[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11449-S11458]
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
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3061, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Department
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle amendment No. 2044, to provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivision.
Gramm modified amendment No. 2055 (to amendment No. 2044),
to preserve the freedom and constitutional rights of
firefighters, law enforcement officers, and public safety
officers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is
now 15 minutes for debate to be equally divided and controlled by the
two leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle-
Kennedy amendment. This is an amendment which, for the first time in
over 200-some-odd years in our Nation's history, we have the Federal
Government trying to pass a law dealing with collective bargaining for
cities, counties, and States for fire, police, sheriffs, and emergency
personnel.
We have never done it before. We shouldn't do it now. That is and
should be the prerogative of the States. The 10th amendment to the
Constitution says all of the rights and powers are reserved to the
States and to the people. It doesn't say: States, you have been doing
this for all these years, but now we will have the Federal Government
[[Page S11450]]
pass a collective bargaining law that also says you should have
remedies, arbitration, and so on.
Why is the Federal Government doing that when States should be doing
it? The States are doing it. Why should we tell the States they are not
doing it well enough? We will have a bureaucrat go in and review the
State's laws and say, maybe your State doesn't comply. Some people have
estimated 26 to 30 States don't comply. Maybe the State of Missouri
will have to rewrite its collective bargaining law or the State of
Oklahoma. Frankly, over half of the States have local options where the
State legislatures have said: We will leave that up to the cities. And
now the Federal Government will say: No, that is not good enough; we
will have the Federal Government come in and make that decision.
This bill says we will exempt small communities. Communities that
have less than 5,000 will not be covered by this law. If we don't get
cloture, we will have an amendment because I will raise that number. I
think 5,000 is way too small. We will exempt cities with fewer than
5,000 employees. I think that is too small. We will have to have a
bigger exemption. The legislation forgot to exempt volunteers. Why
should we cover volunteers? So we will have to have an amendment
dealing with volunteers. There are over 800,000 volunteer firefighters
and police officers in the country.
Why should we mandate that people contribute to an organization
against their will? We need voluntary contributions.
This bill is legislation on an appropriations bill. It should be
dealt with separately. It doesn't belong on this appropriations bill.
Let me read comments from a couple of organizations.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors:
However, the federal government should not impose
collective bargaining procedures and practices on these local
governments that have chosen over time to develop alternative
methods for the management of human resource and personnel
needs.
The National Volunteer Fire Council:
. . . representing over 800,000 Members of America's
volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. . . . On behalf of
our membership, I urge you to oppose the Daschle Amendment as
currently written that would insert the language of [this
bill].
The National League of Cities:
. . . the Federal Government should not undermine municipal
autonomy with respect to making fundamental employment
decisions by mandating specific working conditions.
From the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, written to Senator
Jeffords:
The Vermont League of Cities and Towns strongly urges you
to oppose the amendment. The amendment would create a Federal
collective bargaining law that applies to State and local
government employees. We believe strongly this is an issue
better dealt with in the Statehouse in Montpelier than in
Washington. This amendment is not only intrusive but has the
potential of causing confusion with conflicting and
overlapping statutes.
They said it well. The League of Cities said it well. The Conference
of Mayors said it well. The National Conference of State Legislatures
said it well. Leave this area of jurisdiction to the States, where it
has always been, not trying to preempt it by a Federal statute.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on September 11, Americans were riveted
not only by the extraordinary act of terrorism that struck this country
and the extraordinary loss of life, but also they were struck by the
extraordinary heroism and bravery of firefighters, police officers, and
rescue workers, but particularly the firefighters.
There may be those who want to suggest reasons we shouldn't permit
firefighters to be able to bargain collectively in the public interest.
What is the record when these firefighters have been able to bargain
collectively? First of all, there is greater safety for not only the
public but for the firefighters. Second, the number of deaths per
firefight has gone down. The numbers clearly reflect that. Third, where
this has been permitted in States, we have seen the costs for fire
protection have actually gone down.
Madam President, this is most of all about fairness and decency. This
is about respect for workers in our country who have demonstrated day
in and day out that they are prepared to lay down their lives in order
to save other lives. We don't need any lectures about that in the
Senate.
The real question now is whether the Senate will permit these
extraordinarily brave and courageous individuals to get together in
order to have an adequate and decent living. They are not asking for
the Moon. If there is going to be an impasse, there are procedures to
work out that impasse. We do think they are entitled to the kind of
coming together and speaking to the interests and the safety of
firefighters which they deserve.
I cannot think of a place in our society that has demonstrated a
stronger commitment to the public good. They are not asking for very
much. All they are asking for is to be treated decently and fairly in
the workplace. That is what this is about. Are we going to permit
firefighters in our country to be treated decently and fairly in the
workplace?
If Members believe in that, support the Daschle amendment. That is
what this amendment does.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it has been nearly a week that the
Senate has been tied up over the majority leader's amendment to the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I have listened to a great deal of
debate about how this amendment would affect State and local police,
fire, and emergency services officers. After the devastating attacks of
September 11, we know that these men and women are the true heroes of
America.
The issue before the Senate, mandating that State and local
governments allow public safety officers to unionize and collectively
bargain, raises many passions on both sides of the aisle. In Alaska,
this issue has been resolved. Our State and local employees are allowed
to unionize and engage in collective bargaining and I very much support
the right of Alaska police, fire and emergency service personnel to
unionize.
So as far as this Senator is concerned, the issue raised by Senator
Daschle is one of principle, not labor/management principles but
principles of constitutional proportions.
Senator Daschle's amendment preempts the laws of 27 States. These
States have decided that they do not believe their police, fire, or
emergency service workers, employees of State and local governments,
should be allowed to engage in union activities. By what constitutional
right does the Federal Government have the authority to tell State and
local governments what the terms of employment should be for State and
local workers?
Here is how the amendment attempts to address the Constitution: ``The
absence of adequate cooperation between public safety employers and
employees has implications for the security of employees and can affect
interstate and intrastate commerce.''
