[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 158 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13032-S13070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3043, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Harkin/Specter amendment No. 3325, in the nature of a
substitute.
Vitter amendment No. 3328 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide a limitation on funds with respect to preventing the
importation by individuals of prescription drugs from Canada.
Dorgan amendment No. 3335 (to amendment No. 3325), to
increase funding for the State Heart Disease and Stroke
Prevention Program of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Thune amendment No. 3333 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide additional funding for the telehealth activities of
the Health Resources and Services Administration.
[[Page S13033]]
Dorgan amendment No. 3345 (to amendment No. 3325), to
require that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress
regarding jobs lost and created as a result of the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Menendez amendment No. 3347 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide funding for the activities under the Patient
Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of
2005.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now back on the Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and related agencies appropriations bill.
I thought I might recap for Senators where we are. We started
yesterday. I thought we had a fairly productive afternoon. We, right
now, have five pending amendments that we are working on in terms of
offsets. We have the Vitter amendment on drug reimportation. That
language we are just working on. There is no offset needed.
We have the amendment by Senator Dorgan on heart disease. We are
again looking at an offset there. We are working on that.
We have an amendment by Senator Thune on telehealth. Again, we are
working on trying to find the proper offsets.
We have another amendment by Senator Dorgan on a NAFTA study. That
has not been totally agreed to yet on the other side of the aisle.
We have an amendment by Senator Menendez on patient navigators.
Again, I think it is broadly supported. But, again, we are working on
trying to find an offset.
We adopted three amendments yesterday: the amendment by Senator
Feinstein which was to set up a child abuse registry; the second
amendment was by Senator Smith which was a technical fix to the Garrett
Lee Smith suicide prevention bill; and then yesterday we accepted an
amendment by Senator McCaskill which provides for a link on the Web
sites of all of the departments under our jurisdiction to the IG.
I am told we have about 30 amendments filed. We have 10 that we now
have worked on, so we are down to about 20 amendments. I hope we can
again move rapidly today and have people come over. I see people are
here waiting to offer amendments. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three Members be
recognized to call up amendments and that the pending amendments all be
set aside for this purpose. In this order it would be: Senator DeMint,
Senator Dole, and Senator Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Amendment No. 3338 to Amendment No. 3325
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3338.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 3338 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. 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 provide a limitation on funds with respect to the Charles
B. Rangel Center for Public Service)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service,
City College of New York, NY.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I actually wanted to bring up another
amendment to speak on briefly. If there is no objection, I would like
to call up amendment No. 3340 at the same time. I will speak to both of
them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3340
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, amendment No. 3340 is one we have already
seen. It is a simple amendment that we all agree on. Both sides
accepted it unanimously last week on the last appropriations bill that
we considered.
This is an amendment that prohibits Members of Congress from
pressuring Federal agencies to designate funds, what we call ``phone
marks'' to special projects back home.
All of us have worked real hard to create more transparency and
disclosure of earmarks. Last week we added to the last appropriations
bill this amendment that would prohibit Members of Congress from going
around the earmark disclosure process and pressuring Federal agencies
to designate funds.
This is an amendment that I also want to add to this appropriations
bill. I understand both sides will be willing to accept this again.
Amendment No. 3338
I would like to address my second amendment at this point as well.
This is a very difficult amendment to talk about because when we start
talking about earmarks in the House or the Senate, all of those
earmarks are something that have been designated by individual Members
of Congress. So it is often taken quite personally when we challenge
these amendments and make it public, particularly amendments that do
not sound good to taxpaying Americans.
I want to assure my colleagues that my point is not to focus on
Members of Congress but to focus on wrong ideas; in fact, wrong ideas
about earmarking and spending taxpayer dollars that have discredited
this body with the American people.
We know only 11 percent of the American people have any kind of
favorable perspective of Congress at this point. A lot of it is because
of the publicity of how we spend their money.
I was made aware by ``CBS News'' of a particular earmark that the
House has put in their version of the Labor-HHS bill. CBS is not known
for being supportive of conservative causes. They were pointing out a
particular attachment to the House appropriations bill, which will be
in the final bill if we do not disallow it in the Senate.
It is an earmark for $2 million that was put in this bill by
Congressman Rangel, chairman of Ways and Means. This $2 million earmark
goes to a new Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City
College of New York. This center does not yet exist. It is one that
money is being raised for at this time.
Frankly, the college does not need this duplication of an educational
service which already exists on the campus, but the description of this
building includes not only an educational program--that is, a
duplication of the Colin Powell Center which is already there--but it
also creates a library for the personal archives of Congressman Rangel
and a well-furnished office for his personal use.
CBS made the point, and they actually called this ``Monument to Me.''
And not just about Congressman Rangel but about all of us who, through
the earmarking process each year, are given a personal slush fund to
send taxpayer dollars to our favorite causes back in our home States
and districts.
Increasingly, Members of Congress are doing things such as giving
money to colleges and other organizations that are naming buildings and
programs after us so that it will attract more earmarks. It has become
a vicious circle that Americans are on to.
CBS made the point of this waste of money. To me, it, frankly, looks
very bad. It reflects poorly on all of us, and it discredits a lot of
the good things we do. Again, my point is not to identify a particular
Member of Congress to embarrass them but, hopefully, to embarrass us
all; that we are all involved with a very bad approach to spending
taxpayer dollars.
The idea of each Member of Congress--we all have papers, we all give
them to colleges. Does this mean we will all get taxpayer money to send
to these colleges to build some type of Presidential-like library to
archive our papers and give us personal offices? I assume it is
permanent.
The hard-working people in South Carolina who are paying taxes should
not be building a center for Congressman Rangel in New York. If we had
plenty of extra money, maybe we could talk about it. But the fact is,
we are borrowing this money from future generations to build monuments
to ourselves all around the country.
My amendment would disallow the use of funds in this bill for this
particular project, hopefully making a point to all of us that this is
not what
[[Page S13034]]
America expects when they send us to Congress. Our job is to do what is
best for this country in our future, not to create slush funds for
ourselves so we can win popularity back home by taking money back home,
particularly when we get involved with this back and forth of, they
named something after us, so we give money to them. It does not look
good, it does not sound good, and it is not good. It is not good for
our country and our future.
I encourage every Member of this Senate to vote for this amendment
that would disallow funds for this project and hopefully send a message
here and all around America that we are going to reform ourselves, and
we are no longer going to be embarrassed by CBS and other media. Every
time they point out what we are doing, we cannot hide from the fact
that it is shameful. I do not want my tax dollars spent this way. I
know the people in South Carolina do not. I bet if we had a chance to
ask every American, not one would say this is how they expect their tax
dollars to be spent.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3340 be
pending at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 3340 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. 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 provide that none of the funds made available under the
Act may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-
driven or competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in
response to a request from a Member of Congress, and for other
puropses)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative
formula-driven or competitive awarding process to award funds
to a project in response to a request from a Member of
Congress (or any employee of a Member or committee of
Congress), unless the specific project has been disclosed in
accordance with the rules of the Senate or House of
Representatives, as applicable.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3338.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient
second.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we do have two amendments I have offered.
My understanding was that there would be a voice vote on 3340, and I
have asked for the yeas and nays on 3338, if I may correct my request.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Would the Chair state the question
before the Senate right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has asked for
the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3338.
Mr. DeMINT. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Will the Senator from South Carolina repeat his request?
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 3338.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have not disposed of amendment No.
3340, if I am correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. We have looked at 3340. I don't know that it needs an up-
or-down vote. We can accept it. I understand Senator Specter will
accept it, also, so it is accepted on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3340.
The amendment (No. 3340) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will probably have more to say about
this later, but on the amendment the Senator offered regarding the
Rangel Center, I object to this amendment. It is an attack on an
institution that is not in the Senate amendment before us. It is a
House provision that provides funding for a center at the City College
of New York. As I understand it, the center was set up basically to
offer interdisciplinary programs for bachelor's degrees, master's
degrees, midcareer programs, to get more minority population into
management positions. Right now, non-Whites make up nearly 30 percent
of our population, yet only 13.8 percent of the men and women who
occupy top management and policy positions in the Federal Government
are members of minority groups. We need to do more to bring minority
Americans into public service. A center for public service at the City
College of New York was set up to do this. It was the City College of
New York that decided the name of it. As far as I know, we didn't
decide that. We didn't do anything to decide the name of it. In this
bill, we have funds for the Howard Baker Center in Tennessee. We have
funds for a Robert Dole Center. These are centers set up at
universities, and they name them. We do not. They decide to put a name
on it.
I believe we ought to be in the position of saying, yes, there is a
need for course work to help minorities get into midmanagement and
senior positions in the Federal Government. That is laudable. But what
the university names it ought to be up to the university. It is not up
to us.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Surely.
Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the concerns. Again, it is difficult when
names of Members of Congress are involved. The college already has an
education center specifically for the purpose listed for the Charles
Rangel Center. It is called the Colin Powell Center. They perhaps added
some bells and whistles, archived the papers as well as the personal
office we talked about.
To the chairman's objection about this not being in our bill, in this
body we regularly disallow funds for various agencies that are not
listed in our bill but that as a body we decide it is not the
appropriate way for money to be spent.
We should honor Congressman Rangel and others who have served with
distinction as he has. CBS brought out that the college had not made
the decision or at least would not make the decision as to how to name
the center. So there were a lot of questionable things that came up in
this report, questions enough that CBS decided to make it news.
My point is, if we get into the practice as Members of Congress while
we are still serving of responding to centers being named after us by
getting taxpayer dollars back to them and getting personal offices in
buildings around the country, this is clearly not our purpose, and it
is not one that will be respected by the American people.
I look forward to further debate. I appreciate all the time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have in our bill a provision for a
Howard Baker Center at the University of Tennessee. I haven't heard the
Senator from South Carolina want to go strike the Howard Baker Center.
That is in this bill. A couple years ago, we had the provision for the
Dole Center at the University of Kansas. I don't remember the Senator
objecting to that. This is nothing unusual. This happens all the time.
It is up to the university to decide whether they want to name them; it
is not up to us.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, I
appreciate the give-and-take. We have made the point many times. We did
it with judges. We created a law that would not allow us to name
courthouses after active judges, but once they retire, we look at it
differently. The same is true for Members. Senator Baker and Senator
Dole are not in positions now to direct money to different places
because they are named after them, but we are. There is a serious
question here, and we should make a distinction between what we do
while we are serving and what we do after we have retired.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe we are ready for the Dole
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
[[Page S13035]]
Amendment No. 3341 to Amendment No. 3325
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up No. 3341 pending at the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an
amendment numbered 3341.
Mrs. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell
Program)
On page 37, line 2, insert ``Provided further, That of the
funds available under this heading, $12,000,000 shall be
provided for the National Cord Blood Inventory pursuant to
the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-129):'' after ``programs:''.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, on December 20, 2005, the Stem Cell
Therapeutic and Research Act was signed by the President and became
law. This legislation established, through the Health Resources and
Services Administration, HRSA, the C.W. ``Bill'' Young Cell
Transplantation Program. This program, a successor to the National Bone
Marrow Donor Registry, takes what used to be considered medical waste,
deposits of umbilical cord blood, and banks it for future transplant
recipients. Cord blood is the only known substitute for bone marrow.
The first cord blood transplant in the United States not involving a
family member was performed at Duke University Medical Center in 1993.
Since then, cord blood transplants have become increasingly common.
Nationwide, more than 500 cord blood transplants are performed each
year.
Today, cord blood transplantation is one of the most hopeful and
exciting areas in the field of medicine. Together, adult stem cells and
cord blood units have been used to treat over 70 blood cancers and
genetic diseases.
Let me tell you about a young girl named Sangeetha. She received a
transplant 10 years ago at my alma mater, Duke University, when she was
battling leukemia. Doctors struggled to find a bone marrow match for
Sangeetha, who is Indian. Fortunately, doctors found a compatible match
from a baby girl born in New York, and Sangeetha was able to have cord
blood stem cell transplantation. I am pleased to say she graduated from
Western Alamance High School last year and is now a freshman at East
Carolina University.
My amendment ensures that the cord blood program is included in the
actual Labor-HHS appropriations bill. In the past, the cord blood
program has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress, and I ask
that the Senate again show its support of this program by accepting my
amendment. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Specter and Harkin, for
their strong support of the cord blood program. Without their hard
work, this life-saving program would not have received the funding
increase that it did this year.
Patients across the Nation have benefited from these state-of-the-art
centers that are located in six States: North Carolina, New York,
Washington, California, Colorado, and Texas. I know that in my home
State of North Carolina, Duke University Medical Center has been
working tirelessly to serve patients who travel from all across the
country to benefit from the latest advancements in medical research.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. It is
imperative that these centers are adequately funded to ensure that the
National Cord Blood Centers can continue to expand and store more cord
blood donations--which means matches for more patients in desperate
need of a transplant.
I ask for passage of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for her interest
in and support of the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank. This is a
program Senator Specter and I created in the 2004 bill when he was
chairman. Our bill includes $12 million for this program, enough to
sustain the banks that exist and start a new round of grants to startup
operations. The Dole amendment codifies this $12 million for the cord
blood stem cell banking program. I fully support it. I believe I can
speak for Senator Specter. On both sides, we are more than happy to
accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to amendment No. 3341.
The amendment (No. 3341) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3324
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose amendment No. 3324, the
Sessions amendment. As far as I know, there is no Member of this body
who opposes rigorous oversight of labor unions. Members of this body
who care about the well-being of American workers don't want them
harmed, period. It doesn't matter if it is an employer or a union
leader or the U.S. Trade Representative who is doing the harming.
Unions are already subject, as they should be, to stringent reporting
requirements, and unions overwhelmingly comply with whatever
requirements are mandated. In its budget justification, the Department
of Labor stated that the acceptability rate for unions in meeting their
financial requirements is 96 percent. There is not a serious problem.
We don't have a problem with monitoring unions. What we do have a
problem with is attacking workers, which is what this amendment will
do.
The offset of this amendment should offend any Member of this body
who respects the hard-fought progress our Nation has made in the
workplace, whether it is protecting the health and safety of workers or
preventing the exploitation of children.
Look at what this amendment does. It increases funding 37 percent for
``labor-management standards.'' It does nothing for wage and hour
enforcement. The Presiding Officer from Iowa has fought so hard for
more wages to build the middle class.
Look what it does here--and one of the reasons we have had stagnant
wages in this country--it cuts funding for occupational safety and
health. We know what has happened with workers in the workplace. We
have seen an increase in incidents because of the Bush administration's
lax enforcement of OSHA standards to begin with. Look what it does to
the International Labor Affairs Bureau.
This offset would undercut our investment in fighting the worst forms
of child labor and human trafficking. It would undercut our ability to
ensure that labor laws in developing nations are being enforced. When
those laws are not enforced, not only are there gross human rights
abuses, there are insurmountable obstacles to fair competition in the
global trading arena.
In other words, when we do not enforce labor standards in the
developing world, it is only costing us jobs because they are
undercutting our wages because they are violating labor law and they
are basically not playing fair.
This administration now seeks more of the same, asking Congress to
approve trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
This amendment is more of the same. The Sessions amendment cuts from
the small contribution--the small contribution--this Government makes
toward eliminating the worst forms of labor abuse.
Many countries still permit deplorable practices such as child labor
and forced labor. The Sessions amendment cuts funding of the
International Labor Affairs Bureau by $5 million. That undercuts its
core mission: investigating and combating these violations of human
dignity.
Look at these children shown in this picture I have in the Chamber,
and look at the work they are doing, hour
[[Page S13036]]
after hour, day after day, in all too many places around the world.
This is economic globalization on the cheap, and our Nation cannot
afford it.
Many in this Chamber may remember a report released last year by the
National Labor Committee which exposed disgraceful working conditions
in Jordan--a country with which we have a free trade agreement. The
report documented workers who were trafficked--their passports
confiscated when they arrived in Jordan. They used materials made in
China to make finished projects eligible for duty-free entry into the
United States, passing through Jordan. We see too many workers in
places such as Jordan. And our administration, what does it do? It
looks the other way.
International Labor Affairs funding--the funding this amendment would
cut--goes toward the implementation of ILO Convention 182 on the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. It has been ratified by
165 nations. The funding provides foreign governments with technical
assistance on meeting their responsibilities so this does not happen.
A more recent ILO report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,''
showed that the number of children working around the world dropped 11
percent, from 246 million children--like these--in 2000, to 218 million
in 2004. That is not good enough, but that is progress, and the
Sessions amendment would pull the rug out from under that progress.
Members of this body who vote ``yes'' on this Sessions amendment will
be simultaneously launching a gratuitous attack on labor unions in this
country and abandoning workers, including these children, and others,
who are being abused and exploited. It is doubly wrong. Vote ``no.''
Amendment No. 3348 To Amendment No. 3325
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and to call up amendment No. 3348 at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown], for himself and Mr.
Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3348 to amendment
No. 3325.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Underground Railroad Educational
and Cultural Program)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
$2,000,000 shall be available for the Underground Railroad
Educational and Cultural Program. Amounts appropriated under
title III for administrative expenses shall be reduced on a
pro rata basis by $2,000,000.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendment will be set aside.
Amendment No. 3349 To Amendment No. 3325
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3349, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mrs.
Lincoln, Mr. Obama, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 3349
to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 Secretary of Education from using funds with
respect to an evaluation for the Upward Bound Program until
congressional examination of the regulation providing for such review)
At the end of title III, add the following:
Sec. __. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
by the Secretary of Education to promulgate, implement, or
enforce the evaluation for the Upward Bound Program as
announced in the Notice of Final Priority published at 71
Fed. Reg. 55447-55450 (Sept. 22, 2006), until after the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House
of Representatives have thoroughly examined such regulation
in concert with the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act of 1965.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with
Senators Lincoln, Obama, Feingold, Collins, Wyden, Menendez, and Kerry.
This amendment would halt the implementation of an invalid and
unethical Department of Education evaluation of Upward Bound programs.
Across the country, Upward Bound serves low-income, first-generation
students who are at risk of not completing high school or pursuing
higher education. The evaluation requires that Upward Bound programs
aggressively recruit twice as many students as they can serve simply to
provide enough students for a control group that will never actually
receive Upward Bound services. It forces program directors to engage in
a sort of bait and switch that contradicts their mission as educators.
It places in danger longstanding trust relationships between Upward
Bound directors and school administrators, between students and their
families, and, most critically, it dashes the hopes of vulnerable teens
who lack the academic or the financial or the emotional support
necessary to successfully pursue higher education.
Not only will students be given false hope under this evaluation and
this process, but there remain serious questions about the adequacy of
research designs based on randomly assigned control groups in
educational research. These concerns are based on the difficulty--
perhaps even the impossibility--of imposing laboratory conditions in
nonlaboratory environments.
Unless we take action, the evaluations will proceed on about 100
campuses across the country, 10 percent of those--10 of those--in my
State of Ohio.
Upward Bound programs are critically important. We know how effective
they are to our Nation's youth, and we should evaluate their
effectiveness. But we should do it the right way, in a fair, ethical,
and valid way.
I will continue to work with my colleagues, including the Presiding
Officer, on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in
the Senate to develop an evaluation methodology that will truly let us
know how our Upward Bound programs are performing.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
business be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3321 To Amendment No. 3325
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3321, which I believe
is at the desk and was filed by Senator Coburn. He and I are
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for Mr. Coburn, for
himself and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3321 to
amendment No. 3325.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional care for pregnant women, mothers, and
infants by eliminating a $1,000,000 earmark for a museum dedicated to
Woodstock)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, none of the funds made available under the heading
``office of museum and library services: grants and
administration'' under the heading ``Institute of Museum and
Library Services'' in title IV may be used for for the Bethel
Performing Arts Center.
(b) The amount made available under the heading ``office of
museum and library services: grants and administration''
under the heading ``Institute of Museum and Library
Services'' in title IV is reduced by $1,000,000, and the
amount made available under the heading ``health resources
and services'' under the heading ``Health Resources and
Services Administration'' in title II is increased by
$336,500, which $336,500 shall be used to carry out title V
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), in order
to provide additional funding for the maternal and child
health services program carried out under that title.
[[Page S13037]]
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I can describe the amendment very briefly.
Here is the context in which Senator Coburn and I offer this amendment.
This Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides just under $150 billion
in total discretionary spending. I believe it is $149.2 billion. This
is about $8.95 billion over the President's recommendation. That is
well over 6 percent in excess of what the President recommended.
With this kind of excessive spending in the bill, it is important for
Congress to address the use of taxpayer dollars within this bill to
ensure that anything that is not a critical governmental function is
prioritized, and for those things that are not critical, that we not
spend money on them.
Now, this bill contains a $1 million earmark for a museum located at
the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY--the site of the
original 1969 Woodstock Festival. The museum, which is scheduled to
open in 2008, apparently will house exhibits on the Woodstock Festival
and the 1960s in which it occurred. According to the museum's Web
site--I am quoting now--
Through dramatic imagery, audio-visual technology and
immersive interactives, this exhibition tells the story of
the 1969 [Woodstock] festival and its significance in a time
of unrest and change, concluding with the myth, reality, and
impact of the Woodstock Festival today.
Our amendment is very simple. We simply strike that $1 million
earmark.
For those who thought the Woodstock Festival was a neat thing and
something that needs to be commemorated in American history, it is
happening. It does not need the Federal Government, the taxpayers in my
State and others, to subsidize that museum.
The Gerry Foundation, which is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization,
oversees the Bethel Center, and it reported an adjusted net income of
$7.7 million, investment income of more than $24 million, and total net
assets of over $150 million at the end of 2004, the last year for which
statistics are available. So why are we asking for $1 million to be
earmarked out of this particular bill, the Labor-HHS bill, for the
funding of this particular museum? As I said, our amendment would
eliminate the earmark for this Woodstock museum, and it would transfer
the funding to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program--
something that is relevant to the Labor-HHS bill.
The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program provides funding to
States to meet their most pressing maternal and child health needs,
encouraging the development of community-based networks for both
private and public health care services and programs designed to meet
the health needs of pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, and
adolescents. This is what this bill is supposed to be about.
We have had a lot of debate recently about protecting children's
health. It seems to me if that is something we are concerned about, we
could use this $1 million for children's health rather than helping to
pay the expenses of an already very well-funded museum to celebrate the
festival at Woodstock.
The amendment basically asks some questions about our priorities as
Members of Congress, stewards of taxpayer dollars. Remember, the money
has not grown on trees. It has been collected from hard-working
families who expect us to put it to good use. They are frustrated about
wasteful Washington spending. They criticize us every day for the
priorities we set. It seems to me we do have to ask questions such as
whether it is the will of this body to fund an earmark for a museum
celebrating a weekend-long party that occurred 38 years ago or funding
child health.
The American people, as I said, are sick and tired of the kind of
spending that this particular kind of earmark represents. They see us
as a government that is not accountable to them, that is out of touch
with their needs and realities in trying to provide for their own
families, and they then send what the Government needs by way of taxes.
They are not against paying taxes, but they do not want us to waste
their money.
It is beyond me how, with an entity as well funded as the Gerry
Foundation, the Government would have to then take taxpayer money and
fund this particular museum to the tune of $1 million. It is clearly
not a high priority. It is clearly not needed. It is not critical to
our future. It may be a nice thing for some people to visit to relive
their memories of the good old days, but, frankly, it is a handout from
taxpayers to a foundation that otherwise has plenty of money to
commemorate this particular event.
I close by noting that recently there was a festival at the Bethel
site, the site of Woodstock, on August 11 of this year. They hosted an
event called the ``HIPPIEFEST,'' with tickets priced up to $60 a
person. Here is how it was advertised:
Return to the flower-powered days of the 1960's with our
oh-so-hippie line-up of truly talented artists.
The center's advertisement for the concert further states:
[G]ather your groovy beads and we'll see you on the lawn
for a trip down memory lane.
Well, the trip down memory lane may be fine for folks. I suggest if
they want to participate in that, they can pay the admission price. If
a rich entrepreneur in New York wishes to fund the creation of this
museum, as he has done, he obviously has plenty of money to do it, as I
indicated. It is not something American taxpayers should pay for.
