[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11320-S11329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been very extensive
discussions on the issue relating to stem cells, which is in the bill,
relating to what President Bush did on August 9 using existing stem
cell lines, in an effort to codify that and give the President
authority to move in that direction. The stem cell issue has been very
controversial for reasons which do not have to be amplified at this
time.
A good bit of the debate on the subject has been between the Senator
from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and myself. Senator Brownback has posed a
series of amendments, which he intends to bring up on this bill, of a
very complex nature. The amendments Senator Brownback has proposed to
bring up involve the questions of the human germ line gene which I will
not begin to explain at the moment, issues about therapeutic cloning,
where science has given a name which suggests reproductive cloning,
which it is not, but very complicated as to how it is worked out;
amendments on the prohibition of the mixing of human and animal gametes
where there has been some scientific thought that although very
repugnant on its face, there are some important scientific issues
involved.
One of the matters was submitted to the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine, and they have not even taken a position on it,
which shows the complexity of the issue.
Were we to proceed with these amendments, on which we have consulted
with the Parliamentarian, who says they are germane because there is
some sufficient--it does not require a whole lot to make them
appropriate, and the Senator from Kansas has every right to bring them.
I do not know how long it would take to debate them.
In the course of the past 2 days, we have talked about second-degree
amendments, and we have talked about many subjects which are
extraordinarily complicated. I have been trying to get up to speed to
know what to say about them.
The concerns I have involve the issue of unintended consequences.
That is a doctrine well-known in our culture. When one deals with these
scientific issues, many scientists have told me it would stultify their
activities, or at a minimum have a profoundly chilling effect.
So after very extensive discussions, what we have decided to do is to
defer this matter to another day. The reason we have decided to defer
this matter to another day is we have a very important appropriations
bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human
Services, and the completion of this bill at an early date is important
so we can go to conference.
Ten days ago, I had a long discussion with Senator Lott about seeing
the need to conclude our work by November 16, which is the week before
Thanksgiving. I have found my constituents in Pennsylvania are more
interested in hearing what is going on in Washington now than they have
ever been in the 21 years I have been in the Senate. It is obvious,
with the war on terrorism going on, with the fighting in Afghanistan
against the Taliban, and the bombing and the complexities there, then
with the anthrax, there is an enormous concern across the country about
bioterrorism. There is a real need, it seems to me, for Senators to be
in their States and Members of the House to be in their districts to
talk to their constituents, to tell them we do have a plan, we do know
what is going on, and we are working constructively on these issues.
Ideally we should complete work on these appropriations bills as of
September 30, but we know from practice we have continuing resolutions
and the complexities of our work take us beyond that point. What really
happens is that among the 535 of us, and add the executive branch, we
debate and argue and hassle until we have our backs against the wall
and really have to conclude our deliberations.
I said to Senator Lott about 10 days ago I thought all of us were
going to have to make concessions on some of the issues which we
thought were of enormous importance and had to be resolved, and I am
prepared to do that today. Senator Brownback is prepared to do that
today.
These issues will be taken up, though, and in the very near future.
Senator Brownback and I talked to the majority leader, Senator Daschle,
who agreed to bring up the stem cell issue with an opportunity for
Senator Brownback to raise his issues in the February/March timeframe.
I consulted with Senator Lott, in the event Senator Lott is the
majority leader at that time, and got a similar commitment from Senator
Lott to bring up stem cells and Senator Brownback's issues in the
February/March timeframe.
Senator Lott had agreed to have a freestanding bill when he was
majority leader, where we deferred action on stem cells going back to
September in the fall of 1999. It was a very different issue, and he
wanted to await developments as to what would be happening on the
scientific front.
These discussions were held. Senator Reid was a party to them.
I yield to the Senator from Nevada to confirm the representations I
have made about Senator Daschle's commitment to have a freestanding
bill in the February/March timeframe.
Mr. REID. The majority leader understands how important this is to
the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am a member of the subcommittee he
chaired and of which he is now the ranking member. He has held a number
of extremely interesting hearings on this subject and has really perked
everyone's interest in the Senate on this issue.
Senator Brownback feels just as fervently, and I think it is
extremely appropriate, as does the majority leader, that there be a
discussion on this issue, as indicated by the Senator from
Pennsylvania. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania, with Senator
Harkin, will hold a number of hearings on this prior to that date. I
look forward to the discussion.
I think it is really good these two fine Senators worked out this
arrangement because I think everyone needs more knowledge. This is a
new area, a new field of science, at least for most of us. I think with
the passage of a few months we will be in much better shape to listen
intelligently, and perhaps a number of us will be able to join in the
debate. If we had these votes today, a lot of us would be really in
uncharted territory. We have not had
[[Page S11321]]
hearings on a lot of these issues. There is not a lot of material we
have had to go through, and so I applaud and compliment these two
Senators for allowing us to work this out. I know Senator Harkin feels
the same way.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Nevada for those comments. He
is correct on the issue of holding the hearings.
I have conferred with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Harkin, who agrees we need to have the hearings. I have discussed it
with Senator Brownback. These issues are extraordinarily complicated.
We are going to have to have a whole series of hearings with regard to
the complicated issues so we can know what we are doing on making
public policy, especially in the context where Senator Brownback's
amendments carry penal sanctions, jail terms and fines, so that we can
know what we should be doing in the public interest but not stifling
science.
Senator Brownback and I have worked together over the years on a
great many items, and we have had some lively television discussions. I
think when we finally get around to this discussion it will be lively
as well.
I yield to my colleague from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and particularly
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania who has been quite patient and
diligent in working with me. I might also note that Bettilou Taylor on
his staff has been wonderful to work with, as well as Senator Reid from
Nevada, who has really worked to try to push these issues forward so we
can get to some point of resolution on the underlying bill. I am not
unaware of the need to move this bill through. We need to get the
appropriations bills moved. We need to get this done so we can get to
the economic stimulus package and be able to conclude it. I am pleased
to see we have some resolution on the overall issue.
I will point out what I am talking about in the amendments I was
proposing. We had filed four of these amendments and were willing to
put them into one amendment, have one vote, and have a moratorium for 1
year on several items. The moratorium would include human cloning. No
human cloning, whether it be reproductive, or so-called their
futuristic-type, for 1 year, a 1-year moratorium on germ line
manipulation, where you insert a snippet of a genetic code from a cow
or pig into the egg or sperm of a human, so that once they connect to
each other they become fertilized. It goes on to future generations. It
would ban that for a year's period of time. It would ban for a year's
period of time, embryo ``farming'' where embryos were created just for
research purposes.
That was the series of amendments we put forward and were germane to
this debate.
We have had extensive negotiations and discussions back and forth.
