[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 161 (Tuesday, October 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13218-S13242]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Delaware, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.


                          CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to do 
what Senator Boxer did yesterday, which is essentially to update the 
Senate on the catastrophic fires in California. I offer these words on 
behalf of Senator Boxer and myself.
  Today there are 14 fires, big fires, burning in California. The bulk 
of them are uncontained and out of control. The containment factor is 
very small. More than half a million people have been told to evacuate 
their homes. More than 309,000 acres have been destroyed by fire, over 
400 miles, from north of Los Angeles to San Diego and now across the 
Mexican border, and more, we fear, will be destroyed.
  The deaths, fortunately, today are limited to one, with 34 injured 
throughout southern California, some of them firefighters. High wind 
and high temperatures persist. A red flag warning is in effect for the 
California coast from Monterey to the Mexican border. More than 1,000 
homes have been destroyed; 11,500 are now threatened. Today more than 
100 commercial buildings have been destroyed, and 2,000 are threatened; 
52 outbuildings have been destroyed and 550 are threatened.
  Health warnings have been issued because of smoke and particulate 
matter. As you know, these fires are driven by hurricane and gale-force 
Santa Ana winds, which are hot and contrary to the prevailing westerly 
flow, east to west. They are fueled by bone-dry brush from years of 
drought and virtually no humidity. Humidity is below 10 percent.
  Fires are raging still in Malibu, at Lake Arrowhead in Irvine and 
Santa Clarita. The Arrowhead area is particularly dangerous because 
there are half a million acres of pine-beetle infested dead trees 
waiting to go up.
  Of course, they are raging in San Diego County, which is bearing the 
brunt of two major fires which well could join. Already, the 300,000 
people in San Diego County alone have been told to evacuate. More than 
10,000 of them are now taking refuge in Qualcomm Stadium, home to the 
San Diego Chargers. These people will be there for 48 to 72 more hours 
and possibly more.
  Sanitary supplies are going to become a problem. It is going to be a 
real effort to get food and water to these evacuees and the hundreds of 
thousands of people displaced around southern California.
  Both Senator Boxer and I spoke to the Governor, and he has declared a 
seven-county disaster area. Yesterday the President declared southern 
California a disaster area to be able to speed the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's relief, which is critical.
  This is going to be a real test of FEMA. We are going to learn 
whether FEMA actually learned from the hurricane in New Orleans, a test 
of whether FEMA has gotten its act together post-Katrina.
  FEMA must act quickly and urgently to get help to California. The 
State is going to need cots; it is going to need blankets; it is going 
to need water, food, and, most importantly, those sanitary facilities 
that are needed for the people who are camping out today, sleeping in 
cars, located in schools, or in Qualcomm Stadium.

[[Page S13219]]

  Most importantly, this help has to be spread throughout the 14 
different fire areas. It is not going to be enough to simply put it in 
one place.
  Last night, the Secretary of the Interior informed me that the fires 
have crossed the line and are entering into Baja California, Mexico, 
and urged Mexican authorities to begin to speak out.
  These fires are fast moving. You see them at a distance on a hill, 
and you do not believe you will be affected because the winds are 
contrary to what you expect. Then, suddenly, within a short period of 
time, 2 hours, the fire is upon you.
  So people must be alert, and they must evacuate these fire areas. The 
military is pitching in. Fifteen hundred National Guard personnel are 
actively engaged or directly supporting firefighting efforts. We have 
550 Active-Duty marines, 17,000 California National Guard personnel are 
available. I believe we have more than 5,300 State of California 
firefighters on the line, and hundreds more from local jurisdictions. 
Today, a combination of National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, 
are either supporting firefighter efforts or are prepared to pitch in.
  The problem is, with the wind and dense smoke, it is difficult for a 
plane or helicopter to know where they are going. Simply put, this is a 
disaster of huge proportions. It is catastrophic in terms of property 
loss and environmental damage.
  Hopefully, it is not going to be a huge catastrophe in terms of loss 
of life. I do not think there is anything other than a catastrophic 
health incident that is more serious to a person or family than losing 
their home by flood or fire.
  I know Californians will respond in their traditional stalwart and 
generous manner to help their neighbors. Both Senator Boxer's and my 
heart go out to all Californians today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the specific statistical roundup of 
these larger fires be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Here is a roundup of the larger fires:
       San Diego: Witch Fire (NE S.D. County, near Santa Ysabel, 
     burning toward Ramona and Julian)--Acres burned: 145,000; 
     containment: 0%; residents evacuated: 100,000+; structures 
     destroyed: 500 homes, 100 commercial properties; structures 
     threatened: 2,000 homes, 400 commercial properties; 
     firefighters: 625; injuries: none reported.
       San Diego: Harris Fire (SE S.D. County, 75 miles east of 
     downtown San Diego near the Mexican border)--Acres burned: 
     22,000; containment: 5%; residents evacuated: 1,000+; 
     firefighters: 400; deaths--injuries: 1 man killed, 5 
     firefighters and 20 civilians injured.
       Malibu: Canyon Fire (Burning toward Pepperdine University 
     and Pacific Ocean)--Acres burned: 3,800; containment: 10%; 
     residents evacuated: 1,500; structures destroyed: 6 homes, 1 
     church; structures threatened: 600; firefighters: 1,500; 
     injuries: none.
       Agua Dulce--Santa Clarita: Buckweed Fire (Mint Canyon area, 
     burning toward Magic Mountain)--Acres burned: 35,550; 
     containment: 20%; residents evacuated: 15,000; structures 
     destroyed: 15 homes, 17 outbuildings; structures threatened: 
     3,800; firefighters: 1,200; injuries: 1 firefighter and 3 
     residents.
       Orange County: Santiago Fire (Silverado Canyon, burning 
     toward Portola Springs and Northwood village of Irvine)--
     Acres burned: 15,000 acres; containment: 30%; structures 
     destroyed: 1 outbuilding; structures threatened: 2,000; 
     residents evacuated: unk.; firefighters: 492.
       Lake Arrowhead: Slide and Grass Valley Fires (Green Valley 
     Lake and Lake Gregory)--Acres burned: 1,800; containment: 0%; 
     structures lost: at least 450 homes; structures threatened: 
     1,900; firefighters: 82 engines, 7 hand crews.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. For the benefit of Senators, I understand a number of 
Republicans are at the White House for a White House meeting until 
3:30, so there will not be any votes between now and 3:30. However, we 
want to get amendments up and debated. Hopefully at around 3:30 or 
shortly thereafter we can start a series of votes. Right now we have 
four amendments pending and three more amendments that are not pending 
but will be called up shortly. One of those will be offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico. That is the lay of the land. It looks as if we 
are down to about seven votes, possibly, starting at or around 3:30 or 
shortly thereafter.
  I yield the floor and 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. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand there is still some 
checking to see if there is any objection to setting aside the pending 
amendment so I may offer an amendment. While we are waiting, I wish to 
describe the substance of the amendment I intend to offer.
  This amendment is intended to reduce the Social Security backlog. 
Most of us who go back to our home States on weekends and during 
recesses know about the Social Security backlog. We hear from 
individuals in our States about how long they have to wait to find out 
whether their Social Security disability claims have been approved. We 
hear about elderly people waiting in long lines for service at Social 
Security offices. We hear about busy signals when they call the 1-800 
number that is provided for people trying to find out the status of 
their Social Security claim. But I am not sure most of us understand 
the extent of the backlog, the consequences of it, or the reasons.
  For more than 70 years Social Security has provided millions of 
American workers and their families with a basic level of protection 
against poverty when a worker can no longer work due to old age. Of 
course, we are all aware of disability now being covered by Social 
Security. Social Security benefits are the only means of survival for 
millions of individuals with severe disabilities. These individuals 
rely on the Social Security Administration to promptly and fairly 
adjudicate their applications for disability benefits. Unfortunately, 
we are witnessing a trend where this is simply not happening.
  According to the Social Security Administration, there are currently 
over 756,000 cases waiting for hearing. That is not waiting for a final 
determination, waiting for a hearing. The average time to get a hearing 
is 523 days. That is the longest it has been in the history of the 
Social Security Administration. The average processing time for a 
hearing is projected to increase next year, based on the numbers we 
have in the appropriations bill before us. This is a problem for 
individuals with disabilities in my State of New Mexico.
  Currently the average processing time per case in the Albuquerque 
hearing office is 528 days. Keep in mind, this is only the time it 
takes to get a hearing. This does not include the time it takes for an 
initial determination or for a final determination. This past May the 
Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, received 
testimony indicating there are thousands of individuals with 
disabilities who currently have cases pending with the Social Security 
Administration and have had those cases pending for 3 years or more. 
The Finance Committee received testimony regarding the extreme 
hardships individuals with severe disabilities must endure while 
awaiting a final decision on their disability claims. We heard instance 
after instance where individuals with severe disabilities were unable 
to work and were forced to declare bankruptcy. They lost their homes, 
suffered deterioration in their medical conditions, and some even died 
while their claims lingered in Social Security Administration offices.
  According to the Social Security Administration, staffing levels are 
at their lowest since 1972. Thirty years ago, the Social Security 
Administration had more than 82,000 employees. In 2005 the Social 
Security Administration had 66,000 employees. In a few months, the 
expected employment at the Social Security Administration will drop 
below 60,000.
  Thousands of employees are leaving the Social Security 
Administration's field and hearing offices without being replaced. As 
many of us know, the field offices around the country are reducing 
their hours.
  In Carlsbad, NM--which I visited 2 weeks ago--due to a reduction in 
hours of service, seniors and people with disabilities are forced to 
line up around

[[Page S13220]]

the building, often waiting hours to get served. Even worse, some field 
offices are shutting their doors permanently.
  Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of disabled workers drawing 
disability benefits has more than doubled. That number has gone from 3 
million in 1990 to 6.8 million today. Field offices are averaging over 
850,000 visitors a week during this current year.
  As we know from the press, the first baby boomer officially filed for 
Social Security last week. So the demands on Social Security are only 
going to increase. In addition, Congress has significantly increased 
the Social Security Administration's responsibilities as part of the 
Medicare Part D legislation.
  So the Social Security Administration finds itself in a very dire 
circumstance. The Social Security Administration has over 1,400 field 
and hearing offices in cities and towns across the country. Mandatory 
costs, such as program integrity, rent, guards, postage, employees' 
salaries, and benefits are continuing to rise. Unfortunately, Congress 
appropriated on average each year for the last 7 years about $150 
million less than the administration requested. The current budget 
situation has simply been compounded by years of sustained underfunding 
by the Congress.
  According to the Social Security Administration, the present cost of 
processing the hearing backlog would be $794 million. The difference 
between the amount of funding requested for administrative expenses and 
the amount appropriated for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 is $962 
million--more than enough to address the backlog. So if we had actually 
appropriated what the administration asked for during fiscal years 2001 
through 2007, we would largely have this backlog problem solved. 
Unfortunately, we did not do that.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on 
the Appropriations Committee for their significant efforts to address 
the backlog. As you know, the chairman of the subcommittee has been a 
tireless leader on issues affecting individuals with disabilities. For 
decades, he has led the way in the Senate on reducing barriers for 
individuals with disabilities and ensuring full community 
participation.
  Fortunately, the chairman and the ranking member recognized the 
current challenges individuals with disabilities are facing in 
accessing disability benefits, and they have worked hard to increase 
administrative funds for the Social Security Administration by $125 
million over the amount that was requested by the President. I believe 
we all recognize how important that infusion of funds will be.
  In the committee report accompanying the bill that we are 
considering, the chairman requested the Commissioner of Social Security 
to set forth a plan to reduce the backlog. As submitted, the 
Commissioner's plan would include: accelerating review of cases that 
are likely or certain to be approved; improving hearing procedures; 
increasing adjudicatory capacity; and increasing efficiency through 
automation and improved business processes.
  Unfortunately, the amount of funding in the bill does not go far 
enough, in my view, to substantially reduce the backlog. According to 
the Commissioner, this amount of funding will merely ``stem the tide.'' 
It will not address the backlog in a significant way.
  The fiscal year 2008 budget resolution--which we all considered on 
the floor, and many of us voted for--recommends an increase of $430 
million above the President's request for the Social Security 
Administration's administrative budget in order to reduce this backlog. 
The amendment I am intending to offer later today would get us to half 
that amount by increasing the Social Security Administration's 
administrative budget by an additional $160 million. The amendment 
would give the Social Security Administration the resources it needs to 
reduce the backlog to help get rid of these long lines.
  The amendment is paid for. The amendment would shift excess Medicare 
funds to pay for this critical increase in funding to the Social 
Security Administration in this 1 year. These offsetting funds have 
been identified in close collaboration with Finance Committee staff 
and, of course, Senator Baucus is a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Importantly, these funds would be immediately replaced at the 
beginning of fiscal year 2009 with generally available funding that was 
passed as part of the Transitional Medical Assistance extenders 
package.
  Finally, the amendment would also permit the U.S. Treasury Department 
to invest its excess operating capital. So this represents responsible 
oversight by the Treasury Department. This policy has been recommended 
by the Government Accountability Office and others. It is estimated 
this policy will generate tens of millions of dollars for the Federal 
Government over the next 10 years.
  The bottom line is millions of American workers and their families--
people whom we represent--rely on Social Security to protect them 
against poverty in the event they are no longer able to work. This 
incredible insurance program is breaking down because of our failure to 
fund the administration of the program.
  So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. It is being offered 
on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe from Maine, and Senator Baucus from 
Montana.
  Mr. President, I do not believe we have yet gotten to a point 
procedurally where I am able to offer the amendment, so I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Webb are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. WEBB. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, 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. Casey are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me take this opportunity to thank 
Senator Harkin and his staff for their very hard work on the Labor-HHS 
legislation and commend the ranking member, Senator Specter, and his 
staff as well. The reality is that the needs facing the people of our 
country who are impacted by this bill are enormous. There is, 
unfortunately, not enough funding available to accommodate those needs, 
and within that context, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have done 
their very best.
  I wish to say a few words about one particular program which is 
important to me, which is important to the people of Vermont, and which 
is vitally important to this whole country as we try to deal with the 
health care crisis our country is now facing, a crisis in which 47 
million Americans have no health insurance, even more are underinsured, 
and the cost of health care is soaring every day. What this legislation 
deals with and I think deals with quite well is understanding that it 
is important for us to grow the number of community health centers in 
this country.
  The community health center program is a wonderful success story, and 
it is widely recognized as one of the most cost-effective programs in 
the entire Federal Government. Community health centers are community-
run. They are run by the people in the community themselves. They are 
run on a nonprofit basis. They provide not only affordable health care 
to their people but affordable dental care, which is a growing crisis 
all over rural America and in the State of Vermont. They provide mental 
health counseling--another serious issue. They provide low-

[[Page S13221]]

cost prescription drugs--in fact, the lowest cost prescription drugs 
available in America.
  These federally qualified health centers serve people from all walks 
of life and all incomes. Whether you have private insurance, whether 
you have Medicare, whether you have Medicaid, or whether you have no 
health insurance, you are welcome into these community health centers. 
For those with no health insurance, payment is based on a sliding 
scale. If you don't have a whole lot of money, you don't have to pay a 
lot for your health or dental care.
  Today, over 16 million Americans--16 million--benefit from the 
services health centers provide in every State and in almost every 
congressional district in our country. For an average Federal grant 
expenditure of only $124 per patient per year, these centers offer 
comprehensive health care, regardless of ability to pay. At a time when 
more and more Americans are losing their health insurance, when they 
are finding it hard to secure primary health care, these centers play 
an extraordinary role, and they deserve to be adequately funded.
  This legislation provides $2.24 billion for the community health 
center program--a $250 million increase above the fiscal year 2007 
level. I thank Senators Harkin and Specter very much for their support 
for this program. It is estimated that this increase will allow us to 
expand or create some 500 new community health centers all over this 
country, serving an additional 2 million Americans. That is a big deal 
at a time when millions and millions of people are unable to find 
primary health care or just don't have the funds to pay for it. Given 
the fact that we have 47 million uninsured, it is clear this is not 
enough, but it is a significant step forward.
  In Vermont in recent years, we have expanded the number of federally 
qualified health centers from two to six, and my hope is that we can 
add an additional three or four more centers in the next 3 years. These 
centers now serve over 86,000 Vermonters and provide quality health 
care, quality dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental 
health counseling in some 23 different locations around the State of 
Vermont. The centers are the medical home for 24 percent of Vermont's 
Medicaid beneficiaries and serve 19 percent of our uninsured.
  Nationally, health centers are not only providing quality, efficient 
care in underserved communities, they are filling a major gap in our 
Nation's health care system where primary care is becoming a lost 
profession. It is no secret that in many parts of America, especially 
rural America, it is very, very hard for people to locate a primary 
health care physician. It is also imperative that these centers play a 
role, which allow people to go to them rather than flooding emergency 
rooms in hospitals, which are much more expensive.
  In addition to this appropriations bill, we are also in the process 
of reauthorizing the community health center program in the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on which I serve, and I thank 
our chairman and our ranking member for putting forth this important 
legislation that has the support of 68 Members from both sides of the 
aisle.
  So I think this issue of community health centers is very much an 
issue and an area supported by people from different political 
perspectives. It is doing an enormous job in providing health care to 
millions of Americans. I am glad we are going to take a step forward 
when we pass this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Methamphetamine Control

