[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21614-21623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3061, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle amendment No. 2044, to provide collective 
     bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by 
     States or their political subdivision.
       Gramm modified amendment No. 2055 (to amendment No. 2044), 
     to preserve the freedom and constitutional rights of 
     firefighters, law enforcement officers, and public safety 
     officers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
now 15 minutes for debate to be equally divided and controlled by the 
two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle-
Kennedy amendment. This is an amendment which, for the first time in 
over 200-some-odd years in our Nation's history, we have the Federal 
Government trying to pass a law dealing with collective bargaining for 
cities, counties, and States for fire, police, sheriffs, and emergency 
personnel.
  We have never done it before. We shouldn't do it now. That is and 
should be the prerogative of the States. The 10th amendment to the 
Constitution says all of the rights and powers are reserved to the 
States and to the people. It doesn't say: States, you have been doing 
this for all these years, but now we will have the Federal Government 
pass a collective bargaining law that also says you should have 
remedies, arbitration, and so on.
  Why is the Federal Government doing that when States should be doing 
it? The States are doing it. Why should we tell the States they are not 
doing it well enough? We will have a bureaucrat go in and review the 
State's laws and say, maybe your State doesn't comply. Some people have 
estimated 26 to 30 States don't comply. Maybe the State of Missouri 
will have to rewrite its collective bargaining law or the State of 
Oklahoma. Frankly, over half of the States have local options where the 
State legislatures have said: We will leave that up to the cities. And 
now the Federal Government will say: No, that is not good enough; we 
will have the Federal Government come in and make that decision.
  This bill says we will exempt small communities. Communities that 
have less than 5,000 will not be covered by this law. If we don't get 
cloture, we will have an amendment because I will raise that number. I 
think 5,000 is way too small. We will exempt cities with fewer than 
5,000 employees. I think that is too small. We will have to have a 
bigger exemption. The legislation forgot to exempt volunteers. Why 
should we cover volunteers? So we will have to have an amendment 
dealing with volunteers. There are over 800,000 volunteer firefighters 
and police officers in the country.
  Why should we mandate that people contribute to an organization 
against their will? We need voluntary contributions.
  This bill is legislation on an appropriations bill. It should be 
dealt with separately. It doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. 
Let me read comments from a couple of organizations.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors:

       However, the federal government should not impose 
     collective bargaining procedures

[[Page 21615]]

     and practices on these local governments that have chosen 
     over time to develop alternative methods for the management 
     of human resource and personnel needs.

  The National Volunteer Fire Council:

       . . . representing over 800,000 Members of America's 
     volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. . . . On behalf of 
     our membership, I urge you to oppose the Daschle Amendment as 
     currently written that would insert the language of [this 
     bill].

  The National League of Cities:

       . . . the Federal Government should not undermine municipal 
     autonomy with respect to making fundamental employment 
     decisions by mandating specific working conditions.

  From the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, written to Senator 
Jeffords:

       The Vermont League of Cities and Towns strongly urges you 
     to oppose the amendment. The amendment would create a Federal 
     collective bargaining law that applies to State and local 
     government employees. We believe strongly this is an issue 
     better dealt with in the Statehouse in Montpelier than in 
     Washington. This amendment is not only intrusive but has the 
     potential of causing confusion with conflicting and 
     overlapping statutes.

  They said it well. The League of Cities said it well. The Conference 
of Mayors said it well. The National Conference of State Legislatures 
said it well. Leave this area of jurisdiction to the States, where it 
has always been, not trying to preempt it by a Federal statute.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on September 11, Americans were riveted 
not only by the extraordinary act of terrorism that struck this country 
and the extraordinary loss of life, but also they were struck by the 
extraordinary heroism and bravery of firefighters, police officers, and 
rescue workers, but particularly the firefighters.
  There may be those who want to suggest reasons we shouldn't permit 
firefighters to be able to bargain collectively in the public interest. 
What is the record when these firefighters have been able to bargain 
collectively? First of all, there is greater safety for not only the 
public but for the firefighters. Second, the number of deaths per 
firefight has gone down. The numbers clearly reflect that. Third, where 
this has been permitted in States, we have seen the costs for fire 
protection have actually gone down.
  Madam President, this is most of all about fairness and decency. This 
is about respect for workers in our country who have demonstrated day 
in and day out that they are prepared to lay down their lives in order 
to save other lives. We don't need any lectures about that in the 
Senate.
  The real question now is whether the Senate will permit these 
extraordinarily brave and courageous individuals to get together in 
order to have an adequate and decent living. They are not asking for 
the Moon. If there is going to be an impasse, there are procedures to 
work out that impasse. We do think they are entitled to the kind of 
coming together and speaking to the interests and the safety of 
firefighters which they deserve.
  I cannot think of a place in our society that has demonstrated a 
stronger commitment to the public good. They are not asking for very 
much. All they are asking for is to be treated decently and fairly in 
the workplace. That is what this is about. Are we going to permit 
firefighters in our country to be treated decently and fairly in the 
workplace?
  If Members believe in that, support the Daschle amendment. That is 
what this amendment does.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it has been nearly a week that the 
Senate has been tied up over the majority leader's amendment to the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I have listened to a great deal of 
debate about how this amendment would affect State and local police, 
fire, and emergency services officers. After the devastating attacks of 
September 11, we know that these men and women are the true heroes of 
America.
  The issue before the Senate, mandating that State and local 
governments allow public safety officers to unionize and collectively 
bargain, raises many passions on both sides of the aisle. In Alaska, 
this issue has been resolved. Our State and local employees are allowed 
to unionize and engage in collective bargaining and I very much support 
the right of Alaska police, fire and emergency service personnel to 
unionize.
  So as far as this Senator is concerned, the issue raised by Senator 
Daschle is one of principle, not labor/management principles but 
principles of constitutional proportions.
  Senator Daschle's amendment preempts the laws of 27 States. These 
States have decided that they do not believe their police, fire, or 
emergency service workers, employees of State and local governments, 
should be allowed to engage in union activities. By what constitutional 
right does the Federal Government have the authority to tell State and 
local governments what the terms of employment should be for State and 
local workers?
  Here is how the amendment attempts to address the Constitution: ``The 
absence of adequate cooperation between public safety employers and 
employees has implications for the security of employees and can affect 
interstate and intrastate commerce.''
  This amendment does not pass the laugh test when it comes to 
constitutionality. If the standard of the Commerce clause can be 
satisfied with the previously quoted finding, then there is absolutely 
no area where the Federal Government can preempt States.
  I think it is clear from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court 
that the Commerce clause is alive and well and that Congress should be 
legislating in areas that have real impacts on interstate Commerce, not 
phony made-up attempts to preempt all State decisions.
  Because this amendment clearly contravenes the Constitution, I have 
decided that I will not vote to invoke cloture.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to offer a few comments before we 
vote on cloture on the Daschle amendment. I have and always will be 
strongly committed to our Nation's fire, police and emergency rescue 
personnel. Career emergency workers and the individuals who are members 
of our Nation's over 22,000 all volunteer fire stations are on the 
front lines in America's new war on terrorism. They have a critical 
role in our homeland defense initiatives.
  Virginia is a Right to Work State and has passed laws explicitly 
prohibiting public safety unions. Passage of the Daschle amendment 
would impose an unfunded Federal mandate on States and preempt the 
existing guidelines and laws in the 27 States which do not have 
comprehensive collective bargaining rights for public safety employees.
  States and localities must retain the flexibility to operate 
effectively and manage their public safety workforce as it is most 
appropriate for their particular needs.
  It is not the right time for the Federal Government to intervene with 
the rights of State and local governments, burdening them with 
additional requirements which may strain the limited financial 
resources of our local governments.
  In particular, many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages 
we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter 
in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to 
respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard 
incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which are fire rescue 
personnel deal with on a daily basis.
  Earlier this year the National Fire Protection Association, a 
nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based 
consensus codes and standards, adopted a standard on response 
operational and deployment issues pertaining to fire and rescue 
departments. Based upon that standard, almost two-thirds of fire 
companies across the country operate with inadequate staffing. The cost 
for many municipalities to meet these new safety standards, however, 
would be significant.

