment for individuals suffering from HIV and AIDS. Now, 2 days ago I made this same request to pass this critical legislation, and the five Senators who are holding up this legislation chose not to come to the floor to discuss their concerns or to debate their issues. Instead, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, was gracious enough to notify us of his objection, even though he stated he would vote for the bill. So today I ask again the Senators from New York, New Jersey, and California, those who have holds on this critical legislation, to come to the floor themselves and lodge their objections to explain why their parochial interests should be permitted to deny lifesaving care to people who don't live in their States. Now, I have a chart here that shows the New York and New Jersey situation. You can see that New York, under the current law, receives $509 per case above the national average. Under the reauthorization, they would still receive $304 above the national average per case. And not only that, at the end of the year, they have $29 million left over. In New Jersey, they get $310 per case above the national average. Now, under the reauthorization, they would still get $88 more per case above the national average, and they have a little slush fund at the end of the year: $17.7 million. These States have simply raised objections about what funds they will receive this year compared to last year. These States will still be overpaid per case, just no longer grossly overpaid. For example, New York is paid $509 more per AIDS case, as I showed my colleagues, than the national average and would get $304. They have been unable to spend $29 million in Ryan White funding. They can't spend the money they are taking in now. Yet those States' Senators still want more at the expense of many other States that are currently underfunded. Now, these States have not objected to the underlying policies. Again, I must emphasize that these couple of States have been grossly overpaid for years, receiving well over the national average per patient with HIV. Even under this new bill, they will continue to be overpaid, although not quite as much. Now, California is a little different situation. When the law was passed last time, we put some provisions into law, and we set a deadline for HIV/AIDS cases for fiscal year 2005 to have a conversion. Now, the Secretary opted to delay that until 2007 to give the States more time, and the CDC in 2005 urged all the States to transition immediately. California decided to transition in 2006. CDC offered resources and people in 2006 to help them make the transition. California declined. There is a deadline. California will lose $74 million in 4 years under the current law for not meeting the deadline. When we pass this bill, under the new law, California would gain $60 million over the 4 years and have more time. So it is kind of a win-win situation for California. Under some of the formula, they were hoping, I think, to gain even more. But they can meet the deadline; extra help has been offered. So if they would take the extra help, they could meet that timeline, and under this bill, they would gain $60 million over 4 years instead of losing $74 million over that same 4 years by not complying with the transition language. This bill would ensure that every State in the Nation has the appropriate funding to care for their residents living with HIV and AIDS. Let me show you another chart. On the left-hand side, the States in red will have losses under the current law: 100,000 Americans get left out. This will happen on September 30 unless we pass a bill. On September 30, there will be huge penalties to these States. The bottom right shows the States that will gain under the reauthorization that we are doing, and you will notice that there are five States that will not gain, but only two of them are objecting. These five Senators who didn't come to the floor 2 days ago still continue to obstruct the Senate from passing a bill that can save more than 100,000 lives, including the lives of a growing number of women and minorities who are afflicted by this devastating disease. As you can see from this chart, without this new law, people across the country who are suffering from HIV and AIDS will be hurt unless we pass the new bipartisan, bicameral bill. That means that we have worked on this for a long period of time, and we have people from both sides of the aisle in agreement. We even have people on both ends of the building in agreement, and, in fact, the bill that the House is passing tonight is the same bill that we worked out and are ready to pass over here. So holding up passage of this new law is wrong. By doing so, these Senators are denying growing numbers of minorities and women living with HIV and AIDS equal protection under the Ryan White CARE Act. This chart shows Americans are at risk. More than half of the HIV/ AIDS cases are not counted under the Federal law in the States that are marked in red. Those are ones that are not getting half of the money that they need right now, half that they ought to have if the bill was fair. So we need to pass this bill. We need to pass this bill by September 30. Let's see, today is the 28th. We only have 2 days to pass this bill. And if we don't pass the bill, a whole bunch of States are going to be penalized severely under the old law. I have gotten letters from several of the Senators who are worried about what is going to happen to their States under the old law come just 2 days from now. If the bill is not authorized by September 30, hundreds and thousands of people in the States and the District of Columbia will lose access to lifesaving services. Therefore, Senators from three States are holding up a bill that would help Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Washington State, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS who live in these States will be needlessly hurt if a few Senators continue obstructing good policy. As you can see from the chart, more than half of the HIV/AIDS cases are not counted under current law. As we all know, the Ryan White Program provides critical health care services for people who are infected with HIV/AIDS. These individuals rely on this vital program for drugs and other services. We need to pass this legislation so that we can provide them with the treatment they desperately need. I urge the Senators who are holding up this bill to stop playing the numbers game so that Ryan White CARE Act funding can address the epidemic of today, not 2 days or 2 years ago. The HIV/AIDS epidemic of today affects more women, more minorities, and more people in rural areas in the South than ever before. While we have made significant progress in understanding and treating this disease, there is still much more to do to ensure equitable treatment for all Americans infected with HIV and AIDS. We must ensure that those infected with HIV and living with AIDS will receive our support and our compassion regardless of their race, regardless of their gender, regardless of where they live. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this key legislation and stop playing the numbers game so we can assist those with HIV in America. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2823 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 580, S. 2823, the Ryan White Act. I ask unanimous consent the Enzi substitute at the desk be agreed to, the committee reported amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his reluctant objection, although it still counts as an objection.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will go ahead and answer the questions, then, and hope this changes your mind on being the one willing to make the objection. Would I protect my State if my State were losing money? I think we are elected to the Senate by the people in our States, but our obligation is to the people of the United States. And were my State grossly overpaid on an average, and I was still going to be grossly overpaid afterwards, and my State couldn't use the money each year that it received, I think I would have a terrible time trying to object to this bill. I hope we do not play that kind of numbers game, we don't get that parochial on bills around here. Another bill I have been working on is the Older Americans Act, and it has a formula in it. Again, there are States that lose under that bill. But there are people who have been willing to work out a formula like we did on this. We must have run about 300 different programs trying to come up with something as equitable as possible. We even put in the 3 years hold harmless for people who were being grossly overpaid. I think we have come up with as reasonable a bill as we possibly can. We need to get it passed, and we need to get it passed by September 30 so the penalties don't kick into effect for those States that have a big penalty coming up and that are desperately in need of making sure they get enough money to take care of the cases they presently have.

Mr. ENZI. I have one more answer that I need to do.

Mr. ENZI. I will yield for some other questions as soon as I finish answering this question.

Mr. ENZI. There aren't 14 States that would lose money unless the new bill doesn't pass. There are only five States that will lose money under the new bill, the bill we are trying to get passed by unanimous consent--the bill that we are at least trying to be able to bring up by unanimous consent. We tried a number of different ways. There are just five States that are involved in losing money. Of those five, three have said we have to be fair. Two have said we don't care whether we are fair or not.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I don't have that number. Like I say, we ran about 300 different iterations of different formulas. I will get the Senator that number. But there is 3 years hold harmless in this. You are talking about 5 years hold harmless. Hold harmless means that the dollars don't follow the person, that the State gets the money even if they have run out of people with HIV/AIDS, and if there are decreasing numbers of them they should not continue to get those dollars. What you are asking is we continue to give those dollars even if we run out of people. All we are trying to do with this bill is make sure the dollars follow the person. You get more people, you get more money. You get less people, you get less money. It is take care of the people. It is not an economic development bill.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind comments and even more so for his passion and understanding on this issue. I thank the others who have spoken. We had given those who are objecting to the Senate completing this bill an hour to state their case; no one showed up. We were pretty sure of that based on the fact they had one of the Members who is not running for office to be the one to object. They sent someone from a State that actually gains by having the bill completed. That tells something about how willing they are to defend the position they have on this bill. This bill is critical to people all over the United States. There are HIV/AIDS families in every single State asking Congress to pass this bill and to pass it immediately. Thirteen States, on September 30, will have huge losses in revenue. We are getting more calls, naturally. This is not just a bill. This is not just policy. This is life and death to people across this country We have heard people are on waiting lists that cannot get drugs because the money does not follow the person. The money goes to the States that had the money before. This bill readjusts that so the people who need the drugs get the drugs. It sounds like an American principle to me. As I mentioned before, there are other bills we work on where we are changing the formula. I have been very fortunate the people working with those bills have said, yes, we have to be fair. We always transition into these things. This is no exception. Three years of hold-harmless. That means they get the same amount of money whether they deserve it or not for 3 years, while they count again to see if they have more or less people affected. standards conversion

Mr. ENZI. The 2000 reauthorization stated that States need to have CDC accepted HIV data as early as 2005 but not later than 2007. Therefore, States have already had seven years to make this change.

