[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27893-27906]
[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 assistant 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. 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.
       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.

[[Page 27894]]

       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 childcare grant program.
       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.
       Chambliss modified amendment No. 3391 (to amendment No. 
     3325), to provide for a declaration of a public health 
     emergency with respect to Sumter County, GA.
       Cardin amendment No. 3400 (to amendment No. 3325), to 
     provide support to Iraqis and Afghans who arrive in the 
     United States under the Special Immigrant Visa program.
       Landrieu amendment No. 3446 (to amendment No. 3325), 
     relative to the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling 
     program.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we entered into a unanimous consent 
agreement last night. I will repeat it for the benefit of Senators.
  Senators should be aware that we will now start a series of debates 
and we will stack the votes. The first amendment will be the amendment 
of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, amendment No. 3437. There will 
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided. That will be the first one.
  The second one will be the amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina, Mr. DeMint; that is amendment No. 3387. There will be 20 
minutes of debate equally divided.
  The third one would be the amendment No. 3365 by the Senator from 
Kansas, Senator Roberts. There will be 10 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Then the fourth one would be the amendment No. 3358 offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. There will be 20 minutes of 
debate equally divided. At the end of all of that time, the Senate will 
proceed to vote on and in relation to those amendments.
  We are ready for the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming as soon as 
he arrives, and he is here.


                Amendment No. 3437 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3437.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3437.

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


                           amendment no. 3437

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to modify certain HIV/AIDS 
                           funding formulas)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds shall be made available under this Act to modify the 
     HIV/AIDS funding formulas under title XXVI of the Public 
     Health Service Act.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the present time, the last numbers that I 
saw, Congress's approval rating was 12 percent. There is a reason for 
that. We have been nibbling around the edges on a lot of things, and we 
have been doing earmarks. I have an amendment that deals with one of 
the most egregious earmarks I have seen.
  Less than a year ago we passed a bill in this body unanimously, that 
the House then passed unanimously, that addressed the Ryan White AIDS 
program, and it included transparency, it included accountability, and 
it included a change in the formula. The change in the formula gave 
some protection to those who have had a declining population, but it 
allowed the money to follow the people who had the problem.
  Today, in this bill, there is an earmark that provides for money now 
to go to people who may no longer even exist--people who are dead. It 
is a way that they are trying to change the authorization process we 
went through so meticulously, so unanimously, in such a way that it 
undoes it in an appropriations bill. We shouldn't be changing law in an 
appropriations bill. We especially shouldn't be changing law for a 
specific area of the country in an appropriations bill. That is why I 
bring this amendment.
  I want to discuss the Ryan White program and the need to ensure that 
this Labor-HHS bill does not undo our recent work. Last December, after 
months of negotiations, the House and the Senate passed a new 3-year 
Ryan White reauthorization. Most importantly, we ensured that those new 
formulas focused on the lifesaving treatment by including individuals 
with HIV, not just AIDS.
  One of the key items that delayed this reauthorization for months was 
the careful negotiations surrounding the funding formulas. In that 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we were very clear about the 
implications of those new formula changes. We provided GAO data runs 
that were nearly identical to how the funding has been distributed. I 
hope everybody takes a look at those GAO data runs.
  Those funding formulas also included hold-harmless provisions to 
ensure the formula funding would not decrease by more than 5 percent 
from the previous year. While I would have preferred no hold-harmless 
provisions or ones that allowed for more dramatic fluctuations so the 
money could follow the HIV-infected person, that was what we agreed 
upon a few short months ago.
  We didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes; we provided clear 
information about the implications about those funding formulas. Now, 
with one simple pen stroke, the House majority would like to undo all 
of those carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral compromises and 
insert a new hold-harmless provision with little thought to how this 
change will affect others. I am pleased to note that the Senate did not 
include this egregious provision, and I hope today the Senate will go 
on record for opposing doing so.
  What is even more ridiculous is that this provision primarily 
benefits San Francisco, a city that continues to receive funding to 
care for dead people. San Francisco received two-thirds of the $9 
million available, racking up $6 million of new dollars. All the while, 
nearly every other city would have reduced funding just so San 
Francisco can receive more riches. That additional $6 million is not 
based on the number of people they are treating or on how many new 
cases they have. As a hold-harmless provision, it is related to what 
that city has received before.
  As GAO noted in the report last month, even within their current 
funding, they are receiving money for people who have died. Let me 
repeat that. GAO, the Government Accountability Office, confirmed that 
San Francisco currently receives funding under Ryan White for dead 
people. That is without this additional $6 million earmark. Now, I 
don't know about my colleagues, but I find this a little reprehensible. 
Where I come from, that is called cheating. This is patently unfair to 
those cities and States that are striving to come up with the moneys 
for basic HIV/AIDS treatment.
  House Democrats reneged on a bipartisan, bicameral solution and are 
trying to slide this authorizing legislation into an appropriations 
bill, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed. I object to this 
provision and the implications of it. Rather than providing nearly $10 
million to help those cities that don't need it, why aren't we 
providing funds to those cities with large numbers of people with HIV?
  So I offer my amendment to Labor-HHS, Enzi amendment No. 3437. This 
amendment is quite simple. It states that the Labor-HHS bill cannot be 
used to undo all of the work we did on Ryan White. We should not be 
diverting key funds from cities with rising HIV cases to go to San 
Francisco--a city that is still receiving funds for treating people who 
have already died from AIDS. If you support keeping people alive, I 
believe you should also support my amendment. We did last December. We 
should again. We need to keep it on track to take care of the problem.
  I yield some time to my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, such time as he 
would like.

