[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27773-27791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume 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.
       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.
       Ensign amendment No. 3342 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to administer Social Security 
     benefit payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico.
       Ensign amendment No. 3352 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to process claims based on illegal 
     work for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits.
       Lautenberg/Snowe amendment No. 3350 (to amendment No. 
     3325), to prohibit the use of funds to provide abstinence 
     education that includes information that is medically 
     inaccurate.
       Roberts amendment No. 3365 (to amendment No. 3325), to fund 
     the small business child care grant program.
       Reed amendment No. 3360 (to amendment No. 3325), to provide 
     funding for the trauma and emergency medical services 
     programs administered through the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration.
       Allard amendment No. 3369 (to amendment No. 3325), 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).
       Coburn amendment No. 3358 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     require Congress to provide health care for all children in 
     the U.S. before funding special interest pork projects.
       Brown/Webb amendment No. 3361 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     provide information to schools relating to the prevention of 
     violent events and other crisis situations.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as you stated, we are back on the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill. We had a good 
2 days last week on it and amendments were disposed of.
  We now have a whole series of pending amendments. Right now, Senator 
Specter and I have been working, our staffs have been working, to try 
to get these amendments cleared. That work is continuing.
  As the leader said, we will have votes today starting at 5:30. We 
have two amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
vote on these two amendments at 5:30, one following the other.

[[Page 27774]]

  That would be the Allard amendment No. 3369, and the Dorgan amendment 
No. 3335, as modified by amendment No. 3445. So we would go to those 
two amendments in order at 5:30.
  But I want to make it clear that if we do not reach an agreement on a 
whole host of other amendments that are pending, we could roll into a 
whole series of votes.
  I want to read those off so people know what they are. First, there 
is the amendment by Senator Vitter, No. 3328, dealing with importation 
of drugs from Canada; there is a Dorgan amendment, No. 3345, relating 
to the NAFTA trade agreement; there is the Senator Menendez amendment, 
No. 3347, providing funding for the Patient Navigator Program; an 
amendment by Senator Ensign, No. 3342, dealing with Social Security 
benefit payments with Mexico; there is a Senator Ensign amendment, No. 
3352, again dealing with Social Security benefits and illegal workers; 
there is a Lautenberg/Snowe amendment, No. 3350, to prohibit the use of 
funds dealing with abstinence education; there is a Senator Roberts 
amendment, No. 3365, to fund the Small Business Child Care Grant 
Program; Senator Reed's amendment No. 3360 providing funding for trauma 
in emergency medical services programs; there is a Coburn amendment, 
No. 3358, that would end all earmarks before every kid in America has 
health care; then there is the Brown-Webb amendment, No. 3361, 
providing information to schools relating to the prevention of violent 
events and other crisis situations.
  So all of those amendments are pending. I mean, they are at the desk, 
they are pending, and can be called up.
  Quite frankly, as the chairman and floor manager, if we don't reach 
agreement on them, it is my intention that we roll over into those 
votes tonight.
  Again, with the concurrence of my ranking member, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to 
the Allard amendment No. 3369; then when that is disposed of, a vote on 
or in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 3335, as modified by 
amendment 3445; further I ask that there be a 2-minute period of time 
before each amendment for debate on both sides; and furthermore, I ask 
unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be allowed prior to 
the vote on either one of those two amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. We will proceed to vote at 5:30 on those two amendments. 
Then we will have to see whether we can work out clearance on some of 
these other amendments so we won't have any other votes tonight. But if 
we don't, we will have to roll into a whole series of votes this 
evening. We have to do this, if we want to finish by noon tomorrow. 
Both leaders on Thursday made a commitment that we would finish this 
bill by Tuesday at noon. If we are going to do that, I see no way other 
than having votes tonight or getting the sides to agree on the 
acceptance of these amendments.
  Senator Specter and I have agreed on a number of these amendments to 
get them worked out, but they are being held up in other places. I 
understand that. That is the privilege of any Senator. But hopefully, 
we can get this worked out, and we won't have to have that many 
amendments this evening.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
the work he has done, and our staffs, bringing the bill to this 
posture. We are within striking distance of concluding it. As Senator 
Harkin has outlined, there is a commitment to finish by noon tomorrow. 
The managers have been on the floor since shortly after 3, when under 
previous arrangement this bill was called up, and there are no other 
Senators present now. I know Senator Harkin would join me in urging 
Senators to come to the floor. Anybody who wants to debate an amendment 
ought to come to the floor promptly. We will find as the hour of 5:30 
approaches, Senators will come in when we are about ready to vote, when 
there is not any time to debate change. Senators will want to find 
time. Now is the time for Senators to come to the floor who want to 
debate.
  I also supplement what Senator Harkin said to this effect: There are 
a number of amendments, as the chairman has stated, that have been 
cleared. Some Senators have raised objections. It is their right to 
raise objections, but as frequently happens, once there is discussion, 
arrangements can be worked out to clear them. It is our view, Senator 
Harkin's and mine, buttressed by staff negotiations, that these matters 
can be cleared. But they will take some time. We do not want to get 
into a situation where at 5:50 tonight after the first vote, there is 
lengthy consideration as to what we are going to be doing at that time. 
The practice has been to have a single vote on Monday evenings at 5:30. 
We have two votes lined up, and we know many Senators will have other 
commitments, which is customary for Monday evening. But they cannot be 
fulfilled unless we conclude the business of the Senate, at least 
moving along so that we have within striking distance the prospect of 
concluding the bill by noon tomorrow.
  Senators who have any debate or who have lodged objections to any 
pending amendments should come to the floor now so they can be heard. 
If they don't, we won't be in a position to consider their objections 
at a later time and still move the bill through to completion by noon 
tomorrow.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if my friend will yield, I concur with 
what Senator Specter said. The list of amendments I read is the list of 
amendments that is pending at the desk that we could call up to vote 
on. We could do that this evening. There is a bunch of other amendments 
that Senators have said they are going to offer that we have on our 
list but they haven't been offered yet. Senator Specter is absolutely 
right, Senators could find themselves in a crunch where there is no 
time left to offer these amendments by noon tomorrow. So if they want 
to get their amendments considered, now is a good time. They could get 
recognized right away.
  I may have misstated something earlier in my unanimous consent 
request. I want to be clear that I asked unanimous consent that the 
Dorgan amendment 3335 be modified by 3445.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title II, 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 
     $3,000,000 for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     to make grants under the State Heart Disease and Stroke 
     Prevention Program.
        (b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting 
     services for the Department of Labor, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education 
     shall be further reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     percentage necessary to decrease the overall amount of such 
     spending by $3,000,000.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that the only two Senators on the 
floor are the two managers. Again, we renew our request, anybody who 
has any debate they want to offer, amendments they want to offer, or 
objections they want to raise to any pending amendments ought to come 
to the floor promptly.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3369

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding at 5:30 this 
evening we

[[Page 27775]]

are going to have a vote on my amendment, the Allard amendment No. 
3369. I wish to take a few moments to review with my colleagues the 
amendment, and then I understand before we have the vote I can briefly 
describe the amendment again.
  The Office of Management and Budget reviews Federal spending programs 
with a nonpartisan analysis to determine what taxpayers are receiving 
as far as the value of the taxpayers' dollars is concerned. This 
program is called the Program Assessment Rating Tool or PART. They 
utilize the same procedures that business executives use frequently to 
determine whether their company is meeting specific goals.
  In this particular instance, the Congress has directed the agencies 
to put in place a similar system where they set up goals and objectives 
and then determine through that process whether the program is 
``effective,'' ``moderately effective,'' ``adequate,'' ``the results 
are not demonstrated''--they have not made the effort yet--or the last 
category would be ``ineffective.''
  Well, a small percentage of programs receive an ``ineffective'' 
rating. Programs receiving this rating are not, according to OMB, using 
your tax dollars effectively. As they elaborate on the PART Web site at 
``expectmore.gov'':

       Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results 
     due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or 
     goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness.

  Now, my amendment cuts 10 percent of the funding under this bill for 
programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the OMB PART program and 
transfers the funding to an account previously established to pay down 
the national debt.
  This amendment is supported and scored by the National Taxpayers 
Union and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  We are not ending any programs or zeroing out any agencies. All we 
are doing is taking one dollar in ten from programs that cannot justify 
their effectiveness and using it to begin to address our over $9 
trillion national debt.
  I understand many people have fond thoughts for some of these 
programs, but fond thoughts and good intentions do not equal good 
government. I am not one to make sweeping statements, but I think I can 
say with some certainty that the vote total on this amendment will 
stand as a rough proxy for what percentage of the Senate is committed 
to fiscal discipline.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. I 
believe it is a commonsense amendment to a problem we need to address. 
We wish to make sure our taxpayer dollars are being used in a way that 
can be described as effective. That is the ideal situation.
  Certainly those programs that are classified as ``ineffective'' you 
have to question. Even though there has been a mission drawn out that 
may be somewhat appealing, when you get right down into the workings of 
the agency and nothing much is happening to accomplish the goals and 
objectives the Congress had in mind at the time it passed the 
legislation, those particular programs rated as ``ineffective'' is 
where my particular amendment is targeted. I think this is a 
commonsense amendment that brings some fiscal sanity to the process. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the amendment when we vote 
on it at 5:30 this evening.
  So, Mr. President, having said that, I yield the floor and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


         Amendment No. 3391, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily 
set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 3391 and that it 
be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3391, as modified, to amendment No. 3325.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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:

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     waive the provisions of section 1877(g) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395nn(g)) for Sumter Regional 
     Hospital in Americas Georgia to provide financial support 
     needed to maintain a medical staff and community physicians 
     in the area: Provided, That the aggregate amount of such 
     financial support to all physicians does not exceed $750,000: 
     Provided further, That all payments made under this section 
     are made prior to June 1, 2008, and are disclosed to the 
     Secretary not later than 30 days after such financial support 
     is provided.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a little over an hour ago, Senator 
Harkin, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and I urged 
Senators who wanted to debate amendments to come to the floor or 
Senators who had objections to pending amendments to come to the floor 
to utilize the time before the 5:30 vote.
  The managers, Senator Harkin and I, have been on the floor 
continuously since shortly after 3 p.m., when the bill was called back 
to the floor for consideration, and we know from practice, regrettably, 
that when the vote starts at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. or about 5:45 or 10 
minutes to 6, people will want floor time and have a great deal to say, 
and then we will be unable to accommodate all of the Senators who want 
to act on the bill. Senator Harkin outlined at the outset the two votes 
which will begin at 5:30 and said that there was the prospect of 
substantial additional voting tonight, if we were unable to clarify 
where we stand, because of our target to conclude this bill by noon 
tomorrow, which is the target established by the leaders and by the 
managers of this bill.
  So at this point, at 4:50, I would renew the request that Senators 
who want to debate, who want to take up any action on the bill, or want 
to discuss any of the pending amendments where objections have been 
lodged, come to the floor now while we have the time to transact that 
business.
  Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor 
seeking recognition--in fact, in the absence of any other Senator on 
the floor--Senator Harkin is in the cloakroom ready to come to the 
floor to transact business if any Senator wants to do so, but in the 
absence of any such Senator, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. 3345

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I have offered, and it 
is pending, I believe. It may well have been set aside; nonetheless, it 
is pending to the underlying bill. It is the simplest of amendments. It 
is amendment No. 3345, to be modified by amendment No. 3429, and it is 
a request of the Department of Labor to do a study which is fairly 
innocuous.
  Senators Brown, Stabenow, and Casey and I--also, I ask unanimous 
consent to add Senator Sanders as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. With this amendment, I am requiring the Labor Department

[[Page 27776]]

to perform a study to determine the number and the types of jobs that 
were lost by the North American Free Trade Agreement. That agreement 
was done a long while ago, but we are now in the process of considering 
additional trade agreements--one with Peru, one with Panama, one with 
South Korea, and one with Colombia. As we bring another group of free-
trade agreements--so-called free-trade agreements--to the floor of the 
Senate, I would like to remind our colleagues there is very little 
information about what has happened to previous trade agreements except 
that we know they didn't work out very well, and so we are going to do 
more of the same.
  NAFTA, for example--the North American Free Trade Agreement--at the 
time we did it, we had a modest trade deficit with Canada. Now that has 
turned into a very large trade deficit with Canada. At the time we did 
NAFTA, we had a modest surplus, a very small surplus in trade with 
Mexico. Now we have turned that into a very large trade deficit with 
Mexico. So we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. Despite that, 
we still have folks who huff and puff here about the need to do more of 
the same.
  I want there to be a study that talks about what are the types of 
jobs we have lost as a result of these trade agreements--how many jobs 
have we lost, in what sectors have we lost those jobs.
  On October 4 in the Wall Street Journal, this month, the Wall Street 
Journal said: ``Republicans grow skeptical on free trade.'' It was talk 
about Republicans, but actually the skepticism among non-Republicans is 
greater. It turns out the dissatisfaction with our trade strategy is 
bipartisan. The poll found that 59 percent of polled Republican voters 
agreed with the following statement:

       Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because 
     imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made 
     goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially 
     unsafe products.