Mr. ENZI. Under the bipartisan, bicameral product, California and Pennsylvania will have 4 more years to make the change. Thus, you both will have had over a decade to convert your systems. However, in fiscal year 2011, only CDC standards for HIV cases will be used for the funding formula.

Mr. ENZI. According to a February 2006 report by the GAO, Pennsylvania would lose $9 million and California would lose $18.5 million in 1 year. With this bill that allows those States to still count the people that matter while the systems are transitioning, Pennsylvania would instead gain $4.8 million and California would gain $15.4 million.

Mr. ENZI. CDC has offered to provide assistance to States throughout the process. In fact, I recently confirmed today that CDC has already offered California technical assistance--up to six staff for up to 6 months--to help them make this change. Further, given some confusion about that technical assistance, I have asked CDC to send a letter to California, restating that they would provide that assistance. Mr. President, Senator Hatch was the chairman of this committee when the original Ryan White HIV/AIDS treatment bill went through. He is the one that selected the name of Ryan White. He has an explanation of how that came about and the differences this bill has made and the urgency with which this needs to be done right now.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I further ask that all time after 9 p.m. tonight be counted postcloture, notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I joined the HELP Committee when I was first elected to the Senate in 1997. It was natural for me because of my small business background as an owner of family shoe stores. I had firsthand experience with burdensome government regulations, inadequate health care coverage for my workers, and adversarial workplace safety laws. I was energized about finding common sense solutions rather than more Washington bureaucracy. Now, another reason I joined the HELP Committee is because its broad jurisdiction touches nearly every American. Now, there were a lot of vacancies on the committee when I signed up. I asked why there were so many vacancies, and I was told, well, that is a contentious committee. I thought I knew what contentious committees were because I served on the labor committee in Wyoming. I found out that there is another level of contentious. I wanted to work with my colleagues to find smart solutions that would address some of the most important challenges faced by my constituents in Wyoming and, of course, other people across the country. I came from Wyoming as a firm believer in my 80-20 rule. The way that rule works is that we can usually find agreement on 80 percent of any issue. We agree across the aisle on about 80 percent the issues that comes up. Now, we are probably never going to reach agreement on the remaining 20 percent. Unfortunately, for America, what they get to watch on any bill is the debate on the 20 percent we don't agree on, and probably will never compromise on. That is what makes this body seem so contentious--the 20 percent that we don't agree on, even though 80 percent can get done. The committee process will enable us to find that 80 percent, and that has been a principle that has guided my chairmanship. I was honored and humbled when my colleagues selected me to chair the HELP Committee nearly 2 years ago. Since my chairmanship began, the vision for both the full committee and the subcommittees is to craft legislation that provides lifelong opportunities for people to be healthier, more competitive, and to be more secure at school, work, and in retirement. Because we have such a broad jurisdiction, the HELP Committee has had an aggressive legislative schedule in the 109th Congress. Over the past 2 years, together with the subcommittees, we have held 57 hearings and reported 36 bills out of committee; 21 of these proposals were approved by the Senate and 12 were signed by the President and became public law. We also reviewed and approved 352 nominations that require Senate confirmation. I thank my colleagues, including their staffs, for doing the work needed to maintain this aggressive pace. In this Congress, the HELP Committee has been privileged to have in its ranks active subcommittee chairmen and engaged members. This is largely the reason the committee has had legislative success. I thank them for their dedication, and I applaud them for the joint success as a committee. Our ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and I may disagree on a number of issues, but we have worked hard to find common ground and we share a commitment to improving the health, education, work, and retirement security of Americans. The number of bills acted upon by the HELP Committee is certainly impressive. However, the numbers alone don't begin to tell the story of how the committee's activity will improve the lives of Americans now and in the years to come. One of the committee's most significant accomplishments came on August 17 of this year when President Bush signed into law the Pension Protection Act. That act marks the most comprehensive change to pension law since 1974. The Pension Protection Act is a real victory for working Americans who spend a lifetime working hard and saving for retirement. It dramatically strengthens pension funding rules and helps curb record pension failures. In doing so, the act better protects the retirement dreams of 45 million Americans. Not only were single employer fund rules significantly overhauled, but the rules regarding hybrid pension plans were finally clarified, and multi-employer funding rules were changed as well. The proposal strengthens current law and will better help Americans prepare and plan for retirement. It