[[Page 27895]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about what 
is in the bill and what is going to happen if we don't accept Senator 
Enzi's amendment.
  When we crafted the Ryan White Act, the goal was to make sure the 
dollars followed the disease and to make sure people who were infected 
with HIV who had no other means of seeking treatment and having a life 
that is not the scourge of this disease with the modern medicines that 
have come about, to create a platform where we could have fair 
availability for medicines and treatment and care to where the disease 
is growing.
  What has come out of the House, with Speaker Pelosi's direction, is 
to actually take money from African-American women and the medicines 
they need to stay alive, or medicines to treat their newborn infants, 
and send it to San Francisco, which in the last few years has not even 
spent the entire amount of money that has gone to it.
  Senator Enzi is right in the fact that this violates the very 
agreement we made over a long period of time to get Ryan White funds to 
start following the disease. By taking an extra $6.2 million and 
sending it to San Francisco, it violates, No. 1, the agreement on that 
bill, but most importantly, it takes away the opportunity for health 
for minority women, which is where the disease is growing the greatest 
amount. We have all these women throughout the country who have been on 
waiting lists for drugs for treatment. They are getting some, but they 
are not getting what is going to save their lives. And we are going to 
steal that opportunity for minority women to be adequately and fairly 
treated under this bill.
  The Ryan White bill we passed last year was a good compromise, 
knowing that we needed to shift money to where the disease is. What 
happened in the House bill is we have actually reneged on that 
commitment. What we are actually saying is that the establishment age 
groups in northern California deserve more money than a single African-
American woman who was infected with HIV and cannot get the medicines 
to treat her disease. That is the choice.
  For the first time, the Ryan White Act changed the direction of where 
the money went. The Ryan White Act, as we passed it, had the money 
following the disease, going to those who need treatment rather than to 
established organizations that are used to a certain budget. So the 
tragedy will be that if we don't pass the Enzi amendment, we are taking 
a step backward from the very principle--a public health principle, by 
the way--that you put the money where the epidemic is. What is in the 
House bill negates that.
  What we are doing is playing politics with the lives of African-
American women, who are the fastest growing numbers of people who have 
HIV in this country. We are taking $6.2 million away from them and we 
are putting it in facilities that, quite frankly, have done quite well 
under the Ryan White Act. The availability, the access, and the 
programs are at the greatest level in San Francisco as compared to any 
other place in this country. Yet we choose, if we do not accept the 
Enzi amendment, to say that is a higher priority than a poor African-
American woman in the South. That is the choice.
  I support this amendment. I think the Senate, in good conscience, 
ought to live up to its agreement on the Ryan White Act.
  I yield back my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Enzi 
amendment. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for the 
work they have done on this bill. But this amendment significantly 
disadvantages at least nine jurisdictions facing HIV/AIDS crises 
throughout the country because it essentially would prevent any stop-
loss provision enacted by the House from going into effect.
  Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and the rest of the HELP Committee 
worked tirelessly for most of last year to reauthorize the Ryan White 