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in September, the Finance Committee held 
a hearing on the efficacy, over the past year, of the Combat 
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, or the Combat Meth Act, for short. The 
Combat Meth Act implemented restrictions on drugs that go into the 
production of methamphetamines. Methamphetamine abuse has devastated 
lives, families, and communities across our Nation and across the 
world. The testimony given at this hearing by the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and State agencies 
indicated that while the Combat Meth Act helped reduce the home 
production of methamphetamine across the U.S., it is now flowing at 
historic levels across our borders from countries where production 
controls are much less rigid.
  A 2006 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
report found that my home State of Idaho had one of the highest rates 
of methamphetamine use in the preceding 12 months of those aged 12 and 
older. In rural Idaho, especially, the issue of methamphetamine abuse 
has almost become commonplace: I visit with local officials and 
community leaders to hear about problems affecting their community when 
I am home in Idaho. When I ask if it is still a problem, the response 
is almost always ``of course,'' as if the very question was a little 
naive. This troubles me greatly.
  Thomas Siebel, chairman and founder of the highly successful Montana 
Meth Project, also testified at the September Finance Committee hearing 
on the Combat Meth Act. The Montana Meth Project was established in 
2005 as a nonprofit organization created to reduce first-time 
methamphetamine use through public-service messaging, public policy and 
community outreach. In the 2 years since the project has been active in 
Montana, the State has gone from being fifth in the Nation for per 
capita meth use to 39th today--a staggering change. Adult meth use is 
down in Montana by as much as 70 percent. The Montana Meth Project is 
an example of a highly effective private sector education and 
prevention effort. This success is also good news for Arizona, Illinois 
and my State of Idaho, all three of which have started their own ``Meth 
Projects.'' While this is very encouraging, we have a long way to go.
  Montana and Idaho are just two States that have been overwhelmingly 
affected by meth production, use and addiction. Rural communities 
nationwide have been hit particularly hard by the demand and presence 
of this lethal drug, creating major challenges for law enforcement, 
health and welfare and environmental protection agencies, not to 
mention our families and school systems.
  I have been approached by police officers, community leaders, health 
advocates, school administrators, and criminal justice leaders about 
the severe toll that this drug takes on our citizens, particularly 
teens and young adults. They have witnessed destroyed relationships and 
families torn apart, all suffering from this drug that invades 
neighborhoods, friends, and families. According to Idaho's Department 
of Health and Welfare, the number of children in foster care increased 
by 40 percent between 2002 and 2006. Approximately 3,000 children enter 
foster care in Idaho every year; the majority of them are children of 
meth-addicted single mothers. Our children are the unwitting and 
helpless victims of this menacing drug epidemic.
  There is some encouraging news but, as is the case with drug 
trafficking, it is tempered with alarming trends. In 1999, Idaho 
implemented an initiative to fight meth production, coordinating 
regional and State level law enforcement efforts. These efforts have 
proven highly successful. In 2000, 186 meth labs were seized. In 2004, 
the number had dropped to 38 thanks to this enhanced coordination 
strategy. According to Idaho law enforcement agencies, meth lab 
seizures are now at an all-time low, which has resulted in less danger 
to neighborhoods and communities, as well as to environmental 
protection workers who are responsible for doing clean up of these 
sites after they are seized.
  At the Finance Committee hearing last month, Gary Kendall, director, 
State of Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, testified that 
Iowa had also seen success with ``State and local prevention efforts'' 
and ``multijurisdictional task forces.''
  At the national and international level, according to the State 
Department Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, 
since the passage last year of the Combat Meth Act, methamphetamine 
abuse has been trending slightly downward in the United States; 
unfortunately, worldwide consumption is growing. This is due in large 
part to the fact that, compared to organic illegal drugs such as

[[Page S13222]]

opiates and cocaine, methamphetamine is relatively easy to manufacture, 
can be produced just about anywhere and has a very substantial profit 
margin. It is the State Department's assessment that international 
mitigation and control of this disturbing worldwide trend can only be 
maintained by strong U.S. leadership. We have seen some success in 
recent months and years. During the first 6 months of this year, 
Operation Crystal Flow, a joint operation between the U.S. Government 
and governments in North and South America and West Asia, saw the 
halting, suspension or seizure of 53 tons of chemicals that go into 
meth production--so-called precursor drugs.
  This operation was the joint effort of the International Narcotics 
Control Board through its Project Prism Task Force which includes the 
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and authorities in 126 other nations. This 
is just one of a number of international efforts in which the U.S. 
Government is participating.
  With the crackdown here at home on methamphetamine production, the 
supply source has changed. Today, Mexico is the principal foreign 
supplier of methamphetamine to the United States. According to the 
State Department, 80 percent of drug addicts in Mexicali and Tijuana 
are using meth. Mexico itself has a very serious methamphetamine 
addiction problem among its population and, because of the success of 
the Combat Meth Act and activities undertaken by individual States, 
U.S. demand for the drug has gone south, so to speak. Meth from so-
called ``superlabs'' in Mexico is reaching beyond the already-
established demand of my State and surrounding western and southwestern 
States to other areas in the United States: we're seeing it in the 
Great Lakes, the Northeast, and Southeast.
  Again, the lure of an enormous profit margin, coupled with the highly 
addictive nature of meth is a proven recipe for even greater disaster. 
The Mexican Government has been working over the past few years to 
exert more sweeping control of the movement of large amounts of 
methamphetamine precursor drugs. Our Government is working with the 
Mexican Government in ongoing border security and drug trafficking 
initiatives, but as supply lines are squelched in one area, they 
restart in other areas and other countries where controls and law 
enforcement are lacking. As I stated earlier, this is an international 
problem and efforts, led by the United States, must be global in scope.
  According to the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, methamphetamine seizures have steadily increased. 
Although Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has increased its 
bilateral and multilateral drug interdiction efforts in recent years, 
and drug seizures are up, the supply is also increasing as it becomes 
the drug of choice for 15 to 16 million people worldwide.
  Our work to combat meth is a multipronged process and, as I said 
earlier, rural areas and States have been hit particularly hard by this 
trend. Small towns in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and other States remain 
under siege by the meth epidemic. These are not communities with 
substantial numbers of law enforcement personnel and resources, massive 
revenue bases, or specialized departments and offices to fight back.
  Recently, an Idahoan with over 20 years' experience working with 
drug-endangered children shared an idea with me on how to best fight 
the meth problem in rural communities. His recommendation was that the 
Federal Government should assist local communities in forming multi-
organization, school, parent, and agency task forces to educate 
children and adults about the perils of meth addiction. He reminded me 
that these task forces exert community and peer pressure to report the 
presence of labs and those selling and using meth in the community. In 
Idaho, this approach has proven to be the most effective way to combat 
meth problems in our rural communities. Educating people before they 
try meth like the Montana Meth Project has done, enabling and 
energizing local collaborative task forces to spread the word that 
their communities say ``no'' to meth, and maintaining a zero tolerance 
policy that includes severe penalties for breaking the law, will help 
reduce demand and dry up supply.
  Integral to fighting methamphetamine in our communities is educating 
our children. To that end in Idaho, I have partnered with the Idaho 
State Department of Education Safe and Drug Free Schools program and 
issued a call for high schools across my State to create public service 
announcements that seek to educate other students about the dangers of 
methamphetamine abuse, on the model of the highly successful Montana 
Meth Project. Getting our youth involved directly in this outreach and 
education effort will reduce the potential for methamphetamine use.
  Considering the growing international methamphetamine epidemic, it is 
in our Nation's interest to remain very active in cooperative endeavors 
such as those in which the State Department, the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security are currently involved. 
These successful programs deserve continued funding in order to stop 
the supply of meth coming into our neighborhoods.
  It is time for our Nation to mobilize to fight this deadly drug. It 
is time to let foreign drug traffickers know that the United States is 
closed to meth business. We have witnessed enough children with ruined 
bodies, minds, and lives. We have seen enough adults abandon their 
parental and societal responsibilities for the lie that is a meth high. 
We have seen the tragedy of newborn babies taken away from mothers 
unable to care for them, and the infants themselves suffering the same 
terrible addiction.
  Meth continues to ravage America's communities, large and small. This 
will require an increased effort from the Federal Government to bring 
an end to meth use and production in these places. It is especially 
important to focus Federal dollars where they are truly needed--in 
rural communities nationwide that don't have the manpower or other 
resources to fight this battle alone. I call on my colleagues to 
support critical effective efforts in their respective States to work 
toward meth-free communities, and to continue to support U.S. 
leadership and involvement in international drug trafficking 
interdiction and suppression efforts.
  There are many things we can do from the Federal level to the State 
level to the local community and, frankly, the family and individual 
levels to fight meth in this country.
  One of the most important findings is simply educating people about 
the risks involved in the use of methamphetamines. It is critical to 
our ability to reduce the demand and to be able to get a handle on 
fighting the supply.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam 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. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I want to talk about two amendments I have offered that 
hopefully will be voted on very shortly. Is there any kind of unanimous 
consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Just to alert the managers of the bill, I probably will 
not talk for more than about 10 minutes total.


                           Amendment No. 3342

  The first amendment I want to talk about is the amendment that deals 
with the totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico, 
the latest attempt to drain the Social Security trust fund.
  In 2004, the Commissioner of Social Security signed a totalization 
agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social Security 
Institute. While the President has not yet submitted the United States-
Mexico totalization agreement to Congress, I am concerned that the 
agreement can severely impact the Social Security trust fund and 
threaten the retirement benefits of hard-working Americans.

[[Page S13223]]

  The proposed totalization agreement with Mexico does not contain 
protections against fraud, and there are too many unanswered questions 
about its cost to American taxpayers. The Government Accountability 
Office has already warned us that the proposed totalization agreement 
with Mexico will likely increase the number of unauthorized workers and 
make their family members eligible for Social Security benefits.
  Mexican workers, who ordinarily would not receive benefits because 
they lack the required 10 years of legally documented employment in the 
United States, could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with 
as little as 1\1/2\ years of work history.
  More family members living in Mexico would also qualify for United 
States Social Security benefits, because the proposed agreement waives 
rules that prevent payments to noncitizens such as children and spouses 
living outside the United States.
  Because the Mexican Government does not keep sufficient records of 
births, deaths, and marriages, it would be nearly impossible to 
determine whether someone died so that the Social Security 
Administration could discontinue sending benefits. The Social Security 
Administration estimates that 50,000 additional Mexican workers would 
qualify for these benefits in the first 5 years, for a total estimated 
cost of over $500 million. During that same time period, the agreement 
would save U.S. workers a little over $100 million. If you do the math, 
it appears the cost of the agreement could be almost four times the 
savings.
  Before we send scarce Social Security dollars to a foreign country, 
Congress must first determine whether a totalization agreement is in 
the best interests of our country.
  To protect Social Security benefits to U.S. citizens, and to preserve 
the program for future generations, I am offering this amendment today. 
My amendment would bar funding for the administration of benefit 
payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  I am also offering a second amendment. There have been many media 
reports recently about those who are here illegally stealing American 
Social Security numbers. Every year employers are advised that nearly 
800,000 employees do not have valid matching Social Security numbers. 
In too many of those cases, the numbers that are used belong to someone 
else in America.
  Today, I am going take a few moments to share with my colleagues a 
few of the stories of victims of identity theft. I have shared some of 
these stories in the past. Last year I spoke about Audra, who had been 
a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Her Social Security number was being 
used by at least 218 different illegal immigrants, mostly in Texas, to 
obtain jobs. The IRS accused her of owing back taxes of over $1 million 
on other people's illegal work.
  There was also Caleb, who lives in Nevada with his wife and two young 
children. In December of 2003 Caleb was unable to work and he applied 
for unemployment benefits. He was denied benefits that were rightfully 
his and was told that it was because he was already working as a 
landscaper in Las Vegas. Las Vegas and Reno are about 500 miles apart. 
It would have been very difficult for this unemployed worker in Nevada.
  Stories such as this are all too common. States have experienced a 
crime spree involving illegal immigrants using the stolen identities of 
children. In one case in Utah, a child apparently owns a cleaning 
company and works as a prep cook at two restaurants in Salt Lake City. 
That is a lot of responsibility, especially for a little 8-year-old 
boy.
  A little boy in Salt Lake City supposedly works for an express air 
freight company; quite an important job for an 11-year-old.
  These stories are quite shocking. Americans are being denied 
unemployment benefits and are being unfairly targeted for failure to 
pay taxes on money they did not earn. My amendment prohibits the Social 
Security Administration from using funds to process claims for work 
performed under a stolen or fraudulent Social Security number.
  We should not reward individuals who have knowingly engaged in 
illegal behavior. My amendment will ensure that the 218 illegal 
immigrants who stole Audra's Social Security number will not receive 
benefits from the Social Security trust fund. The landscaper who stole 
Caleb's Social Security number will not get credit for his work using 
one of my constituent's numbers, and the prep cook who stole an 8-year-
old's Social Security number will not get credit for victimizing a 
child either.
  We should value hard work and reward those who play by the rules. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support both of these important 
amendments.
  I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              GOLDEN GAVEL

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the hour of 5 o'clock has arrived, and the 
occupant of the chair has now presided over the Senate for 100 hours. 
That is commendable. The Senator is the fourth to have done it this 
year. I am proud and appreciative of that. It is not easy to preside 
for 100 hours. Sometimes it is difficult. Frankly, having presided over 
the Senate many hours myself--never 100 in a year, as the Senator has 
done--I know it is a very grueling process. You not only see the debate 
going on here on the floor but all things going on, as it has happened 
today, outside of the microphones. So with the Senator's experience as 
a Government worker, we are so glad to have her in the Senate. The 
people of Missouri sent us a real dandy when they sent the Senator 
here. Congratulations.
  What I didn't say is that when someone serves for 100 hours, they get 
a golden gavel, which is a nice award. It has a nice case, and it is 
something the Senator will always have to remember her first year in 
the Senate.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is never really easy. We have a lot of 
procedural stuff. I have tried to be as patient as I can be. I have 
acknowledged publicly that the two managers have done everything within 
their power to move this bill; 12:30 has passed but the good faith is 
still here. We are going to work through and finish this bill. We have 
lost a few hours, but I think with this agreement we will accomplish 
everything we need to do, even if we had completed this bill earlier 
today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following be the only 
amendments or motions remaining in order to the bill; that there be 2 
minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form, and that there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided 
and controlled prior to a vote on the motion to commit; that no second-
degree amendments be in order other than as specified in this 
agreement; that upon disposition of all amendments and motions, if the 
motion to commit is defeated, then the substitute amendment, as 
amended, be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill with the vote sequence as listed 
below.
  I will talk specifically about the listing of the amendments and the 
order in which they will be voted upon because this has been negotiated 
for the last several hours. After the first vote, the time for each 
vote be 10 minutes each. They will be voted on in the following order: 
No. 1, Cardin, No. 3400; No. 2, Ensign, No. 3342; No. 3, Ensign, No. 
3352; No. 4, Vitter, No. 3328, and that it be in order for the 
amendment to be modified if agreed upon by the managers or Senator 
Vitter; the Dorgan pending amendment, No. 3345, will be withdrawn--that 
will be done by either Senator Dorgan or the chairman, Senator

[[Page S13224]]

Harkin--No. 5, Bingaman, No. 3440, with 2 minutes each, Bingaman and 
Kyl; No. 6, Kennedy, No. 3433, as modified; No. 7, Grassley-Sanders, 
No. 3396, and that the amendment be modified with the changes at the 
desk, and it is my understanding there will be a voice vote on that; 
No. 8, Schumer, No. 3404, as amended by the Durbin amendment, No. 
3449--voice vote; No. 9, DeMint amendment on first-class air travel to 
be offered and agreed to; No. 10, Chambliss amendment No. 3391, as 
modified; No. 11, Republican motion to commit.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that upon the passage of H.R. 3043 
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees, and that the Senate then proceed to executive 
session to consider the nomination of Leslie Southwick to be U.S. 
Circuit judge; that a cloture motion on the nomination be filed at that 
time; that there be 4 hours for debate on the motion with the time to 
be divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees, and 
that 2 hours of that time be used today with the remaining time to be 
used tomorrow; following the Senate's convening at 9 a.m., that the 
Senate vote on cloture on the nomination to occur at 11 a.m. tomorrow; 
that if cloture is invoked, the Senate then vote immediately on 
confirmation of the nomination; if cloture is not invoked, the 
nomination be returned to the calendar and the Senate return to 
legislative session; if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session; 
that regardless of the outcome, once the Senate returns to legislative 
session there be 20 minutes equally divided for debate between the two 
leaders or their designees prior to the cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to S. 2205, the DREAM Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Regretfully reserving the right to object, after the 
majority leader began to read this agreement, I have one potential snag 
over here, and I think it will be cleared shortly. I would like to 
suggest we have a quorum call briefly and let me check out one more 
thing. We should be able to go forward.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding there is a unanimous consent 
pending; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3345 Withdrawn

  Under the previous order, the Dorgan amendment No. 3345 is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Iowa.