This amendment does not pass the laugh test when it comes to
constitutionality. If the standard of the Commerce clause can be
satisfied with the previously quoted finding, then there is absolutely
no area where the Federal Government can preempt States.
I think it is clear from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court
that the Commerce clause is alive and well and that Congress should be
legislating in areas that have real impacts on interstate Commerce, not
phony made-up attempts to preempt all State decisions.
Because this amendment clearly contravenes the Constitution, I have
decided that I will not vote to invoke cloture.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to offer a few comments before we
vote on cloture on the Daschle amendment. I have and always will be
strongly committed to our Nation's fire, police and emergency rescue
personnel. Career emergency workers and the individuals who are members
of our Nation's over 22,000 all volunteer fire stations are on the
front lines in America's new war on terrorism. They have a critical
role in our homeland defense initiatives.
Virginia is a Right to Work State and has passed laws explicitly
prohibiting public safety unions. Passage of the Daschle amendment
would impose an unfunded Federal mandate on
[[Page S11451]]
States and preempt the existing guidelines and laws in the 27 States
which do not have comprehensive collective bargaining rights for public
safety employees.
States and localities must retain the flexibility to operate
effectively and manage their public safety workforce as it is most
appropriate for their particular needs.
It is not the right time for the Federal Government to intervene with
the rights of State and local governments, burdening them with
additional requirements which may strain the limited financial
resources of our local governments.
In particular, many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages
we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter
in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to
respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard
incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which are fire rescue
personnel deal with on a daily basis.
Earlier this year the National Fire Protection Association, a
nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based
consensus codes and standards, adopted a standard on response
operational and deployment issues pertaining to fire and rescue
departments. Based upon that standard, almost two-thirds of fire
companies across the country operate with inadequate staffing. The cost
for many municipalities to meet these new safety standards, however,
would be significant.
In Virginia, many professional fire and rescue workers also volunteer
at their local volunteer station. Their presence is invaluable to these
communities.
If Senator Daschle's amendment passes, however, these paid
firefighters would be prohibited from serving as volunteers elsewhere.
Over the past month, I have heard from a great number of professional
firefighters present at the Pentagon that day and the days following.
Volunteers and paid professionals worked side-by-side in the wake of
the tragedies which occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York,
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia. Volunteer stations from
throughout Virginia also helped to serve communities when the fire and
rescue personnel from that area were on duty at the Pentagon.
I am pleased to be actively involved in several legislative
initiatives to support our Federal, State and local fire and rescue
services.
We need to recognize our firefighters and emergency personnel around
the country who continue to make sacrifices in their service to the
public. We must provide our fire and rescue departments with sufficient
funding to hire the necessary personnel in order to ensure that our
nation's communities are adequately protected.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of legislation, S. 1617,
introduced by Senator Dodd on November 1, 2001, that will provide
States and localities with the necessary funding to hire additional
firefighters. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act
establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to
fire and rescue departments to cover some of the costs associated with
hiring and training new firefighters.
In addition, our fire and rescue services have a critical role in our
homeland defense initiatives. I am pleased to have cosponsored an
amendment offered to the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization
legislation to increase funding for the fire program from $300 million
to $600 million in 2002. Funds from the fire program are granted to
local fire departments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
for, among other things, training of firefighters and emergency
response personnel, toward the purchase of new equipment, and upgrading
fire stations and fire training facilities. With the existing and
emerging threats our Nation is facing, it is now more important than
ever that our firefighters receive the necessary training and
resources.
Please know that I recognize the sacrifice firefighters, police, and
all emergency personnel make in Virginia and across the Nation. I will
continue to support initiatives that will help our Nation's
firefighters and emergency workers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I am opposed to the Daschle amendment on
both substantive and procedural grounds.
First of all, in terms of substance, the Daschle amendment actually
empowers a Government agency, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, to
override State law. It allows this Authority in some 25 States in the
Union to make a determination that would override established State law
and State constitutions and impose a unionization process which the
States have rejected.
In my State, we have a local option, so the question of collective
bargaining and unionization of the local fire department and sheriff's
department is a matter for local voters. They have a referendum. That
is our procedure. That is the way we do it in Texas. It has served us
well.
The Daschle amendment would override State law, override county
ordinances, and empower a government regulatory body, the Federal Labor
Relations Authority, to override State law.
I think this violates everything we claim to believe about
federalism. It is very bad policy. It violates the spirit of the tenth
amendment of the Constitution, and I think it is profoundly wrong.
Second, let me say on procedural grounds, we are in the process of
trying to finish appropriations. We were encouraging our Members to put
aside controversial and extraneous matters until we had an opportunity
to complete the appropriations process. This bill could be brought up
freestanding. The majority leader has the unilateral power to do that.
But to put it on an appropriations bill, it seems to me, disrupts what
we are trying to achieve and encourages others to follow suit. If this
amendment is clotured, there will be a dozen amendments offered to it
that have to do with labor law in America.
This is another debate for another day. We will end up having to
cloture this bill. There will be a lengthy process that will use up our
time and energy that would better be spent on something else.
I understand this is a time when we appreciate our firemen and we
appreciate our policemen, but forcing people to pay union dues is not a
way I show appreciation to people.
We have the right in Texas and every State in the Union has the right
to write its State constitution and to write its laws. Laws related to
local labor relations and the relationship of the city, the county, and
the State with their employees is something that should be set by the
cities, counties, and States, not by the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues, on substance this amendment is profoundly wrong
and wrongheaded. And on procedure, it puts us into a collision course.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from New
York.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank our leader once again for
coming forward with a very timely amendment. I would like to add my
support.
I know people from all over the country were riveted on the great
work of our firefighters as well as our police and rescue workers in
New York. They did a wonderful job.
I can tell you--and I have talked to hundreds of them--the words are
very inspiring. But they also need help. They are trying to feed
families. They are trying to get the kind of benefits that so many
others have. In place after place after place in America, they don't
get them.