The belief is that Members could be more up to speed on these topics
come February or March. The majority leader has agreed to a free-
standing bill at that point in time in order to get direct votes on
these issues. That is the more appropriate way. It is the right way. I
am appreciative of the majority leader and Senator Reid for agreeing to
that taking place so we can take this up at a more prudent time, with
hearings in between taking place.
It is my understanding what we would agree to would be that I not
offer these amendments at this time; that we will have free-standing
debate, discussion and vote come the February-March timeframe on these
topics and the topics Senator Specter is putting forward, with direct
votes up or down on the topics, and none in the second degree or
tabled. These are direct votes. And the language Senator Specter
inserted that was in the appropriations bill, which was beyond what the
President was asking for on stem cell research, would not be in the
final Labor-HHS appropriations bill as it passes out of the Senate.
This is good progress on a very difficult issue. By that point in
time, we will be on board with the executive branch on the biomedical
research. They are enormously important.
I enter one quick note into the record. Scientists say the first
human clone is near--a group says within the end of the year.
I ask unanimous consent to have several other articles printed in the
Record at the conclusion of this colloquy, including a story about the
rhesus monkey which has been cloned. That was announced this week. That
is the closest model to a human off which we work. If you can do it
there, you can probably do it in a human. The technology leap is not
far.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit No. 1)
Mr. BROWNBACK. For these reasons I think it is an appropriate way to
proceed. I am pleased Senator Specter has been so kind in working with
us. Senator Reid and Senator Daschle, the majority leader, have agreed
to this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the language which will be stricken
appears on page 91 and reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section 510(a) and (b),
Federal dollars are permitted at the discretion of the
President solely for the purpose of stem cell research on
embryos that have been created in excess of clinical need and
will be discarded and donated with the written consent of the
progenitors.
That will be stricken.
I have legislation pending which would permit the use of Federal
funding to extract stem cells from embryos. The precise format of the
legislation which I will propose will be determined, and I will give
Senator Brownback ample notice as to what I intend to do. We will have
the hearings on that, and we will have the hearings on the issue which
Senator Brownback has raised with Senators.
It is worthwhile making one comment on the nature of complexity as to
concerns which my staff and I have had. I echo Senator Brownback's
praise for Bettilou Taylor and also acknowledge the contribution of Dr.
Sudip Parikh, an assistant with us, and also Mr. Rob Wasinger, who is
with Senator Brownback. A concern expressed to me by many doctors has
been whether there would be a danger of eliminating therapeutic
cloning. Regretfully the words ``cloning'' and ``therapeutic cloning''
have given it a very bad name.
What it amounts to--and this is an illustration--is taking a cell,
for example, from a woman who has Parkinson's; take the nucleus out of
the cell and take an egg from a woman donor whose nucleus has been
removed, and put the nucleus from the cell of the woman who is the
patient, put it into the egg where the nucleus has been removed. You
wait 5 to 7 days, and then you have a blastocystic state of an embryo.
The stem cell which is extracted can then be used on the patient, who
is a woman, to cure Parkinson's.
That is a very brief statement, but in the complexities of the
amendments we might not have had that opportunity. We will be going
into these issues and a great many others. I think had we debated it on
the Senate floor today, as Senator Reid has said, it would have been
very difficult to grasp these issues.
When Members want to have penal provisions, jail sentences and fines,
those are matters which require a lot of deliberation as to what is
appropriate for deterrence and what is appropriate as a punishment.
The arrangement we have worked out today is an important arrangement.
Most fundamentally, it allows moving forward on this bill, conclude
this bill, go to conference, and get it passed. To pick up on the
conversation with Senator Lott, we show our willingness to make
concessions on matters we would like to work on now, but it can wait
until the February-March timeframe.
I hope my colleagues in the House and Senate will undertake the same
kind of consideration to decide what we have to decide now, move ahead
with airport security and the stimulus package and the matters of
absolute necessity, the appropriations bills. If matters can be
deferred, as Senator Brownback and I have deferred until March, that
should be the order of the day so we can go back to our States or
districts and explain to people of America what is going on so they
know with some confidence we do have a plan, we do have a program, and
we are working in a constructive way in the Federal Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would like to make sure from Senator Reid of Nevada
we have accurately reflected this
[[Page S11322]]
in the Record. I hope this is accurately reflected as to when Senator
Reid and the majority leader agreed on bringing up this issue.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kansas, the statement made by you
and the Senator from Pennsylvania is accurate. I was in on the
conversation of the majority leader and he, without any hesitation,
indicated he would hold the hearings within the timeframe you
indicated, the February-March time period.
We all acknowledge it is the right thing to do, and it is something
we need to do. The statement made by the Senator from Pennsylvania and
the Senator from Kansas is absolutely accurate.
Exhibit No. 1
[From Reuters, Oct. 5, 2001]
Scientist Says First Human Clone is Near
(By Michele Kambas)
Nicosia (Reuters).--Scientists could create the first
cloned human before the end of the year, a doctor with the
controversial project said on Friday. Dr. Panayiotis Zavos,
who along with his Italian colleague Dr. Servino Antinori has
triggered worldwide . . . with plans to create tailor-made
offspring, said research was going faster than initially
expected. The team has been banned from carrying out research
in most European Union (news--web sites) countries. Zavos
said that was not hindering progress. ``It is going well
enough so we may attempt the first production of embryos--
cloned embryos--in the very near future. That is, 3 or 4
months from now,'' Cypriot-born Zavos told Reuters in an
interview on Friday.
Human cloning could effectively create a replica of another
living or dead person. But Zavos, who said the ``genie was
out of the bottle'' when researchers cloned the first mammal,
Dolly the sheep, insisted there was nothing sinister in the
endeavor. He said he was not in the business of creating
``genetically-modified doppelgangers,'' but in helping
infertile couples have a child. ``We are not interested in
cloning the bin Ladens of this world, the Michael Jacksons or
the Michael Jordans of this world,'' the Kentucky-based
fertility specialist added. ``We are not interested in the
replica of dead people. We are interested in assisting a
father who does not have sperm to have a biological child of
his own . . . in assisting couples to reproduce.''
Countries like France and Germany have appealed to the
United Nations (news--web sites) to get human cloning banned
in an international treaty. Religious groups are also enraged
at what they view as the doctors' attempts to play God. But
Zavos, whose partner Antinori hit the headlines by helping a
woman of 62 have a child in 1994, dismissed suggestions they
were only interested in cloning for its own sake. He said
thousands of childless people from all over the world were
helping in their research.
Though regarded as something of a maverick in the medical
world, Zavos's medical accomplishments are a source of pride
for many Cypriots. He emigrated to the United States more
than 30 years ago but retains close . . . with the island.