         Amendment No. 3443, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before we start, I send a modification to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration on amendment No. 3443 
for Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Hatch, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3443, as modified.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3443), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3443, as modified

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``disease control, research, and training'' under the heading 
     ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention'' in this title 
     is increased by $1,000,000.
       (b) The amount appropriated under the heading ``general 
     departmental management'' under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary'' in this title is decreased by $1,000,000.
       (c)(1)(A) The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (acting through the Director of the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health) shall conduct, and shall 
     invite the University of Utah and West Virginia University to 
     participate in conducting, a study of the recovery of coal 
     pillars through retreat room and pillar mining practices in 
     underground coal mines at depths greater than 1500 feet.
       (B) The study shall examine the safety implications of 
     retreat room and pillar mining practices, with emphasis on 
     the impact of full or partial pillar extraction mining.
       (C) The study shall consider, among other things--
       (i) the conditions under which retreat mining is used, 
     including conditions relating to--
       (I) seam thickness;
       (II) depth of cover;
       (III) strength of the mine roof, pillars, and floor; and
       (IV) the susceptibility of the mine to seismic activity; 
     and
       (ii) the procedures used to ensure miner safety during 
     retreat mining.
       (2)(A) Not later than 1 year after beginning the study 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit a 
     report containing the results of the study to the Committee 
     on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (B) The report shall include recommendations to enhance the 
     safety of miners working in underground coal mines where 
     retreat mining in room and pillar operations is utilized. 
     Among other things, the recommendations shall identify means 
     of adapting any practical technology to the mining 
     environment to improve miner protections during mining at 
     depths greater than 1500 feet, and research needed to develop 
     improved technology to improve miner protections during 
     mining at such depths.
       (3) Not later than 90 days after the submission of the 
     report described in paragraph (2) to Congress, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall publish a notice in the 
     Federal Register describing the actions, if any, that the 
     Secretary intends to take based on the report.


         Amendment No. 3430, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
previous vote on amendment No. 3430, the Feingold amendment. I now send 
to the desk a modification of that amendment and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment 
3430, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3430), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3430, as modified

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  Not later than May 31, 2009, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the strategies utilized to assist students in 
     meeting State student academic achievement standards, 
     including achieving proficiency on State academic 
     assessments.
        (b) The report required under subsection (a) shall include 
     data collected from a representative sample of schools across 
     the Nation to determine the strategies utilized by schools to 
     prepare students to meet State student academic achievement 
     standards and achieve proficiency on State academic 
     assessments, including the following categories of 
     strategies:
       (1) Adjusting the structure of the school day, which may 
     include the expansion of the school day, or modifications in 
     the time spent on instruction in core academic subjects.
       (2) The professional development provided to teachers or 
     additional school personnel to assist low-performing 
     students.
       (3) Changes in the provision of instruction to students, 
     including targeting low-performing students for specialized 
     instruction or tutoring.
       (4) Utilizing types of instructional materials to prepare 
     students.
       (5) Instituting other State or local assessments.
       (6) Using other strategies to prepare students to meet 
     State student academic achievement standards and achieve 
     proficiency on State academic assessments.
       (c) The data collected pursuant to this section shall be 
     disaggregated by--
       (1) schools with a high percentage of students eligible for 
     a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
       (2) schools with a low percentage of students eligible for 
     a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
       (3) schools with a student enrollment consisting of a 
     majority of racial and ethnic minority students;
       (4) schools with a student enrollment consisting of a 
     majority of non-minority students;
       (5) urban schools;
       (6) suburban schools;
       (7) rural schools; and
       (8) schools identified as in need of improvement under 
     section 1116 of the Elementary

[[Page S13225]]

     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).
       (d) The representative sample described in subsection (b) 
     shall be designed in such a manner as to provide valid, 
     reliable, and accurate information as well as sufficient 
     sample sizes for each type of school described in subsection 
     (c).
       (e) The data collected under subsection (b) shall be 
     reported separately for the most common types of strategies, 
     in each of the categories listed in paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) of subsection (b), used by schools to prepare students to 
     meet State student academic achievement standards, including 
     achieving proficiency on State academic assessments.


         Amendment No. 3433, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent 
agreement, I call up Kennedy amendment No. 3433, and I send a 
modification 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. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3433, as modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3433) as modified, was agreed to, as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3433, as modified

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Prior to January 1, 2008, the Secretary of 
     Education may not terminate any voluntary flexible agreement 
     under section 428A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1078-1) that exists on the date of enactment of this 
     Act. With respect to an entity with which the Secretary of 
     Education has a voluntary flexible agreement under section 
     428A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-1) 
     on the date of enactment of this Act that is not cost 
     neutral, if the Secretary terminates such agreement after 
     January 1, 2008, the Secretary of Education shall, not later 
     than December 31, 2008--
       (1) negotiate to enter, and enter, into a new voluntary 
     flexible agreement with such entity so that the agreement is 
     cost neutral, unless such entity does not want to enter into 
     such agreement.


                           Amendment No. 3400

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
amendment now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Cardin amendment No. 3400.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. It is offered by Senator Smith and myself. Refugees who come 
to this country are entitled to loans to help them defray the cost of 
transportation and to resettlement assistance once they arrive. I am 
for that.
  This amendment provides similar benefits to those who qualify for 
Special Immigration Visas. These are Iraqi and Afghan translators who 
have helped us, and now, in risk of their lives, are allowed to come to 
a safe haven, the United States.
  This amendment extends a helping hand to those who have helped us 
under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I indicated, 
refugees are entitled to this benefit for up to 7 years. This provides 
benefits for only up to 6 months for the SIV holders.
  It is carefully crafted. It has been scored at not adding additional 
costs to the budget. I think this is a matter of basic fairness. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Cardin-Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since no one is here to speak in 
opposition, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 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 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 North Dakota 
(Mr. Conrad), 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 ``aye.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 386 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3400) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. 3342

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on Ensign amendment No. 3342.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr President, I am going to vote for the amendment offered 
by Senator Ensign with respect to the U.S.-Mexico Totalization 
Agreement, and I wanted to take a few minutes to explain my thinking on 
this issue.
  The United States has negotiated totalization agreements with more 
than 20 countries. These agreements establish mechanisms for 
coordinating our respective Social Security systems so that U.S. 
citizens working abroad are treated fairly. For example, the agreements 
help prevent Americans from being subject to unfair double taxation. 
They also help ensure that work in each country can be combined for 
purposes of qualifying for benefits, so that those who split their 
careers between countries are not left uncovered. Of course, while 
their purpose is to protect American interests, the agreements also 
provide reciprocal benefits to citizens of the other countries.
  Totalization agreements can be win-win arrangements that benefit both 
sides, provided they are crafted carefully to ensure that their 
benefits and their burdens are reasonably balanced. No agreement, no 
matter how carefully drafted, is likely to impose identical costs on 
both countries. More likely, there will be some difference in the 
burdens borne and benefits received by each nation. And if the United 
States ends up paying far more in benefits to citizens of another 
country than American citizens receive, our national interests could 
dictate that we reject or renegotiate that agreement.
  The need to carefully scrutinize a proposed totalization agreement is 
especially great because its costs could directly affect the Social 
Security benefits of virtually all Americans in the future. This type 
of agreement has the potential of imposing significant burdens on the 
Social Security trust fund. Although the Congressional Budget Office 
projects that the trust fund will be solvent through 2046, we should be 
careful before approving any measure that would worsen the program's 
long-term challenges. Otherwise, the end result could be unnecessarily 
deep cuts in benefits or excessive increases in taxes for Americans.

[[Page S13226]]

  Given this, I believe it is important that President Bush not be 
given unilateral power to negotiate and implement agreements without 
significant congressional involvement. Current law allows Congress to 
reject an agreement, but this mechanism probably is unconstitutional 
under the Supreme Court's Chadha decision, which invalidated so-called 
legislative vetoes. We need to develop a new mechanism, and I am 
pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have been working in a 
bipartisan manner to develop one.
  While those efforts are ongoing, I believe it is appropriate to take 
interim steps to ensure that the Bush administration is not allowed to 
implement a totalization agreement unilaterally. That is what the 
Ensign amendment does. While not making a final determination about 
whether an agreement should be approved, the amendment effectively 
would ensure that, for the next fiscal year, an agreement with Mexico 
will not be implemented without congressional approval. I think that 
makes sense.
  In my view, the Ensign amendment would have been stronger had it 
applied to all totalization agreements, not just the agreement with 
Mexico. Not only would that have helped ensure that all agreements 
serve our national interests, but it would have eliminated any 
perception that we are unfairly singling out Mexico for special 
treatment. Having said that, I do understand the view of the General 
Accounting Office that the Mexican agreement is, ``both qualitatively 
and quantitatively different than any other agreement signed to date,'' 
largely because of the potential impact of the many workers who have 
come from Mexico into the United States. The extent of that impact is 
unclear. In any case, surely this complex issue deserves to be 
considered seriously here in the Congress before any agreement is 
implemented.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in consultation with Senator Ensign, he 
does not wish to use his time. So, therefore, we yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 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 ``no.''
  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 91, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 387 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     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
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     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
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Hagel
     Lugar
     Martinez

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3342) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Ensign amendment No. 3352.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we don't need any 
time. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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 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 ``aye.''
  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 92, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 388 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     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
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     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
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Hagel
     Lugar
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3352) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3328, as Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the next amendment up would be Senator 
Vitter's amendment No. 3328. I have a modification I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3328), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 79, after line 4, insert:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to prevent an individual not in the business of 
     importing a prescription drug (within the meaning of section 
     801(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     381(g)) from importing a prescription drug from Canada that 
     complies with sections 501, 502, and 505 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, and 355) and is 
     not--
       (1) a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); or
       (2) a biological product, as defined in section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment, 
Amendment No. 3328, which is currently pending to the Labor-HHS-
Education Appropriations bill before the Senate. My original amendment 
is simple. It would stop officials at HHS from

[[Page S13227]]

preventing individuals from bringing back a prescribed medication for 
themselves from Canada. I have agreed to make two modifications to my 
amendment. My amendment, as modified, would add explicit restrictions 
on controlled substances and biological products from my amendment.
  Therefore, as modified, my amendment prohibits funds from preventing 
individuals, not wholesalers, from importing prescriptions for 
themselves, and that because there is no restriction in my language as 
to how they may import these prescriptions, it is understood that mail 
order and Internet importation is not prohibited along with carrying on 
the person over the border. All controlled substances and biological 
products are prohibited.
  It is my understanding that my amendment will be accepted by voice 
vote today on the agreement that the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, will work hard for 
its inclusion in the final conference report for the final legislative 
vehicle for this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiments by the Senator 
from Louisiana and accept this proposal on this modified amendment and 
will ask that it be adopted by unanimous consent. I agree to work hard 
for inclusion of this amendment in the conference report of the final 
legislation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague and confirm 
this agreement with my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are ready to vote on the Vitter 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3328), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is to be recognized.


         Amendment No. 3440, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment to add $150 million 
to the Social Security Administration account so that they can deal 
with the enormous backlog of cases that are pending there in people 
applying for disability benefits. The average wait is 523 days now. If 
a person filed today for a hearing in Social Security, they would 
expect to get that hearing in June of 2009. That is unacceptable. We 
need to do better. This amendment will help us do that.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Domenici.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest that this is absolutely 
imperative. For citizens who are on disability to have to wait 2 years 
on an appeal, as the Senator said, is unacceptable. The money this is 
providing will take care of that. He asked the administrator, and that 
is what is needed, and we ought to do it. We have Social Security and 
disability, and then they make them wait 2 years, and all of the 
offices are being cut back because they don't have enough operating 
money. We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3440, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3440, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:
         At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 401. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the amount appropriated under the heading ``limitation 
     on administrative expenses'' under the heading ``Social 
     Security Administration'' shall be increased by $150,000,000.
       (b) Section 1848(l)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-4(l)(2)(A)), as amended by section 6 of the TMA, 
     Abstinence Education, and QI Programs Extension Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-90), is amended by striking 
     ``$1,350,000,000'' and inserting ``$1,200,000,000, but in no 
     case shall expenditures from the Fund in fiscal year 2008 
     exceed $650,000,000'' in the first sentence.
       (c) Section 323 of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do we have an opportunity to address it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes on each side.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the goals of this 
amendment. I want to speak about process so that nobody gets the 
understanding that the Committee on Finance has given up jurisdiction 
over this area. We also want to explain that the offset is coming from 
the Medicare physician assistance and quality initiative fund, which we 
have set aside to make sure doctors don't get a 10-percent cut this 
year in their formula. That is something which is going to come out of 
the Finance Committee in the next few weeks.
  The reason we are going along with this offset is we have found 
another offset that will fill the void in this fund I just referred to, 
so that we will be able to keep this whole. I advise people that just 
because we are allowing this fund to be tapped, we are not going to tap 
this fund again because we are going to save this to make sure we can 
help doctors not get cut in their reimbursement on Medicare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time 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 amendment.
  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 ``aye.''
  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 88, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 389 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     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
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Allard
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Gregg
     Inhofe

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3440) was agreed to.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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.


         Amendment No. 3396, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Sanders should go first.
  Mr. SANDERS. I call up my amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that under the unanimous 
consent agreement, the next amendment will be No. 3396, the Grassley-
Sanders amendment. It has been modified.