[[Page 21616]]

  In Virginia, many professional fire and rescue workers also volunteer 
at their local volunteer station. Their presence is invaluable to these 
communities.
  If Senator Daschle's amendment passes, however, these paid 
firefighters would be prohibited from serving as volunteers elsewhere.
  Over the past month, I have heard from a great number of professional 
firefighters present at the Pentagon that day and the days following. 
Volunteers and paid professionals worked side-by-side in the wake of 
the tragedies which occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York, 
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia. Volunteer stations from 
throughout Virginia also helped to serve communities when the fire and 
rescue personnel from that area were on duty at the Pentagon.
  I am pleased to be actively involved in several legislative 
initiatives to support our Federal, State and local fire and rescue 
services.
  We need to recognize our firefighters and emergency personnel around 
the country who continue to make sacrifices in their service to the 
public. We must provide our fire and rescue departments with sufficient 
funding to hire the necessary personnel in order to ensure that our 
nation's communities are adequately protected.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of legislation, S. 1617, 
introduced by Senator Dodd on November 1, 2001, that will provide 
States and localities with the necessary funding to hire additional 
firefighters. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act 
establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to 
fire and rescue departments to cover some of the costs associated with 
hiring and training new firefighters.
  In addition, our fire and rescue services have a critical role in our 
homeland defense initiatives. I am pleased to have cosponsored an 
amendment offered to the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization 
legislation to increase funding for the fire program from $300 million 
to $600 million in 2002. Funds from the fire program are granted to 
local fire departments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
for, among other things, training of firefighters and emergency 
response personnel, toward the purchase of new equipment, and upgrading 
fire stations and fire training facilities. With the existing and 
emerging threats our Nation is facing, it is now more important than 
ever that our firefighters receive the necessary training and 
resources.
  Please know that I recognize the sacrifice firefighters, police, and 
all emergency personnel make in Virginia and across the Nation. I will 
continue to support initiatives that will help our Nation's 
firefighters and emergency workers.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I am opposed to the Daschle amendment on 
both substantive and procedural grounds.
  First of all, in terms of substance, the Daschle amendment actually 
empowers a Government agency, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, to 
override State law. It allows this Authority in some 25 States in the 
Union to make a determination that would override established State law 
and State constitutions and impose a unionization process which the 
States have rejected.
  In my State, we have a local option, so the question of collective 
bargaining and unionization of the local fire department and sheriff's 
department is a matter for local voters. They have a referendum. That 
is our procedure. That is the way we do it in Texas. It has served us 
well.
  The Daschle amendment would override State law, override county 
ordinances, and empower a government regulatory body, the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority, to override State law.
  I think this violates everything we claim to believe about 
federalism. It is very bad policy. It violates the spirit of the tenth 
amendment of the Constitution, and I think it is profoundly wrong.
  Second, let me say on procedural grounds, we are in the process of 
trying to finish appropriations. We were encouraging our Members to put 
aside controversial and extraneous matters until we had an opportunity 
to complete the appropriations process. This bill could be brought up 
freestanding. The majority leader has the unilateral power to do that. 
But to put it on an appropriations bill, it seems to me, disrupts what 
we are trying to achieve and encourages others to follow suit. If this 
amendment is clotured, there will be a dozen amendments offered to it 
that have to do with labor law in America.
  This is another debate for another day. We will end up having to 
cloture this bill. There will be a lengthy process that will use up our 
time and energy that would better be spent on something else.
  I understand this is a time when we appreciate our firemen and we 
appreciate our policemen, but forcing people to pay union dues is not a 
way I show appreciation to people.
  We have the right in Texas and every State in the Union has the right 
to write its State constitution and to write its laws. Laws related to 
local labor relations and the relationship of the city, the county, and 
the State with their employees is something that should be set by the 
cities, counties, and States, not by the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues, on substance this amendment is profoundly wrong 
and wrongheaded. And on procedure, it puts us into a collision course.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from New 
York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank our leader once again for 
coming forward with a very timely amendment. I would like to add my 
support.
  I know people from all over the country were riveted on the great 
work of our firefighters as well as our police and rescue workers in 
New York. They did a wonderful job.
  I can tell you--and I have talked to hundreds of them--the words are 
very inspiring. But they also need help. They are trying to feed 
families. They are trying to get the kind of benefits that so many 
others have. In place after place after place in America, they don't 
get them.
  If we want to show our real feelings, if we want to put our money 
where our mouth is, if we really want to help the firefighters--go ask 
them. Don't rely on some kind of broad ideological mantra. If we want 
to help the firefighters, we should not tell them how we are going to 
help them. Let them tell us how we are going to help them. They want 
this proposal. They are right. I am for it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this is not a complicated question. The 
American people have watched as these firefighters have put their lives 
on the line for us. They have provided all of us, all of our families, 
and families all over this country, with the security we need and 
expect.
  Now these firefighters have come to us, the Senate, and asked that we 
provide them and their families with the same kind of security American 
workers have all over this country.
  This is not a complicated question. It is a simple question. The 
American people have watched the heroism of these firefighters. It is 
time for our Senate to provide them with the same kind of security they 
have been providing to American families forever.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use whatever leader time I may 
require to close out the debate on this amendment.
  As my colleagues have noted, every day firefighters, police officers, 
and emergency workers literally risk their lives to protect our safety. 
In 18 States, public safety workers do not currently have the legal 
right--the legal right--to sit down with their employers and talk about 
their own health and about their own safety. That is why we offer this 
amendment this afternoon, the Public Safety Employee-Employer 
Cooperation amendment. It is identical to