Zavos declined to say where the research was under way, but
indicated it was in more than one country. He added that
governments that had banned human clone tests were making a
mistake in mixing politics with medical issues. ``They are
trying to make a political decision for a procedure which is
medically oriented. This is not a popular decision, this is a
medical decision that needs to be made by physicians and
their patients and not by politicians,'' he stated.
But Zavos said the ban was not in any way hindering
progress. ``We have options we are exercising--beyond Europe,
of course. This is the world we are talking about. This is
not Europe, this is not America.''
____
[From Reuters, Oct. 5, 2001]
Cypriot Researcher Sees Human Clone in Four Months
(By Michele Kambas)
Nicosia (Reuters).--Scientists could create the first
cloned human before the end of the year, a doctor working on
the controversial project said on Friday. Dr. Panayiotis
Zavos, who along with his Italian colleague Severino Antinori
has triggered worldwide alarm with plans to create tailor-
made offspring, said research was going faster than initially
expected. The team has been banned from carrying out research
in most European Union (news--web sites) countries, but Zavos
said that was not hindering progress. ``It is going well
enough so we may attempt the first production of embryos,
cloned embryos in the very near future. That is, three or
four months from now,'' Cypriot-born Zavos told Reuters in an
interview on Friday.
Human cloning could effectively create a replica of another
living or dead person. But Zavos, who said the ``genie was
out of the bottle'' when researchers cloned the first mammal,
Dolly the Sheep, insisted there was nothing sinister in the
endeavor. He said he was not in the business of creating
``genetically-modified doppelgangers,'' but in helping
infertile couples have a child. ``We are not interested in
cloning the bin Ladens of this world, the Michael Jacksons or
the Michael Jordans of this world,'' the Kentucky-based
fertility specialist added. ``We are not interested in the
replica of dead people. We are interested in assisting a
father who does not have a sperm to have a biological child
of his own . . . in assisting couples to reproduce.''
Cloning ban
Countries like France and Germany have appealed to the
United Nations (news--web sites) to get human cloning banned
in an international treaty. Religious groups are also enraged
at the doctors' attempts to play God. But Zavos, whose
partner, Dr. Antinori, hit the headlines by helping a woman
of 62 have a child in 1994, dismissed suggestions they were
only interested in cloning for its own sake.
He said thousands of childless people from all over the
world were helping in their research. Though regarded
something of a maverick in the medical world, Zavos' medical
accomplishments are a source of pride for many Cypriots. He
emigrated to the United States more than 30 years ago but
retains close family ties with the island. Zavos declined to
say where the research was under way, but indicated it was in
more than one country. He added that governments which had
banned human clone tests were making a mistake in mixing
politics with medical issues. ``They are trying to make a
political decision for a procedure which is medically
oriented. This is not a political decision, this is a medical
decision that needs to be made by physicians and their
patients and not by politicians.''
But Zavos said the ban was not in any way hindering
progress. ``We have options we are exercising, beyond Europe,
of course. This is the world we are talking about, this is
not Europe, this is not America.'' Zavos said countries which
took a stand against cloning embryos could possibly end up at
a disadvantage because the technology would inevitably catch
up. ``This is not an issue of morality, this is not an issue
of being ethical or unethical, but rather assisting people to
have children and that is the business we are in.''
____
[From The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 29, 2001]
Monkey Tests Raise Human Clone Fears
(By Ellie Addison)
Scientists have taken a big step towards creating the
world's first cloned monkey, raising fears that a human clone
will not be far behind. Embryos cloned from a rhesus monkey
are being prepared in the United States and could be
implanted into a surrogate mother. The first monkey clone
could be born within months. The work, by Don Wolf, of the
Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre, has successfully
combined techniques in the cloning of embryonic cells with
somatic cells, which make up adult animal bodies.
Prof. Wolf deplores human reproductive cloning and says he
wants to produce genetically identical laboratory monkeys to
accurately test drugs and therapies. But the research is
being closely watched by groups interested in creating the
first human clone. Severino Antinori, an Italian fertility
specialist, has set up a group of researchers who hope to
create the first human clone ``within months''.
The new discoveries have been described as ``a significant
step in the wrong direction'' by the Pro Life Alliance. Bruno
Quintavalle, its spokesman, said: ``Cloning has so far been
confined to livestock animals for which there can, arguably,
be agricultural reasons for cloning research. ``But what
possible reason can there be for replicating a rhesus monkey?
There is no reason we can see, other than to formulate and
clarify processes which can be used later for cloning
humans.'' The alliance will take the Government to the High
Court on Wednesday to seek a judicial review of Britain's
cloning legislation. The group says the laws are full of
loopholes.
____
[From the Sunday Times (London), Oct. 28, 2001]
Monkey Test Breakthrough Brings Human Clones Closer
(By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor)
Scientists have created the first embryonic clones of an
adult primate and are preparing to implant them into
surrogate mothers. The work--involving embryos cloned from a
rhesus monkey--is a significant development in cloning
technology. Until now all the research had suggested that
primates would be far more difficult to clone than species
such as sheep and goats, which have already been used
successfully in experiments. The primate breakthrough is
certain to be seen as powerful evidence that it is now
possible to clone a human being. The researchers have
predicted that they will achieve the live birth of a non-
human primate within months.
The latest results were achieved in America by Professor
Don Wolf, of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, who
is one of the most respected workers in the field. Cloning
cells from embryos is known to be relatively easy. This
weekend, however, Wolf said the same technique was working
well with somatic cells--the kind that make up the bodies
of adult animals. He said: ``We have been working with
somatic cells and believe that success is just around the
corner as the cloned embryos created from them are growing
well in vito.''
Wolf was unable to say when the embryos might be implanted
into surrogate mothers. The females need to be at exactly the
right stage of their oestrous cycles, and this is hard to
predict.
[[Page S11323]]
Wolf's interest in such work has nothing to do with human
reproductive cloning--a concept that he and most other
serious researchers deplore. Their aim is to create lines of
genetically identical laboratory animals that can be used to
test drugs and therapies much more accurately. Additionally,
cloning technology holds out the possibility that humans
could one day grow replacement tissues for damaged organs.
There are, however, a number of other groups that are
intensely interested in using the work done by researchers
such as Wolf to clone humans. One group of researchers is led
by Dr. Severino Antinori, the Italian fertility specialist,
who has set up a consortium in an attempt to create the first
human clone ``within the next few months''.
Some researchers say such a venture is fraught with danger
since cloned animals seem to be prone to a number of genetic
defects that could also affect a human child. The validity of
such fears has been borne out by the latest results from a
second team of researchers, which is also working on cloning
rhesus monkeys. Its leader, Professor Gerald Schatten, of
Pittsburgh University, said that like Wolf he had also
recently created embryonic cloned rhesus monkeys--and had
already attempted to implant them into females. So far,
however, he has been unable to achieve a pregnancy, and last
week his analysis suggested that this was because the cloning
process had disrupted the organisation of the chromosomes
that carry the animals' DNA.