[[Page S13228]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The clerk will report 
the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself and Mr. 
     Sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 3396, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 3325.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``American Competitiveness Scholarship Act of 2007''.
       (b) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation (referred to in this section as the ``Director'') 
     shall award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable 
     such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or 
     graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health 
     care, or computer science.
       (c) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship 
     under this section, an individual shall--
       (A) be a citizen of the United States, a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a))), an alien 
     admitted as a refugee under section 207 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1157), or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence;
       (B) prepare and submit to the Director an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Director may require; and
       (C) certify to the Director that the individual intends to 
     use amounts received under the scholarship to enroll or 
     continue enrollment at an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) in order to pursue an associate, 
     undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, 
     engineering, computer science, nursing, medicine, or other 
     clinical medical program, or technology, or science program 
     designated by the Director.
       (2) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this section 
     shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the 
     ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2 
     or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the 
     Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and 
     there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one 
     to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or 
     scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner 
     that will tend to result in a geographically wide 
     distribution throughout the United States of recipients' 
     places of permanent residence.
       (d) Amount of Scholarship; Renewal.--
       (1) Amount of scholarship.--The amount of a scholarship 
     awarded under this section shall be $15,000 per year, except 
     that no scholarship shall be greater than the annual cost of 
     tuition and fees at the institution of higher education in 
     which the scholarship recipient is enrolled or will enroll.
       (2) Renewal.--The Director may renew a scholarship under 
     this section for an eligible individual for not more than 4 
     years.
       (e) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this section 
     only with funds made available under section 286(w) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (g).
       (f) Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a list of eligible programs of study 
     for a scholarship under this section.
       (g) Supplemental H-1b Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account; 
     Gifted and Talented Students Education Account.--Section 286 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'. 
     Notwithstanding any other section of this Act, there shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts into the account 85.75 
     percent of the fees collected under section 214(c)(15)(B).
       ``(2) Use of fees for american competitiveness scholarship 
     program.--The amounts deposited into the Supplemental H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available to the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation until expended 
     for scholarships described in the American Competitiveness 
     Scholarship Act of 2007 for students enrolled in a program of 
     study leading to a degree in mathematics, engineering, health 
     care, or computer science.
       ``(x) Gifted and Talented Students Education Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `Gifted and Talented Students Education Account'. There 
     shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into the account 
     14.25 percent of the fees collected under section 
     214(c)(15)(B).
       ``(2) Use of fees.--Amounts deposited into the account 
     established under paragraph (1) shall remain available to the 
     Secretary of Education until expended for programs and 
     projects authorized under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and 
     Talented Students Education Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. 7253 et 
     seq.).''.
       (h) Supplemental and Deficit Reduction Fees.--Section 
     214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (D), if the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the 
     Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to 
     paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, 
     shall impose a supplemental fee and a deficit reduction fee 
     on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such 
     paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amounts 
     determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, 
     except that the fee shall be \1/2\ that amount for any 
     employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States (determined by 
     including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
       ``(C) Of the amounts collected under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) 85.75 percent shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 286(w); and
       ``(ii) 14.25 percent shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 286(x).
       ``(D) Public hospitals, which are owned and operated by a 
     State or a political subdivision of a State shall not be 
     subject to the supplemental fees imposed under this 
     paragraph.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will say a few words about this 
amendment.
  I thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this amendment. We 
modified the original amendment. This amendment is substantially 
similar to the amendment Senator Grassley and I offered last May on the 
immigration reform bill which passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote 
of 59 to 35.
  This amendment is motivated by one major concern. We want to make 
certain that young Americans receive the educational opportunities they 
need in order to obtain the professional, good-paying jobs that are 
coming about in this country. To do that, we need to make sure they 
have the college education they need in math, science, engineering, 
health care, and other professional fields.
  This amendment also expands the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented 
Educational Program, long supported by Senator Grassley.
  This amendment will accomplish these goals by adding a $3,500 
surcharge on companies that utilize the H-1B program, the same 
surcharge that 59 Senators supported last May.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak to what this bill does 
or does not do for our most promising students.
  In his best selling book, ``The World Is Flat,'' Thomas Friedman 
discusses the challenges of globalism using the metaphor of the world 
getting flatter.
  What he means is that international barriers to the movement of 
goods, services, people, and ideas are breaking down. That means that 
American businesses are facing competition from different sources, and 
the competition will only get fiercer.
  If Americans want us to remain an economic leader and keep high 
paying jobs, we will need to stay one step ahead of others around the 
world in coming up with new ideas and innovative products and services.
  Thomas Friedman likens this moment in American history to the height 
of the Cold War when the Soviet Union leaped ahead of America in the 
space race by putting up the Sputnik satellite.
  In response to Sputnik, Congress passed the National Defense 
Education Act, which really started the Federal involvement in 
education.
  According to Thomas Friedman, to meet the challenges of what he calls 
``flatism'' will require, ``as comprehensive, energetic, and focused a 
response as did meeting the challenge of communism.''
  We have heard a lot of talk in Congress about the need to do 
something about American competitiveness.
  In fact, earlier this year we passed the America COMPETES bill, 
authorizing a series of new programs designed to stimulate advanced 
learning by young Americans. But are we serious about that?
  The bill before us today is a $5.35 billion increase over the 
previous year. That is not small potatoes. That is enough to give a 
boost to a lot of programs.
  But one program that is not seeing a boost is the only source of 
Federal

[[Page S13229]]

funds currently focused on helping meet the unique learning needs of 
gifted and talented students.
  The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has suffered a 
series of cuts in recent years due to across-the-board rescissions.
  For the current fiscal year, Congress passed an unusual type of 
modified continuing resolution.
  While the continuing resolution contained no specific language 
further cutting funding for gifted education, the program mysteriously 
suffered a significant 21 percent cut.
  In total, gifted and talented education has taken a 33 percent cut 
since 2002, and that is not adjusted for inflation. The current bill 
retains that cut.
  If we are serious about maintaining America's competitive edge 
internationally, our most promising students must be challenged and 
supported to reach their full potential.
  We need these talented young people to go on to pursue advanced 
degrees and make the technological innovations that drive our economy.
  Make no mistake, that will not happen by itself.
  Gifted students learn faster and to a greater depth than other 
students and often look at the world differently than other students. 
As a result, it takes a great deal more to keep them challenged and 
stimulated.
  If gifted students are not sufficiently stimulated, they often learn 
to get by with minimum effort and adopt poor learning habits that can 
prevent them from achieving their potential.
  In fact, many gifted and talented students underachieve or even drop 
out of school.
  The book ``Genius Denied,'' by Jan and Bob Davidson from the majority 
leader's home, the State of Nevada, chronicles how we are letting 
gifted students throughout the Nation fall through the cracks, wasting 
their potential.
  The Belin-Blank Center in my home State of Iowa produced a report 
titled, ``A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest 
Students.''
  We must do a better job of developing American talent if America is 
to remain competitive in the global economy.
  Twice now, on the competitiveness bill and the immigration bill, I 
have proposed an amendment to provide an appropriate funding source for 
gifted and talented education.
  My proposal would increase the fee employers pay for H-1B visas for 
highly skilled foreign workers to come to the United States and use 
that additional funding for the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented 
Students Education Act.
  H-1B visas are temporary visas.
  Highly skilled foreign workers come to the United States, often 
working for less than Americans, and garner useful experience with 
American companies.
  Then, by the nature of the H-1B program, they go home to use their 
talent in their native country.
  That is hardly a permanent solution to our need for talented workers.
  Doesn't it make sense to charge a fee to those investing in temporary 
talent from abroad and use it to invest in permanent talent for the 
future here at home?
  The modified amendment at the desk is a compromise that I worked out 
with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
  The modification includes language that was agreed to during the 
immigration debate.
  In fact, a similar amendment passed the Senate with a 59-vote 
majority.
  It would increase the fee for H-1B visas and use the revenue to 
support gifted and talented education as well as an American 
Competitiveness Scholarship Program that the Senator from Vermont has 
authored.
  I support his goal of creating a scholarship program for students 
pursuing a degree in math, engineering, health care, or computer 
science.
  I appreciate Senator Sanders's willingness to help me and to provide 
needed funding for gifted and talented students.
  We cannot continue to shortchange our best and brightest students and 
still expect excellence from them.
  Gifted students are the innovators of tomorrow that will keep our 
economic pump primed.
  For their sake and ours, we cannot afford to squander this vital 
national resource.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. If there is no one else to speak, I yield back the 
remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3396), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3404 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the next amendment is the 
Schumer amendment No. 3404.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. As amended by the Durbin amendment No. 3449.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Schumer, for 
     himself and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3404 to amendment No. 3325.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To increase the domestic supply of nurses and physical 
                  therapists, and for other purposes)

       On page 126, between lines 7 and 8, add the following:
       Sec. 521.  Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness 
     in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 
     8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``1996, 1997,'' after ``available in 
     fiscal year''; and
       (B) by inserting ``group I,'' after ``schedule A,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``1996, 1997, and'' 
     after ``available in fiscal years''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Petitions.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide a process for reviewing and acting upon petitions 
     with respect to immigrants described in schedule A not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which a completed petition has 
     been filed.''.


                Amendment No. 3449 to Amendment No. 3404

(Purpose: To increase the number of nursing faculty and students in the 
  United States, to encourage global health care cooperation, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3449 to amendment No. 3404.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my second degree amendment reflects my 
belief that we cannot continue to import nurses from other countries 
without also taking steps to step up capacity for training nurses here 
in the U.S. We all know that the United States faces a serious shortage 
of qualified nurses. Projections show that by the year 2020, our 
country will fall short of the nurses we need by one million nurses.
  Why do we have this looming shortage? Certainly it is due in part to 
our growing and aging population. But there are also structural 
problems with the domestic nursing system that limit the number of 
nurses we educate and train in this country. The main structural 
problems are an insufficient number of nurse educators and a shortage 
of clinical space for training. An American Association of Colleges of 
Nursing survey showed that nursing colleges denied admission to nearly 
43,000 qualified applicants in 2006 academic year. The top reasons 
these applications were not accepted were insufficient faculty and not 
enough admissions slots. This is a bottleneck that is stifling the 
supply of nurses in this country. And we need to fix it.
  We need to devote resources to training and hiring new nursing 
faculty and expanding clinical space for nursing schools so they can 
accept more qualified students. These investments will exponentially 
increase the number of trained American nurses. The Schumer-Hutchison 
amendment's approach to fixing our nursing shortage is to allow up to 
61,000 foreign nurses to enter the country as green card holders. 
Importing these thousands of foreign nurses is only a band-aid solution 
to our projected nursing shortage of 1

[[Page S13230]]

million. But it is also a step that deflates any momentum towards 
finding real solutions for our domestic nursing crisis. We have done 
these nursing visa recaptures before. In fact, 2 years ago in 2005, the 
President signed into law a recapture of 50,000 nursing visas as part 
of that year's Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. Did this 2005 
visa recapture stop the nursing shortage? Of course not. It was a band-
aid solution. But it did undermine momentum for efforts to undertake 
the real reform that we know we need. And so here we are again, 2 years 
later, with hospitals desperate for more nurses.
  My second degree amendment is a reasonable compromise that will help 
both the hospitals in the short term and the domestic nursing supply in 
the long term. My amendment would require employers who successfully 
petition for a recaptured nursing green card to pay a $1,500 fee.
  This fee would be used to fund a grant program that would provide 
grants to U.S. nursing schools for hiring nurse faculty, expanding 
training capacity, and recruiting more students. $1,500 is not a large 
fee--hospitals often spend many times that amount for the services of 
foreign nurse recruiting companies. However, under my amendment, 
hospitals that are in dire financial straits, like Health Professional 
Shortage Area facilities and Louisiana hospitals still recovering from 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, would receive a waiver from paying this 
fee. Neither does my amendment also impose the fee on the dependents of 
any nurses who receive a recaptured green card.
  Again, the Durbin 2nd degree amendment is a reasonable compromise 
that will help both the hospitals in the short term and the domestic 
nursing supply in the long term. It will allow for the additional 
nursing green cards to address immediate needs, but it will also take 
steps that will put the American nursing profession on a path to 
sustainability. My amendment also contains two measured steps to 
enhance global healthcare cooperation and to safeguard against a 
crippling brain drain of foreign healthcare workers from countries 
where they are critically needed. The first provision would allow a 
healthcare worker who is a legal permanent resident in the U.S. to 
temporarily provide healthcare services in a country that is 
underdeveloped or that has suffered a disaster or public health 
emergency--like the 2004 tsunami--without jeopardizing his or her 
immigration status in the U.S. The second provision would require a 
foreigner who is petitioning to work in the U.S. as a health care 
worker to attest that he or she has satisfied any outstanding 
commitment to his or her home country under which the foreigner 
received money for medical training in return for a commitment to work 
in that country for a period of years. The goal of this second 
provision is to ensure that foreign countries do not invest money in 
healthcare workers who then renege on commitments to work in their 
country without satisfying their commitment in some way, such as by a 
new voluntary agreement. There is a waiver available in case of 
coercion by the home country government. My amendment is strongly 
supported by the American Nurses Association and the American 
Association of Nursing Colleges.
  I urge my colleagues to support the domestic nursing profession and 
support global healthcare cooperation. I urge passage of my amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, without objection 
the second-degree amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3449) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, No. 3404, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3404), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3450 to Amendment No. 3325

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment for Mr. DeMint, which 
I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. DeMint, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3450 to amendment No. 3325.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prevent Federal employees from purchasing unnecessary 
first class or premium class airline tickets at taxpayers' expense, and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel 
     that would not be consistent with sections 301-10.123 and 
     301-10.124 of title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Without objection, 
the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3450) was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 3391 withdrawn

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am informed that amendment No. 3391 by 
Senator Chambliss can be withdrawn, so I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 3391 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are now in the fourth week of the 
new fiscal year, and Congress still hasn't sent a single 1 of the 12 
appropriations bills to the President. Those who made a lot of noise 
about Republican spending habits before last year's elections are now 
making the same mistakes themselves.
  There is a difference. This year, our Democratic friends are delaying 
the most essential business of Congress on a political gambit. They 
have stuffed this bill with so much extra spending it is guaranteed to 
draw a veto. Once again, they are setting up the kind of media circus 
that has become so common this year. Instead of having a debate about 
the issues, about spending, we will have a nondebate played out in 
front of cameras, complete with props and outrage. A story in Monday's 
``Roll Call'' laid out the strategy. It said our Democratic friends 
think a Presidential veto of the Labor-HHS bill will allow them to 
paint the administration and Capitol Hill Republicans as ``out of 
touch'' with average Americans, just like the effort that is underway 
on SCHIP.
  Well, it is time to stop painting and to start legislating. The fact 
is, the Labor-HHS bill is simply too expensive. It is $9 billion over 
the President's request, and we all know what that means. Next year, 
Democrats will use that figure as their baseline, and on and on in 
perpetuity. They expect taxpayers to forget how much they increase 
spending this year so they can say it isn't that much when they do it 
again next year.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to downplay the 
spending hikes, but let's stop for a second and look at what some of 
their proposed increases this year would actually look like down the 
line. The spending hike they are asking for in this bill, if allowed to 
continue at the same rate, will cost the American taxpayer $120 billion 
over the next 10 years. Let me say that again. This spending increase 
over what the President has requested, if allowed to stand year after 
year, which is the way this always works, will cost the American 
taxpayers $120 billion over the next 10 years. That is equivalent to 
the entire budget of the State of New York just in discretionary 
increases, just on this one appropriations bill. So this increase on 
this bill, compounded out, $120 billion over the next 10 years, is the 
equivalent of the entire budget of the State of New York.
  So what we are telling taxpayers is this proposed $23 billion 
increase over the President's request for this year's appropriations 
bills isn't all that

[[Page S13231]]

much. How many times have we heard that: this isn't all that much 
money? But let's look at the 10-year totals. The $23 billion this year, 
at the same rate of growth, will end up costing taxpayers $252 billion 
over 10 years.
  What can we do with $252 billion? We could fund this year's 
discretionary appropriations for the Department of Transportation, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, 
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, Energy, and still have more 
left over than the entire 2005 Massachusetts State budget.
  So our friends are saying that is not a lot of money. Only in 
Washington, DC, could this kind of spending be not much. We need to get 
serious about how we spend other people's money, and if we don't start 
on this bill, which represents the largest increase among all the 
appropriations bills, we won't cut anywhere.
  Senator Lott and I propose to send this bill back to committee and 
instruct them to prioritize spending in a way that is responsible and 
which will secure a Presidential signature. We cannot continue to use 
the Government charge card knowing our children and their children will 
have to pay the bill.
  On behalf of Senator Lott and myself, I move to commit H.R. 3043 to 
the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back with 
total amounts not to exceed $140.92 billion, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote with us to get us out of the business of political theater and 
back to the business of governing in a responsible way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, first, I commend Senator Harkin for his 
skillful management of this bill. The Labor, HHS, and Education bill 
requires tough--did you hear me say that word, tough?--tradeoffs 
between critical programs that serve our Nation well. I thank Senator 
Specter for his many contributions to this legislation, which is 
bipartisan, and I urge Senators to vote no on the motion to commit the 
bill to the committee for the purpose of reducing the bill to the 
President's request.
  Hear me now. Hear me now. Listen. I am going to pose a question. You 
will have an opportunity to answer it. If such a motion to commit were 
approved, the bill would need to be reduced by $9 billion. To any 
Senator who intends to vote for the motion to commit so as to reduce 
the bill by $9 billion, I ask: What programs would you cut? What 
programs would you cut?
  The President proposes to cut National Institutes of Health funding 
by $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Under 
the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to 
eliminate 717 research grants that could lead to cures or treatments 
for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. Should we reduce 
funding for the National Institutes of Health? How about it? Do I hear 
a response? Ask yourself before you vote: Where would you cut? Where 
would you cut?
  The President proposes over $3 billion in cuts for education 
programs, including special education, safe and drug-free schools, and 
improving teacher quality. Should we reduce funding for educating our 
children? Should we? Which educational programs shall we cut? Step up 
to the plate.
  The President proposes cuts of nearly $1 billion in health programs 
such as rural health, preventive health, nurse training, and mental 
health grants. Should we reduce funding for programs that improve the 
health of our Nation? Should we? Ask yourself, which program--which 
program--should be cut?