[[Page 21617]]

the bipartisan bill offered by Senators Gregg and Kennedy, who both 
spoke in favor of this amendment last week.
  The amendment is very simple. It guarantees that public safety 
officers have the right to form and join a union; have the right to 
bargain collectively over hours, wages, and conditions of employment--
period.
  Studies have shown, as Senator Kennedy and others have noted, that 
fewer firefighters are killed in the line of duty in States where 
collective bargaining exists, States where public safety officers have 
a say in their working conditions. Our proposal expressly forbids 
strikes or lockouts by public safety workers.
  Contrary to assertions by some of the opponents of this amendment, 
our proposal does not override State right-to-work laws. The opponents 
of this amendment say that allowing public safety workers to join a 
union will somehow jeopardize public safety. Tell that to the 344 
unionized firefighters and paramedics who died trying to save the lives 
of people at the World Trade Center. Tell the unionized Capitol police 
who guard this building and protect our lives every day of the week.
  These men and women deserve our thanks. They deserve a vote on this 
important issue. Instead, when we offered this amendment, we were 
informed opponents would not give us a vote. So let there be no 
mistake. This cloture vote is the vote on the merits. It is a vote on 
whether or not we stand with firefighters, the police, and those who 
protect us day in and day out. This gives all firefighters, regardless 
of where they live, the opportunity to do what they ought to be able to 
do in this country--to bargain collectively for their rights, for their 
safety, for their lives in some cases.
  Madam President, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I hope our colleagues will 
support this cloture vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes under the 
Republican leader's time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Some people have equated this with a patriotic vote 
because we appreciate the firefighters in New York and Virginia. 
Certainly we do. The firefighters in Virginia were nonunion. The 
firefighters in New York were union. That is not the issue. The issue 
is whether or not the Federal Government is going to go in and preempt 
States or dictate to the States collective bargaining laws for public 
employees.
  We have never passed a law that says we are going to have collective 
bargaining dictated by the Federal Government for State employees or 
for city employees. We have never done it in 225 years. We never passed 
such a law.
  We have never passed a law that says: Sheriffs, officers, you can 
have collective bargaining.
  We have never done that, but we are getting ready to do it. We have 
never done it to all cities. Right now, this legislation goes to cities 
with populations of greater than 5,000. Other States have different 
laws.
  Every State has a law dealing with collective bargaining, but now we 
are saying we are going to tell the States what to do, and the States 
have to pass laws that are basically, substantially equivalent with 
this law or else it doesn't apply. A Federal bureaucrat is going to 
decide whether the existing State laws are in compliance.
  Some States have a local option. The majority of States have a local 
option. They let cities make that decision. We are trying to say: 
Cities, you can't make it. Small towns in North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Oklahoma, you can't make that decision. We are going to make it for 
you.
  I think that is a serious mistake. I applaud the bravery of 
firefighters, police officers, people who work in the ambulance system, 
the sheriffs, officers, but I don't think we, on the Federal level, 
should dictate their collective bargaining arrangements. That has been 
done by the States, done by the cities, done by the counties. They have 
done a good job. We should not tell them how to do it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Preserving the prerogative of the majority, I want to 
close out this debate. Let me respond in a couple of ways.
  First of all, this amendment does not federalize state labor laws. 
This amendment says if a state has a right-to-work law, we will respect 
it.
  What this amendment also says to every firefighter in the country: If 
you want to negotiate in a collective bargaining arrangement with your 
employer, you have the right to do so.
  The process is not dictated. There is no requirement that employers 
agree with those firefighters who want to enter into a collective 
bargaining arrangement.
  Who would deny the right to a firefighter today to enter into a 
collective bargaining arrangement if he or she chooses to do so? That 
is all we are suggesting. We protect right-to-work laws. We protect 
rights of the State. I think we ought to protect the rights of all 
firefighters too.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle-
     Kennedy amendment No. 2044 to H.R. 3061, the Labor, HHS 
     appropriations bill:
         Maria Cantwell, Joe Biden, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Max Cleland, Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid, 
           Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Kent Conrad, and Tom Daschle.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Daschle-Kennedy amendment No. 2044 to H.R. 3061, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). On this vote, the yeas are 56, 
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of collective 
bargaining rights.
  Although worthwhile, I oppose cloture on the Daschle amendment (SA 
2044) because it would have further delayed the already backlogged 
fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. More

[[Page 21618]]

than one month into the fiscal year 2002, we have sent only 5 of the 13 
annual appropriations conference reports to the President. We must 
finish our work and pass these appropriations bills.
  While I support the Daschle amendment, the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill was not the proper vehicle to address this issue.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the matter now before the Senate is the 
Labor-HHS Appropriations Act; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                     Amendment No. 2044, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
further amendments in order to H.R. 3061, the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill, the bill be read a third time, and the vote on final passage 
occur immediately, notwithstanding rule XII, paragraph 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on H.R. 3061.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       FARMWORKER HOUSING PROGRAM

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have a question about the migrant and 
seasonal Farmworker Housing Program. I have worked for a number of 
years to ensure that the Labor Department provide funding for housing 
assistance for eligible farmworkers. There is a well-established 
network of local housing organizations that receive these funds. I am 
particularly impressed by the work of the organization in my State, the 
Delta Housing Project. The Senate Report accompanying this bill 
recommends $5,000,000 for farmworker housing. This amount represents an 
increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level. In fiscal 2001 
the committee increased the fund from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 
representing the first increasee since 1982. I am pleased that the 
committee has recently increased the funding to this worthwhile program 
so that grant recipients can use these funds for important housing 
projects. However, despite the fact that in fiscal year 2001 the 
program was increased by 20 percent, most all grant recipients received 
less money than they have consistently relied upon for the past 17 
years. This does not seem fair.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree. We need to continue this program so that the 
well-established network of local housing organizations can continue to 
provide these needed services. That is why our subcommittee provided an 
additional $1,000,000 specifically for housing priorities.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my intent that these funds be used by the 
Department of Labor for the expansion of funding among the network of 
farmworker housing grantees. It is my understanding that it is the 
intent of this committee that these funds be used for those grantees 
and that any funds for migrant rest center activities would come from 
other discretionary sources. Would the chairman clarify this 
understanding?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. The legislation is intended to provide funds to the 
network of housing providers in the migrant community and not to be 
used for discretionary purposes.