  It is not surprising that people are concerned about this free trade 
strategy. Free trade is a mantra, a moniker that doesn't mean very 
much. I like trade. I am for plenty of trade. I come from a State that 
produces a lot of agricultural product, and we need to find a foreign 
home for more than half of what we produce, so I don't come to the 
floor of the Senate saying let's not trade. I say let's do trade 
agreements that are good for this country, not bad for this country.
  We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and we were told--
by the way, this is an agreement that started under George Bush I, it 
was completed by President Clinton. I opposed President Clinton and 
George Bush I, President Bush. But we were told that if we completed 
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, we would have 200,000 
new American jobs created in this country as a result. Two economists, 
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott--Hufbauer/Schott they called the 
study--said, actually, 170,000 new jobs in a couple of years. The 
supporters of this trade agreement rounded it up to 200,000 new jobs.
  Let me tell you what has happened since that time. I told you we 
turned a very modest trade surplus with Mexico, about $1.5 billion, 
into a very large trade deficit, now somewhere around $60 or $70 
billion a year.
  We have a little program in the Labor Department that requires 
companies to certify jobs that are lost because the jobs went to 
Mexico. Then you get trade adjustment assistance for the workers. So 
what we know is 412,000 U.S. jobs have been certified as lost because 
of NAFTA under one program at the Department of Labor.
  In the 10 years after NAFTA had been approved, I commissioned a study 
from the Congressional Research Service, and they identified the top 
100 companies that laid off U.S. workers as a result of NAFTA during 
that first 10 years. To come up with that, they turned to the 
Department of Labor. They have this Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program. It says these top 100 companies accounted for 201,000 jobs 
they certified were lost due to NAFTA. If you look at all the 
companies, that is 412,000 jobs.
  Let's look at this list, a few of the names. We passed NAFTA--
Hufbauer/Schott--all the political supporters, including those in the 
Senate, thumbing their suspenders, talking about what a wonderful deal 
this is going to be for the United States, knowing nobody who wears a 
blue suit in this Chamber is going to lose their job. It will be 
somebody else.
  Let's look at what happens. Levi Strauss, 15,676 jobs lost due to 
NAFTA. Does that mean people aren't wearing Levis? No, you can find 
some. Go outside the door, you can find Levis. They are still buying 
them. You can find places where they are selling them, a popular 
American jean. Except you will not find a pair of Levis made in this 
country. That is gone, 15,676--that is a big number.
  What about just one of them? What about one person--follow that 
person home from work one day, and that person had to tell their 
spouse: You know what, I lost my job today.
  The spouse says: What happened?
  I don't know, I have done a good job, I worked for them for 15 years. 
But they told me I lost my job. They are moving the job to Mexico.
  Why?
  Because I make too much money, that is why. I get paid $6, $8, $10, 
$11 an hour, and that is way too much money. You can hire people for 
much less money than that in Mexico, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri 
Lanka.
  Kraft Foods is on this list. Kraft Foods decided they were going to 
move their Fig Newton cookies to Mexico, Monterrey, Mexico. If somebody 
says to you someday: Let's go out for some Mexican food, go to the 
store and buy some Fig Newton cookies. That is Mexican food.
  All those folks who made Fig Newton cookies in New Jersey, they say 
some of them had to shovel fig paste with a scoop shovel, but they made 
too much money in New Jersey. Is there a better scoop shovel in Mexico 
or is there somebody who will shovel that fig paste for much less money 
per hour? Or is there some natural fig advantage in Mexico? Probably 
not. It is that Kraft, similar to Levis, decided: this trade agreement 
gives us the opportunity to move these jobs to Mexico.
  Fruit of the Loom--5,352 U.S. workers in Texas alone. Have people 
stopped wearing underwear? I don't think so. People still wear 
underwear. They just don't wear underwear made in this country. Fruit 
of the Loom is gone, and I suppose there are people who made a career 
out of Fruit of the Loom and probably enjoyed it. Maybe their neighbors 
kidded them a little bit: you work down at the Fruit of the Loom place. 
But I bet they enjoyed those careers. But they are gone because those 
jobs are moved in search of cheap labor.
  Barbie playhouses that Mattel made in a Kentucky plant, they shifted 
that factory to Mexico.
  The list goes on and on. You can see the list here, the corporations 
that certify to the Department of Labor that we moved our jobs. These 
companies moved the jobs as a result of the NAFTA trade agreement.
  My feeling about trade agreements is this. When you sign a trade 
agreement with another country, it ought to be mutually beneficial to 
us and them. I came from a meeting 5 minutes ago about the issue of 
automobiles--nothing to do with trade, it had to do with CAFE 
standards, better gas mileage for vehicles. Somebody was talking about 
we are going to have Chinese cars coming into this country. We are 
going to see an import of cars into this country because China is 
ramping up a very aggressive automobile export industry, and we will 
very soon see small, efficient cars on the streets of this country 
coming from China.
  Guess what. We did a trade agreement with China a while back, a 
bilateral agreement. Here is what we agreed to, with China, a country 
we have a giant trade deficit with--$230 billion a year. We said this: 
China, when you sell your cars in the United States, we will impose a 
2.5 percent tariff on your cars. And, by the way, we agree that when we 
sell U.S. cars, U.S. cars made in the United States, in China, you can

[[Page 27777]]

impose a 25-percent tariff. So a country we have a huge trade imbalance 
with, the biggest in human history, we said to them: it is OK for you 
to impose a tariff that is 10 times higher than we would impose on 
bilateral automobile trade.
  It doesn't make any sense. In my judgment, it undermines our 
country's economic interests and it undermines our country's jobs. Yet 
this country does that.
  We are going to have, as a group of bills on the floor, Peru, 
Colombia, Panama, South Korea. Among that group of bills, the free 
trade agreements have already been done, will be South Korea. Let me 
mention automobiles in South Korea. Last year, they shipped us close to 
700,000 cars, put them on ships and sent them to this country to be 
sold in America and 700,000 cars made in Korea sent here to be sold to 
American customers. We were able to send 5,000 American cars to South 
Korea. Why the imbalance, 700,000 this way, 5,000 that way? Because 
that is the way South Korea wants it; 99 percent of the cars on the 
streets in South Korea are made in South Korea and that is the way they 
want it. They don't want our cars sold in South Korea, they want the 
jobs there, they want to make the cars there and sell them there. Why 
would our country allow that to be the case?
  This agreement that is going to be brought to the Senate, the trade 
agreement with South Korea, does not address that issue.
  I could, and I have, spoken at great length about trade on a wide 
range of issues. But at some point we need to reconcile what we are 
doing with these agreements and we need to stop this bad habit of 
negotiating bad agreements for this country. We don't know who 
negotiates this. But the person who said to China it is OK for you to 
impose a 10 times higher tariff on U.S. cars than we would impose on 
Chinese cars, that person obviously doesn't understand whom he or she 
is working for. I have threatened, from time to time, that these trade 
negotiators should go out and negotiate--in secret, presumably, on 
behalf of our country, should begin to wear jerseys such as they wear 
in the Olympics, so occasionally they could look down and try to 
remember for whom they work. These trade agreements undermine this 
country's basic economic strength.
  People say it is fine these jobs migrate.
  It is not fine. A country without a strong, vibrant manufacturing 
base is not destined to long be a world economic power, and we have to 
understand that. I am not talking about protectionism or building 
walls, I am talking about trade, and plenty of it, but trade in 
circumstances where the rules are fair and where this country insists 
on fair rules.
  I know my colleague, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, 
is here and perhaps is about to make a presentation. I do wish to say I 
have filed this amendment. It is the most innocuous. It says let's at 
least go back and take a snapshot of this one trade agreement, NAFTA, 
and find out what happened. What happened with jobs? How many did we 
lose? What kind? Where from? But apparently even this is controversial.
  Why? Because maybe we will learn something. Maybe we will learn that 
these one-way trade agreements are not in this country's interests and 
that we ought to be smart, shrewd, and tough negotiators, standing up 
for our country's economic interests, standing up for our jobs.
  One final point. In a century we lifted this country's standards; 
expanded the middle class. We said you have to have a safe workplace. 
You have to have child labor laws, minimum wages, the right to 
organize--a whole series of rules that lifted America. Now we are 
saying let's compete with others and allow them to diminish those 
standards. I am not very interested in doing that.
  I know the people who made Huffy bicycles couldn't compete for 20 or 
30 cents an hour. They made $11 in Ohio. They all lost their jobs 
because they couldn't compete with people who made bicycles for 20 or 
30 cents an hour, so every Huffy bicycle is made in China. None are 
made in Ohio. I know you can't compete with that, but I don't think 
that should be the standard of competition because I think by its 
nature it diminishes economic opportunity in this country.
  I am going to ask, if we can't clear this amendment, that we have a 
vote on this amendment. I appreciate the work the chairman of the 
subcommittee has done. I support his bill and am pleased to speak in 
favor of the bill, generally, which I have done on a previous occasion. 
My hope is he will support the amendment I have offered as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for always being on 
the side of American workers and American jobs. I assure him he will 
have my support on the amendment. We do not have it cleared yet. We may 
have to have a vote on it. But if that is so, perhaps that could be one 
of the votes we have tonight, if we don't get an agreement on it.


                           Amendment No. 3369

  I wish to take the time--we will be voting at 5:30. As I said, we 
will be voting on the first one, which will be the Allard amendment, 
amendment No. 3369. I thought I would take a few minutes to talk about 
the amendment.
  It sounds simple. You cut funds for programs that the Bush 
administration has concluded are ineffective, using what is called the 
Program Assessment Rating Tool--PART--then use these savings to reduce 
the debt. We are all for making sure taxpayers' dollars are spent well 
and responsibly, but let's take a look at what this amendment really 
means.
  First, we have to have some background on PART, the Program 
Assessment Rating Tool. It is intended to help assess the management 
and performance of individual programs. So it is not just a question of 
whether the program works, it also evaluates whether Congress has 
designed the program in a clear manner and whether Federal agencies do 
a good job managing the program. So programs evaluated under PART fall 
into one of five categories: They are effective, moderately effective, 
adequate, ineffective or results not determined.
  The last category means there was not enough information about it to 
make a decision.
  The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, would only cut programs that 
are rated ineffective and take that money and apply it to the deficit. 
It sounds good. Why should you ever support an ineffective program?
  First of all, let's take a look at what PART means. What is PART and 
how is it used? This is what the President's own budget documents say 
about PART:

       Ratings do not result in automatic decisions about funding.
       Clearly, over time, funding should be targeted to programs 
     that can prove they achieve measurable results. In some 
     cases, a PART rating of ``ineffective'' or ``results not 
     demonstrated'' may suggest that greater funding is necessary 
     to overcome identified shortcomings, while a funding decrease 
     may be proposed for a program rated ``effective'' if it is 
     not a priority or has completed its mission.