____
[From The Sunday Times, Oct. 22, 2001]
First Primate Embryos Cloned
(By Jonathan Leake)
Scientists have created the first embryonic clones of an
adult primate and are preparing to implant them into
surrogate mothers. The project--involving embryos cloned from
a rhesus monkey--is a significant development in the
technology of cloning. Until now research had suggested
primates would be far more difficult to clone than species
such as sheep and goats, which have already been successfully
duplicated.
The primate breakthrough is seen as strong evidence it is
possible to clone a human being. The researchers say they
will achieve the live birth of a primate within months. The
results were achieved in the US by Don Wolf of the Oregon
Regional Primate Research Centre. Cloning cells from
embryos is relatively easy, and Professor Wolf said the
same technique was working well with somatic cells from
adult animals.
The next step is for the embryos to be implanted into
surrogate mothers. This process needs the females to be at
exactly the right stage of their oestrous cycles, and this is
hard to predict.
Professor Wolf's work has nothing to do with human
reproductive cloning--a concept he and most other serious
researchers deplore. Their aim is to create lines of
genetically identical laboratory animals that can be used to
test drugs and therapies much more accurately than is now
possible. However, a number of groups are keen to use the
work done by researchers such as Professor Wolf to clone
humans. One body of researchers is led by Severino Antinori,
the Italian fertility specialist who has set up a consortium
in an attempt to create the first human clone ``within the
next few months''.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I was unavoidably absent from the
Chamber a few minutes ago, but I want to compliment my distinguished
ranking member, Senator Specter, for working out an agreement on the
vital issue of stem cell research. I know there are Senators who feel
strongly about this one way or the other. I understand that. But I
believe the agreement Senator Specter has worked out is one that will
serve us well. We will have hearings. We will welcome all to come in
and testify at these hearings on stem cells. I understand the agreement
is that prior to the end of March, sometime in either February or March
of next year, both the majority leader and minority leader have agreed
that we will bring a stem cell research bill to the floor of the
Senate.
With that agreement, I think it paves the way for us to have some
more in-depth hearings on whether or not we have enough stem cell lines
to do the kind of research that needs to be done, or whether we do, in
fact, need some more stem cell lines to conduct this kind of robust
research. We will be having those hearings.
Sometimes Senator Specter chairs them and sometimes I do. But we will
continue to have those hearings throughout the next few months. Even
though the Senate may not be in session, we will continue to have those
hearings to try to get a better understanding of what we need to do to
provide the ethical guidelines and the kind of monetary support that we
need for our science to conduct embryonic stem cell research.
Because I was missing from the Chamber when that agreement was worked
out, I wanted to compliment Senator Specter and other Senators for
working out an agreement on that issue.
Lastly, we are on the floor. Debate on the Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and related agencies appropriations bill is about
over. There are some amendments to offer. I ask Senators who have
amendments to please come to the floor and offer those amendments. The
sooner we get to amendments, the sooner we will get out of here.
I just had one Senator come up to me asking about catching a flight
out tonight. I say to my fellow Senators, if you will come over and
offer the amendments, we can have a legitimate debate and vote on them.
Then people could get out of here. The longer people stay away from the
floor and don't offer their amendments, people can't get out of here.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, this is the
third day that the Senator from Iowa and Senator Specter have managed
this bill. Significant progress has been made, especially today. But I
think enough time has gone by to wait for people to arrive. I hope that
in a reasonable period of time, if people are not here to offer their
amendments, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Pennsylvania
would move to third reading. It is not fair to keep people waiting
around. I, as the Senator from Iowa, have been approached several
times. People say they have things to do rather than waiting around
doing nothing.
What drives people to distraction, and rightfully so, is when we are
in these endless quorum calls waiting for people to come over with
amendments. They are not doing us a favor by offering the amendment,
but it is a right established under the precedents of the Senate.
I hope the two managers of the bill, in a reasonable period of time
if we don't have people offering amendments, will move to third
reading. We have a lot of other things to do tonight. We have three
conference reports that have been approved by the House. We have to
take care of those today if we want to be out of session tomorrow. The
leader indicated to me just a short time ago that he would like to not
have any votes tomorrow. But he is going to have votes tomorrow if we
don't complete this bill.
With the progress the Senator from Iowa and Senator Specter have made
during the time since the vote expired, I think we can clearly finish
the bill tonight. If not, we will drag this bill on. I repeat for the
third time that if Members are not coming to offer their amendments, we
will go to third reading.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank our assistant majority leader
for his great leadership in pulling people together and getting this
legislation moving, as he has done on so many other bills. He has been
stalwart here on the floor to make this place work right and to make it
work fairly so people can offer their amendments to make sure we move
in an expeditious manner. I thank the Senator for his leadership in
getting the Senate to do its work.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have an amendment I will be offering
having to do with impact aid. That is a very significant issue. One of
the best programs Congress put together was way back in the 1950s. That
was when
[[Page S11324]]
they made a determination that if the Federal Government came in and
federalized land, either for military purposes, Indian schools, or any
other purpose, and took the land off the tax rolls, they would still
have to educate the kids. Slowly over the years, politicians--none in
this Chamber, I am sure--have been taking money out of the impact aid
account, so it has gone down to about 25 percent of what it really
should be.
I will be offering that amendment and wanting to discuss it.
(The further remarks of Mr. Inhofe are located in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2018
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2018 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 2018.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the funding levels for certain activities under the
Impact Aid program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965)
On page 56, strike lines 5 through 17, and insert the
following:
For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated and amended by H.R. 1 of the 107th Congress, as
passed by the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001,
$1,130,500,000, of which $982,500,000 shall be for basic
support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be
for payments for children with disabilities under section
8003(d) $35,000,000 shall be for construction under section
8007, $55,000,000 shall be for Federal property payments
under section 8002, and $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for facilities maintenance under section
8008.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is an issue we have addressed many
times. We addressed it first during the budget consideration when we
were going to increase impact aid by $300 million. Unfortunately, the
appropriators have brought it down to an amount a little less than half
that.
Democrats and Republicans have set a goal so we will have impact aid
fully funded sometime in the next 4 or 5 years. This will bring the
amount of basic support for impact aid equal to the House figure.
That is essentially the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have checked with the manager of the
bill on this side. He has no objection to the amendment. We are
confident there is no objection on the other side.
I say to my friend from Oklahoma, if some small chance there is a
problem with the minority, we will come back to the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine. I will accept it.
