[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27617-27656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3043, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin/Specter amendment No. 3325, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Vitter amendment No. 3328 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     provide a limitation on funds with respect to preventing the 
     importation by individuals of prescription drugs from Canada.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3335 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     increase funding for the State Heart Disease and Stroke 
     Prevention Program of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.
       Thune amendment No. 3333 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     provide additional funding for the telehealth activities of 
     the Health Resources and Services Administration.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3345 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     require that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress 
     regarding jobs lost and created as a result of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement.
       Menendez amendment No. 3347 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     provide funding for the activities under the Patient 
     Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 
     2005.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now back on the Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and related agencies appropriations bill.
  I thought I might recap for Senators where we are. We started 
yesterday. I thought we had a fairly productive afternoon. We, right 
now, have five pending amendments that we are working on in terms of 
offsets. We have the Vitter amendment on drug reimportation. That 
language we are just working on. There is no offset needed.
  We have the amendment by Senator Dorgan on heart disease. We are 
again looking at an offset there. We are working on that.

[[Page 27618]]

  We have an amendment by Senator Thune on telehealth. Again, we are 
working on trying to find the proper offsets.
  We have another amendment by Senator Dorgan on a NAFTA study. That 
has not been totally agreed to yet on the other side of the aisle.
  We have an amendment by Senator Menendez on patient navigators. 
Again, I think it is broadly supported. But, again, we are working on 
trying to find an offset.
  We adopted three amendments yesterday: the amendment by Senator 
Feinstein which was to set up a child abuse registry; the second 
amendment was by Senator Smith which was a technical fix to the Garrett 
Lee Smith suicide prevention bill; and then yesterday we accepted an 
amendment by Senator McCaskill which provides for a link on the Web 
sites of all of the departments under our jurisdiction to the IG.
  I am told we have about 30 amendments filed. We have 10 that we now 
have worked on, so we are down to about 20 amendments. I hope we can 
again move rapidly today and have people come over. I see people are 
here waiting to offer amendments. I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three Members be 
recognized to call up amendments and that the pending amendments all be 
set aside for this purpose. In this order it would be: Senator DeMint, 
Senator Dole, and Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3338 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3338 to amendment No. 3325.

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

(Purpose: To provide a limitation on funds with respect to the Charles 
                  B. Rangel Center for Public Service)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, 
     City College of New York, NY.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I actually wanted to bring up another 
amendment to speak on briefly. If there is no objection, I would like 
to call up amendment No. 3340 at the same time. I will speak to both of 
them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3340

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, amendment No. 3340 is one we have already 
seen. It is a simple amendment that we all agree on. Both sides 
accepted it unanimously last week on the last appropriations bill that 
we considered.
  This is an amendment that prohibits Members of Congress from 
pressuring Federal agencies to designate funds, what we call ``phone 
marks'' to special projects back home.
  All of us have worked real hard to create more transparency and 
disclosure of earmarks. Last week we added to the last appropriations 
bill this amendment that would prohibit Members of Congress from going 
around the earmark disclosure process and pressuring Federal agencies 
to designate funds.
  This is an amendment that I also want to add to this appropriations 
bill. I understand both sides will be willing to accept this again.


                           Amendment No. 3338

  I would like to address my second amendment at this point as well. 
This is a very difficult amendment to talk about because when we start 
talking about earmarks in the House or the Senate, all of those 
earmarks are something that have been designated by individual Members 
of Congress. So it is often taken quite personally when we challenge 
these amendments and make it public, particularly amendments that do 
not sound good to taxpaying Americans.
  I want to assure my colleagues that my point is not to focus on 
Members of Congress but to focus on wrong ideas; in fact, wrong ideas 
about earmarking and spending taxpayer dollars that have discredited 
this body with the American people.
  We know only 11 percent of the American people have any kind of 
favorable perspective of Congress at this point. A lot of it is because 
of the publicity of how we spend their money.
  I was made aware by ``CBS News'' of a particular earmark that the 
House has put in their version of the Labor-HHS bill. CBS is not known 
for being supportive of conservative causes. They were pointing out a 
particular attachment to the House appropriations bill, which will be 
in the final bill if we do not disallow it in the Senate.
  It is an earmark for $2 million that was put in this bill by 
Congressman Rangel, chairman of Ways and Means. This $2 million earmark 
goes to a new Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City 
College of New York. This center does not yet exist. It is one that 
money is being raised for at this time.
  Frankly, the college does not need this duplication of an educational 
service which already exists on the campus, but the description of this 
building includes not only an educational program--that is, a 
duplication of the Colin Powell Center which is already there--but it 
also creates a library for the personal archives of Congressman Rangel 
and a well-furnished office for his personal use.
  CBS made the point, and they actually called this ``Monument to Me.'' 
And not just about Congressman Rangel but about all of us who, through 
the earmarking process each year, are given a personal slush fund to 
send taxpayer dollars to our favorite causes back in our home States 
and districts.
  Increasingly, Members of Congress are doing things such as giving 
money to colleges and other organizations that are naming buildings and 
programs after us so that it will attract more earmarks. It has become 
a vicious circle that Americans are on to.
  CBS made the point of this waste of money. To me, it, frankly, looks 
very bad. It reflects poorly on all of us, and it discredits a lot of 
the good things we do. Again, my point is not to identify a particular 
Member of Congress to embarrass them but, hopefully, to embarrass us 
all; that we are all involved with a very bad approach to spending 
taxpayer dollars.
  The idea of each Member of Congress--we all have papers, we all give 
them to colleges. Does this mean we will all get taxpayer money to send 
to these colleges to build some type of Presidential-like library to 
archive our papers and give us personal offices? I assume it is 
permanent.
  The hard-working people in South Carolina who are paying taxes should 
not be building a center for Congressman Rangel in New York. If we had 
plenty of extra money, maybe we could talk about it. But the fact is, 
we are borrowing this money from future generations to build monuments 
to ourselves all around the country.
  My amendment would disallow the use of funds in this bill for this 
particular project, hopefully making a point to all of us that this is 
not what America expects when they send us to Congress. Our job is to 
do what is best for this country in our future, not to create slush 
funds for ourselves so we can win popularity back home by taking money 
back home, particularly when we get involved with this back and forth 
of, they named something after us, so we give money to them. It does 
not look good, it does not sound good, and it is not good. It is not 
good for our country and our future.
  I encourage every Member of this Senate to vote for this amendment 
that would disallow funds for this project and hopefully send a message 
here and all around America that we are going to reform ourselves, and 
we

[[Page 27619]]

are no longer going to be embarrassed by CBS and other media. Every 
time they point out what we are doing, we cannot hide from the fact 
that it is shameful. I do not want my tax dollars spent this way. I 
know the people in South Carolina do not. I bet if we had a chance to 
ask every American, not one would say this is how they expect their tax 
dollars to be spent.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3340 be 
pending at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3340 to amendment No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available under the 
 Act may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative formula-
 driven or competitive awarding process to award funds to a project in 
    response to a request from a Member of Congress, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to circumvent any statutory or administrative 
     formula-driven or competitive awarding process to award funds 
     to a project in response to a request from a Member of 
     Congress (or any employee of a Member or committee of 
     Congress), unless the specific project has been disclosed in 
     accordance with the rules of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives, as applicable.

  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we do have two amendments I have offered. 
My understanding was that there would be a voice vote on 3340, and I 
have asked for the yeas and nays on 3338, if I may correct my request.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Would the Chair state the question 
before the Senate right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has asked for 
the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3338.
  Mr. DeMINT. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Will the Senator from South Carolina repeat his request?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 3338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have not disposed of amendment No. 
3340, if I am correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have looked at 3340. I don't know that it needs an up-
or-down vote. We can accept it. I understand Senator Specter will 
accept it, also, so it is accepted on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3340.
  The amendment (No. 3340) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will probably have more to say about 
this later, but on the amendment the Senator offered regarding the 
Rangel Center, I object to this amendment. It is an attack on an 
institution that is not in the Senate amendment before us. It is a 
House provision that provides funding for a center at the City College 
of New York. As I understand it, the center was set up basically to 
offer interdisciplinary programs for bachelor's degrees, master's 
degrees, midcareer programs, to get more minority population into 
management positions. Right now, non-Whites make up nearly 30 percent 
of our population, yet only 13.8 percent of the men and women who 
occupy top management and policy positions in the Federal Government 
are members of minority groups. We need to do more to bring minority 
Americans into public service. A center for public service at the City 
College of New York was set up to do this. It was the City College of 
New York that decided the name of it. As far as I know, we didn't 
decide that. We didn't do anything to decide the name of it. In this 
bill, we have funds for the Howard Baker Center in Tennessee. We have 
funds for a Robert Dole Center. These are centers set up at 
universities, and they name them. We do not. They decide to put a name 
on it.
  I believe we ought to be in the position of saying, yes, there is a 
need for course work to help minorities get into midmanagement and 
senior positions in the Federal Government. That is laudable. But what 
the university names it ought to be up to the university. It is not up 
to us.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Surely.
  Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the concerns. Again, it is difficult when 
names of Members of Congress are involved. The college already has an 
education center specifically for the purpose listed for the Charles 
Rangel Center. It is called the Colin Powell Center. They perhaps added 
some bells and whistles, archived the papers as well as the personal 
office we talked about.
  To the chairman's objection about this not being in our bill, in this 
body we regularly disallow funds for various agencies that are not 
listed in our bill but that as a body we decide it is not the 
appropriate way for money to be spent.
  We should honor Congressman Rangel and others who have served with 
distinction as he has. CBS brought out that the college had not made 
the decision or at least would not make the decision as to how to name 
the center. So there were a lot of questionable things that came up in 
this report, questions enough that CBS decided to make it news.
  My point is, if we get into the practice as Members of Congress while 
we are still serving of responding to centers being named after us by 
getting taxpayer dollars back to them and getting personal offices in 
buildings around the country, this is clearly not our purpose, and it 
is not one that will be respected by the American people.
  I look forward to further debate. I appreciate all the time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have in our bill a provision for a 
Howard Baker Center at the University of Tennessee. I haven't heard the 
Senator from South Carolina want to go strike the Howard Baker Center. 
That is in this bill. A couple years ago, we had the provision for the 
Dole Center at the University of Kansas. I don't remember the Senator 
objecting to that. This is nothing unusual. This happens all the time. 
It is up to the university to decide whether they want to name them; it 
is not up to us.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, I 
appreciate the give-and-take. We have made the point many times. We did 
it with judges. We created a law that would not allow us to name 
courthouses after active judges, but once they retire, we look at it 
differently. The same is true for Members. Senator Baker and Senator 
Dole are not in positions now to direct money to different places 
because they are named after them, but we are. There is a serious 
question here, and we should make a distinction between what we do 
while we are serving and what we do after we have retired.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe we are ready for the Dole 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                Amendment No. 3341 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up No. 3341 pending at the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3341.


[[Page 27620]]

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

  (Purpose: To provide funding for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell 
                                Program)

       On page 37, line 2, insert ``Provided further, That of the 
     funds available under this heading, $12,000,000 shall be 
     provided for the National Cord Blood Inventory pursuant to 
     the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (Public 
     Law 109-129):'' after ``programs:''.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, on December 20, 2005, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act was signed by the President and became 
law. This legislation established, through the Health Resources and 
Services Administration, HRSA, the C.W. ``Bill'' Young Cell 
Transplantation Program. This program, a successor to the National Bone 
Marrow Donor Registry, takes what used to be considered medical waste, 
deposits of umbilical cord blood, and banks it for future transplant 
recipients. Cord blood is the only known substitute for bone marrow.
  The first cord blood transplant in the United States not involving a 
family member was performed at Duke University Medical Center in 1993. 
Since then, cord blood transplants have become increasingly common. 
Nationwide, more than 500 cord blood transplants are performed each 
year.
  Today, cord blood transplantation is one of the most hopeful and 
exciting areas in the field of medicine. Together, adult stem cells and 
cord blood units have been used to treat over 70 blood cancers and 
genetic diseases.
  Let me tell you about a young girl named Sangeetha. She received a 
transplant 10 years ago at my alma mater, Duke University, when she was 
battling leukemia. Doctors struggled to find a bone marrow match for 
Sangeetha, who is Indian. Fortunately, doctors found a compatible match 
from a baby girl born in New York, and Sangeetha was able to have cord 
blood stem cell transplantation. I am pleased to say she graduated from 
Western Alamance High School last year and is now a freshman at East 
Carolina University.
  My amendment ensures that the cord blood program is included in the 
actual Labor-HHS appropriations bill. In the past, the cord blood 
program has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress, and I ask 
that the Senate again show its support of this program by accepting my 
amendment. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Specter and Harkin, for 
their strong support of the cord blood program. Without their hard 
work, this life-saving program would not have received the funding 
increase that it did this year.
  Patients across the Nation have benefited from these state-of-the-art 
centers that are located in six States: North Carolina, New York, 
Washington, California, Colorado, and Texas. I know that in my home 
State of North Carolina, Duke University Medical Center has been 
working tirelessly to serve patients who travel from all across the 
country to benefit from the latest advancements in medical research.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. It is 
imperative that these centers are adequately funded to ensure that the 
National Cord Blood Centers can continue to expand and store more cord 
blood donations--which means matches for more patients in desperate 
need of a transplant.
  I ask for passage of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for her interest 
in and support of the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank. This is a 
program Senator Specter and I created in the 2004 bill when he was 
chairman. Our bill includes $12 million for this program, enough to 
sustain the banks that exist and start a new round of grants to startup 
operations. The Dole amendment codifies this $12 million for the cord 
blood stem cell banking program. I fully support it. I believe I can 
speak for Senator Specter. On both sides, we are more than happy to 
accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 3341.
  The amendment (No. 3341) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3324

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose amendment No. 3324, the 
Sessions amendment. As far as I know, there is no Member of this body 
who opposes rigorous oversight of labor unions. Members of this body 
who care about the well-being of American workers don't want them 
harmed, period. It doesn't matter if it is an employer or a union 
leader or the U.S. Trade Representative who is doing the harming.
  Unions are already subject, as they should be, to stringent reporting 
requirements, and unions overwhelmingly comply with whatever 
requirements are mandated. In its budget justification, the Department 
of Labor stated that the acceptability rate for unions in meeting their 
financial requirements is 96 percent. There is not a serious problem. 
We don't have a problem with monitoring unions. What we do have a 
problem with is attacking workers, which is what this amendment will 
do.
  The offset of this amendment should offend any Member of this body 
who respects the hard-fought progress our Nation has made in the 
workplace, whether it is protecting the health and safety of workers or 
preventing the exploitation of children.
  Look at what this amendment does. It increases funding 37 percent for 
``labor-management standards.'' It does nothing for wage and hour 
enforcement. The Presiding Officer from Iowa has fought so hard for 
more wages to build the middle class.
  Look what it does here--and one of the reasons we have had stagnant 
wages in this country--it cuts funding for occupational safety and 
health. We know what has happened with workers in the workplace. We 
have seen an increase in incidents because of the Bush administration's 
lax enforcement of OSHA standards to begin with. Look what it does to 
the International Labor Affairs Bureau.
  This offset would undercut our investment in fighting the worst forms 
of child labor and human trafficking. It would undercut our ability to 
ensure that labor laws in developing nations are being enforced. When 
those laws are not enforced, not only are there gross human rights 
abuses, there are insurmountable obstacles to fair competition in the 
global trading arena.
  In other words, when we do not enforce labor standards in the 
developing world, it is only costing us jobs because they are 
undercutting our wages because they are violating labor law and they 
are basically not playing fair.
  This administration now seeks more of the same, asking Congress to 
approve trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. 
This amendment is more of the same. The Sessions amendment cuts from 
the small contribution--the small contribution--this Government makes 
toward eliminating the worst forms of labor abuse.
  Many countries still permit deplorable practices such as child labor 
and forced labor. The Sessions amendment cuts funding of the 
International Labor Affairs Bureau by $5 million. That undercuts its 
core mission: investigating and combating these violations of human 
dignity.
  Look at these children shown in this picture I have in the Chamber, 
and look at the work they are doing, hour after hour, day after day, in 
all too

[[Page 27621]]

many places around the world. This is economic globalization on the 
cheap, and our Nation cannot afford it.
  Many in this Chamber may remember a report released last year by the 
National Labor Committee which exposed disgraceful working conditions 
in Jordan--a country with which we have a free trade agreement. The 
report documented workers who were trafficked--their passports 
confiscated when they arrived in Jordan. They used materials made in 
China to make finished projects eligible for duty-free entry into the 
United States, passing through Jordan. We see too many workers in 
places such as Jordan. And our administration, what does it do? It 
looks the other way.
  International Labor Affairs funding--the funding this amendment would 
cut--goes toward the implementation of ILO Convention 182 on the 
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. It has been ratified by 
165 nations. The funding provides foreign governments with technical 
assistance on meeting their responsibilities so this does not happen.
  A more recent ILO report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,'' 
showed that the number of children working around the world dropped 11 
percent, from 246 million children--like these--in 2000, to 218 million 
in 2004. That is not good enough, but that is progress, and the 
Sessions amendment would pull the rug out from under that progress.
  Members of this body who vote ``yes'' on this Sessions amendment will 
be simultaneously launching a gratuitous attack on labor unions in this 
country and abandoning workers, including these children, and others, 
who are being abused and exploited. It is doubly wrong. Vote ``no.''


                Amendment No. 3348 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and to call up amendment No. 3348 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown], for himself and Mr. 
     Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3348 to amendment 
     No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Underground Railroad Educational 
                         and Cultural Program)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for the Underground Railroad 
     Educational and Cultural Program. Amounts appropriated under 
     title III for administrative expenses shall be reduced on a 
     pro rata basis by $2,000,000.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment will be set aside.


                Amendment No. 3349 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3349, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mrs. 
     Lincoln, Mr. Obama, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
     Kerry, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 3349 
     to amendment No. 3325.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the Secretary of Education from using funds with 
      respect to an evaluation for the Upward Bound Program until 
 congressional examination of the regulation providing for such review)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. __.  No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     by the Secretary of Education to promulgate, implement, or 
     enforce the evaluation for the Upward Bound Program as 
     announced in the Notice of Final Priority published at 71 
     Fed. Reg. 55447-55450 (Sept. 22, 2006), until after the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House 
     of Representatives have thoroughly examined such regulation 
     in concert with the reauthorization of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
Senators Lincoln, Obama, Feingold, Collins, Wyden, Menendez, and Kerry.
  This amendment would halt the implementation of an invalid and 
unethical Department of Education evaluation of Upward Bound programs. 
Across the country, Upward Bound serves low-income, first-generation 
students who are at risk of not completing high school or pursuing 
higher education. The evaluation requires that Upward Bound programs 
aggressively recruit twice as many students as they can serve simply to 
provide enough students for a control group that will never actually 
receive Upward Bound services. It forces program directors to engage in 
a sort of bait and switch that contradicts their mission as educators. 
It places in danger longstanding trust relationships between Upward 
Bound directors and school administrators, between students and their 
families, and, most critically, it dashes the hopes of vulnerable teens 
who lack the academic or the financial or the emotional support 
necessary to successfully pursue higher education.
  Not only will students be given false hope under this evaluation and 
this process, but there remain serious questions about the adequacy of 
research designs based on randomly assigned control groups in 
educational research. These concerns are based on the difficulty--
perhaps even the impossibility--of imposing laboratory conditions in 
nonlaboratory environments.
  Unless we take action, the evaluations will proceed on about 100 
campuses across the country, 10 percent of those--10 of those--in my 
State of Ohio.
  Upward Bound programs are critically important. We know how effective 
they are to our Nation's youth, and we should evaluate their 
effectiveness. But we should do it the right way, in a fair, ethical, 
and valid way.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues, including the Presiding 
Officer, on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in 
the Senate to develop an evaluation methodology that will truly let us 
know how our Upward Bound programs are performing.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3321 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3321, which I believe 
is at the desk and was filed by Senator Coburn. He and I are 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for Mr. Coburn, for 
     himself and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3321 to 
     amendment No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To provide additional care for pregnant women, mothers, and 
 infants by eliminating a $1,000,000 earmark for a museum dedicated to 
                               Woodstock)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, none of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``office of museum and library services: grants and 
     administration'' under the heading ``Institute of Museum and 
     Library Services'' in title IV may be used for for the Bethel 
     Performing Arts Center.
       (b) The amount made available under the heading ``office of 
     museum and library services: grants and administration'' 
     under the heading ``Institute of Museum and Library 
     Services'' in title IV is reduced by $1,000,000, and the 
     amount made available

[[Page 27622]]

     under the heading ``health resources and services'' under the 
     heading ``Health Resources and Services Administration'' in 
     title II is increased by $336,500, which $336,500 shall be 
     used to carry out title V of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 701 et seq.), in order to provide additional funding 
     for the maternal and child health services program carried 
     out under that title.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I can describe the amendment very briefly. 
Here is the context in which Senator Coburn and I offer this amendment.
  This Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides just under $150 billion 
in total discretionary spending. I believe it is $149.2 billion. This 
is about $8.95 billion over the President's recommendation. That is 
well over 6 percent in excess of what the President recommended.
  With this kind of excessive spending in the bill, it is important for 
Congress to address the use of taxpayer dollars within this bill to 
ensure that anything that is not a critical governmental function is 
prioritized, and for those things that are not critical, that we not 
spend money on them.
  Now, this bill contains a $1 million earmark for a museum located at 
the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY--the site of the 
original 1969 Woodstock Festival. The museum, which is scheduled to 
open in 2008, apparently will house exhibits on the Woodstock Festival 
and the 1960s in which it occurred. According to the museum's Web 
site--I am quoting now--

       Through dramatic imagery, audio-visual technology and 
     immersive interactives, this exhibition tells the story of 
     the 1969 [Woodstock] festival and its significance in a time 
     of unrest and change, concluding with the myth, reality, and 
     impact of the Woodstock Festival today.

  Our amendment is very simple. We simply strike that $1 million 
earmark.
  For those who thought the Woodstock Festival was a neat thing and 
something that needs to be commemorated in American history, it is 
happening. It does not need the Federal Government, the taxpayers in my 
State and others, to subsidize that museum.
  The Gerry Foundation, which is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization, 
oversees the Bethel Center, and it reported an adjusted net income of 
$7.7 million, investment income of more than $24 million, and total net 
assets of over $150 million at the end of 2004, the last year for which 
statistics are available. So why are we asking for $1 million to be 
earmarked out of this particular bill, the Labor-HHS bill, for the 
funding of this particular museum? As I said, our amendment would 
eliminate the earmark for this Woodstock museum, and it would transfer 
the funding to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program--
something that is relevant to the Labor-HHS bill.
  The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program provides funding to 
States to meet their most pressing maternal and child health needs, 
encouraging the development of community-based networks for both 
private and public health care services and programs designed to meet 
the health needs of pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, and 
adolescents. This is what this bill is supposed to be about.
  We have had a lot of debate recently about protecting children's 
health. It seems to me if that is something we are concerned about, we 
could use this $1 million for children's health rather than helping to 
pay the expenses of an already very well-funded museum to celebrate the 
festival at Woodstock.
  The amendment basically asks some questions about our priorities as 
Members of Congress, stewards of taxpayer dollars. Remember, the money 
has not grown on trees. It has been collected from hard-working 
families who expect us to put it to good use. They are frustrated about 
wasteful Washington spending. They criticize us every day for the 
priorities we set. It seems to me we do have to ask questions such as 
whether it is the will of this body to fund an earmark for a museum 
celebrating a weekend-long party that occurred 38 years ago or funding 
child health.
  The American people, as I said, are sick and tired of the kind of 
spending that this particular kind of earmark represents. They see us 
as a government that is not accountable to them, that is out of touch 
with their needs and realities in trying to provide for their own 
families, and they then send what the Government needs by way of taxes. 
They are not against paying taxes, but they do not want us to waste 
their money.
  It is beyond me how, with an entity as well funded as the Gerry 
Foundation, the Government would have to then take taxpayer money and 
fund this particular museum to the tune of $1 million. It is clearly 
not a high priority. It is clearly not needed. It is not critical to 
our future. It may be a nice thing for some people to visit to relive 
their memories of the good old days, but, frankly, it is a handout from 
taxpayers to a foundation that otherwise has plenty of money to 
commemorate this particular event.
  I close by noting that recently there was a festival at the Bethel 
site, the site of Woodstock, on August 11 of this year. They hosted an 
event called the ``HIPPIEFEST,'' with tickets priced up to $60 a 
person. Here is how it was advertised:

       Return to the flower-powered days of the 1960's with our 
     oh-so-hippie line-up of truly talented artists.

  The center's advertisement for the concert further states:

       [G]ather your groovy beads and we'll see you on the lawn 
     for a trip down memory lane.