If we want to show our real feelings, if we want to put our money
where our mouth is, if we really want to help the firefighters--go ask
them. Don't rely on some kind of broad ideological mantra. If we want
to help the firefighters, we should not tell them how we are going to
help them. Let them tell us how we are going to help them. They want
this proposal. They are right. I am for it.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this is not a complicated question. The
American people have watched as these firefighters have put their lives
on the
[[Page S11452]]
line for us. They have provided all of us, all of our families, and
families all over this country, with the security we need and expect.
Now these firefighters have come to us, the Senate, and asked that we
provide them and their families with the same kind of security American
workers have all over this country.
This is not a complicated question. It is a simple question. The
American people have watched the heroism of these firefighters. It is
time for our Senate to provide them with the same kind of security they
have been providing to American families forever.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use whatever leader time I may
require to close out the debate on this amendment.
As my colleagues have noted, every day firefighters, police officers,
and emergency workers literally risk their lives to protect our safety.
In 18 States, public safety workers do not currently have the legal
right--the legal right--to sit down with their employers and talk about
their own health and about their own safety. That is why we offer this
amendment this afternoon, the Public Safety Employee-Employer
Cooperation amendment. It is identical to the bipartisan bill offered
by Senators Gregg and Kennedy, who both spoke in favor of this
amendment last week.
The amendment is very simple. It guarantees that public safety
officers have the right to form and join a union; have the right to
bargain collectively over hours, wages, and conditions of employment--
period.
Studies have shown, as Senator Kennedy and others have noted, that
fewer firefighters are killed in the line of duty in States where
collective bargaining exists, States where public safety officers have
a say in their working conditions. Our proposal expressly forbids
strikes or lockouts by public safety workers.
Contrary to assertions by some of the opponents of this amendment,
our proposal does not override State right-to-work laws. The opponents
of this amendment say that allowing public safety workers to join a
union will somehow jeopardize public safety. Tell that to the 344
unionized firefighters and paramedics who died trying to save the lives
of people at the World Trade Center. Tell the unionized Capitol police
who guard this building and protect our lives every day of the week.
These men and women deserve our thanks. They deserve a vote on this
important issue. Instead, when we offered this amendment, we were
informed opponents would not give us a vote. So let there be no
mistake. This cloture vote is the vote on the merits. It is a vote on
whether or not we stand with firefighters, the police, and those who
protect us day in and day out. This gives all firefighters, regardless
of where they live, the opportunity to do what they ought to be able to
do in this country--to bargain collectively for their rights, for their
safety, for their lives in some cases.
Madam President, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I hope our colleagues will
support this cloture vote.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes under the
Republican leader's time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Some people have equated this with a patriotic vote
because we appreciate the firefighters in New York and Virginia.
Certainly we do. The firefighters in Virginia were nonunion. The
firefighters in New York were union. That is not the issue. The issue
is whether or not the Federal Government is going to go in and preempt
States or dictate to the States collective bargaining laws for public
employees.
We have never passed a law that says we are going to have collective
bargaining dictated by the Federal Government for State employees or
for city employees. We have never done it in 225 years. We never passed
such a law.
We have never passed a law that says: Sheriffs, officers, you can
have collective bargaining.
We have never done that, but we are getting ready to do it. We have
never done it to all cities. Right now, this legislation goes to cities
with populations of greater than 5,000. Other States have different
laws.
Every State has a law dealing with collective bargaining, but now we
are saying we are going to tell the States what to do, and the States
have to pass laws that are basically, substantially equivalent with
this law or else it doesn't apply. A Federal bureaucrat is going to
decide whether the existing State laws are in compliance.
Some States have a local option. The majority of States have a local
option. They let cities make that decision. We are trying to say:
Cities, you can't make it. Small towns in North Dakota, South Dakota,
Oklahoma, you can't make that decision. We are going to make it for
you.
I think that is a serious mistake. I applaud the bravery of
firefighters, police officers, people who work in the ambulance system,
the sheriffs, officers, but I don't think we, on the Federal level,
should dictate their collective bargaining arrangements. That has been
done by the States, done by the cities, done by the counties. They have
done a good job. We should not tell them how to do it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Preserving the prerogative of the majority, I want to
close out this debate. Let me respond in a couple of ways.
First of all, this amendment does not federalize state labor laws.
This amendment says if a state has a right-to-work law, we will respect
it.
What this amendment also says to every firefighter in the country: If
you want to negotiate in a collective bargaining arrangement with your
employer, you have the right to do so.
The process is not dictated. There is no requirement that employers
agree with those firefighters who want to enter into a collective
bargaining arrangement.
Who would deny the right to a firefighter today to enter into a
collective bargaining arrangement if he or she chooses to do so? That
is all we are suggesting. We protect right-to-work laws. We protect
rights of the State. I think we ought to protect the rights of all
firefighters too.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle-
Kennedy amendment No. 2044 to H.R. 3061, the Labor, HHS
appropriations bill:
Maria Cantwell, Joe Biden, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patrick
J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow,
Max Cleland, Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid,
Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Daniel K.
Akaka, Kent Conrad, and Tom Daschle.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
Daschle-Kennedy amendment No. 2044 to H.R. 3061, the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
[[Page S11453]]
NAYS--44
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). On this vote, the yeas are 56,
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of collective
bargaining rights.
Although worthwhile, I oppose cloture on the Daschle amendment (SA
2044) because it would have further delayed the already backlogged
fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. More than one month into the
fiscal year 2002, we have sent only 5 of the 13 annual appropriations
conference reports to the President. We must finish our work and pass
these appropriations bills.