  This is the President's budget. I say: Read it. It says: Sometimes if 
you have an ``ineffective'' rating, maybe you ought to have greater 
funding for it to overcome some shortcomings, rather than if you have 
an effective program that may be getting funded, maybe it should be 
done away with because either it is not a priority or has completed its 
mission.
  In other words, the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado, 
Mr. Allard, is counter to the idea behind creating the PART process. It 
was not intended as a club on an ``ineffective'' program, or it was 
designed to assess the impact of programs, identify steps that could be 
taken to improve them.
  Now, that is not my only problem with this misguided amendment. I am 
concerned about the important programs Americans need that would be 
undermined by his amendment. Make no mistake about it, a vote for 
Senator Allard is a vote against the programs you see listed on this 
second chart. A

[[Page 27778]]

vote for Senator Allard's amendment says we should undo the fiscal mess 
created by the Bush administration policy of tax cuts for the 
millionaires and the war in Iraq by reducing funding for programs that 
help some students prepare for college, provide unemployed low-income 
seniors with income, retrain workers who lose their jobs due to foreign 
trade.
  Now, here are some of the programs that would lose 10 percent of the 
funding in the bill if the Allard amendment were adopted. The TRIO 
Upward Bound Program is funded at $315 million in the Senate bill. 
There are 900 sites throughout the country, including 8 sites and over 
700 students in the State of Colorado, I say to the occupant of the 
chair.
  Here is what the Bush budget had to say about this program. This is a 
quote from the Bush budget:

       The program received an ineffective PART rating when 
     assessed in 2002, in part, because the program evaluation 
     showed that the program did not overall increase the 
     proportion of participants who enrolled in college. However, 
     the program was found to have a positive impact for higher 
     risk students for whom the evaluation findings revealed that 
     Upward Bound increased 4-year college enrollment rates. In 
     response to this finding, the Department of Education 
     established a priority for the 2006 competition that required 
     projects to ensure that at least 30 percent of participants 
     were higher risk students. Given the improved targeting, 
     continued funding is warranted.

  In other words--I better watch myself, I am saying nice things about 
the administration--basically what they did is they actually 
implemented the PART program correctly. They looked at it, they said, 
okay, it got an ineffective rating. Why? Well, because, they said, 
overall it did not show that it increased 4-year college participation.
  But when they looked at the subset of the higher risk students, they 
said: It increased the college participation. So here is what we will 
do. We will require projects to ensure that at least 30 percent of the 
participants are higher risk students. That is how you use this tool. 
You do not use it as a club to get rid of it, I say to my friend from 
Colorado.
  The President's own budget says the program is worthwhile. Look at 
the Perkins Career and Technical Education State Grants. It is funded 
at $1.2 billion. That is last year's level. We did not increase it. 
Last year, the Congress reauthorized and strengthened the program, and 
the Senate passed it by unanimous consent. In the House of 
Representatives there was only one vote against it. Here is what the 
Bush budget said:

       The Perkins Act incorporates several important changes that 
     strengthen the program's accountability provisions and 
     provides opportunities to improve the program's performance.

  Then there is the Community Service Employment for Older Americans. 
We had funded it at last year's level. This provides part-time 
community service opportunities paid at minimum wage for unemployed 
low-income persons.
  The Health Professions Program: Now, this is interesting. We put in 
$357 million this year. The Allard amendment would cut it by $35.7 
million. This is the category that includes almost all health training 
in America: nurse training programs, training in primary care medicine, 
dentistry programs. All of these would take a cut.
  Then there is trade adjustment assistance: $888.7 million in this 
bill, last year's level, same thing the President requested. Again, 
this provides income support and retraining services to workers who 
lose their jobs due to foreign trade. Approximately 120,000 Americans 
are eligible each year, but only about 80,000 actually receive 
services.
  Again, if we adopt the Allard amendment for the TRIO program at an 
average cost of $5,000 a student, we would cut 6,300 students out of 
the TRIO program.
  For trade adjustment assistance, at about $12,000 per person, that 
means a loss of services to 7,400 workers who have lost their jobs and 
want to get retrained.
  For the Community Service Employment Program, $5,932 for older 
workers--a modest amount every year to an older person--means a loss of 
support for 8,142 low-income seniors.
  The Allard amendment on its face, you look at it and say: Well, he is 
cutting 10 percent from those programs rated ineffective. So you want 
to think: Well, gee, why would I support an ineffective program? No one 
wants to support ineffective programs. But, again, I refer to the first 
chart. I repeat again, you have to understand what PART is; that is, 
the Program Assessment Rating Tool, and how it is used. I will read 
again from the President's own budget.

       PART ratings do not result in automatic decisions about 
     funding.

  Well, the Allard amendment would be an automatic decision about 
cutting 10 percent. Clearly, over time, funding should be targeted at 
programs that can prove they achieve measurable results. I say to my 
friend from Colorado, it says:

       In some cases, a PART rating of ``ineffective'' or 
     ``results not demonstrated'' may suggest that greater funding 
     is necessary in order to overcome identified shortcomings, 
     while a funding decrease may be proposed for a program rated 
     ``effective'' if it is not a priority or has completed its 
     mission.

  So there may be effective programs that are rated as ``effective'' 
that probably ought to be cut. I am sure the administration and OMB are 
probably doing that, because they have either completed their mission 
or it is not a priority.
  On the other hand, there may be some of those rated ``ineffective'' 
as mentioned in the TRIO program, rated as ineffective. When they 
looked at the overall score, they said: Well, it is effective if you 
look at higher risk students. So they carved it out and said: Thirty 
percent has to go to higher risk students. Then they requested the 
continued funding for it.
  I say to my friend from Colorado, I understand his desire. Everybody 
wants to cut down on something that is ineffective. But I do think that 
if the Senator were to read and understand completely what that Program 
Assessment Rating Tool does, he might agree with the President's own 
words on his budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments the Senator from 
Iowa was making. I was not elected to this body--I do not think the 
Senator from Iowa was either--to make easy votes. This can be a 
difficult vote. There are programs on there that I support, I support 
wholeheartedly, but I want them to be effective. How can I go back to 
my taxpayers in the State of Colorado and say: Well, we are spending 
billions of dollars on this program, but it is ineffective. It is not 
measuring up to the standards which most businesses would be expected 
to measure up to for performance, or maybe other agencies are going to 
measure up to for performance.
  I do not know how else to get the attention of the bureaucracy except 
to deal with them where they pay attention. That is their pocketbooks, 
their budget. I think when we have an ineffective program, we are not 
doing our jobs as Senators if we do not figure out a way to bring 
accountability to the program.
  Now, this is a modest attempt to try to bring some accountability. We 
do not eliminate any programs. We do a reduction on a few programs that 
are listed as ``ineffective.''
  In the business world, they use the same process that OMB puts in 
place. This is not a partisan process. You know, you referred to 
President Bush's actions on it. It may be a Democratic President 3 
years from now. He is going to be dealing with the same problems this 
President is dealing with, that he has programs out there that simply 
are not measuring up.
  So let me get back to what the standard business world does. They 
look at a program and say: Well, look, we are spending a certain amount 
of money, and it is not performing. Because it is not performing, we 
have either got to redo the program, which is an option the Congress 
can look at, or we eliminate it altogether, or we create some other 
kind of modification that is going to make it accountable to the 
stockholders of that company.
  The stockholders in this case are the taxpayers of the country. They 
are the

[[Page 27779]]

ones putting money in this program. They are the ones who expect the 
program to do what it says, for what it is set up to do. This is a 
program that has been in place for 10 years. It is not a new program.
  The agencies have had plenty of time to respond and react to this 
particular effort. I would credit those agencies or programs that are 
listed as ineffective for at least having tried to comply with the law.
  There is another group there I did not address. There are those where 
results have not been demonstrated. They are sort of thumbing their 
nose at the Congress and saying: Heck, we are not even going to bother 
to set up any goals and objectives for our program. We are going to let 
it run on auto. In some cases they have a legitimate reason for doing 
that, but I do think the Congress does need to look at those programs 
that are ineffective and make some judgments. Now, if the Senator from 
Iowa has a better suggestion on how we may bring accountability to the 
agencies, I would be glad to hear what it is.
  I think a modest reduction in their budget will send a message to 
them that you have got to get your act in order, and then hopefully, as 
we go down through the years, they will begin to understand that it is 
the Congress that controls the purse strings, and you need to get your 
act in order; we need to have accountability in the program.
  I think this is a commonsense amendment. It is being supported by 
Citizens Against Government Waste. The National Taxpayers Union is 
supporting it. I have sat down with groups on how it is we can bring 
forward effective, efficient Government.
  We do not want programs out there that make all of these grandiose 
claims but then do not deliver. They waste taxpayers' dollars in the 
process. So this is what this amendment is trying to address. I ask my 
colleagues to support me in this effort. It is a modest amendment. It 
is something that I think can make a difference.
  If you want the legislative branch to have a little power over the 
executive branch through the purse strings, this is the way to do it. 
Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I listened to my friend from 
Colorado, but maybe the right amendment would be to go after the 
Program Assessment Rating Tool, because as it says: Some of the 
programs that are rated ineffective actually may need more money.
  I will give the Senator one example. A couple of years ago, a school 
that I know very well here in Washington, DC, called Gallaudet 
University--it is the university for the deaf here in America, premier 
college in the world, as a matter of fact--got an ``ineffective'' 
rating. That got me pretty upset until I started looking at it, finding 
out why it was ineffective. Now, if we had cut their funding by 10 
percent, they never would have become effective. But because we got 
them in, and the committee did its job--and that is what the 
committee's function is for; if there is something that is ineffective, 
that is why we have committees.
  Call them up, ask them what is happening. Make them explain why it 
has an ``ineffective,'' why it was demonstrated ``no results,'' and 
then let the committee do its work. That is what we did with Gallaudet. 
We could have had a 10-percent cut there, and they never would have 
become effective. They just needed better guidance and better 
direction. That is what the committee structure does. That is why we 
have the executive branch overseeing these things. That is the better 
way to approach it than this kind of sledgehammer approach.
  Mr. ALLARD. If I may respond, it is not a sledgehammer approach. It 
is a mild little push to try to improve the program. I agree, some 
programs can be improved if we increase appropriations, and that is 
what we need to do. But maybe to get their attention, to get things 
moving in the right direction, maybe we need to start out with a 
reduction in spending. This is a commonsense program. We can argue 
about it. I have never been in any committees where they talked about 
it in this way. I think it needs to be talked about more, and that is 
why I am introducing the amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is why we have the Appropriations Committee. Yes, we 
do call them up, and we do look into these matters. But it is not this 
kind of heavyhanded approach that is going to cut programs that 
actually have taken steps, such as the Upward Bound Program, to be more 
effective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5:30 having arrived, the question 
is on agreeing to the Allard amendment, with 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided on the amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be permitted to do that at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3347, as Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the vote 
sequence previously agreed to, the Dorgan amendment, No. 3335, as 
modified, be removed from the agreement and the Menendez amendment, No. 
3347, be substituted and the amendment be modified with the text of 
amendment No. 3428, and that the Senate then vote in relation to the 
Menendez amendment, No. 3347, as modified, following the disposition of 
the Allard amendment, and that all other provisions of the previous 
order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to any other amounts appropriated 
     or otherwise made available under this Act, $8,000,000 shall 
     be available to carry out activities under the Patient 
     Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109-18).
       (b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting 
     services for the Departments of Labor, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education 
     shall be further reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     percentage necessary to decrease the overall amount of such 
     spending by $8,000,000.


  Amendments Nos. 3335, as Modified, 3331, 3419, 3434, 3405, and 3411

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be 
considered and agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table en bloc: Amendment No. 3335, as modified, 3331, 3419, 3434, 3405, 
and 3411.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3331

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain 
            certifications regarding Federal tax liability)

       At the end of title V, add the following:
       Sec. 521.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and 
     belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax 
     returns required during the three years preceding the 
     certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more 
     than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any 
     unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an 
     installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.