                        compassion capital fund

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to inquire about the Compassion 
Capital Fund, which is funded in this bill at $89 million. As my 
colleagues know, this fund was requested by the President as part of 
his Faith-Based Initiative. This is a significant amount of money and I 
want to note that the Senate has not yet considered legislation 
authorizing various aspects of the President's Faith-Based Initiative, 
including provisions which might alter longstanding rules on government 
funding of religious organizations.
  Therefore, I would like to clarify several points with the chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee about the uses of these funds. 
It is my understanding that this fund is supposed to provide grants to 
organizations for the purpose of advising charitable organizations on 
expanding their operations effectively and providing guidance on how to 
emulate model social service practices. Am I correct on that point?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The Compassion Capital Fund will 
provide grants to public/private partnerships to help charitable 
organizations develop ``best practices'' as a social service agency. 
The goal of grantees of the Compassion Capital Fund will be to improve 
the effectiveness of social programs and community initiatives around 
the Nation. The Senate has not yet debated the President's Faith Based 
Initiative, and the Senator is correct that this fund is only for the 
development of model best practices.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the chairman and Senator from Rhode Island 
for clarifying these points. It is important to note that this 
appropriations bill is not changing any of the rules or standards for 
government funding of religious organizations and we have funded the 
two programs in the President's Faith-Based Initiative that we believe 
are authorized.
  Mr. REED. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for clarifying these points, and I look forward to working 
to further clarify this matter during the conference committee process.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my overall 
support for the Labor-HHS bill currently before us. I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their continued efforts to meet our 
county's needs. I recognize the financial limitations we faced in the 
subcommittee in trying to address our many concerns in labor, health 
and education. This appropriations bill, more than any other bill, 
impacts every family and every community. The programs in this bill 
from education and health services to workplace safety are priorities 
for Washington families. While I am disappointed by some areas of the 
bill, overall it makes critical investments in our health, safety and 
welfare. I would like to highlight some of my priorities in this 
critical legislation, starting with education.
  Although I appreciate the significant increase in education we 
provide in this bill, I hope that we will be able to put more money 
into education programs this year. The education reform bill now in 
conference would impose significant new requirements on our schools, 
and if we are going to ensure no child is left behind, we need to 
provide the money to back up that bill. I look forward to working with 
Senator Harkin and my other colleagues on the ESEA conference committee 
to fully-fund IDEA.
  I especially thank the Chair for working with me to ensure sufficient 
funding to keep our commitment of smaller classes for our young 
students. This investment of more than $3 billion in teacher quality 
and smaller classes represents the fourth year that I have successfully 
fought for funds to help districts continue on the path to hiring 
100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades 
nationwide.
  By including the class size reduction program in the appropriations 
bills over the last 3 years, Congress has taken an important, 
bipartisan step to ensure our students are learning in less crowded 
classrooms. The first year of Federal class size reduction funds 
enabled schools to hire 29,000 teachers, and last year's funding added 
another 8,000 to that number. As a result, about 2 million students are 
learning in classrooms that are no longer overcrowded. On a related 
note, I am pleased that this bill includes funding to continue the 
school renovation investments we started this year. These funds are 
critical to ensuring students learn in safe, modern and uncrowded 
classrooms.

[[Page 21619]]