While I support the Daschle amendment, the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill was not the proper vehicle to address this issue.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. Mr. 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. Mr. President, the matter now before the Senate is the
Labor-HHS Appropriations Act; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 2044, Withdrawn
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no
further amendments in order to H.R. 3061, the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill, the bill be read a third time, and the vote on final passage
occur immediately, notwithstanding rule XII, paragraph 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on H.R. 3061.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
FARMWORKER HOUSING PROGRAM
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have a question about the migrant and
seasonal Farmworker Housing Program. I have worked for a number of
years to ensure that the Labor Department provide funding for housing
assistance for eligible farmworkers. There is a well-established
network of local housing organizations that receive these funds. I am
particularly impressed by the work of the organization in my State, the
Delta Housing Project. The Senate Report accompanying this bill
recommends $5,000,000 for farmworker housing. This amount represents an
increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level. In fiscal 2001
the committee increased the fund from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000
representing the first increasee since 1982. I am pleased that the
committee has recently increased the funding to this worthwhile program
so that grant recipients can use these funds for important housing
projects. However, despite the fact that in fiscal year 2001 the
program was increased by 20 percent, most all grant recipients received
less money than they have consistently relied upon for the past 17
years. This does not seem fair.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree. We need to continue this program so that the
well-established network of local housing organizations can continue to
provide these needed services. That is why our subcommittee provided an
additional $1,000,000 specifically for housing priorities.
Mr. COCHRAN. It is my intent that these funds be used by the
Department of Labor for the expansion of funding among the network of
farmworker housing grantees. It is my understanding that it is the
intent of this committee that these funds be used for those grantees
and that any funds for migrant rest center activities would come from
other discretionary sources. Would the chairman clarify this
understanding?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. The legislation is intended to provide funds to the
network of housing providers in the migrant community and not to be
used for discretionary purposes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my overall
support for the Labor-HHS bill currently before us. I thank the
chairman and ranking member for their continued efforts to meet our
county's needs. I recognize the financial limitations we faced in the
subcommittee in trying to address our many concerns in labor, health
and education. This appropriations bill, more than any other bill,
impacts every family and every community. The programs in this bill
from education and health services to workplace safety are priorities
for Washington families. While I am disappointed by some areas of the
bill, overall it makes critical investments in our health, safety and
welfare. I would like to highlight some of my priorities in this
critical legislation, starting with education.
Although I appreciate the significant increase in education we
provide in this bill, I hope that we will be able to put more money
into education programs this year. The education reform bill now in
conference would impose significant new requirements on our schools,
and if we are going to ensure no child is left behind, we need to
provide the money to back up that bill. I look forward to working with
Senator Harkin and my other colleagues on the ESEA conference committee
to fully-fund IDEA.
I especially thank the Chair for working with me to ensure sufficient
funding to keep our commitment of smaller classes for our young
students. This investment of more than $3 billion in teacher quality
and smaller classes represents the fourth year that I have successfully
fought for funds to help districts continue on the path to hiring
100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades
nationwide.
By including the class size reduction program in the appropriations
bills over the last 3 years, Congress has taken an important,
bipartisan step to ensure our students are learning in less crowded
classrooms. The first year of Federal class size reduction funds
enabled schools to hire 29,000 teachers, and last year's funding added
another 8,000 to that number. As a result, about 2 million students are
learning in classrooms that are no longer overcrowded. On a related
note, I am pleased that this bill includes funding to continue the
school renovation investments we started this year. These funds are
critical to ensuring students learn in safe, modern and uncrowded
classrooms.
I am also pleased to note that this bill includes funding for the
Teacher Training in Technology Program. Helping our teachers learn to
use technology is essential if we are going to use technology to
improve education for all students. I will continue to work to secure
this program in ESEA reauthorization, and appreciate the committee's
support in that endeavor.
I am disappointed that this bill does not provide more funding to
support some of our most vulnerable students our homeless children. I
hoped we would follow the lead of the education authorizers who
accepted my amendment to double the authorization for homeless
education. At the current level this program is only able to serve one-
third of eligible children, and less than 4 percent of districts
receive direct funding. The House mark includes $50 million for this
program, and I hope that the final agreement will include a significant
increase over current funding. Family homelessness is increasing. The
U.S. Conference of Mayors found that demand for emergency shelter
increased by 17 percent among homeless families last year. Schools are
having a hard time keeping up with the increasing demand for services,
and I fear that the changes in our economy will only make the situation
worse.
Local homeless education programs use these funds to help homeless
children enroll, attend, and succeed in
[[Page S11454]]
school in by: establishing liaisons to the homeless community to
identify homeless children and connect them to school; providing school
supplies and emergency needs--everything from backpacks, paper,
pencils, gym clothes, math/science equipment, to eyeglasses, shoes,
clothing, and hygiene supplies; offering tutorial services for homeless
children at shelters and other locations; and much more.
I thank the managers for adding funding for GEAR UP in this final
bill, and I hope we can include additional funds in conference to avoid
a cut from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. I have seen
firsthand the great work this program is facilitating. Research has
shown that reaching out to disadvantaged middle school students to let
them know that the dream of college is within their grasp and
supporting them in attaining that dream is the most effective way to
ensure more disadvantaged students get a college degree. In the
information economy of the 21st century we cannot leave children behind
by denying them access to higher education. I believe we can and must
do better for these children by providing an increase in funding for
the GEAR UP Program.
Finally, I look forward to working with Chairman Harkin and the
Ranking Member, Senator Specter, to secure the funds necessary to
operate Child Care Aware. Millions of children are in care outside of
their home while their parents work. Yet child care is often more
costly than college tuition, and quality care can be hard to find.
Child Care Aware is a nonprofit initiative, operated by the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, that is
committed to helping parents find the best information on locating
quality child care and child care resources in their community.
Next, I would like to turn to the labor provisions of this bill. I am
pleased that the bill includes $1.549 billion for the Dislocated Worker
Employment and Training Activities. This is an increase of nearly $140
million from fiscal year 2001.
Unfortunately, our economy is continuing to slump. Recent indicators
suggest unemployment could reach as high as 6.9 percent by the end of
next year. Many of these people need help in their search for new
skills and new jobs. The Boeing company has announced it will lay off
more than 30,000 workers from its commercial airline business, which is
headquartered in Washington. That is 30 percent of their workforce.