I will conclude by saying this: The reason why this Congress has a
lower approval rating than the President of the United States--the
lowest approval rating in its history, according to the public opinion
surveys--is because they do not trust us to do the right thing. They
believe we are wasteful stewards of their money. We have to start
somewhere in convincing them that we are serious about the business
they want us to conduct, that we can set priorities, and that we are
not going to continue to waste their money.
How can we, with a straight face, argue to them that we are not
wasting their hard-earned, taxpayer money when we take $1 million of it
to spend on a memorial or a museum for a party, as I said, that
occurred 38 years ago, and which is already plenty adequately funded?
It makes no sense at all.
I urge my colleagues, when this comes up for a vote, let's at least
demonstrate in a symbolic way, at a minimum, that we are serious about
not wasting their money. I hope my colleagues will support this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, does my colleague from Oklahoma intend to
speak on this amendment? Then I would like to speak after both my
colleagues have spoken and respond to what they have to say.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I intend to speak after Senator Schumer
speaks as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we heard Senator Kyl talk about the
problem. The Woodstock Museum is not the problem; it is a symbol of the
problem. Alan Gerry has done great things for the State of New York. He
should be praised for what he has done. This isn't an attack on him.
This is an attack on the process--the process where we inappropriately
send money back on the basis not of priority but on the basis of a low-
priority need.
Now, there was a historian by the name of Alexander Tyler. These
words are attributed to him. Nobody can say for sure he is the author
of them, but they bear a very important lesson for us. He wrote about
the Athenian Empire which had collapsed, and he was writing this about
the time that our Founders were writing our institutional documents.
Here is what he said: All democracies eventually fail. They fail
because people learn that they can vote themselves money from the
public Treasury. Consequently, they only vote for people in elected
office who will return them money from the public Treasury.
Consequently, all democracies fail over a fiscal collapse.
Now, is that where we are headed? Have we walked into the trap of
history which talks about how every other democracy in the world has,
in fact, failed over fiscal issues? They haven't failed over the
principles of their democracy. They haven't failed over their freedom.
They failed over the financial collapse of their system because the
political class used public monies to pay off private citizens.
[[Page S13038]]
This is a symbolic vote. It is not about going after Senator Schumer
or Senator Clinton and this earmark. I have been going after Republican
and Democratic earmarks for 2\1/2\ years. But this is a great example.
I am part of the hippie generation. I was a junior in college when
Woodstock occurred. It may be great for upstate New York to empower and
have this as an economic development tool. It is certainly a part of
our history and ought to be remembered. There is no question about it.
But the question is, should this be a priority for this body over the
priority of women and children, of maternal-child health, which isn't
funded adequately in this country? Should we fund $1 million to a
worthwhile project but low priority? That is the question. It is not
about whether great things have been done in this area or whether great
things can continue to be done.
New York has a $1.6 billion surplus right now. If this is great, why
shouldn't the State of New York fund it more, this $1 million? We have,
according to the latest estimate if you use Enron accounting, a $160
million deficit. If you use real accounting, it is going to be about a
$300 billion deficit. So why should we put the credit card in and
charge another $1 million to our kids for something that is low
priority? If we are going to charge another $1 million to our kids, why
don't we do it for the kids, for maternal and child health? We will
earn the 11 percent if we reject this amendment.
The problem is, this is a good thing to do. Senators have a right to
do it. We know that. Even though, I disagree that, before we fix the
major financial problems that face our country, we shouldn't be sending
money home. I am in the minority on that issue. I understand that. You
are not bad if you disagree with me. But according to the American
public, you don't agree with them either because 85 percent of the
American people in the latest poll think we ought to eliminate all
earmarks until we get our house in order.
The question is, how will they ever trust us to fix Medicare or
Social Security if they can't trust us on these small things? And they
can't. We can't help ourselves. Surely, $1 million for a Woodstock
museum and performance center is not a priority for this country at
this time.
Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
I hate to interrupt the Senator.
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think this has been cleared on the other
side.
I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 today, the Senate proceed to
vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 3338, with no amendment in
order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that there be 2 minutes
of debate prior to the vote with the time equally divided and
controlled between Senators DeMint and Schumer or their designees; that
upon disposition of the DeMint amendment, Senator Byrd be recognized to
call up an amendment on the subject of mine safety.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would ask
to modify that time on the provision that we be finished this debate.
In other words, that being the first order of business after we finish
this debate rather than setting a fixed time because I am not sure we
will be through at 12:30. If the Senator would care to modify, so that
at 12:30, or the soonest thereafter we finish this debate, I would be
more than happy to agree.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, is there any chance that we
could finish the debate after the vote? We are trying to get the vote
in prior to some noon things that are happening around here.
Mr. COBURN. I guess we can do that. I would do that if that is what
you want to do. I would love for us to finish this before the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I modify my unanimous consent request to
say that if the pending debate is not finished at 12:30, that after the
vote on amendment No. 3338, we would return to the debate on the Coburn
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Is that OK with my colleague?
Mr. SCHUMER. I only intend to speak for 5 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Then I think we should be finished. I have no objection
to the original request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Harkin request, as modified, is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, so here we have a bill, the Labor-HHS
bill, and it has over $400 million in earmarks--some good, some
priority, some are high priority, probably should be there, but many
are not high priority.
When are we going to do what the American family has to do every
year? What they have to do is say: Here is how much money we have
coming in. Here is what we have needs for, and here is what we have
available. What they do is make choices based on priorities. This
debate is about making choices. If we had different rules, this debate
would have been eliminating the earmark plainly, and several others.
But because of the Senate rules, the money is going to be spent, so we
have to figure out a higher priority place to spend it, and maternal
and child health is certainly the place to do it.
The real question the American people are asking us, the 89 percent
of the American people who don't have confidence in this institution
are asking us is, when are we going to get it? When are we going to
start doing what they want us to do? When are we going to start playing
for them and their future, rather than playing for us and our future?
That is the real question.
There is no question that the desirability of what this earmark
supports is probably great. I don't have any problems with it. What I
have a problem with is that we have a $9 trillion debt.
This Senator has never voted to raise the debt limit. We just raised
the debt limit $850 billion, to almost $10 trillion, because we can't
control ourselves.
So the question before us isn't whether this is good or bad. The
question is, when are we going to change our behavior? When are we
going to start doing $1 million here and $1 million here, up to
$398,584,000 worth of earmarks in a bill? That is the question. This
isn't conservatives who are asking this question; it is liberal
Democrats; it is Independents; it is conservatives, because they know,
in fact, this Government can run better, more efficiently, with less
money than what we are doing now, if, in fact, we will stand up and do
the oversight work we ought to be doing. But we refuse to do that.
So the vote will come. We will have a vote. If we don't enhance this
amendment and pass it, we will go from 11 percent to 10.95 percent
because, in fact, the American people will see, again, that we don't
get it. We don't have to live by the rules they live by.
The tragedy is, in this bill, the Labor-HHS bill to help those most
dependent in America, we are going to take money in the future from
those who we are saying we are giving to now, through a decreased
standard of living or an increased tax rate. If you don't believe that,
read David Walker, the Comptroller General's report about what is
getting ready to happen to us as a nation in terms of our finances, or
read Peter Peterson's book, ``Running On Empty,'' about what is going
to happen to us. Why in the world is the Euro at $1.42 when it was 83
cents 3\1/2\ years ago? Why is that? Is there a beckoning call about
our financial condition that the world financial markets recognize, and
yet we refuse to pay attention to?
So I call on my colleagues. This isn't a partisan amendment. I have
gone after just as many Republican amendments--as a matter of fact, one
of the amendments I am going to be offering today goes after a
Republican amendment. I also plan on offering an amendment to get rid
of all earmarks in this bill before we finish this bill. So we will get
to see whether this body gets it, whether the 80 percent to 85 percent
of Americans who want us to change our behavior have any influence on
us whatsoever. Will we listen?
There is a rumble. I said this a year and a half ago. There is a
rumble in America, and the rumble is this: We don't have confidence in
our Government anymore. Where is the legitimacy of our Government when
our own people don't have confidence in us? It is a great question to
ask about the
[[Page S13039]]
greatest Republic that there ever was. It is a problem we need to be
about solving rather than ignoring.
With that, I yield for the moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to make a few
comments. First, I would like to say this: I have tremendous respect
for my colleague, and I would say friend, from Oklahoma. I don't think
he does this out of any personal animus or even a direct, crass
political advantage. I think he believes, and I respect that. So I
would like to say that at the outset, and I say the same for my friend
from Arizona. They have both been consistent in this, and they don't
put in--even though their States do get earmarks, even earmarks for
museums, it is not the wish of the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator
from Arizona to do that. That is point 1.
Point 2, generally, about fiscal responsibility, I would say both of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like so many others, have
voted pretty strongly against spending programs. But they don't vote
the same way against tax cuts. They don't do pay-go on tax cuts. They
vote to cut taxes much more than all of the earmarks in this entire
bill, even though it makes the deficit worse, even though it is a fact
that our children will suffer because of the debt.
So there is no high moral ground here. There is a view as to how big
Government ought to be, but the idea of keeping the budget balanced for
our children and for our grandchildren, I daresay, this new Congress,
under Democratic leadership, is toeing the mark far more carefully than
previous Congresses did. We have instituted pay-go--pay-go for tax
cuts, but pay-go for spending programs as well.
Any economist will tell you, if you have a large deficit, it doesn't
matter whether the deficit was caused by either reducing taxes or by
raising spending. So, frankly, I think the arguments of my colleagues
would have a great deal more suasion in this body if they were to say
they will not vote for any tax cut that is not paid for either because
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you wish to say I am for shrinking Government and I don't care
what the deficit is, that is just fine. But if you are making the
argument that we should not pass debt on to our children, debt from tax
cuts and debt from spending programs is exactly the same debt.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
Mr. COBURN. Can the Senator recall a time that I voted for a tax cut?
Mr. SCHUMER. I don't know offhand.
Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, my public statements are that there
should be no tax cuts unless you do spending cuts to pay for them.
Mr. SCHUMER. I respect my colleague for that. But the Senator from
Arizona--I know of his record longer, and he does not have that record.
Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that.
Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate that, and I look forward, when tax-cutting
amendments come to the floor, to working with my colleague to say they
ought to be paid for if we are going to do it, like we did, for
instance, in the recent SCHIP bill.
I will make a second general point, and I will get to the specifics
of this program. There are many needs in this country, and this country
has always been one of federalism. Most of our time, effort, and energy
goes into broad programs that basically do the same thing in Oklahoma,
Arizona, and New York--whether it is helping pregnant women, whether it
is education, or whether it is road building. Those are large national
needs that this body has determined are real. But we have always had a
view that States and localities are important.
Frankly, since the 1930s, there has been a view that the Federal
Government has every right or reason to help those States and
localities specifically, and that is what good earmarks are. Earmarks
are not all good. Spending programs are not all good. Tax cuts are not
all good. Each of them can be aimed at a specific place. Each of them
can be aimed for the wrong reason. But I am proud of the earmarks I
have put in the bills that we have had this year and in previous years.
I am proud to defend them and I am glad we are having this debate. I do
believe there is a balance, and I don't believe saying every program
the Federal Government does ought to be just aimed across the country
because Sullivan County in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains,
is quite different from the county that surrounds Tulsa, OK, or the
Grand Canyon in northwestern Arizona.
Yes, there should be a balance. To me, the balance in this bill--and
the overwhelming majority are for broad Federal programs, but a certain
amount are designated for earmarks--makes sense. Now, obviously, if you
are putting an earmark in for something out of your State, or for the
wrong reason, that is wrong. But let me tell you, if you go to Sullivan
County, NY--and I appreciate that my colleague from Oklahoma has
conceded this is a good program; he just doesn't think the Federal
Government ought to spend for it. But I appreciate that because if you
go to Sullivan County, NY, it is the place where the Catskills are.
Until about 1950, the area boomed. Then the airplane boom hit and all
the people from New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston who vacationed
there started getting on airplanes and going to Florida, the Bahamas,
California, and now Arizona to vacation. So Sullivan County became one
of the poorest areas in our State. You drive up there, and you will
see, from the Old Glory days, the great hotels that are boarded up. You
will see the little bungalow colonies that people used to go to, which
are now decrepid. I have been there many a time. I was there as a kid.
I went to summer camp in the Catskills across the river in
Pennsylvania. I would go there, of course, as a Senator frequently. It
is an area that needs help.
When you ask the people what is the No. 1 thing they need, it is
jobs. In this bill, we talk about jobs, no question. But I daresay the
people of Sullivan County--the economic development experts, the town
and local officials--have a better idea of what would create jobs in
Sullivan County than the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from
Arizona and, quite frankly, the Senator from New York. They are there,
they know it. They live on the ground. They are the ones who see their
children unable to get work. They are the ones who have seen and
remember the older once great days, and now the decline, and they are
desperate to try to restore some of the jobs so their children won't
have to go away.
This Bethel Center for the Performing Arts was one of the two
economic development projects that Sullivan County put at the top of
its list, the other one being a racetrack, remaking the old Monticello
Raceway to help with gambling, which is still pending in the Department
of the Interior, where the Secretary, from Idaho, who doesn't seem to
have a real understanding of the need, says it is an out-of-State tribe
and we don't want to do it.
A job training program will be very nice, but it would not help
Sullivan County to a large extent. All of the other large Federal
programs we fund in this bill will not help Sullivan County. The people
of Sullivan County, as well as the people in the rest of New York, who
elected myself and Senator Clinton to try to help them with their
specific needs, as well as make the country a better place--we don't
tell them what is good for them. We make sure the money will be spent
where it is supposed to be spent. But we defer to their decision. This
was their decision. A lot of other things in Sullivan County might have
needed specific help, but this was their decision. It is a good
decision.
I believe--and this is where, I suppose, my colleague and I have a
difference--that the Federal Government should play a role. Being a
U.S. Senator means making the big, broad national policies for this
country, and it means helping the Sullivan Counties of each of our
States. I argue that a Senator who doesn't do that is derelict in his
or her responsibilities to their State. So I am proud of this earmark.
It is the right type of earmark.
My colleague mentioned the State government and why doesn't the State
do it. The State has put $15 million into this. The local county
officials have clamored for this for years. There was a previous
earmark put in by Congressman Hinchey in the House of Representatives
to help build a road. It is
[[Page S13040]]
a whole performing arts center at Bethel, not just a museum, but it is
about $100 million. We hear about State and private partnerships, and
this is one of them. The locality and the State are putting far more
money into it than Washington. So both the State and the county and the
town of Bethel have stepped up to the plate. They are not just asking
the Federal Government for something they would not spend money for.
Every one of our counties has a need like this. If we are going to
let a broad-brushed argument that there should be no earmarks stand--
none--we are not going to be able to help these specific needs. I am
proud to do it. I spend some time doing it, and I am going to continue
to do it. I think it is part of my job. I think the people of Sullivan
County and the people of New York State and the people of the United
States would agree with that when told the facts of this particular
situation and a little history of Sullivan County, which I have just
outlined.
So I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment because this
is, as my colleague from Oklahoma says, a worthy project, and most of
them are--not all. I have great respect for my two colleagues on the
Senate floor. I don't think they are motivated by anything other than
the best of intentions. Most of my colleagues believe they want to help
out the Sullivan Counties, and we should be getting at the deficit. But
the right way to do it is to put in pay-go across the board, not tie
our hands and eliminate one specific type of program.
I want to review a little about the Bethel Museum in Sullivan County.
It is a museum that not just covers Woodstock in the late 1960s, but it
covers a whole post-World War II period, focusing on the sixties. It
was a tumultuous decade, and it is a good idea to study it. Museums and
libraries are a very important part of our history and education, as
well as a job magnet. I don't think there is a debate that they are
important. They have broad-brushed Federal programs that help libraries
and museums. So that is not the argument.
Most important, it is an economic engine, as important as an economic
engine might be in southeast Oklahoma, in the Indian country of
Arizona, or the mountains of Montana, and it is what the two Senators--
Senator Clinton and I--in listening to the needs of Sullivan County and
the people of Sullivan County, the elected officials there and the
Chamber of Commerce have said they need most of all.
I hope my colleagues will support us and vote down this amendment
because when they vote down this amendment, they are standing up for
the other role we have in the Senate: to help our communities in the
way they believe is best, not the way Washington dictates is best.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to our colleague
from New York. Nobody is questioning anybody's beliefs. He certainly
made that point, and we make the same point. In Senator Schumer, the
citizens of New York have a very worthy and persuasive advocate. I say
this with no disrespect. He could literally make the sow's ear into a
silk purse, which I think is what is being done with respect to this
particular program. He fights for his constituents' interests and
beliefs. But I say thank you.
If this is a jobs program, and that is the justification for it, I
think we need to take a look at this again. I am informed that the
unemployment rate in Sullivan County is 4.1 percent, contrasted with
4.6 percent nationwide.
Our colleague talked about the counties in northwest Arizona. He
mentioned the Grand Canyon. One of the counties next to the Grand
Canyon incorporates the Navajo Indian Reservation.
I think about Tuba City. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Indian
Reservation is about 40 percent as opposed to a little over 4 percent
in Sullivan County, NY. We could use a lot of jobs programs. We can use
other programs more than that. I cannot get money for a roof on the
Tuba City jail which leaks. There are parts of Arizona where it
actually rains, and on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Tuba City, AZ,
it rains.
I went up there on a Saturday night about 6 months ago. Hope
MacDonald said: You need to come up, we have to get a new jail; this
thing is falling apart. I walked in and, yes, it is falling apart. It
happened to be raining and, yes, the roof leaks.
There are huge needs on these Indian reservations in poor counties of
Arizona. There are a lot of events we can commemorate on the Navajo
Reservation in terms of a museum that would be worthwhile for everybody
in this country to visit. There is a rich, long, wonderful history
there. But I don't think we should have an earmark in the Health and
Human Services bill to create a museum as a jobs program. If we want to
do that, let's focus on the real need.
I don't know how many jobs this would create or what the cost-benefit
ratio of the expenditure of this money is for job creation, but there
surely has to be a better way to do it than creating a museum. If we
are prioritizing, I can tell you areas in Arizona that are far greater
in terms of unemployment and could use the money in much more direct
ways to benefit the citizens of the State.
The second point that our colleague from New York made--I will stand
guilty with respect to Senator Schumer's charge, which is that I don't
believe we should always raise taxes when we cut taxes. That is what
this so-called pay-go rule is all about. It is supposed to work this
way. You either cut spending or you raise taxes.
We had a Finance Committee meeting, I believe it was yesterday, an
informal meeting. I asked my colleagues, because it was all about
raising taxes: Does anybody here have an idea about how we could cut
spending in order to pay for this? Dead silence. Not a one. I know my
colleague from Oklahoma has lots of good ideas about how to cut
spending, but nobody in the Finance Committee was willing to put forth
an idea of cutting spending. No, it had to be to raise taxes.
What I am curious about is whoever decided that the amount of revenue
the Federal Government collects today is exactly the amount of revenue
it has to collect from now into the future so that if we are ever going
to reduce taxes on hard-working Americans, we have to raise their taxes
in some other area so the Government can still collect the same amount
of money?
It is interesting, we collect about 18.4 percent of the gross
domestic product in taxes today. We could prevent any of the existing
tax rates from increasing--take the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and
eliminate AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we would still be
collecting 18 percent of our gross domestic product in taxes. Isn't
that enough?
If we don't do these things, we will be over 20 percent. The historic
40-year average is 18.2 percent. Clearly, we don't have to keep raising
taxes on Americans. That is why some of us believe, when we try to help
people by cutting taxes, we ought to leave well enough alone and not
raise taxes somewhere else so we can keep the Government whole. The
object is not to make sure the Government always has the same amount of
money. It is to try to help the people who pay the taxes. They are the
ones who generate the jobs.
If we are talking about unemployment, let's talk about who creates
the jobs. It is mostly small businesses. So if we help small businesses
by not raising their taxes, they can create the jobs and that creates
wealth and, by the way, it produces more income tax revenue to the
Federal Government.
I conclude by saying I plead guilty to not wanting to raise taxes
every time I am in favor of cutting taxes, but that debate is
irrelevant to the question before us today, which is simply, as a
symbolic measure, can we at least find $1 million in this multibillion-
dollar bill that we can all agree could better be spent on something
else? Can we set some priorities once and for all?
This Woodstock museum, maybe it is a good idea--I am not so sold on
it--but if it is a great job creator, and it is pretty clear the people
in New York have concluded that, they have the money to fund a museum.
They do not have to rely on the taxpayers in my State or other States
to fund a museum.
I hope my colleagues agree that in setting priorities, we can strike
this one earmark from this bill.
[[Page S13041]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple points as to Senator
Schumer's statement. First, with an unemployment rate six-tenths
percent lower than the national average and lower than New York's
average, by the way--lower than New York's average--it is hardly in the
dire consequences of what we see around the rest of the country.
The second point is, we have 60-some million dollars out there for
competitive grant competition on museums for which the museum
administration does a great job. In other words, everybody in the
country who wants to have a museum has to compete against everybody
else, and the ones who are most meritorious--by the way, they are also
audited to see that the money is actually spent in a proper way; this
will never be audited--they have to compete.
The major problem with Senator Schumer's argument is that Sullivan
County can never be healthy if the country as a whole is not healthy.
That is the problem with the argument. We can say we want to make XYZ
healthy. It is akin to saying your finger is healthy when you are
having a heart attack.
The fact is, the country as a whole is at the precipice--D day comes
January 1, 2008. That is the demographic day on which all the baby
boomers, the ``Woodstockers'' start taking Social Security, and 3 years
later they start taking Medicare, $79 trillion worth of unfunded
liabilities. How in the world can the American people ever trust us to
fix those big problems if we don't even get it on the small problems?
If this is a great idea, put it into the competition on competitive
grants for museums. To say they are in hardship with an unemployment
rate of 4.1 percent compared to the rest of New York and the rest of
the country, that is hard to believe.
Again, we have to start listening to the rumble in America that says
start being good stewards with our money, quit doing things that help
you as politicians that hurt us as a country.
The fact is, although this may be very worthy, why shouldn't it have
to compete against everybody else in the country who wants a museum?
Why shouldn't it have to compete? Why is it that I can pick out and
place--and I guess I am one of the derelict Senators because I don't
believe Oklahoma can be healthy if our country isn't healthy. I believe
Oklahoma will ultimately fail if our country fails. I believe that
future generations will live a less standard of living with less
opportunity and ultimately less freedom if we don't solve the financial
problems in front of us as a nation.
This is a symptom of our sickness, and until we reject and get rid of
this disease of parochialism and start fulfilling our oath--do you
realize the oath we take when we come to the Senate never mentions our
State? It says you will uphold the Constitution of these United
States--these United States, all of us. So the will and the best well-
being of all of us as a country has to be our most important goal.
Alexander Tyler will be right about us if we don't wake up and change
what we are doing. We will collapse under our own fiscal insanity if we
continue to do these things.
Senator Schumer is a great Senator for the State of New York, there
is no question about it. He is going to fight and defend this old way
of parochialism. He is going to fight and defend it until we as a
country collapse. That is why we have an 11-percent confidence rating.
We are collapsing already in terms of our real duty to build
confidence, that we are looking out for the country as a whole, not for
our own political careers or not for local parochial interests. That is
why the Senate was created. It wasn't for parochial interests. If you
read the Founders' writings, they never thought about the Senate being
considered anything other than a body that looked at the long term,
ensure the future, create opportunities, and protect the liberty, and
we fall away from that as we go through this process.
Mr. President, I know we have a unanimous consent agreement. I ask
that all the Members of this body read Comptroller General David
Walker's report about what is getting ready to happen to us and read
former Secretary Peter Peterson's book ``Running on Empty'' and what
they will see is not a pretty picture.
The time to diagnose the disease is now, not when we are in ICU and
we could have prevented it.
I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for their debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, moments ago I heard my colleague from
Arizona, who is a member of the Finance Committee, as am I, talking
about eliminating the alternative minimum tax. Most of us in this
Chamber know we have a problem with the alternative minimum tax that is
going to affect 23 million Americans, up from nearly 4 million last
year, if we fail to act. But the notion that we eliminate the
alternative minimum tax and not pay for it I find breathtaking. Why?