  Silence. The record will note silence in answer to the question.
  The President proposes to cut low-income home energy assistance by 
$379 million. Winter is coming on. It gets pretty cold in those West 
Virginia hills. As winter approaches and home heating oil prices rise, 
should we reduce funding for home energy assistance? No Senator will be 
cold this winter at home. I won't be cold at home. I am a Senator, 
proud to be a Senator. By how much should we slash low-income home 
energy assistance? By how much? Those who want to cut, now is the time 
to answer the question. By how much should we slash low-income home 
energy assistance?
  Mr. President, it is easy to demand cuts until one has to say just 
what will be cut. Whose ox--whose ox, yours or mine--whose ox will be 
gored? Who will be left out in the cold?
  To all Senators listening, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to 
commit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes 15 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield--how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes 15 
seconds; the Republican leader has 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will split it, 1\1/2\ minutes to Senator Specter, and I 
will take the last 1\1/4\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to commit because the 
President's budget is $3.5 billion under the current expenditures, and 
figuring an inflation rate it would be $8.5 billion less.
  If we accept the President's figure, then we are abdicating our 
constitutional responsibility of the appropriations process. The 
Constitution gives to the Congress the appropriations power. If we 
automatically defer to the President on the total figure, all we do is 
fill in the blanks, and that would be an abdication of our 
constitutional responsibility. In fact, I think it would be 
unconstitutional for us to delegate that authority to the President. 
There is case law to the effect that Congress may not delegate its 
constitutional authority.
  I discussed an alternative motion to commit, and that is to arrive at 
a figure which would be acceptable to the President. On SCHIP the 
President has stated his willingness to negotiate. The Senate has its 
figure; the President has his figure. I would be prepared to commit 
this bill to committee to arrive at a compromise but certainly not to 
abdicate our constitutional authority and responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Specter for his help 
through all this debate and developing this bill. I thank Senator Byrd 
for his usual eloquence tonight. I think he encapsulated what this is 
all about.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It passed the committee by a vote of 26 to 
3. Frankly, I think at least two, maybe all three of those were opposed 
to the stem cell portion we had in there, which is no longer in the 
bill. Nonetheless, this passed 26 to 3.
  To echo a little bit what Senator Byrd said, if you vote to commit, 
you are voting to cut community services block grants, to zero it out, 
and your social services block grants that go to your States will be 
cut by 30 percent. You would cut NIH, as Senator Byrd said, by $279 
million. How about special education? That would be cut by $748 
million. How about community health centers? That would be cut by $250 
million.
  A ``yea'' vote means you agree with the President that we do not need 
any more community health centers, you agree with the President we 
don't need any more money to go to the States for special education, 
you agree with the President that we can cut funding for NIH, you agree 
with the President we can zero out the community services block grants 
and cut the social services block grants to the States by 30 percent. 
That is what a ``yea'' vote means.
  Frankly, I hope we have an overwhelming vote to reject this motion to 
commit and keep this a strong bipartisan bill with which we can go to 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time 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),

[[Page S13232]]

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 ``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 40, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 390 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          study on folic acid

  Mr. SALAZAR. The distinguished ranking member, Senator Specter, and I 
wish to engage in a colloquy about an important public health matter.
  Folic acid is an essential ``B vitamin'' that plays a critical role 
in the body's natural processes for making new cells throughout the 
body. As the Labor/HHS appropriations committee has indicated in its 
committee report, folic acid fortification can play a critical role in 
reducing the incidences of serious birth defects, such as spina bifida. 
In that regard, according to research conducted by the Centers for 
Disease Control, since the implementation of the FDA's policies 
governing folic acid fortification in enriched cereal grain products, 
the prevalence of spina bifida and other neural tube defects has 
declined approximately 20 to 30 percent.
  While this represents significant progress in the prevention of birth 
defects, the decline falls short of the national policy objective to 
achieve a 50 percent reduction by 2010. It also falls short of the 50 
percent to 70 percent reduction in birth defects that the Public Health 
Service has estimated would result if all U.S. women of childbearing 
age consumed the recommended amount of folic acid daily.
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Salazar, I commend you for bringing this critical 
issue to my attention and to my Colleagues' attention. I agree with you 
that we must do all that we can to reduce serious birth defects.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Harkin. Of great concern to me is 
that the scientific evidence indicates that the progress that has been 
made since the current fortification policy was adopted is distributed 
unevenly, and public health efforts have not been successful in 
reaching some of the population groups that are at highest risk of 
having a child affected by NTD birth defects. For example, research 
analyzing the government's 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey data found that approximately 60 percent of non-
Hispanic white women, and nearly 80 percent of Hispanic women and 
nearly 80 percent African American women consumed less than the 
recommended amount of folic acid daily.
  CDC research suggests that current fortification policy is a barrier 
to fortifying the types of food consumed by diverse groups and may help 
explain the disparate results that have been achieved in diverse U.S. 
populations. In view of the inadequacy of folic acid intake that 
persists among U.S. women who are most at risk of having a child 
affected by NTD birth defects, there is a need for further study to 
evaluate whether greater improvements in the nutritional status of 
women and the prevention of NTDs can be achieved through the expansion 
of food and beverage fortification with folic acid.
  Senator Specter, the statistics show that our current fortification 
policy is not reaching all populations. Do you agree that we need the 
CDC to study this issue further, so that we can take appropriate action 
based on those results?
  Mr. SPECTER. As a longstanding advocate of prevention and education 
programs, Senator Salazar, I believe that the CDC should conduct 
critical public health research regarding our current folic acid 
fortification policies, so that we have a chance to meet our public 
health objectives of significantly reducing the occurrences of spina 
bifida and other birth defects.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I am familiar with the distinguished Senator's long 
history of supporting public health prevention and education programs, 
and I ask that you work with me when we get to conference to add report 
language to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill that would 
direct the CDC to conduct a study of the additional disease prevention 
benefits to the U.S. population that would be gained from expanded 
folic acid fortification of the food and beverage supply consumed by 
populations currently at risk for inadequate folic acid intake. It is 
also my opinion that CDC should use public-private partnerships to 
facilitate that study.
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Salazar, I will work with you to expand folic 
acid fortification of foods and beverages.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Harkin and Specter. I appreciate your 
interest in and dedication to addressing this critical public health 
matter.
  Mr. SPECTER. I commend my colleague for working on this important 
issue and concur with Chairman Harkin.


                    Community-Based Doula Initiative

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
Senator from Iowa, chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Harkin. 
I am pleased that the subcommittee has designated funding for a 
community-based doula initiative within the Maternal and Child Health 
Bureau. In particular, I am eager to see that this funding be used in 
part to support technical assistance and evaluation activities.
  Poor and low-income adolescents make up 38 percent of all women ages 
15 to 19, yet they account for 73 percent of all pregnancies in that 
age group. Teenage mothers are much less likely than older women to 
receive timely prenatal care and are more likely to smoke during 
pregnancy. Because of these and other factors, babies born to teenagers 
are more likely to arrive too early and at a lower birth weight, which 
puts them at greater risk for serious and long-term illness and 
developmental delays.
  In Chicago, we have seen how the community-doula model can improve 
the odds for those young moms and their babies. The Chicago Health 
Connection pioneered this model. The group trained mentors from the 
community to work with at-risk moms, many of whom had few ideas of 
where else to turn. These mentors spend time in the neighborhood, 
finding and befriending pregnant women who need help. With the guidance 
of the doula, the Chicago Health Connection found that more young 
mothers were going to their prenatal care appointments, making better 
lifestyle choices, and not surprisingly delivering healthier babies. 
The doulas stay with the moms through the early months, encouraging 
breastfeeding, cuddling, interactive play, and other critically 
important developmental activities. The key to success in this model is 
the doula, who comes from the same communities they serve. The doula 
provides culturally sensitive pregnancy and childbirth education and 
helps ensure that

[[Page S13233]]

 pregnant women know how to access prenatal care and social services.
  My request to the subcommittee to transform this model into a 
national priority was supported by Senators Obama, Bingaman, Brown and 
Casey. In a time of budget constraints, I know that not many new 
programs were begun and I thank the chairman for making this program a 
reality. I also commend the chairman for his foresight in expanding it 
to include community-based breastfeeding programs in rural areas.
  I am eager to see the Chicago Health Connection model successfully 
replicated and to make that happen, it is important that new programs 
have guidance and help to not reinvent the wheel. I would hope that the 
national program would include funding for a national leader with 
expertise in the replication of the community-based doula model as well 
as expertise in breastfeeding promotion to provide training, technical 
assistance and evaluation services.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Illinois for his leadership on 
this issue. I have worked hard in this bill to make prevention a 
priority. Doula programs provide the help and support that families 
need to create a safe environment for new infants, particularly when 
mothers have nutritional challenges. Everything we learn from the 
National Institutes of Health reminds us that this early stage of 
development is so key to our health and well-being.
  And I want to applaud my friend Senator Durbin for bringing this 
proven model to me last year. We worked hard to include funding and I 
agree with him that expert technical assistance will be an important 
component to this initiative. I look forward to working with Senator 
Durbin and Senator Specter to monitor the implementation of this 
program and the outcomes it provides.


                             public access

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the chairman and 
ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators 
Harkin and Specter.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about a provision in the fiscal year 
2008 LHHS appropriations bill that would change the National Institutes 
of Health, NIH, public access policy to a mandate requiring that 
private sector commercial and nonprofit journal articles be made freely 
available for worldwide access on an online NIH Web site.
  As ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, 
Committee, I am concerned that this matter has not been reviewed by our 
committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction over the NIH. This 
issue has been handled through the appropriations process, and I 
believe that the HELP Committee should study the issue and determine 
the best and most appropriate manner to implement and improve the 
current voluntary policy. In the Statement of Administration Policy, 
SAP, issued last week, the administration echoed this sentiment and 
called on Congress to review the policy and balance the need for public 
access against the impact it could have on scientific publishing, peer 
review and intellectual property. The private sector invests hundreds 
of millions of dollars in the peer review process which vets scientific 
research, and I believe that a change in the NIH public access policy 
could undermine that investment.
  I would respectfully ask when this bill is conferenced that the 
section of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill mandating the NIH public 
access policy be modified so it may receive further study by the 
committees of jurisdiction to ensure that it achieves its goals without 
unintended negative consequences.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to add my voice to Senator Enzi's concern 
regarding the NIH public access mandate that would force private sector 
publishers to make their articles freely available on an NIH Web site. 
I am concerned that this proposal will harm the journal businesses, 
hurt scientific communication, and impose a severe regulatory taking on 
commercial and nonprofit publishers. I also believe that this change in 
policy could have a negative impact on the intellectual property 
protections for scientific journal articles. I believe this issue is 
different from making underlying scientific data available. I believe 
that federally funded scientific raw data should be available for other 
researchers to review. I would also ask that Senators Harkin and 
Specter agree to work with me to revise this NIH provision when this 
bill is conferenced.
  Mr. HARKIN. I remain committed to retaining the provision in 
conference as it is written in the Senate and House Labor-HHS 
appropriations bills. I will be happy to work with the Senators from 
Wyoming and Oklahoma to ensure that the policy is implemented as 
smoothly as possible for the NIH, researchers, and scientific 
publishers.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senators from Wyoming and Oklahoma for their 
concerns about the NIH public access policy, which I share. I will work 
with the chairman to closely monitor the policy's implementation.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. INHOFE. I also thank the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their willingness to work with Senator 
Enzi and me on this important issue.


             Mentoring Children of Prisoners Grant Program

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 2 percent of all children under the 
age of 18 have at least one parent incarcerated in a State or Federal 
prison. According to the Bureau of Justice.

       In 1999 an estimated 721,500 State and Federal prisoners 
     were parents to 1,498,800 children under age 18. 22 percent 
     of all minor children with a parent in prison were under 5 
     years old. Prior to admission, less than half of the parents 
     in State prison reported living with their children 44 
     percent of fathers, 64 percent of mothers.

  As a group, children of prisoners are less likely than their peers to 
succeed in school and more likely to become engaged in delinquent 
behavior. So, it is important that we support organizations that 
provide positive adult mentors to address the needs of these at-risk 
children--organizations like the Seedling Foundation in Austin, TX; and 
national organizations like Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and Amachi, 
both of which have chapters in most States.
  Many of these organizations depend on grants from the Mentoring 
Children of Prisoners Program, authorized in 2001 under section 439 of 
the Social Security Act and administered by the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services. This program was designed to keep children 
connected to a parent in prison in order to increase the chances that 
the family will come together successfully when the parent is released. 
Unfortunately, this program has been level-funded for the past few 
years.
  The current allocation for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners 
Program is $507,000 below the President's request and is at the fiscal 
year 2007 level. I would have preferred that the Senate adopt an 
amendment to a modest increase in fiscal year 2008 funding and restore 
this amount to the Senate bill. At the very least, I would encourage 
the conferees to retain the existing funding for this program.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with my colleague and will work during the 
conference process to ensure that funding for this program is not 
reduced.
  Mr. SPECTER. I share my colleague's strong and enthusiastic support 
for this important program. I will continue to support the existing 
funding levels for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program when we 
conference this bill.


                           Deafblind Programs

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education, Mr. Harkin, 
in a colloquy concerning funding for deafblind services and programs at 
the Department of Education. Would the chairman and manager of the bill 
entertain a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to.
  Mr. KERRY. As the Senator knows, tremendous progress has been made in 
addressing the needs of deafblind children and their families over the 
past two decades. Despite a doubling of the population of children who 
are deafblind over that same time period, the 46 State and regional 
project centers that support the deafblind community have not had a 
budget increase in over 20 years.
  In fiscal year 2007, the national technical assistance and 
dissemination program at the Department of Education

[[Page S13234]]

received $48.9 million for all disability technical assistance, of 
which $12.8 million is designated for deafblind programs and services. 
At a time when remarkable advances in medicine and technology are 
enabling many more of these infants and children to survive and live 
longer, it is important for Congress to recognize the need for 
increased support.
  While the President's budget proposed baseline funding for this 
program, the House included a modest $2 million increase for deafblind 
programs for fiscal year 2008 in their Department of Education 
appropriations bill. The equivalent allocation in the Senate was, of 
course, lower than in the House.
  I know the chairman recognizes the urgent help our States need to 
improve their services for families, to support the activities of the 
national technical assistance and dissemination center on 
deafblindness, and to strengthen personnel preparation programs.
  Mr. President, I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to 
continue to work during the conference process to include a $2 million 
budget increase for deafblind funding?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts that I agree with his description of the challenges 
facing the funding for deafblind services and that it is my hope that 
we can find agreement with our House colleagues to retain the modest 
funding increase that appears in their bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his help on this 
issue.