Many other industries have announced massive layoffs. Those workers
will be seeking access to the dislocated workers' program. The money in
this bill is a good first step. However, we must also expand
unemployment insurance, health care and job training programs to assist
these newly-unemployed workers. I hope my colleagues will support such
a measure as we debate an economic stimulus package.
Finally, I would like to turn to some of the progress this bill makes
in the area of healthcare. For years, we have known about the important
role played by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During
the recent anthrax incidents, many Americans have learned about some of
the CDC's responsibilities. This bill boosts our investment in the CDC
by providing $4.4 billion for Disease Control programs--an increase of
$372 million over last year. This funding will support cancer screening
and education programs, including breast and cervical cancer screening;
injury control and reduction, including rape prevention and education,
bioterrorism, and improving our local public health infrastructure to
respond to public health threats.
This bill makes progress for local communities that are working to
provide care to the uninsured and underinsured. The bill provides $1.3
billion for Health Centers, which is $175 million more than in fiscal
year 2001.
While this bill makes a lot of progress on health care issues, I am
deeply disappointed that this bill falls short of our commitment to the
Community Access Program, CAP, which helps communities research and
coordinate care to underserved populations. I can tell you that
throughout Washington state, the CAP program is allowing local
officials, doctors and advocates to meet the needs of underserved
patients. In fact, this program is critical in meeting the needs of the
growing population of uninsured. During these difficult economic times,
we should be strengthening our safety net programs. That is why,
earlier this year, the HELP Committee adopted the amendment I offered
with Senator Clinton, which assumes an authorization of $125 for the
CAP program. Clearly, the $15 million in this bill falls short of our
commitment. I am hopeful that we can work with the House in conference
to meet our original commitment.
Throughout Washington State, small and rural communities are seeing
hospitals close. It is becoming more difficult for people in rural
areas to get the care they need. This bill invests in rural health
care. It provides more than $1.6 billion to help increase and improve
access to rural health care services, providers and facilities.
I am also pleased that the bill supports pediatric medical training.
It provides $243 million for GME for children's hospitals. This
increase of $8.45 million is important for hospitals like Children's
Hospital in Seattle. In the area of AIDS, this bill provides $1.8
billion for the Ryan White AIDS programs, $75 million more than last
year. This bill funds our family planning efforts at $266 million for
title X, an increase of $12 million over fiscal year 2001.
When it comes to supporting cutting-edge medical research, this bill
keeps us on track for doubling NIH funding by fiscal year 2003. It
provides a total of $23.7 billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over
last year. I am proud of the research being done in Washington state
including at the University of Washington, the Hutch and many biotech
and biomedical research facilities throughout the state. In fact,
Washington state is one of the top five recipients of NIH funding.
In the area of poison control, I am pleased that this legislation
provides a total of $24 million for fiscal year 2002, that's a $4
million increase over fiscal year and $7.5 million more than the
administration requested. As one of the original authors of the Poison
Control Prevention and Enhancement Act, I believe this additional
funding will prevent unintentional poisonings from everyday products.
This bill supports trauma care planning and development by providing $4
million, an increase of $1 million over fiscal year 01 and $1.5 million
more than the administration's request. Finally, as any advocate can
tell you, our country doesn't have enough shelter space to offer
protection for abused women and children. This bill provides $122
million for battered women's shelters. That is an increase of $5
million over fiscal year 01 and the Administration's request.
As many of my colleagues are aware, states are struggling to fund
critical health care services with rapidly declining revenues. The
economic downturn has created a budget crisis for many states including
my own state of Washington. We should recognize the struggle facing
many of our states and act to incorporate language into this
appropriations bill to prohibit or delay any effort by CMS to reduce
overall Medicaid payments. I know that many of us are concerned about
efforts by CMS to further restrict the Upper Payment Limit within
Medicaid. I worked with the previous Administration in 2000 to resolve
this matter and phase out any potential loophole. To go back on this
agreement now would mean significant Medicaid cuts for several States.
This is the wrong time to cut the Federal share of Medicaid. I am
hopeful that we can incorporate language in this appropriations bill to
prohibit any action by CMS to reduce Medicaid funding.
I believe we should be working to enhance the Federal match under
Medicaid to prevent drastic reductions in health care for low income
families. At a time when more families will lose health insurance, we
should be acting to increase the Federal commitment to Medicaid. I
realize that increasing the Federal Medicaid match is a matter which
must be addressed in a stimulus package not this appropriations bill.
However, we should use this appropriations bill to send a clear message
to the administration that this is the wrong time to attempt to reduce
Medicaid reimbursement to the States.
I am pleased that this bill continues our investment in the programs
that many senior citizens and their families
[[Page S11455]]
rely on. It boosts funding for OAA nutrition programs. Specifically, it
provides an increase of $30 million over fiscal year 01 for home
delivered meals (to $177 million) and congregate meals (to $384
million). It also provides a 10 percent increase for aging programs
under the Administration on Aging and supports other investments that
assist the elderly.
When we reauthorized the Older Americans Act last year, we created
the Family Caregiver Support Program, which assists families caring for
an aging relative. This bill provides a $20 million increase in the
Family Caregiver Support Program to $140 million.
This bill funds efforts to use technology to expand health care
access. It provides $1 million for telehealth efforts at Children's
Hospital in Seattle. And in other areas important to Washington State,
this bill supports the Franciscan Health System's Program Improving
Care through the End of Life demonstration program. It funds the
national Asian pacific center on aging continuation of funding. And it
funds a health profession and nurse retention study in Washington
state.
Overall, this bill makes progress for our people and our country.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the fiscal year
2002 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education and Related Agencies--the largest of the 13
appropriations bills before Congress this year. This measure contains
support for some of the most important aspects of our Nation's work
such as medical research that leads to advancements in health, the
education of our youth from preschool through college, assistance to
the elderly and those with disabilities, and the training of workers
seeking employment. While there are many noteworthy initiatives in this
bill, I would like to highlight just a few that are particularly
important to Vermont.