Mr. REID. I ask approval of this amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, with that agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2018) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been waiting literally all afternoon
for two Senators to offer amendments. I don't really think it is fair
to the rest of the Senate to wait around here as we have. Calls have
been made. I don't know what more we can do other than move to third
reading. At the appropriate time this afternoon, that is what we are
going to do. Everyone should be on notice that is going to be done. I
know we talk about it all the time. I guess it is like the proverbial
crying of wolf all the time. We do everything we can for people to come
and offer their amendments. I really think it is unfair that everyone
is waiting.
At least 10 Senators are wanting to know what the schedule is and
whether they can make certain arrangements for travel tonight or
tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow morning. We do not know. We are waiting
for people to come to offer amendments.
I hope Senators will be more considerate of the other 98 Senators,
plus all the staff and everyone else trying to get this bill completed.
I think it is really unfair that we have waited as long as we have.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2062 through 2073, En Bloc
Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Harkin, I send a managers' package to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for Mr. Harkin and Mr.
Specter, proposes amendments Nos. 2062 through 2073, en bloc.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2062
(Purpose: To provide for an election of an annuity under section 377 of
title 28, United States Code, for any qualified magistrate judge)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Sec. 519. (a) Definition.--In this section the term
``qualified magistrate judge'' means any person who--
(1) retired as a magistrate judge before November 15, 1988;
and
(2) on the date of filing an election under subsection
(b)--
(A) is serving as a recalled magistrate judge on a full-
time basis under section 636(h) of title 28, United States
Code; and
(B) has completed at least 5 years of full-time recall
service.
(b) Election of Annuity.--The Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts may accept
the election of a qualified magistrate judge to--
(1) receive an annuity under section 377 of title 28,
United States Code; and
(2) come within the purview of section 376 of such title.
(c) Credit for Service.--Full-time recall service performed
by a qualified magistrate judge shall be credited for service
in calculating an annuity elected under this section.
(d) Regulations.--The Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts may promulgate regulations to
carry out this section.
____
amendment no. 2063
(Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health
and Human Services to audit all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS
prevention programs and to report to Congress concerning programs
offering sexually explicit workshops using any of such amounts)
On page 54, after line 15, insert the following:
Sec. 220. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, over 765,000 people in the United States have
been diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS since 1981,
and over 442,000 deaths have occurred in the United States as
a result of the disease;
(2) Federal AIDS prevention funds should be used to provide
resources, training, technical assistance, and infrastructure
to national, regional, and community-based organizations
working to educate the public on the virus that causes AIDS
and stopping the spread of the disease;
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services shall conduct an
audit of all Federal amounts allocated for AIDS prevention
programs and report to Congress with their findings.
[[Page S11325]]
____
amendment no. 2064
(Purpose: To provide for a study and report regarding Federal student
loan disbursements to students attending foreign schools)
On page 73, after line 4, add the following:
Sec. 306. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) The number of students applying for loans and claiming
to attend foreign institutions has risen from 4,594 students
in 1993 to over 12,000 students in the 1998-1999 school year.
(2) Since 1995 there have been at least 25 convictions of
students who fraudulently claimed they were attending a
foreign institution, then cashed the check issued directly to
them, and did not attend the foreign institution.
(3) Tighter disbursement controls are necessary to reduce
the number of students fraudulently applying for loans under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and claiming
they are going to attend foreign institutions. Funds should
not be disbursed for attendance at a foreign institution
unless the foreign institution can verify that the student is
attending the institution.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
regarding--
(A) Federal student loan disbursements to students
attending foreign schools; and
(B) fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Family Education
Loan Program as the fraud, waste, and abuse relates to
students receiving funding in order to attend a foreign
school.
(2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall report to
Congress regarding the results of the study.
(3) Report Contents.--The report described in paragraph (2)
shall--
(A) include information on whether or not there are
standards that a foreign school must meet for an American
student to attend and receive a federally guaranteed student
loan;
(B) compare the oversight controls for loans dispensed to
students attending foreign schools and domestic institutions;
(C) examine the default rates at foreign schools that
enroll American students receiving federally guaranteed
student loans and determine the number of students that are
receiving loans in multiple years; and
(D) make recommendations for legislative changes that are
required to ensure the integrity of the Federal Family
Education Loan Program.
____
amendment no. 2065
On page 93, after line 12, insert:
Sec. 520. Nothing in Section 134 of H.R. 2217 shall be
construed to overturn or otherwise effect the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of
Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2001),
or to permit gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on
lands described in Section 123 of Public Law 106-291 or any
lands contiguous to such lands that have or have not been
taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior.
____
amendment no. 2066
(Purpose: To provide funding for services for children relating to
crises)
On page 57, line 24, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available to carry out subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by
H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June 14, 2001, $9,000,000
shall be made available to enable the Secretary of Education
to award grants to enable local educational agencies to
address the needs of children affected by terrorist attacks,
times of war or other major violent or traumatic crises,
including providing mental health services to such children,
and $1,000,000 shall be made available to enable the
Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to develop recommendations and
models to assist communities in developing evacuation and
parental notification plans for schools and other community
facilities where children gather''.
____
amendment no. 2067
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the provision
of assistance for airport career centers to enable such centers to
serve workers in the airline and related industries who have been
dislocated as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World
Trade Center)
On page 22, after the period on line 3, insert the
following:
Sec. 103. It is the sense of the Senate that amounts should
be appropriated to provide dislocated worker employment and
training assistance under the Workforce Investment act to
airport career centers (to be located with the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey) to enable such centers to provide
services to workers in the airline and related industries
(including ground transportation and other businesses) who
have been dislocated as a result of the September 11, 2001
attack on the World Trade Center.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2068
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning assistance for
individuals with disabilities who require vocational rehabilitation
services as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World
Trade Center)
At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
Sec. 104. It is the sense of the Senate that amounts should
be appropriated to provide adult employment and training
activities to assist individuals with disabilities from New
York and New Jersey who require vocational rehabilitative
services as a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the
World Trade Center in order to permit such individuals to
return to work or maintain employment.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2069
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding reimbursement of
certain hospitals testing and treating individuals for exposure to
anthrax)
On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
Sec. 221. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
of Health and Human Services should fund and reimburse
hospitals and medical facilities in States that have tested
and treated federal workers that have been expose to anthrax
and continue to test and treat, federal workers that have
been determined by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention as at risk for exposure to anthrax.
amendment no. 2070
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding lead poisoning
screenings and treatments under the medicaid program)
On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
Sec. 222. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
of Health and Human Services should ensure that each contract
entered into between a State and an entity (including a
health insuring organization and a medicaid managed care
organization) that is responsible for the provision (directly
or through arrangements with providers of services) of
medical assistance under a State medicaid plan should provide
for--
(1) compliance with mandatory blood lead screening
requirements that are consistent with prevailing guidelines
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for such
screening; and
(2) coverage of lead treatment services including
diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up furnished for children
with elevated blood lead levels in accordance with prevailing
guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
____
amendment no. 2071
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that States should be
authorized to use SCHIP funds for lead poisoning screenings and
treatments)
On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
Sec. 223. It is the sense of the Senate that States should
be authorized to use funds provided under the State
children's health insurance program under title XXI of the
Social Security Act to--
(1) comply with mandatory blood lead screening requirements
that are consistent with prevailing guidelines of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention for such screening; and
(2) provide coverage of lead treatment services including
diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up furnished for children
with elevated blood lead levels in accordance with prevailing
guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
____
amendment no. 2072
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
Health and Human Services should establish a bonus program for
improvement of childhood lead screening rates.)