  I am also pleased to note that this bill includes funding for the 
Teacher Training in Technology Program. Helping our teachers learn to 
use technology is essential if we are going to use technology to 
improve education for all students. I will continue to work to secure 
this program in ESEA reauthorization, and appreciate the committee's 
support in that endeavor.
  I am disappointed that this bill does not provide more funding to 
support some of our most vulnerable students our homeless children. I 
hoped we would follow the lead of the education authorizers who 
accepted my amendment to double the authorization for homeless 
education. At the current level this program is only able to serve one-
third of eligible children, and less than 4 percent of districts 
receive direct funding. The House mark includes $50 million for this 
program, and I hope that the final agreement will include a significant 
increase over current funding. Family homelessness is increasing. The 
U.S. Conference of Mayors found that demand for emergency shelter 
increased by 17 percent among homeless families last year. Schools are 
having a hard time keeping up with the increasing demand for services, 
and I fear that the changes in our economy will only make the situation 
worse.
  Local homeless education programs use these funds to help homeless 
children enroll, attend, and succeed in school in by: establishing 
liaisons to the homeless community to identify homeless children and 
connect them to school; providing school supplies and emergency needs--
everything from backpacks, paper, pencils, gym clothes, math/science 
equipment, to eyeglasses, shoes, clothing, and hygiene supplies; 
offering tutorial services for homeless children at shelters and other 
locations; and much more.
  I thank the managers for adding funding for GEAR UP in this final 
bill, and I hope we can include additional funds in conference to avoid 
a cut from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. I have seen 
firsthand the great work this program is facilitating. Research has 
shown that reaching out to disadvantaged middle school students to let 
them know that the dream of college is within their grasp and 
supporting them in attaining that dream is the most effective way to 
ensure more disadvantaged students get a college degree. In the 
information economy of the 21st century we cannot leave children behind 
by denying them access to higher education. I believe we can and must 
do better for these children by providing an increase in funding for 
the GEAR UP Program.
  Finally, I look forward to working with Chairman Harkin and the 
Ranking Member, Senator Specter, to secure the funds necessary to 
operate Child Care Aware. Millions of children are in care outside of 
their home while their parents work. Yet child care is often more 
costly than college tuition, and quality care can be hard to find. 
Child Care Aware is a nonprofit initiative, operated by the National 
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, that is 
committed to helping parents find the best information on locating 
quality child care and child care resources in their community.
  Next, I would like to turn to the labor provisions of this bill. I am 
pleased that the bill includes $1.549 billion for the Dislocated Worker 
Employment and Training Activities. This is an increase of nearly $140 
million from fiscal year 2001.
  Unfortunately, our economy is continuing to slump. Recent indicators 
suggest unemployment could reach as high as 6.9 percent by the end of 
next year. Many of these people need help in their search for new 
skills and new jobs. The Boeing company has announced it will lay off 
more than 30,000 workers from its commercial airline business, which is 
headquartered in Washington. That is 30 percent of their workforce. 
Many other industries have announced massive layoffs. Those workers 
will be seeking access to the dislocated workers' program. The money in 
this bill is a good first step. However, we must also expand 
unemployment insurance, health care and job training programs to assist 
these newly-unemployed workers. I hope my colleagues will support such 
a measure as we debate an economic stimulus package.
  Finally, I would like to turn to some of the progress this bill makes 
in the area of healthcare. For years, we have known about the important 
role played by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During 
the recent anthrax incidents, many Americans have learned about some of 
the CDC's responsibilities. This bill boosts our investment in the CDC 
by providing $4.4 billion for Disease Control programs--an increase of 
$372 million over last year. This funding will support cancer screening 
and education programs, including breast and cervical cancer screening; 
injury control and reduction, including rape prevention and education, 
bioterrorism, and improving our local public health infrastructure to 
respond to public health threats.
  This bill makes progress for local communities that are working to 
provide care to the uninsured and underinsured. The bill provides $1.3 
billion for Health Centers, which is $175 million more than in fiscal 
year 2001.
  While this bill makes a lot of progress on health care issues, I am 
deeply disappointed that this bill falls short of our commitment to the 
Community Access Program, CAP, which helps communities research and 
coordinate care to underserved populations. I can tell you that 
throughout Washington state, the CAP program is allowing local 
officials, doctors and advocates to meet the needs of underserved 
patients. In fact, this program is critical in meeting the needs of the 
growing population of uninsured. During these difficult economic times, 
we should be strengthening our safety net programs. That is why, 
earlier this year, the HELP Committee adopted the amendment I offered 
with Senator Clinton, which assumes an authorization of $125 for the 
CAP program. Clearly, the $15 million in this bill falls short of our 
commitment. I am hopeful that we can work with the House in conference 
to meet our original commitment.
  Throughout Washington State, small and rural communities are seeing 
hospitals close. It is becoming more difficult for people in rural 
areas to get the care they need. This bill invests in rural health 
care. It provides more than $1.6 billion to help increase and improve 
access to rural health care services, providers and facilities.
  I am also pleased that the bill supports pediatric medical training. 
It provides $243 million for GME for children's hospitals. This 
increase of $8.45 million is important for hospitals like Children's 
Hospital in Seattle. In the area of AIDS, this bill provides $1.8 
billion for the Ryan White AIDS programs, $75 million more than last 
year. This bill funds our family planning efforts at $266 million for 
title X, an increase of $12 million over fiscal year 2001.
  When it comes to supporting cutting-edge medical research, this bill 
keeps us on track for doubling NIH funding by fiscal year 2003. It 
provides a total of $23.7 billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over 
last year. I am proud of the research being done in Washington state 
including at the University of Washington, the Hutch and many biotech 
and biomedical research facilities throughout the state. In fact, 
Washington state is one of the top five recipients of NIH funding.
  In the area of poison control, I am pleased that this legislation 
provides a total of $24 million for fiscal year 2002, that's a $4 
million increase over fiscal year and $7.5 million more than the 
administration requested. As one of the original authors of the Poison 
Control Prevention and Enhancement Act, I believe this additional 
funding will prevent unintentional poisonings from everyday products. 
This bill supports trauma care planning and development by providing $4 
million, an increase of $1 million over fiscal year 01 and $1.5 million 
more than the administration's request. Finally, as any advocate can 
tell you, our country doesn't have enough shelter space to offer 
protection for abused women and children. This bill provides $122 
million for battered women's shelters. That is an increase of $5 
million over fiscal year 01 and the Administration's request.

[[Page 21620]]