Hope for a cure for many diseases and illnesses must come through
research and I am pleased that the Senate continues to work toward our
goal of doubling the Federal Government's investment in the
groundbreaking biomedical research conducted by the 25 Institutes and
Centers that make up the National Institutes of Health. With this
strong support, NIH funding for next year will increase to $23.7
billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over last year. Millions of
Americans suffering from conditions ranging from Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's diseases, to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, will
benefit from the research undertaken by the thousands of NIH
scientists, including many in Vermont, supported by this funding.
This bill establishes an Aging Initiative that takes important steps
toward assisting senior citizens in Vermont and throughout America. The
Initiative is designed to increase the capacity of home- and community-
based services to support a high quality life for older Americans. An
Interagency Task Force on Aging Programs will coordinate and provide
additional support to programs that serve older Americans. Increased
funding has been provided for supportive services and senior centers,
long-term care ombudsmen to prevent and address the problem of elder
abuse and neglect, the National Family Caregiver Support Program,
elderly nutrition programs to expand home delivered meal distribution,
and Alzheimer's disease research. I am confident that this effort will
result in an improved quality of life for our nation's seniors,
especially for those living in rural parts of our nation.
This legislation includes important funding for education that will
support learning opportunities for Vermont schoolchildren of all ages.
Funding for the Head Start Program, which provides comprehensive
developmental education services for pre-kindergarten, low-income
children, has been increased by $400 million. We have increased funding
to assist low-income students who want to receive a college education.
This bill will raise the maximum Pell Grant available to American
college students from $3,750 to $4,000. This is the highest Pell Grant
maximum in the history of the program.
We have also increased funding for our students with special
education needs by $1 billion. Although this increase brings us a step
closer toward meeting our responsibilities under the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, we still must do more. House and Senate Conferees on
the bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
currently have before them the opportunity to mandate that the federal
government increase its share of special education funding to 40
percent of IDEA spending from its current level of 15 percent. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this provision. It will provide
significant relief to state and local governments as they strive to pay
for the quality educational services that our nation's disabled
students need and deserve.
I am very pleased that the Senate has provided increased funding for
the Office of Civil Rights, OCR, at the Department of Health and Human
Services. OCR is responsible for the enforcement of civil rights-
related provisions in health and human services programs. Earlier this
year, OCR's responsibilities were vastly expanded with the release of
the final medical privacy regulation by HHS. Quality enforcement of
this new regulation is essential to the protection of Americans'
medical privacy. This increased funding will ensure that OCR can
fulfill its new medical privacy enforcement obligations without
dereliction from its many other civil rights enforcement
responsibilities.
Finally, I am pleased that this bill includes $1.7 billion in funds
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and an additional
$300 million in emergency funds. LIHEAP is a critical program for
citizens of states like Vermont, who endure long, cold winters. Last
year LIHEAP helped nearly 18,000 Vermont families stay warm. I am
concerned that demand for this program will rise dramatically this
winter as the economy slows and incomes decline. I want to thank the
Committee for including a significant increase in LIHEAP funding in
anticipation of this great need.
This spending bill is not perfect. There are areas where increased
funding is still needed. However, we have taken the right steps in many
important health, education, and human service programs, and I am
pleased to support a measure that provides such great benefit to
Vermonters.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate is about to adopt H.R. 3061,
the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations legislation for
fiscal year 2002, I would like to express my strong support and
gratitude to Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their willingness
to include an amendment to H.R. 3061 on a matter that is very important
to my home State of Utah.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, was signed into law in
1990 and has provided compensation to thousands of individuals, both
workers and civilians, who were exposed to harmful radiation as a
result of the government's nuclear testing decades ago. Some of these
individuals worked in uranium mines; many drove the trucks which
transported uranium ore; and many more happened to live downwind from a
nuclear test site.
The RECA law was amended last year by S. 1515, the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000. The legislation, which was signed
into law last July, expanded the list of illnesses and classes of
individuals who may be compensated under the RECA program. Recognizing
that it is more effective, cost-beneficial, and indeed compassionate,
to identify and treat at the earliest stages individuals who may have
been exposed to harmful radiation, RECA 2000 also authorized a grant
program for education, prevention, and early detection of radiogenic
cancers and diseases. These grants would be provided through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and
would be used to screen individuals for cancer, provide education
programs for detection, prevention and treatment of radiogenic cancers.
The grants could also be used to give medical treatment to those
individuals who have been diagnosed with radiogenic cancers and
illnesses.
My amendment appropriates $5 million to HRSA for programs associated
with RECA. Of that amount, $4 million will be used for the screening
and prevention program I have just mentioned, which is codified under
section 417C of the Public Health Service Act. In addition, my
amendment provides $1
[[Page S11456]]
million so the Department of Health and Human Services may contract
with the National Research Council in order to review the most recent
scientific information related to radiation exposure and associated
cancers and illnesses. The study would also make recommendations as to
whether there are additional cancers or illnesses associated with
radiation exposure that should be compensated under the RECA program.
Finally, the study would review whether other classes of individuals or
additional geographic areas should be included under the RECA program.
These recommendations by the National Research Council must be
completed by June 30, 2003 and will be submitted to the Senate
Committees on Appropriations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions;
and Judiciary for review. The report also will be submitted to the
House Committees on Appropriations; Energy and Commerce; and Judiciary.
I am pleased that this amendment has been cosponsored by both
Senators Reid and Domenici. I have also worked closely with Senate
Majority Leader Daschle, Senator Bingaman, Senator Campbell, and
Senator Johnson on the RECA program. All of us have constituents who
have been impacted by radiation exposure and all of us want to do
everything we possibly can to be helpful to them.
I have met with many RECA claimants in my State. It does not take
long to see the pain and suffering they have endured over the years.
This is pain and suffering, I might add, that have taken a toll on
their lives and the lives of their families as well. Most of these
individuals are now retired; they live on modest incomes and fear their
declining health will only exacerbate their limited family finances.
Many have lost fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers due to radiation
exposure. We cannot forget these brave Americans.