  Well, the trip down memory lane may be fine for folks. I suggest if 
they want to participate in that, they can pay the admission price. If 
a rich entrepreneur in New York wishes to fund the creation of this 
museum, as he has done, he obviously has plenty of money to do it, as I 
indicated. It is not something American taxpayers should pay for.
  I will conclude by saying this: The reason why this Congress has a 
lower approval rating than the President of the United States--the 
lowest approval rating in its history, according to the public opinion 
surveys--is because they do not trust us to do the right thing. They 
believe we are wasteful stewards of their money. We have to start 
somewhere in convincing them that we are serious about the business 
they want us to conduct, that we can set priorities, and that we are 
not going to continue to waste their money.
  How can we, with a straight face, argue to them that we are not 
wasting their hard-earned, taxpayer money when we take $1 million of it 
to spend on a memorial or a museum for a party, as I said, that 
occurred 38 years ago, and which is already plenty adequately funded? 
It makes no sense at all.
  I urge my colleagues, when this comes up for a vote, let's at least 
demonstrate in a symbolic way, at a minimum, that we are serious about 
not wasting their money. I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, does my colleague from Oklahoma intend to 
speak on this amendment? Then I would like to speak after both my 
colleagues have spoken and respond to what they have to say.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I intend to speak after Senator Schumer 
speaks as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we heard Senator Kyl talk about the 
problem. The Woodstock Museum is not the problem; it is a symbol of the 
problem. Alan Gerry has done great things for the State of New York. He 
should be praised for what he has done. This isn't an attack on him. 
This is an attack on the process--the process where we inappropriately 
send money back on the basis not of priority but on the basis of a low-
priority need.
  Now, there was a historian by the name of Alexander Tyler. These 
words are attributed to him. Nobody can say for sure he is the author 
of them, but they bear a very important lesson for us. He wrote about 
the Athenian Empire which had collapsed, and he was writing this about 
the time that our Founders were writing our institutional documents. 
Here is what he said: All democracies eventually fail. They fail 
because people learn that they can vote themselves money from the 
public

[[Page 27623]]

Treasury. Consequently, they only vote for people in elected office who 
will return them money from the public Treasury. Consequently, all 
democracies fail over a fiscal collapse.
  Now, is that where we are headed? Have we walked into the trap of 
history which talks about how every other democracy in the world has, 
in fact, failed over fiscal issues? They haven't failed over the 
principles of their democracy. They haven't failed over their freedom. 
They failed over the financial collapse of their system because the 
political class used public monies to pay off private citizens.
  This is a symbolic vote. It is not about going after Senator Schumer 
or Senator Clinton and this earmark. I have been going after Republican 
and Democratic earmarks for 2\1/2\ years. But this is a great example. 
I am part of the hippie generation. I was a junior in college when 
Woodstock occurred. It may be great for upstate New York to empower and 
have this as an economic development tool. It is certainly a part of 
our history and ought to be remembered. There is no question about it. 
But the question is, should this be a priority for this body over the 
priority of women and children, of maternal-child health, which isn't 
funded adequately in this country? Should we fund $1 million to a 
worthwhile project but low priority? That is the question. It is not 
about whether great things have been done in this area or whether great 
things can continue to be done.
  New York has a $1.6 billion surplus right now. If this is great, why 
shouldn't the State of New York fund it more, this $1 million? We have, 
according to the latest estimate if you use Enron accounting, a $160 
million deficit. If you use real accounting, it is going to be about a 
$300 billion deficit. So why should we put the credit card in and 
charge another $1 million to our kids for something that is low 
priority? If we are going to charge another $1 million to our kids, why 
don't we do it for the kids, for maternal and child health? We will 
earn the 11 percent if we reject this amendment.
  The problem is, this is a good thing to do. Senators have a right to 
do it. We know that. Even though, I disagree that, before we fix the 
major financial problems that face our country, we shouldn't be sending 
money home. I am in the minority on that issue. I understand that. You 
are not bad if you disagree with me. But according to the American 
public, you don't agree with them either because 85 percent of the 
American people in the latest poll think we ought to eliminate all 
earmarks until we get our house in order.
  The question is, how will they ever trust us to fix Medicare or 
Social Security if they can't trust us on these small things? And they 
can't. We can't help ourselves. Surely, $1 million for a Woodstock 
museum and performance center is not a priority for this country at 
this time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? 
I hate to interrupt the Senator.
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think this has been cleared on the other 
side.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 today, the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 3338, with no amendment in 
order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that there be 2 minutes 
of debate prior to the vote with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senators DeMint and Schumer or their designees; that 
upon disposition of the DeMint amendment, Senator Byrd be recognized to 
call up an amendment on the subject of mine safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would ask 
to modify that time on the provision that we be finished this debate. 
In other words, that being the first order of business after we finish 
this debate rather than setting a fixed time because I am not sure we 
will be through at 12:30. If the Senator would care to modify, so that 
at 12:30, or the soonest thereafter we finish this debate, I would be 
more than happy to agree.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, is there any chance that we 
could finish the debate after the vote? We are trying to get the vote 
in prior to some noon things that are happening around here.
  Mr. COBURN. I guess we can do that. I would do that if that is what 
you want to do. I would love for us to finish this before the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I modify my unanimous consent request to 
say that if the pending debate is not finished at 12:30, that after the 
vote on amendment No. 3338, we would return to the debate on the Coburn 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Is that OK with my colleague?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I only intend to speak for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Then I think we should be finished. I have no objection 
to the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Harkin request, as modified, is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, so here we have a bill, the Labor-HHS 
bill, and it has over $400 million in earmarks--some good, some 
priority, some are high priority, probably should be there, but many 
are not high priority.
  When are we going to do what the American family has to do every 
year? What they have to do is say: Here is how much money we have 
coming in. Here is what we have needs for, and here is what we have 
available. What they do is make choices based on priorities. This 
debate is about making choices. If we had different rules, this debate 
would have been eliminating the earmark plainly, and several others. 
But because of the Senate rules, the money is going to be spent, so we 
have to figure out a higher priority place to spend it, and maternal 
and child health is certainly the place to do it.
  The real question the American people are asking us, the 89 percent 
of the American people who don't have confidence in this institution 
are asking us is, when are we going to get it? When are we going to 
start doing what they want us to do? When are we going to start playing 
for them and their future, rather than playing for us and our future? 
That is the real question.
  There is no question that the desirability of what this earmark 
supports is probably great. I don't have any problems with it. What I 
have a problem with is that we have a $9 trillion debt.
  This Senator has never voted to raise the debt limit. We just raised 
the debt limit $850 billion, to almost $10 trillion, because we can't 
control ourselves.
  So the question before us isn't whether this is good or bad. The 
question is, when are we going to change our behavior? When are we 
going to start doing $1 million here and $1 million here, up to 
$398,584,000 worth of earmarks in a bill? That is the question. This 
isn't conservatives who are asking this question; it is liberal 
Democrats; it is Independents; it is conservatives, because they know, 
in fact, this Government can run better, more efficiently, with less 
money than what we are doing now, if, in fact, we will stand up and do 
the oversight work we ought to be doing. But we refuse to do that.
  So the vote will come. We will have a vote. If we don't enhance this 
amendment and pass it, we will go from 11 percent to 10.95 percent 
because, in fact, the American people will see, again, that we don't 
get it. We don't have to live by the rules they live by.
  The tragedy is, in this bill, the Labor-HHS bill to help those most 
dependent in America, we are going to take money in the future from 
those who we are saying we are giving to now, through a decreased 
standard of living or an increased tax rate. If you don't believe that, 
read David Walker, the Comptroller General's report about what is 
getting ready to happen to us as a nation in terms of our finances, or 
read Peter Peterson's book, ``Running On Empty,'' about what is going 
to happen to us. Why in the world is the Euro at $1.42 when it was 83 
cents 3\1/2\ years ago? Why is that? Is there a beckoning call about 
our financial condition that the world financial markets

[[Page 27624]]

recognize, and yet we refuse to pay attention to?
  So I call on my colleagues. This isn't a partisan amendment. I have 
gone after just as many Republican amendments--as a matter of fact, one 
of the amendments I am going to be offering today goes after a 
Republican amendment. I also plan on offering an amendment to get rid 
of all earmarks in this bill before we finish this bill. So we will get 
to see whether this body gets it, whether the 80 percent to 85 percent 
of Americans who want us to change our behavior have any influence on 
us whatsoever. Will we listen?
  There is a rumble. I said this a year and a half ago. There is a 
rumble in America, and the rumble is this: We don't have confidence in 
our Government anymore. Where is the legitimacy of our Government when 
our own people don't have confidence in us? It is a great question to 
ask about the greatest Republic that there ever was. It is a problem we 
need to be about solving rather than ignoring.
  With that, I yield for the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to make a few 
comments. First, I would like to say this: I have tremendous respect 
for my colleague, and I would say friend, from Oklahoma. I don't think 
he does this out of any personal animus or even a direct, crass 
political advantage. I think he believes, and I respect that. So I 
would like to say that at the outset, and I say the same for my friend 
from Arizona. They have both been consistent in this, and they don't 
put in--even though their States do get earmarks, even earmarks for 
museums, it is not the wish of the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator 
from Arizona to do that. That is point 1.
  Point 2, generally, about fiscal responsibility, I would say both of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like so many others, have 
voted pretty strongly against spending programs. But they don't vote 
the same way against tax cuts. They don't do pay-go on tax cuts. They 
vote to cut taxes much more than all of the earmarks in this entire 
bill, even though it makes the deficit worse, even though it is a fact 
that our children will suffer because of the debt.
  So there is no high moral ground here. There is a view as to how big 
Government ought to be, but the idea of keeping the budget balanced for 
our children and for our grandchildren, I daresay, this new Congress, 
under Democratic leadership, is toeing the mark far more carefully than 
previous Congresses did. We have instituted pay-go--pay-go for tax 
cuts, but pay-go for spending programs as well.
  Any economist will tell you, if you have a large deficit, it doesn't 
matter whether the deficit was caused by either reducing taxes or by 
raising spending. So, frankly, I think the arguments of my colleagues 
would have a great deal more suasion in this body if they were to say 
they will not vote for any tax cut that is not paid for either because 
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  If you wish to say I am for shrinking Government and I don't care 
what the deficit is, that is just fine. But if you are making the 
argument that we should not pass debt on to our children, debt from tax 
cuts and debt from spending programs is exactly the same debt.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. Can the Senator recall a time that I voted for a tax cut?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I don't know offhand.
  Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, my public statements are that there 
should be no tax cuts unless you do spending cuts to pay for them.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I respect my colleague for that. But the Senator from 
Arizona--I know of his record longer, and he does not have that record.
  Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate that, and I look forward, when tax-cutting 
amendments come to the floor, to working with my colleague to say they 
ought to be paid for if we are going to do it, like we did, for 
instance, in the recent SCHIP bill.
  I will make a second general point, and I will get to the specifics 
of this program. There are many needs in this country, and this country 
has always been one of federalism. Most of our time, effort, and energy 
goes into broad programs that basically do the same thing in Oklahoma, 
Arizona, and New York--whether it is helping pregnant women, whether it 
is education, or whether it is road building. Those are large national 
needs that this body has determined are real. But we have always had a 
view that States and localities are important.
  Frankly, since the 1930s, there has been a view that the Federal 
Government has every right or reason to help those States and 
localities specifically, and that is what good earmarks are. Earmarks 
are not all good. Spending programs are not all good. Tax cuts are not 
all good. Each of them can be aimed at a specific place. Each of them 
can be aimed for the wrong reason. But I am proud of the earmarks I 
have put in the bills that we have had this year and in previous years. 
I am proud to defend them and I am glad we are having this debate. I do 
believe there is a balance, and I don't believe saying every program 
the Federal Government does ought to be just aimed across the country 
because Sullivan County in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains, 
is quite different from the county that surrounds Tulsa, OK, or the 
Grand Canyon in northwestern Arizona.
  Yes, there should be a balance. To me, the balance in this bill--and 
the overwhelming majority are for broad Federal programs, but a certain 
amount are designated for earmarks--makes sense. Now, obviously, if you 
are putting an earmark in for something out of your State, or for the 
wrong reason, that is wrong. But let me tell you, if you go to Sullivan 
County, NY--and I appreciate that my colleague from Oklahoma has 
conceded this is a good program; he just doesn't think the Federal 
Government ought to spend for it. But I appreciate that because if you 
go to Sullivan County, NY, it is the place where the Catskills are. 
Until about 1950, the area boomed. Then the airplane boom hit and all 
the people from New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston who vacationed 
there started getting on airplanes and going to Florida, the Bahamas, 
California, and now Arizona to vacation. So Sullivan County became one 
of the poorest areas in our State. You drive up there, and you will 
see, from the Old Glory days, the great hotels that are boarded up. You 
will see the little bungalow colonies that people used to go to, which 
are now decrepid. I have been there many a time. I was there as a kid. 
I went to summer camp in the Catskills across the river in 
Pennsylvania. I would go there, of course, as a Senator frequently. It 
is an area that needs help.
  When you ask the people what is the No. 1 thing they need, it is 
jobs. In this bill, we talk about jobs, no question. But I daresay the 
people of Sullivan County--the economic development experts, the town 
and local officials--have a better idea of what would create jobs in 
Sullivan County than the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from 
Arizona and, quite frankly, the Senator from New York. They are there, 
they know it. They live on the ground. They are the ones who see their 
children unable to get work. They are the ones who have seen and 
remember the older once great days, and now the decline, and they are 
desperate to try to restore some of the jobs so their children won't 
have to go away.
  This Bethel Center for the Performing Arts was 1 of the 2 economic 
development projects that Sullivan County put at the top of its list, 
the other 1 being a racetrack, remaking the old Monticello Raceway to 
help with gambling, which is still pending in the Department of the 
Interior, where the Secretary, from Idaho, who doesn't seem to have a 
real understanding of the need, says it is an out-of-State tribe and we 
don't want to do it.
  A job training program will be very nice, but it would not help 
Sullivan County to a large extent. All of the other large Federal 
programs we fund in this bill will not help Sullivan County. The people 
of Sullivan County, as well as the people in the rest of New

[[Page 27625]]

York, who elected myself and Senator Clinton to try to help them with 
their specific needs, as well as make the country a better place--we 
don't tell them what is good for them. We make sure the money will be 
spent where it is supposed to be spent. But we defer to their decision. 
This was their decision. A lot of other things in Sullivan County might 
have needed specific help, but this was their decision. It is a good 
decision.
  I believe--and this is where, I suppose, my colleague and I have a 
difference--that the Federal Government should play a role. Being a 
U.S. Senator means making the big, broad national policies for this 
country, and it means helping the Sullivan Counties of each of our 
States. I argue that a Senator who doesn't do that is derelict in his 
or her responsibilities to their State. So I am proud of this earmark. 
It is the right type of earmark.
  My colleague mentioned the State government and why doesn't the State 
do it. The State has put $15 million into this. The local county 
officials have clamored for this for years. There was a previous 
earmark put in by Congressman Hinchey in the House of Representatives 
to help build a road. It is a whole performing arts center at Bethel, 
not just a museum, but it is about $100 million. We hear about State 
and private partnerships, and this is one of them. The locality and the 
State are putting far more money into it than Washington. So both the 
State and the county and the town of Bethel have stepped up to the 
plate. They are not just asking the Federal Government for something 
they would not spend money for.
  Every one of our counties has a need like this. If we are going to 
let a broad-brushed argument that there should be no earmarks stand--
none--we are not going to be able to help these specific needs. I am 
proud to do it. I spend some time doing it, and I am going to continue 
to do it. I think it is part of my job. I think the people of Sullivan 
County and the people of New York State and the people of the United 
States would agree with that when told the facts of this particular 
situation and a little history of Sullivan County, which I have just 
outlined.
  So I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment because this 
is, as my colleague from Oklahoma says, a worthy project, and most of 
them are--not all. I have great respect for my two colleagues on the 
Senate floor. I don't think they are motivated by anything other than 
the best of intentions. Most of my colleagues believe they want to help 
out the Sullivan Counties, and we should be getting at the deficit. But 
the right way to do it is to put in pay-go across the board, not tie 
our hands and eliminate one specific type of program.
  I want to review a little about the Bethel Museum in Sullivan County. 
It is a museum that not just covers Woodstock in the late 1960s, but it 
covers a whole post-World War II period, focusing on the sixties. It 
was a tumultuous decade, and it is a good idea to study it. Museums and 
libraries are a very important part of our history and education, as 
well as a job magnet. I don't think there is a debate that they are 
important. They have broad-brushed Federal programs that help libraries 
and museums. So that is not the argument.
  Most important, it is an economic engine, as important as an economic 
engine might be in southeast Oklahoma, in the Indian country of 
Arizona, or the mountains of Montana, and it is what the two Senators--
Senator Clinton and I--in listening to the needs of Sullivan County and 
the people of Sullivan County, the elected officials there and the 
Chamber of Commerce have said they need most of all.
  I hope my colleagues will support us and vote down this amendment 
because when they vote down this amendment, they are standing up for 
the other role we have in the Senate: to help our communities in the 
way they believe is best, not the way Washington dictates is best.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to our colleague 
from New York. Nobody is questioning anybody's beliefs. He certainly 
made that point, and we make the same point. In Senator Schumer, the 
citizens of New York have a very worthy and persuasive advocate. I say 
this with no disrespect. He could literally make the sow's ear into a 
silk purse, which I think is what is being done with respect to this 
particular program. He fights for his constituents' interests and 
beliefs. But I say thank you.
  If this is a jobs program, and that is the justification for it, I 
think we need to take a look at this again. I am informed that the 
unemployment rate in Sullivan County is 4.1 percent, contrasted with 
4.6 percent nationwide.
  Our colleague talked about the counties in northwest Arizona. He 
mentioned the Grand Canyon. One of the counties next to the Grand 
Canyon incorporates the Navajo Indian Reservation.
  I think about Tuba City. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Indian 
Reservation is about 40 percent as opposed to a little over 4 percent 
in Sullivan County, NY. We could use a lot of jobs programs. We can use 
other programs more than that. I cannot get money for a roof on the 
Tuba City jail which leaks. There are parts of Arizona where it 
actually rains, and on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Tuba City, AZ, 
it rains.
  I went up there on a Saturday night about 6 months ago. Hope 
MacDonald said: You need to come up, we have to get a new jail; this 
thing is falling apart. I walked in and, yes, it is falling apart. It 
happened to be raining and, yes, the roof leaks.
  There are huge needs on these Indian reservations in poor counties of 
Arizona. There are a lot of events we can commemorate on the Navajo 
Reservation in terms of a museum that would be worthwhile for everybody 
in this country to visit. There is a rich, long, wonderful history 
there. But I don't think we should have an earmark in the Health and 
Human Services bill to create a museum as a jobs program. If we want to 
do that, let's focus on the real need.
  I don't know how many jobs this would create or what the cost-benefit 
ratio of the expenditure of this money is for job creation, but there 
surely has to be a better way to do it than creating a museum. If we 
are prioritizing, I can tell you areas in Arizona that are far greater 
in terms of unemployment and could use the money in much more direct 
ways to benefit the citizens of the State.
  The second point that our colleague from New York made--I will stand 
guilty with respect to Senator Schumer's charge, which is that I don't 
believe we should always raise taxes when we cut taxes. That is what 
this so-called pay-go rule is all about. It is supposed to work this 
way. You either cut spending or you raise taxes.
  We had a Finance Committee meeting, I believe it was yesterday, an 
informal meeting. I asked my colleagues, because it was all about 
raising taxes: Does anybody here have an idea about how we could cut 
spending in order to pay for this? Dead silence. Not a one. I know my 
colleague from Oklahoma has lots of good ideas about how to cut 
spending, but nobody in the Finance Committee was willing to put forth 
an idea of cutting spending. No, it had to be to raise taxes.
  What I am curious about is whoever decided that the amount of revenue 
the Federal Government collects today is exactly the amount of revenue 
it has to collect from now into the future so that if we are ever going 
to reduce taxes on hard-working Americans, we have to raise their taxes 
in some other area so the Government can still collect the same amount 
of money?
  It is interesting, we collect about 18.4 percent of the gross 
domestic product in taxes today. We could prevent any of the existing 
tax rates from increasing--take the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and 
eliminate AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we would still be 
collecting 18 percent of our gross domestic product in taxes. Isn't 
that enough?
  If we don't do these things, we will be over 20 percent. The historic 
40-year average is 18.2 percent. Clearly, we don't have to keep raising 
taxes on

[[Page 27626]]

Americans. That is why some of us believe, when we try to help people 
by cutting taxes, we ought to leave well enough alone and not raise 
taxes somewhere else so we can keep the Government whole. The object is 
not to make sure the Government always has the same amount of money. It 
is to try to help the people who pay the taxes. They are the ones who 
generate the jobs.
  If we are talking about unemployment, let's talk about who creates 
the jobs. It is mostly small businesses. So if we help small businesses 
by not raising their taxes, they can create the jobs and that creates 
wealth and, by the way, it produces more income tax revenue to the 
Federal Government.
  I conclude by saying I plead guilty to not wanting to raise taxes 
every time I am in favor of cutting taxes, but that debate is 
irrelevant to the question before us today, which is simply, as a 
symbolic measure, can we at least find $1 million in this multibillion-
dollar bill that we can all agree could better be spent on something 
else? Can we set some priorities once and for all?
  This Woodstock museum, maybe it is a good idea--I am not so sold on 
it--but if it is a great job creator, and it is pretty clear the people 
in New York have concluded that, they have the money to fund a museum. 
They do not have to rely on the taxpayers in my State or other States 
to fund a museum.
  I hope my colleagues agree that in setting priorities, we can strike 
this one earmark from this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple points as to Senator 
Schumer's statement. First, with an unemployment rate six-tenths 
percent lower than the national average and lower than New York's 
average, by the way--lower than New York's average--it is hardly in the 
dire consequences of what we see around the rest of the country.
  The second point is, we have 60-some million dollars out there for 
competitive grant competition on museums for which the museum 
administration does a great job. In other words, everybody in the 
country who wants to have a museum has to compete against everybody 
else, and the ones who are most meritorious--by the way, they are also 
audited to see that the money is actually spent in a proper way; this 
will never be audited--they have to compete.
  The major problem with Senator Schumer's argument is that Sullivan 
County can never be healthy if the country as a whole is not healthy. 
That is the problem with the argument. We can say we want to make XYZ 
healthy. It is akin to saying your finger is healthy when you are 
having a heart attack.
  The fact is, the country as a whole is at the precipice--D day comes 
January 1, 2008. That is the demographic day on which all the baby 
boomers, the ``Woodstockers'' start taking Social Security, and 3 years 
later they start taking Medicare, $79 trillion worth of unfunded 
liabilities. How in the world can the American people ever trust us to 
fix those big problems if we don't even get it on the small problems?
  If this is a great idea, put it into the competition on competitive 
grants for museums. To say they are in hardship with an unemployment 
rate of 4.1 percent compared to the rest of New York and the rest of 
the country, that is hard to believe.
  Again, we have to start listening to the rumble in America that says 
start being good stewards with our money, quit doing things that help 
you as politicians that hurt us as a country.
  The fact is, although this may be very worthy, why shouldn't it have 
to compete against everybody else in the country who wants a museum? 
Why shouldn't it have to compete? Why is it that I can pick out and 
place--and I guess I am one of the derelict Senators because I don't 
believe Oklahoma can be healthy if our country isn't healthy. I believe 
Oklahoma will ultimately fail if our country fails. I believe that 
future generations will live a less standard of living with less 
opportunity and ultimately less freedom if we don't solve the financial 
problems in front of us as a nation.
  This is a symptom of our sickness, and until we reject and get rid of 
this disease of parochialism and start fulfilling our oath--do you 
realize the oath we take when we come to the Senate never mentions our 
State? It says you will uphold the Constitution of these United 
States--these United States, all of us. So the will and the best well-
being of all of us as a country has to be our most important goal.
  Alexander Tyler will be right about us if we don't wake up and change 
what we are doing. We will collapse under our own fiscal insanity if we 
continue to do these things.
  Senator Schumer is a great Senator for the State of New York, there 
is no question about it. He is going to fight and defend this old way 
of parochialism. He is going to fight and defend it until we as a 
country collapse. That is why we have an 11-percent confidence rating. 
We are collapsing already in terms of our real duty to build 
confidence, that we are looking out for the country as a whole, not for 
our own political careers or not for local parochial interests. That is 
why the Senate was created. It wasn't for parochial interests. If you 
read the Founders' writings, they never thought about the Senate being 
considered anything other than a body that looked at the long term, 
ensure the future, create opportunities, and protect the liberty, and 
we fall away from that as we go through this process.
  Mr. President, I know we have a unanimous consent agreement. I ask 
that all the Members of this body read Comptroller General David 
Walker's report about what is getting ready to happen to us and read 
former Secretary Peter Peterson's book ``Running on Empty'' and what 
they will see is not a pretty picture.
  The time to diagnose the disease is now, not when we are in ICU and 
we could have prevented it.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for their debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, moments ago I heard my colleague from 
Arizona, who is a member of the Finance Committee, as am I, talking 
about eliminating the alternative minimum tax. Most of us in this 
Chamber know we have a problem with the alternative minimum tax that is 
going to affect 23 million Americans, up from nearly 4 million last 
year, if we fail to act. But the notion that we eliminate the 
alternative minimum tax and not pay for it I find breathtaking. Why? 
Because unless we replace that revenue, we will have to go out and 
borrow another $870 billion over the next 10 years. In fact, some of my 
colleagues in a meeting yesterday of the Finance Committee said let's 
not only eliminate the alternative minimum tax and not pay for it, 
let's eliminate or extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and not pay for 
that either, not reduce spending or replace it with other revenue.
  The effect of those proposals would be $4 trillion of additional debt 
after they have already run up the debt of the country by $3 trillion 
in the last 6 years alone, a 50-percent increase in the debt. I find 
that not just irresponsible, I find it wildly irresponsible.
  From where is this money going to come? It would be borrowed. From 
whom would we borrow it? Right now, over half the money we are 
borrowing to float this Federal Government we are borrowing from abroad 
and primarily the Japanese and the Chinese.
  So when my colleagues come out and say let's have a bunch more tax 
cuts and not pay for them, by either reducing spending or replacing it 
with other revenue, understand what they are saying. What they are 
saying is let's go borrow a bunch more money from China and Japan.
  Some people say it is a sign of strength that they will loan us this 
money. That is an interesting idea of strength. I had a man in my 
office the other day, one of the wealthiest men in America. He said to 
me: I believe America is in danger of following the path of Great 
Britain, a great empire in decline, because we are not responsible 
about our financial commitments and we get into this idea of spending 
money we don't have and borrowing it primarily from abroad.