On page 54, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
Sec. 224. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
of Health and Human Services should establish a program to
improve the blood lead screening rates of States for children
under the age of 3 enrolled in the medicaid program under
which, using State-specific blood lead screening data, the
Secretary would annually pay a State an amount to be
determined.
(1) For each 2 year-old child enrolled in the medicaid
program in the State who has received the minimum required
(for that age) screening blood lead level tests (capillary or
venous samples) to determine the presence of elevated blood
lead levels, as established by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
(2) For each such child who has received such minimum
required tests.
(3) For each such child who has received such minimum
required tests.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 2073
(Purpose: To strike new language regarding allowable use of federal
funds for stem cell research)
On page 91, strike lines 13 through 18.
Mr. REID. These amendments have been reviewed by staff and cleared by
both managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with what the Senator from
Nevada has said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments,
en bloc.
[[Page S11326]]
The amendments (Nos. 2062 through 2073) were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson,
has an amendment dealing with charitable giving. It is one of two
amendments we believe remain on this bill. I have spoken with the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and he has indicated that his side
will agree to 20 minutes, and this side will certainly agree to 20
minutes. So it will be 40 minutes equally divided. This will work out
perfectly so we can have a vote prior to the briefing which is going to
take place in S-407. I propound that as a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the only exception I did not include is
that there will be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments
be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2074
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for himself and
Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 2074.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds under the National Labor
Relations Act for the finding of unfair labor practices relating to
certain no-solicitation or no-access rules)
On page 22, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available under this Act
shall be used under the National Labor Relations Act to make
a finding of an unfair labor practice relating to a
published, written, or posted no-solicitation or no-access
rule that permits solicitation or access only for charitable,
eleemosynary, or other beneficent purposes.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, my amendment will allow employers to
permit solicitations by charitable groups without subjecting themselves
to what I believe is unfair and frivolous union litigation. It may
sound odd that a law is needed to protect charitable giving, but
currently when an employer permits such solicitations, it is likely to
be found by the National Labor Relations Board to have engaged in
unlawful discrimination unless it provides unions equal access to the
employer's property to engage in solicitation or distribution for union
purposes.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the need for legislation of
this type has never been greater. Currently, the NLRB interprets, I
think wrongly, the National Labor Relations Act to require that a
retailer that regularly allows charities or civic organizations to
solicit or distribute material on the retailer's premises must also
grant similar access to labor unions who are seeking to organize the
retailer's employees attempting to communicate a message to the
retailers' customers.
Because of this, many of the Nation's largest retailers have adopted
blanket no-solicitation rules which, unfortunately, include charitable
organizations, to avoid being found in violation of unfair labor
practices.
I want to mention a couple of the many examples that can be given of
retailers that are affected by the current interpretations of the NLRB.
Example one: Prior to 1994, Meijer, Inc., located in Grand Rapids,
MI, exercised its commitment to their communities and use of private
property rights by allowing various charitable, religious, civic,
community, and government groups for activities such as fundraising
activities by groups such as United Way, Salvation Army, VFW, Lions
Club, Shriners, school groups, and other national and local
organizations; placement of collection or drop-off boxes by groups such
as Goodwill, Toys for Tots, Lions eyeglass collection program and
various community recycling programs; community service activities,
such as immunization clinics or other medical screening activities run
by private or government agencies, drug enforcement agencies, and the
Armed Forces; and the use of conference rooms for meetings and use of
parking lots for driver training, skill rodeos for public safety
organizations and as staging areas for groups assembling for bus or
other trips.
In May of 1994, the Ohio UFCW Local 954 struck Meijer's four Toledo
stores. Through the course of events that took place during the strike,
Meijer prohibited the union from striking on their property. The union
activity occurred in front of the doors to their stores and blocked the
entry to the store.
After successfully obtaining restraining orders, union picketers were
required to move to the public right-of-way. Prior to the strike
settlement, the union filed unfair labor practice charges with the
NLRB. They claimed that Meijer discriminated against the union by
prohibiting access to Meijer property while allowing other
organizations permission, charitable groups that were soliciting. In
the union's charge, they specifically pointed to the Salvation Army and
the VFW as examples.
Before the NLRB could complete its investigation to make a final
decision, there was a settlement that was reached and the charges were
dropped. As a result of this action, Meijer decided the only certain
way to keep union picketers from their doors in the future was to bar
all outside groups from access to their property--no more solicitation,
no more charitable efforts, no more contributions to worthy causes.
This was a difficult decision because Meijer had always striven to be a
good corporate citizen and wholeheartedly supported the kinds of
charitable activities described.
Example two: Wawa, Inc., based in Wawa, PA, owns and operates 550
convenience stores in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and
Virginia. For years, unions have been trying to unionize their labor
force and because of this, Wawa instituted a no-solicitation rule. Last
year, Wawa had to turn down hundreds of worthwhile charities, including
groups such as the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, because of this
policy. Because of the events that took place on September 11, those
tragic attacks upon our Nation, Wawa decided to open its doors to the
American Red Cross to assist in the fundraising effort for the victims
of the terror attacks in New York and in the Nation's Capital. To date,
Wawa has raised over $2 million for this effort. By allowing Wawa to
open its doors to several other charities, they would be able to raise
funds for not only the American Red Cross but also the Girl Scouts, the
American Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other worthy causes.
Convenience stores are on nearly every street corner and provide an
easy and reliable dropoff point for charities. Convenience stores have
nearly 1,000 customers a day and are able to reach out to thousands of
individuals a week for their contributions. Wawa, because of the
current NLRB ruling, is putting the future of the company in jeopardy.
This amendment will provide them protection and provide greater
resources for American charities.
When retailers do allow charities to set up shop outside their doors,
they often have to do so with extreme caution to shield the company
from unfair litigation. Such is the case for an Arkansas firm that I am
very proud of, and that is Wal-Mart Inc., in Bentonville, AR, which
does currently allow charitable organizations on their property. They
are putting their neck
[[Page S11327]]
on the line to do so. Because they believe in this, they are doing it.
They understand it benefits the community. But we are asking them to
remain vulnerable until we have an amendment such as this that would
provide them protection.