provides workers the security of knowing that moneys earned for retirement will be there when they are ready to retire. It also secures the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and secures that corporation without picking the pockets of taxpayers to keep the agency solvent. This legislation was no small undertaking. It took a year and a half of hearings, 5 months of deliberations in conference, and countless hours of negotiations on each provision of the bill. Fortunately, pension issues are almost always handled in tag team fashion, involving both the HELP Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. While this tag team approach is a great asset and helped us get the bill through the Senate, it meant a complicated and extraordinarily large conference involving four committees in the House and Senate and 27 conferees. Together with my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, ranking member Senator Baucus, as well as HELP's Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee Chairman DeWine, and Ranking Member Mikulski, our committees collaborated with House counterparts to make this sweeping reform happen. Because of this teamwork, the law passed the Senate 93 to 5. The result was a policy and a process that was truly bipartisan. Total floor time for the bill--Senate debate and conference report debate--totaled about one hour and fifteen minutes equally divided. Some may think the conference took a long time to conclude, but history proves that it was ended in record time. The last big pension conference occurred in 1994. The conference was appointed in March of that year, but did not conclude until December. Prior to that, the most recent conference took place in 1987 and operated in the context of budget reconciliation. Again, that conference commenced in March but didn't end until December. This year, our conference began in March and ended in July--just 5 months compared to a 10-month conference for earlier bills. Comparatively speaking, the Pension Protection Act conference finished quickly, but the impact will be felt for generations. Another major accomplishment of the HELP Committee was the enactment of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, MINER. From the tragic loss of life in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky came the first reforms of mine safety laws in 28 years. These tragedies brought together leaders from the mining industry, from government, and from the labor unions, and helped to forge a commitment to improve mine safety. I traveled to the Sago mine with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Isakson. We met with the families of the miners who lost their lives. We met with other miners who worked there, and we met with people in the union. I felt a commitment to those families and miners in this country to try to ensure that this would never happen again. The committee approved the MINER Act on May 17, and the President signed the bill in June. That has to be one of the fastest, most comprehensive changes to any safety law. I can't emphasize enough the cooperation of unions and company executives, and Republicans and Democrats. Protecting the health and safety of those who work in the mining industry need not be a partisan issue. Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to national energy security. Ensuring the safety of our miners is essential to protecting and preserving the industry and protecting the workers. I especially thank Senators Kennedy, Isakson, Byrd, Rockefeller, and McConnell for the tireless effort they extended. Their efforts contributed in large part to this proposal becoming law. I should mention that the debate on the Senate floor was 1 hour equally divided with two votes. So nobody saw that. Nobody saw that debate, but it makes a significant difference for all the people in the country--the mining bill. You never saw any debate on the floor. It passed unanimously without debate. It passed in the House under suspension with limited debate--the same bill. Sometimes the things that get done by unanimous consent that everybody agrees on nobody ever finds out about, except the people it does benefit; they know. That is why it is worth doing it that way. For a bill that has objections around here, there are ways to overcome it if you get 60 votes for it. But that is usually about a 3-week process. A unanimous consent doesn't use up much time, but it gets things done. The committee has also made tremendous strides related to education and job training. This session the HELP Committee initiated a comprehensive effort to authorize legislation that enhances knowledge and skills and helps American workers become leaders in the global economy. Some estimates suggest that 60 percent of the jobs created in the next decade will require skills that only 20 percent of the workers today currently possess, and 80 percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. Eighty percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. That is where the world is going. It is changing fast. One important component of this effort is the reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. It was signed by the President in August, and it will help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. The act addresses the needs of the Nation's changing workforce and prepares Americans for highly technical, higher-paying jobs. The reauthorization also made changes that will increase accountability at the State and local levels and will establish stronger links with businesses to build partnerships with high schools and colleges so they can better meet the needs of the changing workforce. For many people, participation in these programs can mean the difference between a job with no possibility