[[Page 27627]]

  It leaves me cold to hear some of my colleagues talk about supporting 
every tax cut, supporting every spending initiative, wanting another 
$200 billion for the war in Iraq and not willing to pay for any of it. 
That is what will bring America down. That is what will weaken this 
country. That is what will leave us deep in debt and a debt that we 
will owe all around the world.
  We are increasingly dependent on the kindness of strangers. At some 
point, we have to get serious around here and become responsible. Those 
who embrace every spending initiative of every tax cut and then call 
themselves fiscally responsible have gone beyond the pale.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3338

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from South 
Carolina, Mr. DeMint, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, or 
their designees, prior to a vote on amendment No. 3338, offered by the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate about 3 years, 
and I have become increasingly concerned that many of my colleagues and 
good friends, whom I deeply respect, now believe it is our purpose here 
in the Senate to take tax dollars from the American people and then 
give them to our favorite causes back in our States. There are many 
wonderful causes back in South Carolina. I could spend a whole national 
treasury on them if I could get my hands on it, but that is not what I 
am here for. Americans expect us to work for the good of the country, 
of everyone and our future as a whole, not to create slush funds for 
ourselves and give them to our favorite causes back home.
  My amendment addresses a particular cause, and my purpose is not to 
embarrass a Member of Congress but to point out that it is particularly 
egregious if we, as Members of Congress, take taxpayer money and give 
it to some project that has been named after us, and in this case Mr. 
Rangel has gotten $1 million or $2 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 30 
seconds since no one else is speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. My amendment strips this out. Some have said it is not in 
the Senate bill, so we don't need to do it. We do that all the time; we 
disallow the use of funds for particular reasons because that is not 
what a bill is intended for.
  Some have said we name things after Senators all the time. But it has 
only been after they have retired that we have done that. We do it for 
judges after they retire.
  We have to stop this insidious problem of becoming a favor factory 
where we are giving away taxpayer money for things we are not supposed 
to do, despite how worthy they might be. Please support my amendment to 
strike this egregious provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the only fault I find with the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina is that this provision is not in the 
bill before us. It is not in this bill. The thing he finds 
objectionable is in the House bill; it is not in this bill.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think all time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. We have done this before. We did it with spinach a while 
back. It is not unusual for us to disallow the use of funds for things 
not in our bill. It is important we do it as a Senate; otherwise, it 
will end up in the final bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just say again that I find it 
unusual that we are passing amendments on provisions that aren't even 
in the bill before us. It is in the House bill. Now, maybe the Senator 
from South Carolina wants to send a signal, and I certainly respect 
that, but the fact is the provision he objects to is not in the 
legislation before us. It is over in the House bill. Ultimately, this 
will have to be worked out between the House and the Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3338. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 373 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3338) was rejected.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are making progress on this legislation. 
The two managers are working very hard to consider all the amendments 
that people have suggested to them.
  We have just spoken to the distinguished Republican leader, and we 
believe this bill can be finished--it is 1 o'clock Thursday afternoon, 
and I hope we will not have to work into the evening tomorrow. We 
really need to finish this bill and have some cooperation from Senators 
as to how it can be finished with a time certain. So I tell the two 
managers, this is a bill we need to do.
  As I said before, there are a couple of reasons we need to do it. No. 
1 is we need to get this bill completed so we can get something to the 
President, and this would be a bill to do that. If the President is 
going to veto legislation, which he said he is going to do, this would 
be a good one to send to him because what the President is complaining 
about, in actual dollars, is in this bill.
  Second, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is the manager of 
this bill. We have to get him the ability next week to start and finish 
marking up the farm bill. We have to do the

[[Page 27628]]

farm bill every 5 years. We are now past the time when we should have 
already completed that.
  So there are a number of very important reasons we have to push 
forward this week to finish what we are working on today. I hope 
everyone understands that. I said before, I am so happy last week we 
were able to find a way of finishing the Mikulski-Shelby appropriations 
bill. We were able to do that. It took the cooperation of both sides, 
but we wound up with a good product.
  I hope we do not have to work late tomorrow. I hope we can figure out 
a way to do this. When Senator McConnell was speaking earlier today, a 
few minutes ago, we had both our floor staffs with us, and they are 
going to help work through this. If people have amendments they want 
votes on, let's set them up today or tonight. It should be, and could 
be, an important day to complete this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to the majority leader, we 
are anxious to move this bill to completion as well. We understand the 
desire of the manager of the bill to turn his attention to the farm 
bill, which has not yet been marked up. I am on that committee, and I 
understand his interest in being able to do that.
  Let me just reiterate, there is going to be plenty of cooperation on 
this side of the aisle to complete the Labor-HHS bill at the earliest 
possible time. I encourage our Members who have been offering 
amendments and are going to be offering some more to come down and 
let's do it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to move this along, I ask unanimous 
consent to call up en bloc amendments numbered 3242, 3352----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is to be recognized.
  The senior Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish to make a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield, if I could call up this 
amendment and speak for 2 minutes and then yield the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. How long does the Senator wish?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Two minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor for 2 minutes.


      Amendments Nos. 3342 and 3352 En Bloc, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up, en bloc, amendments Nos. 3342 
and 3352.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes, en bloc, 
     amendments numbered 3342 and 3352 to amendment No. 3325.

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


                           amendment no. 3342

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to administer Social Security 
      benefit payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social 
     Security Administration to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Social Security Administration to administer Social 
     Security benefit payments, under any agreement between the 
     United States and Mexico establishing totalization 
     arrangements between the social security system established 
     by title II of the Social Security Act and the social 
     security system of Mexico, which would not otherwise be 
     payable but for such agreement.


                           amendment no. 3352

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to process claims based on 
    illegal work for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be expended or obligated by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security, for purposes of administering Social Security 
     benefit payments under title II of the Social Security Act, 
     to process claims for credit for quarters of coverage based 
     on work performed under a social security account number that 
     was not the claimant's number which is an offense prohibited 
     under section 208 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408).

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, these----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to recall the floor 
but yielded 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I will sit down because I know I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, I will keep this very short. 
The first amendment deals with the totalization agreement the United 
States and Mexico have been working on together. I think there is a 
severe problem with a totalization agreement between our 2 countries; 
not because of our country but because of the recordkeeping and the 
problems associated with Mexico.
  What the first amendment would do, very simply, it would not allow 
the administration to use funds to implement a totalization agreement 
with Mexico. Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We 
all know that.
  This totalization agreement with Mexico would put our Social Security 
trust fund into trouble. That is why I think this is an important 
amendment that we debate, we talk about, and hopefully we will support.
  The second amendment I have, I believe, reflects American values. We 
hear about identity fraud all the time. My amendment says the Social 
Security Administration could not pay Social Security benefits to 
anybody who has used a Social Security number fraudulently. That 
happens today. They use it fraudulently. They come back and they claim 
the benefits while they were using someone else's Social Security 
number.
  This amendment would stop that practice. It would say Social Security 
cannot use any funds in this bill to give Social Security benefits to 
somebody who used an illegal Social Security number.
  So briefly, those are my 2 amendments. I appreciate the Senator from 
West Virginia yielding me 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, is the Senate operating under a time 
agreement at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement on the Senator's 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. Am I recognized at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3362 to Amendment No. 3325

     (Purpose: To increase funding for the Mine Safety and Health 
                            Administration.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, last year the coal mining industry 
recorded the highest fatality rate in 10 years: 47 coal miners 
perished. Perished. They died. Many of these coal miners perished in 
the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby Mines in West 
Virginia and Kentucky.
  In response, the Congress passed the MINER Act to help ensure better 
emergency preparedness in the coalfields, such as the underground 
installation of wireless communications and additional emergency 
breathing devices.
  In order to fund these new mandates, and in order to ensure continued 
compliance with already existing health and safety standards, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $13 million above the 
President's budget request for the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration in the fiscal year 2008 budget.
  I also note that because the President's budget failed to do so in 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee 
secured funding, at my request, to hire additional mine safety 
inspectors and to bolster safety enforcement at MSHA.
  I wish to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their support

[[Page 27629]]

and their stalwart advocacy of these requests. They are true champions 
of the coal miners.
  Since the Appropriations Committee reported this bill in June, 
another tragedy occurred in Utah where 6 miners were trapped at the 
Crandall Canyon Mine. During the rescue operation, three miners lost 
their lives, 1 of them a Federal mine inspector. The original 6 miners 
who had been trapped were never found. They remain entombed to this 
very minute, this very hour, this very day. They remain entombed in 
Crandall Canyon.
  When the Congress returned from its August recess, the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Senate Labor HHS Subcommittee conducted a 
hearing to examine MSHA's actions at Crandall Canyon.
  In response to several questions I asked based on articles in West 
Virginia's Charleston Gazette, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Mine Safety and Health informed me that MSHA had not been performing 
the full quarterly inspections required by the Mine Act. I learned that 
MSHA has fallen dangerously, shockingly behind on its mine inspections 
across the Nation.
  In southern West Virginia, the inspection rate had been allowed to 
decline from 89 percent in 2006 to 63 percent in 2007. MSHA needs the 
personnel, MSHA needs the budget to perform its primary and most basic 
functions; MSHA needs support staff to properly assess penalties; MSHA 
needs resources to review and certify safety equipment; MSHA needs the 
capacity and the personnel to train more inspectors.
  Years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush administration--let me 
say that again--years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush 
administration have left critical positions unfilled at MSHA, 
incapacitating the Agency in many respects.
  During a recent meeting in my office, the Assistant Secretary for 
MSHA, in response to my request, described a plan for MSHA to achieve 
100 percent of the inspections required by the Mine Act. The plan would 
require many tens of thousands of overtime hours and the transfer of 
inspectors from districts across the country.
  I have been told that these additional measures would be sufficient 
to fill the current gaps in the inspection schedules, at least until 
new inspectors can be trained and are able to assume their full 
responsibilities.
  Now the problem falls to the Congress. That is here. The problem 
falls to the Congress to figure how to pay for this interim plan and 
how to fix these very serious budget deficiencies at MSHA.
  Even after the most horrific year of mine fatalities in a decade, the 
President's budget request still does not include adequate funds to 
enable MSHA to conduct, in full, the most basic safety inspection.
  The President's budget request--let me say that again. Our 
President's budget request--let me say that again--our President's 
budget request does not even include the necessary funds to help MSHA 
comply with the mandates of the new MINER Act which the President 
signed into law.
  Today, I am offering an amendment that would add $10 million. Did you 
hear that? It would add $10 million to MSHA's budget. These funds are 
necessary to enable MSHA both to complete the safety inspections 
required by the law and also to implement the mandates required by the 
MINER Act.
  The amendment would be fully offset by a reduction in travel 
expenditures for the departments and the agencies funded in the 
underlying bill. It would save lives. The funds enable MSHA to support 
additional hours of overtime for mine inspectors and specialists and to 
pay for travel for inspectors temporarily reassigned.
  In addition, this amendment enables MSHA to hire additional support 
and administrative staff and to designate education specialists to 
better train new mine inspectors. The amendment would allow MSHA to 
begin to reduce its backlog of applications for certification and 
approval of new safety technologies. The amendment would spur 
expeditious approval of a truly wireless communications and tracking 
system that can meet the requirements of the MINER ACT.
  As SAGO--SAGO, a terrible word because of that terrible tragedy--
Crandall Canyon, and too many other recent mine disasters have made 
deadly clear, mine safety must not be funded on the cheap. The Congress 
must fund MSHA's true budgetary needs, and it must have the candid 
appraisal of the Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration. Tell it to us straight. I say to them, tell it to us 
straight. Anything less is a threat to the health and safety of our 
miners.
  I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Specter, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3362:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional 
     $10,000,000 for necessary expenses for salaries and expenses 
     of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
        (b) Amounts made available under this Act for travel 
     expenses for the Department of Labor, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education 
     shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by the percentage 
     necessary to decrease the overall amount of such spending by 
     $10,000,000.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it is my understanding that someone is 
needed on the other side of the aisle. I can certainly appreciate that. 
I want to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  I am advised by the able staff on the other side that Senator Specter 
would agree to having the yeas and nays. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (The remarks of Mr. Casey and Mr. Sanders pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2191 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  CHIP

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have a saying in some parts of 
Missouri, and I think it is a common saying in some rural parts of 
America: That dog won't hunt. I rise today to speak a few minutes about 
the Presidential veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Mr. President, that dog won't hunt. All America has to do is look at 
the rationale for the veto and look at the tale of two programs--and 
that would be T-A-L-E.
  The President says he is vetoing children's health care because it is 
too expensive. It is a $35 billion expansion over 5 years--an average 
of $7 billion a year. The President says he is vetoing the Children's 
Health Insurance Program because it is providing health insurance for 
wealthy families or families who can afford health insurance on their 
own.
  This is a President who is out of touch. When a family of four making 
around $50,000 is facing over $1,200 a month in health insurance costs, 
that is a crisis in our country, and one that the majority in Congress 
has recognized. That is why we have prioritized the children. This is a 
program for low-income children, for modest-income children, and it is 
important we give them this health insurance. The President says it is 
too expensive. We pay for it. It is a novel concept around here that we 
are paying for it.
  Now, let's dial back the calendar a few years and look at Medicare 
Part D. Was it expensive? Yee howdy, was it expensive. Try $710 billion 
over 10 years--an average of $70 billion a year. Was there a way to pay 
for it? Absolutely not. No way to pay for it. We

[[Page 27630]]

just wrote a bad check for it. We had no way of paying for it. Was it 
for modest-income Americans or low-income Americans? Oh, no. Oh, no. It 
was for anybody in America. You could be a billionaire and participate 
in Medicare Part D.
  So let me see if I get this straight. We have one program that is not 
paid for that is 10 times more expensive than the Children's Health 
Insurance Program that is for wealthy people in America--and it is OK 
the year before the President stood for reelection, it is OK with my 
Republican colleagues who voted against the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, it is OK with some of my colleagues from Missouri in Congress 
on the other side of this building who are voting to uphold the 
President's veto today. They voted for Medicare Part D.
  So what is the difference? Why is one program not fiscally 
irresponsible and inappropriate? But the program for low-income 
children, why is it so bad? Well, the devil is in the details. And the 
details in this instance are that the people who wanted Medicare Part D 
were the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. It is 
estimated they are going to make close to $150 billion off Medicare 
Part D. That is why this dog won't hunt. Because what this is about is 
the private insurance companies and private drug companies making 
money. Then it is OK to give the benefit to wealthy people and to not 
have a way to pay for it. But if it is going to the children and nobody 
is going to make any money off of it, then all of a sudden it is evil.
  No wonder the people of America are outraged. No wonder our phones 
are ringing off the hook. No wonder the Members of Congress who are 
willing to uphold this veto are feeling the heat. They ought to feel 
the heat. This is the right thing to do. We should be taking care of 
these children. It is the least we can do as Americans to face the 
health care crisis that we face right now.
  So I urge my colleagues from Missouri--especially those who are 
voting to sustain the President's veto--to reconsider because if you 
voted for Medicare D and you are saying this is a problem, you know 
what: America will figure that out.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my colleague 
from Missouri for her wonderful comments as it relates to health care. 
Also, as to the bill in front of us, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa for his passionate commitment to the right things as it 
relates to the values and priorities for our families: Health care, 
education, and focusing on things that really matter to families every 
day.
  I specifically come to the floor, though, because we just saw a vote 
in the House of Representatives that was just completed regarding the 
children's health care legislation. Unfortunately, it fell short of the 
override we need to have happen in order to be able to provide health 
insurance for 10 million children in America--10 million children of 
working families who are working very hard. They don't want to be on 
public assistance and Medicaid so that their children can get coverage; 
they want to work. They are working, but they are not in a position to 
be able to afford private health care coverage and they don't have it 
at work. So we are, through the children's health care program, 
rewarding work and rewarding the families of America who want to make 
sure their children have health insurance.
  It is my understanding that there was just a vote that fell short. 
There were 273 colleagues in the House of Representatives--and I 
commend every one of them.
  All of those who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle in 
the House and the Senate should be commended again. Certainly, our 
leader, Senator Reid, the Speaker, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, 
Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hatch--all of our bipartisan colleagues 
should be thanked for their efforts one more time.
  I come to the floor to say that we are not done. We are not done. The 
people of this country are appalled at the lack of understanding of 
what average families are going through today. This President will be 
shortly asking us to approve another $200 billion for the war in Iraq--
that will be paid for by our children, by the way, because it is not 
paid for; it goes on the national deficit, so our children and 
grandchildren will be paying for it--but says no to a program that is 
fully paid for, that invests $7 billion a year in making sure the 
children of America have health insurance. Seven billion dollars versus 
$200 billion, on top of another half a trillion dollars that has 
already been spent, on a war the American people want to stop as it is 
currently constituted. They want to change that mission and focus on 
things that will certainly keep us safer.
  So I come to the floor to, first of all, commend everyone who has 
been involved to this point. I am very proud to be a member of the 
Finance Committee, where we worked very hard to put together a 
bipartisan agreement. But we are not done. This is a mainstream program 
supported by the broadest possible coalition you could have, from the 
business community and the large pharmaceutical companies to Families 
USA and to organized labor and child advocates and health care 
organizations. This is mainstream. This is the broadest possible 
coalition. Unfortunately, I regret to say it has been defeated by 
misinformation presented by folks who think that if they repeat long 
enough that somehow this covers people making $83,000 a year or repeat 
long enough that illegal immigrants are covered, that it somehow makes 
it true. Now, as the distinguished Chair knows, even in looking at the 
issue of documented or undocumented immigrants, even those who are here 
legally were asked to--were basically put in a position not to be able 
to receive children's health care help.
  So to be able to address all of this misinformation that is out 
there, there is a real issue about that which needs to be fixed. So we 
have seen lack of information, misinformation, and more that has gone 
on with this proposal. In the short term, it seems to have worked, but 
it will not work in the long run because the reality is this is the 
right thing to do. It was passed 10 years ago by a Democratic President 
and a Republican Congress. I remember that debate. I was in the House 
of Representatives at the time in 1997. This was a positive step 
forward to support families working hard every day, trying to make sure 
they can put food on the table, pay the mortgage, buy the school 
clothes, and then have children's health care, have health care for 
their children, maybe be able to take them to the dentist so they don't 
end up with an abscessed tooth and the outrageous situation that 
happened with a child who died whom we all read about in the paper.
  This is about moral values, priorities. When this President now comes 
to us asking for another $200 billion for a war that is not paid for, 
that is putting brave American men and women in the middle of a civil 
war in Iraq every day, I want to have him answer the question: Why?
  Why, Mr. President, is it all right to add $200 billion more to the 
debt and ask our children and grandchildren to pay for it, yet you are 
not willing to stand with the children of America, 10 million children 
in America who are counting on us to be able to make sure they can get 
basic health care? There is something fundamentally wrong with this.
  I urge colleagues to join with us. We are not going to stop until 
this is addressed because it is the right thing to do from a moral 
standpoint, and from a fiscal standpoint it is the right thing to do.
  When children can't go to the doctor, their family can only use the 
emergency room or the child gets sicker than they otherwise would 
because they only have the emergency room to go to. They can't go to a 
doctor. The hospital pays, and then who picks up the tab? Every 
business that has health insurance. So from a practical economic 
standpoint, it makes sense. Certainly from a moral standpoint, it makes 
sense.
  I think this is one of the proudest moments we have had in the 
Senate, of

[[Page 27631]]

people of diverse backgrounds and philosophies coming together, putting 
the ideology at the door, and saying: You know what, this is about 
children. I don't know how many times I heard the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, the distinguished chairman, say: This is about the 
kids. Just keep focused on the kids. And because we did that in this 
Chamber, we came up with something we can all be very proud of.
  The American people want to know that we reward work in this country 
and that we understand that families who are desperately concerned 
about health care for their children ought to be able to have a right 
to be able to purchase an affordable policy that will allow them to 
have their children get the health care they need.
  So I appreciate our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
subcommittee allowing me to speak. I am deeply disappointed, along with 
people all across America, at the vote that just happened. But we are 
not done. Ten million children and their families are counting on us, 
and we are not going to stop until they have the health care they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan 
for her very eloquent and very timely statement on what just happened 
in the House. I guess it just transpired a little while ago. I think 
probably all of us were hoping that somehow the Members of the other 
body would come to realize this had broad support across the country--
the SCHIP bill--and the fact that the $35 billion we had in there over 
5 years was something that is sorely needed. I think we were all hoping 
this would pass. So when I just heard the Senator from Michigan say it 
failed by only getting 273 votes--we need 290 in the House to override 
a veto--that is a shame because it is obvious that we here in the 
Senate have the votes to override a veto.
  So what can I say? Seventeen people prevented this from becoming law 
and from providing the health care our children need in this country--
children of working parents. Mostly these are people who are a working 
parent or parents, they are contributing to society, they are taxpaying 
individuals, but they simply don't have enough money to buy the kind of 
health insurance they need to cover their kids. So this really is a 
slap in the face to the middle class in America, the middle-class 
people who are struggling to make ends meet and trying to provide a 
good education for their kids, maybe trying to put something away for a 
rainy day or for retirement, and they just don't have the money for 
health insurance. The Senator from Michigan is so right.
  I don't mind if the President is opposed to this, but I think he has 
an obligation to speak truthfully to the American people. When he came 
out yesterday--I think it was just yesterday I heard this--he said: 
Well, it would cover kids with families earning up to $83,000 a year. 
Well, that is just simply not factually true. It would be if he signed 
it--I mean, it is up to the President to approve or not approve those. 
So is he saying that if the bill went through, he would approve it? 
That doesn't make sense. So that was disingenuous on his part. Also, as 
the Senator from Michigan pointed out, that somehow this would cover 
immigrant children, that is absolutely forbidden in the bill.
  So I thank the Senator from Michigan for her long efforts in this 
regard as a member of the Finance Committee, as well as the occupant of 
the chair, who I know is a member of the Finance Committee and who also 
has worked very hard to reach a compromise, a bipartisan agreement on 
this bill to send it to the President. All I can say is, when people 
ask me now what are we going to do, well, what we are going to do is we 
are going to try to do something to move this forward. We can't just 
sit back and say that because of 17 people we can't move ahead.
  So I think most of us who feel very strongly about the Children's 
Health Insurance Program are going to do everything we can between now 
and the time we adjourn to get this back up and try to get it to the 
President, and hopefully by then there will be enough momentum behind 
it that he will sign it. But I don't think we should just sit back and 
let it linger.
  So I thank the Senator from Michigan for all of her strong support 
for the SCHIP bill.


                           Amendment No. 3362

  Mr. President, turning back now to this bill in front of us, the 
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the President pro 
tempore of the Senate, Senator Byrd, had offered an amendment on MSHA, 
the Mine Safety Health Administration, to provide an additional $10 
million for that. It was fully offset by a reduction of $10 million in 
travel expenses for the Department of Labor, the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and the Department of Education. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of that amendment.
  Our subcommittee held two hearings on MSHA this year. What we learned 
is they still don't have two-way communication and tracking technology 
that would operate after an accident in an underground coal mine. Other 
countries seem to do quite well in that--Poland, Australia--other 
countries seem to be able to do that, but we can't. MSHA has been 
dragging its feet on this for a long time.
  Our inspector force has been growing over the last couple of years, 
again thanks to Senator Byrd, who in the 2006 supplemental put in $25 
million to train and to equip the inspectors. But even with that, MSHA 
still is not capable of conducting 100 percent of the inspections in 
our Nation's coal mines. That 100 percent is required. That is a 
requirement. Yet they still can't do it.
  This is something I think is sorely needed. I support it, and I hope 
the Senate will adopt the Byrd amendment to the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration.