The current NLRB solicitation rule has a profound impact on the
neediest citizens of our country. These solicitation rules deny
charitable and civic organizations the opportunity to raise hundreds of
millions of dollars a year from retail customers.
The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. Charitable donations
raised through Wal-Mart alone are over $127 million annually. Because
many retailers are forced to deny access to everyone, there are now
fewer hot meals for the hungry, fewer toys for poor children, and less
clothing and shelter for the homeless.
This amendment is not meant to target unions. Unions are the largest
contributors to the United Way. They are among the leaders in the
country in charitable acts. The amendment simply recognizes private
property rights. There is a distinction between what a union does in
front of a store and what local charities and civic groups are there to
do. They should not be treated the same.
This amendment permits retailers to support their communities'
charitable and civic activities without requiring them to open their
property to union activity which could, in fact, drive away customers
or force themselves to face unfair or even frivolous litigation.
In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we need to do all we
can to encourage charitable giving. I have heard from thousands of
people since September 11 asking how they can help those directly
affected by the terrorist attacks. By allowing retailers to open their
doors to charitable groups, we make it possible for the American people
to play an even greater role in this recovery effort.
I received a letter from the chief counsel at Wal-Mart, and I want to
read part of what he said:
Wal-Mart's solicitation policy provides charities with
access to our stores and customers. Each year over $100
million is raised by local grass-roots charitable
organizations in front of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Clubs.
Other retailers have chosen to avoid a controversy over
various forms of solicitation by simply adopting a no
solicitation policy. It is vitally important that our country
have a policy that allows retailers to work with local
charities to better serve their communities.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wal-Mart letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Wal-Mart,
Thomas D. Hyde, Executive Vice President and Senior
Corporate Counsel,
November 1, 2001.
Hon. Don Nickles,
133 Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nickles: We appreciate your support of
legislation that encourages retailers to allow charitable
solicitation at their stores. The Senate amendment you have
proposed would enable retailers to open their doors to
charitable organizations without being compelled to allow
other forms of solicitation.
Wal-Mart's solicitation policy provides charities with
access to our stores and customers. Each year over $100
million is raised by local grassroots charitable
organizations in front of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Clubs.
Other retailers have chosen to avoid a controversy over
various forms of solicitation by simply adopting a no
solicitation policy.
It is vitally important that our country have a policy that
allows retailers to work with local charities to better serve
their communities. We are grateful for your leadership on
this issue.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Hyde.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I also have a letter from the United States Chamber
of Commerce, and I would like to read that into the Record.
I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
world's largest business federation representing over three
million businesses and organizations of every size, sector
and region, to express the Chamber's support for the Preserve
Charitable Giving Act.
This bill will provide a much-needed change in the National
Labor Relations Act so that it will no longer serve as an
impediment to employers that wish to maintain and enforce a
valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy and also wish to
allow charitable fund-raising or other beneficent acts on
their premises.
We appreciate your sponsorship of S. 929 and encourage you
to take appropriate steps to assure its prompt passage in the
Senate.
My concern and the reason for this amendment is that retailers
fearful of extensive litigation will likely err on the side of caution
and not permit these acts of kindness and generosity to occur. In the
end, it is the public that suffers. An approach that allows charitable
solicitation as an exception to an otherwise valid no-solicitation/no-
distribution rule is in the public interest and recognizes the valid
distinctions between the kinds of activities engaged in by charitable
groups and those of labor unions.
I ask my colleagues to untie the hands of retailers and consumers all
across America that want to do all they can to help heal this country.
Allow Americans to stretch out their arms to carry a coat, donate blood
or reach into their pockets when they travel to their local retail or
convenience store so they can help those who have been so deeply
affected during this time of great need in our Nation's history.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I certainly applaud and support all
retailers who have joined with charities to permit access to
solicitation in light of the events of September 11 and those that were
doing it prior to September 11. What my friend, the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas, has said is that many retailers have adopted a
blanket no-solicitation rule to avoid having to create a similar form
for labor unions. In effect, that is what he said.
There has been an assertion made that this interferes with their
ability to raise charitable donations. Yet his own materials, which
certainly are available to anyone, show last year charities raised over
$100 million at the storefronts of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club alone, just
those stores.
That is great. I think that is very nice. But it seems to me the
retailers, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, have done very well without this
amendment.
This amendment prohibits funds to the NLRB, the National Labor
Relations Board, to enforce the laws and rules that require employers
to provide access to all charitable and civic and labor organizations.
If the employer provides selective access, it is prohibited. For
example, if Wal-Mart allows Girl Scouts to sell on the property, or
they allow the United Way to distribute literature to Wal-Mart
employees, technically, they have to allow labor unions to distribute
their literature. That is what this amendment attempts to prevent.
Wal-Mart has been doing this; Sam's Club has been doing this. The
NLRB takes this on a case-by-case basis. They are not looking for
somebody to go after. There has to be some case made, and certainly
there hasn't been one made of which I am aware.
The law prohibits selective access or discrimination in places of
employment. That is clearly what it does. Even when discriminatory
access is alleged, the National Labor Relations Board examines the
facts of the case on a case-by-case basis. It has found in different
cases in favor of both the employer and the union through the case-by-
case method outlined in the National Labor Relations Act. The current
process of permitting the NLRB to examine the facts is appropriate, and
it is has worked. This has been in existence for many years.
There is no need for Congress to arbitrarily discriminate against
labor unions. That is what this does. This amendment tips the scales in
favor of the employers in labor-management disputes. That is simply
wrong. This amendment presumes all union solicitations are directed at
disrupting employers' businesses. That is not the case.
Labor unions are active participants in many charitable activities.
We have seen them on Labor Day at a stoplight. They have the boots in
which they ask drivers to put the money. The United Way does a lot of
work, as well as many food drives and local community charities. Local
firefighters, commercial food workers, and other union
[[Page S11328]]
members are active in many charities and organizations. I applaud the
retailers who joined with charities to permit access to solicitation in
light of the events of September 11. That is very important.
Let's be clear: This amendment is not about increasing charitable
giving but about discriminating against American workers. That is what
it is.
The present system is working very well. This amendment is not needed
to sustain or even increase these charitable efforts. Frankly, it is
inappropriate to use the events of September 11 as an excuse to pass
antiworker legislation. It is discriminatory. This amendment would
essentially allow employers to be engaged in selective discrimination.
Current law allows retailers to support charitable and civic
activities. This law prohibits discrimination. In this context, it
prohibits discrimination against verbal communication and distribution
of literature when companies grant access to outside groups to engage
in communications or solicitations, including charities.
This basic principle of labor and employment law dates back to the
1930s. This has been going on for almost 70 years. We don't need to
change it. In essence, a company cannot prohibit certain types of
activities that it permits others to conduct based on race, sex, age,
or, in this case, on workers trying to exercise their legal rights to
organize a union, to register voters, or to encourage participation in
civic activities.