                        Family Literacy program

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to speak on a program that is not 
just important to me and to many of my constituents in New York but to 
thousands of children and parents across the country. The William F. 
Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program is a highly valuable 
program that gives economically and educationally disadvantaged parents 
the tools necessary to support early literacy and language development 
for their young children. Even Start not only coordinates with early 
childhood education programs and home visitation programs like HIPPYUSA 
to provide literacy and language development services, but also 
incorporates parental involvement. The program assists parents to 
fulfill their role as their child's first teacher by providing them 
with adult and parenting education, English as a second language 
instruction, and structured parent-child joint literacy activities that 
we all know are necessary for children to arrive at school ready to 
learn.
  The Even Start Program is the only early literacy program that works 
with parents to serve children during the infant and toddler years, a 
developmental period that research shows is critical for building later 
reading proficiency. Moreover, Even Start has been shown to be highly 
effective in helping low-income parents support their children's 
education and breaking the cycle of illiteracy and poverty.
  During recent years, Even Start has been plagued by a pervasive 
misconception that the program is ineffective. This has resulted in 
drastic funding cuts. To date, many Even Start Programs have closed 
down and thousands of vulnerable families have lost services. In 2005, 
Even Start Programs in New York were serving 3,064 families. Today, due 
to the Bush administration's budget cuts, Even Start is serving only 
722 families. We can all agree these are dramatic cuts for a program 
that serves such vulnerable families. For New York, cuts to the Even 
Start Program have affected 2,342 families.
  In order to keep the program alive, it is imperative the Senate 
ensure the Even Start Program receives the fiscal year 2007 level of 
$99 million. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Harkin 
and Specter, and most of all by Senator Snowe who has spent the last 3 
years championing this program with me.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the William F. Goodling Even 
Start Family Literacy Program. I am proud to join my colleague, Senator 
Clinton, on this important issue. Senator Clinton and I have been 
fighting for this program for the last 3 years, and we are committed to 
continuing to fight until this program is fully restored.
  The majority of Maine's neediest families have also had services 
taken away from them due to cuts over the past 2 years. In 2005, Even 
Start Programs in Maine served 168 families through 9 programs. Today, 
Even Start is only serving 57 families through 3 programs. This means 
that 66 percent of Maine families being served have lost Even Start 
services over the past 3 years.
  These families depend on Even Start for help in learning English, 
pursuing educational opportunities, and obtaining job skills. In a 
Texas A&M University Study, 2004-05, parents participating in Even 
Start were more often and better employed. The study found that 
employment jumped from 17 percent before enrollment to 51 percent after 
program completion, and wages increased by more than 25 percent.
  This program helps parents acquire important skills to be their 
child's first and most important teacher. In fact, Even Start 
complements other early childhood education programs such as Head Start 
and Reading First by providing the comprehensive family services that 
help children in these critical years. Even Start is also consistent 
with the parent involvement goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. The 
program supports parents to be effective advocates for their children.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, Even Start Programs are essential to 
breaking down the barriers that poverty and illiteracy create by 
integrating early childhood education, adult literacy, or basic 
education, and parenting education into a unified family literacy 
program. That is why 35 national organizations, including the Center 
for Law and Social Policy, the Children's Defense Fund, the National 
Council of La Raza, Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool 
Youngsters USA, and Pre-K Now. We have an obligation to our most 
vulnerable families to support services that they need the most.
  The criticisms of Even Start have been largely based on the findings 
from the U.S. Department of Education's national evaluation released in 
May 2003. However, this study contained serious methodological flaws 
that call into question the accuracy of the findings. For example, the 
study's sample was not representative of the Even Start population. 
Thus, findings cannot be generalized to all of Even Start, particularly 
Even Start participants in rural communities or special populations, 
such as migrant and Native American families. Experts in assessment of 
limited English-proficient, LEP, individuals caution that the findings 
for LEP individuals, who represent 75 percent of those assessed in the 
study, are flawed due to inappropriate assessment protocols and 
measures. Of the 118 Even Start projects eligible to participate in the 
study in 2003, only 18 programs self-selected, meaning that researchers 
included programs largely based on who volunteered rather than using 
random selection, and such a small pool of programs overall does not 
allow for the study's findings to be generalized to all of Even Start.
  However, the California Department of Education Even Start evaluation 
found that the percentage of parents who reported reading to their 
child on a more regular basis and involvement in activities such as 
parent-teacher conferences increased each year that they were served by 
the program.
  Even Start families are the most in need. Eighty-four percent of Even 
Start's families are at or below Federal poverty levels. Eighty-four 
percent of Even Start adults do not have a high school diploma or GED, 
and 44 percent of the parents have not gone beyond the ninth grade. 
Nearly one-third of children and parents served by Even Start are 
limited English proficient.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Clinton and 
Senator Snowe, for bringing this critical issue to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate.
  The Even Start Family Literacy Program is a valuable program, and I 
agree with my colleagues that Congress must do all that it can to 
ensure that the Even Start Program receives an adequate funding level 
to keep the program alive.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senators Clinton and 
Snowe for their hard work on this critical program, and I look forward 
to working with the chairman in providing the needed resources for the 
Even Start Family Literacy Program.


              SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I first want to thank Chairman Harkin and

[[Page S13235]]

Ranking Member Specter for their terrific work on the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. I appreciate how well the chairman and the ranking 
member were able to address so many of the important issues in this 
bill despite the overwhelming needs of so many worthy programs that 
have been terribly underfunded during the Bush administration. With 
this in mind, I want to enter into a colloquy to clarify a key issue 
concerning this measure.
  As a member of the HELP Committee and its Retirement and Aging 
Subcommittee, I am a strong supporter of the Senior Community Service 
Employment Program, SCSEP, which provides part-time community service 
opportunities at minimum wage for unemployed low-income seniors over 
the age of 55 with poor employment prospects. This year, approximately 
100,000 seniors nationally will have access to assistance from the 
SCSEP program. Last year, approximately 94,000 were served and 40 
million hours of community services were provided at local community-
based organizations, and 33 percent of participants obtained employment 
as a result of participating in this program
  Through SCSEP, low-income older people benefit from training, 
counseling, and community service assignments at nonprofit 
organizations and public agencies before transitioning into the 
workforce. Participants' community service assignments benefit schools, 
health facilities, homeless shelters and food banks, disaster relief 
agencies, and aging services. The wages participants earn makes the 
difference in their ability to care for basic necessities of life such 
as food and medicine. Many participants overcome homelessness and other 
obstacles such as disabilities, literacy deficiency, language, or lack 
of self-esteem through their participation, and are able to compete for 
jobs in their local communities. Each year thousands of participants 
transition to employment, allowing additional older workers to benefit 
from the SCSEP.
  The SCSEP program was reauthorized last year as part of the Older 
Americans Act with strong bipartisan support as a result of the 
tremendous difference the program makes in the lives of our Nation's 
low-income seniors and our communities. As our population continues to 
grow grayer, the need for SCSEP services is anticipated to grow 
accordingly.
  SCSEP rewards work and the important contribution our Nation's 
seniors can make to our society. However, program costs will rise this 
coming year as the increase in the minimum wage results in higher costs 
for the SCSEP program due to the minimum wage payments made to program 
participants. In order to continue current participant service levels, 
the House bill provided $531 million for SCSEP, which provides adequate 
funds to cover the 2008 minimum wage increase.
  I know that Senator Harkin and Ranking Member Specter are supporters 
of the program but had a funding allocation $2 billion lower than their 
counterparts in the House.
  Can the chairman provide his commitment of his intent to fund SCSEP 
at the House-passed level when he moves to conference with the House?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his support of this 
important program and share his commitment to our Nation's low income 
seniors. I want to assure him that I am committed to funding the 
program at the highest level possible and will work with the House to 
do so within our existing budgetary constraints. I thank the Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the chairman.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
work on this critical issue.


                     National Health Service Corps

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member 
for rejecting the President's proposal to slash funding for rural 
health programs by more than 90 percent. The President proposed 
eliminating practically every rural health program except for the 
Federal and State offices of rural health. If enacted, these cuts would 
have a devastating effect on communities in North Dakota and all across 
rural America. Although one-fifth of the Nation's population lives in 
rural areas, 70 percent of all underserved areas in the country are 
rural. I thank the chairman and ranking member for restoring funding 
for the rural health programs in this bill.
  One of the big problems in rural areas is recruiting and retaining 
health professionals. More than 80 percent of North Dakota's counties 
are designated as Federal health professional shortage areas. Although 
recruiting and retaining health professionals is a major challenge in 
rural communities, it is also a problem in some urban settings. In 
fact, more than one of every four counties in the United States is 
designated as a health professional shortage area. Residents who live 
in these areas frequently have to drive long distances or wait to 
access the care they need. One of the ways Congress has sought to 
reduce the number of shortage areas is by supporting a program called 
the National Health Service Corps, which provides full-cost 
scholarships or sizable loan repayment to clinicians who agree to serve 
in a shortage area. I was disappointed that the President proposed 
cutting funding for the National Health Service Corps by $9 million in 
fiscal year 2008. I appreciate that the chairman and ranking member 
were able to restore funding to the fiscal year 2007 level. However, I 
believe that we must ramp up our investment in this program as well as 
consider other initiatives to reduce the number of health professional 
shortage areas.
  When this funding bill gets to conference, I encourage the chairman 
and ranking member to support the funding level proposed by the House 
for the National Health Service Corps. The House bill would provide a 
$5.8 million increase for the National Health Service Corps for fiscal 
year 2008.
  Mr. SANDERS. I would like to congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member for their ongoing championing of critical programs that support 
health care access, including making substantial investments in the 
Nation's community health centers. The expansion of the National Health 
Service Corps is essential if health centers are to continue to meet 
the health care needs of their growing disadvantaged populations, and 
if we are to address the impending crisis in the supply of primary care 
doctors and dentists. Increasing the program's funding over the next 
several years is an important goal. The program is strongly supported 
by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which has called for 
an increase of 1,500 Corps awards per year to help meet the need for 
physicians caring for underserved populations and to help address 
rising medical student indebtedness.
  In fiscal year 2007, the National Health Service Corps was funded at 
$126 million and the current level approved by the Appropriations 
Committee for fiscal year 2008 would level-fund the program. I thank 
the committee members for rejecting the administration's proposal which 
would have actually reduced funding by $10 million for this vital 
resource in the face of a dwindling supply of primary care doctors and 
dentists. While I recognize the many competing needs of important 
programs within the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill, at the very least, I would like to see the 
National Health Service Corps program funding increased by the $5.8 
million approved by the House of Representatives.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for providing one of the largest increases 
in funding for community health centers which include migrant health 
centers, health centers for the homeless, and public housing health 
services. Community health centers particularly impact medically 
underserved communities which can be in urban settings like New York 
City or in the most frontier of all States, my home State of Alaska.
  I am pleased that the bill before us today recognizes the importance 
of community health centers and provides $2.26 billion in funding for 
the program. But what about staffing these facilities? While it is 
important that we provide money for building these centers, we simply 
cannot ignore the fact that many community health centers throughout 
America are not fully staffed. According to a Washington Post article 
from June of this year, many of these centers rely heavily on the 
National Health Service Corps. Still, this is not enough to fill the 
gap,

[[Page S13236]]

according to the National Association of Community Health Centers. For 
lack of funding, the Health Service Corps had to turn away about 50 
percent of the 1,800 doctors who applied last year.
  Whether in a large urban city like New York, or a frontier community 
like Bethel, AK, the National Health Service Corps should be properly 
funded so that millions of underinsured and uninsured Americans have 
access to health care. I believe that with an increase to the 
appropriations for the National Health Services Corps we will be able 
to achieve that and encourage my colleagues to match the House-passed 
funding levels.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I also would like to commend Chairman 
Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for putting together a funding bill 
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
that reflects of our Nation's priorities and will do much to help the 
American people. Of particular importance to me and my State is the 
funding for the National Health Service Corps. I appreciate that the 
chairman and ranking member were able to restore funding to the fiscal 
year 2007 level for this program, but believe that we need to do more 
to combat the serious issue of physician shortage in the underserved 
areas of our States. In my State, hospitals and health centers are 
searching for physicians who will fill the numerous vacancies that 
physician retirement and retention problems have 
created. We need more specialists, surgeons, and general practitioners, 
dentists, nurse practitioners, and nurse-midwives. We need to do more 
to recruit and retain these essential providers--and that is exactly 
what the National Health Service Corps does. Robust funding of this 
program, in addition to pursuing other strategies to assist areas 
experiencing health professions shortages, will make a significant 
difference to patients and the providers and facilities that care for 
them. I thank the chair and ranking member and hope that the National 
Health Service Corps program funding is increased by the $5.8 million 
that was approved by the House of Representatives.
  Mr. HARKIN. I share my colleagues' support for the National Health 
Service Corps and agree that we must do more to reduce the number of 
health professional shortage areas. In my State, 14 of our counties are 
designated as shortage areas, so I know this issue firsthand. When this 
bill gets to conference, I will support as much funding as possible for 
this important program, and I look forward to continuing to work with 
my colleagues to ensure an expansion of the National Health Service 
Corps.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will work with Senator Harkin to provide as much 
funding as possible for this program when we get to conference with the 
House.


                  lifespan respite care appropriations

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I speak in regard to Senate amendment No. 
3394, an amendment sponsored by Senator Clinton and I, which provides 
$10 million in funding--fully offset--for the Lifespan Respite Care 
Act. Currently, the House of Representatives fiscal year 2008 Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill contains $10 
million for this important program. However, the Senate's version 
contains no such funding.
  As you know, the Lifespan Respite Care Act passed unanimously in the 
Senate last year and was signed into law by the President on December 
21, 2006. This important program authorizes competitive grants to Aging 
and Disability Resource Centers in collaboration with a public or 
private nonprofit State respite coalition to make quality respite 
available and accessible to family caregivers, regardless of age or 
disability.
  I know that my good friends Senator Harkin, the chairman of the 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and Senator Specter, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, recognize that funding this program will be a win-win-win 
for everybody involved. Patients will be able to receive care in the 
home from loving, caring family members rather than in a nursing home. 
Family members will be even further encouraged to serve as a family 
caregiver knowing that services will be available to assist them. And, 
finally, the Federal Government and our health care system will 
recognize fiscal savings as more care will be given in the home by a 
family member rather than in the more costly nursing home setting. As 
we all know, given the aging baby boomer generation, the cost of 
Medicaid nursing home care is expected to be a primary reason of 
increased health care costs in the years to come. Funding the Lifespan 
Respite Care bill is one step in the right direction towards 
controlling these costs.
  I encourage the chairman and ranking member to try to achieve $10 
million in funding for the Lifespan Respite Care Act.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Harkin, 
Warner, and Specter to talk about the importance of providing adequate 
funding for the Lifespan Respite Care Act. Across our country quality 
respite care remains hard to find. Where community respite care 
services do exist, there are often long waiting lists. And until the 
Lifespan Respite Care Act, no Federal plan focused on respite care to 
coordinate among disparate and fragmented services.
  This legislation, enacted almost 1 year ago, is designed to expand 
and enhance access to respite care services to provide support and 
relief to families providing care; to help ailing loved ones stay in 
their homes longer; and to control health care costs as respite care 
allows families to postpone or prevent expensive hospitalization and 
nursing care.
  Family caregivers provide 80 percent of all long-term care in the 
U.S.--work that is virtually always unpaid but valued at more than $300 
billion annually. That is more than the entire amount we spent on 
Medicare in 2004.
  Because of their responsibilities at home, studies have shown us that 
it is much more difficult for caregivers to find and maintain jobs. 
Many caregiving families are struggling to stay afloat. The cost to 
businesses is estimated in the tens of billions of dollars, including 
the cost for employees who leave jobs due to overwhelming 
responsibilities at home.
  This labor of love often results in substantial physical and 
psychological hardship. Research suggests that caregivers often put 
their own health and well being at risk while assisting loved ones. 
Many caregivers are exhausted and are more prone to illness themselves. 
One study found that caregivers are 51 percent more likely to 
experience sleeplessness and 61 percent more likely to experience 
depression.
  Often, this incredible struggle--with little support despite the 
heroic efforts of the organizations advocating for and providing 
respite care--leads to more costly out-of-home placements as a family's 
only alternative.
  Like Senator Warner, I also ask the chairman and ranking member of 
the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee to try 
to provide $10 million in funding for the Lifespan Respite Care Act.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Lifespan Respite Care Act is a worthwhile piece of 
legislation that will impact almost all American families. I will work 
with the chairman to provide funding for these activities.
  Mr. HARKIN. Respite care programs recognize the vitally important 
work that families do when a loved one is struck with illness or 
disability. I have long been a supporter of home and community-based 
services to keep people with disabilities in their homes and respite 
care is an important part of that effort. For that reason, I will work 
with my colleague, Senator Specter, to obtain funding for the Lifespan 
Respite Care Act in conference.