It is for these reasons that this amendment is so important--it will
not only provide valuable assistance to those who have been exposed to
radiation exposure, it will also review current data to ensure that all
of those who have been impacted will be adequately compensated. I
cannot tell you how many times I have talked to constituents who don't
understand why their cancer is not currently covered under the RECA
law. They don't understand why living in one county allows RECA
compensation but living in another county, sometimes as close as three
miles away, prohibits them from being compensated as a RECA victim. I
want to make sure we are using the best science possible to provide
answers to these important questions. The National Research Council
recommendations will help answer these questions to the best of our
ability based on all current scientific data.
Again, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues who serve on
the Appropriations Committee, especially Senator Harkin and Senator
Specter, for recognizing the importance of this issue. Through this
amendment, we are acknowledging the plight of these Americans and
letting them know that we in the Congress truly care about their
welfare.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Landrieu and Rockefeller
for cosponsoring my amendment, which has been incorporated into the
managers' amendment.
Earlier this month, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator
Rockefeller, and I introduced a bill to reauthorize the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families Act. This is a vital program that provides grants
to children services agencies to help place foster children in
permanent homes, provide post-adoption services, and reunify families
when appropriate.
I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for working with me to increase
the appropriations level for this important program. As reported out of
committee, the Senate bill only provided $305 million for the program,
while the House bill included $375 million. I worked with the managers
to increase the Senate level to $375 million.
I am very pleased that we have increased this funding level because
the Safe and Stable Families program provides critical services to at-
risk children.
The reality is that many thousands of children in our country are at
risk because they are neglected or abused by parents or because they
are trapped in the legal limbo that denies them their chance to be
adopted. Over a half-million children go to bed each night in homes
that are not their own.
We have an obligation to these children. We have an obligation to
protect these innocent lives.
The Safe and Stable Families program is there for these children. The
funding provided to the States through this legislation is used for
four categories of services: family preservation, community-based
family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption
promotion and support.
These services are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in
communities at risk, avoid the removal of children from their homes,
and support timely reunification or adoption. And, quite candidly,
Promoting Safe and Stable Families is a very important source of
funding for post-adoption services.
With a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of adoptions since
the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, funding for
adoption promotion and support services is especially vital. In
Baltimore, MD, for example, 5 years ago, there were only 160 adoptions.
So far this year, 514 adoptions have been finalized. Such increases
demonstrate the need for these services and the necessity for these
services to ensure that the adoptions are not disrupted, which risks
further traumatizing a child.
Again, I thank my colleagues for increasing the current Senate
funding level. Protecting this vital program is simply the right thing
to do.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for many years, Senator Mike DeWine
and I have worked with a bipartisan coalition to promote adoptions and
to strengthen Federal funding to help abused and neglected children,
especially through the Safe and Stable Families program. Senator DeWine
has been a real leader especially in the key area of defining
reasonable effort to protect children. We are joined in our effort by
Senators Landrieu and Craig, both well-known advocates for adoption and
leaders of the Adoption Caucus.
President Bush called for an increase of $200 million for this
program in his State of the Union address and his budget. In OMB's mid-
session review, the administration changed its request from $200
million in mandatory money to discretionary funding. Since then, the
House of Representatives added $70 million in new funding in their
Labor-HHS-appropriations bill.
Children suffering from abuse and neglect are among our most
vulnerable children. In 1997, Congress enacted new legislation to make
the health and safety of a child paramount, and to stress the
importance of providing every child a permanent home. The act imposed
new time frames for States to consider adoption. Since then, adoptions
from foster care have almost doubled. But these families need support
to address the special needs of these children. Currently, there are
over 800,000 children in foster care. About 1 million cases of abuse
and neglect are substantiated each year.
In my State of West Virginia, the number of adoptions are increasing,
but the statistics on abuse and neglect of children remain stubbornly
high. New funding will enable my State and every State to expand their
programs for adoption, family support, family preservation, and help to
families in foster care.
Our goal is to secure new investments in the Safe and Stable Families
Program to help these vulnerable children. I truly appreciate the
cooperation and support of Senators Harkin and Specter in accepting our
amendment to provide new funding for this worthy cause. Chairman Harkin
and Ranking Member Specter have a very hard task in overseeing the
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Balancing all the needs within
their jurisdiction, including health care, education, worker safety,
and other issues is a very difficult task, but a task they manage each
year with skill and fairness. Their deep concern and compassion for
children is well-known, and their willingness to work with Senator
DeWine and me further highlights their commitment to some of the most
vulnerable children, those suffering from abuse and neglect. I am truly
grateful for their leadership and support.
Things have changed dramatically in our country and in the Congress.
We
[[Page S11457]]
need to respond to the new challenges and the new fiscal issues. But
the needs of abused and neglected children remain, and we also need to
be sensitive to their problems and their needs. I appreciate the
support from my colleagues.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Specter and
Senator Harkin for their hard work on this important legislation which
provides federal funding for the Departments of Labor, DOL, and Health
and Human Services, HHS, and related agencies. Many of these programs
are even more important as our war on terrorism is placing this Nation
at great risk, particularly on the homefront. To protect our survival,
we must also ensure that adequate support and resources are provided to
protect our citizens at home as well as adequately funding our defense
programs necessary for engaging in this war.
I am pleased to see increased funding for many programs, many that
are of an increased importance in light of our Nation's war on
terrorism. This includes an increase in funding for bioterrorism
activities and ensuring that our nation's public health infrastructure
is given the highest priority and strengthened considerably. This
funding is critical for our States, localities and our nation as a
whole, to ensure that substantial investments and improvements are made
in our public health infrastructure so we can readily respond to our
current situation and potentially future threats as well.
There is funding to ensure our Nation's food supply remains safe and
resources for helping meet the health care needs of the uninsured--many
who may now be unemployed due to the horrific events of September 11th.
In this time of war, we must ensure that adequate resources are
available for treating and preventing potential health threats. In
addition to funding key public health programs, this bill provides
funds for helping States and local communities educate our children.