                           Amendment No. 3368

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending amendment be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3368.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding for activities to reduce infections from 
    methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and related 
                              infections)

       On page 50, line 5, insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall be for activities 
     to reduce infections from methicillin-resistant 
     staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and related infections''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Kennedy. We have seen, in the last 
24 hours or so, horrific stories come out about this new bacteria that 
is invulnerable to our first line of antibiotics. It is a dangerous 
germ and it is spreading all over the country.
  There was a story in the paper this morning about cases nearby here. 
A teenager died recently in Bedford County, VA, because of methicillin-
resistant staphylococcus, or MRSA. As of yesterday, Montgomery County 
schools had 14 cases, Anne Arundel County had 1 reported MRSA 
infection. They have received 57 reports from parents about other 
possible cases. Two cases have been confirmed at Wild Lake High School 
in Howard County. So something is going on.
  Some of these schools are trying to clean up. We have 1 here, where 
the Rappahannock County School System finished a comprehensive cleaning 
of its 2 campuses, and the cost was more than $10,000. That is one 
cost. The cost in human life and suffering is growing.
  We all are very concerned--and rightfully so--about the number of 
people losing their lives to the AIDS virus every year. But the fact is 
more people are dying because of this staphylococcus than they are of 
AIDS. MRSA was calculated with striking 31.8 out of 100,000 Americans, 
which translates into 94,360 cases and 18,650 deaths nationwide a year. 
In comparison, complications from the AIDS virus killed about 12,500 
Americans last year.

[[Page 27632]]

  So what is happening is that this microbe is spreading. The Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention have calculated about 19,000 deaths 
a year. So, again, it seems to me we need to pay some attention to this 
and we need to respond to it as rapidly as possible.
  This amendment basically says they shall spend a minimum of $5 
million--take $5 million out now to focus on identifying and containing 
and trying to hold down the spread of this terrible bacteria. It is not 
a virus, it is a bacteria. So, again, Senator Specter, Kennedy, and I 
wanted to introduce this to let the public know we are trying to get on 
top of it. Hopefully, we will have hearings with the CDC soon to find 
out what they are doing.
  This amendment would increase activities in hospitals and other 
health care settings, aimed at preventing the spread of this deadly 
bacteria. So I will leave it there.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at this point an article that appeared today on Washingtonpost.com 
regarding this MRSA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post Oct. 17, 2007.]

        Drug-Resistant Staph Germ's Toll Is Higher Than Thought

                             (By Rob Stein)

       A dangerous germ that has been spreading around the country 
     causes more life-threatening infections than public health 
     authorities had thought and is killing more people in the 
     United States each year than the AIDS virus, federal health 
     officials reported yesterday.
       The microbe, a strain of a once innocuous staph bacterium 
     that has become invulnerable to first-line antibiotics, is 
     responsible for more than 94,000 serious infections and 
     nearly 19,000 deaths each year, the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention calculated.
       Although mounting evidence shows that the infection is 
     becoming more common, the estimate published today in the 
     Journal of the American Medical Association is the first 
     national assessment of the toll from the insidious pathogen, 
     officials said.
       ``This is a significant public health problem. We should be 
     very worried,'' said Scott K. Fridkin, a medical 
     epidemiologist at the CDC.
       Other researchers noted that the estimate includes only the 
     most serious infections caused by the germ, known as 
     methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
       ``It's really just the tip of the iceberg,'' said Elizabeth 
     A. Bancroft, a medical epidemiologist at the Los Angeles 
     County Department of Public Health who wrote an editorial in 
     JAMA accompanying the new studies. ``It is astounding.''
       MRSA is a strain of the ubiquitous bacterium that usually 
     causes staph infections that are easily treated with common, 
     or first-line, antibiotics in the penicillin family, such as 
     methicillin and amoxicillin. Resistant strains of the 
     organism, however, have been increasingly turning up in 
     hospitals and in small outbreaks outside of heath-care 
     settings, such as among athletes, prison inmates and 
     children.
       On Monday, Ashton Bonds, 17, of Lynch Station, Va., 
     succumbed to MRSA, prompting officials to shut down 21 
     Bedford County schools today for cleaning to prevent further 
     infections. The infection had spread to Bonds's kidneys, 
     liver, lungs, and the muscle around his heart.
       The MRSA estimate is being published with a report that a 
     strain of another bacterium, which causes ear infections in 
     children, has become impervious to every approved antibiotic 
     for youngsters.
       ``Taken together, what these 2 papers show is that we're 
     increasingly facing antibiotic-resistant forms of these very 
     common organisms,'' Bancroft said.
       The reports underscore the need to develop new antibiotics 
     and curb the unnecessary use of those already available, 
     experts said. They should also alert doctors to be on the 
     lookout for antibiotic-resistant infections so patients can 
     be treated with the few remaining effective drugs before they 
     develop serious complications, experts said.
       MRSA, which is spread by casual contact, rapidly turns 
     minor abscesses and other skin infections into serious health 
     problems, including painful, disfiguring ``necrotizing'' 
     abscesses that eat away tissue. The infections can often 
     still be treated by lancing and draining sores and quickly 
     administering other antibiotics, such as bactrim. But in some 
     cases the microbe gets into the lungs, causing unusually 
     serious pneumonia, or spreads into bone, vital organs, and 
     the bloodstream, triggering life-threatening complications. 
     Those patients must be hospitalized and given intensive care, 
     including intravenous antibiotics such as vancomycin.
       In the new study, Fridkin and his colleagues analyzed data 
     collected in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, 
     Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee, 
     identifying 5,287 cases of invasive MRSA infection and 988 
     deaths in 2005. The researchers calculated that MRSA was 
     striking 31.8 out of every 100,000 Americans, which 
     translates to 94,360 cases and 18,650 deaths nationwide. In 
     comparison, compliions from the AIDS virus killed about 
     12,500 Americans in 2005. ``This indicates these life-
     threatening MRSA infections are much more common than we had 
     thought,'' Fridkin said.
       In fact, the estimate makes MRSA much more common than 
     flesh-eating strep infections, bacterial pneumonia, and 
     meningitis combined, Bancroft noted.
       ``These are some of the most dreaded invasive bacterial 
     diseases out there,'' she said. ``This is clearly a very big 
     deal.''
       The infection is most common among African Americans and 
     the elderly, but also commonly strikes very young children.
       ``We see these cases all the time,'' said Robert S. Daum, a 
     pediatric infectious-disease specialist at the University of 
     Chicago. ``In the last 5 weeks, I've taken care of 5 children 
     who were sick enough to be hospitalized and require intensive 
     care.''
       Studies have shown that hospitals could do more to improve 
     standard hygiene to reduce the spread of the infection. 
     Individuals can reduce their risk through common-sense 
     measures, such as frequent handwashing.
       In the second paper, Michael E. Pichichero and Janet R. 
     Casey of the University of Rochester in New York documented 
     the emergence of an antibiotic-resistant strain of another 
     bacterium known as Streptococcus pneumoniae, which causes 
     common ear infections. Although 11 children identified in the 
     Rochester area with the microbe so far were successfully 
     treated, 5 required an antibiotic approved only for adults, 
     and 1 child was left with permanent hearing loss.
       The researchers attributed the emergence of the strain to a 
     combination of the overuse of antibiotics and the 
     introduction of a vaccine that protects against the 
     infection.
       ``The use of the vaccine created an ecological vacuum, and 
     that combined with excessive use of antibiotics to create 
     this new superbug,'' Pichichero said.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the knowledge of other Senators, we 
are trying to reach an agreement to get to a series of votes. We don't 
quite have it yet, but hopefully in the next few minutes we will agree 
to have a series of votes starting fairly soon.
  With that, I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey 
on the floor.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside so I might call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3350

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I call up amendment No. 3350, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself 
     and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 3350.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to provide abstinence education 
        that includes information that is medically inaccurate)

         At the appropriate place, insert the following:
         Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to provide abstinence education that includes 
     information that is medically inaccurate. For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``medically inaccurate'' means 
     information that is unsupported or contradicted by peer-
     reviewed research by leading medical, psychological, 
     psychiatric, and public health publications, organizations 
     and agencies.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, I 
offer my personal thanks to Senators Harkin and Specter for their hard 
work in putting together an excellent bill. It puts more resources, in 
particular, into the well-being of our most precious asset: our 
children.
  I was pleased to join Senator Harkin and Senator Specter as a member 
of the subcommittee in providing more of the resources needed for 
health and education programs that have been shortchanged by this 
administration over the last several years.
  The best part of this bill is that we have a chance to help children 
live longer, healthier, and more productive

[[Page 27633]]

lives. The worst part of it is that, despite all of its benefits, the 
President said he intends to veto the bill.
  This bill increases Head Start funding by $200 million. Today in New 
Jersey, more than 14,000 children depend on Head Start for their early 
education. This bill also recognizes growing concerns about the 
terrible conditions of autism. It is a growing problem. Studies have 
shown that 1 in 94 children in New Jersey will be born with or carry 
autism in their lives. From 1991 to 2005, the number of cases diagnosed 
as autistic went from 234 in 1991 to 7,400 cases in 2005, a mere 15 
years. To see an increase such as this must be paid attention to. These 
numbers are alarming.
  I congratulate our committee for this welcome addition for funding 
autism detection. Families across America are ever more anxious about 
this health threat. Also alarming are the statistics on another health 
problem in our country. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in 
the industrialized world. America sees 19 million cases of sexually 
transmitted diseases, and almost half of them strike young people. That 
is why Senator Snowe from Maine and I are offering an amendment to make 
sure our young people get the truth about their health, so they don't 
become one of these statistics. America's young people should expect 
the truth from their doctor, they should expect it from their parents, 
and they certainly should expect it from a government-funded program. 
We cannot expect young people to make life-changing decisions if they 
get the wrong information from the Government. We have a responsibility 
to give them the most accurate information available when communicating 
with them.
  Right now, the Federal Government is falling down on the job. We have 
given out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence-only 
education. The fact of the matter is these programs are not successful. 
If we are going to spend as much as a dime on them, we must be good 
stewards of the people's tax dollars and make sure the information 
being given out is complete and truthful. Yet we have found case after 
case of incorrect and potentially harmful information being taught in 
these programs.
  In 2004, a report found that of the 13 most common federally funded 
abstinence programs, 11 have unproven claims and basic scientific 
errors. In fact, the office in the Department of Health and Human 
Services in charge of these programs doesn't even bother to check 
whether they are providing accurate medical or scientific information. 
It is time to change this policy. Young people have a right to complete 
and accurate information that protects their health and may save their 
lives.
  The amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering would make sure they 
get it right. Our amendment says Federal money is not to be spent on 
inaccurate and deceptive information. Millions of children in New 
Jersey and across this country deserve no less.
  We have seen misstatements made about the failures of contraception. 
What does that mean? It means diseases are more likely to be 
transmitted. It also means the number of teen pregnancies could 
increase based on misinformation.
  The Senate had approved this amendment in the 2006 appropriations 
bill. I hope and urge that we pass it again this year. What is more, I 
commend the leadership of this committee, Senators Harkin and Specter, 
for constructing a bill that is going to help our young children better 
off in their lives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New 
Jersey for his amendment. Senator Specter and I had put into the bill a 
prohibition on abstinence-only programs providing information that is 
medically inaccurate. Again, this is the beauty of having issues such 
as this come to the floor. Senator Lautenberg and Senator Snowe have 
offered a suggestion to tighten down on that provision and actually 
make it more meaningful.
  This is what the amendment says:

       For purposes of this section, the term ``medically 
     inaccurate'' means information that is unsupported or 
     contradicted by peer-reviewed research by leading medical, 
     psychological, psychiatric, and public health publications, 
     organizations and agencies.

  That clarifies the intent of the amendment. I thank Senator 
Lautenberg for the amendment, and I intend to support it.
  Hopefully, we are going to have clearance soon to begin a series of 
votes. We do not have that agreement yet, but we hope in the next 15 
minutes we will begin a series of four votes. We don't have that 
agreement yet. Hopefully, we will have that cleared pretty soon. In the 
meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3365 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I call up the Roberts amendment No. 3365.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will 
report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3365 to amendment No. 3325.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To fund the small business child care grant program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.

       For carrying out the small business child care grant 
     program under section 8303 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
     Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 9858 note) $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended. Each amount otherwise 
     appropriated in this Act for administrative expenses for the 
     Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, 
     and Department of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by the amount necessary to provide the amount referred 
     to in the preceding sentence.

  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and the expert staff we 
have working for us.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that I truly believe will have a 
positive effect on the quality of life for many hard-working American 
families. Access to childcare is essential to the quality of life of 
families trying to balance both work and family.
  Earlier this year, S. 228, my small business childcare grant program, 
was incorporated into and passed as part of the supplemental spending 
bill. I thank Senators Kennedy and Dodd for working with me to secure 
this authorization. This truly was a bipartisan effort.
  My amendment today provides the funding for this program so that we 
can make a difference for American families.
  Unfortunately, our small businesses generally do not have the 
resources required to start up and support a childcare center. The 
small business childcare grant program provides flexible short-term 
funding to encourage small businesses to work together or with other 
local organizations to provide childcare services for their employees.
  Small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $500,000 for 
startup costs and for training, for scholarships, and other related 
activities. Grants will be given to States on a competitive basis with 
the grant amount to be determined by the population of the State. 
Priority will be given to grantees who work with other small 
businesses, large businesses, nonprofit agencies, local governments, or 
other appropriate entities to provide childcare in an underserved 
geographical area of the State.
  The grantees will be required to match Federal funds to encourage 
self-sustaining facilities well into the future--50 percent for the 
first year, 67 percent for the second year, 75 percent for the third 
year. The Secretary is required to report to Congress in 2-year and 4-
year intervals on the effectiveness of the program, and the program 
will sunset in 2012.

[[Page 27634]]

  It seems to me this is a fiscally responsible approach to increasing 
access to childcare. The matching requirement, paired with the program 
and the sunset, will ensure that Federal funds are used in an efficient 
and targeted manner.
  This program has been authorized at $50 million over 5 years. My 
amendment appropriates only $5 million for fiscal year 2008.
  I urge support for this amendment to help ease the burden on working 
families by encouraging the development of small business childcare 
programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President we now have clearance for a series of 
votes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to Senator 
Byrd's amendment No. 3362 at 2:30 p.m.; that upon disposition of that 
amendment, the Senate vote in relation to Senator Harkin's amendment 
No. 3368; that upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote 
in relation to the Brown amendment No. 3348; that upon the disposition 
of that amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 
3321; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual 
form prior to each vote and that no other amendments be in order prior 
to these votes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the Senator's 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senators should be alerted that beginning 
at 2:30 p.m., there will be a series of 4 votes. I do not ask for 
consent now, but I will after the first vote, that the other 3 votes be 
10-minute votes. So there will be 4 votes starting at 2:30 p.m.
  Mr. President, I have a slight change in that unanimous consent 
agreement. It has been cleared. That the first vote at 2:30 p.m. will 
be my amendment No. 3368; that following that amendment, it will be 
Senator Byrd's amendment No. 3362, and the rest as stated earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Snowe and Senator 
Rockefeller be added as cosponsors of the amendment I offered on MRSA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3368

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the first amendment will be my amendment, 
and I have not asked for the yeas and nays as yet, so I now ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back, and the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3368. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--3

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Inhofe

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3368) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on the subsequent 
three votes they be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3362

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Byrd 
amendment. There are 2 minutes for debate, evenly divided.
  The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment would add $10 million to the 
budget for the Mine Safety and Health Administration. These funds would 
enable MSHA to complete safety inspections and to implement the MINER 
Act. The amendment is fully offset by a reduction in travel 
expenditures for the Departments funded in the underlying bill.
  This amendment is cosponsored by the managers of the bill, Senators 
Harkin and Specter.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell also be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Webb be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe this is a very worthwhile 
amendment for a very important cause for mine safety. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? Is time yielded 
back? Without objection, it is so ordered. Time is yielded back.
  The yeas and nays have previously been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page 27635]]

  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 375 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

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

                                NAYS--4

     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Inhofe
     Kyl

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3362) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 3348 offered 
by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown. There are 2 minutes equally 
divided between both sides.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I would like to be notified when a half 
minute is gone so I can yield the other 30 seconds to Senator 
Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio controls 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman and 
Whitehouse be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. This important bipartisan amendment, offered by Senators 
Voinovich, Lieberman, and Whitehouse, would provide $2 million in paid-
for funding for the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural 
Program. It is administered by the Department of Education to research, 
display, interpret, and collect artifacts relating to the history of 
the Underground Railroad. Senators Alexander, Cochran, Isakson, Levin, 
and I offered a similar reauthorization bill that this amendment is 
taken from. I ask for the support of my colleagues for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, the Underground Railroad is an 
educational cultural program that we have as a grant from the 
Department of Education for the purpose of making known to children all 
over America the history of the Underground Railroad and of the Civil 
War. It also is a program that is aimed at diversity training that is 
so necessary. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3348.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 376 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

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

                                NAYS--12

     Allard
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Roberts
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3348) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3321

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 3321 
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. There are 2 minutes 
equally divided before the vote, and at this time the yeas and nays 
have not been ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $1 
million in the bill, an earmark that would create a Woodstock museum 
celebrating the Woodstock Festival in northern New York 38 years ago.
  Now, some of you may believe it would be neat to celebrate Woodstock 
again and to do so with a museum. To the extent you believe that, there 
is a private foundation as well as money available from the State of 
New York that provides the funding.
  To the extent one would argue it is only $1 million, and therefore 
symbolic, the answer to that is, yes, it is, but I think the American 
people want us to begin to make some votes that demonstrate we care 
about setting priorities. Funding a Woodstock museum in New York is not 
a priority above the funds that would help the children and the 
pregnant women to whom this $1 million would otherwise go.
  As to jobs, every one of us could spend $1 million in our States to 
help create jobs. But to justify this on the basis of it being a job-
creation program goes too far. The unemployment rate in this county, I 
am told, is less than the average nationwide.
  So let's strike a blow for priorities. Let the American taxpayer know 
we are willing to at least start somewhere to save their money and not 
waste it on the Woodstock museum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this is the largest economic 
development program in one of our poorest counties. It is the Bethel 
Performing Arts Center. It is a large complex. It is a $100 million 
program. Madam President, $85 million has been donated by a major 
philanthropist. The State has put in close to $14 million. This is our 
$1 million.
  Every one of you has a poor county. They have gotten together, and 
this is their economic development project. It is not just a museum; it 
is a whole complex devoted to history in America from 1945 through to 
the present.

[[Page 27636]]

  If you believe in helping counties, if you believe every one of us 
wants the Federal Government not to just pass broad-brushed programs 
but to help individual needs in our States--this one coming from the 
leaders who have spent years and years in the Catskills to try to bring 
that area back--this is the project.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 3321 and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 377 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3321) was agreed to.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 SCHIP

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I think everyone is aware that the House 
today failed to override the President's veto on SCHIP. I think 
everybody is aware that 18 Republicans joined with Democrats to pass 
this bill in the Senate. This is a bill to support health insurance for 
low-income children. It is something I think all of us want to make 
sure continues to go forward.
  I haven't had the opportunity since I have been here to vote for a 
perfect bill. I doubt I will be able to do that during the course of 
the time I am here in the Senate. I think everybody knows the 
President's budget, the budget's $5 billion is not enough to cover the 
program, even going forward as it is. I think everyone would agree we 
can always trim a little bit out of any bill we put forth.
  I have a letter here signed by 18 Republicans, the 18 Republicans who 
joined with Democrats to make sure this bill was able to pass and 
hopefully to be able to fund insurance for low-income children. What 
this letter does is asks the leadership of the House and the leadership 
of the Senate not to simply send back the bill that has already been 
voted on, but to ask them to sit down with the President and let's 
negotiate a bill that can cause this program to go forward as we all 
want it to and discontinue all of the political rhetoric that is 
centered around this issue.
  I want to make sure children in America, like everyone else, have the 
opportunity, as low-income children, to be insured. I encourage the 
leadership of the House and Senate to sit down with the President and 
let's come up with a bill that allows this very good program to go 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so I may call up an amendment which I will then later 
withdraw.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3356 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3356.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3356 to amendment No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to the Low Income Home Energy 
                          Assistance Program)

       On page 55, strike lines 19 through 23 and insert the 
     following: ``U.S.C. 8623(a)-(d)), $2,161,170,000.''.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance 
Program, LIHEAP, was designed to provide funds to low-income 
individuals who cannot cover rising home energy prices. The program 
does not discriminate between cold and hot weather States. However, 
upon implementation, cold weather States have unfairly received the 
majority of the LIHEAP funds.
  My amendment eliminates the discretionary nature in which the funds 
are disbursed and frees up money and allocates it on a nondiscretionary 
basis.
  Before I go into specifics of my amendment, I would first like to 
discuss how Arizona is affected by LIHEAP funds. This summer, record 
level temperatures have devastated the State. Phoenix set a record with 
32 days of temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. In August alone, Phoenix 
experienced 9 days of temperatures of 110 degrees or above. The State 
of Arizona's average temperature for August 2007 was 105.8 degrees. It 
was the second hottest summer on record in Arizona and the Salt River 
Project and Arizona Public Service reached peak demand for energy 
service. Just imagine the cost to the people of Arizona to cool their 
homes during such extreme heat. Therefore, LIHEAP funds are crucial to 
many Arizonans who cannot meet their energy costs alone.
  Let me now turn to the way in which LIHEAP funds are distributed. 
Currently, LIHEAP funding is divided between two pots of money. The 
first pot is distributed based on a tiered funding formula, while the 
second pot of money is deemed a contingency fund distributed based on 
``emergencies.'' Historically, the contingency fund is overwhelmingly 
distributed to cold weather States. My amendment would eliminate the 
bias inherent in the contingency fund distribution and allocate all 
LIHEAP money to the funding formula account that is more equitably 
distributed to all 50 States. I would implore my colleagues to think of 
all Americans when considering my amendment,

[[Page 27637]]

and vote to provide a more equitable distribution of LIHEAP funds.


                      Amendment No. 3356 withdrawn

  Madam President, having spoken to the manager of the bill, and 
appreciating the fact that the amendment was offered too late in the 
process, probably, to receive the consideration it deserves, we will 
work on this at a later date. I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3373

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe, in accordance with our 
understanding on both sides, it would be appropriate for me to call up 
amendment No. 3373, and I do so now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Vitter, Mrs. 
     Dole, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Enzi, and 
     Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 3373.