  As many of my colleagues are aware, states are struggling to fund 
critical health care services with rapidly declining revenues. The 
economic downturn has created a budget crisis for many states including 
my own state of Washington. We should recognize the struggle facing 
many of our states and act to incorporate language into this 
appropriations bill to prohibit or delay any effort by CMS to reduce 
overall Medicaid payments. I know that many of us are concerned about 
efforts by CMS to further restrict the Upper Payment Limit within 
Medicaid. I worked with the previous Administration in 2000 to resolve 
this matter and phase out any potential loophole. To go back on this 
agreement now would mean significant Medicaid cuts for several States. 
This is the wrong time to cut the Federal share of Medicaid. I am 
hopeful that we can incorporate language in this appropriations bill to 
prohibit any action by CMS to reduce Medicaid funding.
  I believe we should be working to enhance the Federal match under 
Medicaid to prevent drastic reductions in health care for low income 
families. At a time when more families will lose health insurance, we 
should be acting to increase the Federal commitment to Medicaid. I 
realize that increasing the Federal Medicaid match is a matter which 
must be addressed in a stimulus package not this appropriations bill. 
However, we should use this appropriations bill to send a clear message 
to the administration that this is the wrong time to attempt to reduce 
Medicaid reimbursement to the States.
  I am pleased that this bill continues our investment in the programs 
that many senior citizens and their families rely on. It boosts funding 
for OAA nutrition programs. Specifically, it provides an increase of 
$30 million over fiscal year 01 for home delivered meals (to $177 
million) and congregate meals (to $384 million). It also provides a 10 
percent increase for aging programs under the Administration on Aging 
and supports other investments that assist the elderly.
  When we reauthorized the Older Americans Act last year, we created 
the Family Caregiver Support Program, which assists families caring for 
an aging relative. This bill provides a $20 million increase in the 
Family Caregiver Support Program to $140 million.
  This bill funds efforts to use technology to expand health care 
access. It provides $1 million for telehealth efforts at Children's 
Hospital in Seattle. And in other areas important to Washington State, 
this bill supports the Franciscan Health System's Program Improving 
Care through the End of Life demonstration program. It funds the 
national Asian pacific center on aging continuation of funding. And it 
funds a health profession and nurse retention study in Washington 
state.
  Overall, this bill makes progress for our people and our country.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the fiscal year 
2002 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education and Related Agencies--the largest of the 13 
appropriations bills before Congress this year. This measure contains 
support for some of the most important aspects of our Nation's work 
such as medical research that leads to advancements in health, the 
education of our youth from preschool through college, assistance to 
the elderly and those with disabilities, and the training of workers 
seeking employment. While there are many noteworthy initiatives in this 
bill, I would like to highlight just a few that are particularly 
important to Vermont.
  Hope for a cure for many diseases and illnesses must come through 
research and I am pleased that the Senate continues to work toward our 
goal of doubling the Federal Government's investment in the 
groundbreaking biomedical research conducted by the 25 Institutes and 
Centers that make up the National Institutes of Health. With this 
strong support, NIH funding for next year will increase to $23.7 
billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over last year. Millions of 
Americans suffering from conditions ranging from Parkinson's and 
Alzheimer's diseases, to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, will 
benefit from the research undertaken by the thousands of NIH 
scientists, including many in Vermont, supported by this funding.
  This bill establishes an Aging Initiative that takes important steps 
toward assisting senior citizens in Vermont and throughout America. The 
Initiative is designed to increase the capacity of home- and community-
based services to support a high quality life for older Americans. An 
Interagency Task Force on Aging Programs will coordinate and provide 
additional support to programs that serve older Americans. Increased 
funding has been provided for supportive services and senior centers, 
long-term care ombudsmen to prevent and address the problem of elder 
abuse and neglect, the National Family Caregiver Support Program, 
elderly nutrition programs to expand home delivered meal distribution, 
and Alzheimer's disease research. I am confident that this effort will 
result in an improved quality of life for our nation's seniors, 
especially for those living in rural parts of our nation.
  This legislation includes important funding for education that will 
support learning opportunities for Vermont schoolchildren of all ages. 
Funding for the Head Start Program, which provides comprehensive 
developmental education services for pre-kindergarten, low-income 
children, has been increased by $400 million. We have increased funding 
to assist low-income students who want to receive a college education. 
This bill will raise the maximum Pell Grant available to American 
college students from $3,750 to $4,000. This is the highest Pell Grant 
maximum in the history of the program.
  We have also increased funding for our students with special 
education needs by $1 billion. Although this increase brings us a step 
closer toward meeting our responsibilities under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act, we still must do more. House and Senate Conferees on 
the bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
currently have before them the opportunity to mandate that the federal 
government increase its share of special education funding to 40 
percent of IDEA spending from its current level of 15 percent. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this provision. It will provide 
significant relief to state and local governments as they strive to pay 
for the quality educational services that our nation's disabled 
students need and deserve.
  I am very pleased that the Senate has provided increased funding for 
the Office of Civil Rights, OCR, at the Department of Health and Human 
Services. OCR is responsible for the enforcement of civil rights-
related provisions in health and human services programs. Earlier this 
year, OCR's responsibilities were vastly expanded with the release of 
the final medical privacy regulation by HHS. Quality enforcement of 
this new regulation is essential to the protection of Americans' 
medical privacy. This increased funding will ensure that OCR can 
fulfill its new medical privacy enforcement obligations without 
dereliction from its many other civil rights enforcement 
responsibilities.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bill includes $1.7 billion in funds 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and an additional 
$300 million in emergency funds. LIHEAP is a critical program for 
citizens of states like Vermont, who endure long, cold winters. Last 
year LIHEAP helped nearly 18,000 Vermont families stay warm. I am 
concerned that demand for this program will rise dramatically this 
winter as the economy slows and incomes decline. I want to thank the 
Committee for including a significant increase in LIHEAP funding in 
anticipation of this great need.
  This spending bill is not perfect. There are areas where increased 
funding is still needed. However, we have taken the right steps in many 
important health, education, and human service programs, and I am 
pleased to support a measure that provides such great benefit to 
Vermonters.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate is about to adopt H.R. 3061, 
the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations legislation for 
fiscal year

[[Page 21621]]