                           amendment no. 3419

   (Purpose: To provide for a study to evaluate the Social Security 
  Administration's plan to reduce the hearing backlog for disability 
 claims at the Social Security Administration and the Social Security 
    Administration's current and planned initiatives to improve the 
                          disability process)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to

[[Page 27780]]

     evaluate the Social Security Administration's plan to reduce 
     the hearing backlog for disability claims at the Social 
     Security Administration and the Social Security 
     Administration's current and planned initiatives to improve 
     the disability process, as contained in the report submitted 
     to the Senate on September 13, 2007, pursuant to Senate 
     Report 110-107.
       (b) Not later than 5 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), together with such recommendations as the 
     Comptroller General determines appropriate.


                           amendment no. 3434

   (Purpose: To develop biodefense medical countermeasures by fully 
  funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority 
               (BARDA) in a fiscally responsible manner)

       On page 66, line 7, strike ``$756,556,000'' and insert 
     ``$786,556,000''.
       On page 66, line 10, strike the period and insert ``, and 
     of which $189,000,000 shall be used to support advanced 
     research and development of medical countermeasures, 
     consistent with section 319L of the Public Health Service 
     Act.''.
       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts appropriated in this Act for the administration and 
     related expenses for the departmental management of the 
     Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, and the Department of Education shall be reduced by 
     a pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount 
     appropriated in this Act by $30,000,000.


                           amendment no. 3405

(Purpose: To provide for the Government Accountability Office to submit 
      a report to Congress on the process for hiring and managing 
           administrative law judges, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office 
     shall submit a report to Congress that contains an assessment 
     of the process for hiring and managing administrative law 
     judges and makes recommendations on ways to improve the 
     hiring and management of administrative law judges.


                           amendment no. 3411

 (Purpose: To permit certain amounts to be used for grants to Federal 
        commissions that support museum and library activities)

       On page 106, line 24, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds may be made 
     available for grants to Federal commissions that support 
     museum and library activities, in partnership with libraries 
     and museums that are eligible for funding under programs 
     carried out by the Institute of Museum and Library 
     Services''.

  Amendment No. 3335, as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3369

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Allard 
amendment, No. 3369.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: I understand there is 2 minutes, 
if the Senator wants it.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would like to take a minute to briefly explain the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Allard amendment is a commonsense amendment. It looks 
at those programs that are rated as ineffective by the Office of 
Management and Budget. It is a nonpartisan process. It was set up by 
the Congress more than 10 years ago. It is time the Congress expect 
some accountability in that program itself. One can look on 
expectmore.gov which lists the agencies that are performing and those 
that are not. Some of these programs are my favorite programs. I voted 
for them and support them. But we have to bring accountability so that 
when we are supporting a program, it actually does what it says it is 
going to do; that all the money doesn't go to the bureaucracy and none 
of it gets to the beneficiaries. We are trying to bring some 
accountability to this process. That is the reason for the amendment.
  My hope is that the Senate will vote for this in strong numbers so we 
can send a message to agencies that they need to begin to get their act 
in order, those that are rated as ineffective. We need to, in the 
committee process, refer to this rating. Let's put them on record in 
committee meetings to hold them accountable for their programs.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a heavyhanded club approach. 
Already we know that sometimes programs are rated ineffective, as the 
President's own budget says, and actually need more funding. Some of 
those rated ``effective'' probably ought to have their funding cut. But 
the Senator from Colorado says we are just going to cut all these 
programs across the board that are rated ``ineffective.''
  As I pointed out, Gallaudet College in Washington, DC, probably the 
finest university for the deaf in the world--not probably, it is--
somehow got an ``ineffective'' rating. They changed things. Now they 
have an ``effective'' rating. Had they been cut 10 percent, they never 
would have been able to get ``effective'' again. This is not the proper 
way to do things. This is something for committees to handle and for 
the executive branch. I know the Senator from Colorado has well-meaning 
intentions, but they are misdirected and misguided because the Program 
Assessment Rating Tool is not the kind of instrument the Senator is 
envisioning with his amendment.
  I yield back whatever time I have. I move to table the Allard 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be 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 New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), 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 Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Hagel), and 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 68, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 381 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

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

                                NAYS--21

     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Biden
     Clinton
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Graham
     Hagel
     Kennedy
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have one vote to follow right now. The 
managers have been working to finish this piece of legislation as 
quickly as possible. The staff has worked through a number of 
amendments today--in fact, a significant number of amendments.

[[Page 27781]]

We are on a glidepath to finish this legislation by 12:30 tomorrow, so 
everyone is going to have to cooperate and get things done. We have a 
lot to do this week, but the key to getting it done is finishing this 
bill.


                    Amendment No. 3347, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on 
the Menendez amendment, as modified.
  Who yields time?
  Senators will please take their conversations off the floor. The 
Senate is not in order. Will the Senate please come to order so we may 
hear the Senator from New Jersey.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hutchison be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wanted to thank Senators Harkin and 
Specter for their leadership on the bill and their strong support of 
this amendment, which is to put $8 million in the Patient Navigator and 
Chronic Disease Prevention Act. It is strongly supported by a letter 
that was issued by the American Cancer Society, the Leukemia Lymphoma 
Society, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the 
National Medical Association, the National Patient Advocate Foundation, 
and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.
  What they say in their letter sums it up in its totality. It says: 
Improving the health of America as a whole depends significantly on our 
ability to improve health outcomes for the uninsured, those who live in 
rural areas, minorities--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator from 
West Virginia is correct. Will the Senators please take their 
conversations off the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the American Cancer Society and all of 
these other organizations tell us that this amendment will help 
individuals who are in rural communities, minorities, and other 
medically underserved populations who suffer from a disproportionate 
burden of cancer, navigate the health care system, create more positive 
outcomes, save money, and save lives. That is why we urge all of our 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time in 
opposition?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time in 
opposition.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), 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 Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 382 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     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
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Kyl

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Clinton
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Kennedy
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3347), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 3432, as Modified, and 3377, as Modified En Bloc

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a couple of modifications I will 
send to the desk. First is a modification for No. 3432 and then No. 
3377.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are so 
modified.
  The amendments (Nos. 3432 and 3377), as modified, are as follows:


                    amendment no. 3432, as modified

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  In addition to other amounts made available 
     in this title, $3,000,000 shall be made available for trauma 
     care activities.
        (b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting 
     services 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 
     $6,000,000.


                    amendment no. 3377, as modified

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to other amounts appropriated in 
     this title to carry out title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, $2,000,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     allied health professional programs under section 755 of such 
     title VII, other than the Chiropractic-Medical School 
     Demonstration Grant program, Graduate Psychology training 
     programs, and podiatric physicians programs.
       (b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting 
     services for the Department of Labor, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education 
     shall be reduced further on a pro rata basis by the 
     percentage necessary to decrease the overall amount of such 
     spending by $2,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 3378

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3378 by Senator 
Tester 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. Tester, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3378.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for veterans employment and 
              training for Federal management activities)

       On page 28, line 10, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be transferred 
     from amounts made available in this title for salaries and 
     expenses of the Department of Labor, to carry out Federal 
     management activities relating to veterans employment and 
     training''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to on the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (No. 3432, as modified, No. 3377, as modified, and 
3378) were agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 3360 Withdrawn

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3360 be 
withdrawn.

[[Page 27782]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is the situation. Everybody wants to 
know if there will be more votes tonight. We don't know yet. We are 
trying to work out amendments with the other side. We have been 
instructed by the leadership to finish this bill by 12:30 tomorrow. We 
still have a lot of amendments pending. We are trying to work them 
through. Depending on the progress within the next half hour or so, we 
will know whether we need to have more votes tonight.
  There are a lot of amendments pending. If somehow we can get these 
offered tonight and stacked for votes tomorrow, we might be able to do 
that. If not, we may have to have votes further tonight. I have been 
instructed by my leader to continue in that vein. So I cannot say yet 
if we are going to have more votes tonight. It depends on how many can 
be accepted on both sides. We will know shortly.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be recognized for 10 
minutes to speak about the fires in California; that upon the end of 
her presentation, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, be recognized 
for 5 minutes for the purpose of offering an amendment; that at the end 
of that 5 minutes, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, be 
recognized for 5 minutes to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                          California Wildfires

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin and my colleagues. 
Many of them have come up to Senator Feinstein and myself tonight and 
have expressed their concern about the fires that are raging out of 
control in our State, home to 37 million people, very dangerous fires, 
kind of a perfect storm of extremely high temperatures, very low 
humidity, and Santa Ana winds which gust up to hurricane-type winds, 
sometimes as high as 50, 60 miles an hour, with the average about 35 
miles an hour.
  Senator Feinstein and I have heavy hearts as we talk with our 
Governor and our mayors. They are conveying to us that this is very 
serious because our firefighters are at a huge disadvantage because of 
the unpredictability of the winds. We don't know from one moment to the 
next whether the fires will turn on these firefighters. Last year was a 
very tough year for us in California. We had some horrific experiences, 
and we lost firefighters. We are not going to repeat that situation. We 
have to make sure we save lives, that we get people out of their homes. 
At this point, I can say people appear to be cooperating with the 
authorities. The most important point is we care about each other and 
we save lives.
  There are now more than a dozen wildfires burning, again, all being 
fanned by these hot Santa Ana winds, raging from as far south as the 
Mexican border to as far north as Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. 
Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency in seven 
counties--Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, 
Santa Barbara, and Ventura. More than 250,000 people are evacuated in 
San Diego County alone, where blazes have torched more than 100,000 
acres. Senator Feinstein and I spoke with Mayor Sanders today, and he 
told us that one condominium complex has burned with 400 units.
  Mayor Sanders warns we have tough times ahead. There are walls of 
flames 100 to 200 feet high. There are fires popping up everywhere, 
with eight separate fires burning in that region. More than a dozen 
people are being treated at the UC San Diego Medical Center Regional 
Burn Center for smoke inhalation and burns, including four firefighters 
who are seriously injured. One individual we know of has lost his life 
in San Diego.
  Our firefighters deserve our prayers, our help, and our thoughts, as 
do all the people in the southern California region. We have to 
remember that they go out there and do everything they are trained to 
do, and the last thing they think about is themselves. Yet and still, 
we have been trying for years to pass the Healthy Firefighters Act to 
follow these firefighters who work in these horrific situations, and 
some of them have absolutely no health insurance. We are trying to 
protect them and follow them so we can make sure that in future years, 
they are not plagued from the smoke inhalation.
  I wish to show a picture. I hope my colleagues will take a look at 
it. San Diego, this is one photo. We can see, if we look closely, the 
firefighters. From where they are getting any oxygen is hard to know. 
They are literally in the fires of hell right there.
  Then in Santa Clarita, more than 25,000 acres have burned and 
approximately 800 homes have been evacuated. I will show another 
picture. We can see the fire in the hills threatening the homes. Eight 
hundred homes have been evacuated in this region.
  Most of my colleagues have seen the reports of Malibu. More than 
2,400 acres have burned. We can get a sense of what is happening there. 
This is a photo of a beach. This is the water, the Pacific Ocean. You 
cannot see in front of you the fires, the smoke, the wind blowing the 
sand. I was in southern California. I left this morning, and yesterday 
I was out in the Santa Anas.
  To give my colleagues a sense of what it is like, the winds are so 
strong in the desert areas and in the beach areas that you can taste 
the grit of the sand in your mouth and feel it in your eyes and 
certainly in your lungs.
  In Malibu, more than 2,400 acres burned. Several homes and structures 
have been destroyed, including the Malibu Presbyterian Church. My 
understanding is the church was able to remove computers and some other 
items they desperately needed, but that building is gone. The Pacific 
Coast Highway remains closed, and the evacuations continue as we speak.
  Again, thousands of our brave firefighters are frantically working in 
conjunction with the California department of forestry and the U.S. 
Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the U.S. Border Patrol, 
and FEMA to contain these fires. I thank all the dedicated Federal 
workforce who have joined in this effort. They deserve our prayers and 
support as well.
  People are escaping with only the clothes on their backs. Families 
have no time to gather anything as they flee from the inferno that 
engulfs everything it touches.
  This is only the most recent information. As I speak, these fires 
rage on. The Governor says they don't expect a diminution of these 
Santa Ana winds until at best tomorrow afternoon, maybe Wednesday. We 
pray these winds stop their fierce blowing.
  We need to make sure our communities have the resources they need 
now. California cannot fight this battle alone. I mentioned the 
agencies that are out there already helping. I know the equipment is 
being given as we speak.
  The Governor has declared a disaster in seven counties, and as soon 
as he asks the President for a Federal declaration, I know President 
Bush will act swiftly. There are certain areas where we have to work 
together where there cannot be an inch of distance between us.
  As I stand here, I look over at my friend, Senator Landrieu, and I 
see the compassion in her face because she is still working night and 
day, 24/7 to make sure her State is whole again. I, again, pledge to 
her--she knows I will be there with her every step of the way.
  So these are the times when we in this Senate have to cross over 
party lines, and we do, to make sure we make life livable for people 
who have lost, in some cases, everything--everything material. Again, I 
want to say the most important point is we save lives.
  I ask for an additional 1 minute, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this isn't just a fight to contain 
wildfires. This is a fight to save lives. This is a fight to save 
schools and homes and businesses. Again, I thank all the firefighters, 
the local officials, the volunteers, my own staff who is out there 
working. I thank the President and FEMA and all the Federal workers.