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

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of funds available for the Office of 
                      Labor Management Standards)

       On page 14, line 24, strike ``$436,397,000'' and insert 
     ``$441,397,000, of which $50,737,000 is for the Office of 
     Labor Management Standards (notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act for the administrative and related 
     expenses for departmental management for the Department of 
     Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Department of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata basis 
     by $5,000,000),''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment is similar to the one I 
introduced yesterday, except it provides a different offset to pay for 
the needed additional funds for the Office of Labor-Management 
Standards in the 2008 Labor-HHS budget.
  This is a program that I believe is critically important. It is a 
program that has been very successful. It has resulted in over 700 
prosecutions in the last several years and restitution to union members 
and union locals in the amount of about $101 million.
  This is an important program. It is a working program. It represents 
the only required audits, the only required reporting and disclosure 
for unions in the country. The Securities and Exchange Commission does 
that for corporations and other institutions that are required to be 
audited. Other than this program, there is no real integrity to protect 
union members from fraud and corruption and theft. I will mention in a 
moment some extraordinary thefts that have occurred from union members, 
why this is important, and I will express my personal and deep belief 
that one reason we have as much broad corruption in unions is because 
we are not auditing them. We are not doing it. Even with the current 
level of funding, we are way behind and it would take, at this rate, 33 
years to do a basic audit of all the unions around the country. That is 
not acceptable.
  People are not being watched. They feel like they are free and 
temptation and money is coming before them. Obviously, people are 
succumbing to that temptation. More rigorous enforcement and audits are 
needed. The Office of Labor-Management Standards is a group that is 
required to enforce the statutory provision that mandates that unions 
provide, each year, public disclosure of how they spend their money. It 
was a bill offered and passed in 1959 by former Senator and former 
President, John F. Kennedy. It was an important reform.
  During the Clinton years, sadly, this reporting requirement was 
almost totally abandoned and, under Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, in 
recent years she has worked hard and those reporting numbers are up. 
But 36 percent still don't report. There is not even a way, with our 
staffing level, that she can insist on that. So 36 percent are not 
reporting properly. The members don't know where their money is being 
used. That is the fundamental question.
  The committee mark doesn't even flat fund the Department; it cuts its 
funding by $2 million. Every other enforcement agency is given an 
increase, but this one is cut. I think our members ought to ask 
themselves, do we need to be listening to certain union leaders who 
don't want disclosure, or do we need to be listening to union members 
whose funds and dues are being misappropriated? If we do regular 
audits, they will be more effective, and I am convinced we will see a 
dropoff in this kind of problem. It is the right thing to do.
  My proposal is to add $5 million, $2 million of which would get us 
back to last year's budget only, and a $3 million cost of living on top 
of that, so they can continue an aggressive effort to ensure integrity.
  I have Senator Enzi with me, the ranking member of the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senator Alexander, who are 
both interested in speaking on this. I will yield to Senator Enzi at 
this time. I believe I have 30 minutes; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Senator Sessions has offered a very important amendment, 
and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. The amendment restores critical 
funding to the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management 
Standards. It is referred to as OLMS.
  Funding for the Office of Labor-Management Standards in the current 
Senate bill is 20 percent below the requested amount, essentially 
scaled back from the 2006 level. Senator Sessions' amendment restores 
funding to current fiscal year 2007 levels and adds an additional $3 
million to continue audit and enforcement efforts.
  What is the Office of Labor-Management Standards and why is it so 
important? The fact is the Office of Labor-Management Standards is the 
only agency in the Federal Government that is devoted to protecting the 
interests of American workers that pay union dues. It requires 
financial reporting and transparency by labor unions about how they use 
their members' money, and it investigates and prosecutes union 
officials who are guilty of fraud or abuse of their members' financial 
interests.
  There should not be any reasonable debate about the importance of 
financial transparency for any entity, including labor unions. We 
demand, as we should, corporate transparency in order to protect 
stockholders. Those who pay union dues are no less entitled to the 
benefits of financial transparency and fraud protection than those who 
purchase stock. Indeed, purchasing stock is a voluntary activity, while 
in many instances the payment of union dues is not voluntary. 
Protecting the financial interests of working men and women, giving 
them access to how their money is being used and providing remedies for 
those instances where the money is misused ought to be a priority, not 
an afterthought.
  It is the height of hypocrisy to talk about protecting the rights of 
working men and women, or aiding the so-called middle class, while 
simultaneously slashing the budgets of one of the Federal agencies that 
protects the financial interests of those who pay union dues.
  The Sessions amendment puts a question directly before the Senate. 
Will we vote down his amendment and allow the Office of Labor-
Management Standards funding to be rolled back and go out of our way to 
send a message to the working men and women who pay union dues that 
protecting their rights is unimportant? That is the question we are 
being asked.
  I hope we will not tell them that protecting their rights is 
unimportant. This amendment gives the Senate a chance to go on record 
about the importance of integrity in leadership elections, finances, 
and respect for the rights of individuals. We know every dollar in most 
of our paychecks matters. When we are compelled to give a

[[Page 27638]]

portion of our paycheck away, either through taxes or union dues, it is 
an affront for that money to be used to inflate someone else's 
lifestyle, or to be misused in any other way. That is exactly what the 
Office of Labor-Management Standards guards against.
  OLMS enforces the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a 
law enacted with bipartisan support, including that of then-Senator 
Jack Kennedy.
  In this administration alone, OLMS has returned nearly $102 million 
to union members who were robbed. There were only 8.7 million private 
sector employees represented by unions in 2006. I will restate that 
number. OLMS has returned $102 million to union members who were 
robbed. OLMS has indicted 827 individuals and gotten convictions on 790 
of them. That is a pretty good record. Again, they have indicted 827, 
and they have obtained convictions on 790. That is a very impressive 
conviction rate by any standard.
  I have a State-by-State breakdown of those statistics, which I will 
enter into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            OLMS STATE PROGRAM DATA (OCTOBER 1, 2000-AUGUST 31, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Active        Audits                                  Restitution
                   State                       unions       completed    Indictments   Convictions     amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................           487            41            19            20      $281,147
Arkansas..................................           320            21             5             4       107,216
Arizona...................................           187            12             6             5       128,880
California................................          1444           161            31            28     1,231,382
Colorado..................................           297            55            11             9       194,490
Connecticut...............................           324            70             8             8       373,265
District of Columbia......................           358            30            29            27    16,808,286
Delaware..................................            90            23             3             2        42,630
Florida...................................           592            32            15            15       468,897
Georgia...................................           692            38            15            15       235,285
Guam......................................             7             5             0             0             0
Hawaii....................................           246            21             3             6       110,254
Iowa......................................           474            47            16            15       498,704
Idaho.....................................           131            14             2             2         3,234
Illinois..................................          1455           206            43            45    21,924,713
Indiana...................................           905            52            26            28       284,716
Kansas....................................           327            53            15            12       208,039
Kentucky..................................           492            47            14            14       158,038
Louisiana.................................           441            29            15            17       225,807
Massachusetts.............................           653           247            11            10       215,061
Maryland..................................           357            28             5             5       186,658
Maine.....................................           165            20             2             2        53,547
Michigan..................................          1121            65            29            28       397,900
Minnesota.................................           606            90            18            18       523,288
Missouri..................................           701           224            33            34       348,851
Mississippi...............................           278             6            14            16       162,221
Montana...................................           205            14             4             4        63,983
North Carolina............................           498            23            14            17       304,373
North Dakota..............................           144             6             6             6        59,077
Nebraska..................................           231            27             6             5       186,483
New Hampshire.............................           117            30             1             0             0
New Jersey................................           680           119            10             8       287,263
New Mexico................................           142             7             4             3        70,430
Nevada....................................           132            21             5             6       279,844
New York..................................          1673           349            88            85    47,785,509
Ohio......................................          1648           223            66            67     1,110,247
Oklahoma..................................           266            18            11             9       130,659
Oregon....................................           341            24            15            12     2,455,717
Pennsylvania..............................          1639           269            54            48       934,263
Puerto Rico...............................           127             3            13             2        33,851
Rhode Island..............................           135            57             1             0             0
American Samoa............................             2  ............  ............  ............  ............
South Carolina............................           234             7             3             3        49,974
South Dakota..............................           117             2             2             2        29,175
Tennessee.................................           651            36            30            29       423,477
Texas.....................................          1097            69            34            28       494,688
Utah......................................           155             7             2             2        67,406
Virginia..................................           740            30            16            20       338,707
Virgin Islands............................            17             1             0             1        11,280
Vermont...................................            76             7             0             0             0
Washington................................           538            69            17            15       675,048
Wisconsin.................................           802           157            22            20       706,424
West Virginia.............................           422            53            12            10       244,159
Wyoming...................................           117             2             3             3         3,899
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals:...............................         26096          3267           827           790  $101,918,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. ENZI. This is so my colleagues can see how many union-represented 
employees have been protected in their States. These numbers indicate 
that union corruption is not an issue to which we can turn a blind eye. 
It may not be seen as politically correct by some in this body to fund 
an office that audits and investigates unions. But the truth is that 
having a strong Office of Labor Management Standards is the best thing 
we can do to help the labor movement. Sunshine is the best 
disinfectant. When rank-and-file employees feel everything is in the 
open and they can trust union leaders, they are probably more likely to 
join one.
  It was the outcry of rank-and-file union members themselves that 
actually created the Office of Labor Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act. That act was born in the wake of egregious cases of 
fraudulent elections, embezzlement, and strong-arm tactics by a number 
of unions. The law also works to prevent backroom dealings between 
employers and union leaders that disadvantage the employees. The first 
section of the law, the Union Members Bill of Rights, was added by 
then-Senator and later President John F. Kennedy.
  I certainly understand that not every department can receive an 
increase in every budget year. But what this bill does is quite 
remarkable. It singles out this one office, the Office of Labor-
Management Standards, as the only enforcement agency in the whole bill 
to have its funding decreased.
  Senator Sessions and I are asking today that we simply keep the 
Office of Labor-Management Standards at essentially the same funding 
level it received last year. The President requested an increase 
because OLMS has been taking on a number of projects, such as 
compliance assistance for unions, which would especially be helpful in 
light of their recent revised disclosure forms.
  The funding called for in this amendment will be offset by a modest 
across-the-board cut in general administrative expenses of the 
departments funded under this bill. This reduction in administrative 
expenses is a very small

[[Page 27639]]

price to pay in order to protect the rights of working men and women. 
These workers deserve to know how their hard-earned money is being used 
and deserve to be protected from those who misuse it.
  I hope a majority of our colleagues will agree and vote in favor of 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Alabama 
yielding. I am due in the Judiciary Committee, where I am ranking, and 
we are proceeding with the confirmation as to Judge Mukasey. I wish to 
speak briefly in opposition to the amendment.
  The figures which have been provided to me show that there has been 
an increase in the funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards 
up to $47,753,000--it does show a slight decrease on this year. But 
overall, since fiscal year 2001, the figure has risen from $30,492,000 
to a figure of $47,753,000 for last year. This year it is, both the 
Senate and House figures, $45,737,000.
  There has been a very substantial increase in the number of workers, 
and there is a concern about the complexity of the new form LM-2 which 
runs to more than 100 pages. The Department of Labor has issued some 88 
answers to frequently asked questions to try to address this new rule. 
Having taken a look at it, it is not in line with the policy to try to 
reduce regulatory burdens because this new form is extremely 
burdensome.
  The principal argument is going to be made by Senator Harkin. I have 
asked him to take the lead, to go ahead because I am due at a Judiciary 
Committee hearing on Judge Mukasey for Attorney General.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the question before the Senate is 
whether we think the union members of the United States are first-class 
citizens or second-class citizens. The Sessions amendment says we 
recognize union members as first-class citizens by increasing the 
amount of money available to the Office of Labor-Management Standards, 
which collects the information to give them a chance to know what is 
going on within their union.
  We treat stockholders as first-class citizens. We passed the 
Sarbanes-Oxley law with a number of disclosure requirements for 
businesses. Some of the requirements may be burdensome, as the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, but we thought it 
was important for the stockholders of this country to know what their 
public corporations were doing.
  We have disclosure requirements which we in the Senate are required 
to give every year. They are fairly burdensome, but we do that because 
the voters need to know what our incomes are, what our assets are. They 
know quite a bit about us because we are required to file these 
reports, and these reports are investigated by various officials and 
ethics committees.
  There are a number of people running for President of the United 
States today, including a number in this body. They have to spend a lot 
of time filing information about where they get their contributions, 
because this is an era of instant information and almost universal 
access to information and transparency. We hear that all the time. So, 
we want the voters to know where the candidates for President are 
getting their money to see whether that influences what they do.
  In this age of transparency and universal access to information, we 
treat stockholders as first-class citizens, we treat voters as first-
class citizens, we treat taxpayers as first-class citizens, but we will 
be treating union members as second-class citizens if we are going to 
cut the funds the Department of Labor needs to provide union members 
with information they deserve.
  For example, this year the Senate, I am told, provides a $12.8 
million increase in funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
the oversight agency for publicly-traded companies. So we are 
recognizing the importance of treating stockholders as first-class 
citizens, but at the same time we are cutting the funding for the 
Office of Labor Management Standards, which means we are treating union 
members as second-class citizens.
  That is the issue. A vote for the Sessions amendment says we believe 
union members are as important as stockholders, are as important as 
voters, are as important as taxpayers, and that they are all entitled 
to be treated as first-class citizens.
  This is not, as has already been mentioned, a Republican cause, I 
would hope. I have been around long enough to remember the Kefauver 
committee, the McClellan committee, Senator John F. Kennedy and Robert 
Kennedy in the 1950s. It was the early days of television, and people 
who wanted to know about the Senate watched those Senators--one of whom 
later became President, one of whom later became Attorney General--as 
they ferreted out corruption and organized crime in various parts of 
American society, including unions.
  This Federal statute we are talking about was championed by Senator 
John F. Kennedy. It was enacted as an outcome of the McClellan 
committee hearing. Senator Kennedy knew then, as we know today, that 
rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions 
are spending their money, how they are investing their members' money, 
that their union books are clean, and that elections for union officers 
are fair and free of intimidation or scandal. They have a right to know 
that information.
  The question is, Do unions still need a Federal watchdog? Apparently 
so. The Secretary of Labor thinks so. She has said so. She has plenty 
to do over there. She could do more. She could use the money, according 
to her testimony.
  Over the last 7 years, the Office of Labor Management Standards has 
performed more than 3,000 audits, resulting in 827 indictments and 790 
convictions. There apparently is a lot to do in this area. What is our 
response? Let's cut the funding so we cannot have the investigations, 
so we cannot have the audits, so we cannot have the indictments, so we 
cannot give these union members the rights that Senator Kennedy--later, 
President Kennedy--thought they ought to have.
  I hope we can correct what I hope is an oversight in the development 
of this big, complex piece of legislation. Senator Sessions' amendment 
would treat union members as first-class citizens, just as we do 
stockholders, just as we do taxpayers, just as we do voters. We live in 
an era of instant information, universal access to information, and 
union members, just as stockholders, voters, and taxpayers, have a 
right to know what is going on in their union.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Alexander for his 
comments. Indeed, what we are talking about is funds contributed by 
union members to further union causes, not to line the pockets of 
persons who embezzle, steal, or otherwise cheat and use the money. That 
is an important issue we need to keep in mind. It is troubling to me 
that we have opposition to keeping this program on track.
  I have offered this amendment, as I indicated earlier, a new 
amendment that has a different offset. I know there was concern over 
the international union funds that go to the U.N.-affiliated agency. 
There is a big increase in that program, a $10 million increase. I am 
troubled by that increase, frankly, because last year Secretary Chao 
met with the people who were receiving this money, and they gave very 
inadequate explanations of where the money went. In fact, they couldn't 
explain where it went. I don't know whether it is being well spent.
  At any rate, the most important thing for us to do is focus on making 
sure we are protecting the contributions of union members and that 
their funds are being protected. That is why

[[Page 27640]]

I altered the offset to one that takes this $5 million from the 
administrative, management and related expenses of the Department of 
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
of Education. That is where the funds would come from. I believe that 
would not be a heavy burden on those agencies. In fact, they can absorb 
it readily, and this is clearly, as a question of priorities, more 
important to make sure we are not cutting back on this budget.
  Senator Specter talked about the status of the budget. I repeat, I 
think he understood it and explained it eventually correctly that the 
committee mark cuts the budget $2 million below last year's funding 
level. Because of inflation and cost increases, that is a most 
significant $2 million cut.
  What we are proposing is that there be a $3 million increase in the 
overall budget, a total of $5 million--$2 million to get up to last 
year's funding and an additional $3 million to increase the funding. I 
think this is valid. I think it is justified. It is something we really 
should do. If we don't do it, we are going to have a severe, adverse 
impact on the ability of OLMS to fulfill their statutory requirement of 
auditing unions and requiring unions to publicly file their financial 
disclosures.
  Some say this is a burdensome regulation, but in today's day and age, 
being able to maintain records of where you spend your money is not too 
much to ask. Most of these records are done by computers now. People 
have bookkeepers, and if they don't, they are taking serious risks. So 
to be able to report this information is not too much to ask. It is 
very valuable to their members. Union members should have the same 
protection, as Senator Alexander said, as corporate stockholders. This 
OLMS legislation is to union transparency what the Securities and 
Exchange Commission is to corporate transparency.
  This chart shows the mission of OLMS. The mission of OLMS is a good 
mission. It is not to harm anybody. It is to assist in the integrity of 
this system--No. 1, to provide union financial transparency. That is 
why the bill was passed in 1959, so that union members can know where 
their money is being spent. That is the report which is required. Then 
to protect union financial integrity--that is part of the audit 
function of the OLMS. They are required to audit the union activities, 
and they do so, but, as I noted, even at this current level of funding, 
they only get around to doing every union in the country once every 33 
years. Until we had some increases in this budget, it was once every 
133 years. It is a small agency, $47 million in last year's budget, but 
it has shown big results.
  OLMS does not tell unions how to spend their money; it simply 
requires them to file accurate and timely reports, which allows union 
members to determine for themselves whether the expenditures that are 
being made are appropriate. If they don't know what is happening, they 
cannot express their opinions in leadership meetings.
  That there is a high level of demand from union members for this kind 
of information is very evident. This is a remarkable number. Between 
May of 2006 and May of 2007, on the Web site of OLMS where these 
reports are posted so members can access them--so they don't have to go 
down and ask the officer or the boss at the local union to ``give me 
your records,'' they can just access them on the computer--767,980 hits 
were identified on last year's Web site. People are looking to see 
where their elected union officers are spending their money. Why 
shouldn't they? That is an average of 64,000 a month and over 2,100 a 
day. If union members don't care about how their hard-earned dollars 
are being spent, I ask, why do they take time to access this Web site? 
Of course they want to know, they have a right to know, and the only 
way they are able to get this information in a readily available form 
is through this reporting requirement.
  Unfortunately, the reports are not being submitted, and because of 
shortage of personnel and a certain lack of legal enforcement ability, 
only 36 percent of unions are not filing the appropriate forms. The 
delinquency rate is 36 percent. That is not good for union members.
  Now, Secretary Chao has met with union leaders. But let me tell you 
what happened. Under the Clinton years, this was not being enforced. 
That is just it. You want to know the truth? It was not being enforced. 
And the number of personnel went from 427, in about 1990, down to 260. 
They just weren't enforcing this 1959 mandate. When Secretary Chao 
realized it was her responsibility to make sure union members could see 
financial disclosure forms, and she asked that it be done, a lot of 
grumbling occurred. They said, oh, it was burdensome; oh, there were 
problems. So she met with them and met with them and they altered plans 
and they figured out ways to do it that were cheaper and better and 
less burdensome, but she required them to comply with the law that 
requires this disclosure.
  Now, after our colleagues have gained ascendancy in the Senate, lo 
and behold we come in and whack their budget. Now, who is being 
listened to, politically powerful bosses or is it the interest of union 
members? Embezzlement is not something we ought to support and put up 
with. We in Congress are focusing on transparency right here. We talk 
about it a lot. It is embarrassing to me that our colleagues have seen 
this budget be reduced.
  This chart gives a clear indication of just how significant overall 
the problem is we are dealing with. From 2001 to 2007, 796 people were 
convicted. Most of them pled guilty, and court-ordered restitutions 
totaled $101 million. But I indicated to you that less than 5 percent 
of the unions per year are being audited, and it appears that for every 
four of the audits that are conducted, about one person is convicted of 
something, on average. So we have a problem, we really do. And I submit 
it is not because people are necessarily bad people. Some of them may 
be, but a lot of it is because there is no real oversight and 
accountability, and temptation is too great.
  I have been a prosecutor for 15 years. I will tell you, you give 
people lots and lots of money, it goes through their hands and nobody 
is watching it. Temptation takes over, and you will rightly expect 
problems to occur if you don't have tight fiscal controls. We don't 
have it. I think we need to have a lot more emphasis in this area than 
we do, other than just a $3 million increase in this department. It is 
obvious.
  We hear a lot of talk about integrity in here about our financial 
disclosures and other things. Well, if we don't do our duty, people 
will complain. If businesses don't file their reports, they will 
complain. And we need to make sure unions do the same, not to beat up 
on unions but to help unions have integrity.
  Now, not to be monotonous--and I find this remarkable--but some may 
say, well, they are abusing unions and picking on people. But the 
conviction rate is 95 percent--95 percent of all indictments have 
resulted in convictions. They do not always get big sentences. I 
thought some I have seen were pretty light. But the point is, if you 
are convicted of these kinds of offenses, you lose your leadership 
position in a union, and that is important. So if you are stealing from 
a union, you ought not stay in as an officer.
  So I would just suggest that from my review of the cases, people are 
not being abused. They are being fairly treated. Overwhelmingly, the 
defendants are pleading guilty, and restitution is being made. People 
who are corrupt are not being able to remain in office to keep their 
hands in the till where the money is.
  The legislation that requires this is not new. This law has been on 
the books for some time. I will admit that we been very lax, and it was 
not being enforced, but the conviction rate, the amount of restitution, 
the number of fraud cases per audit indicates that was not a good 
decision. And if the audit rates had been maintained, I submit we would 
have had a lot less crime and fraud and loss of union members' money. 
This occurred in 1959. One of the leaders of it was our own Senator 
Robert Byrd. He spoke earlier today. He has been here a long time. He 
was

[[Page 27641]]

here in 1959 when this bill passed. And as a Senator from West 
Virginia, a State with a strong union heritage, a proud union heritage, 
he decided to vote for this bill.
  The bill was actually introduced and led by Senator John F. Kennedy. 
This is what Senator Kennedy said at the time.

       The racketeers will not like it, the antilabor extremists 
     around the country will not like it, but I am confident that 
     the American people, and the overwhelmingly honest rank and 
     file union members, will benefit from this measure for many 
     years to come.

  And until we stopped enforcing it a few years ago, or got lax, it has 
been beneficial. I think the work that is being done now, the $101 
million in restitution, indicates that progress has been occurring that 
has benefitted union members.
  Now, Senator Byrd wrote a letter that was included in the 
Congressional Record in response to certain criticisms he received from 
a district president of a union in West Virginia. They sent a letter of 
condemnation, and Senator Byrd was direct about it. He responded:

       The bill which passed the Congress will not hurt honest 
     unions, and it will give added protection to the rank and 
     file members in the unions. Honest union leaders have nothing 
     to fear from this legislation. The corruption and 
     racketeering that have been revealed in the fields of both 
     labor and management made it imperative that some kind of 
     legislation be enacted.

  And I think that remains as true today as it was when he made those 
comments in 1959.
  Madam President, since 2001, OLMS has only had the resources to audit 
3,275 of the 26,000 unions on record. That means in the past 7 years 
combined, only 12.5 percent of the unions have been audited. It is able 
to audit only about 2 to 4 percent of the unions each year. It is 
important to note that unlike corporations, unions are not required by 
law to have outside auditors. Most corporations have to have outside 
auditors. So in many cases, this audit is the only outside audit a 
union will have.
  In 2000, OLMS only did 204 audits out of well over 20,000 unions. 
That is the equivalent of a union being audited once every 133 years. 
Last year, they did 736 audits, a better number, but that still 
translates into an audit only once every 33 years at that rate. It is 
better, but I think we need to do a lot more.
  With the $2 million reduction in funding which is currently in the 
bill, it is estimated there will be approximately 350 fewer audits each 
year, and that is almost cutting the number in half. So we should be 
seeking more, really, considering that from those 3,267 audits that 
were completed there came 827 indictments and 796 convictions. OLMS has 
been funded below the President's requested levels over the past 
several years. Yet if the proposed cuts in the bill are implemented 
funding will drop from $47.7 million to $45.7 million. That is below 
last year's budget. So I would just note again that we had 427 
employees in this department in 1990. It fell down to 260, it has been 
inched up to 331, and if this bill passes in this form, cutting the 
budget, we are going to see a loss of personnel instead of an increase 
in personnel. We ought to be closer to the 400, it seems to me. OLMS 
was the only enforcement agency in the Labor Department that received a 
budget cut during the congressional markup.
  Let me mention this story of the United Transportation Union. We have 
a picture I think is sad. It is a picture from an undercover operation. 
The person who is handing off this money that is on this picture is a 
UTU-designated legal counsel by the name of Victor Bieganowski. The 
person receiving the money is John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, 
a top special assistant to Alfred Boyd, Jr., UTU president at the time 
this bribe money was paid.
  In 2004, Boyd, the international president of the Nation's largest 
railroad operating union, pleaded guilty to participating in a bribery 
scheme involving Houston lawyers. Union officials extorted bribes from 
the lawyers in exchange for access to injured union members.
  A March 12, 2004, Houston Chronicle article explains that Byron 
Alfred Boyd, Jr., of Seattle, is the last of four officials of the UTU 
to plead guilty in a plan to extort bribes from lawyers in exchange for 
access to these injured members.
  Boyd admitted using the bribes he was paid--get this--to gain control 
of the union. He persuaded former union president Charles Leonard 
Little of Leander, near Austin, to resign in exchange for $100,000 and 
a new pickup. This would allow him, Boyd, to assume the presidency of 
the union. Little resigned, but I guess he didn't get a promissory note 
or a mortgage because he was never paid his $100,000. Boyd not only 
stole from his union and breached the trust of his union members, he 
didn't pay the man he promised to pay to give up his office. Little 
pleaded guilty last year, as did former union insurance director Ralph 
John Dennis.
  We have too many examples of this kind of disregard for the integrity 
of the funding of unions. People are being entrusted with this money, 
and it is not being managed well. And it is something that we need to 
do more about, in my view.
  Madam President, I would just share a few other examples which I 
think are instructive of some of the problems that have occurred in 
recent years.
  In Pennsylvania, in June of 2007, in the eastern district of 
Pennsylvania, Lawrence Marable and Deborah Powell, former president and 
treasurer of AFGE Local 1793, representing employees at the VA Medical 
Center, both pled guilty to conspiracy and theft of property in a 
special territorial case. They conspired to convert dues checks and 
issued Local 1793 checks for their personal use totaling $184,129. This 
was a very serious matter, I suggest.
  In May of this year, in Michigan, Alan Raines, former financial 
secretary of Steelworkers Local 1358 was charged with embezzling union 
funds in the amount of $274,262. That is not chicken feed. That is huge 
money. A lot of these unions do not have that many members, and the 
cost per member in one, I remember specifically, was about $1,000 per 
member in the amount of loss that occurred.
  Here, on April 2, 2007, in Puerto Rico, the president of the 
International Longshoremen's local was found guilty of 12 counts of 
embezzlement. He was charged among other counts with conspiracy to 
embezzle union funds in excess of $1,950,000. That is a breathtaking 
amount. Both of those, in May and April of this year. In March of this 
year, in New York, John Daley, former chief financial officer of the 
New York State Nurses Association, was sentenced to time in prison 
after pleading guilty to grand larceny for taking $1,193,000 in union 
funds. These are public records. These are huge amounts of money.
  In June of last year in Connecticut, a former financial secretary of 
Local 745 of PACE was charged with taking $138,000, embezzling that 
much money.
  In June of this year, in my hometown, sadly, the Southern District of 
Alabama, where I at one time was a Federal prosecutor myself in the 
United States District Court there, Kenneth Mays, the former treasurer 
of IBEW Local 1053, was sentenced after pleading guilty to embezzlement 
and ordered to pay $37,000 in restitution, reimbursement. This is right 
in my home state.
  On July of last year, in Fulton County, GA, in the district court, a 
bookkeeper for IBEW Local 613 was indicted for taking $11,000.
  In December of 2005, in the Northern District of Iowa, Debra Herrig 
was sentenced and pled guilty to embezzling union funds and made 
restitution in the amount of $13,000.
  In December of 2004, in the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Iowa, Rodney Fox was charged with embezzling 
$89,000 of union funds.
  In May of 2005, in the Southern District of Iowa, Amanda Kemmer was 
sentenced to 24 months and ordered to pay $209,000 in full restitution 
for embezzling union funds.
  There are lots more I can indicate.
  I will repeat. I don't believe there is any need for this kind of 
criminal activity to go on. I believe a lot of it occurs because there 
is so little oversight. If we had a rigorous oversight