Furthermore, it provides the necessary funds for supporting our
scientists dedicated to finding treatments, if not cures, for many
illnesses, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and ALS. This bill even
provides funds for ensuring our nation's most vulnerable--children,
senior citizens and the disabled--have access to quality health care.
Funds are also provided for important programs that assist working
families needing child care, adult daycare for elderly seniors, and
Meals on Wheels.
I applaud the appropriators for including very few specific funding
earmarks, but I am distressed about the extensive list of directives
that have been included. It is apparent that the many directives and
recommendation language camouflages the number of specific projects
that are given special consideration and bypassing the appropriate
competitive funding process. Examples of this language include:
Language supporting the Wheeling Jesuit University NASA Center for
Educational Technologies to provide technology training to all
elementary and secondary West Virginia mathematics and science
teachers;
Language supporting the Missoula Family YMCA in Missoula, MT, to
develop the ``Give Me Five'' after school program;
Language supporting the Ellijay Wildlife Rehabilitation Sanctuary to
expand its ecological science education programs to make them available
to more students in Georgia;
Language supporting Fresno At-Risk Youth Services in California to
attack the problem of at-risk youths by coordinating the city's efforts
through an education program coordinator;
Language supporting the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University to run a Website called Knowledge Loom;
and
Language supporting the Flint Area Chamber of Commerce in Michigan to
establish an ``e-mentoring'' program designed to create a partnership
between employers and students.
The bill also includes recommendation language that encourages the
Department of Labor to consider supporting certain projects or
institutions. Examples include:
Good Faith Fund of the Arkansas Enterprise Group in Arkadelphia, AR;
Las Vegas Culinary Training Center;
Western Alaska workforce training initiative;
Oregon Institute of Technology; and
UNLV Center for Workforce Development and Occupational Research.
While each of these programs may deserve funding, it is disturbing
that these funds are specifically earmarked and not subject to the
competitive grant process. But there are other job training facilities,
health organizations, and educational sites in America that need
financial aid for their particular programs and are not fortunate
enough to have an advocate in the appropriations process to ensure that
their funding is earmarked in this bill.
There are many important programs impacting the labor force, health
and education of our nation that depend on the support in this bill.
However, we have diluted the positive impact of these programs by
siphoning away funds for specific projects or communities that have
ardent advocates in members on the appropriations committee.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests which
thwarts the very process that is needed to ensure our laws address the
concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who seek
special protection or advantage.
Mr. President, thank you and I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to express my dismay that a very
important program to address the health care needs of the uninsured was
not included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which we passed
today. Now, when our public health infrastructure must be stronger than
ever before, it is crucial that we find ways to provide care for
Americans who lack health insurance.
The Health Community Access Program, or H-CAP, would build on the
successful Community Access Program, CAP, demonstration program that
congress funded last year. CAP has successfully provided grants to
communities to encourage integration among safety net providers of care
to the uninsured. More then 135 communities have taken advantage of CAP
to improve health care for Americans who lack health insurance.
H-CAP allows communities themselves to design solutions for their
unique safety-net needs, thus ensuring that the billions of dollars
that Congress has already invested in different safety net providers,
community health centers, family planning clinics, Ryan White AIDS
providers, are spent as effectively as possible. By promoting the
integration of health care services, H-CAP allow for more preventive
care, and good disease management practices that improve overall health
in the long-run and may reduce the incidence of serious and expensive
health problems among H-CAP recipients later. And because grant
recipients must demonstrate that their project will be sustainable
without Federal funding, many communities have successfully found
support through public and private matching donations, in-kind
contributions, thus ensuring a relatively small Federal investment.
I have worked hard this year with several of my colleagues to
permanently authorize CAP so that it will receive regular funding and
support from the Federal Government. I also offered an amendment during
committee markup to ensure that this program would be authorized at an
adequate level.
Unfortunately, funding for H-CAP was left out of this bill. I am
pleased that the House did include H-CAP in their bill, which they
funded at $105 million, with an additional $15 million for State
planning grants. It is my hope that the Senate will include H-CAP in
the managers' package, or that this will be resolved during conference
in the House's favor. I strongly urge my colleagues to make this
program a priority this year.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before we go to the vote, I ask to be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
chairman of the subcommittee, for his extraordinary vote on this bill.
I note for the record the speed with which we passed this bill and the
concessions which were made by quite a few Senators to take complicated
matters off
[[Page S11458]]
this bill. We put aside the stem cell issue which I very much wanted to
have resolved. We did so in the interest of concluding this bill. We
have already started the conferencing issues with both staffs meeting
early tomorrow afternoon and Members meeting a little later tomorrow
afternoon.
From our experience in the past, we have seen how difficult it is to
conference this bill, so we are moving right ahead, and it would be my
hope, with the example we have set with this complicated appropriations
bill--on time, with people withdrawing matters to try to expedite the
process--that we would move ahead and complete our work by November 16,
which is when we should finish, and we can go home and take care of
business in our States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I want
to respond in kind to my good friend and ranking member, Senator
Specter, and thank him and thank all of his staff for a very great
working relationship that we have had over many years, especially this
year.
We have completed our bill in pretty good time. Now we have to go to
conference. I am convinced we can have a decent conference and get this
bill back, as Senator Specter said, so we will have it done before we
go home for Thanksgiving. So I again thank Senator Specter and his
staff for a great working relationship. I especially thank all of the
staff: Bettilou Taylor, Mary Dietrich, Sudip Parick, and Emma Ashburn.
I also thank Ellen Murray, Jim Sourwine, Erik Fatemi, Mark Laisch, Adam
Gluck, Adrienne Hallett, Lisa Bernhardt, and Carol Geagley. A lot of
them put in a lot of hours early this year putting this bill together.
We have a great bill. It meets the needs of Americans and labor,
health and human services, education, and biomedical research. We have
met our obligations. This is the bill that helps lift up all Americans,
helps address the needs of our human infrastructure in this country,
and I believe we have met that obligation to the people of this country
in this bill.
I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
____________________