[[Page 27783]]

  Right now we must contain these fires. Right now we must save lives. 
Right now we must provide shelter and hope for those displaced.
  I again thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have 
come up to me or have come up to Senator Feinstein and said to us: 
Please let us know what we can do. We will be calling on our 
colleagues. We know they care very much about the 37 million people of 
my State, and a large proportion of them in southern California being 
impacted by these fires.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                Amendment No. 3400 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment so I may call up amendment No. 3400.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], for himself, Mr. 
     Smith, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3400 to amendment No. 3325.

  Mr. CARDIN. 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 support to Iraqis and Afghans who arrive in the 
        United States under the Special Immigrant Visa program)

       On page 126, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 521.  Iraqi and Afghan aliens granted special 
     immigrant status under section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) shall be eligible 
     for resettlement assistance, entitlement programs, and other 
     benefits available to refugees admitted under section 207 of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) for a period not to exceed 6 months.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Senators Smith, Lieberman, Durbin and I 
offer this amendment to grant Iraqi and Afghan special immigrant visa 
holders 6 months of eligibility for resettlement assistance when they 
arrive here in the United States.
  The United States currently provides up to 500 special immigrant 
visas, SIVs, to translators from Iraq and Afghanistan. To be eligible 
for an SIV, an individual from either of those two countries must: (1) 
faithfully serve as a translator with the U.S. military or chief of 
mission for at least a year and (2) be recommended to the program by a 
general, flag officer, or chief of mission. Visas are also issued for 
the spouse and dependent children of the SIV applicant.
  According to the Department of State, the U.S. issued 823 special 
immigrant visas to Iraqis this year. This included 432 visas for 
principal applicants and 391 visas for family members.
  As a matter of course, immigrants who come to the United States 
through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including Iraqis and 
Afghans, are eligible for travel loans to help them get to the United 
States and for resettlement assistance once they arrive here. As a 
matter of course, the Federal Government tries to ensure that refugees 
are able to make the transition to a productive life in the United 
States by providing preliminary housing; school enrollment; and job 
training assistance.
  In spite of their service to our country, however, individuals from 
Iraq and Afghanistan who come here on Special Immigrant Visas receive 
no help with travel or readjustment.
  The U.S. Government does not keep track of how many of the 823 Iraqis 
admitted into this program actually have been able to travel to the 
United States. Experts believe that many translators with SIVs are 
still trapped in the region because they cannot afford the cost of the 
SIV fees and the plane tickets, especially if they are bringing members 
of their immediate family.
  Like refugees, many Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants face 
hardships that make it difficult to immediately adapt to their new 
home. Many have been forced to leave their homes and all their personal 
wealth in Iraq. Many have been forced to pay ransoms or have been 
robbed by criminals while fleeing the country. Moreover, while 
translators are paid well by Iraqi standards, that compensation doesn't 
amount to much for people trying to live in the United States.
  U.S. soldiers are paying for the plane tickets of their Iraqi 
interpreters out of their own pockets and acting as hosts and social 
workers for the individuals and families they are unofficially 
``sponsoring'' when they arrive here in the U.S. This puts a heavy 
strain on our soldiers attempting to make their own tough readjustment 
to life back home.
  Special immigrant translators have no past experience obtaining work 
permits, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, and all the other 
documents and necessities of everyday life in this country. While 
special immigrant translators have valuable job skills, they often need 
further training and assistance with job placement.
  So Senator Smith and I have introduced this amendment to make these 
special immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan eligible for 6 months-- of 
resettlement assistance. They have been the eyes and ears of our 
military, and they have saved so many American lives. They now have a 
target on their back because of their service to our country, and we 
need to protect them by granting them safe refuge in the United States. 
Frankly, I don't know how we could justify doing any less for people 
forced to flee their homes and their country because they have been 
helping us. This is just for 6 months--just enough to get them on their 
feet.
  I would note that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has estimated 
that the amendment would have no effect on direct spending under 
current law.
  The Iraqis and Afghans admitted under the special immigrant visa 
program have risked their lives to serve the United States. Without the 
assistance my amendment offers, they may remain trapped in the region 
or they may face a tougher time than is necessary or right adjusting to 
U.S. society. My amendment is a helping hand to people who have helped 
us. It's a way to repay them for their service by helping them to get 
here and begin living safe and productive lives in America. We have a 
strong obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis and Afghans who have 
worked so bravely with us--and have often paid a terrible price for it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 3446 to Amendment No. 3325

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk--I want 
to clarify it has actually been filed--amendment No. 3446.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is at the desk.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to call it up for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  Without objection, the clerk will report the amendment without 
prejudice to the rights of all Senators.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. LANDRIEU] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3446 to amendment No. 3325.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 85, line 10, strike the colon and insert:
       Provided further, That, no less than 25% of the new grants 
     under the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program, 
     shall be awarded to local education agencies that demonstrate 
     a need for additional counseling services due to the impact 
     of a federally declared major disaster or emergency.''

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first let me say I wish to be added as a 
cosponsor to Senator Cardin's amendment. I was very taken by his 
presentation about the responsibility that we do have, and it has been 
on my mind, actually, for several weeks about our allies and support 
staff in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I want the clerk to note

[[Page 27784]]

that I wish to be a cosponsor to the Cardin amendment.
  But I rise to speak about an amendment I am offering, and I have had 
some very good advice and counsel on this amendment from several 
members of the committee, and I will speak about the amendment as if it 
is modified, because Senator Kennedy suggested I might make some 
changes to it.
  As you may remember, last week the Senate was very helpful in 
reinstating one mental health program that had been cut, I think very 
inappropriately, and it couldn't have been at a worse time for us in 
the gulf coast. It was an outstanding model program. Last week the 
Senate adopted my amendment to reinstate a child's health program that 
LSU had been running for 4 years, because after Katrina and Rita hit, 
it was literally the only child counseling program in the metropolitan 
area. That has already been done.
  Tonight I come to the floor to try to help again in the same area of 
mental health. We have crafted this amendment so that it has no impact 
on the underlying bill because what it does, basically, is set a 
competitive preference. This is not a set-aside but a competitive 
preference for programs within the already existing and already funded 
school-based mental health program. That has been well established and 
well run for many years.
  My amendment, with the Kennedy modification, simply says that the 
Department should look out in the country, and if there are areas where 
a disaster has been declared, they would give a competitive preference 
to those areas and to those schools in giving out these grants for 
counseling.
  I cannot even begin to express the heroic efforts of our schools--
public schools, private schools, and parochial schools--and the things 
some principals, teachers, faith-based organizations, and foundations 
have done to help rebuild hundreds of schools that were destroyed. We 
found, in our disaster--and of course we are learning a lot from the 
lessons learned in the disasters of Katrina and Rita, but one thing I 
know for sure, and I don't need a survey or anybody else to tell me 
about it because, as you know, I have been following it pretty closely, 
is that the first thing parents and a community want back, basically, 
is their schools.
  After a whole neighborhood is destroyed, or large parts of a city, no 
matter how large or how small, in order to get back to normal, parents 
first have to get their children safe and into a school. So we noticed 
right after Katrina-Rita, with 300,000 children looking for a place to 
go to school on Monday morning, there was a great struggle underway for 
parents to start to stabilize their family situation by getting their 
children back in school. Even if the family had no home, even if the 
father or mother had no job, even if they couldn't locate the 
grandparents, they were first thinking about where can our children go 
to school on that Monday morning.
  Imagine the children coming into schools--and I could tell you so 
many stories, extraordinary stories of teachers and schools and 
principals who opened their arms to children who came in and who had 
been traumatized from not only, of course, losing their own home, but 
some of the children swam out of water, some children, unfortunately, 
saw many people die in the disaster, and some had losses in their own 
immediate families. So I don't think I have to explain the need and the 
importance of mental health counseling.
  That is what this bill does. Senator Harkin has been a phenomenal 
supporter of this program. I think he actually helped to create it. 
Again, I am not asking for any new money to be added. I am not even 
asking for a set-aside for any of the programs in the gulf coast. I am 
simply saying as we look to the future to fund these programs that we 
give a competitive preference, if you will, for schools that find 
themselves in disaster areas.
  Senator Boxer spoke for 10 minutes on the crisis underway in Southern 
California. Imagine the trauma some of these children are going to be 
dealing with over the next months and years trying to rebuild in those 
communities, or if their home was completely destroyed by fire. These 
disasters, by their very nature, cluster in certain communities. So you 
might have a group of schools where 90 percent of the children lost 
their homes, or a large proportion of children might have lost someone 
in their family in a disaster. So it makes common sense for us to be a 
little more sensitive to these mega disasters, and that is what my 
amendment does. So I offer it now. I don't know if it can be accepted 
by voice vote. I am happy for it to be voted on at any time. If 
everything else is in order, I will leave the rest to the managers.
  While I am waiting on some documents in another matter, let me say a 
few more things about this. The funds would be divided between four 
grantees to leverage funds for mental health services, as I said, to 
the schools. The schools play a central role after a communitywide 
traumatic event. Schools are a very important site for delivering 
mental health services. Schools are often best situated to recognize 
immediate mental disorders. School-based mental health services lead to 
increased academic achievement, decreased attention problems and 
disciplinary issues, and reduce special education referrals.
  The national average, unfortunately, as we know--and I think we need 
more resources in this area--is 476 students for every 1 counselor. The 
recommended ratio in our schools is 250 to 1. So imagine in the 
devastated areas along the gulf coast and in other places, such as in 
Kansas, where Senator Pat Roberts experienced a great tornado disaster 
in a much smaller community, but it was pretty much a complete 
destruction of a town in Kansas; or as Senator Boxer is experiencing 
right now in Southern California, this amendment would look forward. 
Again, it would not add anything to the budget, but I think it would 
give us an opportunity to give some appropriate competitive preference 
to these children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce to all Senators there 
will be no more votes tonight. But I must say there are a lot of 
amendments floating around that have not been offered, and we do have 
some that are pending. We are working on those right now, and shortly--
I hope within the next few minutes--I will be propounding a unanimous 
consent request that when we come in at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning we 
will have a list of amendments that we will be voting on.
  So I say to Senators, if you have an amendment that is floating 
around out there, and we have a list of them, and you want it offered, 
I would suggest you better get over here tonight and do it, because 
once we start the votes in the morning at 10 o'clock--and hopefully we 
will reach unanimous consent with the other side on that, as I said, in 
a few minutes--that is going to chew up a lot of the clock. And since 
an agreement has been reached that we would finish by 12:30 tomorrow, 
that means if you have an amendment to be offered, you are going to get 
squeezed tomorrow morning. We may have to have one of those kind of 
agreements where you get 1 minute to speak, and you can offer your 
amendment, but it is going to be pretty hard to get an amendment in 
tomorrow morning.
  I have to say to Senators, if you have an amendment that you feel 
strongly about and you want to have offered, you better get over here 
this evening. Because tomorrow morning the traffic is going to be 
pretty crowded around 10 o'clock.
  Mr. President, while we wait to work out some other matters, 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.