Because unless we replace that revenue, we will have to go out and
borrow another $870 billion over the next 10 years. In fact, some of my
colleagues in a meeting yesterday of the Finance Committee said let's
not only eliminate the alternative minimum tax and not pay for it,
let's eliminate or extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and not pay for
that either, not reduce spending or replace it with other revenue.
The effect of those proposals would be $4 trillion of additional debt
after they have already run up the debt of the country by $3 trillion
in the last 6 years alone, a 50-percent increase in the debt. I find
that not just irresponsible, I find it wildly irresponsible.
From where is this money going to come? It would be borrowed. From
whom would we borrow it? Right now, over half the money we are
borrowing to float this Federal Government we are borrowing from abroad
and primarily the Japanese and the Chinese.
So when my colleagues come out and say let's have a bunch more tax
cuts and not pay for them, by either reducing spending or replacing it
with other revenue, understand what they are saying. What they are
saying is let's go borrow a bunch more money from China and Japan.
Some people say it is a sign of strength that they will loan us this
money. That is an interesting idea of strength. I had a man in my
office the other day, one of the wealthiest men in America. He said to
me: I believe America is in danger of following the path of Great
Britain, a great empire in decline, because we are not responsible
about our financial commitments and we get into this idea of spending
money we don't have and borrowing it primarily from abroad.
It leaves me cold to hear some of my colleagues talk about supporting
every tax cut, supporting every spending initiative, wanting another
$200 billion for the war in Iraq and not willing to pay for any of it.
That is what will bring America down. That is what will weaken this
country. That is what will leave us deep in debt and a debt that we
will owe all around the world.
We are increasingly dependent on the kindness of strangers. At some
point, we have to get serious around here and become responsible. Those
who embrace every spending initiative of every tax cut and then call
themselves fiscally responsible have gone beyond the pale.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3338
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South
Carolina, Mr. DeMint, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, or
their designees, prior to a vote on amendment No. 3338, offered by the
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate about 3 years,
and I have become increasingly concerned that many of my colleagues and
good friends, whom I deeply respect, now believe it is our purpose here
in the Senate to take tax dollars from the American people and then
give them to our favorite causes back in our States. There are many
wonderful causes back in South Carolina. I could spend a whole national
treasury on them if I could get my hands on it, but that is not what I
am here for. Americans expect us to work for the good of the country,
of everyone and our future as a whole, not to create slush funds for
ourselves and give them to our favorite causes back home.
My amendment addresses a particular cause, and my purpose is not to
[[Page S13042]]
embarrass a Member of Congress but to point out that it is particularly
egregious if we, as Members of Congress, take taxpayer money and give
it to some project that has been named after us, and in this case Mr.
Rangel has gotten $1 million or $2 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 30
seconds since no one else is speaking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. My amendment strips this out. Some have said it is not in
the Senate bill, so we don't need to do it. We do that all the time; we
disallow the use of funds for particular reasons because that is not
what a bill is intended for.
Some have said we name things after Senators all the time. But it has
only been after they have retired that we have done that. We do it for
judges after they retire.
We have to stop this insidious problem of becoming a favor factory
where we are giving away taxpayer money for things we are not supposed
to do, despite how worthy they might be. Please support my amendment to
strike this egregious provision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the only fault I find with the amendment
of the Senator from South Carolina is that this provision is not in the
bill before us. It is not in this bill. The thing he finds
objectionable is in the House bill; it is not in this bill.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I think all time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. We have done this before. We did it with spinach a while
back. It is not unusual for us to disallow the use of funds for things
not in our bill. It is important we do it as a Senate; otherwise, it
will end up in the final bill.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is there time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just say again that I find it
unusual that we are passing amendments on provisions that aren't even
in the bill before us. It is in the House bill. Now, maybe the Senator
from South Carolina wants to send a signal, and I certainly respect
that, but the fact is the provision he objects to is not in the
legislation before us. It is over in the House bill. Ultimately, this
will have to be worked out between the House and the Senate.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3338. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 373 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Allard
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Martinez
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
NAYS--61
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Biden
Dodd
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 3338) was rejected.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are making progress on this legislation.
The two managers are working very hard to consider all the amendments
that people have suggested to them.
We have just spoken to the distinguished Republican leader, and we
believe this bill can be finished--it is 1 o'clock Thursday afternoon,
and I hope we will not have to work into the evening tomorrow. We
really need to finish this bill and have some cooperation from Senators
as to how it can be finished with a time certain. So I tell the two
managers, this is a bill we need to do.
As I said before, there are a couple of reasons we need to do it. No.
1 is we need to get this bill completed so we can get something to the
President, and this would be a bill to do that. If the President is
going to veto legislation, which he said he is going to do, this would
be a good one to send to him because what the President is complaining
about, in actual dollars, is in this bill.
Second, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is the manager of
this bill. We have to get him the ability next week to start and finish
marking up the farm bill. We have to do the farm bill every 5 years. We
are now past the time when we should have already completed that.
So there are a number of very important reasons we have to push
forward this week to finish what we are working on today. I hope
everyone understands that. I said before, I am so happy last week we
were able to find a way of finishing the Mikulski-Shelby appropriations
bill. We were able to do that. It took the cooperation of both sides,
but we wound up with a good product.
I hope we do not have to work late tomorrow. I hope we can figure out
a way to do this. When Senator McConnell was speaking earlier today, a
few minutes ago, we had both our floor staffs with us, and they are
going to help work through this. If people have amendments they want
votes on, let's set them up today or tonight. It should be, and could
be, an important day to complete this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to the majority leader, we
are anxious to move this bill to completion as well. We understand the
desire of the manager of the bill to turn his attention to the farm
bill, which has not yet been marked up. I am on that committee, and I
understand his interest in being able to do that.
Let me just reiterate, there is going to be plenty of cooperation on
this side of the aisle to complete the Labor-HHS bill at the earliest
possible time. I encourage our Members who have been offering
amendments and are going to be offering some more to come down and
let's do it today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to move this along, I ask unanimous
consent to call up en bloc amendments numbered 3242, 3352----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is to be recognized.
The senior Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish to make a unanimous consent request?
Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield, if I could call up this
amendment and speak for 2 minutes and then yield the floor?
Mr. BYRD. How long does the Senator wish?
[[Page S13043]]
Mr. ENSIGN. Two minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor for 2 minutes.
Amendments Nos. 3342 and 3352 En Bloc, to Amendment No. 3325
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up, en bloc, amendments Nos. 3342
and 3352.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendments are set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes, en bloc,
amendments numbered 3342 and 3352 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3342
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to administer Social Security
benefit payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social
Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees
of the Social Security Administration to administer Social
Security benefit payments, under any agreement between the
United States and Mexico establishing totalization
arrangements between the social security system established
by title II of the Social Security Act and the social
security system of Mexico, which would not otherwise be
payable but for such agreement.
amendment no. 3352
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to process claims based on
illegal work for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be expended or obligated by the Commissioner of Social
Security, for purposes of administering Social Security
benefit payments under title II of the Social Security Act,
to process claims for credit for quarters of coverage based
on work performed under a social security account number that
was not the claimant's number which is an offense prohibited
under section 208 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408).
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, these----
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for 2 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to recall the floor
but yielded 2 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I will sit down because I know I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, I will keep this very short.
The first amendment deals with the totalization agreement the United
States and Mexico have been working on together. I think there is a
severe problem with a totalization agreement between our two countries;
not because of our country but because of the recordkeeping and the
problems associated with Mexico.
What the first amendment would do, very simply, it would not allow
the administration to use funds to implement a totalization agreement
with Mexico. Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We
all know that.
This totalization agreement with Mexico would put our Social Security
trust fund into trouble. That is why I think this is an important
amendment that we debate, we talk about, and hopefully we will support.
The second amendment I have, I believe, reflects American values. We
hear about identity fraud all the time. My amendment says the Social
Security Administration could not pay Social Security benefits to
anybody who has used a Social Security number fraudulently. That
happens today. They use it fraudulently. They come back and they claim
the benefits while they were using someone else's Social Security
number.
This amendment would stop that practice. It would say Social Security
cannot use any funds in this bill to give Social Security benefits to
somebody who used an illegal Social Security number.
So briefly, those are my two amendments. I appreciate the Senator
from West Virginia yielding me 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, is the Senate operating under a time
agreement at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement on the Senator's
time.
Mr. BYRD. Am I recognized at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 3362 to Amendment No. 3325
(Purpose: To increase funding for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, last year the coal mining industry
recorded the highest fatality rate in 10 years: 47 coal miners
perished. Perished. They died. Many of these coal miners perished in
the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby Mines in West
Virginia and Kentucky.
In response, the Congress passed the MINER Act to help ensure better
emergency preparedness in the coalfields, such as the underground
installation of wireless communications and additional emergency
breathing devices.
In order to fund these new mandates, and in order to ensure continued
compliance with already existing health and safety standards, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $13 million above the
President's budget request for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
I also note that because the President's budget failed to do so in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee
secured funding, at my request, to hire additional mine safety
inspectors and to bolster safety enforcement at MSHA.
I wish to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their support
and their stalwart advocacy of these requests. They are true champions
of the coal miners.
Since the Appropriations Committee reported this bill in June,
another tragedy occurred in Utah where six miners were trapped at the
Crandall Canyon Mine. During the rescue operation, three miners lost
their lives, one of them a Federal mine inspector. The original six
miners who had been trapped were never found. They remain entombed to
this very minute, this very hour, this very day. They remain entombed
in Crandall Canyon.
When the Congress returned from its August recess, the chairman and
the ranking member of the Senate Labor HHS Subcommittee conducted a
hearing to examine MSHA's actions at Crandall Canyon.
In response to several questions I asked based on articles in West
Virginia's Charleston Gazette, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Mine Safety and Health informed me that MSHA had not been performing
the full quarterly inspections required by the Mine Act. I learned that
MSHA has fallen dangerously, shockingly behind on its mine inspections
across the Nation.
In southern West Virginia, the inspection rate had been allowed to
decline from 89 percent in 2006 to 63 percent in 2007. MSHA needs the
personnel, MSHA needs the budget to perform its primary and most basic
functions; MSHA needs support staff to properly assess penalties; MSHA
needs resources to review and certify safety equipment; MSHA needs the
capacity and the personnel to train more inspectors.
Years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush administration--let me
say that again--years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush
administration have left critical positions unfilled at MSHA,
incapacitating the Agency in many respects.
During a recent meeting in my office, the Assistant Secretary for
MSHA, in response to my request, described a plan for MSHA to achieve
100 percent of the inspections required by the Mine Act. The plan would
require many tens of thousands of overtime hours and the transfer of
inspectors from districts across the country.
I have been told that these additional measures would be sufficient
to fill the current gaps in the inspection schedules, at least until
new inspectors can be trained and are able to assume their full
responsibilities.
Now the problem falls to the Congress. That is here. The problem
falls to the Congress to figure how to pay for this interim plan and
how to fix these very serious budget deficiencies at MSHA.
[[Page S13044]]
Even after the most horrific year of mine fatalities in a decade, the
President's budget request still does not include adequate funds to
enable MSHA to conduct, in full, the most basic safety inspection.
The President's budget request--let me say that again. Our
President's budget request--let me say that again--our President's
budget request does not even include the necessary funds to help MSHA
comply with the mandates of the new MINER Act which the President
signed into law.
Today, I am offering an amendment that would add $10 million. Did you
hear that? It would add $10 million to MSHA's budget. These funds are
necessary to enable MSHA both to complete the safety inspections
required by the law and also to implement the mandates required by the
MINER Act.
The amendment would be fully offset by a reduction in travel
expenditures for the departments and the agencies funded in the
underlying bill. It would save lives. The funds enable MSHA to support
additional hours of overtime for mine inspectors and specialists and to
pay for travel for inspectors temporarily reassigned.
In addition, this amendment enables MSHA to hire additional support
and administrative staff and to designate education specialists to
better train new mine inspectors. The amendment would allow MSHA to
begin to reduce its backlog of applications for certification and
approval of new safety technologies. The amendment would spur
expeditious approval of a truly wireless communications and tracking
system that can meet the requirements of the MINER ACT.
As SAGO--SAGO, a terrible word because of that terrible tragedy--
Crandall Canyon, and too many other recent mine disasters have made
deadly clear, mine safety must not be funded on the cheap. The Congress
must fund MSHA's true budgetary needs, and it must have the candid
appraisal of the Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration. Tell it to us straight. I say to them, tell it to us
straight. Anything less is a threat to the health and safety of our
miners.
I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Specter, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3362:
At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$10,000,000 for necessary expenses for salaries and expenses
of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
(b) Amounts made available under this Act for travel
expenses for the Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education
shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by the percentage
necessary to decrease the overall amount of such spending by
$10,000,000.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it is my understanding that someone is
needed on the other side of the aisle. I can certainly appreciate that.
I want to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
I am advised by the able staff on the other side that Senator Specter
would agree to having the yeas and nays. I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
(The remarks of Mr. Casey and Mr. Sanders pertaining to the
introduction of S. 2191 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
CHIP
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have a saying in some parts of
Missouri, and I think it is a common saying in some rural parts of
America: That dog won't hunt. I rise today to speak a few minutes about
the Presidential veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Mr. President, that dog won't hunt. All America has to do is look at
the rationale for the veto and look at the tale of two programs--and
that would be T-A-L-E.
The President says he is vetoing children's health care because it is
too expensive. It is a $35 billion expansion over 5 years--an average
of $7 billion a year. The President says he is vetoing the Children's
Health Insurance Program because it is providing health insurance for
wealthy families or families who can afford health insurance on their
own.
This is a President who is out of touch. When a family of four making
around $50,000 is facing over $1,200 a month in health insurance costs,
that is a crisis in our country, and one that the majority in Congress
has recognized. That is why we have prioritized the children. This is a
program for low-income children, for modest-income children, and it is
important we give them this health insurance. The President says it is
too expensive. We pay for it. It is a novel concept around here that we
are paying for it.
Now, let's dial back the calendar a few years and look at Medicare
Part D. Was it expensive? Yee howdy, was it expensive. Try $710 billion
over 10 years--an average of $70 billion a year. Was there a way to pay
for it? Absolutely not. No way to pay for it. We just wrote a bad check
for it. We had no way of paying for it. Was it for modest-income
Americans or low-income Americans? Oh, no. Oh, no. It was for anybody
in America. You could be a billionaire and participate in Medicare Part
D.
So let me see if I get this straight. We have one program that is not
paid for that is 10 times more expensive than the Children's Health
Insurance Program that is for wealthy people in America--and it is OK
the year before the President stood for reelection, it is OK with my
Republican colleagues who voted against the Children's Health Insurance
Program, it is OK with some of my colleagues from Missouri in Congress
on the other side of this building who are voting to uphold the
President's veto today. They voted for Medicare Part D.
So what is the difference? Why is one program not fiscally
irresponsible and inappropriate? But the program for low-income
children, why is it so bad? Well, the devil is in the details. And the
details in this instance are that the people who wanted Medicare Part D
were the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. It is
estimated they are going to make close to $150 billion off Medicare
Part D. That is why this dog won't hunt. Because what this is about is
the private insurance companies and private drug companies making
money. Then it is OK to give the benefit to wealthy people and to not
have a way to pay for it. But if it is going to the children and nobody
is going to make any money off of it, then all of a sudden it is evil.
No wonder the people of America are outraged. No wonder our phones
are ringing off the hook. No wonder the Members of Congress who are
willing to uphold this veto are feeling the heat. They ought to feel
the heat. This is the right thing to do. We should be taking care of
these children. It is the least we can do as Americans to face the
health care crisis that we face right now.
So I urge my colleagues from Missouri--especially those who are
voting to sustain the President's veto--to reconsider because if you
voted for Medicare D and you are saying this is a problem, you know
what: America will figure that out.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my colleague
from Missouri for her wonderful comments as it relates to health care.
Also, as to the bill in front of us, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Iowa for his passionate commitment to the right things as it
relates to the values and priorities for our families: health care,
education, and focusing on things that really matter to families every
day.
I specifically come to the floor, though, because we just saw a vote
in the House of Representatives that was just completed regarding the
children's
[[Page S13045]]
health care legislation. Unfortunately, it fell short of the override
we need to have happen in order to be able to provide health insurance
for 10 million children in America--10 million children of working
families who are working very hard. They don't want to be on public
assistance and Medicaid so that their children can get coverage; they
want to work. They are working, but they are not in a position to be
able to afford private health care coverage and they don't have it at
work. So we are, through the children's health care program, rewarding
work and rewarding the families of America who want to make sure their
children have health insurance.
It is my understanding that there was just a vote that fell short.
There were 273 colleagues in the House of Representatives--and I
commend every one of them.
All of those who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle in
the House and the Senate should be commended again. Certainly, our
leader, Senator Reid, the Speaker, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley,
Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hatch--all of our bipartisan colleagues
should be thanked for their efforts one more time.
I come to the floor to say that we are not done. We are not done. The
people of this country are appalled at the lack of understanding of
what average families are going through today. This President will be
shortly asking us to approve another $200 billion for the war in Iraq--
that will be paid for by our children, by the way, because it is not
paid for; it goes on the national deficit, so our children and
grandchildren will be paying for it--but says no to a program that is
fully paid for, that invests $7 billion a year in making sure the
children of America have health insurance. Seven billion dollars versus
$200 billion, on top of another half a trillion dollars that has
already been spent, on a war the American people want to stop as it is
currently constituted. They want to change that mission and focus on
things that will certainly keep us safer.
So I come to the floor to, first of all, commend everyone who has
been involved to this point. I am very proud to be a member of the
Finance Committee, where we worked very hard to put together a
bipartisan agreement. But we are not done. This is a mainstream program
supported by the broadest possible coalition you could have, from the
business community and the large pharmaceutical companies to Families
USA and to organized labor and child advocates and health care
organizations. This is mainstream. This is the broadest possible
coalition. Unfortunately, I regret to say it has been defeated by
misinformation presented by folks who think that if they repeat long
enough that somehow this covers people making $83,000 a year or repeat
long enough that illegal immigrants are covered, that it somehow makes
it true. Now, as the distinguished Chair knows, even in looking at the
issue of documented or undocumented immigrants, even those who are here
legally were asked to--were basically put in a position not to be able
to receive children's health care help.
So to be able to address all of this misinformation that is out
there, there is a real issue about that which needs to be fixed. So we
have seen lack of information, misinformation, and more that has gone
on with this proposal. In the short term, it seems to have worked, but
it will not work in the long run because the reality is this is the
right thing to do. It was passed 10 years ago by a Democratic President
and a Republican Congress. I remember that debate. I was in the House
of Representatives at the time in 1997. This was a positive step
forward to support families working hard every day, trying to make sure
they can put food on the table, pay the mortgage, buy the school
clothes, and then have children's health care, have health care for
their children, maybe be able to take them to the dentist so they don't
end up with an abscessed tooth and the outrageous situation that
happened with a child who died whom we all read about in the paper.
This is about moral values, priorities. When this President now comes
to us asking for another $200 billion for a war that is not paid for,
that is putting brave American men and women in the middle of a civil
war in Iraq every day, I want to have him answer the question: Why?
Why, Mr. President, is it all right to add $200 billion more to the
debt and ask our children and grandchildren to pay for it, yet you are
not willing to stand with the children of America, 10 million children
in America who are counting on us to be able to make sure they can get
basic health care? There is something fundamentally wrong with this.
I urge colleagues to join with us. We are not going to stop until
this is addressed because it is the right thing to do from a moral
standpoint, and from a fiscal standpoint it is the right thing to do.
When children can't go to the doctor, their family can only use the
emergency room or the child gets sicker than they otherwise would
because they only have the emergency room to go to. They can't go to a
doctor. The hospital pays, and then who picks up the tab? Every
business that has health insurance. So from a practical economic
standpoint, it makes sense. Certainly from a moral standpoint, it makes
sense.
I think this is one of the proudest moments we have had in the
Senate, of people of diverse backgrounds and philosophies coming
together, putting the ideology at the door, and saying: You know what,
this is about children. I don't know how many times I heard the
chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished chairman, say:
This is about the kids. Just keep focused on the kids. And because we
did that in this Chamber, we came up with something we can all be very
proud of.
The American people want to know that we reward work in this country
and that we understand that families who are desperately concerned
about health care for their children ought to be able to have a right
to be able to purchase an affordable policy that will allow them to
have their children get the health care they need.
So I appreciate our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
subcommittee allowing me to speak. I am deeply disappointed, along with
people all across America, at the vote that just happened. But we are
not done. Ten million children and their families are counting on us,
and we are not going to stop until they have the health care they need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan
for her very eloquent and very timely statement on what just happened
in the House. I guess it just transpired a little while ago. I think
probably all of us were hoping that somehow the Members of the other
body would come to realize this had broad support across the country--
the SCHIP bill--and the fact that the $35 billion we had in there over
5 years was something that is sorely needed. I think we were all hoping
this would pass. So when I just heard the Senator from Michigan say it
failed by only getting 273 votes--we need 290 in the House to override
a veto--that is a shame because it is obvious that we here in the
Senate have the votes to override a veto.
So what can I say? Seventeen people prevented this from becoming law
and from providing the health care our children need in this country--
children of working parents. Mostly these are people who are a working
parent or parents, they are contributing to society, they are taxpaying
individuals, but they simply don't have enough money to buy the kind of
health insurance they need to cover their kids. So this really is a
slap in the face to the middle class in America, the middle-class
people who are struggling to make ends meet and trying to provide a
good education for their kids, maybe trying to put something away for a
rainy day or for retirement, and they just don't have the money for
health insurance. The Senator from Michigan is so right.
I don't mind if the President is opposed to this, but I think he has
an obligation to speak truthfully to the American people. When he came
out yesterday--I think it was just yesterday I heard this--he said:
Well, it would cover kids with families earning up to $83,000 a year.
Well, that is just simply not factually true. It would be if he signed
it--I mean, it is up to the
[[Page S13046]]
President to approve or not approve those. So is he saying that if the
bill went through, he would approve it? That doesn't make sense. So
that was disingenuous on his part. Also, as the Senator from Michigan
pointed out, that somehow this would cover immigrant children, that is
absolutely forbidden in the bill.
So I thank the Senator from Michigan for her long efforts in this
regard as a member of the Finance Committee, as well as the occupant of
the chair, who I know is a member of the Finance Committee and who also
has worked very hard to reach a compromise, a bipartisan agreement on
this bill to send it to the President. All I can say is, when people
ask me now what are we going to do, well, what we are going to do is we
are going to try to do something to move this forward. We can't just
sit back and say that because of 17 people we can't move ahead.
So I think most of us who feel very strongly about the Children's
Health Insurance Program are going to do everything we can between now
and the time we adjourn to get this back up and try to get it to the
President, and hopefully by then there will be enough momentum behind
it that he will sign it. But I don't think we should just sit back and
let it linger.
So I thank the Senator from Michigan for all of her strong support
for the SCHIP bill.
Amendment No. 3362
Mr. President, turning back now to this bill in front of us, the
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the President pro
tempore of the Senate, Senator Byrd, had offered an amendment on MSHA,
the Mine Safety Health Administration, to provide an additional $10
million for that. It was fully offset by a reduction of $10 million in
travel expenses for the Department of Labor, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the Department of Education. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of that amendment.
Our subcommittee held two hearings on MSHA this year. What we learned
is they still don't have two-way communication and tracking technology
that would operate after an accident in an underground coal mine. Other
countries seem to do quite well in that--Poland, Australia--other
countries seem to be able to do that, but we can't. MSHA has been
dragging its feet on this for a long time.
Our inspector force has been growing over the last couple of years,
again thanks to Senator Byrd, who in the 2006 supplemental put in $25
million to train and to equip the inspectors. But even with that, MSHA
still is not capable of conducting 100 percent of the inspections in
our Nation's coal mines. That 100 percent is required. That is a
requirement. Yet they still can't do it.
This is something I think is sorely needed. I support it, and I hope
the Senate will adopt the Byrd amendment to the Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
Amendment No. 3368
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered
3368.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for activities to reduce infections from
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and related
infections)
On page 50, line 5, insert before the period the following:
``: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall be for activities
to reduce infections from methicillin-resistant
staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and related infections''.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Kennedy. We have seen, in the last
24 hours or so, horrific stories come out about this new bacteria that
is invulnerable to our first line of antibiotics. It is a dangerous
germ and it is spreading all over the country.