of advancement and a successful career. Passage of this legislation was a significant accomplishment. Again, limited floor debate, no debate on the conference report; unanimous consent across the aisle. Another piece of this comprehensive effort is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. As my colleagues know, the mandatory portions of the higher education law were reauthorized in February under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. Before I elaborate, I want to stress that it is critical to reauthorize the remaining discretionary programs under the act, which I intend to make a top priority for 2007. We have the bill out of committee but haven't had the floor time to do the debate on it. I am making that a top priority for 2007 because postsecondary education is the key to the future success of our students, our communities, and our economy. As I stated earlier, we reauthorized the mandatory components of the Higher Education Act through the budget reconciliation process. We found over $20 billion in savings by eliminating corporate subsidies for lenders and reworking the interest rate structure for many borrowers, among other revisions. A portion of the savings was used to pay for over $9 billion in enhanced students benefits. The law makes higher education more affordable for students who finance part of their education through loans by reducing borrow origination fees and increasing loan limits. Another benefit is a $4 billion grant program for postsecondary students who major in science, math, and certain national-security- related foreign languages. These funds are dubbed ``SMART grants'' and are an important part of making higher education more affordable for low- and middle-income families. We invested resources where we need them the most, which will help ensure we have a workforce that can compete globally. I was in India earlier this year and saw firsthand what Thomas Friedman discusses in his book, ``The World Is Flat.'' It doesn't take long to figure out that by sheer numbers alone, India has only to educate 25 percent of its population to have more literate and educated people than the total population of the United States. By using the reconciliation process for these higher education reforms, the HELP Committee was able to produce meaningful deficit reduction. In fact, I am proud the HELP Committee led the entire Congress in deficit reduction and produced $15.5 billion in savings over five years. That is 40 percent of the entire Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. It is not right to overspend now and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren to pay later. I thank Chairman Gregg for his leadership on the Budget Committee and for his contribution on the authorizing committee that helped make the meaningful deficit reduction a reality. Enactment of the Perkins reauthorization and the mandatory revisions of the Higher Education Act were critical components of a comprehensive effort to strengthen knowledge and skills. However, this effort also includes the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The reauthorization is essential because it will help train American workers to fill the good jobs being created so we can continue to be leaders in the global economy. The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act has been a priority of mine since I chaired the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety in the previous Congress. Last Congress, I worked tirelessly to report the legislation from the committee, only to be held up on the Senate floor when it came time to appoint conferees. Now, that means the bill made it out of committee and cleared the Senate floor. The House passed a different version, so we need a conference committee to resolve the differences. However, we weren't allowed to appoint a conference committee. That was 2 years ago. Mr. President, 900,000 new jobs could be trained under that program. This year, once again, I have been procedurally hamstrung in my efforts to move to conference. The bill must be completed. It made it out of the committee unanimously. It made it through the floor of the Senate, again unanimously. That means everybody agreed with what is in the bill. Now the only problem left is we have to reconcile that with what the House passed. America is facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete on the world stage. This bill sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and our employers remain competitive and about closing the skills gap that is putting America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy. Our commitment to lifelong learning never ends. It begins with giving our children the proper tools for a start down the pathway that leads to their education. The committee approved improvements to Head Start this last year, and the completion of this process is one of my top priorities. On the health front, eight committee bills were signed into law by President Bush. One of the most significant new health care laws is the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The new law is a culmination of 6 years of work in response to the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report that found that nearly 100,000 Americans die needlessly every year due to medical errors. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act creates a protected legal environment in which patient safety organizations can analyze why medical errors happen and develop strategies to stop those errors from happening again. The law provides critical legal protection for doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who might fear coming forward with information about mistakes because the information could be used in a lawsuit against them. This new law is the first important step toward creating a new culture of safety and continuous quality improvement in health care. This new law is one of just several important pieces of legislation the HELP Committee produced in this Congress. I would mention again that this too took zero debate time on the floor. Another one is the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005, which will help patients with chronic diseases team up with health care experts who can help them find their way through the maze to the best treatment offered in this often complex health care system. Again, no floor debate time. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 supports the creation and maintenance of cord blood stem cells. Stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood have already shown great promise in treating cancers, leukemia, and other diseases, and this law will accelerate our work in those areas. I have already had people who have reported back to me that their life may have been saved by that particular act already. I think we had 5 minutes of debate time on that bill. The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005 enables physicians and other prescribers to find out whether patients are abusing and diverting narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Instead of enabling these patients and their self-destructive habits, physicians will now be able to identify them and treat them. The State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2005 renewed a key law that funds State high-risk health insurance pools. These pools create access to health insurance for otherwise medically uninsurable individuals and are an important part of our strategy to make health insurance available to more Americans. The President also signed a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and strengthen the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Finally, we passed two key laws to preserve access to medical technology. The Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 prevented the FDA's medical device user fee program from expiring. Without this law, patients' access to the latest medical innovations would have been compromised. Congress also acted to protect children from dangerous, unregulated cosmetic lenses, often used as part of costumes, by providing for the regulation of these lenses as medical devices. The HELP Committee members worked together with our House counterparts in a bipartisan, bicameral way to complete action on these laws. I personally thank all of the committee members on both ends of the building for their active participation in this process. We also scored a victory on the Senate floor this summer related to health insurance. Together with Senators Nelson and Burns, I introduced legislation that would allow business and trade associations to band their members together in small business health plans and offer group health coverage on a national or statewide basis. It would give small businesses the capability to group together across State lines to effectively negotiate against big insurance companies. It would bring down insurance rate significantly, particularly in the area of administrative costs. This legislation, the Health Insurance Marketplace and Modernization and Affordability Act, is a direct response to the runaway costs that are driving Americans and businesses away from the health insurance marketplace. In May, this legislation received 55 votes on the Senate floor--a clear majority. Unfortunately, obstructionists used arcane Senate rules requiring 60 votes for passage to defeat consideration of the bill. I count this as a victory for the HELP Committee because the policy is supported by the majority of the Senate. This will not be a victory for Americans until it is signed by the President. Enacting the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act will be a top priority for the HELP Committee and me personally in the 110th Congress. I intend to act on this legislation early next year and continue to work across party lines to find the solution that produces 60 votes in the Senate. The HELP Committee has a role to play in making employer-sponsored health care more accessible and affordable. Employer-provided health insurance is voluntary, and it is in critical condition. Sixty percent of the country's employers offer insurance today. That is down 9 percent from just 5 years ago. And the cost of health insurance for companies has nearly doubled in that same period, with employers expected to pay an average of $8,167 per employee family versus $4,248 5 years ago. My proposal would provide health care coverage to over 1 million small businesses and their working families. This fall, I am also hopeful the committee can add two more victories to our list of accomplishments. That would be the Health Information Technology conference agreement and the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. Right now, my staff is working aggressively with the House to complete action on the Wired For Health Care Quality Act conference agreement. This legislation will enhance the adoption of a nationwide interoperable health information technology system, improve the quality of health care, and contain costs. Primarily, it will allow each individual to own their own health care record and to carry it around with them easily. They will have the permanent record to carry with them and release, to the degree they want to, to any health care provider. This will contain costs: just between Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans, this is expected to save $160 billion a year. The cost to implement: $40 billion, one time. A good investment anywhere. The committee has also been working