[[Page 27785]]




    Amendments Nos. 3427, as Modified; 3379, as Modified; 3344, as 
              Modified; 3361 to Amendment No. 3325 En Bloc

  Mr. HARKIN. We are making progress. I have some amendments that can 
be cleared. First I have to send some modifications to the desk.
  I send to the desk a modification to Cornyn amendment No. 3427, a 
modification to another Cornyn amendment, No. 3379, and a modification 
to Baucus amendment No. 3344.
  I now ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3361 by Senator 
Brown; amendment No. 3427 by Senator Cornyn, as modified; amendment No. 
3379 by Senator Cornyn, as modified; and amendment No. 3344 by Senator 
Baucus, as modified, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the foregoing amendments 
are proposed en bloc, considered en bloc, and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendment (No. 3361) was agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3427, 3379, and 3344), as modified, were agreed 
to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 3427, as modified

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  It is the sense of the Senate that a portion of 
     the funds appropriated under this title be used for frequent 
     hemodialysis clinical trials at the National Institute of 
     Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.


                    amendment no. 3379, as modified

       On page 3, line 24, strike ``$125,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$150,000,000''.


                    amendment no. 3344, as modified

       On page 34, lines 8 and 9, strike ``: Provided,'' and 
     insert the following: ``, and of which $250,000 shall be for 
     the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD) Clinic in 
     Libby, Montana: $250,000: Provided further,''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for Mr. Baucus, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a letter dated October 17, 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 17, 2007.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, D.C.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         D.C.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: As part of the FY 
     2008 appropriations process, I have submitted requests for 
     earmarks for FY 2008 appropriations bills or reports as 
     required by the Senate Appropriations Committees and the 
     individual Subcommittees.
       I am writing you to certify that neither I nor a family 
     member has a pecuniary interest in the FY 2008 earmark 
     request I submitted in an October 17, 2007 amendment to H.R. 
     3043, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. 
     This is in compliance with Senate Rule XXXVII (4) .
       Thank you for your leadership on the Appropriations 
     Committee. If you or your staff has any questions or 
     concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Will Sehestedt of 
     my staff.
       With best personal regards, I am
           Sincerly,
                                                        Max Baucus

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have worked through four more 
amendments. We are still working on others. Hopefully, soon we will 
have a unanimous consent proposal for tomorrow morning and linking up 
the votes beginning at 10 o'clock.
  I say to Senators, if anyone out there has an amendment, there is no 
one on the floor. If anyone has an amendment they want to have offered, 
you would be well advised to do it tonight or you may not be able to do 
it tomorrow.


                     SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with Senators Harkin and Specter concerning my amendment to the 
underlying bill, amendment 3403, which would provide compensation to 
qualifying individuals injured in the course of employment at the Santa 
Susana Field Laboratory in California. This amendment mirrors 
legislation I introduced in July to correct longstanding injustices to 
these nuclear workers and their families. Because of the revenue impact 
of this amendment, I have chosen not to call it up at this time. 
However, the plight of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees 
deserves mention as we debate this important bill.
  In 1999, Congress approved the Energy Employee Occupational 
Compensation Program to provide a $150,000 payment and medical benefits 
to workers who developed serious illnesses as a result of their work 
for the Department of Energy. The program has been plagued by slow 
processing times and roundly criticized by the families struggling to 
receive compensation for the deaths of loved ones.
  I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to expand the Special 
Exposure Cohort to include qualifying Santa Susana Field Laboratory 
employees. This would allow eligible claims to be compensated without 
the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction or determination of 
the probability of causation. I would like to ask Senator Harkin the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and Senator Specter, the 
ranking member of this subcommittee, whether they agree with me that 
Congress should expand the Special Exposure Cohort so that the claims 
of qualifying individuals can processed more efficiently?
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe it is important to compensate workers who have 
suffered as a result of their employment with the Department of Energy, 
and although the Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program 
provides a process for compensating these victims, this process is 
often far too burdensome.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the senior Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees played a 
significant role in keeping our Nation secure during the Cold War era. 
For example, many of these workers were instrumental in developing our 
nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, many workers were not aware of 
the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no preventative equipment 
like respirators, gloves, or body suits was provided to workers.
  Currently, over 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa 
Susana Field Lab workers. Ninety percent of those have been denied due 
to a lack of documentation or their inability to prove that they meet 
exposure thresholds. Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families 
are faced with the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios 
that existed nearly 40 years ago, in most cases with no records or 
documentation.
  My amendment would cut the redtape by amending section 3621 of the 
Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 to treat 
employees of Santa Susana Field Laboratory as members of the Special 
Exposure Cohort. Individuals would be eligible for benefits if they 
worked at Santa Susana Field Lab for a total of 250 days and developed 
a serious illness that is known to be a result of exposure to radiation 
or other toxins at the Lab before January 1, 2006.
  Employees who contracted specified cancers from exposure to radiation 
would receive at least $150,000, and employees exposed to toxic 
chemicals would receive $250,000. Additionally, my amendment would 
allow previously denied Santa Susana Field Lab claimants under the 
Energy Employee Occupational Compensation Program Act of 2000 the 
opportunity to reapply for compensation and medical benefits.
  This is a matter that this body needs to address before it is too 
late. Do the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee agree?
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the remarks of the senior Senator from 
California.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues for their support. It is my 
hope that the Senate will soon address this matter so Santa Susana 
Field Laboratory workers and their families can finally receive the 
compensation they deserve.


                                  COPD

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, my distinguished friend and colleague from 
Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and I rise to engage our colleague from Iowa 
Chairman Harkin and our colleague from Pennsylvania in a colloquy.

[[Page 27786]]

  I would like to share with my colleagues a pressing health concern 
facing the American public--COPD. Chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease, or COPD, is a growing public health threat in America. It is 
the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. and is a major source of 
serious long-term disability. COPD kills more than 120,000 Americans 
each year--an average of 1 every 4 minutes.
  Despite these alarming statistics, the United States does not have a 
coordinated approach to tracking COPD morbidity and mortality trends, 
identifying people at risk for COPD and ensuring they are evaluated by 
their physicians, and educating the public about the causes and 
symptoms of COPD.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Crapo for his remarks. I agree that COPD 
is an important health threat facing the American public. In part that 
is why Senator Specter and I have fought hard to increase funding for 
the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention to address COPD and other pressing public health issues. 
Since 2003, the year after the NIH doubling was complete, funding into 
research on COPD has continued to increase by $13 million at the 
National Institutes of Health. The bill before us, our Senate Labor-HHS 
bill includes a $4.4 million increase for the CDC to work with at least 
seven additional States in fiscal year 2008 on preventing heart disease 
and stroke. I am very proud of these increases and I thank my colleague 
Senator Specter for helping to make them possible.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his thoughtfulness and 
dedication and would like to recognize the leadership of my colleague 
from Idaho on this important issue. I share Senator Crapo's concern 
that COPD is a growing and largely unrecognized health problem in 
America. Today more than 12 million Americans are diagnosed with COPD, 
and research published by the CDC suggests that an additional 12 
million Americans have undiagnosed COPD. That is 12 million Americans 
who have a debilitating and lethal disease but don't know it.
  Equally alarming is the impact COPD is having on women. For several 
years, COPD was largely considered a disease of men. However, in 2000, 
the mortality rate for women for COPD exceeded that of men. Today, COPD 
is an equal opportunity killer.
  I too am concerned that despite these statistics, the U.S. does not 
have a coordinated public health strategy to address COPD. Senator 
Crapo and I would like to urge the CDC to begin developing a COPD 
response plan.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her consideration 
and I assure her that I will work with her and Senator Crapo to ensure 
that the CDC is responsive to their concerns.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate Senator Lincoln and Senator Crapo for 
continuing to advocate on this important issue. I too will work with 
Chairman Harkin to ensure CDC is responsive to this issue and begins 
developing a national plan to address COPD.


                   low income home energy assistance

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleagues, 
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, in a colloquy on the Fiscal Year 
2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill.
  I want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their work on 
this bill. The bill restores cuts proposed in the President's budget 
while balancing many important national priorities. The President's 
proposed budget request of $141 billion for the programs funded by this 
bill is clearly inadequate and I am glad the Committee on 
Appropriations allocated additional funding to this bill. However, even 
with this additional funding, I recognize the difficult budget 
constraints facing the subcommittee as it tries to reverse previous 
funding cuts to important education, labor, and health and human 
service programs.
  One program particularly important to working Americans families and 
seniors is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. I 
know the chairman and ranking member are strong supporters of this 
program. Studies have shown that energy insecurity affects the health, 
nutrition, and learning of children. LIHEAP provides vital assistance 
to families, disabled individuals, and seniors so they don't have to 
choose between eating and paying an energy bill. With utility shutoffs 
and arrears on the rise, we cannot afford to support the President's 
cut of $379 million to the program. In my home State, utility shutoffs 
for nonpayment are at their highest level in 10 years. The State's data 
shows that through August, there were 20,326 shutoffs for the year. If 
this is not bad enough, the Energy Information Administration's Winter 
Outlooks estimates that the average household will spend $891 to heat 
with natural gas this winter and a family heating with oil can expect 
to spend $1,785 this winter. We need to increase LIHEAP funding, not 
cut it as proposed in the President's budget. I want to thank the 
chairman and ranking member for restoring funding to the Fiscal Year 
2007 level, but it is my hope that in conference we will be able to 
raise LIHEAP funding to $2.662 billion, the level provided in the 
House.
  I would also like to bring another issue to your attention. The House 
bill contains report language that would direct the national center for 
public health informatics to continue to fund the establishment of a 
nationwide database of contact information for practicing physicians. 
In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or a pandemic, 
Federal agencies and State and local health departments could use this 
database to contact physicians to request their help. In my State of 
Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Medical Board participated in the pilot 
project of this program. Based on the success of that pilot project, I 
support its expansion nationwide. I hope that in conference, we can 
keep this House report language.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for 
sharing his views with me on LIHEAP and the national center for public 
health informatics.
  We are facing a real crisis in Iowa and across the Nation. Last year 
in Iowa the average LIHEAP benefit was reduced by 30 percent. With 
record energy costs projected for this winter, many Iowa families are 
worried about how they will pay their heating bills. No family should 
have to choose between paying an energy bill and putting food on the 
table for their children. For this reason I look forward to working 
with my colleague to increase funding for the LIHEAP program in 
conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the LIHEAP program benefits many families 
and seniors in Pennsylvania. It provides a vital safety net for these 
households so they do not have to make the choice between prescription 
drugs and heat, or paying a grocery bill or energy bill. I look forward 
to working with Chairman Harkin and Senator Reed on increasing funding 
for this program in conference.