           Health Information Technology Network Development

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Health 
Information Technology Development program will see a substantial 
increase in this appropriations bill, and I applaud the chairman and 
ranking member's commitment to this program by recognizing the need to 
develop systems that will help disseminate vital information to help in 
the detection, prevention, and treatment of some of the most 
devastating diseases.
  In particular, this program is important to improve access to quality 
care for Georgians living with cancer. Cancer unfortunately acutely 
affects Georgia, as it is the second leading cause of

[[Page S13237]]

death within the State, yet there is a shortage of options available 
for those afflicted with cancer. The Georgia Cancer Coalition, in 
partnership with and as the parent organization of the Georgia Center 
for Oncology Research and Education, GA-CORE, is an independent, 
nonprofit organization working to improve cancer care and strengthen 
clinical research throughout Georgia by encouraging collaboration, 
sharing of information, and improving the clinical trials process. To 
that end, the Georgia Cancer Coalition has created a model that 
harnesses the combined talents of cancer researchers, physicians, and 
academia throughout the State to work to eradicate this destructive 
disease. The State of Georgia has already recognized the importance of 
this initiative by allocating funds from the State's budget.
  As I mentioned before, the Health Information Technology Development 
program will see a substantial increase in Federal dollars in fiscal 
year 2008, and I really believe that some of it should go to Georgia.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, like my colleague from Georgia, I am 
supportive of the Health Information Technology Development program, 
and I was happy to support the chairman's effort to increase funding 
for it. I believe that the goals of the Department of Health and Human 
Services through its Office of the National Coordinator of Health 
Information Technology may be well-served by the sort of program that 
Senator Isakson described a moment ago.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the comments by the Senator from Georgia, as 
well as the ranking member. I agree with them that the Health 
Information Technology Development program is a step towards better 
dissemination of health information and better health care, and I will 
work with my colleagues during conference with the House to provide as 
much funding as possible.
  (At the request of Mr. Harkin, the following colloquy was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                           HIV/AIDS Programs

 Mr. DODD. First, I would like to thank and congratulate the 
distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee on putting together this vitally 
important appropriations bill that will restore and grow funding for so 
many of our Nation's domestic health, education and labor programs. In 
particular, he should be commended for his leadership in support of 
funding for domestic HIV/AIDS programs.
  As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions--
HELP--Committee, I am deeply troubled by the impact Public Law 109-415, 
the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, has had on 
the State of Connecticut. Is the distinguished chairman aware that the 
State of Connecticut lost a total of $3.3 million in Federal funding in 
the current fiscal year as a result of improper implementation of the 
reauthorization by the Bush administration?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of the cuts the State of Connecticut has 
sustained and am aware that these cuts directly impact individuals 
living with HIV/AIDS in your State.
  Mr. DODD. I am particularly concerned because these funding cuts so 
deeply impacted Connecticut's two transitional grant areas, formerly 
eligible metropolitan areas, Hartford, which lost nearly $1.5 million, 
and New Haven, which lost nearly $1.6 million. Urban areas in my State, 
like many urban areas throughout the U.S. with a long history of the 
presence of this disease, have systems of medical care and treatment 
that have been disrupted by the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization 
bill. When I put my support behind the final reauthorization bill, it 
was with the understanding that this bill would do no harm to my State. 
In fact, an analysis of the reauthorization bill provided by the 
Government Accountability Office and others prior to its passage showed 
that the State of Connecticut and the cities of Hartford and New Haven 
would gain over $2 million as a result of its passage. However, this 
has not been the case.
  Mr. HARKIN. Section 102 of Public Law 109-415 lists States by name 
that have sufficiently reliable and accurate names-based reporting of 
living non-AIDS cases of HIV. The State of Connecticut is not listed 
among those States. However, it is my understanding that the Health 
Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, has administered the 
program as if Connecticut were on that list. Is that true?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, it is. Connecticut is not listed among the States with 
sufficiently reliable and accurate names-based reporting of living non-
AIDS cases of HIV. During negotiations on the reauthorization bill, I 
was told by officials in the Bush administration that Connecticut's 
names-based reporting system could not yet be considered sufficiently 
reliable and accurate because it had not reported HIV cases by name for 
four consecutive years. Connecticut would not be in that position until 
2009, at the earliest. The result has been that my State lost $3.3 
million in Federal funding.
  I am also deeply troubled by reports of how HRSA may be measuring 
urban areas' demonstrated need for supplemental funding. Under Public 
Law 109-415, HRSA can consider the impact a decline in formula funding 
under title I would have on individuals living with HIV/AIDS for 
purposes of supplemental grant funding. It is my understanding that 
this language targets urban areas whose decline in formula funding has 
meant a decline or disruption of services for people living with HIV/
AIDS by giving them priority in the supplemental funding process.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see.
  Mr. DODD. It is my hope that the impact of a decline in formula 
funding under title I will be measured based on the urban areas' prior 
year formula award. This is because applicants for supplemental funding 
do not know their current years' formula award at the time they apply 
for supplemental funding and therefore neither the applicant nor HRSA 
can measure the current years' decline or disruption of services for 
individuals living with HIV/AIDS. It is my hope that I can work with 
the distinguished chairman in conference to provide some clarification 
and guidance to HRSA on this critically important issue.
  It has been stated that the Ryan White reauthorization bill better 
targeted funding so that infected persons would have better access to 
high quality health care. Residents in the State of Connecticut do not 
have better access to high quality health care as a result of the Ryan 
White reauthorization bill. However, there is funding in the House-
passed Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations 
bill that is targeted to cities losing funding under title I. I 
strongly support this targeted funding and urge that it be maintained 
in the final conference report.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate knowing of the Senator's support for this 
provision. I will certainly keep it in mind as we move into conference 
negotiations.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator for his consideration.
  (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we go again, pushing through a 
bloated appropriations bill chocked full of earmarks and far exceeding 
the President's budget request. This is the seventh annual 
appropriations measure that has been considered by the Senate and it is 
by far the biggest budget buster of those considered. The first six 
bills exceeded the President's request by over $8 billion, while this 
bill alone exceeds the President's budget request by almost $9 billion. 
At what point will Congress come to grips with the fact that we are 
mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures by approving 
bills like this?
  The Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 provides 
over $605 billion, including $149.2 billion in total discretionary 
spending and, as I mentioned, exceeds the President's budget by $8.95 
billion. The Statement of Administration Policy begins with the 
following;

       The Administration strongly opposes S. 1710 because, in 
     combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it 
     includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and 
     includes other objectionable provisions. The statement goes 
     on to say, The Administration has asked that Congress 
     demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and 
     cover the excess spending in this bill

[[Page S13238]]

     through reductions elsewhere, while ensuring the Department 
     of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its 
     mission. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a 
     path, if S. 1710 were presented to the President, he would 
     veto the bill.

  Well, it looks like he will have the opportunity to do just that.
  There are over 1,000 earmarks in this bill. Examples include: $1 
million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Liberty, NY, for the 
Woodstock Museum (which the Senate did strike by a vote 52:42); 
$500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, for the virtual 
Herbarium; $200,000 for Dallas, TX, for the Women's Museum; $200,000 
for the Italian American Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines; 
$250,000 for the James K. Polk Association in Columbia, TN, for exhibit 
preparation; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum; 
$500,000 for the Southwest Museum of the American Indian in Los 
Angeles, CA; $100,000 for the Warner Robbins Museum of Aviation in 
Georgia; $200,000 for the Texas Historical Commission; $600,000 for the 
Vermont Department of Labor for Job Training of Female Inmates in 
Vermont; $2.4 million for Maui Community College for the Remote Rural 
Hawaii Job Training Project; $1.8 million for Maui Community College 
for training and educational opportunities; $750,000 for Minot State 
University to provide training and masters degrees to job corp center 
senior management personnel; $250,000 for the United Auto Workers 
Region 9 Training Initiative in New York; $900,000 for the Lyndon 
Baines Johnson Foundation in Austin, TX, for the Presidential Timeline 
Project; $1.1 million for the Billings Clinic, Billings, MT--
interestingly, the Billings clinic only has 272 beds in its hospital, 
and received recently an endowment of over $1 million for its cancer 
center; $5.9 million for Marshall University, WV, including $1,575,000 
for the Virtual Colonoscopy Outreach Program; $3,600,000 for Mountain 
State University, Beckley, WV, for the construction of the Allied 
Health Technology Tower; $3,150,000 for West Virginia University, for 
the construction and equipping of medical simulation research and 
training centers; $4,050,000 for West Virginia University, for the 
construction of a Multiple Sclerosis Center; $1,000,000 for Wetzel 
County Hospital, WV, for the expansion and remolding of the Emergency 
Department; $2,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to 
continue the Harkin Wellness Grant program; and $100,000 for Iowa 
Games, Ames, IA, to continue the Lighten Up Iowa program.
  I could go on and on calling out earmarks in this bill and its 
accompanying report. We are doing a disservice to the American 
taxpayers and ourselves by approving such wasteful spending. It doesn't 
have to be this way. In fact, for the past 2 fiscal years, the programs 
funded through the Labor-HHS bill were virtually pork-free. A fortunate 
disagreement resulted in almost no earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 
bill, which had about 3,000 earmarks the prior year. And last year, we 
funded the programs with a continuing resolution that, for the 
taxpayers, turned out to have been about the most fiscally responsible 
route that we could have taken.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the excessive spending in the 
bill.
  (At the Request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
support and gratitude for the $55 million included in this legislation 
to support our continued efforts to address the health impacts of 
9/11. I would in particular like to thank Senator Harkin, Senator Byrd, 
Senator Specter, and their colleagues on the Senate Appropriations 
Committee for their efforts to help the many responders, recovery 
workers, residents and others who have been suffering from persistent 
adverse health effects resulting from exposure to the toxins released 
during the attacks on the World Trade Center.
  When the towers collapsed, thousands of tons of coarse and fine 
particulate matter were released into the air--including cement dust, 
glass fibers, asbestos, lead, hydrochloric acid, and other toxic 
pollutants. The combustion of jet fuel after the attacks created a 
dense plume of black smoke, filled with other toxic substances like 
benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Fires at Ground Zero 
continued to burn underground for several months after the attacks.
  Thousands worked and lived by this Ground Zero site, amidst the dust, 
smog, and toxic mix of debris. People also worked at Fresh Kills, the 
landfill in Staten Island, where workers sifted through the debris in 
an attempt to discover evidence and recover human remains. And in the 
first few months following the attacks, we began to hear reports of 
persistent coughing among rescue workers. These reports were among the 
first indications of the multiple physical and mental health impacts we 
have identified among workers, responders, and residents following 9/
11--chronic respiratory illness, anxiety and depression, and 
musculoskeletal injuries, among others. I believe we have a moral 
obligation to take care of those suffering from 9/11 related illnesses, 
and I would like to commend the Appropriations Committee for helping to 
meet that obligation.
  I have been working with my colleagues on the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee to develop a long-term solution to address 
these health care needs, and I am pleased to note the bipartisan 
support from my colleagues there. As we continue our efforts to develop 
this solution, the cooperation of the appropriators in maintaining 
funding for existing programs is greatly appreciated.
  In the wake of the attacks, I have been proud to work again and again 
with Senators Harkin, Byrd, Specter, and others to secure funding to 
establish necessary screening, monitoring and treatment programs to 
address the health care needs of those impacted by 9/11. Through our 
joint efforts, we have allocated funding to establish Centers of 
Excellence at the Fire Department of New York and Mt. Sinai Medical 
Center, as well as its affiliated institutions. These institutions have 
been working on these issues as the early reports of illness appeared, 
and providing care and medical guidance to the responders and recovery 
workers who were at Ground Zero and Fresh Kills.
  In partnership with the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health, these Centers of Excellence have engaged in efforts to 
treat those suffering these attacks, as well as research and monitoring 
to allow us to understand more about the ways in which these exposures 
do result in disease. And in addition to these efforts, I also want to 
highlight the work of the City of New York, which has established 
another Center of Excellence at Bellevue Hospital with city funds to 
meet the needs of residents, office workers and others who were exposed 
to these toxins.
  The $55 million included in this legislation will go towards 
continuing these programs to carry out the screening, monitoring and 
treatment activities administered by NIOSH. It also includes language 
requiring the Department of Health and Human Services, again working 
through NIOSH, to expand its efforts to address the needs of residents, 
office and commercial workers, students, and other individuals who were 
exposed.
  With this funding, we will ensure that those who responded in our 
hour of need are helped in their hour of need. We will continue to 
expand our understanding of the ways in which exposure to environmental 
hazards adversely impact human health. We will be helping the 
previously healthy detectives, firefighters and construction workers--
people in good physical shape before the attacks who now have 
difficulty breathing and who experience mental health concerns. For 
these individuals, their illnesses are a constant reminder of that 
terrible day, and evidence of the sacrifices made to assist our country 
after a terrorist attack.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Harkin, Senator Byrd, Senator 
Specter, and others on the Appropriations Committee for helping to 
support these programs.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the 
fiscal year 2008 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Some call this 
legislation the most significant appropriations bill we will consider 
as it touches the lives of every single American. Each American citizen 
has the right to basic education, adequate healthcare, and access to 
employment opportunities. In providing funding across three major

[[Page S13239]]

agencies, we are ensuring that our citizens have every opportunity to 
reach their maximum potential. I appreciate the opportunity to 
highlight a few of the bill's major provisions.
  American workers deserve every opportunity to provide for their 
families. Investment in training, education, and employment services 
leads to good jobs that provide self-sustainability for workers and 
their families. This was the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act 
and is what the funding provided for in this bill accomplishes through 
various job training programs. This bill acknowledges the value of 
training and employment services by continuing to fund adult employment 
and training, youth training and dislocated worker assistance programs.
  This bill also provides critical funding for the National Institutes 
of Health, or NIH. NIH funds significant health research at over 3,000 
institutions throughout the U.S. and around the world. While increased 
funding provided in this bill is a good start, we can, and must, do 
more. NIH funding supports research to develop and find cures for a 
myriad of health issues, including cancer, diabetes, stroke, and mental 
illness. These are significant health concerns facing Americans today.
  As you are aware, NIH is headquartered in Bethesda, MD, where more 
than 18,000 are employed. So it is especially important to me, a 
Senator from Maryland, that we give all of these individuals the 
resources they need to improve and save lives through health research. 
I commend the Appropriations Committee for supporting this agency with 
a 3.3 percent increase to the overall NIH budget. However, if we expect 
America to remain a leader in medical advancements and technologies, we 
must be committed to providing researchers the resources they need to 
move forward. I am committed to that goal and urge my colleagues to 
remain vigilant, as well.
  This bill provides a $125 million increase above the administration's 
budget request for the Social Security Administration's, SSA, 
administrative expenses and for that I am grateful. However, that 
increase does not adequately address SSA's serious backlog issue. It is 
no secret that the Social Security Administration's resources are 
stretched thin. Disability claims are arising at an alarming rate. 
Currently, over three-quarters of a million individuals are waiting for 
a hearing decision as pending hearings have increased to a record 
752,103. Further, the time that an applicant must wait for a hearing 
continues to rise, currently averaging 523 days. Compounding the 
crisis, Medicare reform legislation passed by Congress has increased 
SSA's responsibilities. Field offices average over 850,000 visitors a 
week. Meanwhile, SSA continues to downsize its labor force. Further, we 
hear a lot of talk about fraud, waste, and abuses within the SSA.