in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to complete the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. The measure was approved by the HELP Committee in May, and I am hopeful that we can swiftly clear compromise legislation through both Chambers by December--I was hoping we could pass it today, but I see it has been stopped. It is absolutely essential that this clear by September 30. The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act will also have a significant impact on the everyday lives of Americans. The HELP Committee approved this legislation in June, and I am hopeful we can complete action on it this year as well. This reauthorization is important because it ensures that our Nation's older Americans, including 78 million aging baby boomers, are healthy, fed, housed, able to get where they need to go, and safe from abuse and scams. We have been in bicameral, bipartisan deliberations for several months. Again, there is a little hangup on the funding formula. Money has to follow the people in all of these programs. The committee also conducted various investigations and held several oversight hearings that exposed waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs and used the findings to craft legislation to increase accountability. Our first oversight hearing last year focused on how an asset management company, Capital Consultants, defrauded workers out of approximately $500 million in retirement assets. The findings from this oversight effort were addressed in the new pension law. The committee also held the first oversight hearing in almost 70 years on the Randolph Sheppard Act and the Javits Wagner O'Day Act. Both programs are supposed to find employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The committee's investigation and hearing established that some executives were using the programs for their own enrichment--making millions while exploiting people with disabilities. Following the hearing, Federal law enforcement took action against the worst actors, and we have collaborated across party lines to systematically overhaul both programs. My goal is to address these programs with legislation next year. I thank my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their hard work these past 2 years. His assistance and cooperation are the main reasons we have been able to accomplish many of these priorities. We didn't always agree, but we were able to identify common ground to advance our mutual priorities. I also thank each of our committee members. As I stated earlier, we have kept a full schedule. Many of the legislative victories were initiatives brought to my attention by our subcommittee chairs or individual committee members. Senators were also especially diligent about attending the committee hearings and particularly patient when we sometimes waited for a quorum during executive session. For the remainder of the year, I will be reaching out to each of our members to seek feedback on the 2007 agenda, which will serve as the blueprint for the year. Finally, in closing, I would like to recognize two departing members of the committee: Majority Leader Frist and Senator Jeffords. We are fortunate they chose to serve, and we are grateful for their contributions. Senator Jeffords is a past chairman of the committee, and, of course, Majority Leade Frist has been the doctor on the committee and provided a perspective no one else could. I am proud of the work we have done here on the committee these past 2 years. By working together, we have established a track record of success. I also wish to compliment the subcommittee chairmen for their extremely hard work. We gave them a lot of independence, and they didn't disappoint me. They took hold of programs. The competitiveness program is one of them that has reached a point where it can now be debated and pursued. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did a tremendous job of working that bill, along with Senator Ensign, collaborating with three different committees on one piece of farsighted legislation. Senators DeWine and Mikulski have done a marvelous job with the Elder Fall Act and Older Americans Act and have worked well together for a number of years across the aisle to make sure older Americans are taken care of. I could go on and mention all of the subcommittees and the work they have done. Senator Burr has done some fantastic work on bioterrorism. He has put together a fantastic bill that contains new concepts which will allow better preparation for any of the possible terrorism acts that could happen on our own soil. Senator Isakson, of course, has been extremely active in handling labor issues. As I mentioned, he was a key player in the miner safety bill. It has been an interesting year. I look forward to another interesting year. I am looking for suggestions from my colleagues on what needs to be done, and looking for that 80 percent that can be accomplished. Our record of accomplishment is proof that we are a can-do Congress. Far from being a do-nothing Congress, we have shown our colleagues and our constituents that Congress can and is working hard to improve the lives of Americans. One of the reasons America doesn't know more about this is because of the cooperation that has taken place. We didn't have to debate the 20 percent we didn't agree on here on the floor of the Senate, and consequently there was not a lot of coverage. But just the pensions bill and the miner safety bill, either of those, would be a major accomplishment for any committee during a 2-year period. I am proud of the 12 bills the President signed and the 21 bills we got through this body. I think that is a record of accomplishment, and I thank all those who participated. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.