There was a story in the paper this morning about cases nearby here.
A teenager died recently in Bedford County, VA, because of methicillin-
resistant staphylococcus, or MRSA. As of yesterday, Montgomery County
schools had 14 cases, Anne Arundel County had 1 reported MRSA
infection. They have received 57 reports from parents about other
possible cases. Two cases have been confirmed at Wild Lake High School
in Howard County. So something is going on.
Some of these schools are trying to clean up. We have one here, where
the Rappahannock County School System finished a comprehensive cleaning
of its two campuses, and the cost was more than $10,000. That is one
cost. The cost in human life and suffering is growing.
We all are very concerned--and rightfully so--about the number of
people losing their lives to the AIDS virus every year. But the fact is
more people are dying because of this staphylococcus than they are of
AIDS. MRSA was calculated with striking 31.8 out of 100,000 Americans,
which translates into 94,360 cases and 18,650 deaths nationwide a year.
In comparison, complications from the AIDS virus killed about 12,500
Americans last year.
So what is happening is that this microbe is spreading. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention have calculated about 19,000 deaths
a year. So, again, it seems to me we need to pay some attention to this
and we need to respond to it as rapidly as possible.
This amendment basically says they shall spend a minimum of $5
million--take $5 million out now to focus on identifying and containing
and trying to hold down the spread of this terrible bacteria. It is not
a virus, it is a bacteria. So, again, Senator Specter, Kennedy, and I
wanted to introduce this to let the public know we are trying to get on
top of it. Hopefully, we will have hearings with the CDC soon to find
out what they are doing.
This amendment would increase activities in hospitals and other
health care settings, aimed at preventing the spread of this deadly
bacteria. So I will leave it there.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
at this point an article that appeared today on Washingtonpost.com
regarding this MRSA.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post Oct. 17, 2007.]
Drug-Resistant Staph Germ's Toll Is Higher Than Thought
(By Rob Stein)
A dangerous germ that has been spreading around the country
causes more life-threatening infections than public health
authorities had thought and is killing more people in the
United States each year than the AIDS virus, federal health
officials reported yesterday.
The microbe, a strain of a once innocuous staph bacterium
that has become invulnerable to first-line antibiotics, is
responsible for more than 94,000 serious infections and
nearly 19,000 deaths each year, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention calculated.
Although mounting evidence shows that the infection is
becoming more common, the estimate published today in the
Journal of the American Medical Association is the first
national assessment of the toll from the insidious pathogen,
officials said.
``This is a significant public health problem. We should be
very worried,'' said Scott K. Fridkin, a medical
epidemiologist at the CDC.
Other researchers noted that the estimate includes only the
most serious infections caused by the germ, known as
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
``It's really just the tip of the iceberg,'' said Elizabeth
A. Bancroft, a medical epidemiologist at the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health who wrote an editorial in
JAMA accompanying the new studies. ``It is astounding.''
MRSA is a strain of the ubiquitous bacterium that usually
causes staph infections that are easily treated with common,
or first-line, antibiotics in the penicillin family, such as
methicillin and amoxicillin. Resistant strains of the
organism, however, have been increasingly turning up in
hospitals and in small outbreaks outside of heath-care
settings, such as among athletes, prison inmates and
children.
On Monday, Ashton Bonds, 17, of Lynch Station, Va.,
succumbed to MRSA, prompting officials to shut down 21
Bedford County schools today for cleaning to prevent further
infections. The infection had spread to Bonds's kidneys,
liver, lungs and the muscle around his heart.
The MRSA estimate is being published with a report that a
strain of another bacterium, which causes ear infections in
children, has become impervious to every approved antibiotic
for youngsters.
``Taken together, what these two papers show is that we're
increasingly facing antibiotic-resistant forms of these very
common organisms,'' Bancroft said.
The reports underscore the need to develop new antibiotics
and curb the unnecessary use
[[Page S13047]]
of those already available, experts said. They should also
alert doctors to be on the lookout for antibiotic-resistant
infections so patients can be treated with the few remaining
effective drugs before they develop serious complications,
experts said.
MRSA, which is spread by casual contact, rapidly turns
minor abscesses and other skin infections into serious health
problems, including painful, disfiguring ``necrotizing''
abscesses that eat away tissue. The infections can often
still be treated by lancing and draining sores and quickly
administering other antibiotics, such as bactrim. But in some
cases the microbe gets into the lungs, causing unusually
serious pneumonia, or spreads into bone, vital organs and the
bloodstream, triggering life-threatening complications. Those
patients must be hospitalized and given intensive care,
including intravenous antibiotics such as vancomycin.
In the new study, Fridkin and his colleagues analyzed data
collected in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Tennessee,
identifying 5,287 cases of invasive MRSA infection and 988
deaths in 2005. The researchers calculated that MRSA was
striking 31.8 out of every 100,000 Americans, which
translates to 94,360 cases and 18,650 deaths nationwide. In
comparison, compliions from the AIDS virus killed about
12,500 Americans in 2005. ``This indicates these life-
threatening MRSA infections are much more common than we had
thought,'' Fridkin said.
In fact, the estimate makes MRSA much more common than
flesh-eating strep infections, bacterial pneumonia and
meningitis combined, Bancroft noted.
``These are some of the most dreaded invasive bacterial
diseases out there,'' she said. ``This is clearly a very big
deal.''
The infection is most common among African Americans and
the elderly, but also commonly strikes very young children.
``We see these cases all the time,'' said Robert S. Daum, a
pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the University of
Chicago. ``In the last five weeks, I've taken care of five
children who were sick enough to be hospitalized and require
intensive care.''
Studies have shown that hospitals could do more to improve
standard hygiene to reduce the spread of the infection.
Individuals can reduce their risk through common-sense
measures, such as frequent handwashing.
In the second paper, Michael E. Pichichero and Janet R.
Casey of the University of Rochester in New York documented
the emergence of an antibiotic-resistant strain of another
bacterium known as Streptococcus pneumoniae, which causes
common ear infections. Although 11 children identified in the
Rochester area with the microbe so far were successfully
treated, five required an antibiotic approved only for
adults, and one child was left with permanent hearing loss.
The researchers attributed the emergence of the strain to a
combination of the overuse of antibiotics and the
introduction of a vaccine that protects against the
infection.
``The use of the vaccine created an ecological vacuum, and
that combined with excessive use of antibiotics to create
this new superbug,'' Pichichero said.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the knowledge of other Senators, we
are trying to reach an agreement to get to a series of votes. We don't
quite have it yet, but hopefully in the next few minutes we will agree
to have a series of votes starting fairly soon.
With that, I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey
on the floor.
I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be laid aside so I might call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3350
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I call up amendment No. 3350, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself
and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 3350.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 to provide abstinence education
that includes information that is medically inaccurate)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to provide abstinence education that includes
information that is medically inaccurate. For purposes of
this section, the term ``medically inaccurate'' means
information that is unsupported or contradicted by peer-
reviewed research by leading medical, psychological,
psychiatric, and public health publications, organizations
and agencies.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, I
offer my personal thanks to Senators Harkin and Specter for their hard
work in putting together an excellent bill. It puts more resources, in
particular, into the well-being of our most precious asset: our
children.
I was pleased to join Senator Harkin and Senator Specter as a member
of the subcommittee in providing more of the resources needed for
health and education programs that have been shortchanged by this
administration over the last several years.
The best part of this bill is that we have a chance to help children
live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. The worst part of it
is that, despite all of its benefits, the President said he intends to
veto the bill.
This bill increases Head Start funding by $200 million. Today in New
Jersey, more than 14,000 children depend on Head Start for their early
education. This bill also recognizes growing concerns about the
terrible conditions of autism. It is a growing problem. Studies have
shown that 1 in 94 children in New Jersey will be born with or carry
autism in their lives. From 1991 to 2005, the number of cases diagnosed
as autistic went from 234 in 1991 to 7,400 cases in 2005, a mere 15
years. To see an increase such as this must be paid attention to. These
numbers are alarming.
I congratulate our committee for this welcome addition for funding
autism detection. Families across America are ever more anxious about
this health threat. Also alarming are the statistics on another health
problem in our country. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in
the industrialized world. America sees 19 million cases of sexually
transmitted diseases, and almost half of them strike young people. That
is why Senator Snowe from Maine and I are offering an amendment to make
sure our young people get the truth about their health, so they don't
become one of these statistics. America's young people should expect
the truth from their doctor, they should expect it from their parents,
and they certainly should expect it from a government-funded program.
We cannot expect young people to make life-changing decisions if they
get the wrong information from the Government. We have a responsibility
to give them the most accurate information available when communicating
with them.
Right now, the Federal Government is falling down on the job. We have
given out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence-only
education. The fact of the matter is these programs are not successful.
If we are going to spend as much as a dime on them, we must be good
stewards of the people's tax dollars and make sure the information
being given out is complete and truthful. Yet we have found case after
case of incorrect and potentially harmful information being taught in
these programs.
In 2004, a report found that of the 13 most common federally funded
abstinence programs, 11 have unproven claims and basic scientific
errors. In fact, the office in the Department of Health and Human
Services in charge of these programs doesn't even bother to check
whether they are providing accurate medical or scientific information.
It is time to change this policy. Young people have a right to complete
and accurate information that protects their health and may save their
lives.
The amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering would make sure they
get it right. Our amendment says Federal money is not to be spent on
inaccurate and deceptive information. Millions of children in New
Jersey and across this country deserve no less.
We have seen misstatements made about the failures of contraception.
What does that mean? It means diseases are more likely to be
transmitted. It also means the number of teen pregnancies could
increase based on misinformation.
The Senate had approved this amendment in the 2006 appropriations
bill. I hope and urge that we pass it again this year. What is more, I
commend the leadership of this committee, Senators Harkin and Specter,
for constructing a bill that is going to help our young children better
off in their lives.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
[[Page S13048]]
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New
Jersey for his amendment. Senator Specter and I had put into the bill a
prohibition on abstinence-only programs providing information that is
medically inaccurate. Again, this is the beauty of having issues such
as this come to the floor. Senator Lautenberg and Senator Snowe have
offered a suggestion to tighten down on that provision and actually
make it more meaningful.
This is what the amendment says:
For purposes of this section, the term ``medically
inaccurate'' means information that is unsupported or
contradicted by peer-reviewed research by leading medical,
psychological, psychiatric, and public health publications,
organizations and agencies.
That clarifies the intent of the amendment. I thank Senator
Lautenberg for the amendment, and I intend to support it.
Hopefully, we are going to have clearance soon to begin a series of
votes. We do not have that agreement yet, but we hope in the next 15
minutes we will begin a series of four votes. We don't have that
agreement yet. Hopefully, we will have that cleared pretty soon. In the
meantime, 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. ROBERTS. Mr. 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. 3365 to Amendment No. 3325
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I call up the Roberts amendment No. 3365.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment
numbered 3365 to amendment No. 3325.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To fund the small business child care grant program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.
For carrying out the small business child care grant
program under section 8303 of the U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 9858 note) $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended. Each amount otherwise
appropriated in this Act for administrative expenses for the
Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services,
and Department of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata
basis by the amount necessary to provide the amount referred
to in the preceding sentence.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and the expert staff we
have working for us.
I rise today to offer an amendment that I truly believe will have a
positive effect on the quality of life for many hard-working American
families. Access to childcare is essential to the quality of life of
families trying to balance both work and family.
Earlier this year, S. 228, my small business childcare grant program,
was incorporated into and passed as part of the supplemental spending
bill. I thank Senators Kennedy and Dodd for working with me to secure
this authorization. This truly was a bipartisan effort.
My amendment today provides the funding for this program so that we
can make a difference for American families.
Unfortunately, our small businesses generally do not have the
resources required to start up and support a childcare center. The
small business childcare grant program provides flexible short-term
funding to encourage small businesses to work together or with other
local organizations to provide childcare services for their employees.
Small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $500,000 for
startup costs and for training, for scholarships, and other related
activities. Grants will be given to States on a competitive basis with
the grant amount to be determined by the population of the State.
Priority will be given to grantees who work with other small
businesses, large businesses, nonprofit agencies, local governments, or
other appropriate entities to provide childcare in an underserved
geographical area of the State.
The grantees will be required to match Federal funds to encourage
self-sustaining facilities well into the future--50 percent for the
first year, 67 percent for the second year, 75 percent for the third
year. The Secretary is required to report to Congress in 2-year and 4-
year intervals on the effectiveness of the program, and the program
will sunset in 2012.
It seems to me this is a fiscally responsible approach to increasing
access to childcare. The matching requirement, paired with the program
and the sunset, will ensure that Federal funds are used in an efficient
and targeted manner.
This program has been authorized at $50 million over 5 years. My
amendment appropriates only $5 million for fiscal year 2008.
I urge support for this amendment to help ease the burden on working
families by encouraging the development of small business childcare
programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President we now have clearance for a series of
votes.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to Senator
Byrd's amendment No. 3362 at 2:30 p.m.; that upon disposition of that
amendment, the Senate vote in relation to Senator Harkin's amendment
No. 3368; that upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote
in relation to the Brown amendment No. 3348; that upon the disposition
of that amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No.
3321; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual
form prior to each vote and that no other amendments be in order prior
to these votes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the Senator's
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senators should be alerted that beginning
at 2:30 p.m., there will be a series of four votes. I do not ask for
consent now, but I will after the first vote, that the other three
votes be 10-minute votes. So there will be four votes starting at 2:30
p.m.
Mr. President, I have a slight change in that unanimous consent
agreement. It has been cleared. That the first vote at 2:30 p.m. will
be my amendment No. 3368; that following that amendment, it will be
Senator Byrd's amendment No. 3362, and the rest as stated earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Snowe and Senator
Rockefeller be added as cosponsors of the amendment I offered on MRSA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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. HARKIN. Mr. 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. 3368
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by
the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the first amendment will be my amendment,
and I have not asked for the yeas and nays as yet, so I now ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
All time is yielded back, and the question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 3368. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
[[Page S13049]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Coburn
DeMint
Inhofe
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3368) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. 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 Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on the subsequent
three votes they be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3362
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Byrd
amendment. There are 2 minutes for debate, evenly divided.
The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment would add $10 million to the
budget for the Mine Safety and Health Administration. These funds would
enable MSHA to complete safety inspections and to implement the MINER
Act. The amendment is fully offset by a reduction in travel
expenditures for the Departments funded in the underlying bill.
This amendment is cosponsored by the managers of the bill, Senators
Harkin and Specter.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell also be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator
Webb be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe this is a very worthwhile
amendment for a very important cause for mine safety. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? Is time yielded
back? Without objection, it is so ordered. Time is yielded back.
The yeas and nays have previously been ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 375 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--4
Cornyn
DeMint
Inhofe
Kyl
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3362) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 3348 offered
by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown. There are 2 minutes equally
divided between both sides.
Who yields time?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would like to be notified when a half
minute is gone so I can yield the other 30 seconds to Senator
Voinovich.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio controls 1 minute.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman and
Whitehouse be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. This important bipartisan amendment, offered by Senators
Voinovich, Lieberman, and Whitehouse, would provide $2 million in paid-
for funding for the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural
Program. It is administered by the Department of Education to research,
display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of
the Underground Railroad. Senators Alexander, Cochran, Isakson, Levin,
and I offered a similar reauthorization bill that this amendment is
taken from. I ask for the support of my colleagues for the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, the Underground Railroad is an
educational cultural program that we have as a grant from the
Department of Education for the purpose of making known to children all
over America the history of the Underground Railroad and of the Civil
War. It also is a program that is aimed at diversity training that is
so necessary. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3348.
Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
[[Page S13050]]
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 376 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--12
Allard
Burr
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Ensign
Gregg
Inhofe
Kyl
Roberts
Vitter
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3348) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3321
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 3321
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. There are 2 minutes
equally divided before the vote, and at this time the yeas and nays
have not been ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $1
million in the bill, an earmark that would create a Woodstock museum
celebrating the Woodstock Festival in northern New York 38 years ago.
Now, some of you may believe it would be neat to celebrate Woodstock
again and to do so with a museum. To the extent you believe that, there
is a private foundation as well as money available from the State of
New York that provides the funding.
To the extent one would argue it is only $1 million, and therefore
symbolic, the answer to that is, yes, it is, but I think the American
people want us to begin to make some votes that demonstrate we care
about setting priorities. Funding a Woodstock museum in New York is not
a priority above the funds that would help the children and the
pregnant women to whom this $1 million would otherwise go.
As to jobs, every one of us could spend $1 million in our States to
help create jobs. But to justify this on the basis of it being a job-
creation program goes too far. The unemployment rate in this county, I
am told, is less than the average nationwide.
So let's strike a blow for priorities. Let the American taxpayer know
we are willing to at least start somewhere to save their money and not
waste it on the Woodstock museum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this is the largest economic
development program in one of our poorest counties. It is the Bethel
Performing Arts Center. It is a large complex. It is a $100 million
program. Madam President, $85 million has been donated by a major
philanthropist. The State has put in close to $14 million. This is our
$1 million.
Every one of you has a poor county. They have gotten together, and
this is their economic development project. It is not just a museum; it
is a whole complex devoted to history in America from 1945 through to
the present.
If you believe in helping counties, if you believe every one of us
wants the Federal Government not to just pass broad-brushed programs
but to help individual needs in our States--this one coming from the
leaders who have spent years and years in the Catskills to try to bring
that area back--this is the project.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 3321 and 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 motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 377 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--52
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Dodd
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
Warner
The motion was rejected.
Mr. KYL. Madam 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.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I note 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.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3321) was agreed to.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SCHIP
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I think everyone is aware that the House
today failed to override the President's veto on SCHIP. I think
everybody is aware that 18 Republicans joined with Democrats to pass
this bill in the Senate. This is a bill to support health insurance for
low-income children. It is something I think all of us want to make
sure continues to go forward.
I haven't had the opportunity since I have been here to vote for a
perfect bill. I doubt I will be able to do that during the course of
the time I am here in the Senate. I think everybody knows the
President's budget, the budget's $5 billion is not enough to cover the
program, even going forward as it is. I think everyone would agree we
can always trim a little bit out of any bill we put forth.
I have a letter here signed by 18 Republicans, the 18 Republicans who
[[Page S13051]]
joined with Democrats to make sure this bill was able to pass and
hopefully to be able to fund insurance for low-income children. What
this letter does is asks the leadership of the House and the leadership
of the Senate not to simply send back the bill that has already been
voted on, but to ask them to sit down with the President and let's
negotiate a bill that can cause this program to go forward as we all
want it to and discontinue all of the political rhetoric that is
centered around this issue.
I want to make sure children in America, like everyone else, have the
opportunity, as low-income children, to be insured. I encourage the
leadership of the House and Senate to sit down with the President and
let's come up with a bill that allows this very good program to go
forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment so I may call up an amendment which I will then later
withdraw.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3356 to Amendment No. 3325
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3356.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 3356 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. KYL. 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 modify provisions relating to the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program)
On page 55, strike lines 19 through 23 and insert the
following: ``U.S.C. 8623(a)-(d)), $2,161,170,000.''.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance
Program, LIHEAP, was designed to provide funds to low-income
individuals who cannot cover rising home energy prices. The program
does not discriminate between cold and hot weather States. However,
upon implementation, cold weather States have unfairly received the
majority of the LIHEAP funds.
My amendment eliminates the discretionary nature in which the funds
are disbursed and frees up money and allocates it on a nondiscretionary
basis.
Before I go into specifics of my amendment, I would first like to
discuss how Arizona is affected by LIHEAP funds. This summer, record
level temperatures have devastated the State. Phoenix set a record with
32 days of temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. In August alone, Phoenix
experienced 9 days of temperatures of 110 degrees or above. The State
of Arizona's average temperature for August 2007 was 105.8 degrees. It
was the second hottest summer on record in Arizona and the Salt River
Project and Arizona Public Service reached peak demand for energy
service. Just imagine the cost to the people of Arizona to cool their
homes during such extreme heat. Therefore, LIHEAP funds are crucial to
many Arizonans who cannot meet their energy costs alone.
Let me now turn to the way in which LIHEAP funds are distributed.
Currently, LIHEAP funding is divided between two pots of money. The
first pot is distributed based on a tiered funding formula, while the
second pot of money is deemed a contingency fund distributed based on
``emergencies.'' Historically, the contingency fund is overwhelmingly
distributed to cold weather States. My amendment would eliminate the
bias inherent in the contingency fund distribution and allocate all
LIHEAP money to the funding formula account that is more equitably
distributed to all 50 States. I would implore my colleagues to think of
all Americans when considering my amendment, and vote to provide a more
equitable distribution of LIHEAP funds.
Amendment No. 3356 withdrawn
Madam President, having spoken to the manager of the bill, and
appreciating the fact that the amendment was offered too late in the
process, probably, to receive the consideration it deserves, we will
work on this at a later date. I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Amendment No. 3373
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe, in accordance with our
understanding on both sides, it would be appropriate for me to call up
amendment No. 3373, and I do so now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
pending amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Vitter, Mrs.
Dole, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Enzi, and
Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 3373.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase the amount of funds available for the Office of
Labor Management Standards)
On page 14, line 24, strike ``$436,397,000'' and insert
``$441,397,000, of which $50,737,000 is for the Office of
Labor Management Standards (notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act for the administrative and related
expenses for departmental management for the Department of
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Department of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata basis
by $5,000,000),''.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment is similar to the one I
introduced yesterday, except it provides a different offset to pay for
the needed additional funds for the Office of Labor-Management
Standards in the 2008 Labor-HHS budget.
This is a program that I believe is critically important. It is a
program that has been very successful. It has resulted in over 700
prosecutions in the last several years and restitution to union members
and union locals in the amount of about $101 million.
This is an important program. It is a working program. It represents
the only required audits, the only required reporting and disclosure
for unions in the country. The Securities and Exchange Commission does
that for corporations and other institutions that are required to be
audited. Other than this program, there is no real integrity to protect
union members from fraud and corruption and theft. I will mention in a
moment some extraordinary thefts that have occurred from union members,
why this is important, and I will express my personal and deep belief
that one reason we have as much broad corruption in unions is because
we are not auditing them. We are not doing it. Even with the current
level of funding, we are way behind and it would take, at this rate, 33
years to do a basic audit of all the unions around the country. That is
not acceptable.
People are not being watched. They feel like they are free and
temptation and money is coming before them. Obviously, people are
succumbing to that temptation. More rigorous enforcement and audits are
needed. The Office of Labor-Management Standards is a group that is
required to enforce the statutory provision that mandates that unions
provide, each year, public disclosure of how they spend their money. It
was a bill offered and passed in 1959 by former Senator and former
President, John F. Kennedy. It was an important reform.
During the Clinton years, sadly, this reporting requirement was
almost totally abandoned and, under Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, in
recent years she has worked hard and those reporting numbers are up.
But 36 percent still don't report. There is not even a way, with our
staffing level, that she can insist on that. So 36 percent are not
reporting properly. The members don't know where their money is being
used. That is the fundamental question.
The committee mark doesn't even flat fund the Department; it cuts its
funding by $2 million. Every other enforcement agency is given an
increase, but this one is cut. I think our members ought to ask
themselves, do we need to be listening to certain union leaders who
don't want disclosure, or do we need to be listening to union members
whose funds and dues are being misappropriated? If we do regular
audits, they will be more effective, and
[[Page S13052]]
I am convinced we will see a dropoff in this kind of problem. It is the
right thing to do.
My proposal is to add $5 million, $2 million of which would get us
back to last year's budget only, and a $3 million cost of living on top
of that, so they can continue an aggressive effort to ensure integrity.
I have Senator Enzi with me, the ranking member of the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senator Alexander, who are
both interested in speaking on this. I will yield to Senator Enzi at
this time. I believe I have 30 minutes; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Senator Sessions has offered a very important amendment,
and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. The amendment restores critical
funding to the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management
Standards. It is referred to as OLMS.
Funding for the Office of Labor-Management Standards in the current
Senate bill is 20 percent below the requested amount, essentially
scaled back from the 2006 level. Senator Sessions' amendment restores
funding to current fiscal year 2007 levels and adds an additional $3
million to continue audit and enforcement efforts.