[[Page 27642]]

and audit function by the Department of Labor, we would see a lot less 
of it. If the unions were required to promptly and fully report the 
expenditures, union members would be able to watch for problems and 
pick them up sooner and keep these kind of embezzlements from going to 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars. That is why 
this office, of all offices, should not be reduced.
  I understand some people believe it is a burden, and for a good union 
that never had any problems I guess filing it is a burden. It may not 
be a necessary thing. But, really, probably it is because the union 
members get to see where their funds are being spent, honestly and 
fairly.
  Most unions, of course, are honest and do a good job, and most union 
members are the salt of the Earth and couldn't be better people, and 
most union leaders are honest and decent and work hard every day to 
protect the interests of their own members. They try to make sure they 
get a fair deal in the workplace.
  I am telling you we need to be attuned to that because wages are not 
what I think they ought to be for the average worker in America today. 
There are a lot of reasons for that. I suggest one of them is this very 
large surge of low-wage labor that comes into our country illegally.
  But, regardless, we want to help our union members receive the 
highest possible wage and to be able to know that their leadership is 
honest and trustworthy and doing the right thing. I believe we have to 
get this money back into this account. We need to be sure we have at 
least a modest increase in spending to keep up with the inflation rate 
so we can continue at least this modest rate of enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to not see this as an action that goes against 
unions but as an action that will strengthen unions, that will affirm 
the importance of the union members' money that they contribute, and to 
make sure it is spent wisely.
  It is sad to say, sometimes you get a big restitution order of $1 
million--I have been there and seen them, but it is like getting blood 
from a turnip. It will never come back. It is gone and the members have 
actually lost it and nobody can do anything about it.
  I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this amendment. 
I think it is reasonable and fair and the offset, let me repeat, does 
not deal with the controversial ILO, International Labor Organization, 
that does some good. It certainly has good objectives. How well they 
spend their money, I have my doubts, but it has good objectives. It is 
an offset against administrative expenses, and across the board it will 
be a small impact on the administrative budgets of these agencies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to respond to some of the 
points made by the Senator from Alabama. First of all, I want to make 
it clear that I do not know of any Senator on either side of the aisle 
who is not in favor of going after either fraud, waste and abuse, or 
any kind of criminal activities--whether it is done in the business 
community, by corporations, or whether it is done in labor unions. 
Really, the question is, how do you do it? What is the best way of 
doing it? Are we getting a good return on the dollar, so to speak, for 
what we are investing in?
  I thought we might take a look and see what has been happening in 
this whole area in the Department of Labor over the past few years, 
where their focus has been and where it has not been, and what the 
priorities are. You can tell a lot about someone's priorities by how 
they spend their money. The bill before us provides some modest 
increase in work protections agencies--OSHA, MSHA, Wage and Hour 
Division. We also provide for the OLMS--that is the office the Senator 
from Alabama has been talking about, Office of Labor Management 
Standards--$45.7 million. That is not chicken feed. I will talk more 
about that in a bit.
  But I want to point to some charts to show where we are, to put it in 
better perspective. Right now at the Department of Labor, for OSHA--
that is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These are 
the people who go out and make sure your workplaces are safe, that you 
are not exposed to toxic chemicals, things that cause cancer, or unsafe 
workplaces where you wind up losing a limb, an arm, a hand, or where 
you are exposed to different things that may injure your lungs, whether 
it is asbestos inhalation or any kind of toxic chemicals that may have 
long-term profound effects. This is OSHA.
  What does the administration spend on OSHA? They spend $26 per 
workplace.
  The Wage and Hour Division is the people who go out and make sure you 
are actually being paid what you say you should be paid, that you are 
getting overtime pay, that the company is abiding by the wage and hour 
provisions of the contract, for example, that the union may have 
signed. So in Wage and Hour, they are spending $26 per workplace. Under 
Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Labor is spending 
about $26 per workplace--about the same.
  What are they spending at the Office of Labor Management Standards? 
It is $2,707 per union; $26 per workplace for OSHA, 100 times more for 
OLMS than they are spending on OSHA investigating where people get 
injured, damaged, maimed for life due to unsafe working conditions.
  There it is, 100 times more for OLMS. Yet they say it is not enough 
money. They need more. Let's see what that means. OLMS--more staff. 
More staff and fewer results.
  I was listening to the Senator from Alabama. It would be one thing 
if, over these years they were spending more money and hiring more 
staff, they actually got more convictions and that stuff. That is not 
so. In 2003, there were 297 people working for OLMS. In 2006, that had 
increased to 384, almost a 40-percent increase, maybe, or 50-percent 
increase? Anyway, almost 100 people more, 297 to 384. What happened to 
the number of indictments? The number of indictments in 2003 was 132; 
the number in 2006 was 118. They have 100 more people, but the number 
of indictments goes down.
  Look at the convictions. We saw the chart. In 2003, we had 152 
convictions; in 2006, 129. So we have a lot more people working there. 
We are spending more money on personnel, and we are getting fewer 
indictments and fewer convictions. The budget, at that same time, went 
from $34.3 million to $45.7 million, which is where we are. They put on 
more people, but they got fewer indictments and fewer convictions.
  Now with the Sessions amendment, they want to go to $50.7 million--I 
guess to hire more people so we can get fewer indictments and fewer 
convictions.
  This really tells the story. What is happening is, they are loading 
up OLMS with featherbedding. That is classic. They put more and more 
people on, and they are doing less and less work. When I see a 
trendline like that, I say: You don't chase bad money with good. We put 
all that money in there, and it looks as though what we are doing is 
hiring a bunch of people who are sitting around, not doing very much.
  Let's look at labor staffing. I mentioned before--this is the same 
figure you saw in the previous chart, OLMS went from 297 to 384, a 29-
percent increase. How about OSHA? What happened to Occupational Safety 
and Health? It went from 1,683 down to 1,542. They got rid of people to 
do inspections. And MSHA, coal mine safety, went down from 2,299 to 
2,136. So while OLMS went up, OSHA and MSHA, Mine Safety Health 
Administration, actually cut personnel.
  What does that mean? This next chart shows what it means. Unlike 
OLMS, where more staff means fewer results, the cutbacks of OSHA and 
MSHA means less work gets done. This chart demonstrates what has 
happened over the last several years in President Bush's budget. OSHA 
inspections, right here, from 2003 to 2006, dropped from 39,884 to 
38,589, so we get fewer OSHA inspections and fewer workers are being 
protected as a result.
  Then, the number of employees benefiting from OSHA inspections fell 
from

[[Page 27643]]

1.6 million to 1.2 million. I don't have that number on this chart.
  Look at mine safety. Right now, MSHA is unable to do all the 
inspections that they are required to do by law. What has happened 
here? Under mine safety, the staff went from 2,299 to 2,136.
  The number of inspections they were able to complete went from 98.8 
percent to 95.1 percent, which is where we are today. They cannot even 
inspect all of the mines. Need I remind anyone here of the recent mine 
disaster in Utah, the mine disasters in West Virginia and Virginia, 
Pennsylvania.
  Miners continue to lose their lives every year in coal mines and 
other mine disasters, and yet in MSHA, we do not even have enough 
people there to do the inspections. I think these charts show you what 
is happening over there.
  I think that $45.7 million is more than enough for them to do their 
job. There it is. It went from 297 to 384 people. Yet the number of 
indictments and convictions went down. The budget went from $34 to $45 
million. Now they want to go to $50 million. Well, something is not 
right here. Something is not right. It sounds as if they are hiring 
more and more people, but I do not know what they are doing.
  There is one other thing I want to respond to that Senator Sessions 
brought up. I think if I remember it right--I will have to check the 
Record, but I thought he said something about 26 percent of the reports 
were not standard, were not acceptable, did not meet standards of 
acceptability.
  Well, you can go right to the White House, online, go to the Office 
of Labor Management Standards. It has got program performance measures. 
It says here: Measure. Increasing union transparency. Increase the 
percentage of union reports meeting standards of acceptability for 
public disclosure.
  Here is what it says: Explanation. The principle objective of this 
performance goal is to increase the percentage of union reports meeting 
standards of acceptability for public disclosure.
  Prior to implementation of electronic reporting formats, only 73 
percent of union reports filed met standards of the acceptability. 
Expanded use of electronic report formats is significantly improving 
the sufficiency of reports for public disclosure.
  Here it is. In 2003, 73 percent, that is what I mentioned. I think 
that is where Senator Sessions got the 26 percent that were not 
acceptable. Well, that was 2003. In 2004, it went to 94 percent. It is 
now at 93 percent, 93, 94 percent. So there are only about 6 to 7 
percent that are not meeting the standards; again, not 26 percent. It 
is more like about--well, it is either 6 or 7 percent right now. The 
goal is 97 percent. Obviously they are getting there with this new 
electronic reporting.
  Now the other thing has to do with financial integrity. I talked 
about fraud, and I saw the picture of somebody getting money and all of 
that kind of stuff. Well, again, on the same Web site--you can look it 
up yourself--the measure: increasing union financial integrity. The 
percentage of unions with fraud will decrease. That is the outcome. 
Right here it says that: OLMS conducts audits to monitor compliance, 
uncover embezzlement, and other criminal and civil violations of the 
law, using streamlined investigative audit procedures.
  In fiscal year 2004, OLMS conducted a union audit study that 
identified fraud in 9 percent of the unions. That was in 2004. The last 
reporting period was 2006. It went down to 8 percent. What is the goal? 
Seven and one-half percent. So it is only half a percent of what the 
goal is as stated by OLMS. Again, the indicators are there that the 
electronic reporting and other things are having their effect. So you 
wonder, why do they need so many personnel if, in fact, they have gone 
to electronic reporting and they are getting better results and better 
transparency from that? This sounds to me like a classic case of 
featherbedding, padding it with people and spending more money for not 
getting much for results; in fact, getting less results than we have 
gotten in the past with less money.
  Again, I think we have met our obligation with $45.7 million for 
OLMS. By the way, that should be more than enough for them to do their 
audits and to do their indictments and convictions. I think this shows 
that more personnel and more money have not translated into more 
convictions and more indictments.
  There is a balance that has got to be held here. I think our 
committee did a good job of balancing OLMS, which has a job to do. They 
should do it. They should investigate, they should audit, they should 
indict, and they should convict people who are absconding with union 
money. Absolutely. No one denies that. They should.
  The question is, how do we balance that with making sure we have more 
inspections of workplace safety, or mine safety, the other things that 
the Department of Labor is supposed to be doing to protect our workers? 
That is the balance we have struck here in the bill. I think it is a 
good balance, something that was worked out in a bipartisan fashion 
with Senator Specter, myself, and other Republicans and Democrats on 
the committee. As I pointed out, this passed the committee 26 to 3. 
This was not even an issue. I think everyone figured there was a pretty 
good balance for what we set up. I hope we can maintain that balance.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3349 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, among the amendments that are pending, 
one is 3349. I ask unanimous consent to have it called up and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is pending.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this was the amendment offered by 
Senator Brown earlier. It had to do with Upward Bound evaluations. It 
was cleared on both sides of the aisle. We are ready to vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3349) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I say to Senators, we are working our 
way through the amendments. It is now 5:15. I know people do not want 
to work late tonight, but we are going to be in very late tonight 
unless Senators who have amendments pending come over and offer their 
amendments.
  As people can tell, there is nothing happening here right now. We 
hope to get a couple more votes here very shortly. Right now, there is 
not an amendment pending for which we can have a vote except the 
Sessions amendment. We had a pretty good debate on that yesterday and 
just now. I think pretty much all of the debate regarding the amendment 
offered by Senator Sessions is over. We are prepared to vote on that, 
but we will hold off until we can get clearance on the other side to 
have a vote.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 27644]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts on some 
of the discussion we had earlier today. My colleagues shared some ideas 
about whether we are funding OSHA sufficiently, that sort of thing. The 
spending per business from OSHA is different from spending per union. 
OSHA has many businesses they serve, and so they go out to each one and 
make their visits and do their inspections and assess penalties. But 
unions serve many businesses, and one inspector would come there and 
spend some time and would cover their relationship with quite a number 
of businesses. All workplaces are not unionized so I don't think that 
was a fair comparison.
  Also, the Department of Labor just reported that the indictment and 
conviction numbers continue to go up. They now have 798 convictions and 
834 indictments. It seems every day they are out there making good 
progress, where they have the capability to do so, against fraud and 
corruption.
  With regard to the full-time equivalent, the number of employees, in 
recent years we have seen an increase in the number of employees--that 
is true--but the truth is those increases have been modest. For 
example, in 1990, there were over 400 OLMS employees. Now that number 
dropped down below 300. Mostly during the period of the Clinton 
administration there was a sharp dropoff. Now it is back up to 331, but 
that is well below the amount it used to be.
  I don't think there is anything that can be said except that 
Secretary Chao has begun to restore that office a bit, tried to get it 
on a stronger basis, have it do a better job of enforcing the law. She 
needs that. One can only interpret this budget cut--the only budget cut 
within this whole line item of appropriations to her enforcement 
agency, the agency that requires the unions to publish their 
expenditures, the enforcement agency that actually does audits--as an 
indication of something rather serious, especially when the audits are 
uncovering extraordinary amounts of problems. That is what we have. We 
have a situation in which we have had so little oversight that there is 
abuse of union members' money going on on a regular basis. That money 
is too often being abused. Not by everybody; overwhelmingly, the 
average union leader is honest and decent. The locals are run by good 
people elected by their members. But long-term tenures, lack of 
controls, no audits puts people in a position where their good 
discipline fails.
  I have seen it in churches. People in church have access to large 
amounts of money. Nobody is monitoring it, and they take it, sometimes 
large amounts. So we need to understand that oversight, auditing, and 
financial disclosure is not punishment. It is not demeaning. It is 
serving the rank-and-file union members. It is serving their interests 
so they can know their leadership is functioning honestly and with 
integrity, and they can know what they are spending their money on. It 
may be an honest expenditure, but a union member might look at it and 
say: They paid too much for this copy machine because that is his 
brother-in-law. They might want to complain about that. Isn't that the 
way we want it to happen? That is what the whole system is about.
  It is disappointing to me to see that we have a cut in this agency, 
of all agencies. I am disappointed in that. I know Secretary Chao would 
be concerned that people thought that somehow in doing these few 
audits--and we are so slow in what we are doing and doing so few it 
would take 33 years to audit all existing unions. But to suggest they 
were spending so much money on that, and they weren't protecting 
workers. There is actually some good news there. For example, since 
fiscal year 2001, the fatality rate among Hispanic workers has fallen 
by over 18 percent. Since 2002, the injury and illness incident rate 
has fallen from 5.3 per 100 workers to 4.6 per 100 workers, a drop of 
more than 13 percent in the injury and illness incident rate, which is 
a substantial improvement.
  With regard to the number of resources, from 1992 to 2002, there were 
budget cuts and the FTEs dropped 34 percent. That is the number of 
workers during basically the period in which President Clinton was in 
office. The audits of unions, the local unions dropped by two-thirds in 
that decade. That is all we are saying. Secretary Chao has a statutory 
responsibility to do audits, a statutory and compelling responsibility 
to insist on these reports being filed on time. They are required by a 
law that was passed in 1959. Thirty-six percent of the unions are not 
submitting those reports on time so their members cannot access where 
their money is going. We had almost a million people in the last year 
access the Web site where these reports are required to be filed to see 
where the money is being spent. This is union members accessing these 
Web sites so they can find out where the money they are contributing to 
the local union is being spent. What is wrong with that? Why would we 
want to cut this agency when we still are not where we need to be? We 
are auditing only a very small fraction of the unions, and a 
substantial number, over a third, are failing to report as required by 
law--not a law I am asking us to pass, not a law that is part of this 
amendment--a law that was passed by then-Senator John F. Kennedy in 
1959.
  So I believe this is a good government issue. It is the right thing 
to do. It will not hurt unions. It will strengthen unions. It will make 
people feel better about their membership. It may be some bosses do not 
want to have to disclose where they spend their money, and they may be 
contacting Senators and telling them: Don't give in. Fight. Don't let 
them go back and make us do these audits. Don't do it. Cut their 
budget. Stop Elaine Chao from doing what she is required by law to do. 
Don't give her the money.
  Maybe that is what is happening. I do not know. I hope not. I think 
we ought to keep this going. We ought to at least have this modest 
increase which is a little more than the inflation rate--a net $3 
million increase on a $47 million budget from last year. That modest 
increase will allow her to keep the momentum, to keep these delinquency 
rates going down, moving in the right direction, with financial 
disclosure, sunshine. That is going to help eliminate fraud in itself. 
Then she will be able to also do a certain number of other audits. 
Maybe we can see not an increase in convictions, but we might see a 
decrease, if we know there is more accountability.
  Again, there were 796 criminal convictions over the last 6 years, 
with court-ordered restitution of $101 million. Whose money is that? 
Whose money was being ordered to be paid back? It is union members' 
money--working Americans who have trusted their leaders. Maybe in the 
union hall there are 10 officers and leaders and only one of them found 
themselves in a position to steal. I am not saying we have this 
wholesale problem. What I am saying is there is a very real problem. 
There is no doubt about it. We are finding far too many criminal cases 
for each audit that is done.
  As a result, it takes up time by the investigators. It takes up time 
by the auditors. It results oftentimes in a loss of money that no 
matter what the judge orders to be restored--no matter how much 
restitution they order--it may not actually ever be paid back if they 
do not have it. That is a true fact.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, some 
of you may be concerned that the offset was to take money from the ILO, 
I believe it is, the U.N.-affiliated international labor group that is 
supposed to help labor conditions around the world. They certainly have 
high and good goals. I am not sure they have been very effective. But 
this money for my amendment is not coming from there anymore. I know a 
lot of people want to see that budget increased.
  So this offset will be an offset from administrative expenses of 
Labor and HHS and Education. It will be a small impact on their overall 
budget.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.

[[Page 27645]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3395 to Amendment No. 3325

          (Purpose: To clarify the application of current law)

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have an amendment I offer on behalf of 
Senator Reid. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Reid, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3395 to amendment No. 3325:

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to effect 
     or otherwise modify provisions of current Federal law with 
     respect to the funding of abortion.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am going to propound a unanimous 
consent request. I ask the Senator's attention to this request so we 
get it right.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set this pending 
amendment aside, then to turn to an amendment to be offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana, at which time we will have a time agreement of 
10 minutes for Senator Vitter and 10 minutes for Senator Boxer on the 
Vitter amendment, at the end of which time the Senate will proceed to a 
vote on or in relation to, first, the Reid amendment; upon disposal of 
the Reid amendment, the Senate will then proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana; at the 
conclusion of that vote, that the Senate then proceed to a vote on the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions; and that 
no other amendments or intervening matter occur prior to these votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There is 20 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. First of all, Madam President, I thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee for all his courtesies.


                Amendment No. 3330 to Amendment No. 3325

  Under that unanimous consent request which has been granted, I now 
call up amendment No. 3330, the Vitter amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3330 to amendment No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform 
                               abortions)

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     distributed to grantees who perform abortions or whose 
     subgrantees perform abortions, except where a woman suffers 
     from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical 
     illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the 
     woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, 
     including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or 
     arising from the pregnancy itself. The preceding sentence 
     shall not apply to a grantee or subgrantee that is a 
     hospital, so long as such hospital does not subgrant to a 
     non-hospital entity that performs abortions.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is a very simple and 
straightforward but, I believe, important amendment. It says in clear 
terms that none of the funds in this appropriations bill will go to 
entities that provide abortions.
  I think that is the right policy we should set in this body because 
whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on 
one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. Abortion divides our 
Nation--many folks would say down the middle--and it causes 
understandable passions and feelings on both sides. To a substantial 
number of Americans--myself included--but millions upon millions of 
Americans, the procedure of abortion is deeply troubling and deeply 
offensive. In that context, I think it is the right policy and a very 
reasonable mainstream policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer 
dollars to support groups that perform abortions. It seems to me that 
is the right policy when you talk about taxpayer dollars.
  Now, the other side will immediately jump up and say: Well, we have 
current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars 
to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough in my 
mind and in the minds of millions upon millions of other abortion 
opponents.
  Because the way it works now, we send Federal dollars to abortion 
providers and money is fungible and it is a big shell game and it 
supports their overhead and it supports their organizations and, in 
many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue. 
So it does, in a very significant, meaningful way, support abortions. 
That is wrong in my mind.
  Now, let me make clear what this amendment does and what it does not 
do.
  It says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to abortion 
providers under the title X program. The title X program is a family 
planning program, and many of those entities which get millions of 
dollars from the Federal Government perform abortions. This amendment 
says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to those entities.
  Now, what does the amendment not do? It does not affect hospitals. 
There is specific language, a specific exemption for hospitals. So 
hospitals are another category. It does not cut one penny from family 
planning. This amendment is not about family planning. It is clearly 
about abortion. We do not cut 1 penny of family planning funding.
  This amendment does not deny 1 family, 1 individual, family planning 
services, because in every locality where a private abortion provider 
is receiving title X funds, there are alternative sources for family 
planning services--in every area, in every locality. So we are not 
taking family planning services away from any American, from any 
individual in any part of the country.
  Finally, this amendment does not affect free speech. The amendment 
contains no language regarding counseling, advocacy, information or 
expression. It simply says: Let's be fair. Abortion is a very divisive 
topic. At least half the American people have deep concerns about it. 
In that context, we should not be sending those folks' money to 
abortion providers to take care of their overhead, to allow them to use 
it as a shell game and, essentially, indirectly fund abortions and 
support abortion services.
  Now, there are a lot of examples of these sorts of entities that we 
could use. But, obviously, the biggest nationwide is Planned 
Parenthood. Planned Parenthood performs and accounts for hundreds of 
thousands of abortions every year. According to the last figures we 
could locate from 2005-2006, Planned Parenthood has about a $1 billion 
budget and source of revenue. About a third of that--$305.3 million--
comes from Government subsidies of one sort or another. So $1 billion 
in revenue, and a third of that comes from the taxpayers--whether it is 
$120 million or more from the Federal Government kicking in directly 
and at least $59 million coming from this very title X program, which 
is the subject of my amendment.
  Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, in the last year we could get figures 
for, performed over 264,000 abortions. The best estimate for abortions 
nationwide in a year is 1.29 million. So Planned Parenthood alone 
accounts for over 20 percent of that.
  You cannot tell me, given all those numbers, given 265,000 abortions 
performed, that we are not sending Federal taxpayer dollars that is 
supporting all of that activity, that is indirectly paying for those 
abortions--clearly, enormously important to keep Planned Parenthood 
going, to provide for its overhead--a third of all of its revenue.
  Pure and simple, that is wrong when so many Americans find performing 
abortions so deeply troubling in a fundamental, gut, moral way. So this 
would set the policy right and simply say, if you are a title X 
recipient, if you are a recipient of those sorts of Federal dollars, 
you need to decide. You cannot perform abortions if you

[[Page 27646]]

want that taxpayer support when half or more of U.S. taxpayers have 
fundamental, moral reservations, and problems with the procedure.
  This amendment is strongly supported by the Family Research Council, 
and they are going to score the amendment. In addition, it is strongly 
supported by Concerned Women for America--they also will score the 
amendment--and, finally, by National Right to Life, which will also 
score the amendment.
  I have letters from 2 of those 3 organizations. The third is on the 
way. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Family Research Council,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2007.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of Family Research Council and the 
     families we represent, I want to urge you to vote for the 
     Amendment #3330 offered by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to the 
     Substitute Amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (H.R. 3043) which would prevent Title X family planning funds 
     from supporting abortion providers. We strongly support this 
     amendment.
       Title X family planning funds are distributed to 
     organizations that perform a broad array of family planning 
     services. Though Title X funds may not be used to perform 
     abortions, some Title X recipients co-locate their family 
     planning services with their abortion facilities. Indeed, 
     Planned Parenthood clinics receive Title X funding.
       Title X family planning funding should not go to abortion 
     providers such as Planned Parenthood, which performed nearly 
     265,000 abortions in 2005. Recent reports indicate that 
     Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 
     fiscal year 2005-2006, of which over $300 million came from 
     government grants and contracts. In addition, it has recently 
     been reported that Planned Parenthood clinics that receive 
     Title X funding have not complied with state statutory rape 
     reporting laws. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an 
     organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs 
     abortions or violates state laws designed to protect young 
     women. The Vitter amendment would not alter the $300 million 
     contained in the LHHS bill for Title X family planning 
     services.
       Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the 
     principle that the United States taxpayer should not have to 
     subsidize the abortion industry. FRC reserves the right to 
     score votes surrounding this amendment in our scorecard for 
     the First Session of the 110th Congress to be published this 
     fall.
           Sincerely.
                                                  Thomas McClusky,
     Vice President for Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 October 18, 2007.
     Hon. David Vitter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Vitter, On behalf of the 500,000 members of 
     Concerned Women for America (CWA), I would like to thank you 
     for your continued commitment to support of the sanctity of 
     life. We appreciate your offering an amendment to prohibit 
     federal Title X funding from going to any group which 
     performs elective abortions or whose subgrantees perform 
     elective abortions.
       CWA will score the vote on your pro-life amendment to the 
     Department of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations 
     Bill (S. 1710).
       Federal taxpayers must not be forced to pay for cruel and 
     immoral abortion procedures to which they rightly object. 
     There is no way around this fundamental principle of fairness 
     and common decency.
       Senator, thank you again for your amendment and working to 
     promote life in the Senate. Our members appreciate your 
     strong stance and CWA lends its support to this pro-life 
     amendment. Our little ones cannot speak for themselves, so we 
     must speak for them and make a statement that our nation 
     should not subsidize this destruction of life.
           Sincerely,

                                               Beverly LaHaye,

                                             Founder and Chairman,
                                      Concerned Women for America.