                              GME Program

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank everyone for all their work 
in putting this bill together. I fully appreciate the significant 
challenges that Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter face in 
balancing spending priorities with limited resources. I want to thank 
them for restoring $99 million in funding for the Children's Hospital 
GME program. Unfortunately, that level is still almost $200 million 
below last year's level.
  CHGME is a valuable investment. It made it possible for children's 
hospitals to sustain and expand their teaching programs without having 
to sacrifice their commitments to clinical care for all children and 
research to improve children's care. These hospitals are major safety 
net providers of inpatient and community-based ambulatory care for low-
income children and--as most of us know--the hospitals we depend on to 
care for seriously and chronically ill children.
  Spending has grown less than 4 percent over 5 years since the program 
was fully funded. Congress reauthorized the program with overwhelming 
bipartisan support last year and set a new funding level at $330 
million,

[[Page 27787]]

which is based on continuing equity with Medicare GME. The House Labor-
HHS appropriations bill funds the program at the $307 million level, 
which I hope we can achieve in conference.
  I know that both the chairman and the ranking member are strong 
supporters of this program, and it is my hope that we will be able to 
work together to secure the House number in conference.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I join Senator Bond in his recognition of the 
challenges that Labor-HHS appropriations presents, and I sincerely 
appreciate the continued efforts of my colleagues to emphasize the 
importance of increased funding for CHGME. I support an increase in 
funding for CHGME to $307 million, and I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their support in trying to increase funding in conference.
  The number of children throughout our country is rapidly increasing, 
and we must provide the necessary funding to train pediatricians and 
pediatric subspecialists at a pace that reflects the child population 
growth. For example, from 2000 to 2006, the number of children in my 
home State of Texas increased by an astounding 501,800, and the 
projected increase of children in Texas from 2006 to 2010 is over 
346,000. CHGME funding helps provide access to pediatric medical 
services and ensures the needs of children are addressed with 
specialized health care.
  CHGME is essential to ensuring that pediatricians and pediatric 
subspecialists in cardiology, emergency care, gastroenterology and 
other fields receive the necessary medical training to provide the best 
level of care to our children. In Texas, 60 percent of pediatric 
residents and 84 percent of pediatric subspecialists are trained at 
children's hospitals, and CHGME funding supports children's hospitals. 
Without this funding, we risk facing a national decline and ultimate 
shortage in the number of physicians that have received the specialized 
training to treat our smallest and youngest patients.
  I support an increase in funding because CHGME strengthens each 
State's ability to retain pediatricians after completion of the 
residency program. Of the residents and fellows trained by CHGME 
hospitals, nearly 60 percent remain to practice in the State in which 
they completed their pediatric residency. In some States, this 
percentage is even higher.
  Texas and the Nation depend heavily on children's hospitals to care 
for critically and seriously ill children, as well as the low-income 
children in their communities. Increasing CHGME funding is an 
investment in children's health. For these reasons, I proudly join my 
colleagues in emphasizing the importance of this issue, and I hope we 
can increase the funding for CHGME when we conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the 
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program, known by many 
as CHGME.
  Medicare is the only provider of graduate medical education funding, 
but because children's hospitals care for the young not the elderly, 
they are unable to access funding provided by Medicare. To correct the 
disparity of Federal support between adult teaching hospitals and 
freestanding children's teaching hospitals, Congress created the 
Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program in 1999.
  CHGME allows our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train 
many of the pediatricians American children visit each day as well as 
almost all of the pediatric sub-specialists who care for our Nation's 
most fragile children. And through stabilizing pediatric education, 
CHGME has also advanced the patient care and research missions of some 
of the Nation's most trusted hospitals for children. Without this 
Federal assistance, these hospitals might be forced to sacrifice a part 
of their critical missions.
  In the current fiscal year, the program is funded at $297 million. I 
am proud to say that that over $30 million of those funds--more than 10 
percent of the total--has supported the training of pediatricians and 
pediatric specialists at six outstanding children's hospitals in Ohio. 
But more must be done, and I urge my colleagues to provide $307 million 
for this program in fiscal year 2008.
  In our country today there is a shortage in virtually every 
subspecialty of pediatrics. So it is noteworthy that the CHGME has led 
to the creation of fellowship programs to train pediatric specialists 
in areas of need such as pediatric endocrinology, surgical critical 
care, pediatric neurology, and child abuse and neglect--to name just a 
few.
  The CHGME Program needs to be maintained as a sustainable and 
reliable source of funding for children's hospitals across the Nation.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank Senator Bond, Senator Hutchison, and Senator 
Voinovich. As I said in committee, I am committed to providing an 
increased level of funding for Children's Hospitals GME in conference. 
The children's hospitals in Pennsylvania exemplify everything they have 
said. They have been both regional and national leaders in centers of 
excellence in pediatric care and pediatric research--while meeting the 
needs of vulnerable and low income children across our State. Their 
teaching programs are an integral part of all they do--in providing 
services and making sure that children have the doctors they need.
  My colleagues may not realize the continuing shortages in pediatric 
specialty care--which is centered in these institutions--or the waiting 
periods that all children and families face for nonemergency specialty 
care. CHGME has provided a cost effective and valuable program in 
providing enormous assistance to these children's hospitals and their 
ability to continue services and teaching. Most importantly, it 
directly benefits children's health care.
  Mr. HARKIN. Children's Hospitals GME provides freestanding children's 
hospitals with the same support for graduate medical education that all 
other teaching hospitals receive through Medicare--as my colleagues 
have said. In Iowa, we don't have freestanding children's hospitals--
instead our children's hospitals are part of larger systems or 
institutions. Yet I have heard from our hospitals and pediatricians 
about the workforce shortages they face and how important this program 
is in making sure the children of my State get the best care possible. 
For that reason, I join Senator Specter in our commitment to working 
toward a higher level of funding for this program.


            funding for the Organ Donation and Recovery Act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking 
Member Specter for putting together a funding bill for the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that reflects our 
Nation's priorities making college more affordable, increasing our 
investment in medical research at the National Institutes of Health, 
restoring funding for critical rural health programs, and increasing 
our investment in a number of proven education programs.
  I was pleased that the bill includes a $2 million increase for the 
Division of Transplantation at the Health Resources and Services 
Administration to implement the Organ Donation and Recovery Act. There 
are currently more than 97,000 Americans on the organ transplant 
waiting list. Unfortunately, nearly 6,000 people on the list die every 
year while waiting for a transplant.
  More than two-thirds of those on the waiting list suffer from end 
stage renal disease and are in need of a kidney transplant. The good 
news is that patients with end stage renal disease who require a kidney 
transplant no longer need to wait for a kidney from a deceased donor or 
from a blood relative. Advances in medical science now make it possible 
for friends and spouses to donate a kidney to a patient in need. The $2 
million increase provided in the bill for the Organ Donation and 
Recovery Act will help increase the number of donations from living 
donors by reimbursing travel and subsistence expenses for donors who 
could not otherwise afford to donate.
  This modest investment will save lives. It also makes economic sense. 
Patients with end stage renal disease require dialysis, which is 
covered by Medicare. According to the Centers for

[[Page 27788]]

Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare spends about $55,000 per 
patient per year for dialysis. On average, patients with end stage 
renal disease wait four years before receiving a kidney transplant. 
This means that every kidney donation made from a living donor has the 
potential to reduce the number of people on the waiting list and save 
the government as much as $220,000.
  I hope the chairman and ranking member will continue to support this 
important program in conference and support maintaining the Senate 
funding level.
  Mr. HARKIN. I share the Senator's support for organ donation, and I 
thank my friend from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. 
This program is a smart investment and one that I will work to sustain 
in conference. By helping pay the travel and subsistence costs of 
donors who could not otherwise afford to donate, we will save lives and 
reduce the number of people on the organ transplant waiting list.
  Mr. SPECTER. I also strongly support efforts to increase the number 
of organ donors and will work to maintain this funding in conference.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senators' support, and I look forward to 
working with them to support this program and other initiatives to 
increase the number of organ donors.


                                OBESITY

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as you know, the rate of obesity, 
particularly in children, has reached epidemic proportions across our 
country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
more than 60 percent of children between the ages of 9 and 13 do not 
participate in any organized physical activity outside of school hours.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the concerns raised by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. Since the 1970s, the percentage of obesity has more than 
doubled for preschool children ages 2-5 years and adolescents aged 12-
19 years, and more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. As you 
know, I have a particular interest in fighting the obesity epidemic and 
have been very supportive of programs that increase physical activity 
and good nutrition, especially in children. The Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention reported in 2000 that only 8 percent of 
elementary schools, 6.4 percent of middle/junior high schools and 5.8 
percent of senior high schools offer daily physical education for the 
entire school year for students in all grades of the school.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing 
significant work in this area, and I urge the Director to increase 
awareness in the area of obesity and work cooperatively with 
organizations that are researching, testing and developing innovative 
approaches to get children more physically active.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the recommendation from my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. Experts predict that the current generation of children 
could be the first in history to live shorter lives than their parents' 
generation. To fight this public health epidemic, it is going to take 
collaboration and partnership amongst all levels of government, 
community organizations, and businesses.


             Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grants

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. I appreciate his efforts, 
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, on the appropriations bill before us today. I commend 
his continual efforts over the years to expand educational 
opportunities and to provide adequate funding and resources for all 
students.
  The most important resource a school can offer is good teaching, 
which necessitates bringing more quality teachers into our classrooms, 
and making certain that when we recruit and prepare good teachers, we 
do so in a way that best ensures their success. This means providing 
them adequate preparation and ongoing support, especially in those 
pivotal first years in the classroom.
  And so, I am grateful for the work of Senator Harkin in our 
collaborative and bipartisan efforts on the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions, to strengthen provisions to realign the 
teacher enhancement partnership grants in the Higher Education 
Amendments with what we know works best in preparing teachers. We must 
recruit the best talents to become teachers, and we must work to 
provide adequate preparation and support, so that when talented 
individuals become teachers, they are successful and want to stay in 
the classroom. Research shows that new teachers are often less 
effective than teachers with even a few years of experience. But recent 
experience also shows that good preparation programs can accelerate the 
rate at which novice teachers become effective.
  We must help new teachers get the preparation and mentoring they 
need. Teacher preparation too seldom provides the opportunity to learn 
under the guidance of expert mentors working in schools that 
effectively serve high-need students. Most new teachers lack this type 
of support, and so leave the profession before they experience the 
rewards of the profession. One effective way to provide such 
preparation is through teaching residency programs, which are 
established in partnerships among colleges or universities, school 
districts, and other community partners. It is essential that we 
provide support for such partnerships.
  Even as colleges realize the effectiveness of mentoring and induction 
in preparing teachers, and in working with high-needs school districts 
to tailor programs to prepare prospective teachers for the challenges 
they will face, it is regrettable that the President proposed 
eliminating support for the partnership grants that fund these needed 
and innovative approaches. I commend the Senator from Iowa for working 
to safeguard funding at $28.5 million, a level that ensures at least 
that current partnership grants can continue. But this level of funding 
is less than half of what was available last year, and $11.5 million 
below what our colleagues in the House proposed. It is clearly 
inadequate for encouraging the types of partnerships, such as 
residencies, that are developing at several sites across the country. 
So I hope the Senator from Iowa can continue his efforts to make sure 
that teachers get the training they need, and can meet the funding 
level proposed by our colleagues in the House.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Illinois, as 
well as his work in championing partnerships, such as teacher 
residencies, on the HELP Committee. I realize the importance of having 
a quality teacher in every classroom. I know that too many students in 
high-need schools, both in cities and in rural areas, are sometimes 
taught by inadequately prepared teachers. These teachers are asked to 
take on challenges that can be discouraging, or even overwhelming. And 
so we lose too many teachers, often before we find out how good they 
could become.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois for recognizing what we have done 
to avoid the elimination of funding for these partnership programs. 
When this bill goes to conference, I look forward to working with my 
colleague from Illinois, and I will continue to try to increase the 
level of funding available for colleges and universities to partner, in 
new ways, to improve teacher preparation. Bringing more quality 
teachers into classrooms is a priority for me, and I agree with the 
Senator from Illinois that it is important to find resources to support 
effective programs to better prepare and to better support teachers.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues for raising this issue, and agree 
to try to help support teacher preparation, using methods that are 
shown to be effective. We all recognize the importance of teacher 
quality, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue.
  Mr. OBAMA. I commend the work of the Senator from Iowa, and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, in working to ensure that funding for 
education continues to be a priority. I look forward to continuing to 
work with them on this important issue.