2002, I would like to express my strong support and gratitude to 
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their willingness to include an 
amendment to H.R. 3061 on a matter that is very important to my home 
State of Utah.
  The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, was signed into law in 
1990 and has provided compensation to thousands of individuals, both 
workers and civilians, who were exposed to harmful radiation as a 
result of the government's nuclear testing decades ago. Some of these 
individuals worked in uranium mines; many drove the trucks which 
transported uranium ore; and many more happened to live downwind from a 
nuclear test site.
  The RECA law was amended last year by S. 1515, the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000. The legislation, which was signed 
into law last July, expanded the list of illnesses and classes of 
individuals who may be compensated under the RECA program. Recognizing 
that it is more effective, cost-beneficial, and indeed compassionate, 
to identify and treat at the earliest stages individuals who may have 
been exposed to harmful radiation, RECA 2000 also authorized a grant 
program for education, prevention, and early detection of radiogenic 
cancers and diseases. These grants would be provided through the 
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and 
would be used to screen individuals for cancer, provide education 
programs for detection, prevention and treatment of radiogenic cancers. 
The grants could also be used to give medical treatment to those 
individuals who have been diagnosed with radiogenic cancers and 
illnesses.
  My amendment appropriates $5 million to HRSA for programs associated 
with RECA. Of that amount, $4 million will be used for the screening 
and prevention program I have just mentioned, which is codified under 
section 417C of the Public Health Service Act. In addition, my 
amendment provides $1 million so the Department of Health and Human 
Services may contract with the National Research Council in order to 
review the most recent scientific information related to radiation 
exposure and associated cancers and illnesses. The study would also 
make recommendations as to whether there are additional cancers or 
illnesses associated with radiation exposure that should be compensated 
under the RECA program. Finally, the study would review whether other 
classes of individuals or additional geographic areas should be 
included under the RECA program. These recommendations by the National 
Research Council must be completed by June 30, 2003 and will be 
submitted to the Senate Committees on Appropriations; Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions; and Judiciary for review. The report 
also will be submitted to the House Committees on Appropriations; 
Energy and Commerce; and Judiciary.
  I am pleased that this amendment has been cosponsored by both 
Senators Reid and Domenici. I have also worked closely with Senate 
Majority Leader Daschle, Senator Bingaman, Senator Campbell, and 
Senator Johnson on the RECA program. All of us have constituents who 
have been impacted by radiation exposure and all of us want to do 
everything we possibly can to be helpful to them.
  I have met with many RECA claimants in my State. It does not take 
long to see the pain and suffering they have endured over the years. 
This is pain and suffering, I might add, that have taken a toll on 
their lives and the lives of their families as well. Most of these 
individuals are now retired; they live on modest incomes and fear their 
declining health will only exacerbate their limited family finances. 
Many have lost fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers due to radiation 
exposure. We cannot forget these brave Americans.
  It is for these reasons that this amendment is so important--it will 
not only provide valuable assistance to those who have been exposed to 
radiation exposure, it will also review current data to ensure that all 
of those who have been impacted will be adequately compensated. I 
cannot tell you how many times I have talked to constituents who don't 
understand why their cancer is not currently covered under the RECA 
law. They don't understand why living in one county allows RECA 
compensation but living in another county, sometimes as close as three 
miles away, prohibits them from being compensated as a RECA victim. I 
want to make sure we are using the best science possible to provide 
answers to these important questions. The National Research Council 
recommendations will help answer these questions to the best of our 
ability based on all current scientific data.
  Again, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues who serve on 
the Appropriations Committee, especially Senator Harkin and Senator 
Specter, for recognizing the importance of this issue. Through this 
amendment, we are acknowledging the plight of these Americans and 
letting them know that we in the Congress truly care about their 
welfare.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Landrieu and Rockefeller 
for cosponsoring my amendment, which has been incorporated into the 
managers' amendment.
  Earlier this month, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator 
Rockefeller, and I introduced a bill to reauthorize the Promoting Safe 
and Stable Families Act. This is a vital program that provides grants 
to children services agencies to help place foster children in 
permanent homes, provide post-adoption services, and reunify families 
when appropriate.
  I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for working with me to increase 
the appropriations level for this important program. As reported out of 
committee, the Senate bill only provided $305 million for the program, 
while the House bill included $375 million. I worked with the managers 
to increase the Senate level to $375 million.
  I am very pleased that we have increased this funding level because 
the Safe and Stable Families program provides critical services to at-
risk children.
  The reality is that many thousands of children in our country are at 
risk because they are neglected or abused by parents or because they 
are trapped in the legal limbo that denies them their chance to be 
adopted. Over a half-million children go to bed each night in homes 
that are not their own.
  We have an obligation to these children. We have an obligation to 
protect these innocent lives.
  The Safe and Stable Families program is there for these children. The 
funding provided to the States through this legislation is used for 
four categories of services: family preservation, community-based 
family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption 
promotion and support.
  These services are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in 
communities at risk, avoid the removal of children from their homes, 
and support timely reunification or adoption. And, quite candidly, 
Promoting Safe and Stable Families is a very important source of 
funding for post-adoption services.
  With a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of adoptions since 
the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, funding for 
adoption promotion and support services is especially vital. In 
Baltimore, MD, for example, 5 years ago, there were only 160 adoptions. 
So far this year, 514 adoptions have been finalized. Such increases 
demonstrate the need for these services and the necessity for these 
services to ensure that the adoptions are not disrupted, which risks 
further traumatizing a child.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for increasing the current Senate 
funding level. Protecting this vital program is simply the right thing 
to do.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for many years, Senator Mike DeWine 
and I have worked with a bipartisan coalition to promote adoptions and 
to strengthen Federal funding to help abused and neglected children, 
especially through the Safe and Stable Families program. Senator DeWine 
has been a real leader especially in the key area of defining 
reasonable effort to protect children. We are joined in our effort by 
Senators Landrieu and Craig,

[[Page 21622]]

both well-known advocates for adoption and leaders of the Adoption 
Caucus.
  President Bush called for an increase of $200 million for this 
program in his State of the Union address and his budget. In OMB's mid-
session review, the administration changed its request from $200 
million in mandatory money to discretionary funding. Since then, the 
House of Representatives added $70 million in new funding in their 
Labor-HHS-appropriations bill.
  Children suffering from abuse and neglect are among our most 
vulnerable children. In 1997, Congress enacted new legislation to make 
the health and safety of a child paramount, and to stress the 
importance of providing every child a permanent home. The act imposed 
new time frames for States to consider adoption. Since then, adoptions 
from foster care have almost doubled. But these families need support 
to address the special needs of these children. Currently, there are 
over 800,000 children in foster care. About 1 million cases of abuse 
and neglect are substantiated each year.
  In my State of West Virginia, the number of adoptions are increasing, 
but the statistics on abuse and neglect of children remain stubbornly 
high. New funding will enable my State and every State to expand their 
programs for adoption, family support, family preservation, and help to 
families in foster care.
  Our goal is to secure new investments in the Safe and Stable Families 
Program to help these vulnerable children. I truly appreciate the 
cooperation and support of Senators Harkin and Specter in accepting our 
amendment to provide new funding for this worthy cause. Chairman Harkin 
and Ranking Member Specter have a very hard task in overseeing the 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Balancing all the needs within 
their jurisdiction, including health care, education, worker safety, 
and other issues is a very difficult task, but a task they manage each 
year with skill and fairness. Their deep concern and compassion for 
children is well-known, and their willingness to work with Senator 
DeWine and me further highlights their commitment to some of the most 
vulnerable children, those suffering from abuse and neglect. I am truly 
grateful for their leadership and support.
  Things have changed dramatically in our country and in the Congress. 
We need to respond to the new challenges and the new fiscal issues. But 
the needs of abused and neglected children remain, and we also need to 
be sensitive to their problems and their needs. I appreciate the 
support from my colleagues.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin for their hard work on this important legislation which 
provides federal funding for the Departments of Labor, DOL, and Health 
and Human Services, HHS, and related agencies. Many of these programs 
are even more important as our war on terrorism is placing this Nation 
at great risk, particularly on the homefront. To protect our survival, 
we must also ensure that adequate support and resources are provided to 
protect our citizens at home as well as adequately funding our defense 
programs necessary for engaging in this war.
  I am pleased to see increased funding for many programs, many that 
are of an increased importance in light of our Nation's war on 
terrorism. This includes an increase in funding for bioterrorism 
activities and ensuring that our nation's public health infrastructure 
is given the highest priority and strengthened considerably. This 
funding is critical for our States, localities and our nation as a 
whole, to ensure that substantial investments and improvements are made 
in our public health infrastructure so we can readily respond to our 
current situation and potentially future threats as well.
  There is funding to ensure our Nation's food supply remains safe and 
resources for helping meet the health care needs of the uninsured--many 
who may now be unemployed due to the horrific events of September 11th. 
In this time of war, we must ensure that adequate resources are 
available for treating and preventing potential health threats. In 
addition to funding key public health programs, this bill provides 
funds for helping States and local communities educate our children. 
Furthermore, it provides the necessary funds for supporting our 
scientists dedicated to finding treatments, if not cures, for many 
illnesses, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and ALS. This bill even 
provides funds for ensuring our nation's most vulnerable--children, 
senior citizens and the disabled--have access to quality health care. 
Funds are also provided for important programs that assist working 
families needing child care, adult daycare for elderly seniors, and 
Meals on Wheels.
  I applaud the appropriators for including very few specific funding 
earmarks, but I am distressed about the extensive list of directives 
that have been included. It is apparent that the many directives and 
recommendation language camouflages the number of specific projects 
that are given special consideration and bypassing the appropriate 
competitive funding process. Examples of this language include:

  Language supporting the Wheeling Jesuit University NASA Center for 
Educational Technologies to provide technology training to all 
elementary and secondary West Virginia mathematics and science 
teachers;
  Language supporting the Missoula Family YMCA in Missoula, MT, to 
develop the ``Give Me Five'' after school program;
  Language supporting the Ellijay Wildlife Rehabilitation Sanctuary to 
expand its ecological science education programs to make them available 
to more students in Georgia;
  Language supporting Fresno At-Risk Youth Services in California to 
attack the problem of at-risk youths by coordinating the city's efforts 
through an education program coordinator;
  Language supporting the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational 
Laboratory at Brown University to run a Website called Knowledge Loom; 
and
  Language supporting the Flint Area Chamber of Commerce in Michigan to 
establish an ``e-mentoring'' program designed to create a partnership 
between employers and students.
  The bill also includes recommendation language that encourages the 
Department of Labor to consider supporting certain projects or 
institutions. Examples include:
  Good Faith Fund of the Arkansas Enterprise Group in Arkadelphia, AR;
  Las Vegas Culinary Training Center;
  Western Alaska workforce training initiative;
  Oregon Institute of Technology; and
  UNLV Center for Workforce Development and Occupational Research.
  While each of these programs may deserve funding, it is disturbing 
that these funds are specifically earmarked and not subject to the 
competitive grant process. But there are other job training facilities, 
health organizations, and educational sites in America that need 
financial aid for their particular programs and are not fortunate 
enough to have an advocate in the appropriations process to ensure that 
their funding is earmarked in this bill.
  There are many important programs impacting the labor force, health 
and education of our nation that depend on the support in this bill. 
However, we have diluted the positive impact of these programs by 
siphoning away funds for specific projects or communities that have 
ardent advocates in members on the appropriations committee.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests which 
thwarts the very process that is needed to ensure our laws address the 
concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who seek 
special protection or advantage.
  Mr. President, thank you and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to express my dismay that a very 
important program to address the health care needs of the uninsured was 
not included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which we passed 
today. Now, when our public health infrastructure must be stronger than 
ever before, it is

[[Page 21623]]

crucial that we find ways to provide care for Americans who lack health 
insurance.
  The Health Community Access Program, or H-CAP, would build on the 
successful Community Access Program, CAP, demonstration program that 
congress funded last year. CAP has successfully provided grants to 
communities to encourage integration among safety net providers of care 
to the uninsured. More then 135 communities have taken advantage of CAP 
to improve health care for Americans who lack health insurance.
  H-CAP allows communities themselves to design solutions for their 
unique safety-net needs, thus ensuring that the billions of dollars 
that Congress has already invested in different safety net providers, 
community health centers, family planning clinics, Ryan White AIDS 
providers, are spent as effectively as possible. By promoting the 
integration of health care services, H-CAP allow for more preventive 
care, and good disease management practices that improve overall health 
in the long-run and may reduce the incidence of serious and expensive 
health problems among H-CAP recipients later. And because grant 
recipients must demonstrate that their project will be sustainable 
without Federal funding, many communities have successfully found 
support through public and private matching donations, in-kind 
contributions, thus ensuring a relatively small Federal investment.
  I have worked hard this year with several of my colleagues to 
permanently authorize CAP so that it will receive regular funding and 
support from the Federal Government. I also offered an amendment during 
committee markup to ensure that this program would be authorized at an 
adequate level.
  Unfortunately, funding for H-CAP was left out of this bill. I am 
pleased that the House did include H-CAP in their bill, which they 
funded at $105 million, with an additional $15 million for State 
planning grants. It is my hope that the Senate will include H-CAP in 
the managers' package, or that this will be resolved during conference 
in the House's favor. I strongly urge my colleagues to make this 
program a priority this year.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before we go to the vote, I ask to be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for his extraordinary vote on this bill. 
I note for the record the speed with which we passed this bill and the 
concessions which were made by quite a few Senators to take complicated 
matters off this bill. We put aside the stem cell issue which I very 
much wanted to have resolved. We did so in the interest of concluding 
this bill. We have already started the conferencing issues with both 
staffs meeting early tomorrow afternoon and Members meeting a little 
later tomorrow afternoon.
  From our experience in the past, we have seen how difficult it is to 
conference this bill, so we are moving right ahead, and it would be my 
hope, with the example we have set with this complicated appropriations 
bill--on time, with people withdrawing matters to try to expedite the 
process--that we would move ahead and complete our work by November 16, 
which is when we should finish, and we can go home and take care of 
business in our States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I want 
to respond in kind to my good friend and ranking member, Senator 
Specter, and thank him and thank all of his staff for a very great 
working relationship that we have had over many years, especially this 
year.
  We have completed our bill in pretty good time. Now we have to go to 
conference. I am convinced we can have a decent conference and get this 
bill back, as Senator Specter said, so we will have it done before we 
go home for Thanksgiving. So I again thank Senator Specter and his 
staff for a great working relationship. I especially thank all of the 
staff: Bettilou Taylor, Mary Dietrich, Sudip Parick, and Emma Ashburn. 
I also thank Ellen Murray, Jim Sourwine, Erik Fatemi, Mark Laisch, Adam 
Gluck, Adrienne Hallett, Lisa Bernhardt, and Carol Geagley. A lot of 
them put in a lot of hours early this year putting this bill together.
  We have a great bill. It meets the needs of Americans and labor, 
health and human services, education, and biomedical research. We have 
met our obligations. This is the bill that helps lift up all Americans, 
helps address the needs of our human infrastructure in this country, 
and I believe we have met that obligation to the people of this country 
in this bill.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.

                          ____________________