  Mr. VITTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Louisiana have left, Mr. Vitter, and how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes 46 
seconds, and the Senator from California has 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  The Vitter amendment is ``big brother'' at its very worst. It tells 
non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private 
funds. I wonder what the Senator has in mind next? Is he going to tell 
America's families what they can spend their private funds on? This is 
a dangerous amendment which will lead to more abortions.
  The Senator takes to the floor and he attacks an a private 
organization by name--an organization that over many years has had 
leading Republicans and Democrats on its board of directors. I think it 
is a very sad day when we have an amendment such as this. This 
amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day 
using their own funds to provide family planning services and 
reproductive health care, including legal abortion services.
  If Senator Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw 
all abortion. He should work to make women criminals who have 
abortions--throw everyone in jail. If he wants to go that way, that is 
an honest way. But to stand up here and say that a private organization 
that works so hard every day to give women the health care they need--
to punish them because they use their own funds to provide a full array 
of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
  His amendment will do nothing to reduce abortions. It will make 
contraceptives harder to get, and that will increase the number of 
unintended pregnancies. It will increase the number of abortions, just 
as we have shown the global gag rule does. Make no mistake, he may not 
call it a gag rule, but in essence it is. When you tell a person or an 
organization how they can spend their own personal funds, that is 
interfering with their rights.
  What is going to happen? We are going to have less funding for breast 
and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screening, sexually 
transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS. We are going to see less 
counseling, less testing, and less referrals.
  This amendment is an attack on title X-supported health clinics. 
Title X was enacted in 1970 with strong bipartisan support to provide 
high-quality, comprehensive, and low-cost family planning and 
reproductive health care services to those in need but who cannot 
afford such services. Let's be clear. No title X dollars may be used 
for abortion care. We are going to have a vote that makes it very clear 
that nothing in this bill allows Federal funds to be used for abortion. 
No discretionary funding in this bill can ever pay for abortion. That 
has been illegal for quite some time.
  So again, the Vitter amendment punishes effective organizations that 
are working every day to provide a full range of legal, important 
health care to women. The consequence of passing this--which I don't 
think we will because it is so radical--are that women would have less 
access to reproductive health care. They would get sick. They would be 
suffering, and they wouldn't get access to contraception, which is so 
necessary.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to use 1\1/2\ minutes of my 
remaining time to simply respond to some of the statements.
  A statement was made that this amendment cuts health care services, 
family planning services that are not abortion and makes them less 
available. That is simply not true. This amendment doesn't cut a single 
penny of title X family planning money. That dollar amount is exactly 
the same. This amendment doesn't make those services unavailable to a 
single American because we checked every metropolitan area, every 
locality, and there are other opportunities--public, private, both--for 
Americans in every locality for true family planning entities that 
don't also perform abortions. So it is not true that we are lessening 
that opportunity.
  It is not about those true health or family planning services. It is 
about abortion and whether the American

[[Page 27647]]

taxpayer is going to be forced to indirectly subsidize abortion in this 
country as we do right now. When abortion is so divisive an issue, when 
it is so troubling and fundamentally offensive to so many millions of 
Americans--at least half the country, in my guesstimate--I don't think 
it is right or fair to be spending taxpayer dollars. Who can deny that 
is effectively what we are doing? Just look at the biggest example.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed a minute and a half.
  Mr. VITTER. I will consume the remainder of my time.
  I talk about Planned Parenthood simply because it is the biggest and 
most obvious example of billions of dollars of revenue--fully a third 
comes from Government. Meanwhile, they perform 265,000 abortions--20 
percent of the entirety of abortions performed in the United States. 
That is not right.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to point out that George Bush's 
grandparents founded the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Connecticut. I 
wish to point out again that the issue of choice is only divisive when 
we have amendments such as this one, even though we already know there 
isn't a penny of funding in this bill that can be used for abortion. 
So, this is punishing the people who are living by the law, who are 
using their own private funds, and who are using Federal funds for 
contraceptive services, for health care services, and the rest.
  This amendment shouldn't even be on this bill. The reason it is 
controversial is because Senator Vitter decided to bring up this very 
divisive amendment, which I hope we will defeat.
  I yield 3 minutes to Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let's be very clear. The amendment that 
has been offered by Senator Vitter is an attack on the health and well-
being of all Americans, purely and simply. When you look at the depth 
and breadth of this amendment which has been offered, it could withhold 
critical Federal dollars from virtually any health care entity or 
provider across the country that is in any way tied to abortion 
services, directly or indirectly.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that in some of our rural communities, 
there is only one health care provider. That clinic may provide flu 
shots for children, for the elderly, and it may also provide family 
planning services. This amendment which has been offered would tie that 
clinic's hands and prevent it from receiving any Federal funds 
whatsoever. That is just plain wrong.
  Our Nation's core health care providers rely on millions of dollars 
from Medicaid, from family planning, from community health centers, 
child health, and numerous programs which provide, as we all know, 
vital health care services to some of our Nation's most vulnerable 
women, men, and children. But because of the way this amendment is 
worded, it would put millions of men and women--primarily, of course, 
those who are low income who can't advocate for themselves, who don't 
have health insurance--at risk of losing access to family planning and 
other preventive health care services.
  We have all said many times we all want to reduce the number of 
abortions. It is something on which we all agree. But this amendment, 
in fact, goes directly against that goal. This amendment is 
counterintuitive. Eliminating a community's only source of birth 
control will not reduce the number of abortions. Denying women access 
to their trusted doctors and nurses won't do it either.
  Let's be clear. This amendment is not necessary to prevent family 
planning funds provided through title X from paying for abortions. As 
the Senator from California has said, Federal law prohibits that.
  Over the past 7 years, we have seen this administration and 
conservatives in this Congress systematically work to erode 
reproductive freedoms for women, both in the United States and 
overseas. In fact, just this week we learned that the President's 
nominee for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs has 
supported dropping a requirement that Federal health insurance plans 
cover birth control.
  I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. She called Plan B--the medically safe birth control pill 
that I and others worked to approve--a ``grave threat to women.''
  We all want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in this 
country, but limiting health care and education options will only 
produce the opposite effect. We have to make sure women have access to 
safe and affordable family planning alternatives. Cutting them off, as 
this amendment would do, is the wrong way to go.
  I stand with my colleague from California in saying that the Senate 
needs to stand on record to protect women's rights in this country. 
This is the time when we need to do it. We are not out here to provide 
a divisive debate; we are out to defend the rights of women in this 
country, for which they have worked long and hard. Let's not affect and 
impact hundreds and hundreds of men and women who are trying to get 
health care today by an amendment that is divisive and is not needed.
  As the Senator from California said today, the funds in this bill 
that are federally provided do not go for abortions today. We do not 
need this amendment. We should not take this dangerous step that will 
impact the lives and health of many women in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds remains.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me just say that Senator Murray said 
it all. This is an unnecessary amendment by Senator Vitter. I urge an 
``aye'' vote on the Reid amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Vitter 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.


                           Amendment No. 3395

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Harkin for 
Reid amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 378 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 27648]]



                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3395) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
two votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3330

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Vitter 
amendment No. 3330.
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) 
would each vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 379 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3330) was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3373

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sessions 
amendment. Are the yeas and nays requested on the Sessions amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Obama), are necessary absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) 
would each vote ``nay.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there and other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 380 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
     Obama
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3373) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had a long conversation with the 
Republican leader to determine how we are going to get done what we 
have to get done. I have discussed with the two managers the 
conversation the Republican leader and I had. The first thing we are 
going to do is get consent at the appropriate time, which will be in a 
few minutes, that all first-degree amendments be filed tomorrow at 1 
p.m. I am not asking that consent now.
  The managers should know, though, the amendments we will need to deal 
with. We will have a finite list of amendments.
  The commitment that the Republican leader, I think, is going to be 
willing to make is that we finish this bill by the time of our caucus 
luncheons on Tuesday; that is, by noon on Tuesday, October 23. That 
being the case, we have a lot of work to do. Everyone should understand 
we may have a number of votes Monday night. This is not going to be 
come in Monday night and go out to some event you have. Everyone should 
have Monday night free because we could have a lot of votes Monday 
night. Everyone should understand that.
  The following week we have a lot to do. I have made a commitment to 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee--that bill needs to be marked 
up next week and he has scheduled that for next Wednesday. We have to 
finish this matter next Tuesday. This avoids a lot of trouble.
  I could file cloture on it, and the Republican leader knows this 
better than I, and we could have a vote on Saturday. We have people not 
here today. To get everybody here on Saturday is no easy thing to do.

[[Page 27649]]

  I think what I have suggested here would be very appropriate. As I 
said, I talked to the Republican leader about this. We would have votes 
Monday night. We are going to have whatever votes are necessary Tuesday 
morning to complete this legislation and then go on about the week's 
business that we would have, which should be a significant week. After 
next week we only have 3 weeks left here until Thanksgiving. We have 
already scheduled a break at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me confirm for our colleagues my concurrence with 
what the majority leader has indicated. We can finish the bill Tuesday 
before the policy luncheons. I have consulted with Members on my side 
and we are confident that is an ending that can be achieved, which 
would free up our friend from Iowa and the members of the Agriculture 
Committee for their markup.
  I want to concur in what the majority leader has indicated. I think 
that is a goal we can achieve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, then, that all first-degree 
amendments be filed on this bill by 1 o'clock tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I would say, the managers have already acknowledged they 
are going to process more amendments tonight. There will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight. They will process what amendments they can work 
out tomorrow also. So I think this is good.
  It is no secret we are doing our very best to get this bill finished 
so we can get it to the President. There has been a lot of 
preconferencing. I talked to the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
Senator from Iowa. They have done a lot of work.
  The reason I want to try to get this bill to the President is the 
concern the President has involves about $22 billion. More than half of 
that is in this bill we have here, so that would be a good place to 
start to see if we can work something out on this bill with the 
President. If we cannot, it certainly points to where we need to work 
something out to finish our work on the appropriations matters for the 
rest of the year.
  There will be no votes tomorrow. The first vote will be Monday; 5:30, 
probably.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there a pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that 
amendment and then call up an amendment that has already been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Just briefly. The Senator has called up an amendment. I 
wish to get a consent for Senator Allard and for Senator Landrieu. How 
much time is the Senator intending to take?
  Mr. REED. No more than 10 minutes, and I will try to be less than 
that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator from New Jersey also have an amendment?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I have been waiting on the floor to speak for about 10 
minutes, so at some point I wish to be recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. On the bill?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. In part on the bill, yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed 
be recognized to offer his amendment, and then Senator Allard, and upon 
the disposition of that amendment, that Senator Landrieu be recognized, 
in that sequence, and then after Senator Landrieu, Senator Menendez be 
recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are currently debating the Health and 
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. 
Let me commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for their 
great work on this legislation.
  As Chairman Harkin said, this bill truly defines America. It defines 
our Nation's commitment to our children's future through education, it 
defines our Nation's compassion to seniors and working families, and it 
defines our hopes in many different areas, particularly in the area of 
helping to cure disease and improve the public health. This is an 
extraordinarily important piece of legislation. Both Senator Harkin and 
Senator Specter have done a remarkable job bringing it to the floor.
  Let me highlight a few of the important points that I believe should 
be emphasized.
  First of all, the bill increases Head Start funding, whereas the 
President's budget would decrease it. The legislation before us will 
provide sufficient resources to continue Head Start, which is an 
important aspect of giving children a chance to succeed earlier in 
their lives. It also provides resources for higher education: Pell 
grants, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program--LEAP 
Program--TRIO, and GEAR UP. All of those are vital to ensuring that our 
citizens can seize the opportunity of America, and the greatest 
opportunity is education.
  This legislation also provides an important safety net for many of 
our low-income families and our seniors; that is, the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. We could see a very severe winter in the 
Northeast, in the Northwest, and in the Central Plains of America. We 
are also seeing incredibly expensive prices for oil. Without this 
LIHEAP money, we will not be able to deal with the issue, and countless 
families will make difficult choices between literally eating or 
heating their homes. This legislation, in contradistinction to the 
White House's proposal, would maintain, not decrease, LIHEAP funding.
  The legislation provides additional resources--about a billion 
dollars more--for the National Institutes of Health. This is vital to 
our ability to do research and to provide new diagnoses and new cures 
for disease. But it is something else that is important: It provides 
the infrastructure for research in this country. It gives those young 
Ph.D.s and M.D.s who are doing research incentives to stay in the 
field. Without it, we will not only miss out on the cures, but we will 
also miss out on the physicians and researchers who can give us, over 
the next 20, 30, 40 years, insight into the problems with disease in 
human beings.
  We also are supporting in this bill the vaccination program. The 317 
vaccination program, immunization program, has been essential to 
improving the public health, particularly the public health of 
children. This bill supports those commitments.
  It also provides for training and employment resources. In a world of 
globalization, where jobs are going overseas, we just cannot tell 
people: Tough luck. We have to give them an opportunity to change their 
training, change their workplace, to go ahead and seize new 
opportunities. The President's budget diminishes these programs; this 
legislation increases the programs. I think that is the right 
direction.
  The Job Corps Program--very successful since the 1960s. We have in 
Rhode Island what I think is the best Job Corps center in the country. 
I just had the director in a few days ago talking about how they are 
being evaluated higher and higher in each evaluation across the country 
in terms of other Job Corps centers, providing not only training but 
jobs. All of their students are walking out into good jobs. These are 
young men and women who, frankly, we haven't been able to reach before 
this stage. Either they have dropped out of high school or they have 
had a long process to get their GED and to get into this program. Some 
are just getting their GEDs in this program. This program deserves our 
support.
  But there is one area in which we have not committed resources; that 
is, the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 2007. 
Trauma--injuries, accidents, falls, automobile

[[Page 27650]]

wrecks, recreational mishaps--is actually the leading killer of young 
Americans up to the age of 44. It claims more than 140,000 lives and 
permanently disables about 80,000 each year. But only one in four 
Americans lives in an area served by coordinated systems that will 
transfer patients to designated trauma centers from less-equipped 
hospitals. This is particularly a problem in rural areas. It affects 
urban and rural communities but particularly the rural areas. At the 
highest risk are those people in rural areas. Sixty percent of the 
trauma deaths occur, even though there is only 20 percent of our 
population, in rural areas--60 percent of the trauma deaths, 20 percent 
of the population. This is a program which is desperately needed in 
rural parts of America.
  The Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is an important 
building block to an improved national network of care across the 
country. This program would allow for planning, infrastructure 
development, and standards development to determine the procedures that 
are most appropriate to do this. It would also require coordination 
with Federal agencies. It is a sensible investment in a systemic 
approach to trauma care. I believe it is very important.


                Amendment No. 3360 to Amendment No. 3325

  As a result, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3360.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3360 to amendment No. 3325.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the trauma and emergency medical 
    services programs administered through the Health Resources and 
                        Services Administration)

       On page 59, line 22, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``, of which $6,000,000 shall be made available to the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration to carry out trauma and emergency medical 
     services programs''.

  Mr. REED. This amendment would provide $6 million for the program. It 
is fully offset. It is a small amount of funding to improve and expand 
the availability of trauma care across the country, particularly in 
rural areas, to ensure all areas are equipped with appropriate 
emergency and medical services, thus improving the survival rate and 
recovery rate for injured patients.
  Trauma care is not only critical to providing timely access to 
lifesaving interventions, it is central to our national security and 
disaster preparedness. It is an essential component of our overall 
health care system and something I believe we have to do.
  I hope that at the appropriate time my colleagues will be able to 
support this very worthy measure. Let me thank Senator Harkin and 
Senator Specter and particularly their staffs for a bill that I think 
does speak to the best of America, and does, in fact, define, in a very 
positive way, our most important priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 3369 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendments and call up amendment No. 3369 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3369 to amendment No. 3325.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reduce the total amount appropriated to any program that 
is rated ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget through the 
                 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated by this Act for any program for 
     which the most recent rating available on the date of 
     enactment of this Act by the Office of Management and Budget 
     through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is 
     ``ineffective'' shall be reduced by 10 percent. Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, an 
     amount equal to the aggregate amount of any such reduction 
     shall be deposited in the account established under section 
     3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to reduce the public 
     debt.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment cuts 10 percent of the 
funding under this bill for programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the 
OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--PART Program and transfers 
the funding to an account previously established to pay down the 
national debt.
  Now, I do not believe I am being presumptuous when I say that most of 
us in this body would like to reduce spending. Where to cut is the 
question we fight over. So that is where the fight exists. Now, given 
ballooning Federal spending and the Federal debt, this amendment lets 
us make an easy choice to cut spending. It has to start with programs 
that cannot even justify their mission or success internally.
  In case you are unfamiliar with the PART Program in general, let me 
give you some background. When making funding decisions, Members of 
Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded 
programs should be effective and efficient. So the Program Assessment 
Rating Tool--that is, PART--was put in place by the Congress more than 
a decade ago. Agencies have had time to work with this program under 
the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. The 
program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, 
and then the Office of Management and Budget goes in later on and 
evaluates to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and 
objectives.
  These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are 
based are available to the public to view. All they have to do is go to 
www.expectmore.gov. That is the Web page you would go to. It is a very 
good reference for the public, for Members of Congress, or for any 
agency to know exactly where they stand as far as their performance 
standards are concerned.
  These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials. 
This is not a political process. These are objective evaluations done 
by career officials at agencies and OMB, the Office of Management and 
Budget, and are based on evidence of that program's performance. 
Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best 
rating they can get is ``effective,'' then it goes to ``moderately 
effective,'' ``adequate,'' then it goes to ``results not 
demonstrated,'' and finally to ``ineffective,'' the lowest rating. This 
amendment tries to address the lowest rating, which is ``ineffective.''
  While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant 
of funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform 
well. Ineffective programs in particular should be scrutinized to 
determine whether the resources they use could be better spent 
elsewhere and whether their goals could be achieved through other 
means.
  When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can 
look to the PART Program for important information:
  No. 1, does the program address an existing problem, interest, or 
need? Those that do not should not be funded.
  The other question to be asked: Does the program have performance 
goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that 
do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars.
  Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is 
effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the 
program. If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to 
consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the 
program is having its intended impact.

[[Page 27651]]

  Is the program working to improve its performance is another question 
we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is 
not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of 
resources.
  Another question: If an increase in funding is requested for a 
program, has the program explained how the additional funding will 
affect its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will 
use their resources simply are not the best candidates for investment.
  So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program, 
and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies. Some 
of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. I would 
like to look at a few of those.
  Take the Health Professions Program, for example. One study found 
that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions 
receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health 
care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of 
physicians trained by other institutions. So there is only a four-
tenths of a percent performance difference. So the question comes up: 
What is the program accomplishing?
  PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and 
Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the 
beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an 
estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and 
nuclear testing activities and where they might live.
  These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the 
PART Program. They provide the information Members of Congress need to 
evaluate whether programs are ineffective. Some of these are programs I 
have supported. I am sure there are programs that are not doing well, 
and I think we need to take a close look at them. That is all we are 
asking with this amendment.
  The amendment before us addresses a portion of discretionary 
spending. I ask Members to support this amendment as we deal with 
discretionary spending areas where the PART Program is being applied. 
The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt, 
currently over $9 trillion, and eliminate Government waste by reducing 
spending on programs rated ineffective by the Office of Management and 
Budget PART Program. This is through the career professionals in the 
agencies. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda.
  That is what my amendment is all about, saving taxpayer dollars in a 
responsible way. It is about forcing managers of these programs to put 
in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the 
legislation intended when the Congress passed it. I ask my colleagues 
to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the 
programs we have passed. This is a wonderful tool we have for whatever 
administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies 
to get their act in order because we are concerned about how taxpayer 
dollars are being spent.
  It is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability 
to Government programs we have passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the 
previous unanimous consent agreement so I may speak next and the 
Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, will speak after me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, yesterday I began to speak about what 
the failed war in Iraq is costing us at home to mark the fifth 
anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the war. As we debate the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, I can't think of a better moment to 
return to the cost of this war.
  Let me begin by saying again we are aware of the human cost of the 
war: 3,816 Americans are dead; more than 28,000 have come back home 
wounded. Iraqis have died in even greater numbers. Millions have fled 
their homes. The United States has been involved in the war for longer 
than we fought World War II. We all know the Iraq war is a human 
calamity of vast proportions. It can be harder to visualize the direct 
damage that comes from the financial cost of the war. We are paying for 
this war with borrowed money, burying ourselves in massive debt, 
severely threatening the future of our country.
  We know we have spent more than $450 billion on this war so far, and 
we continue to spend about $10 billion every month. That doesn't add up 
to a stack of bills that could have been sitting in the Treasury. It is 
equipment at ports that scan nuclear weapons and other measures that 
actually make the homeland more secure. It is children healed with 
better health care. It is more teachers in school, better training for 
jobs, energy that is clean and doesn't strengthen repressive regimes in 
the Middle East, payments of our debts so future generations will 
inherit a country that is financially viable.
  The Bush administration likes to parrot the line: We are fighting 
them over there so we don't have to fight them here. But when we add it 
all up, the bottom line is clear: The administration's motto really is: 
We are spending all our money over there so we don't spend it here.
  Yesterday I spoke about how much we could accomplish to safeguard our 
homeland against terrorists if we spent a fraction of the money we have 
dumped into the war that makes no sense. Today I would like to speak 
about what the failed war in Iraq has cost us in terms of our health; 
specifically, the health of our children. Today the House of 
Representatives considered whether to support a bill to provide health 
insurance for children. Every time we go to the doctor or fill a 
prescription at the pharmacy, we remember how expensive health care can 
be. There are families who work every day in some of the toughest jobs, 
but their jobs don't offer health care, and their paychecks would not 
let them afford private coverage. That is why the Federal Government 
and the States teamed up to start the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program or what is commonly referred to as SCHIP.
  This year Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a bill that 
would continue to provide health care to the 6 million children already 
enrolled and will expand the program to include a total of 10 million 
children across America. We knew we had to because the children who 
fall into the wide abyss between Medicaid and private coverage are 
depending on us. But on October 3, millions of children got some 
terrible news. President Bush had vetoed the bill. He did it silently 
and secretly, with no cameras allowed to watch as he condemned millions 
of children to a lack of coverage with a single stroke of his pen.
  Today families across America were waiting to see if Congress had the 
moral resolve to override that veto. Some of our colleagues who cast 
decisive votes against children's health raised the question of whether 
the bill was financially reasonable, whether 10 million uninsured 
American kids were worthy of funding. President Bush said they were 
not. Many of my colleagues who voted against children's health have 
repeatedly decided to vote for continuing the failed war in Iraq. Right 
now I wish to speak directly to all of them. If we are talking about 
what is financially reasonable, let's take a very close look at the 
stark contrast in cost between children's health and the failed war in 
Iraq.
  The total cost of expanding children's health is $35 billion over 5 
years for 10 million children. How many dollars per child does this 
cost us every day? Depending upon which State you live in, the answer 
is as little as $3.50 a day, about the cost of a latte at Starbuck's. 
Iraq costs us $10 billion per month. That means with 3\1/2\ months of 
Iraq funding, the total expansion in this bill would have been paid 
for. That is what the war costs--health care for 10 million children 
versus 3\1/2\ months of what we spend in Iraq.
  The impact of this bill would have been enormous in many States, 
including my State of New Jersey, where