[[Page 27789]]




                  Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and ranking member Mr. 
Specter from Pennsylvania. I appreciate their continued efforts to 
ensure fair allocation of funding for the health programs outlined in 
the bill before us. I also understand the difficulties in making these 
determinations. However, the recent recalls of child products have 
highlighted the continued threat of lead poisoning to children, and I 
believe that child lead poisoning prevention activities at the Centers 
for Disease Control would benefit dramatically from increased funding.
  Lead is highly toxic, especially to young children. It can harm a 
child's brain, kidneys, bone marrow, and other organs. At high levels, 
lead can cause coma, convulsions, and death. The National Academy of 
Sciences has reported that comparatively low levels of lead exposure 
are harmful. Even low levels of lead found in blood of infants, 
children, and pregnant women have been associated with impaired 
cognitive function, behavior difficulties, fetal organ development, and 
other problems. In addition, low levels of lead in children's blood can 
cause reduced intelligence, impaired hearing and reduced stature.
  In the past 6 months, millions of products, primarily children's 
toys, have been recalled due to potentially harmful levels of lead. 
These sources of lead exposure are in addition to dangers of lead 
poisoning that already exist in the home from lead-based paints and 
lead plumbing. It is my belief that we should do more to support 
programs that target reduction of lead exposure and toxicity.
  Towards that end, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
through the National Center for Environmental Health has created the 
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The CLPPP plays a major 
role in the Federal interagency mission to eliminate childhood lead 
poisoning by 2010. The efforts put forth by the CLPPP include 
assistance in completing and implementing a Federal strategic plan to 
eliminate nonessential uses of lead in consumer items and to support 
State and local efforts to identify and treat children exposed to lead.
  I thank the chairman for the increased funding this bill provides for 
the National Center for Environmental Health, and I hope he will work 
in conference to provide an increase for the CLPPP.
  Mr. HARKIN. I share the concerns of my colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Obama, about lead poisoning in children. Despite the 
considerable progress made over the past few decades, much work remains 
to be done to protect our Nation's children. I am encouraged that the 
CDC is developing a hand-held lead screening device that will help to 
increase testing in underserved communities, who are especially at high 
risk for lead poisoning. This effort and other initiatives at CDC merit 
greater support and I will do my best in conference to increase funding 
for this important work.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with the comments made by my distinguished 
colleague, Chairman Harkin.
  Mr. OBAMA. I commend the chairman and ranking member on their work 
and congratulate them on passage of this bill. We all agree that every 
child with lead poisoning is a preventable and needless tragedy, and I 
look forward to working with both of them to identify additional funds 
for the CLPPP during conference.


                     public charter school funding

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate all of Chairman Harkin's 
efforts in bringing this bill forward and thank him for his continued 
support of the Nation's public schools, including charter schools, 
which increase the academic achievement of our Nation's most low-income 
students. Unfortunately, the committee did not provide enough funding 
for public charter schools.
  Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents, and 
other community stakeholders to educate students of all backgrounds and 
educational abilities. In exchange for greater accountability for 
student achievement, these schools are free from many local and State 
regulations. This flexibility and accountability has allowed 
individuals with nontraditional backgrounds to create cultures that 
have made charter schools top academic performers often in some of the 
Nation's largest urban centers. Because of this unique approach to 
education, demand for these schools has been remarkable over the last 
decade. In New Orleans, charters schools have been an engine of our 
school systems rebirth. For the 2006-2007 school year almost 60 percent 
of New Orleans' public schools students were enrolled in charter 
schools, the largest market share of any city in the country. Charter 
schools are not a panacea, but they are a tremendously valuable piece 
of education reform, and we should be cautiously optimistic about their 
potential to help close the achievement gap. In my State, charter 
schools have come in and filled the intense need we faced following the 
hurricanes of 2006.
  As the chairman knows, I have filed an amendment to restore funds to 
the Credit Enhancement Program. I understand the chairman is not in a 
position to be able to support that amendment at this time. Before I 
withdraw my amendment, I hope that the chairman will commit to support 
as much funding as possible for Public Charter Schools.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I join the Senior Senator from Louisiana in asking 
Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter to provide as much funding as 
possible for public charter schools.
  One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992 
was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging 
them to create charter schools. I saw these charter schools as ways to 
remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers 
could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help 
children and so parents could have more choices of schools.
  Today, there are over 4,000 charter schools serving more than 1.15 
million students in 40 States and the District of Columbia. Over half 
of these schools report having waiting lists, averaging 166 students.
  I am pleased that 12 charter schools have opened in Tennessee since 
passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter 
schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from 
local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic 
organizations.
  Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering 
students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs 
and styles. They vary in specific mission and focus but not in their 
commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return 
for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they 
accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If 
charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals 
of their charters, they are closed.
  I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across 
the Nation as word of their success spreads. Five years ago, the 
President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains 
several programs that support charter school development and provides 
school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools 
into charter schools.
  It is my hope that the leadership of the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations subcommittee can look at every possible option, in 
consultation with the House, to support as much funding as possible for 
this worthy program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Louisiana and 
Tennessee for their interest in this matter and for their request. Yes, 
I agree to support as much funding as possible for public charter 
schools.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this bill is about making sure families 
have access to health care and children get a good education. It 
supports cutting-edge research, helps build a skilled workforce, and 
ensures that crucial services are in reach for people who

[[Page 27790]]

most need them. Most important, it gives Americans hope that their 
Government is working for them.
  These programs help every family and every community. They are 
priorities for me. I know they are priorities back home. So I want to 
thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their leadership and 
important work on this bipartisan bill.
  These programs should be priorities for this administration too. 
Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation. 
He opposes this bill it because it represents an increase over his 
requested budget. He says it is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' Yet 
the $9 billion increase over the President's request represents a 
fraction of the $190 billion in emergency spending he wants this year 
for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is less than the $10 billion he spends in 
Iraq in one month alone. As the President has waged war overseas, our 
education, job training, and health systems have been left to cope with 
unfunded mandates and empty promises. That--not this bill--is what is 
``irresponsible and excessive.'' This bill simply restores some of the 
money the President cut and takes a modest step forward after years of 
going in the wrong direction.
  Among other things, this bill boosts American competitiveness by 
investing $4.8 billion in job training and career- and technical-
education when the President would have cut these programs by more than 
$1 billion. It adds $1 billion to expand critical research at the 
National Institutes of Health, reversing years of stagnant budgets. And 
it strengthens education and health care by providing money for Head 
Start, school improvement, and community health centers.
  This bill recognizes how important access to quality health care is 
for working families. While the President's budget neglected the 
uninsured and those with limited access to health care, the Senate bill 
invests an additional $250 million over the President's request in the 
community health center program. This will help those families get 
medical care without having to seek it in the emergency room. We have 
all heard stories about how overburdened emergency rooms are by 
patients who seek care there because they don't have health insurance 
or are underinsured. But access to a doctor can prevent a child's 
earache from turning into a serious infection, and it can make sure a 
father gets screening and preventive care so that he doesn't develop a 
serious and expensive form of cancer.
  This bill also makes investments in another critical health care 
concern--making sure we have enough doctors and nurses and other health 
care professionals. Last week, I heard about it again in roundtables I 
held across the State.
  This bill provides $357 million for the Health Professions and 
Nursing Programs to recruit and hire new health care professionals--
that is $242 million over the President's proposal. Of this, $169 
million is for nursing education. That is $20 million over last year's 
level. Our nurses are the front line of care in hospitals and nursing 
homes. This will help address the serious nursing shortage we already 
face.
  It is also important that we provide opportunities and encouragement 
for students who want to go into nursing so that we can replace these 
retiring caregivers and meet the increasing demand for nursing care. I 
applaud the committee for recognizing this looming concern, and I 
repeat that the time to invest in our health care system is now--before 
these problems become an urgent issue. We can't afford to wait.
  This bill also supports our scientists and our biotech industry by 
funding landmark research. The President's budget would have eliminated 
hundreds of research grants from the National Institutes of Health--
money that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, MS, and 
diabetes, among other diseases. This is on top of years of inadequate 
funding for NIH. The Senate bill adds $1 billion for NIH funding 
nationally.
  This allows scientists at prestigious universities--including the 
University of Washington--to continue their innovative medical and 
biotech research. It also will provide hope for people with serious 
diseases--hope that they won't have if this research is cut off because 
of lack of funding.
  We have heard the President say that education is one of his top 
priorities. That is why it is so frustrating to me that he is 
threatening to veto this bill. I am committed to ensuring Federal funds 
are there to help build and improve our Nation's schools. Strong 
schools make strong communities. We want everyone in this country to 
have a promising future and a promising job--and education is how you 
get there.
  The Senate bill supports increased funding for Pell grants that help 
kids afford college when they might not otherwise have had a chance to 
get a college degree. It increases funding for school improvement by 
$500 million. It sends $1 billion in badly needed money to help schools 
in low-income communities raise children's achievement levels and 
provide more opportunities for learning. And it reverses the 
President's proposed $100 million cut to Head Start.
  As a mom, a former preschool teacher, and school board president, I 
saw firsthand that giving kids a boost early on can pay off in the 
future. Reaching kids early makes them more likely to graduate and 
succeed. This isn't frivolous spending. The money we spend on education 
today will help children grow into better educated, better prepared 
workers.
  Providing Americans with the skills they need to excel in the global 
economy while keeping them safe on the job are very basic needs that 
every working family has the right to expect from their Government. 
That is why I continue to be baffled by the administration's lack of 
commitment to workers in our Nation. With strong bipartisan support for 
this bill, the Senate is proud to stand with working families and 
support the priorities that shape their daily lives.
  When I travel around my home State of Washington, employers tell me 
they are desperate to find workers with the skills they need to grow 
their businesses. And we have thousands of people on waiting lists 
hoping to get trained for these family-wage jobs. Yet for the last 7 
years, the President has proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in 
cuts for job-training programs, shutting the door to millions of 
dislocated workers, youth and disadvantaged adults who deserve to share 
in the American dream.
  Under his watch, worker safety on the job has also been put at risk. 
With OSHA's lack of enforcement, workers are unprotected. And today's 
miners continue to work under an administration that values voluntary 
compliance above safety and enforcement. This is the wrong direction 
for working families and the wrong priority for America.
  How do we begin to solve it? Well, one thing is clear--it isn't by 
cutting $1 billion dollars in job training funds at a critical time in 
our economic growth, as the President has proposed, nor is it by 
proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to job training 
programs, as he has one over the last 7 years. This bill rejects the 
President's misguided cuts and goes to great lengths to maintain a 
viable workforce and training system. If we want our local businesses 
and our Nation to be competitive in the global economy, we must make 
skills training for every worker a national priority. This bill does 
that.
  For some here in the Senate, this might be an abstract debate about 
Federal funding. But this debate is about real people. It is about 30 
kids in a classroom and a teacher struggling to make sure they succeed. 
It is about hardworking parents searching for a way to get health care 
for their families when it isn't provided by their employers. And it is 
about workers who need training that will help them get a job that pays 
enough to support a family.
  When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope 
and change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or access to 
health insurance--people feel a real weight on their shoulders. They 
are looking for a

[[Page 27791]]

light at the end of the tunnel, and by vetoing these important bills--
and failing to invest in the health, safety, and economic future of all 
Americans--the President keeps putting out that light.
  Mr. President, in this bill, we are investing more than $7 billion 
over last year in the future of our country. I urge all my colleagues 
to support this legislation on behalf of the millions of American 
children and families who would benefit.
  And I hope the President is listening.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 3043 tomorrow, Senator Enzi be 
recognized to call up amendment No. 3437 and there be 30 minutes of 
debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the 
use or yielding back of time, the amendment be temporarily set aside, 
and Senator DeMint be recognized to call up amendment No. 3387, and 
there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendment 
be temporarily set aside, and the Senate then resume the Roberts 
amendment No. 3365, and there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided 
and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 3358, 
and there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior 
to a vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
return to the Enzi amendment and vote in relation to the amendment; 
that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume the DeMint 
amendment and vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition 
of the DeMint amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
Roberts amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 3358; that 
there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and 
controlled, with no amendments in order to any of the amendments 
covered in this agreement prior to the vote; and that after the first 
vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. So, Mr. President, this ends our business for this 
evening, so that when the Senate comes in tomorrow morning, we will 
have four amendments that will take about an hour, and then there will 
be four votes that will start. They will be stacked votes, and they 
will then take place 1 hour after we come in.
  Again, I say that if we come in at 10 in the morning and this takes 
an hour and then we vote on four amendments, that will take us just 
about to the noon hour, and we are supposed to finish by 12:30. So I 
say again, if Senators have amendments, it looks as if they may be 
getting crowded out, unless they get over here in a hurry.
  With that, 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________