The present system works. Worker organizations should be included in
the list of those who legally can communicate within the rules
established by retailers. If a group violates these rules, the National
Labor Relations Board examines the case and determines if there is
something that should be done. This is done on a factual, case-by-case
basis.
I repeat: The present process has worked. This is an issue of
fairness. This amendment promotes selective discrimination against
workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is simply
wrong. Most important, it is unnecessary.
I appreciate the fact that Wal-Mart is based in Arkansas. I met with
the representative of Wal-Mart the other day. They have a million
employees--a million employees. They certainly don't need this to
protect them. They are a very large corporate giant. They can protect
themselves. The problem in America today is that we have a lot of
corporate giants and we have very few people speaking out for workers.
This law has been in effect for more than 70 years. We don't need to
change it now.
I repeat, Wal-Mart has done very well. At Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, over
$100 million in charities was raised within their doors last year. That
is great. They should continue doing it the way they have and not have
a program that would allow discrimination against workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I pick up on a point the distinguished majority whip
made about Wal-Mart's great success in charitable giving. That is one
thing on which we certainly agree. That is, that Wal-Mart has been
enormously generous, giving last year over $100 million to charity.
The distinguished former majority leader of the Senate just visited
the Senate, Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole said: Tell 'em that Wal-Mart
gave $17.5 million to the World War II memorial. And they did. And we
are all immensely proud of that and everything else that Wal-Mart has
done.
This is the reality: Wal-Mart has been generous. Their customers have
been generous. And their employees have been generous at the risk of
the future of the company.
To say it is working fine is not the case because the vulnerability
that Wal-Mart faces, that Target faces, that every retailer faces, that
every convenience store faces--somewhere along the line, a labor union
may decide to put pickets out in front, and as the customers try to go
in the door, they will get the message: This company, we don't like.
That company is going to then face the choice, Do we want to continue
to allow solicitations for charities or are we going to have to adopt
an absolute ``no solicitation'' policy that will exclude good
charities? Right now, we are being forced by a misunderstanding, a
misinterpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, to allow these
pickets in front of our door.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect that generous companies with
generous employees and generous management should have to subject
themselves to that in order to do the right thing. That is what we are
asking them to do now. That is wrong.
This has nothing to do with saying we are anti-union; it has
everything to do with saying you don't treat a union activity in front
of a store the same as you treat a Salvation Army bell ringer at
Christmastime in front of that store. That is the issue. Let's unlock
that generous spirit of America.
We should not require the same kind of treatment for a labor union
and a charitable organization soliciting in front of a retail
establishment. It is not the same. I think we all realize it is not the
same. That is all this amendment does.
For a year, in the wake of the September 11 attack and the incredible
need our Nation has, let's not make it more difficult for the American
people to give and give and give, as they so generously want to do.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I acknowledge the great work the Salvation Army does. Bell
ringing time is fast approaching. I hope we are not here when they are
ringing their bells.
Anything that happens now under the present rules and laws with the
NLRB does not prevent a single Salvation Army person from taking their
bucket and ringing a bell. I know of not a single case that the NLRB
has brought against an establishment for having Salvation Army people
collecting money there--none. This is a guise, in my opinion, to keep
unions out of these places.
Maybe somebody wants to try to organize Wal-Mart. I don't know of
anyone who does. Maybe they do. The Salvation Army is entitled to
fairness. But so are workers.
We do not need to pick on Wal-Mart. We have talked about Wal-Mart. Of
course this applies to businesses other than Wal-Mart. These businesses
should be treated no differently tomorrow than they are today.
I think it is totally appropriate that we look; if someone is abusing
what they are doing with charitable donations, then the NLRB can take a
look at it. But there are no cases where that has happened. This is
only an effort to inflict further punishment on the organized labor
movement in this country. No one wanted to prevent, either prior to
September 11 or after September 11, charitable organizations from being
charitable or collecting money.
I understand the intentions of my good friend from Arkansas, but I
believe this amendment would do far more harm than it would do good.
I am sorry I didn't make my notes more legible, even to me. But this
does not affect picketing, only literature and donations. This has
nothing to do with picketing.
I hope all Members will recognize this amendment as one of simple
fairness--leave things the way they have been for 70 years. I know of
no abuses that have taken place. The NLRB, in Republican
administrations and Democratic administrations, has approached this on
a case-by-case basis. What are the facts in the particular case? As far
as I am concerned, they have been pretty fair for 70 years.
Madam President, how much time does the Senator from Arkansas and the
Senator from Nevada have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Nevada has 10 minutes.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, the Senator raises some questions.
He says there is no problem. So perhaps this letter from a retailer I
mentioned earlier, the Meijer Company, which is headquartered in a
wonderful State, in Grand Rapids, MI, answers that. Do we have a
problem? I think they make it very clear in this correspondence we just
received:
As a mid-west based retailer, we care deeply about the
communities we serve. As a corporate citizen, we want them to
grow and thrive. That is why we are pleased to contribute to
so many local programs.
However, since 1994, we have been prevented from providing
certain support to
[[Page S11329]]
charitable and civic organizations due to language contained
in the National Labor Relations Act. The language stipulated
that if we provided access to our property to outside groups,
then we would also be required to provide access to union
organizations for the purposes of organizing, solicitation,
distribution, picketing or other union purposes. Clearly, we
believe there to be a difference between charitable and civic
groups, and union activity.
Additionally, while Americans have generously responded to
our national crises, we are beginning to learn how local and
state-based charities are beginning to suffer. We believe
that your amendment is well suited for this present time, and
will permit us to work with such worthy causes.
This is very simple. The issue is simple and clear. Should union
activity, including picketing, be treated the same as the Salvation
Army bell ringer, the VFW, or the Salvation Army and other good groups
soliciting for good causes? Should community-based charities be
prohibited from soliciting funds in front of a retailer if that
retailer would like them to, simply because of a decision by the
National Labor Relations Board that says if they do one, they have to
allow picketing and distribution of union material in front of that
store? That is the issue.
Clearly, they should not be treated the same. They are totally
different causes. Retailers, while having great incentive to help
charities, are not going to have an incentive to do something that is
going to impede their own businesses. We should make that distinction,
and this amendment would allow that for this year in this
appropriations bill, and would allow for this year--a year clearly that
our Nation is in crisis--to encourage that kind of charitable activity
on the part of our Nation's retailers.
I retain the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the
time will be charged equally to both sides.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the Senator from
Arkansas, and he is going to yield back his time. I will yield back my
time. There are a number of Members in the Chamber. We can start the
vote. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Sessions
The amendment (No. 2074) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Gramm second-
degree amendment No. 2055.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from
Colorado.
____________________