[[Page 27652]]

families have to pay some of the highest health care costs in the 
Nation. It would have helped support the State in keeping 124,000 New 
Jersey children insured. It would have covered as many as 100,000 
additional children in my State. In the bill, New Jersey would have 
received about $350 million next year alone to cover working families 
and children. This program has given New Jersey families that cannot 
afford private coverage the peace of mind to know that children have 
health care. President Bush has told those children: No, you don't 
deserve the Federal Government's strong support, even though this 
country spends $330 million in Iraq every day. Again, every single day 
in Iraq, we spend roughly the amount of money it would take to get tens 
of thousands of New Jersey children coverage for a full year.
  I wish he had to look every child in the eye to tell them that. But 
that is what the war costs: Health insurance for New Jersey children 
versus one day in Iraq. In fact, for the amount Congress has spent on 
the failed war in Iraq, we could provide 2 years of health coverage for 
all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, who 
play Russian roulette every day with their lives and their wallets, and 
still have $30 billion left over. We could have provided health care 
coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health 
coverage today. That is what the war costs: Health care coverage for 
every single American family versus the failed war in Iraq.
  Here is the question we have to ask ourselves as legislators, as 
Americans, as human beings: Is a child to get more benefit from a 
dollar spent keeping our military in Iraq to referee a civil war or a 
dollar spent on their health insurance? Is she going to be better 
served by oil injected in an Abrams tank or by a vaccine a nurse 
injects in her arm to save her from measles? Is her life going to be 
improved by missiles in the desert or antibiotics in her medicine 
cabinet; more troops on the streets of Baghdad or more doctors in the 
hospital down the block; multimillion dollar bombs that rain down on 
Iraqi neighborhoods with surgical precision or orthopedic surgery for a 
disease such as cerebral palsy that would mean the difference between a 
debilitated life in a wheelchair and being able to walk and run and 
play with other children at school?
  How dare we take money from her family and borrow money from foreign 
countries to spend it on a war that makes no sense, while leaving her 
on her own to fight diseases and injuries that might very well claim 
her life.
  It is hard to think of a more grievous act on the part of this 
Government than abandoning those children in order to prolong a war. 
The vote to override President Bush's veto was not only about political 
responsibility. It was not only about constitutional responsibility. It 
was a question of right and wrong. Let's remember the administration 
motto: Spend all our money over there so we don't have to spend it 
here. In my mind, that is as wrong as it gets.
  I will continue to speak out on what else this war is costing us here 
at home in terms of education and jobs and green energy, helping the 
middle class make ends meet and the financial stability of our Nation 
that our children will inherit. America deserves to know what we could 
have achieved had this horrible war never happened. The administration 
has spent down our finances, mortgaged the future. Republicans in the 
House have voted down health care coverage for our children. But one 
thing they have not yet emptied out is our vast treasury of hope. It is 
tragic to think what might have been, but it is not too late to believe 
in what we can become.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 3402 to Amendment No. 3325

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in a few minutes I am going to offer an 
amendment and ask for its consideration. It is an important amendment, 
although it is quite small and has virtually no impact on the 
underlying cost of this bill, which is why I believe I can bring it 
with good faith to the Members for their consideration. It does not add 
a penny to the underlying bill, but it does send some directive 
language to SAMHSA, which is the agency that funds mental health and 
substance abuse programs for our country. Because of the good work of 
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, there is an increase in funding for 
this important program. This money is given out in grants through 
competitive bids and has been ongoing for some time. I don't know 
exactly the year the program was authorized and commenced, but it has 
been a fairly longstanding program and usually gets good marks.
  This particular amendment would direct the Agency to give 
consideration to programs providing mental health services to children 
and families in the gulf coast area. It seems, for some reason, a very 
effective program that had received some funding in the past few 
years--that is the only program operating in the gulf coast region that 
is giving support and counseling and clinical services to a population 
of children and adults, but this is for children literally traumatized 
by the catastrophic disaster, not only in my State but Mississippi, 
somewhat in Texas, and Alabama--was not considered to be a priority.
  So my amendment will basically direct the agency to consider programs 
operating in the gulf coast area that are serving children who have 
very good records, to provide a priority for them.
  If I could, I would like to send the amendment to the desk now. It 
simply, as I said, establishes a priority for these programs, and it 
adds no money to the bottom line of this bill.
  I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3402 to amendment No. 3325.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 49; line 1: strike the colon and insert ``Provided 
     further, that, of the funds provided to the Child Trauma 
     Stress Network Initiative, priority shall be given to those 
     centers, that previously received grants, that provide mental 
     health services to children affected by Hurricane Katrina 
     and/or Rita.''

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand the managers have cleared 
it. I ask for it to be accepted now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on this 
amendment?
  The Republican leader is recognized.


                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2128

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just 13 days the Internet tax 
moratorium will expire. If Congress has not acted by then, State and 
local governments will be free to impose new taxes on Internet access--
and trust me, they will.
  We need to be straight with the American people about what is 
happening. The majority wants to preserve at least the possibility of 
taxing access to the Internet.
  The Internet has literally transformed this country. It has cleared 
new pathways to learning for rich and poor. It has brought a level of 
efficiency and innovation to the shop floor, the home, and the corner 
office that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Just think of the 
millions of middle-class Americans who have lifted their fortunes 
through online auction sites or made their first stock purchases over 
online trading sites.
  The Internet has been at the heart of America's economic growth over 
the past decade--all because Government has not gotten in the way. But 
those days are over if the people on the other side of the aisle in the 
Senate open the Internet to new taxes.
  We cannot let that happen. For the sake of our economy, for the sake 
of our competitiveness, for the sake of

[[Page 27653]]

consumers who don't want to see new taxes on their bills, we need to 
ban taxes on Internet access permanently.
  The House of Representatives has sent us a bill that would extend the 
moratorium for 4 years. Frankly, I do not think that is nearly long 
enough. If we all agree that taxing Internet access hurts consumers, 
hurts innovation, hurts broadband development, why should we stop at 4 
years? Why not keep the Internet tax free forever?
  So I say to my friends on the other side, the clock is ticking. If 
you object to considering the Sununu bill to make the moratorium 
permanent, let's take up the House-passed bill with a couple of 
relevant amendments in order. One would make the moratorium permanent 
and, failing that, one would extend it for substantially longer than a 
mere 4 years.
  We can debate these amendments quickly and vote--to see where the 
Senate stands on this very important question of keeping the Internet 
free of onerous taxes.
  We could do it this week or next week--but the Senate must act before 
the moratorium expires in 13 days. And it is my intention to have a 
vote on the question of whether the moratorium should be extended 
permanently or merely for another 4 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 401, S. 2128, the permanent 
moratorium on the Internet tax bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, Mr. President, there is objection. On behalf of 
Senator Carper, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 3402

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Now, Mr. President, I understand the previous amendment 
has been cleared. I ask for its adoption.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, 
without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3402) was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 3323, 3337, 3355, and 3375 to Amendment No. 3325, en 
                                  bloc

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have four amendments that have been 
agreed to on both sides, cleared. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered and agreed to en bloc. They are amendments Nos. 3323, 3337, 
3355, and 3375.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendments 
are considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3323

   (Purpose: To provide an annual report card for the Department of 
                               Education)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Education shall, not later than September 
     30, 2008, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     and post on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Education, a report concerning--
       (1) the total number of Department of Education employees, 
     including employees who salaries are paid by the Department 
     but are employed by contractors or grantees of the 
     Department;
       (2) the total number, and percentage, of such employees who 
     have previously worked in a classroom as a teacher or a 
     teacher's assistant;
       (3) of the employees who have worked in a classroom, the 
     average number of years of time spent as an instructor;
       (4) the total dollar amount, and overall percentage of the 
     Department of Education funding, that is expended--
       (A) in the classroom;
       (B) on student tuition assistance;
       (C) on overhead and administrative costs and expenses; and
       (D) on Congressionally directed spending items, including 
     the administrative costs of administering such earmarks; and
       (5) a listing of all of the programs run by the Department 
     of Education and the total budget and most recent evaluation 
     of each such program, and a notation if no such evaluation 
     has been conducted.


                           amendment no. 3337

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding science teaching 
                            and assessment)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SCIENCE TEACHING AND 
                   ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that there is broad 
     agreement in the scientific community that learning science 
     requires direct involvement by students in scientific inquiry 
     and that such direct involvement must be included in every 
     science program for every science student in prekindergarten 
     through grade 16.
       (b) Sense of the Senate Regarding the National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress 2009 Science Test.--It is the sense 
     of the Senate that--
       (1) the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
     2009 Science assessment should reflect the findings of the 
     Senate described in subsection (a) and those expressed in 
     section 7026(a) of the America Creating Opportunities to 
     Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and 
     Science Act; and
       (2) the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) should 
     certify that the National Assessment of Education Progress 
     2009 Science framework, specification, and assessment include 
     extensive and explicit attention to inquiry.
       (c) Report.--The National Assessment Governing Board shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate describing whether the 
     certification described in subsection (b)(2) has been made, 
     and if such certification has been made, include in the 
     report the following:
       (1) A description of the analysis used to arrive at such 
     certification.
       (2) A list of individuals with experience in inquiry 
     science education making the certification.


                           amendment no. 3355

 (Purpose: To allocate funds to the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model 
                        Systems of Care Program)

       On page 88, line 16, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That $8,400,000 shall be used to carry out 
     the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems of Care 
     Program and to sustain at least 16 TBI Model Systems 
     Centers.''.


                           amendment no. 3375

     (Purpose: To provide funds for partnership grants for teacher 
    preparation under title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
       (1) $6,000,000 to carry out the programs for baccalaureate 
     degrees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or 
     critical foreign languages, with concurrent teacher 
     certification under section 6113 of the America COMPETES Act 
     (Public Law 110-69); and
       (2) $4,000,000 to carry out the programs for master's 
     degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 
     or critical foreign language education under section 6114 of 
     the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69).
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts made available under this Act for the administration 
     and related expenses for the departmental management of the 
     Department of Education, shall be reduced by $10,000,000.

  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We just disposed of four more amendments. Obviously, there will be no 
more business tonight. The leader already said there would be no more 
votes. Our staffs and I will continue to work through these amendments. 
But we will be in tomorrow, and we will be disposing of amendments 
tomorrow. So if Senators have amendments to this bill, and they want 
them offered, I suggest that tomorrow would be a good time to do it.
  We will not be in Monday until about 5:30. And then we will have 
votes on Monday night on pending amendments. So if amendments are 
offered tomorrow, and votes are needed, we can stack those votes for 
Monday night.

[[Page 27654]]

  I will just say the door will start closing after tomorrow because 
Monday night we will be voting. We will be in Tuesday morning probably 
at the usual hour--that is up to the leadership to decide--but then the 
final passage of this bill will be at noon on Tuesday. So I say to 
Senators, if they have amendments they want to have considered, I would 
say tomorrow would be an excellent time; otherwise, the door is going 
to close very rapidly, and they will not be able to offer those 
amendments and to get any debate or a vote on them prior to noon on 
Tuesday.
  So with that, Mr. President, again, I yield the floor.


                           ADVANCED PLACEMENT

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for putting together an excellent bill and bringing this critical 
legislation to the floor. This bill is a major step forward in 
strengthening education, health care, and job training in this country. 
As the chairman knows, this Congress recently passed the America 
Competes Act--comprehensive legislation designed to ensure the United 
States remains competitive in the 21st century economy. I believe the 
cornerstone of this legislation is its effort to strengthen math and 
science education in this country.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree. Strong math and science education is critical if 
we, as a nation, are going to continue to have a skilled and educated 
workforce that can compete in the global economy.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As the chairman knows, the National Academy of Sciences 
reported that students in the United States are simply not keeping up 
with their international peers in the areas of math and science. The 
National Academy recommended training an additional 150,000 advanced 
placement, AP, and pre-AP instructors, and to quadruple the number of 
students who take AP math or science courses to 4.5 million by 2010. Is 
the chairman aware that America Competes makes a downpayment on this 
recommendation and authorizes a program to increase the number of 
students in high-need schools taking AP and international 
baccalaureate, IB, classes in math, science, and critical foreign 
languages?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of that provision, and point out that America 
Competes also recognizes that other highly rigorous, evidence-based, 
postsecondary preparatory programs can also qualify for funding under 
this authorization.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, and the chairman's support for this provision was 
critical to its passage. I'd also like to thank the Chairman and 
Ranking Member for increasing funding for Advanced Placement programs 
in this mark to $42 million. As the Chairman knows, the House FY 08 
Labor HHS Education Appropriations bill increases funding for AP to $50 
million. I ask the Chairman if he thinks it's a good idea to increase 
AP to at least $50 million in the final bill that emerges from 
Conference, and use this additional increase to fund the provisions in 
America Competes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think that is a good idea, and will work with the 
ranking member and my colleagues in the House to try to achieve that 
goal.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree and will work with the chairman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
support of this critical program.


                        workforce investment act

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations 
Subcommittee. As this body debates this spending bill, I would like to 
start by thanking Senator Harkin, Senator Specter and the other members 
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for supporting the Workforce 
Investment Act in this bill. The Workforce Investment Act is a critical 
program for workers across the country in need of training and 
education benefits.
  WIA brings essential resources to my home State of Michigan, where 
hundreds of workers are ready and willing to begin job-training 
programs that make them more employable for high wage, quality jobs. 
The House-passed Labor-HHS spending bill includes a $335 million 
rescission of WIA funds as proposed by the administration. This 
potential cut would devastate the various efforts in place to 
reinvigorate Michigan's economy and workforce right at the time when 
our Governor is making great strides towards the goal of doubling the 
number of workers trained for high-demand jobs in the State.
  In Michigan, we are using WIA dollars to create scholarships for 
workers who want to attend State colleges, we are counseling workers on 
skill development and the importance of furthering their education, and 
we are performing skill assessments that help workers decide what level 
of training they should pursue. All of these services need to be 
available to workers in my State.
  Michigan workers have been hit hard by layoffs and I am proud that 
the committee has decided to support workers in my State and in all 
States with the resources and benefits that they need so that they can 
continue to support their families. I hope to see this body continue to 
work towards full restitution of these funds in a final bill. It is the 
right thing to do for our Nation's workforce system.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their leadership and cooperation in ensuring that 
the Senate continues its commitment to training workers through the 
Workforce Investment Act. I ask for their continued support on this 
important issue in conference. I, too, am pleased to see that my 
colleagues have rejected efforts to pull these critical funds away from 
States that are attempting to plan and use them for their own specific 
workforce development needs.
  The Workforce Investment Act provides many opportunities to workers 
in my home State of Michigan who have been laid off and are seeking a 
new start. The cuts proposed by President Bush could have cost my State 
close to $11 million; that is 7,500 workers who would not receive 
training and several local workforce agencies that could potentially 
close their doors and no longer serve Michigan communities. This cut 
would have cost workers in all of our States. The loss of benefits and 
services during hardship is too great a burden for us to place on our 
citizens' backs.
  I want to thank the comittee for rejecting efforts to drain this 
program of needed dollars. The Governors will thank us, the State and 
local workforce agencies will thank us, and most importantly, the 
worker who is trying to better himself or herself and gain employment 
will be able to do so because of our actions here.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank both of my colleagues from Michigan for their 
concern and support of WIA. I agree that the Workforce Investment Act 
should be provided the adequate level of funding needed to ensure that 
workers can get the training and services they need to compete for 21st 
century jobs.
  The Workforce Investment Act statutorily provides States 3 years to 
spend the funds allocated to them. This flexibility allows States to 
assess their unique needs, the needs of their unemployed workers, and 
to adequately plan innovative initiatives, training programs, and 
services for the workforce. I believe the rescission of funds proposed 
by the House of Representatives would be unfair to those programs that 
have appropriately obligated funds at the State and local levels to 
serve workers in need.
  The committee expects to provide sufficient funds for this program 
and will work towards securing the funding in the final bill. I thank 
the distinguished Senators from Michigan, and I will be happy to work 
with them in conference on this important matter.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with Senator Harkin. WIA was passed in 1998 to 
unify this country's fragmented employment and training system. Since 
then it has impacted the lives of millions. Our subcommittee seeks to 
continue the Senate's commitment to our nation's workers; they are the 
heart and soul of our economy.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the subcommittee.

[[Page 27655]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senators as well.


                Community Innovations for Aging in Place

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to first thank the chairman 
and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for doing a 
wonderful job drafting a spending bill for fiscal year 2008 that makes 
a true commitment to the priorities of so many Americans across the 
country, especially our older Americans. Close to 90 percent of all 
seniors in this country want to or, by necessity, will remain living in 
their homes, even as they grow frail. That is why I created a new, 
innovative program in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 called 
the Community Innovations for Aging in Place. Are the chairman and 
ranking member aware of this program?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I think this is a great program. Because the vast 
majority of our seniors are aging in place, the Community Innovations 
for Aging in Place program will help leverage new, human, financial, 
and neighborhood resources for the benefit of our seniors' health, 
independence, and quality of life.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the chairman and senator from Maryland. 
This program is important because it promotes independence and healthy 
aging by engaging seniors before a crisis and responding to their 
changing needs over time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The chairman and ranking member are right. The 
Community Innovations for Aging in Place program provides community-
based services by supporting partnerships between government and health 
and human services providers in caring for the nation's elderly. The 
federal government needs to be able to fund programs that work not only 
through government but through nonprofit organizations. That is why I 
would like to ask the chairman and ranking member if they support 
implementation of the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do support implementation of this innovative program. I 
assure the senator from Maryland that I will do my best to find funding 
for the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program during the 
conference process.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree and will support these efforts, as well.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I sincerely thank my colleagues from Iowa and 
Pennsylvania for addressing this issue that touches so many older 
Americans.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment which may 
provide up to $2.5 million in additional funds for the Fire Fighter 
Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, contained within the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The account for 
this funding is Other Occupational Safety and Health Research. The 
funding, which can be used across the United States, will be used to 
allow the agency to more effectively and comprehensibly investigate 
fire fighter fatalities, so that the cause of fatalities may be 
identified and future fatalities may be avoided. The inspector general 
for the Department of Health and Human Services found that flat funding 
for the program since 1998 has resulted in a reduced number of 
investigations over time. As a result, NIOSH has to prioritize certain 
types of investigations. The inspector general concludes that limited 
resources are a significant constraint which limits the program's 
effectiveness.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to respond to amendment No. 
3322 offered by my good friend the junior Senator from Oklahoma. As you 
know, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma would, among other 
things, strike $150,000 in Federal funds that I helped provide for a 
worthy initiative in the Commonwealth of Virginia called the Virginia 
Aquarium and Marine Science Center's Beyond the Aquarium Program.
  The Beyond the Aquarium Program is a hands-on, educational outreach 
program that brings science directly into K-12 classrooms. As we know, 
school field trips have declined and teachers are struggling to 
motivate students to study the sciences. Our ability to remain ahead of 
the curve in scientific advancements is a key component to ensuring 
America's homeland security in the post-9/11 world of global terrorism. 
Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage 
of homegrown, highly trained scientific minds. The Beyond the Aquarium 
Program will inspire children to take an interest in science.
  I applaud the Senator from Oklahoma in his efforts to obtain 
additional funding for IDEA. There is no Senator who is more supportive 
of fully funding IDEA than myself. Over the years, I have worked with 
Senators Hagel, Dodd, Roberts, and Harkin to ensure that Congress 
provide the highest possible funding for part B of IDEA. Unfortunately, 
Congress has never come close to meeting the 40-percent commitment to 
fund the cost associated with this legislation, although progress has 
been made the last several years. I encourage the good Senator from 
Oklahoma to join me and others as a cosponsor of S. 1159, the IDEA Full 
Funding Act.
  I am proud to stand up in support of this worthy project.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to address the pending 
legislation, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Fiscal 
Year 2008 appropriations legislation. While this legislation is very 
well intentioned, regretfully, I oppose the bill as it is currently 
drafted.
  The legislation we are currently debating totals approximately $149 
billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008. This is roughly 
$9 billion above the level requested by President Bush. Mr. President, 
$149 billion sounds like a lot of money, but total spending in the 
legislation is actually much higher--about $605 billion when the 
mandatory spending is accounted for.
  This legislation funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, as well as a host of smaller agencies. I know that 
all of my colleagues want to ensure these agencies are properly funded 
and staffed, so that Federal programs have the resources they need to 
properly function. But the level of spending in this legislation is 
excessive, and will add to the huge financial burden we are leaving for 
our children and grandchildren. So while this legislation is well 
intentioned, I can not support it as it is currently drafted.
  My understanding is that, for a variety of reasons, the President 
will veto the legislation. The administration has been vocal about 
their concerns since the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution was 
considered earlier this year, so this veto threat should not come as a 
surprise to my colleagues. The Senate has been on notice. We need to 
move past the political theatrics associated with this bill and other 
appropriations legislation, and get to work on the real challenge of 
writing a balanced proposal the President is willing to sign. As U.S. 
Senators, one of our primary duties is to fund the Government. Our 
Founding Fathers designed checks and balances for a purpose, one being 
to force compromise on key, and sometimes contentious, legislative 
products. We ought to be thinking about--and debating--the type of 
legislation that will pass muster on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 
We owe that to our constituents and to the American people.
  I would also like to address other concerns I have with the 
legislation. The committee-reported bill contains stem cell language 
that overturns Presidential order, making more embryonic stem cell 
lines available for Government research funding. Currently, only 
embryonic lines created before July 9, 2001, are eligible for Federal 
funding. This legislation would extend that date until June 15, 2007. I 
do not support this provision as part of this vehicle. Earlier this 
year, we had a larger debate on the stem cell issue. I believe that we 
owe it to the American public to work on real solutions to this 
situation and not just keep moving a potential date. For these reasons, 
I was pleased to hear yesterday that the bill manager decided to remove 
this provision from the underlying committee-reported legislation.

[[Page 27656]]

  The committee-reported bill also addresses funding for September 11 
workers. Specifically, this legislation provides an additional $55 
million for treatment, screening and monitoring for 9/11 related health 
issues. This is in addition to the approximately $45 million that was 
included in the emergency war supplemental earlier this year. In 
addition, this legislation for the first time expands funding to cover 
all city residents. The HELP Committee has been looking into this issue 
for well over a year. We should agree on the facts regarding worker 
health before we broadly expand current spending to cover residents. In 
addition, there are substantial unspent funds already available: out of 
a total of $92 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and currently 
proposed under the President's 2008 budget, grantees have actually 
drawn down just $2 million in payments on fiscal year 2006 funds.
  This legislation also cuts funding for the Office of Labor and 
Management Standards--known as OLMS--by $2 million, from $47.7 million 
to $45.7 million, while the President's request is $56.8 million. OLMS 
is responsible for overseeing union disclosure and corruption. This may 
seem like a small amount of money considering the scope of the overall 
legislation, but cutting funds targeted for policing corruption as a 
``cost saving'' measure isn't a good way to build credibility with the 
American people. We must do better. With Sarbanes-Oxley, we made big 
business more transparent. We need to do the same thing with big 
unions. The Office of Labor and Management Standards can and must do 
exactly that. OLMS must be allowed and funded to do what we have told 
them to do. The transparency and accountability is for the benefit of 
the union members. Of course, this might be just like the card check 
bill where labor union management was trying to take away the right for 
potential members to have a secret ballot. Unions are for the members, 
not for the union bosses. Members have a right to know. That is what 
the law passed in 1959 was and is all about. Enforce the law. Be sure 
union members have a right to know.
  I would also like to point out that the legislation does not contain 
funding for the National All Schedules Prescription Reporting Act--
NASPER. Known as NASPER, this law was designed to assist States in 
setting up prescription drug monitoring programs--to make sure people 
can't get multiple refills of their restricted prescriptions merely by 
crossing State lines. Instead, this legislation funds an unauthorized 
similar program through the Justice Department. Congress should first 
fund the programs that are authorized by committees that have 
jurisdiction over the measures. As the lead Republican on the HELP 
Committee, I know the value of the authorization process--Federal 
programs are reviewed by Senators and staff to ensure there is value 
for program beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Funding unauthorized 
programs usurps the entire authorizing committee process.
  All that being said, there are many provisions in this legislation 
that are not objectionable, and some of which I support. Like previous 
years, the bill contains language that prohibits the Labor Secretary 
from issuing regulations related to the Workforce Investment Act, known 
as WIA, until the Congress has reauthorized the program. Reauthorizing 
WIA is a bipartisan priority for the HELP Committee, and a top personal 
goal of mine that I have been working toward for many years. Congress 
should first act to reauthorize the law before the administration moves 
forward with regulations. This reauthorization is long overdue. 
Modernizing job training programs will result in better, higher paying 
jobs. Under my chairmanship, we passed this reauthorization--but it was 
held by Democrats who would not allow the appointment of conferees 
because of concerns they would not be included in the process. That 
argument no longer holds true. They control a majority in each 
legislative body, and a majority on conference committees. Congress 
needs to pass this legislation to provide training for current and 
future jobs so Americans have the skills they need to get the best 
jobs--instead of sending them overseas because we don't have trained 
workers at home.
  This legislation also restores the authority of the Railroad 
Retirement Board Office of the Inspector General to conduct Railroad 
Medicare audits and investigations. Similar language was included in 
previous years, but was dropped in the conference with the House. My 
hope is that this year we will be successful in restoring that 
authority. In September, Senator Kennedy and I, together with Senators 
Baucus and Grassley, weighed in on this issue with the Appropriations 
Committee, thanking them for including this language in their bill, and 
urging them to fight for this provision in conference. Restoring the 
ability to audit is fiscally responsible, and is the right thing to do.
  In closing, while there are valuable provisions in the Labor-HHS 
spending bill that ought to be enacted, I will be voting against this 
legislation because of the excessive total spending level, as well as 
some objectionable policy language that I have discussed today.
  I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues on a compromise 
product that can garner support from both the legislative as well as 
the executive branch of our Government.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________