What is the Office of Labor-Management Standards and why is it so
important? The fact is the Office of Labor-Management Standards is the
only agency in the Federal Government that is devoted to protecting the
interests of American workers that pay union dues. It requires
financial reporting and transparency by labor unions about how they use
their members' money, and it investigates and prosecutes union
officials who are guilty of fraud or abuse of their members' financial
interests.
There should not be any reasonable debate about the importance of
financial transparency for any entity, including labor unions. We
demand, as we should, corporate transparency in order to protect
stockholders. Those who pay union dues are no less entitled to the
benefits of financial transparency and fraud protection than those who
purchase stock. Indeed, purchasing stock is a voluntary activity, while
in many instances the payment of union dues is not voluntary.
Protecting the financial interests of working men and women, giving
them access to how their money is being used and providing remedies for
those instances where the money is misused ought to be a priority, not
an afterthought.
It is the height of hypocrisy to talk about protecting the rights of
working men and women, or aiding the so-called middle class, while
simultaneously slashing the budgets of one of the Federal agencies that
protects the financial interests of those who pay union dues.
The Sessions amendment puts a question directly before the Senate.
Will we vote down his amendment and allow the Office of Labor-
Management Standards funding to be rolled back and go out of our way to
send a message to the working men and women who pay union dues that
protecting their rights is unimportant? That is the question we are
being asked.
I hope we will not tell them that protecting their rights is
unimportant. This amendment gives the Senate a chance to go on record
about the importance of integrity in leadership elections, finances,
and respect for the rights of individuals. We know every dollar in most
of our paychecks matters. When we are compelled to give a portion of
our paycheck away, either through taxes or union dues, it is an affront
for that money to be used to inflate someone else's lifestyle, or to be
misused in any other way. That is exactly what the Office of Labor-
Management Standards guards against.
OLMS enforces the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a
law enacted with bipartisan support, including that of then-Senator
Jack Kennedy.
In this administration alone, OLMS has returned nearly $102 million
to union members who were robbed. There were only 8.7 million private
sector employees represented by unions in 2006. I will restate that
number. OLMS has returned $102 million to union members who were
robbed. OLMS has indicted 827 individuals and gotten convictions on 790
of them. That is a pretty good record. Again, they have indicted 827,
and they have obtained convictions on 790. That is a very impressive
conviction rate by any standard.
I have a State-by-State breakdown of those statistics, which I will
enter into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
OLMS STATE PROGRAM DATA (OCTOBER 1, 2000-AUGUST 31, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Audits Restitution
State unions completed Indictments Convictions amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... 487 41 19 20 $281,147
Arkansas.................................. 320 21 5 4 107,216
Arizona................................... 187 12 6 5 128,880
California................................ 1444 161 31 28 1,231,382
Colorado.................................. 297 55 11 9 194,490
Connecticut............................... 324 70 8 8 373,265
District of Columbia...................... 358 30 29 27 16,808,286
Delaware.................................. 90 23 3 2 42,630
Florida................................... 592 32 15 15 468,897
Georgia................................... 692 38 15 15 235,285
Guam...................................... 7 5 0 0 0
Hawaii.................................... 246 21 3 6 110,254
Iowa...................................... 474 47 16 15 498,704
Idaho..................................... 131 14 2 2 3,234
Illinois.................................. 1455 206 43 45 21,924,713
Indiana................................... 905 52 26 28 284,716
Kansas.................................... 327 53 15 12 208,039
Kentucky.................................. 492 47 14 14 158,038
Louisiana................................. 441 29 15 17 225,807
Massachusetts............................. 653 247 11 10 215,061
Maryland.................................. 357 28 5 5 186,658
Maine..................................... 165 20 2 2 53,547
Michigan.................................. 1121 65 29 28 397,900
Minnesota................................. 606 90 18 18 523,288
Missouri.................................. 701 224 33 34 348,851
Mississippi............................... 278 6 14 16 162,221
Montana................................... 205 14 4 4 63,983
North Carolina............................ 498 23 14 17 304,373
North Dakota.............................. 144 6 6 6 59,077
Nebraska.................................. 231 27 6 5 186,483
New Hampshire............................. 117 30 1 0 0
New Jersey................................ 680 119 10 8 287,263
New Mexico................................ 142 7 4 3 70,430
Nevada.................................... 132 21 5 6 279,844
New York.................................. 1673 349 88 85 47,785,509
Ohio...................................... 1648 223 66 67 1,110,247
Oklahoma.................................. 266 18 11 9 130,659
Oregon.................................... 341 24 15 12 2,455,717
Pennsylvania.............................. 1639 269 54 48 934,263
Puerto Rico............................... 127 3 13 2 33,851
Rhode Island.............................. 135 57 1 0 0
American Samoa............................ 2 ............ ............ ............ ............
South Carolina............................ 234 7 3 3 49,974
South Dakota.............................. 117 2 2 2 29,175
[[Page S13053]]
Tennessee................................. 651 36 30 29 423,477
Texas..................................... 1097 69 34 28 494,688
Utah...................................... 155 7 2 2 67,406
Virginia.................................. 740 30 16 20 338,707
Virgin Islands............................ 17 1 0 1 11,280
Vermont................................... 76 7 0 0 0
Washington................................ 538 69 17 15 675,048
Wisconsin................................. 802 157 22 20 706,424
West Virginia............................. 422 53 12 10 244,159
Wyoming................................... 117 2 3 3 3,899
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:............................... 26096 3267 827 790 $101,918,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ENZI. This is so my colleagues can see how many union-represented
employees have been protected in their States. These numbers indicate
that union corruption is not an issue to which we can turn a blind eye.
It may not be seen as politically correct by some in this body to fund
an office that audits and investigates unions. But the truth is that
having a strong Office of Labor Management Standards is the best thing
we can do to help the labor movement. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant. When rank-and-file employees feel everything is in the
open and they can trust union leaders, they are probably more likely to
join one.
It was the outcry of rank-and-file union members themselves that
actually created the Office of Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act. That act was born in the wake of egregious cases of
fraudulent elections, embezzlement, and strong-arm tactics by a number
of unions. The law also works to prevent backroom dealings between
employers and union leaders that disadvantage the employees. The first
section of the law, the Union Members Bill of Rights, was added by
then-Senator and later President John F. Kennedy.
I certainly understand that not every department can receive an
increase in every budget year. But what this bill does is quite
remarkable. It singles out this one office, the Office of Labor-
Management Standards, as the only enforcement agency in the whole bill
to have its funding decreased.
Senator Sessions and I are asking today that we simply keep the
Office of Labor-Management Standards at essentially the same funding
level it received last year. The President requested an increase
because OLMS has been taking on a number of projects, such as
compliance assistance for unions, which would especially be helpful in
light of their recent revised disclosure forms.
The funding called for in this amendment will be offset by a modest
across-the-board cut in general administrative expenses of the
departments funded under this bill. This reduction in administrative
expenses is a very small price to pay in order to protect the rights of
working men and women. These workers deserve to know how their hard-
earned money is being used and deserve to be protected from those who
misuse it.
I hope a majority of our colleagues will agree and vote in favor of
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Alabama
yielding. I am due in the Judiciary Committee, where I am ranking, and
we are proceeding with the confirmation as to Judge Mukasey. I wish to
speak briefly in opposition to the amendment.
The figures which have been provided to me show that there has been
an increase in the funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards
up to $47,753,000--it does show a slight decrease on this year. But
overall, since fiscal year 2001, the figure has risen from $30,492,000
to a figure of $47,753,000 for last year. This year it is, both the
Senate and House figures, $45,737,000.
There has been a very substantial increase in the number of workers,
and there is a concern about the complexity of the new form LM-2 which
runs to more than 100 pages. The Department of Labor has issued some 88
answers to frequently asked questions to try to address this new rule.
Having taken a look at it, it is not in line with the policy to try to
reduce regulatory burdens because this new form is extremely
burdensome.
The principal argument is going to be made by Senator Harkin. I have
asked him to take the lead, to go ahead because I am due at a Judiciary
Committee hearing on Judge Mukasey for Attorney General.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the question before the Senate is
whether we think the union members of the United States are first-class
citizens or second-class citizens. The Sessions amendment says we
recognize union members as first-class citizens by increasing the
amount of money available to the Office of Labor-Management Standards,
which collects the information to give them a chance to know what is
going on within their union.
We treat stockholders as first-class citizens. We passed the
Sarbanes-Oxley law with a number of disclosure requirements for
businesses. Some of the requirements may be burdensome, as the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, but we thought it
was important for the stockholders of this country to know what their
public corporations were doing.
We have disclosure requirements which we in the Senate are required
to give every year. They are fairly burdensome, but we do that because
the voters need to know what our incomes are, what our assets are. They
know quite a bit about us because we are required to file these
reports, and these reports are investigated by various officials and
ethics committees.
There are a number of people running for President of the United
States today, including a number in this body. They have to spend a lot
of time filing information about where they get their contributions,
because this is an era of instant information and almost universal
access to information and transparency. We hear that all the time. So,
we want the voters to know where the candidates for President are
getting their money to see whether that influences what they do.
In this age of transparency and universal access to information, we
treat stockholders as first-class citizens, we treat voters as first-
class citizens, we treat taxpayers as first-class citizens, but we will
be treating union members as second-class citizens if we are going to
cut the funds the Department of Labor needs to provide union members
with information they deserve.
For example, this year the Senate, I am told, provides a $12.8
million increase in funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the oversight agency for publicly-traded companies. So we are
recognizing the importance of treating stockholders as first-class
citizens, but at the same time we are cutting the funding for the
Office of Labor Management Standards, which means we are treating union
members as second-class citizens.
That is the issue. A vote for the Sessions amendment says we believe
union members are as important as stockholders, are as important as
voters, are as important as taxpayers, and that they are all entitled
to be treated as first-class citizens.
This is not, as has already been mentioned, a Republican cause, I
would hope. I have been around long enough to remember the Kefauver
committee,
[[Page S13054]]
the McClellan committee, Senator John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in
the 1950s. It was the early days of television, and people who wanted
to know about the Senate watched those Senators--one of whom later
became President, one of whom later became Attorney General--as they
ferreted out corruption and organized crime in various parts of
American society, including unions.
This Federal statute we are talking about was championed by Senator
John F. Kennedy. It was enacted as an outcome of the McClellan
committee hearing. Senator Kennedy knew then, as we know today, that
rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions
are spending their money, how they are investing their members' money,
that their union books are clean, and that elections for union officers
are fair and free of intimidation or scandal. They have a right to know
that information.
The question is, Do unions still need a Federal watchdog? Apparently
so. The Secretary of Labor thinks so. She has said so. She has plenty
to do over there. She could do more. She could use the money, according
to her testimony.
Over the last 7 years, the Office of Labor Management Standards has
performed more than 3,000 audits, resulting in 827 indictments and 790
convictions. There apparently is a lot to do in this area. What is our
response? Let's cut the funding so we cannot have the investigations,
so we cannot have the audits, so we cannot have the indictments, so we
cannot give these union members the rights that Senator Kennedy--later,
President Kennedy--thought they ought to have.
I hope we can correct what I hope is an oversight in the development
of this big, complex piece of legislation. Senator Sessions' amendment
would treat union members as first-class citizens, just as we do
stockholders, just as we do taxpayers, just as we do voters. We live in
an era of instant information, universal access to information, and
union members, just as stockholders, voters, and taxpayers, have a
right to know what is going on in their union.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Alexander for his
comments. Indeed, what we are talking about is funds contributed by
union members to further union causes, not to line the pockets of
persons who embezzle, steal, or otherwise cheat and use the money. That
is an important issue we need to keep in mind. It is troubling to me
that we have opposition to keeping this program on track.
I have offered this amendment, as I indicated earlier, a new
amendment that has a different offset. I know there was concern over
the international union funds that go to the U.N.-affiliated agency.
There is a big increase in that program, a $10 million increase. I am
troubled by that increase, frankly, because last year Secretary Chao
met with the people who were receiving this money, and they gave very
inadequate explanations of where the money went. In fact, they couldn't
explain where it went. I don't know whether it is being well spent.
At any rate, the most important thing for us to do is focus on making
sure we are protecting the contributions of union members and that
their funds are being protected. That is why I altered the offset to
one that takes this $5 million from the administrative, management and
related expenses of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the Department of Education. That is where the
funds would come from. I believe that would not be a heavy burden on
those agencies. In fact, they can absorb it readily, and this is
clearly, as a question of priorities, more important to make sure we
are not cutting back on this budget.
Senator Specter talked about the status of the budget. I repeat, I
think he understood it and explained it eventually correctly that the
committee mark cuts the budget $2 million below last year's funding
level. Because of inflation and cost increases, that is a most
significant $2 million cut.
What we are proposing is that there be a $3 million increase in the
overall budget, a total of $5 million--$2 million to get up to last
year's funding and an additional $3 million to increase the funding. I
think this is valid. I think it is justified. It is something we really
should do. If we don't do it, we are going to have a severe, adverse
impact on the ability of OLMS to fulfill their statutory requirement of
auditing unions and requiring unions to publicly file their financial
disclosures.
Some say this is a burdensome regulation, but in today's day and age,
being able to maintain records of where you spend your money is not too
much to ask. Most of these records are done by computers now. People
have bookkeepers, and if they don't, they are taking serious risks. So
to be able to report this information is not too much to ask. It is
very valuable to their members. Union members should have the same
protection, as Senator Alexander said, as corporate stockholders. This
OLMS legislation is to union transparency what the Securities and
Exchange Commission is to corporate transparency.
This chart shows the mission of OLMS. The mission of OLMS is a good
mission. It is not to harm anybody. It is to assist in the integrity of
this system--No. 1, to provide union financial transparency. That is
why the bill was passed in 1959, so that union members can know where
their money is being spent. That is the report which is required. Then
to protect union financial integrity--that is part of the audit
function of the OLMS. They are required to audit the union activities,
and they do so, but, as I noted, even at this current level of funding,
they only get around to doing every union in the country once every 33
years. Until we had some increases in this budget, it was once every
133 years. It is a small agency, $47 million in last year's budget, but
it has shown big results.
OLMS does not tell unions how to spend their money; it simply
requires them to file accurate and timely reports, which allows union
members to determine for themselves whether the expenditures that are
being made are appropriate. If they don't know what is happening, they
cannot express their opinions in leadership meetings.
That there is a high level of demand from union members for this kind
of information is very evident. This is a remarkable number. Between
May of 2006 and May of 2007, on the Web site of OLMS where these
reports are posted so members can access them--so they don't have to go
down and ask the officer or the boss at the local union to ``give me
your records,'' they can just access them on the computer--767,980 hits
were identified on last year's Web site. People are looking to see
where their elected union officers are spending their money. Why
shouldn't they? That is an average of 64,000 a month and over 2,100 a
day. If union members don't care about how their hard-earned dollars
are being spent, I ask, why do they take time to access this Web site?
Of course they want to know, they have a right to know, and the only
way they are able to get this information in a readily available form
is through this reporting requirement.
Unfortunately, the reports are not being submitted, and because of
shortage of personnel and a certain lack of legal enforcement ability,
only 36 percent of unions are not filing the appropriate forms. The
delinquency rate is 36 percent. That is not good for union members.
Now, Secretary Chao has met with union leaders. But let me tell you
what happened. Under the Clinton years, this was not being enforced.
That is just it. You want to know the truth? It was not being enforced.
And the number of personnel went from 427, in about 1990, down to 260.
They just weren't enforcing this 1959 mandate. When Secretary Chao
realized it was her responsibility to make sure union members could see
financial disclosure forms, and she asked that it be done, a lot of
grumbling occurred. They said, oh, it was burdensome; oh, there were
problems. So she met with them and met with them and they altered plans
and they figured out ways to do it that were cheaper and better and
less burdensome, but she required them to comply with the law that
requires this disclosure.
Now, after our colleagues have gained ascendancy in the Senate, lo
and behold we come in and whack their budget. Now, who is being
listened to, politically powerful bosses or is it the interest of union
members? Embezzlement is not something we ought to
[[Page S13055]]
support and put up with. We in Congress are focusing on transparency
right here. We talk about it a lot. It is embarrassing to me that our
colleagues have seen this budget be reduced.
This chart gives a clear indication of just how significant overall
the problem is we are dealing with. From 2001 to 2007, 796 people were
convicted. Most of them pled guilty, and court-ordered restitutions
totaled $101 million. But I indicated to you that less than 5 percent
of the unions per year are being audited, and it appears that for every
four of the audits that are conducted, about one person is convicted of
something, on average. So we have a problem, we really do. And I submit
it is not because people are necessarily bad people. Some of them may
be, but a lot of it is because there is no real oversight and
accountability, and temptation is too great.
I have been a prosecutor for 15 years. I will tell you, you give
people lots and lots of money, it goes through their hands and nobody
is watching it. Temptation takes over, and you will rightly expect
problems to occur if you don't have tight fiscal controls. We don't
have it. I think we need to have a lot more emphasis in this area than
we do, other than just a $3 million increase in this department. It is
obvious.
We hear a lot of talk about integrity in here about our financial
disclosures and other things. Well, if we don't do our duty, people
will complain. If businesses don't file their reports, they will
complain. And we need to make sure unions do the same, not to beat up
on unions but to help unions have integrity.
Now, not to be monotonous--and I find this remarkable--but some may
say, well, they are abusing unions and picking on people. But the
conviction rate is 95 percent--95 percent of all indictments have
resulted in convictions. They do not always get big sentences. I
thought some I have seen were pretty light. But the point is, if you
are convicted of these kinds of offenses, you lose your leadership
position in a union, and that is important. So if you are stealing from
a union, you ought not stay in as an officer.
So I would just suggest that from my review of the cases, people are
not being abused. They are being fairly treated. Overwhelmingly, the
defendants are pleading guilty, and restitution is being made. People
who are corrupt are not being able to remain in office to keep their
hands in the till where the money is.
The legislation that requires this is not new. This law has been on
the books for some time. I will admit that we been very lax, and it was
not being enforced, but the conviction rate, the amount of restitution,
the number of fraud cases per audit indicates that was not a good
decision. And if the audit rates had been maintained, I submit we would
have had a lot less crime and fraud and loss of union members' money.
This occurred in 1959. One of the leaders of it was our own Senator
Robert Byrd. He spoke earlier today. He has been here a long time. He
was here in 1959 when this bill passed. And as a Senator from West
Virginia, a State with a strong union heritage, a proud union heritage,
he decided to vote for this bill.
The bill was actually introduced and led by Senator John F. Kennedy.
This is what Senator Kennedy said at the time.
The racketeers will not like it, the antilabor extremists
around the country will not like it, but I am confident that
the American people, and the overwhelmingly honest rank and
file union members, will benefit from this measure for many
years to come.
And until we stopped enforcing it a few years ago, or got lax, it has
been beneficial. I think the work that is being done now, the $101
million in restitution, indicates that progress has been occurring that
has benefitted union members.
Now, Senator Byrd wrote a letter that was included in the
Congressional Record in response to certain criticisms he received from
a district president of a union in West Virginia. They sent a letter of
condemnation, and Senator Byrd was direct about it. He responded:
The bill which passed the Congress will not hurt honest
unions, and it will give added protection to the rank and
file members in the unions. Honest union leaders have nothing
to fear from this legislation. The corruption and
racketeering that have been revealed in the fields of both
labor and management made it imperative that some kind of
legislation be enacted.
And I think that remains as true today as it was when he made those
comments in 1959.
Madam President, since 2001, OLMS has only had the resources to audit
3,275 of the 26,000 unions on record. That means in the past 7 years
combined, only 12.5 percent of the unions have been audited. It is able
to audit only about 2 to 4 percent of the unions each year. It is
important to note that unlike corporations, unions are not required by
law to have outside auditors. Most corporations have to have outside
auditors. So in many cases, this audit is the only outside audit a
union will have.
In 2000, OLMS only did 204 audits out of well over 20,000 unions.
That is the equivalent of a union being audited once every 133 years.
Last year, they did 736 audits, a better number, but that still
translates into an audit only once every 33 years at that rate. It is
better, but I think we need to do a lot more.
With the $2 million reduction in funding which is currently in the
bill, it is estimated there will be approximately 350 fewer audits each
year, and that is almost cutting the number in half. So we should be
seeking more, really, considering that from those 3,267 audits that
were completed there came 827 indictments and 796 convictions. OLMS has
been funded below the President's requested levels over the past
several years. Yet if the proposed cuts in the bill are implemented
funding will drop from $47.7 million to $45.7 million. That is below
last year's budget. So I would just note again that we had 427
employees in this department in 1990. It fell down to 260, it has been
inched up to 331, and if this bill passes in this form, cutting the
budget, we are going to see a loss of personnel instead of an increase
in personnel. We ought to be closer to the 400, it seems to me. OLMS
was the only enforcement agency in the Labor Department that received a
budget cut during the congressional markup.
Let me mention this story of the United Transportation Union. We have
a picture I think is sad. It is a picture from an undercover operation.
The person who is handing off this money that is on this picture is a
UTU-designated legal counsel by the name of Victor Bieganowski. The
person receiving the money is John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA,
a top special assistant to Alfred Boyd, Jr., UTU president at the time
this bribe money was paid.
In 2004, Boyd, the international president of the Nation's largest
railroad operating union, pleaded guilty to participating in a bribery
scheme involving Houston lawyers. Union officials extorted bribes from
the lawyers in exchange for access to injured union members.
A March 12, 2004, Houston Chronicle article explains that Byron
Alfred Boyd, Jr., of Seattle, is the last of four officials of the UTU
to plead guilty in a plan to extort bribes from lawyers in exchange for
access to these injured members.
Boyd admitted using the bribes he was paid--get this--to gain control
of the union. He persuaded former union president Charles Leonard
Little of Leander, near Austin, to resign in exchange for $100,000 and
a new pickup. This would allow him, Boyd, to assume the presidency of
the union. Little resigned, but I guess he didn't get a promissory note
or a mortgage because he was never paid his $100,000. Boyd not only
stole from his union and breached the trust of his union members, he
didn't pay the man he promised to pay to give up his office. Little
pleaded guilty last year, as did former union insurance director Ralph
John Dennis.
We have too many examples of this kind of disregard for the integrity
of the funding of unions. People are being entrusted with this money,
and it is not being managed well. And it is something that we need to
do more about, in my view.
Madam President, I would just share a few other examples which I
think are instructive of some of the problems that have occurred in
recent years.
In Pennsylvania, in June of 2007, in the eastern district of
Pennsylvania, Lawrence Marable and Deborah Powell, former president and
treasurer of AFGE Local 1793, representing employees at the VA Medical
Center, both
[[Page S13056]]
pled guilty to conspiracy and theft of property in a special
territorial case. They conspired to convert dues checks and issued
Local 1793 checks for their personal use totaling $184,129. This was a
very serious matter, I suggest.
In May of this year, in Michigan, Alan Raines, former financial
secretary of Steelworkers Local 1358 was charged with embezzling union
funds in the amount of $274,262. That is not chicken feed. That is huge
money. A lot of these unions do not have that many members, and the
cost per member in one, I remember specifically, was about $1,000 per
member in the amount of loss that occurred.
Here, on April 2, 2007, in Puerto Rico, the president of the
International Longshoremen's local was found guilty of 12 counts of
embezzlement. He was charged among other counts with conspiracy to
embezzle union funds in excess of $1,950,000. That is a breathtaking
amount. Both of those, in May and April of this year. In March of this
year, in New York, John Daley, former chief financial officer of the
New York State Nurses Association, was sentenced to time in prison
after pleading guilty to grand larceny for taking $1,193,000 in union
funds. These are public records. These are huge amounts of money.
In June of last year in Connecticut, a former financial secretary of
Local 745 of PACE was charged with taking $138,000, embezzling that
much money.
In June of this year, in my hometown, sadly, the Southern District of
Alabama, where I at one time was a Federal prosecutor myself in the
United States District Court there, Kenneth Mays, the former treasurer
of IBEW Local 1053, was sentenced after pleading guilty to embezzlement
and ordered to pay $37,000 in restitution, reimbursement. This is right
in my home state.
On July of last year, in Fulton County, GA, in the district court, a
bookkeeper for IBEW Local 613 was indicted for taking $11,000.
In December of 2005, in the Northern District of Iowa, Debra Herrig
was sentenced and pled guilty to embezzling union funds and made
restitution in the amount of $13,000.