  I submit that we will never get a handle on the problem unless we 
provide adequate resources to address it. We in Maryland are fortunate 
to have the Social Security Administration Headquarters in Baltimore. 
By not adequately addressing the SSA backlogs, not only are we doing 
harm to the hundreds of thousands of individuals that, due to health 
circumstances beyond their control, can no longer support themselves, 
we are also tying the hands of the hard-working individuals assisting 
them. Again, I commend the Appropriations Committee for providing 
additional funding SSA administrative expenses but note that the agency 
needs additional funding to avoid further staff reductions and an 
increasing disability backlog.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for 
their support of my amendment establishing the sense of the Senate that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services should maintain ``deemed 
status'' coverage under the Medicare Program for clinical trials that 
are federally funded or reviewed. Under current policy, trials that are 
federally funded or reviewed by institutions such as the National 
Institutes of Health, received ``deemed status'' and were not subjected 
to additional review to be eligible for reimbursement. This policy has 
worked well for 7 years.
  Prior to 2000, too few seniors participated in clinical trials. One 
reason for this disparity was Medicare's reimbursement policy. Because 
Medicare was modeled on the indemnity health insurance policies, it did 
not pay for treatment considered ``experimental'' in nature, and so 
often denied reimbursement for the routine patient care costs 
associated with clinical trials. Many seniors could not afford to pay 
these costs themselves, and so they were by and large excluded from 
these trials. CMS has recently considered changing this policy, 
requiring trial sponsors to undergo a process certifying that they have 
met 13 separate criteria to qualify for Medicare coverage. This new 
policy has the potential to reverse the progress that has been made 
over the past 7 years by making it much more difficult for trials to 
qualify.
  Seniors' participation in clinical trials serves two vital functions. 
First it affords many seniors with serious illnesses their only hope 
for lifesaving treatment. Second, it is key to researchers' efforts to 
determine the effectiveness of therapies for seniors. Since this issue 
has come to light, I have heard from hundreds of patients and providers 
across the country who agree that we must continue to remove access 
barriers to innovative healthcare treatments for our seniors. Again, I 
thank my colleagues for their support on this important matter.
  The Appropriations Committee is committed to funding significant 
programs that address real issues that touch the heart and home of 
Americans. This includes some innovative programs in my home State of 
Maryland, such as: funding provided through this bill will allow the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CBF, in collaboration with Living Classrooms 
Foundation, LCF, to continue providing students with rich, meaningful 
field and classroom programs focusing on the natural and cultural 
history of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Funding will allow CBF and LCF 
to reach approximately 700 teachers, and 87,000 underserved students.

  The bill funds KIPP Ujima Village Academy in Baltimore through its 
parent organization. KIPP Ujima opened its doors in the summer of 2002 
with its first class of fifth graders, and now serves 300 fifth through 
eighth grades. Over 99 percent of its students are African American, 
and 87 percent qualify for Federal free or reduced-price meals program. 
KIPP Ujima is the highest performing public school serving middle 
grades in Baltimore City, as measured by the 2006 Maryland State 
Assessment. On that exam, 100 percent of seventh and eighth graders 
scored proficient or advanced in mathematics, achieving the highest 
math scores in the State of Maryland.
  Carroll County Youth Service Bureau, CCYSB, provides a continuum of 
community-based mental health services for children, adults, and 
families throughout Carroll County. CCYSB uses a multidisciplinary 
approach to deliver prevention, intervention and treatment services in 
the least restrictive and most cost-effective manner. Funding provided 
in the bill will allow CCYSB to reach more underserved patients in need 
of mental health services.
  The bill also provides funding for equipment and technology in a 
number of Maryland healthcare facilities, including St. Agnes Hospital, 
Mercy Medical Center, Northwest Hospital, Kennedy-Krieger, Lifebridge, 
and Holy Cross. The technology and equipment provided will allow these 
facilities to better detect, diagnose, and treat patients who suffer 
traumatic illnesses and injuries.
  I thank Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and their staffs for all of 
their hard work to develop a bill that addresses many other basic 
rights that all Americans deserve: education, employment, and health 
care.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on the 
fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations act. I am pleased to support this bill, which provides 
healthier funding levels for our labor, health, and education programs 
for the first time in many years. At a time of rising poverty levels, 
rising health care and heating costs, and classrooms in desperate need 
of funding, this bill helps promote programs that offer solutions to 
these problems.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted four amendments I worked on. One 
was an amendment I cosponsored that Senator Collins offered to provide 
much

[[Page S13240]]

needed additional funding to improve access to dental health in rural 
and underserved areas. Our amendment successfully doubled the funding 
for the Dental Health Improvement Act, bringing funding from $2 million 
to $4 million. The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act 
authorized a new State grant program that is designed to improve access 
to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use 
these grants to fund or create programs tailored to State needs. For 
example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment 
programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also 
use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based 
dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. In 
Wisconsin, funds were used to provide children with better access to 
sealants. This helps prevent further and more expensive dental work 
later in life.
  The Collins-Feingold amendment to increase funding for this important 
program will help fund additional State programs so that more people in 
our country will have access to essential oral health care. I thank 
Senator Collins for her work on this, and also thank Chairman Harkin 
and Senator Specter for their assistance in passing this.
  Another adopted amendment will increase public access to automatic 
external defibrillators, or AEDs, in schools. In my home State of 
Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the No. 1 killer. 
Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against 
time, and unfortunately, for too many of them, emergency medical 
services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for 
victims of cardiac arrest.
  Fortunately, AEDs are inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of 
advancements in AED technology, it is practical to train and equip 
police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations 
on how to use these devices.
  Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins on a 
number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest 
survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support first responders--
local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide 
early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by 
enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act 
and the ADAM Act.
  The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community 
partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to 
purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these 
devices. Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die 
before reaching the hospital. With every minute that passes before a 
cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by 
as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate 
drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a 
combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.
  If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to 
reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, 
the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program after 
the program was cut by 83 percent in fiscal year 2006 and kept at that 
level in fiscal year 2007. I am very disappointed that the program was 
eliminated in the President's budget. Our rural communities deserve 
better, and I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee 
recognized this by providing $3 million in funding for the program this 
year. That is double last year's funding level and, while it is still 
much lower than I would like, I hope the final version of this bill 
includes at least that much in funding.
  Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I 
learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and 
a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a 
timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high 
school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the 
paramedics arrived.
  This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of 
him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early 
intervention. This story helps to underscore some important issues. 
First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can 
occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. 
Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the 
use of AEDs can save lives.
  After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis 
joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project 
ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into 
schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and 
save lives.
  The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. 
The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam 
Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a chance at 
life.
  The Feingold-Collins amendment provides modest funding for this act 
just $200,000. This funding, while not much in the grand scheme of the 
Federal budget, will help jump start this valuable program. This 
amendment as drafted would be funded through the Rural AED line; 
however, I am pleased that the managers share my goal of not taking 
away any of the already limited Rural AED funding and are looking for 
additional ways to fund the ADAM Act. I am pleased that our amendment 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent and I urge the conferees to 
maintain this small but important program.
  My third amendment that passed requires GAO to conduct an assessment 
of current State health care reforms and comment on the potential role 
that Congress could take in assisting States with their efforts. I 
offered this amendment along with Senators Graham, Bingaman, and 
Voinovich. There is momentum in many States to reform the broken health 
care system. This study would provide an overview of what is working in 
the States and the effect of Federal laws on State health care 
initiatives. In addition, the study would provide recommendations on 
how the Federal Government could better work with States to further 
efforts.
  While Congress may not be able to reach consensus on how to ensure 
all Americans access to health services, a State-based model allows 
consideration of politically diverse solutions that could eventually be 
widely applied. Gathering data on what works at the State level will 
assist Congress in looking at broader reforms, which is why Senator 
Graham and I have introduced legislation, with the backing of the 
Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation, to encourage and 
expand State efforts to extend health care coverage.
  My fourth amendment directs GAO to examine the different techniques 
schools are using to prepare students to achieve on State standardized 
exams as well as meet State academic standards. Schools in Wisconsin 
and around the country are facing their sixth year under No Child Left 
Behind, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda, and 
I continue to hear grave concerns throughout Wisconsin about the 
Federal testing mandates contained in NCLB and the ongoing 
implementation problems with the law.
  Wisconsin teachers and parents are concerned about many of the 
unintended consequences of NCLB, including the narrowing of the 
curriculum to focus on the subjects that are tested under NCLB--reading 
and math. As a consequence of more narrowed curriculums, some students 
are experiencing reduced class time on other important subjects 
including social studies, civics, geography, science, art, music, and 
physical education. I have also heard numerous concerns that students 
are being drilled in reading and math in order to boost performance on 
these standardized tests, which may not be the best measure of 
students' higher order thinking skills. Many Wisconsinites are 
concerned that rote drill exercises in reading and math take the joy 
out of learning for students and have called for a reexamination of 
NCLB policies to ensure that a diverse and high-quality curriculum is 
taught in all of our Nation's schools.
  I voted against NCLB in large part because of its Federal testing 
mandate and the potential ramifications of the primary focus on test 
scores in order to determine adequate yearly progress in our schools. I 
also remain deeply concerned that NCLB's testing and sanctions approach 
has forced some

[[Page S13241]]

schools, particularly those in our inner cities and rural areas, to 
become places where students are not taught, but are drilled with 
workbooks and test taking strategies, while in wealthy suburban 
schools, these tests do not greatly impact school curriculums rich in 
social studies, civics, arts, music, and other important subjects.
  I do not necessarily oppose the use of standardized testing in our 
Nation's schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our 
children are keeping pace and that schools, districts, and States are 
held accountable for closing the persistent achievement gap that 
continues to exist among different groups of students, including among 
students in Wisconsin. But the Federal one-size-fits-all testing and 
punishment approach that NCLB takes is not providing an equal education 
for all, eradicating the achievement gap that exists in our country or 
ensuring that each student reaches his or her full potential.
  My amendment calls on GAO to examine how the use of different 
preparation techniques varies based on the demographic characteristics 
of schools, including the concentration of poverty at schools, whether 
schools are located in a rural, suburban, or urban environment, and 
whether schools have been identified for improvement under NCLB. It is 
my hope that Congress will receive concrete data on how the student 
preparation varies among different types of schools so that we can get 
a better sense of how NCLB is impacting our Nation's schools. The 
disaggregation element of this GAO study should better help us 
determine whether various preparation techniques, including commercial 
test preparation programs and narrowing of the curriculum, are 
correlated with certain school demographics.
  I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment from my colleague, 
Senator Brown of Ohio, to prohibit the Department of Education from 
continuing its problematic evaluation of the Upward Bound program until 
Congress has a chance to examine this policy as part of the Higher 
Education Act, HEA, reauthorization. I have been a strong supporter of 
the TRIO Upward Bound program for many years and continuously hear 
about the benefits it provides to Wisconsin students entering college, 
particularly first-generation college students.
  Because of my strong support for Upward Bound, I continue to be 
concerned about the Department of Education's evaluation of Upward 
Bound, including the mandate that colleges had to recruit more students 
than they can serve under the Upward Bound program. I agree that Upward 
Bound, like other Federal programs, needs to be evaluated to ensure 
Federal dollars are being spent wisely and effectively. But the Federal 
Government has a duty to design responsible evaluations of Federal 
programs, and I do not think the Department fulfilled that obligation 
with the design of this Upward Bound evaluation. I am pleased the 
Senate recognized that the ongoing evaluation is troublesome and agreed 
to prohibit funding for it until Congress can reexamine the Upward 
Bound evaluation as part of the ongoing HEA reauthorization.
  I am pleased that my colleagues supported all of my amendments and 
accepted them. I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their 
assistance and support with these amendments.
  I would also like to comment briefly on an amendment that the Senator 
from Colorado, Mr. Wayne Allard, brought to a vote. This amendment 
would have redirected funds from programs deemed ineffective by the 
Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART. This program was enacted into 
law as part of the Government Performance Results Act and is intended 
to better target Government dollars to the most efficient programs. 
Senator Allard's amendment would have cut the programs considered 
ineffective by PART by 10 percent, and then sent these dollars to the 
Federal deficit.
  I share Senator Allard's goals of efficient Government spending and 
reducing the deficit; however, I have some concerns about the standards 
for evaluating Government programs in PART. There are several programs 
that are making a big, positive difference in communities, that score 
poorly on the assessment. Some of these programs I have supported for 
years, such as rural health programs, and various higher education 
programs. I think it is important to examine this tool more closely and 
see if there is a way to improve the assessment before cutting these 
programs. For this reason, I opposed this amendment, which would have 
had far-reaching implications.
  I was pleased to support final passage of this bill which provides 
essential funding for education, health care, and job training 
programs. Many of these programs have seen drastic cuts over the past 6 
years and I am happy that we have been able to more adequately fund 
these programs in this bill. I am disappointed that the President 
continues to say that he will veto this bill and I hope that he will 
reconsider in the coming days. Too many Americans are depending on the 
employment, health care, and education services provided in this 
legislation and they are the ones who will be negatively impacted if 
the President follows through on his veto threat. Much more remains to 
be done to correct the inadequate funding for these programs in recent 
years, but this bill is a step in the right direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3325), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have had a very productive 5 days of 
debate on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. I would like to 
again thank the ranking member, Senator Arlen Specter, for his 
leadership and partnership in helping to shape this bipartisanship 
bill.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the subcommittee 
staff for the long hours and hard work they put into it. On the 
Democratic side, I thank Ellen Murray, Lisa Bernhardt, Teri Curtin, 
Erik Tatemi, Adrienne Hallet, and Mark Laisch. On the Republican side, 
I thank Bettilou Taylor, Sudip Parikh, and Jeff Kratz. These staff 
members set a very high standard of professionalism, excellence, and 
integrity, and we are very fortunate to have people of this caliber in 
public service.
  Mr. President, we are just minutes away from the vote on final 
passage of the bill. I want to emphasize that this is an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan bill that meets the priorities of members on both sides of 
the aisle. Senator Arlen Specter and I produced a bill that passed in 
committee with the support of 14 of 15 Democrats and 12 of 14 
Republicans. This bill funds the most essential, life-supporting and 
lifesaving services for millions of people in this country. It reflects 
the values and priorities of the American people.
  As I have said before, it is regrettable that, even before we brought 
this bill to the floor last week, President Bush threatened to veto it 
because it included a provision to expand embryonic stem cell research, 
and because it includes $11 billion in funding above what he requested.
  We have done our very best to accommodate the President, and to 
produce a bill that he can sign. To that end, we removed the stem cell 
provision from the bill before bringing it to the floor. This is a core 
priority for me, for Senator Specter, and for many other Senators. But 
we took it out of the bill in order to meet the President halfway. I 
remain hopeful that, in turn, he will meet us halfway, and join us in 
this spirit of bipartisan compromise.
  I am an optimist, and I hold out hope that, if the President examines 
the substance of this bill, he will see that the additional funding 
above his budget request goes to essential programs and services that 
have been shortchanged in recent years.
  President Kennedy said that ``to govern is to choose.'' The President 
has made his choices. But, under the Constitution, Congress also gets 
to choose. And, in this bill, we have made the right choices. Let me 
cite just a few examples:
  The President is requesting that we cut the National Institutes of 
Health--research into cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and other 
diseases--by $279

[[Page S13242]]

million. In this bill, we increase funding for NIH by $1 billion.

  The President requests that we reduce the Head Start program by $100 
million, which would cut tens of thousands of children from the Head 
Start roles. This bill increases funding for Head Start by a modest 
$200 million.
  Despite predictions of record energy prices this winter, Mr. Bush 
requests that we cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for 
poor people by $379 million. In this bill, we maintain LIHEAP funding 
at last year's level.
  Mr. Bush requests that we eliminate the community services block 
grant, the safety net that includes job training, housing, and 
emergency food assistance. In this bill, we increase the community 
service block grant by a modest $40 million.
  In each of these program areas, the bill includes modest, reasonable 
increases in order to keep pace with inflation or to prevent 
significant cuts in essential services. This remains a bare-bones, no-
frills bill that conforms to a very conservative budget allocation.
  For 5 years, Congress has appropriated countless billions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars for schools, job programs, hospitals, and human 
services in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans on the committee agree that 
it's time to look after those same needs in this country. And that is 
exactly what we do in this bill.
  As I said, we tried hard to accommodate the President's concerns. 
There has been so much division and partisanship in Washington in 
recent months. This bill offers a great opportunity for Congress and 
the President to show the American people that we can resolve our 
differences with compromise and bipartisan goodwill. We have met the 
President halfway--in my opinion, more than halfway. Now it is time for 
him to respond in kind, and to rescind his veto threat.
  It is important that we send a strong, bipartisan message to the 
American people that, at a time when we are spending enormous sums on 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will not neglect or shortchange 
essential, lifesaving, and life-supporting programs and services here 
at home. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. And I 
urge the President to join us in supporting this bipartisan bill.
  I know Senators are eager to vote and go home. I just want to thank 
all of the Senators for their many kindnesses and their courtesies in 
bringing this bill to a close. It was 5 days, but it was 5 days of good 
debate and good amendments. We have a strong bipartisan bill. I hope we 
will pass it with a strong bipartisan vote, go to conference, and get 
it to the President's desk as soon as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
questions is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. 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), 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 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 75, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 391 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Martinez
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 3043), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists on its amendment and 
requests a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints the 
following conferees.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kohl, 
Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, 
Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Domenici conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________