In December of 2004, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, Rodney Fox was charged with embezzling
$89,000 of union funds.
In May of 2005, in the Southern District of Iowa, Amanda Kemmer was
sentenced to 24 months and ordered to pay $209,000 in full restitution
for embezzling union funds.
There are lots more I can indicate.
I will repeat. I don't believe there is any need for this kind of
criminal activity to go on. I believe a lot of it occurs because there
is so little oversight. If we had a rigorous oversight and audit
function by the Department of Labor, we would see a lot less of it. If
the unions were required to promptly and fully report the expenditures,
union members would be able to watch for problems and pick them up
sooner and keep these kind of embezzlements from going to hundreds of
thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars. That is why this
office, of all offices, should not be reduced.
I understand some people believe it is a burden, and for a good union
that never had any problems I guess filing it is a burden. It may not
be a necessary thing. But, really, probably it is because the union
members get to see where their funds are being spent, honestly and
fairly.
Most unions, of course, are honest and do a good job, and most union
members are the salt of the Earth and couldn't be better people, and
most union leaders are honest and decent and work hard every day to
protect the interests of their own members. They try to make sure they
get a fair deal in the workplace.
I am telling you we need to be attuned to that because wages are not
what I think they ought to be for the average worker in America today.
There are a lot of reasons for that. I suggest one of them is this very
large surge of low-wage labor that comes into our country illegally.
But, regardless, we want to help our union members receive the
highest possible wage and to be able to know that their leadership is
honest and trustworthy and doing the right thing. I believe we have to
get this money back into this account. We need to be sure we have at
least a modest increase in spending to keep up with the inflation rate
so we can continue at least this modest rate of enforcement.
I urge my colleagues to not see this as an action that goes against
unions but as an action that will strengthen unions, that will affirm
the importance of the union members' money that they contribute, and to
make sure it is spent wisely.
It is sad to say, sometimes you get a big restitution order of $1
million--I have been there and seen them, but it is like getting blood
from a turnip. It will never come back. It is gone and the members have
actually lost it and nobody can do anything about it.
I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this amendment.
I think it is reasonable and fair and the offset, let me repeat, does
not deal with the controversial ILO, International Labor Organization,
that does some good. It certainly has good objectives. How well they
spend their money, I have my doubts, but it has good objectives. It is
an offset against administrative expenses, and across the board it will
be a small impact on the administrative budgets of these agencies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to respond to some of the
points made by the Senator from Alabama. First of all, I want to make
it clear that I do not know of any Senator on either side of the aisle
who is not in favor of going after either fraud, waste and abuse, or
any kind of criminal activities--whether it is done in the business
community, by corporations, or whether it is done in labor unions.
Really, the question is, how do you do it? What is the best way of
doing it? Are we getting a good return on the dollar, so to speak, for
what we are investing in?
I thought we might take a look and see what has been happening in
this whole area in the Department of Labor over the past few years,
where their focus has been and where it has not been, and what the
priorities are. You can tell a lot about someone's priorities by how
they spend their money. The bill before us provides some modest
increase in work protections agencies--OSHA, MSHA, Wage and Hour
Division. We also provide for the OLMS--that is the office the Senator
from Alabama has been talking about, Office of Labor Management
Standards--$45.7 million. That is not chicken feed. I will talk more
about that in a bit.
But I want to point to some charts to show where we are, to put it in
better perspective. Right now at the Department of Labor, for OSHA--
that is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These are
the people who go out and make sure your workplaces are safe, that you
are not exposed to toxic chemicals, things that cause cancer, or unsafe
workplaces where you wind up losing a limb, an arm, a hand, or where
you are exposed to different things that may injure your lungs, whether
it is asbestos inhalation or any kind of toxic chemicals that may have
long-term profound effects. This is OSHA.
What does the administration spend on OSHA? They spend $26 per
workplace.
The Wage and Hour Division is the people who go out and make sure you
are actually being paid what you say you should be paid, that you are
getting overtime pay, that the company is abiding by the wage and hour
provisions of the contract, for example, that the union may have
signed. So in Wage and Hour, they are spending $26 per workplace. Under
Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Labor is spending
about $26 per workplace--about the same.
What are they spending at the Office of Labor Management Standards?
It is $2,707 per union; $26 per workplace for OSHA, 100 times more for
OLMS than they are spending on OSHA investigating where people get
injured, damaged, maimed for life due to unsafe working conditions.
There it is, 100 times more for OLMS. Yet they say it is not enough
money. They need more. Let's see what that means. OLMS--more staff.
More staff and fewer results.
I was listening to the Senator from Alabama. It would be one thing
if, over these years they were spending more money and hiring more
staff, they actually got more convictions and that
[[Page S13057]]
stuff. That is not so. In 2003, there were 297 people working for OLMS.
In 2006, that had increased to 384, almost a 40-percent increase,
maybe, or 50-percent increase? Anyway, almost 100 people more, 297 to
384. What happened to the number of indictments? The number of
indictments in 2003 was 132; the number in 2006 was 118. They have 100
more people, but the number of indictments goes down.
Look at the convictions. We saw the chart. In 2003, we had 152
convictions; in 2006, 129. So we have a lot more people working there.
We are spending more money on personnel, and we are getting fewer
indictments and fewer convictions. The budget, at that same time, went
from $34.3 million to $45.7 million, which is where we are. They put on
more people, but they got fewer indictments and fewer convictions.
Now with the Sessions amendment, they want to go to $50.7 million--I
guess to hire more people so we can get fewer indictments and fewer
convictions.
This really tells the story. What is happening is, they are loading
up OLMS with featherbedding. That is classic. They put more and more
people on, and they are doing less and less work. When I see a
trendline like that, I say: You don't chase bad money with good. We put
all that money in there, and it looks as though what we are doing is
hiring a bunch of people who are sitting around, not doing very much.
Let's look at labor staffing. I mentioned before--this is the same
figure you saw in the previous chart, OLMS went from 297 to 384, a 29-
percent increase. How about OSHA? What happened to Occupational Safety
and Health? It went from 1,683 down to 1,542. They got rid of people to
do inspections. And MSHA, coal mine safety, went down from 2,299 to
2,136. So while OLMS went up, OSHA and MSHA, Mine Safety Health
Administration, actually cut personnel.
What does that mean? This next chart shows what it means. Unlike
OLMS, where more staff means fewer results, the cutbacks of OSHA and
MSHA means less work gets done. This chart demonstrates what has
happened over the last several years in President Bush's budget. OSHA
inspections, right here, from 2003 to 2006, dropped from 39,884 to
38,589, so we get fewer OSHA inspections and fewer workers are being
protected as a result.
Then, the number of employees benefiting from OSHA inspections fell
from 1.6 million to 1.2 million. I don't have that number on this
chart.
Look at mine safety. Right now, MSHA is unable to do all the
inspections that they are required to do by law. What has happened
here? Under mine safety, the staff went from 2,299 to 2,136.
The number of inspections they were able to complete went from 98.8
percent to 95.1 percent, which is where we are today. They cannot even
inspect all of the mines. Need I remind anyone here of the recent mine
disaster in Utah, the mine disasters in West Virginia and Virginia,
Pennsylvania.
Miners continue to lose their lives every year in coal mines and
other mine disasters, and yet in MSHA, we do not even have enough
people there to do the inspections. I think these charts show you what
is happening over there.
I think that $45.7 million is more than enough for them to do their
job. There it is. It went from 297 to 384 people. Yet the number of
indictments and convictions went down. The budget went from $34 to $45
million. Now they want to go to $50 million. Well, something is not
right here. Something is not right. It sounds as if they are hiring
more and more people, but I do not know what they are doing.
There is one other thing I want to respond to that Senator Sessions
brought up. I think if I remember it right--I will have to check the
Record, but I thought he said something about 26 percent of the reports
were not standard, were not acceptable, did not meet standards of
acceptability.
Well, you can go right to the White House, online, go to the Office
of Labor Management Standards. It has got program performance measures.
It says here: Measure. Increasing union transparency. Increase the
percentage of union reports meeting standards of acceptability for
public disclosure.
Here is what it says: Explanation. The principle objective of this
performance goal is to increase the percentage of union reports meeting
standards of acceptability for public disclosure.
Prior to implementation of electronic reporting formats, only 73
percent of union reports filed met standards of the acceptability.
Expanded use of electronic report formats is significantly improving
the sufficiency of reports for public disclosure.
Here it is. In 2003, 73 percent, that is what I mentioned. I think
that is where Senator Sessions got the 26 percent that were not
acceptable. Well, that was 2003. In 2004, it went to 94 percent. It is
now at 93 percent, 93, 94 percent. So there are only about 6 to 7
percent that are not meeting the standards; again, not 26 percent. It
is more like about--well, it is either 6 or 7 percent right now. The
goal is 97 percent. Obviously they are getting there with this new
electronic reporting.
Now the other thing has to do with financial integrity. I talked
about fraud, and I saw the picture of somebody getting money and all of
that kind of stuff. Well, again, on the same Web site--you can look it
up yourself--the measure: increasing union financial integrity. The
percentage of unions with fraud will decrease. That is the outcome.
Right here it says that: OLMS conducts audits to monitor compliance,
uncover embezzlement, and other criminal and civil violations of the
law, using streamlined investigative audit procedures.
In fiscal year 2004, OLMS conducted a union audit study that
identified fraud in 9 percent of the unions. That was in 2004. The last
reporting period was 2006. It went down to 8 percent. What is the goal?
Seven and one-half percent. So it is only half a percent of what the
goal is as stated by OLMS. Again, the indicators are there that the
electronic reporting and other things are having their effect. So you
wonder, why do they need so many personnel if, in fact, they have gone
to electronic reporting and they are getting better results and better
transparency from that? This sounds to me like a classic case of
featherbedding, padding it with people and spending more money for not
getting much for results; in fact, getting less results than we have
gotten in the past with less money.
Again, I think we have met our obligation with $45.7 million for
OLMS. By the way, that should be more than enough for them to do their
audits and to do their indictments and convictions. I think this shows
that more personnel and more money have not translated into more
convictions and more indictments.
There is a balance that has got to be held here. I think our
committee did a good job of balancing OLMS, which has a job to do. They
should do it. They should investigate, they should audit, they should
indict, and they should convict people who are absconding with union
money. Absolutely. No one denies that. They should.
The question is, how do we balance that with making sure we have more
inspections of workplace safety, or mine safety, the other things that
the Department of Labor is supposed to be doing to protect our workers?
That is the balance we have struck here in the bill. I think it is a
good balance, something that was worked out in a bipartisan fashion
with Senator Specter, myself, and other Republicans and Democrats on
the committee. As I pointed out, this passed the committee 26 to 3.
This was not even an issue. I think everyone figured there was a pretty
good balance for what we set up. I hope we can maintain that balance.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. 3349 To Amendment No. 3325
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, among the amendments that are pending,
one is 3349. I ask unanimous consent to have it called up and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is pending.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this was the amendment offered by
Senator
[[Page S13058]]
Brown earlier. It had to do with Upward Bound evaluations. It was
cleared on both sides of the aisle. We are ready to vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3349) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I say to Senators, we are working our
way through the amendments. It is now 5:15. I know people do not want
to work late tonight, but we are going to be in very late tonight
unless Senators who have amendments pending come over and offer their
amendments.
As people can tell, there is nothing happening here right now. We
hope to get a couple more votes here very shortly. Right now, there is
not an amendment pending for which we can have a vote except the
Sessions amendment. We had a pretty good debate on that yesterday and
just now. I think pretty much all of the debate regarding the amendment
offered by Senator Sessions is over. We are prepared to vote on that,
but we will hold off until we can get clearance on the other side to
have a vote.
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. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Stevens are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. STEVENS. 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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts on some
of the discussion we had earlier today. My colleagues shared some ideas
about whether we are funding OSHA sufficiently, that sort of thing. The
spending per business from OSHA is different from spending per union.
OSHA has many businesses they serve, and so they go out to each one and
make their visits and do their inspections and assess penalties. But
unions serve many businesses, and one inspector would come there and
spend some time and would cover their relationship with quite a number
of businesses. All workplaces are not unionized so I don't think that
was a fair comparison.
Also, the Department of Labor just reported that the indictment and
conviction numbers continue to go up. They now have 798 convictions and
834 indictments. It seems every day they are out there making good
progress, where they have the capability to do so, against fraud and
corruption.
With regard to the full-time equivalent, the number of employees, in
recent years we have seen an increase in the number of employees--that
is true--but the truth is those increases have been modest. For
example, in 1990, there were over 400 OLMS employees. Now that number
dropped down below 300. Mostly during the period of the Clinton
administration there was a sharp dropoff. Now it is back up to 331, but
that is well below the amount it used to be.
I don't think there is anything that can be said except that
Secretary Chao has begun to restore that office a bit, tried to get it
on a stronger basis, have it do a better job of enforcing the law. She
needs that. One can only interpret this budget cut--the only budget cut
within this whole line item of appropriations to her enforcement
agency, the agency that requires the unions to publish their
expenditures, the enforcement agency that actually does audits--as an
indication of something rather serious, especially when the audits are
uncovering extraordinary amounts of problems. That is what we have. We
have a situation in which we have had so little oversight that there is
abuse of union members' money going on on a regular basis. That money
is too often being abused. Not by everybody; overwhelmingly, the
average union leader is honest and decent. The locals are run by good
people elected by their members. But long-term tenures, lack of
controls, no audits puts people in a position where their good
discipline fails.
I have seen it in churches. People in church have access to large
amounts of money. Nobody is monitoring it, and they take it, sometimes
large amounts. So we need to understand that oversight, auditing, and
financial disclosure is not punishment. It is not demeaning. It is
serving the rank-and-file union members. It is serving their interests
so they can know their leadership is functioning honestly and with
integrity, and they can know what they are spending their money on. It
may be an honest expenditure, but a union member might look at it and
say: They paid too much for this copy machine because that is his
brother-in-law. They might want to complain about that. Isn't that the
way we want it to happen? That is what the whole system is about.
It is disappointing to me to see that we have a cut in this agency,
of all agencies. I am disappointed in that. I know Secretary Chao would
be concerned that people thought that somehow in doing these few
audits--and we are so slow in what we are doing and doing so few it
would take 33 years to audit all existing unions. But to suggest they
were spending so much money on that, and they weren't protecting
workers. There is actually some good news there. For example, since
fiscal year 2001, the fatality rate among Hispanic workers has fallen
by over 18 percent. Since 2002, the injury and illness incident rate
has fallen from 5.3 per 100 workers to 4.6 per 100 workers, a drop of
more than 13 percent in the injury and illness incident rate, which is
a substantial improvement.
With regard to the number of resources, from 1992 to 2002, there were
budget cuts and the FTEs dropped 34 percent. That is the number of
workers during basically the period in which President Clinton was in
office. The audits of unions, the local unions dropped by two-thirds in
that decade. That is all we are saying. Secretary Chao has a statutory
responsibility to do audits, a statutory and compelling responsibility
to insist on these reports being filed on time. They are required by a
law that was passed in 1959. Thirty-six percent of the unions are not
submitting those reports on time so their members cannot access where
their money is going. We had almost a million people in the last year
access the Web site where these reports are required to be filed to see
where the money is being spent. This is union members accessing these
Web sites so they can find out where the money they are contributing to
the local union is being spent. What is wrong with that? Why would we
want to cut this agency when we still are not where we need to be? We
are auditing only a very small fraction of the unions, and a
substantial number, over a third, are failing to report as required
by law--not a law I am asking us to pass, not a law that is part of
this amendment--a law that was passed by then-Senator John F. Kennedy
in 1959.
So I believe this is a good government issue. It is the right thing
to do. It will not hurt unions. It will strengthen unions. It will make
people feel better about their membership. It may be some bosses do not
want to have to disclose where they spend their money, and they may be
contacting Senators and telling them: Don't give in. Fight. Don't let
them go back and make us do these audits. Don't do it. Cut their
budget. Stop Elaine Chao from doing what she is required by law to do.
Don't give her the money.
Maybe that is what is happening. I do not know. I hope not. I think
we ought to keep this going. We ought to at least have this modest
increase which is a little more than the inflation rate--a net $3
million increase on a $47 million budget from last year. That modest
increase will allow her to keep the momentum, to keep these delinquency
rates going down, moving in the right direction, with financial
disclosure, sunshine. That is going to help eliminate fraud in itself.
Then she will be able to also do a certain number of other audits.
Maybe we can see not an increase in convictions, but we might see a
decrease, if we know there is more accountability.
[[Page S13059]]
Again, there were 796 criminal convictions over the last 6 years,
with court-ordered restitution of $101 million. Whose money is that?
Whose money was being ordered to be paid back? It is union members'
money--working Americans who have trusted their leaders. Maybe in the
union hall there are 10 officers and leaders and only one of them found
themselves in a position to steal. I am not saying we have this
wholesale problem. What I am saying is there is a very real problem.
There is no doubt about it. We are finding far too many criminal cases
for each audit that is done.
As a result, it takes up time by the investigators. It takes up time
by the auditors. It results oftentimes in a loss of money that no
matter what the judge orders to be restored--no matter how much
restitution they order--it may not actually ever be paid back if they
do not have it. That is a true fact.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, some
of you may be concerned that the offset was to take money from the ILO,
I believe it is, the U.N.-affiliated international labor group that is
supposed to help labor conditions around the world. They certainly have
high and good goals. I am not sure they have been very effective. But
this money for my amendment is not coming from there anymore. I know a
lot of people want to see that budget increased.
So this offset will be an offset from administrative expenses of
Labor and HHS and Education. It will be a small impact on their overall
budget.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3395 to Amendment No. 3325
(Purpose: To clarify the application of current law)
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have an amendment I offer on behalf of
Senator Reid. I send it 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 Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Reid, proposes
an amendment numbered 3395 to amendment No. 3325:
At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to effect
or otherwise modify provisions of current Federal law with
respect to the funding of abortion.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am going to propound a unanimous
consent request. I ask the Senator's attention to this request so we
get it right.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set this pending
amendment aside, then to turn to an amendment to be offered by the
Senator from Louisiana, at which time we will have a time agreement of
10 minutes for Senator Vitter and 10 minutes for Senator Boxer on the
Vitter amendment, at the end of which time the Senate will proceed to a
vote on or in relation to, first, the Reid amendment; upon disposal of
the Reid amendment, the Senate will then proceed to vote on or in
relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana; at the
conclusion of that vote, that the Senate then proceed to a vote on the
amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions; and that
no other amendments or intervening matter occur prior to these votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
There is 20 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. First of all, Madam President, I thank the chairman of
the subcommittee for all his courtesies.
Amendment No. 3330 to Amendment No. 3325
Under that unanimous consent request which has been granted, I now
call up amendment No. 3330, the Vitter amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 3330 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 provision of funds to grantees who perform
abortions)
On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
none of the funds appropriated in this title shall be
distributed to grantees who perform abortions or whose
subgrantees perform abortions, except where a woman suffers
from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical
illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the
woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed,
including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
arising from the pregnancy itself. The preceding sentence
shall not apply to a grantee or subgrantee that is a
hospital, so long as such hospital does not subgrant to a
non-hospital entity that performs abortions.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is a very simple and
straightforward but, I believe, important amendment. It says in clear
terms that none of the funds in this appropriations bill will go to
entities that provide abortions.
I think that is the right policy we should set in this body because
whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on
one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. Abortion divides our
Nation--many folks would say down the middle--and it causes
understandable passions and feelings on both sides. To a substantial
number of Americans--myself included--but millions upon millions of
Americans, the procedure of abortion is deeply troubling and deeply
offensive. In that context, I think it is the right policy and a very
reasonable mainstream policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer
dollars to support groups that perform abortions. It seems to me that
is the right policy when you talk about taxpayer dollars.
Now, the other side will immediately jump up and say: Well, we have
current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars
to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough in my
mind and in the minds of millions upon millions of other abortion
opponents.
Because the way it works now, we send Federal dollars to abortion
providers and money is fungible and it is a big shell game and it
supports their overhead and it supports their organizations and, in
many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
So it does, in a very significant, meaningful way, support abortions.
That is wrong in my mind.
Now, let me make clear what this amendment does and what it does not
do.
It says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to abortion
providers under the title X program. The title X program is a family
planning program, and many of those entities which get millions of
dollars from the Federal Government perform abortions. This amendment
says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to those entities.
Now, what does the amendment not do? It does not affect hospitals.
There is specific language, a specific exemption for hospitals. So
hospitals are another category. It does not cut one penny from family
planning. This amendment is not about family planning. It is clearly
about abortion. We do not cut one penny of family planning funding.
This amendment does not deny one family, one individual, family
planning services, because in every locality where a private abortion
provider is receiving title X funds, there are alternative sources for
family planning services--in every area, in every locality. So we are
not taking family planning services away from any American, from any
individual in any part of the country.
Finally, this amendment does not affect free speech. The amendment
contains no language regarding counseling, advocacy, information or
expression. It simply says: Let's be fair. Abortion is a very divisive
topic. At least half the American people have deep concerns about it.
In that context, we should not be sending those folks' money to
abortion providers to take care of their overhead, to allow them to use
it as a shell game and, essentially, indirectly fund abortions and
support abortion services.
Now, there are a lot of examples of these sorts of entities that we
could use. But, obviously, the biggest nationwide is Planned
Parenthood. Planned
[[Page S13060]]
Parenthood performs and accounts for hundreds of thousands of abortions
every year. According to the last figures we could locate from 2005-
2006, Planned Parenthood has about a $1 billion budget and source of
revenue. About a third of that--$305.3 million--comes from Government
subsidies of one sort or another. So $1 billion in revenue, and a third
of that comes from the taxpayers--whether it is $120 million or more
from the Federal Government kicking in directly and at least $59
million coming from this very title X program, which is the subject of
my amendment.
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, in the last year we could get figures
for, performed over 264,000 abortions. The best estimate for abortions
nationwide in a year is 1.29 million. So Planned Parenthood alone
accounts for over 20 percent of that.
You cannot tell me, given all those numbers, given 265,000 abortions
performed, that we are not sending Federal taxpayer dollars that is
supporting all of that activity, that is indirectly paying for those
abortions--clearly, enormously important to keep Planned Parenthood
going, to provide for its overhead--a third of all of its revenue.
Pure and simple, that is wrong when so many Americans find performing
abortions so deeply troubling in a fundamental, gut, moral way. So this
would set the policy right and simply say, if you are a title X
recipient, if you are a recipient of those sorts of Federal dollars,
you need to decide. You cannot perform abortions if you want that
taxpayer support when half or more of U.S. taxpayers have fundamental,
moral reservations, and problems with the procedure.
This amendment is strongly supported by the Family Research Council,
and they are going to score the amendment. In addition, it is strongly
supported by Concerned Women for America--they also will score the
amendment--and, finally, by National Right to Life, which will also
score the amendment.
I have letters from two of those three organizations. The third is on
the way. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Family Research Council,
Washington, DC, October 18, 2007.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of Family Research Council and the
families we represent, I want to urge you to vote for the
Amendment #3330 offered by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to the
Substitute Amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
(H.R. 3043) which would prevent Title X family planning funds
from supporting abortion providers. We strongly support this
amendment.
Title X family planning funds are distributed to
organizations that perform a broad array of family planning
services. Though Title X funds may not be used to perform
abortions, some Title X recipients co-locate their family
planning services with their abortion facilities. Indeed,
Planned Parenthood clinics receive Title X funding.
Title X family planning funding should not go to abortion
providers such as Planned Parenthood, which performed nearly
265,000 abortions in 2005. Recent reports indicate that
Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in
fiscal year 2005-2006, of which over $300 million came from
government grants and contracts. In addition, it has recently
been reported that Planned Parenthood clinics that receive
Title X funding have not complied with state statutory rape
reporting laws. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an
organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs
abortions or violates state laws designed to protect young
women. The Vitter amendment would not alter the $300 million
contained in the LHHS bill for Title X family planning
services.
Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the
principle that the United States taxpayer should not have to
subsidize the abortion industry. FRC reserves the right to
score votes surrounding this amendment in our scorecard for
the First Session of the 110th Congress to be published this
fall.
Sincerely.
Thomas McClusky,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
____
October 18, 2007.
Hon. David Vitter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Vitter, On behalf of the 500,000 members of
Concerned Women for America (CWA), I would like to thank you
for your continued commitment to support of the sanctity of
life. We appreciate your offering an amendment to prohibit
federal Title X funding from going to any group which
performs elective abortions or whose subgrantees perform
elective abortions.
CWA will score the vote on your pro-life amendment to the
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations
Bill (S. 1710).
Federal taxpayers must not be forced to pay for cruel and
immoral abortion procedures to which they rightly object.
There is no way around this fundamental principle of fairness
and common decency.
Senator, thank you again for your amendment and working to
promote life in the Senate. Our members appreciate your
strong stance and CWA lends its support to this pro-life
amendment. Our little ones cannot speak for themselves, so we
must speak for them and make a statement that our nation
should not subsidize this destruction of life.
Sincerely,
Beverly LaHaye,
Founder and Chairman,
Concerned Women for America.
Mr. VITTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from
Louisiana have left, Mr. Vitter, and how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes 46
seconds, and the Senator from California has 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. All right. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
The Vitter amendment is ``big brother'' at its very worst. It tells
non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private
funds. I wonder what the Senator has in mind next? Is he going to tell
America's families what they can spend their private funds on? This is
a dangerous amendment which will lead to more abortions.
The Senator takes to the floor and he attacks an a private
organization by name--an organization that over many years has had
leading Republicans and Democrats on its board of directors. I think it
is a very sad day when we have an amendment such as this. This
amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day
using their own funds to provide family planning services and
reproductive health care, including legal abortion services.
If Senator Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw
all abortion. He should work to make women criminals who have
abortions--throw everyone in jail. If he wants to go that way, that is
an honest way. But to stand up here and say that a private organization
that works so hard every day to give women the health care they need--
to punish them because they use their own funds to provide a full array
of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
His amendment will do nothing to reduce abortions. It will make
contraceptives harder to get, and that will increase the number of
unintended pregnancies. It will increase the number of abortions, just
as we have shown the global gag rule does. Make no mistake, he may not
call it a gag rule, but in essence it is. When you tell a person or an
organization how they can spend their own personal funds, that is
interfering with their rights.
What is going to happen? We are going to have less funding for breast
and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screening, sexually
transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS. We are going to see less
counseling, less testing, and less referrals.
This amendment is an attack on title X-supported health clinics.
Title X was enacted in 1970 with strong bipartisan support to provide
high-quality, comprehensive, and low-cost family planning and
reproductive health care services to those in need but who cannot
afford such services. Let's be clear. No title X dollars may be used
for abortion care. We are going to have a vote that makes it very clear
that nothing in this bill allows Federal funds to be used for abortion.
No discretionary funding in this bill can ever pay for abortion. That
has been illegal for quite some time.
So again, the Vitter amendment punishes effective organizations that
are working every day to provide a full range of legal, important
health care to women. The consequence of passing this--which I don't
think we will because it is so radical--are that women would have less
access to reproductive health care. They would get sick. They would be
suffering, and they wouldn't
[[Page S13061]]
get access to contraception, which is so necessary.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to use 1\1/2\ minutes of my
remaining time to simply respond to some of the statements.
A statement was made that this amendment cuts health care services,
family planning services that are not abortion and makes them less
available. That is simply not true. This amendment doesn't cut a single
penny of title X family planning money. That dollar amount is exactly
the same. This amendment doesn't make those services unavailable to a
single American because we checked every metropolitan area, every
locality, and there are other opportunities--public, private, both--for
Americans in every locality for true family planning entities that
don't also perform abortions. So it is not true that we are lessening
that opportunity.
It is not about those true health or family planning services. It is
about abortion and whether the American taxpayer is going to be forced
to indirectly subsidize abortion in this country as we do right now.
When abortion is so divisive an issue, when it is so troubling and
fundamentally offensive to so many millions of Americans--at least half
the country, in my guesstimate--I don't think it is right or fair to be
spending taxpayer dollars. Who can deny that is effectively what we are
doing? Just look at the biggest example.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed a minute and a half.
Mr. VITTER. I will consume the remainder of my time.
I talk about Planned Parenthood simply because it is the biggest and
most obvious example of billions of dollars of revenue--fully a third
comes from Government. Meanwhile, they perform 265,000 abortions--20
percent of the entirety of abortions performed in the United States.
That is not right.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 45 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to point out that George Bush's
grandparents founded the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Connecticut. I
wish to point out again that the issue of choice is only divisive when
we have amendments such as this one, even though we already know there
isn't a penny of funding in this bill that can be used for abortion.
So, this is punishing the people who are living by the law, who are
using their own private funds, and who are using Federal funds for
contraceptive services, for health care services, and the rest.
This amendment shouldn't even be on this bill. The reason it is
controversial is because Senator Vitter decided to bring up this very
divisive amendment, which I hope we will defeat.
I yield 3 minutes to Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let's be very clear. The amendment that
has been offered by Senator Vitter is an attack on the health and well-
being of all Americans, purely and simply. When you look at the depth
and breadth of this amendment which has been offered, it could withhold
critical Federal dollars from virtually any health care entity or
provider across the country that is in any way tied to abortion
services, directly or indirectly.
I wish to remind my colleagues that in some of our rural communities,
there is only one health care provider. That clinic may provide flu
shots for children, for the elderly, and it may also provide family
planning services. This amendment which has been offered would tie that
clinic's hands and prevent it from receiving any Federal funds
whatsoever. That is just plain wrong.
Our Nation's core health care providers rely on millions of dollars
from Medicaid, from family planning, from community health centers,
child health, and numerous programs which provide, as we all know,
vital health care services to some of our Nation's most vulnerable
women, men, and children. But because of the way this amendment is
worded, it would put millions of men and women--primarily, of course,
those who are low income who can't advocate for themselves, who don't
have health insurance--at risk of losing access to family planning and
other preventive health care services.
We have all said many times we all want to reduce the number of
abortions. It is something on which we all agree. But this amendment,
in fact, goes directly against that goal. This amendment is
counterintuitive. Eliminating a community's only source of birth
control will not reduce the number of abortions. Denying women access
to their trusted doctors and nurses won't do it either.
Let's be clear. This amendment is not necessary to prevent family
planning funds provided through title X from paying for abortions. As
the Senator from California has said, Federal law prohibits that.
Over the past 7 years, we have seen this administration and
conservatives in this Congress systematically work to erode
reproductive freedoms for women, both in the United States and
overseas. In fact, just this week we learned that the President's
nominee for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs has
supported dropping a requirement that Federal health insurance plans
cover birth control.
I ask for 1 additional minute.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
Mrs. MURRAY. She called Plan B--the medically safe birth control pill
that I and others worked to approve--a ``grave threat to women.''
We all want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in this
country, but limiting health care and education options will only
produce the opposite effect. We have to make sure women have access to
safe and affordable family planning alternatives. Cutting them off, as
this amendment would do, is the wrong way to go.
I stand with my colleague from California in saying that the Senate
needs to stand on record to protect women's rights in this country.
This is the time when we need to do it. We are not out here to provide
a divisive debate; we are out to defend the rights of women in this
country, for which they have worked long and hard. Let's not affect and
impact hundreds and hundreds of men and women who are trying to get
health care today by an amendment that is divisive and is not needed.
As the Senator from California said today, the funds in this bill
that are federally provided do not go for abortions today. We do not
need this amendment. We should not take this dangerous step that will
impact the lives and health of many women in this country.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds remains.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me just say that Senator Murray said
it all. This is an unnecessary amendment by Senator Vitter. I urge an
``aye'' vote on the Reid amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Vitter
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
Amendment No. 3395
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Harkin for
Reid amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy)
would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 25, as follows:
[[Page S13062]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 378 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--25
Allard
Barrasso
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
Mikulski
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3395) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. 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.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
two votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3330
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Vitter
amendment No. 3330.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy)
would each vote ``nay.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 379 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
Mikulski
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3330) was rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3373
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sessions
amendment. Are the yeas and nays requested on the Sessions amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Obama), are necessary absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy)
would each vote ``nay.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there and other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 380 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Kennedy
Mikulski
Obama
Warner
The amendment (No. 3373) was rejected.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had a long conversation with the
Republican leader to determine how we are going to get done what we
have to get done. I have discussed with the two managers the
conversation the Republican leader and I had. The first thing we are
going to do is get consent at the appropriate time, which will be in a
few minutes, that all first-degree amendments be filed tomorrow at 1
p.m. I am not asking that consent now.
The managers should know, though, the amendments we will need to deal
with. We will have a finite list of amendments.
The commitment that the Republican leader, I think, is going to be
willing to make is that we finish this bill by the time of our caucus
luncheons on Tuesday; that is, by noon on Tuesday, October 23. That
being the case, we have a lot of work to do. Everyone should understand
we may have a number of votes Monday night. This is not going to be
come in Monday night and go out to some event you have. Everyone should
have Monday night free because we could have a lot of votes Monday
night. Everyone should understand that.
The following week we have a lot to do. I have made a commitment to
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee--that bill needs to be marked
[[Page S13063]]
up next week and he has scheduled that for next Wednesday. We have to
finish this matter next Tuesday. This avoids a lot of trouble.
I could file cloture on it, and the Republican leader knows this
better than I, and we could have a vote on Saturday. We have people not
here today. To get everybody here on Saturday is no easy thing to do.
I think what I have suggested here would be very appropriate. As I
said, I talked to the Republican leader about this. We would have votes
Monday night. We are going to have whatever votes are necessary Tuesday
morning to complete this legislation and then go on about the week's
business that we would have, which should be a significant week. After
next week we only have 3 weeks left here until Thanksgiving. We have
already scheduled a break at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me confirm for our colleagues my concurrence with
what the majority leader has indicated. We can finish the bill Tuesday
before the policy luncheons. I have consulted with Members on my side
and we are confident that is an ending that can be achieved, which
would free up our friend from Iowa and the members of the Agriculture
Committee for their markup.
I want to concur in what the majority leader has indicated. I think
that is a goal we can achieve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, then, that all first-degree
amendments be filed on this bill by 1 o'clock tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I would say, the managers have already acknowledged they
are going to process more amendments tonight. There will be no more
rollcall votes tonight. They will process what amendments they can work
out tomorrow also. So I think this is good.
It is no secret we are doing our very best to get this bill finished
so we can get it to the President. There has been a lot of
preconferencing. I talked to the Senator from Pennsylvania and the
Senator from Iowa. They have done a lot of work.
The reason I want to try to get this bill to the President is the
concern the President has involves about $22 billion. More than half of
that is in this bill we have here, so that would be a good place to
start to see if we can work something out on this bill with the
President. If we cannot, it certainly points to where we need to work
something out to finish our work on the appropriations matters for the
rest of the year.
There will be no votes tomorrow. The first vote will be Monday; 5:30,
probably.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there a pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that
amendment and then call up an amendment that has already been filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Just briefly. The Senator has called up an amendment. I
wish to get a consent for Senator Allard and for Senator Landrieu. How
much time is the Senator intending to take?
Mr. REED. No more than 10 minutes, and I will try to be less than
that.
Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator from New Jersey also have an amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I have been waiting on the floor to speak for about 10
minutes, so at some point I wish to be recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. On the bill?
Mr. MENENDEZ. In part on the bill, yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed
be recognized to offer his amendment, and then Senator Allard, and upon
the disposition of that amendment, that Senator Landrieu be recognized,
in that sequence, and then after Senator Landrieu, Senator Menendez be
recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are currently debating the Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008.
Let me commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for their
great work on this legislation.
As Chairman Harkin said, this bill truly defines America. It defines
our Nation's commitment to our children's future through education, it
defines our Nation's compassion to seniors and working families, and it
defines our hopes in many different areas, particularly in the area of
helping to cure disease and improve the public health. This is an
extraordinarily important piece of legislation. Both Senator Harkin and
Senator Specter have done a remarkable job bringing it to the floor.
Let me highlight a few of the important points that I believe should
be emphasized.
First of all, the bill increases Head Start funding, whereas the
President's budget would decrease it. The legislation before us will
provide sufficient resources to continue Head Start, which is an
important aspect of giving children a chance to succeed earlier in
their lives. It also provides resources for higher education: Pell
grants, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program--LEAP
Program--TRIO, and GEAR UP. All of those are vital to ensuring that our
citizens can seize the opportunity of America, and the greatest
opportunity is education.
This legislation also provides an important safety net for many of
our low-income families and our seniors; that is, the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. We could see a very severe winter in the
Northeast, in the Northwest, and in the Central Plains of America. We
are also seeing incredibly expensive prices for oil. Without this
LIHEAP money, we will not be able to deal with the issue, and countless
families will make difficult choices between literally eating or
heating their homes. This legislation, in contradistinction to the
White House's proposal, would maintain, not decrease, LIHEAP funding.
The legislation provides additional resources--about a billion
dollars more--for the National Institutes of Health. This is vital to
our ability to do research and to provide new diagnoses and new cures
for disease. But it is something else that is important: It provides
the infrastructure for research in this country. It gives those young
Ph.D.s and M.D.s who are doing research incentives to stay in the
field. Without it, we will not only miss out on the cures, but we will
also miss out on the physicians and researchers who can give us, over
the next 20, 30, 40 years, insight into the problems with disease in
human beings.
We also are supporting in this bill the vaccination program. The 317
vaccination program, immunization program, has been essential to
improving the public health, particularly the public health of
children. This bill supports those commitments.
It also provides for training and employment resources. In a world of
globalization, where jobs are going overseas, we just cannot tell
people: Tough luck. We have to give them an opportunity to change their
training, change their workplace, to go ahead and seize new
opportunities. The President's budget diminishes these programs; this
legislation increases the programs. I think that is the right
direction.
The Job Corps Program--very successful since the 1960s. We have in
Rhode Island what I think is the best Job Corps center in the country.
I just had the director in a few days ago talking about how they are
being evaluated higher and higher in each evaluation across the country
in terms of other Job Corps centers, providing not only training but
jobs. All of their students are walking out into good jobs. These are
young men and women who, frankly, we haven't been able to reach before
this stage. Either they have dropped out of high school or they have
had a long process to get their GED and to get into this program. Some
are just getting their GEDs in this program. This program deserves our
support.
But there is one area in which we have not committed resources; that
is, the Trauma Care Systems Planning
[[Page S13064]]
and Development Act of 2007. Trauma--injuries, accidents, falls,
automobile wrecks, recreational mishaps--is actually the leading killer
of young Americans up to the age of 44. It claims more than 140,000
lives and permanently disables about 80,000 each year. But only one in
four Americans lives in an area served by coordinated systems that will
transfer patients to designated trauma centers from less-equipped
hospitals. This is particularly a problem in rural areas. It affects
urban and rural communities but particularly the rural areas. At the
highest risk are those people in rural areas. Sixty percent of the
trauma deaths occur, even though there is only 20 percent of our
population, in rural areas--60 percent of the trauma deaths, 20 percent
of the population. This is a program which is desperately needed in
rural parts of America.
The Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is an important
building block to an improved national network of care across the
country. This program would allow for planning, infrastructure
development, and standards development to determine the procedures that
are most appropriate to do this. It would also require coordination
with Federal agencies. It is a sensible investment in a systemic
approach to trauma care. I believe it is very important.
Amendment No. 3360 to Amendment No. 3325
As a result, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3360.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 3360 to amendment No. 3325.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for the trauma and emergency medical
services programs administered through the Health Resources and
Services Administration)
On page 59, line 22, insert before the colon the following:
``, of which $6,000,000 shall be made available to the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration to carry out trauma and emergency medical
services programs''.
Mr. REED. This amendment would provide $6 million for the program. It
is fully offset. It is a small amount of funding to improve and expand
the availability of trauma care across the country, particularly in
rural areas, to ensure all areas are equipped with appropriate
emergency and medical services, thus improving the survival rate and
recovery rate for injured patients.
Trauma care is not only critical to providing timely access to
lifesaving interventions, it is central to our national security and
disaster preparedness. It is an essential component of our overall
health care system and something I believe we have to do.
I hope that at the appropriate time my colleagues will be able to
support this very worthy measure. Let me thank Senator Harkin and
Senator Specter and particularly their staffs for a bill that I think
does speak to the best of America, and does, in fact, define, in a very
positive way, our most important priorities.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Amendment No. 3369 to Amendment No. 3325
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendments and call up amendment No. 3369 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 3369 to amendment No. 3325.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce the total amount appropriated to any program that
is rated ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget through the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the total amount appropriated by this Act for any program for
which the most recent rating available on the date of
enactment of this Act by the Office of Management and Budget
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is
``ineffective'' shall be reduced by 10 percent. Not later
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, an
amount equal to the aggregate amount of any such reduction
shall be deposited in the account established under section
3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to reduce the public
debt.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment cuts 10 percent of the
funding under this bill for programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the
OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--PART Program and transfers
the funding to an account previously established to pay down the
national debt.
Now, I do not believe I am being presumptuous when I say that most of
us in this body would like to reduce spending. Where to cut is the
question we fight over. So that is where the fight exists. Now, given
ballooning Federal spending and the Federal debt, this amendment lets
us make an easy choice to cut spending. It has to start with programs
that cannot even justify their mission or success internally.
In case you are unfamiliar with the PART Program in general, let me
give you some background. When making funding decisions, Members of
Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded
programs should be effective and efficient. So the Program Assessment
Rating Tool--that is, PART--was put in place by the Congress more than
a decade ago. Agencies have had time to work with this program under
the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. The
program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives,
and then the Office of Management and Budget goes in later on and
evaluates to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and
objectives.
These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are
based are available to the public to view. All they have to do is go to
www.expectmore.gov. That is the Web page you would go to. It is a very
good reference for the public, for Members of Congress, or for any
agency to know exactly where they stand as far as their performance
standards are concerned.
These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials.
This is not a political process. These are objective evaluations done
by career officials at agencies and OMB, the Office of Management and
Budget, and are based on evidence of that program's performance.
Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best
rating they can get is ``effective,'' then it goes to ``moderately
effective,'' ``adequate,'' then it goes to ``results not
demonstrated,'' and finally to ``ineffective,'' the lowest rating. This
amendment tries to address the lowest rating, which is ``ineffective.''
While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant
of funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform
well. Ineffective programs in particular should be scrutinized to
determine whether the resources they use could be better spent
elsewhere and whether their goals could be achieved through other
means.
When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can
look to the PART Program for important information:
No. 1, does the program address an existing problem, interest, or
need? Those that do not should not be funded.
The other question to be asked: Does the program have performance
goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that
do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars.
Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is
effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the
program. If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to
consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the
program is having its intended impact.
Is the program working to improve its performance is another question
we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is
not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of
resources.
[[Page S13065]]
Another question: If an increase in funding is requested for a
program, has the program explained how the additional funding will
affect its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will
use their resources simply are not the best candidates for investment.
So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program,
and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies. Some
of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. I would
like to look at a few of those.
Take the Health Professions Program, for example. One study found
that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions
receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health
care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of
physicians trained by other institutions. So there is only a four-
tenths of a percent performance difference. So the question comes up:
What is the program accomplishing?
PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and
Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the
beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an
estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and
nuclear testing activities and where they might live.
These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the
PART Program. They provide the information Members of Congress need to
evaluate whether programs are ineffective. Some of these are programs I
have supported. I am sure there are programs that are not doing well,
and I think we need to take a close look at them. That is all we are
asking with this amendment.
The amendment before us addresses a portion of discretionary
spending. I ask Members to support this amendment as we deal with
discretionary spending areas where the PART Program is being applied.
The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt,
currently over $9 trillion, and eliminate Government waste by reducing
spending on programs rated ineffective by the Office of Management and
Budget PART Program. This is through the career professionals in the
agencies. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda.
That is what my amendment is all about, saving taxpayer dollars in a
responsible way. It is about forcing managers of these programs to put
in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the
legislation intended when the Congress passed it. I ask my colleagues
to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the
programs we have passed. This is a wonderful tool we have for whatever
administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies
to get their act in order because we are concerned about how taxpayer
dollars are being spent.
It is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability
to Government programs we have passed.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
previous unanimous consent agreement so I may speak next and the
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, will speak after me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, yesterday I began to speak about what
the failed war in Iraq is costing us at home to mark the fifth
anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the war. As we debate the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, I can't think of a better moment to
return to the cost of this war.
Let me begin by saying again we are aware of the human cost of the
war: 3,816 Americans are dead; more than 28,000 have come back home
wounded. Iraqis have died in even greater numbers. Millions have fled
their homes. The United States has been involved in the war for longer
than we fought World War II. We all know the Iraq war is a human
calamity of vast proportions. It can be harder to visualize the direct
damage that comes from the financial cost of the war. We are paying for
this war with borrowed money, burying ourselves in massive debt,
severely threatening the future of our country.
We know we have spent more than $450 billion on this war so far, and
we continue to spend about $10 billion every month. That doesn't add up
to a stack of bills that could have been sitting in the Treasury. It is
equipment at ports that scan nuclear weapons and other measures that
actually make the homeland more secure. It is children healed with
better health care. It is more teachers in school, better training for
jobs, energy that is clean and doesn't strengthen repressive regimes in
the Middle East, payments of our debts so future generations will
inherit a country that is financially viable.
The Bush administration likes to parrot the line: We are fighting
them over there so we don't have to fight them here. But when we add it
all up, the bottom line is clear: The administration's motto really is:
We are spending all our money over there so we don't spend it here.
Yesterday I spoke about how much we could accomplish to safeguard our
homeland against terrorists if we spent a fraction of the money we have
dumped into the war that makes no sense. Today I would like to speak
about what the failed war in Iraq has cost us in terms of our health;
specifically, the health of our children. Today the House of
Representatives considered whether to support a bill to provide health
insurance for children. Every time we go to the doctor or fill a
prescription at the pharmacy, we remember how expensive health care can
be. There are families who work every day in some of the toughest jobs,
but their jobs don't offer health care, and their paychecks would not
let them afford private coverage. That is why the Federal Government
and the States teamed up to start the State Children's Health Insurance
Program or what is commonly referred to as SCHIP.
This year Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a bill that
would continue to provide health care to the 6 million children already
enrolled and will expand the program to include a total of 10 million
children across America. We knew we had to because the children who
fall into the wide abyss between Medicaid and private coverage are
depending on us. But on October 3, millions of children got some
terrible news. President Bush had vetoed the bill. He did it silently
and secretly, with no cameras allowed to watch as he condemned millions
of children to a lack of coverage with a single stroke of his pen.
Today families across America were waiting to see if Congress had the
moral resolve to override that veto. Some of our colleagues who cast
decisive votes against children's health raised the question of whether
the bill was financially reasonable, whether 10 million uninsured
American kids were worthy of funding. President Bush said they were
not. Many of my colleagues who voted against children's health have
repeatedly decided to vote for continuing the failed war in Iraq. Right
now I wish to speak directly to all of them. If we are talking about
what is financially reasonable, let's take a very close look at the
stark contrast in cost between children's health and the failed war in
Iraq.
The total cost of expanding children's health is $35 billion over 5
years for 10 million children. How many dollars per child does this
cost us every day? Depending upon which State you live in, the answer
is as little as $3.50 a day, about the cost of a latte at Starbuck's.
Iraq costs us $10 billion per month. That means with 3\1/2\ months of
Iraq funding, the total expansion in this bill would have been paid
for. That is what the war costs--health care for 10 million children
versus 3\1/2\ months of what we spend in Iraq.
The impact of this bill would have been enormous in many States,
including my State of New Jersey, where families have to pay some of
the highest health care costs in the Nation. It would have helped
support the State in keeping 124,000 New Jersey children insured. It
would have covered as many as 100,000 additional children in my State.
In the bill, New Jersey would have received about $350 million next
year alone to cover working families and children. This program has
given New Jersey families that cannot afford private coverage the peace
of mind to know that children have health care. President Bush has told
those children: No, you don't deserve the Federal Government's strong
support, even though
[[Page S13066]]
this country spends $330 million in Iraq every day. Again, every single
day in Iraq, we spend roughly the amount of money it would take to get
tens of thousands of New Jersey children coverage for a full year.
I wish he had to look every child in the eye to tell them that. But
that is what the war costs: Health insurance for New Jersey children
versus one day in Iraq. In fact, for the amount Congress has spent on
the failed war in Iraq, we could provide 2 years of health coverage for
all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, who
play Russian roulette every day with their lives and their wallets, and
still have $30 billion left over. We could have provided health care
coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health
coverage today. That is what the war costs: Health care coverage for
every single American family versus the failed war in Iraq.
Here is the question we have to ask ourselves as legislators, as
Americans, as human beings: Is a child to get more benefit from a
dollar spent keeping our military in Iraq to referee a civil war or a
dollar spent on their health insurance? Is she going to be better
served by oil injected in an Abrams tank or by a vaccine a nurse
injects in her arm to save her from measles? Is her life going to be
improved by missiles in the desert or antibiotics in her medicine
cabinet; more troops on the streets of Baghdad or more doctors in the
hospital down the block; multimillion dollar bombs that rain down on
Iraqi neighborhoods with surgical precision or orthopedic surgery for a
disease such as cerebral palsy that would mean the difference between a
debilitated life in a wheelchair and being able to walk and run and
play with other children at school?
How dare we take money from her family and borrow money from foreign
countries to spend it on a war that makes no sense, while leaving her
on her own to fight diseases and injuries that might very well claim
her life.
It is hard to think of a more grievous act on the part of this
Government than abandoning those children in order to prolong a war.
The vote to override President Bush's veto was not only about political
responsibility. It was not only about constitutional responsibility. It
was a question of right and wrong. Let's remember the administration
motto: Spend all our money over there so we don't have to spend it
here. In my mind, that is as wrong as it gets.
I will continue to speak out on what else this war is costing us here
at home in terms of education and jobs and green energy, helping the
middle class make ends meet and the financial stability of our Nation
that our children will inherit. America deserves to know what we could
have achieved had this horrible war never happened. The administration
has spent down our finances, mortgaged the future. Republicans in the
House have voted down health care coverage for our children. But one
thing they have not yet emptied out is our vast treasury of hope. It is
tragic to think what might have been, but it is not too late to believe
in what we can become.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 3402 to Amendment No. 3325
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in a few minutes I am going to offer an
amendment and ask for its consideration. It is an important amendment,
although it is quite small and has virtually no impact on the
underlying cost of this bill, which is why I believe I can bring it
with good faith to the Members for their consideration. It does not add
a penny to the underlying bill, but it does send some directive
language to SAMHSA, which is the agency that funds mental health and
substance abuse programs for our country. Because of the good work of
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, there is an increase in funding for
this important program. This money is given out in grants through
competitive bids and has been ongoing for some time. I don't know
exactly the year the program was authorized and commenced, but it has
been a fairly longstanding program and usually gets good marks.
This particular amendment would direct the Agency to give
consideration to programs providing mental health services to children
and families in the gulf coast area. It seems, for some reason, a very
effective program that had received some funding in the past few
years--that is the only program operating in the gulf coast region that
is giving support and counseling and clinical services to a population
of children and adults, but this is for children literally traumatized
by the catastrophic disaster, not only in my State but Mississippi,
somewhat in Texas, and Alabama--was not considered to be a priority.
So my amendment will basically direct the agency to consider programs
operating in the gulf coast area that are serving children who have
very good records, to provide a priority for them.
If I could, I would like to send the amendment to the desk now. It
simply, as I said, establishes a priority for these programs, and it
adds no money to the bottom line of this bill.
I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 3402 to amendment No. 3325.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 49; line 1: strike the colon and insert ``Provided
further, that, of the funds provided to the Child Trauma
Stress Network Initiative, priority shall be given to those
centers, that previously received grants, that provide mental
health services to children affected by Hurricane Katrina
and/or Rita.''
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand the managers have cleared
it. I ask for it to be accepted now.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on this
amendment?
The Republican leader is recognized.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2128
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just 13 days the Internet tax
moratorium will expire. If Congress has not acted by then, State and
local governments will be free to impose new taxes on Internet access--
and trust me, they will.
We need to be straight with the American people about what is
happening. The majority wants to preserve at least the possibility of
taxing access to the Internet.
The Internet has literally transformed this country. It has cleared
new pathways to learning for rich and poor. It has brought a level of
efficiency and innovation to the shop floor, the home, and the corner
office that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Just think of the
millions of middle-class Americans who have lifted their fortunes
through online auction sites or made their first stock purchases over
online trading sites.
The Internet has been at the heart of America's economic growth over
the past decade--all because Government has not gotten in the way. But
those days are over if the people on the other side of the aisle in the
Senate open the Internet to new taxes.
We cannot let that happen. For the sake of our economy, for the sake
of our competitiveness, for the sake of consumers who don't want to see
new taxes on their bills, we need to ban taxes on Internet access
permanently.
The House of Representatives has sent us a bill that would extend the
moratorium for 4 years. Frankly, I do not think that is nearly long
enough. If we all agree that taxing Internet access hurts consumers,
hurts innovation, hurts broadband development, why should we stop at 4
years? Why not keep the Internet tax free forever?
So I say to my friends on the other side, the clock is ticking. If
you object to considering the Sununu bill to make the moratorium
permanent, let's take up the House-passed bill with a couple of
relevant amendments in order. One would make the moratorium permanent
and, failing that, one would extend it for substantially longer than a
mere 4 years.
We can debate these amendments quickly and vote--to see where the
[[Page S13067]]
Senate stands on this very important question of keeping the Internet
free of onerous taxes.
We could do it this week or next week--but the Senate must act before
the moratorium expires in 13 days. And it is my intention to have a
vote on the question of whether the moratorium should be extended
permanently or merely for another 4 years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 401, S. 2128, the permanent
moratorium on the Internet tax bill. I ask unanimous consent that the
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed
in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, Mr. President, there is objection. On behalf of
Senator Carper, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Amendment No. 3402
Ms. LANDRIEU. Now, Mr. President, I understand the previous amendment
has been cleared. I ask for its adoption.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate,
without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3402) was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3323, 3337, 3355, and 3375 to Amendment No. 3325, en
bloc
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have four amendments that have been
agreed to on both sides, cleared. I ask unanimous consent that they be
considered and agreed to en bloc. They are amendments Nos. 3323, 3337,
3355, and 3375.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendments
are considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 3323
(Purpose: To provide an annual report card for the Department of
Education)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Secretary of Education shall, not later than September
30, 2008, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
and post on the Internet website of the Department of
Education, a report concerning--
(1) the total number of Department of Education employees,
including employees who salaries are paid by the Department
but are employed by contractors or grantees of the
Department;
(2) the total number, and percentage, of such employees who
have previously worked in a classroom as a teacher or a
teacher's assistant;
(3) of the employees who have worked in a classroom, the
average number of years of time spent as an instructor;
(4) the total dollar amount, and overall percentage of the
Department of Education funding, that is expended--
(A) in the classroom;
(B) on student tuition assistance;
(C) on overhead and administrative costs and expenses; and
(D) on Congressionally directed spending items, including
the administrative costs of administering such earmarks; and
(5) a listing of all of the programs run by the Department
of Education and the total budget and most recent evaluation
of each such program, and a notation if no such evaluation
has been conducted.
amendment no. 3337
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding science teaching
and assessment)
At the end of title III, insert the following:
SEC. ___. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SCIENCE TEACHING AND
ASSESSMENT.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that there is broad
agreement in the scientific community that learning science
requires direct involvement by students in scientific inquiry
and that such direct involvement must be included in every
science program for every science student in prekindergarten
through grade 16.
(b) Sense of the Senate Regarding the National Assessment
of Educational Progress 2009 Science Test.--It is the sense
of the Senate that--
(1) the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
2009 Science assessment should reflect the findings of the
Senate described in subsection (a) and those expressed in
section 7026(a) of the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and
Science Act; and
(2) the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) should
certify that the National Assessment of Education Progress
2009 Science framework, specification, and assessment include
extensive and explicit attention to inquiry.
(c) Report.--The National Assessment Governing Board shall
submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate describing whether the
certification described in subsection (b)(2) has been made,
and if such certification has been made, include in the
report the following:
(1) A description of the analysis used to arrive at such
certification.
(2) A list of individuals with experience in inquiry
science education making the certification.
amendment no. 3355
(Purpose: To allocate funds to the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model
Systems of Care Program)
On page 88, line 16, strike the period and insert ``:
Provided further, That $8,400,000 shall be used to carry out
the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems of Care
Program and to sustain at least 16 TBI Model Systems
Centers.''.
amendment no. 3375
(Purpose: To provide funds for partnership grants for teacher
preparation under title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965)
At the end of title III, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
(1) $6,000,000 to carry out the programs for baccalaureate
degrees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or
critical foreign languages, with concurrent teacher
certification under section 6113 of the America COMPETES Act
(Public Law 110-69); and
(2) $4,000,000 to carry out the programs for master's
degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
or critical foreign language education under section 6114 of
the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69).
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
amounts made available under this Act for the administration
and related expenses for the departmental management of the
Department of Education, shall be reduced by $10,000,000.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
We just disposed of four more amendments. Obviously, there will be no
more business tonight. The leader already said there would be no more
votes. Our staffs and I will continue to work through these amendments.
But we will be in tomorrow, and we will be disposing of amendments
tomorrow. So if Senators have amendments to this bill, and they want
them offered, I suggest that tomorrow would be a good time to do it.
We will not be in Monday until about 5:30. And then we will have
votes on Monday night on pending amendments. So if amendments are
offered tomorrow, and votes are needed, we can stack those votes for
Monday night.
I will just say the door will start closing after tomorrow because
Monday night we will be voting. We will be in Tuesday morning probably
at the usual hour--that is up to the leadership to decide--but then the
final passage of this bill will be at noon on Tuesday. So I say to
Senators, if they have amendments they want to have considered, I would
say tomorrow would be an excellent time; otherwise, the door is going
to close very rapidly, and they will not be able to offer those
amendments and to get any debate or a vote on them prior to noon on
Tuesday.
So with that, Mr. President, again, I yield the floor.
ADVANCED PLACEMENT
Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member
for putting together an excellent bill and bringing this critical
legislation to the floor. This bill is a major step forward in
strengthening education, health care, and job training in this country.
As the chairman knows, this Congress recently passed the America
Competes Act--comprehensive legislation designed to ensure the United
States remains competitive in the 21st century economy. I believe the
cornerstone of this legislation is its effort to strengthen math and
science education in this country.
[[Page S13068]]
Mr. HARKIN. I agree. Strong math and science education is critical if
we, as a nation, are going to continue to have a skilled and educated
workforce that can compete in the global economy.
Mr. BINGAMAN. As the chairman knows, the National Academy of Sciences
reported that students in the United States are simply not keeping up
with their international peers in the areas of math and science. The
National Academy recommended training an additional 150,000 advanced
placement, AP, and pre-AP instructors, and to quadruple the number of
students who take AP math or science courses to 4.5 million by 2010. Is
the chairman aware that America Competes makes a downpayment on this
recommendation and authorizes a program to increase the number of
students in high-need schools taking AP and international
baccalaureate, IB, classes in math, science, and critical foreign
languages?
Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of that provision, and point out that America
Competes also recognizes that other highly rigorous, evidence-based,
postsecondary preparatory programs can also qualify for funding under
this authorization.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, and the chairman's support for this provision was
critical to its passage. I'd also like to thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for increasing funding for Advanced Placement programs
in this mark to $42 million. As the Chairman knows, the House FY 08
Labor HHS Education Appropriations bill increases funding for AP to $50
million. I ask the Chairman if he thinks it's a good idea to increase
AP to at least $50 million in the final bill that emerges from
Conference, and use this additional increase to fund the provisions in
America Competes.
Mr. HARKIN. I think that is a good idea, and will work with the
ranking member and my colleagues in the House to try to achieve that
goal.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree and will work with the chairman.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
support of this critical program.
workforce investment act
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished
chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee. As this body debates this spending bill, I would like to
start by thanking Senator Harkin, Senator Specter and the other members
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for supporting the Workforce
Investment Act in this bill. The Workforce Investment Act is a critical
program for workers across the country in need of training and
education benefits.
WIA brings essential resources to my home State of Michigan, where
hundreds of workers are ready and willing to begin job-training
programs that make them more employable for high wage, quality jobs.
The House-passed Labor-HHS spending bill includes a $335 million
rescission of WIA funds as proposed by the administration. This
potential cut would devastate the various efforts in place to
reinvigorate Michigan's economy and workforce right at the time when
our Governor is making great strides towards the goal of doubling the
number of workers trained for high-demand jobs in the State.
In Michigan, we are using WIA dollars to create scholarships for
workers who want to attend State colleges, we are counseling workers on
skill development and the importance of furthering their education, and
we are performing skill assessments that help workers decide what level
of training they should pursue. All of these services need to be
available to workers in my State.
Michigan workers have been hit hard by layoffs and I am proud that
the committee has decided to support workers in my State and in all
States with the resources and benefits that they need so that they can
continue to support their families. I hope to see this body continue to
work towards full restitution of these funds in a final bill. It is the
right thing to do for our Nation's workforce system.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also want to thank the chairman and
ranking member for their leadership and cooperation in ensuring that
the Senate continues its commitment to training workers through the
Workforce Investment Act. I ask for their continued support on this
important issue in conference. I, too, am pleased to see that my
colleagues have rejected efforts to pull these critical funds away from
States that are attempting to plan and use them for their own specific
workforce development needs.
The Workforce Investment Act provides many opportunities to workers
in my home State of Michigan who have been laid off and are seeking a
new start. The cuts proposed by President Bush could have cost my State
close to $11 million; that is 7,500 workers who would not receive
training and several local workforce agencies that could potentially
close their doors and no longer serve Michigan communities. This cut
would have cost workers in all of our States. The loss of benefits and
services during hardship is too great a burden for us to place on our
citizens' backs.
I want to thank the comittee for rejecting efforts to drain this
program of needed dollars. The Governors will thank us, the State and
local workforce agencies will thank us, and most importantly, the
worker who is trying to better himself or herself and gain employment
will be able to do so because of our actions here.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank both of my colleagues from Michigan for their
concern and support of WIA. I agree that the Workforce Investment Act
should be provided the adequate level of funding needed to ensure that
workers can get the training and services they need to compete for 21st
century jobs.
The Workforce Investment Act statutorily provides States 3 years to
spend the funds allocated to them. This flexibility allows States to
assess their unique needs, the needs of their unemployed workers, and
to adequately plan innovative initiatives, training programs, and
services for the workforce. I believe the rescission of funds proposed
by the House of Representatives would be unfair to those programs that
have appropriately obligated funds at the State and local levels to
serve workers in need.
The committee expects to provide sufficient funds for this program
and will work towards securing the funding in the final bill. I thank
the distinguished Senators from Michigan, and I will be happy to work
with them in conference on this important matter.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree with Senator Harkin. WIA was passed in 1998 to
unify this country's fragmented employment and training system. Since
then it has impacted the lives of millions. Our subcommittee seeks to
continue the Senate's commitment to our nation's workers; they are the
heart and soul of our economy.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the subcommittee.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senators as well.
Community Innovations for Aging in Place
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to first thank the chairman
and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for doing a
wonderful job drafting a spending bill for fiscal year 2008 that makes
a true commitment to the priorities of so many Americans across the
country, especially our older Americans. Close to 90 percent of all
seniors in this country want to or, by necessity, will remain living in
their homes, even as they grow frail. That is why I created a new,
innovative program in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 called
the Community Innovations for Aging in Place. Are the chairman and
ranking member aware of this program?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I think this is a great program. Because the vast
majority of our seniors are aging in place, the Community Innovations
for Aging in Place program will help leverage new, human, financial,
and neighborhood resources for the benefit of our seniors' health,
independence, and quality of life.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the chairman and senator from Maryland.
This program is important because it promotes independence and healthy
aging by engaging seniors before a crisis and responding to their
changing needs over time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The chairman and ranking member are right. The
Community Innovations for Aging in Place
[[Page S13069]]
program provides community-based services by supporting partnerships
between government and health and human services providers in caring
for the nation's elderly. The federal government needs to be able to
fund programs that work not only through government but through
nonprofit organizations. That is why I would like to ask the chairman
and ranking member if they support implementation of the Community
Innovations for Aging in Place program?
Mr. HARKIN. I do support implementation of this innovative program. I
assure the senator from Maryland that I will do my best to find funding
for the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program during the
conference process.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree and will support these efforts, as well.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I sincerely thank my colleagues from Iowa and
Pennsylvania for addressing this issue that touches so many older
Americans.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment which may
provide up to $2.5 million in additional funds for the Fire Fighter
Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, contained within the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The account for
this funding is Other Occupational Safety and Health Research. The
funding, which can be used across the United States, will be used to
allow the agency to more effectively and comprehensibly investigate
fire fighter fatalities, so that the cause of fatalities may be
identified and future fatalities may be avoided. The inspector general
for the Department of Health and Human Services found that flat funding
for the program since 1998 has resulted in a reduced number of
investigations over time. As a result, NIOSH has to prioritize certain
types of investigations. The inspector general concludes that limited
resources are a significant constraint which limits the program's
effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to respond to amendment No.
3322 offered by my good friend the junior Senator from Oklahoma. As you
know, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma would, among other
things, strike $150,000 in Federal funds that I helped provide for a
worthy initiative in the Commonwealth of Virginia called the Virginia
Aquarium and Marine Science Center's Beyond the Aquarium Program.
The Beyond the Aquarium Program is a hands-on, educational outreach
program that brings science directly into K-12 classrooms. As we know,
school field trips have declined and teachers are struggling to
motivate students to study the sciences. Our ability to remain ahead of
the curve in scientific advancements is a key component to ensuring
America's homeland security in the post-9/11 world of global terrorism.
Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage
of homegrown, highly trained scientific minds. The Beyond the Aquarium
Program will inspire children to take an interest in science.
I applaud the Senator from Oklahoma in his efforts to obtain
additional funding for IDEA. There is no Senator who is more supportive
of fully funding IDEA than myself. Over the years, I have worked with
Senators Hagel, Dodd, Roberts, and Harkin to ensure that Congress
provide the highest possible funding for part B of IDEA. Unfortunately,
Congress has never come close to meeting the 40-percent commitment to
fund the cost associated with this legislation, although progress has
been made the last several years. I encourage the good Senator from
Oklahoma to join me and others as a cosponsor of S. 1159, the IDEA Full
Funding Act.
I am proud to stand up in support of this worthy project.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to address the pending
legislation, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Fiscal
Year 2008 appropriations legislation. While this legislation is very
well intentioned, regretfully, I oppose the bill as it is currently
drafted.
The legislation we are currently debating totals approximately $149
billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008. This is roughly
$9 billion above the level requested by President Bush. Mr. President,
$149 billion sounds like a lot of money, but total spending in the
legislation is actually much higher--about $605 billion when the
mandatory spending is accounted for.
This legislation funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, as well as a host of smaller agencies. I know that
all of my colleagues want to ensure these agencies are properly funded
and staffed, so that Federal programs have the resources they need to
properly function. But the level of spending in this legislation is
excessive, and will add to the huge financial burden we are leaving for
our children and grandchildren. So while this legislation is well
intentioned, I can not support it as it is currently drafted.
My understanding is that, for a variety of reasons, the President
will veto the legislation. The administration has been vocal about
their concerns since the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution was
considered earlier this year, so this veto threat should not come as a
surprise to my colleagues. The Senate has been on notice. We need to
move past the political theatrics associated with this bill and other
appropriations legislation, and get to work on the real challenge of
writing a balanced proposal the President is willing to sign. As U.S.
Senators, one of our primary duties is to fund the Government. Our
Founding Fathers designed checks and balances for a purpose, one being
to force compromise on key, and sometimes contentious, legislative
products. We ought to be thinking about--and debating--the type of
legislation that will pass muster on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
We owe that to our constituents and to the American people.
I would also like to address other concerns I have with the
legislation. The committee-reported bill contains stem cell language
that overturns Presidential order, making more embryonic stem cell
lines available for Government research funding. Currently, only
embryonic lines created before July 9, 2001, are eligible for
Federal funding. This legislation would extend that date until June 15,
2007. I do not support this provision as part of this vehicle. Earlier
this year, we had a larger debate on the stem cell issue. I believe
that we owe it to the American public to work on real solutions to this
situation and not just keep moving a potential date. For these reasons,
I was pleased to hear yesterday that the bill manager decided to remove
this provision from the underlying committee-reported legislation.
The committee-reported bill also addresses funding for September 11
workers. Specifically, this legislation provides an additional $55
million for treatment, screening and monitoring for 9/11 related health
issues. This is in addition to the approximately $45 million that was
included in the emergency war supplemental earlier this year. In
addition, this legislation for the first time expands funding to cover
all city residents. The HELP Committee has been looking into this issue
for well over a year. We should agree on the facts regarding worker
health before we broadly expand current spending to cover residents. In
addition, there are substantial unspent funds already available: out of
a total of $92 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and currently
proposed under the President's 2008 budget, grantees have actually
drawn down just $2 million in payments on fiscal year 2006 funds.
This legislation also cuts funding for the Office of Labor and
Management Standards--known as OLMS--by $2 million, from $47.7 million
to $45.7 million, while the President's request is $56.8 million. OLMS
is responsible for overseeing union disclosure and corruption. This may
seem like a small amount of money considering the scope of the overall
legislation, but cutting funds targeted for policing corruption as a
``cost saving'' measure isn't a good way to build credibility with the
American people. We must do better. With Sarbanes-Oxley, we made big
business more transparent. We need to do the same thing with big
unions. The Office of Labor and Management Standards can and must do
exactly that. OLMS must be allowed and funded to do what we have told
them to do. The transparency and accountability is for the benefit of
the union members. Of course, this might be just like the card check
bill where labor union management was trying to take away the right
[[Page S13070]]
for potential members to have a secret ballot. Unions are for the
members, not for the union bosses. Members have a right to know. That
is what the law passed in 1959 was and is all about. Enforce the law.
Be sure union members have a right to know.
I would also like to point out that the legislation does not contain
funding for the National All Schedules Prescription Reporting Act--
NASPER. Known as NASPER, this law was designed to assist States in
setting up prescription drug monitoring programs--to make sure people
can't get multiple refills of their restricted prescriptions merely by
crossing State lines. Instead, this legislation funds an unauthorized
similar program through the Justice Department. Congress should first
fund the programs that are authorized by committees that have
jurisdiction over the measures. As the lead Republican on the HELP
Committee, I know the value of the authorization process--Federal
programs are reviewed by Senators and staff to ensure there is value
for program beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Funding unauthorized
programs usurps the entire authorizing committee process.
All that being said, there are many provisions in this legislation
that are not objectionable, and some of which I support. Like previous
years, the bill contains language that prohibits the Labor Secretary
from issuing regulations related to the Workforce Investment Act, known
as WIA, until the Congress has reauthorized the program. Reauthorizing
WIA is a bipartisan priority for the HELP Committee, and a top personal
goal of mine that I have been working toward for many years. Congress
should first act to reauthorize the law before the administration moves
forward with regulations. This reauthorization is long overdue.
Modernizing job training programs will result in better, higher paying
jobs. Under my chairmanship, we passed this reauthorization--but it was
held by Democrats who would not allow the appointment of conferees
because of concerns they would not be included in the process. That
argument no longer holds true. They control a majority in each
legislative body, and a majority on conference committees. Congress
needs to pass this legislation to provide training for current and
future jobs so Americans have the skills they need to get the best
jobs--instead of sending them overseas because we don't have trained
workers at home.
This legislation also restores the authority of the Railroad
Retirement Board Office of the Inspector General to conduct Railroad
Medicare audits and investigations. Similar language was included in
previous years, but was dropped in the conference with the House. My
hope is that this year we will be successful in restoring that
authority. In September, Senator Kennedy and I, together with Senators
Baucus and Grassley, weighed in on this issue with the Appropriations
Committee, thanking them for including this language in their bill, and
urging them to fight for this provision in conference. Restoring the
ability to audit is fiscally responsible, and is the right thing to do.
In closing, while there are valuable provisions in the Labor-HHS
spending bill that ought to be enacted, I will be voting against this
legislation because of the excessive total spending level, as well as
some objectionable policy language that I have discussed today.
I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues on a compromise
product that can garner support from both the legislative as well as
the executive branch of our Government.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________