CARE Act. I voted for this reauthorization, and I recognized at the 
time that the method of counting HIV/AIDS victims had to change to more 
clearly reflect living victims. However, this then mandated huge cuts 
to vital programs, despite the fact that States and eligible 
metropolitan areas were assured that no jurisdiction would face 
destabilizing losses.
  The HELP Committee staff provided GAO data during the debate 
projecting that San Francisco would receive approximately $17.1 million 
in fiscal year 2007. But San Francisco did not receive that amount. 
Their formula award totaled $14.6 million, which is $2.5 million less 
than estimated.
  A compromise was to offset losses by clearly making available 
supplemental award funding so that the Health Resources and Services 
Administration could consider the funding losses when awarding this 
supplemental funding. This amendment seeks to do away with all of this.
  Despite these estimates and built-in protection, several areas of the 
country received significant funding cuts when the 2007 awards were 
announced earlier this year.
  The San Francisco eligible metropolitan areas, which also include 
Marin and San Mateo Counties, lost approximately $8.5 million. That is 
just those three counties--an $8.5 million loss. This accounts for 30 
percent of the Ryan White funding--a loss too great for any 
jurisdiction to absorb in 1 year.
  It didn't surprise me when San Francisco lost money in 2007. The city 
knew it would likely face losses. But the protections put in place 
clearly were not adequate. The loss of one-third of total funding is 
clearly destabilizing. To be very candid with you, I find it highly 
objectionable.
  This isn't only unique for San Francisco. Five other cities also lost 
20 percent or more of their funding: Hartford, CT, 32.1 percent; New 
Haven, CT, 23.7 percent; Nassau-Suffolk County, NY, 21.7 percent; 
Ponce, Puerto Rico, 28.9 percent; Caguas, Puerto Rico, 34.3 percent.
  No jurisdiction can absorb cuts of this magnitude in 1 year without 
significant harm to those they serve. To address this, the House of 
Representatives included a stop-loss provision to cap the losses faced 
by these jurisdictions in their version of the fiscal year 2008 Labor-
HHS appropriations bill. This provision limits the fiscal year 2007 
losses for eligible metropolitan areas, or EMAs, to 8.4 percent--not 30 
percent but 8.4 percent--which is a manageable amount. Transitional 
grant areas will have their losses capped at 13.4 percent.
  So there is a willingness to respond to the mandate; that is, change 
your method of counting and, secondly, absorb reasonable cuts. I don't 
think that is too much to ask. I think this is overkill.
  I was the mayor who first found AIDS, and I can take you back to 1981 
and I can tell you what it was like. You won't like it. What I tried to 
do in the task force of the Conference of Mayors was to bring mayors 
into the modern day. San Francisco essentially led the Nation in the 
fight against AIDS. I think to have to take a 30-percent cut, when we 
are seeing some regeneration of AIDS, is a terrible mistake.
  Senator Enzi's amendment could nullify the House's solution. Let me 
be clear. Under the House language, San Francisco would still lose $2.3 
million. All of the cities will still face significant cuts. This 
provision is designed not to stop all reductions but to limit them to a 
level that can be absorbed in 1 year. The House provided funding for 
the stop-loss on top of a $23 million increase for part A of the Ryan 
White CARE Act. So virtually every area across the country sees an 
increase in funding. But these areas take a dramatic 30-percent cut in 
funding. I don't think that is right, and I don't believe we should 
accept it.
  The Government Accountability Office examined the impact this stop-
loss provision would have on jurisdictions in 2008. In addition to 
benefiting the 11 jurisdictions whose cuts are reduced, the House bill 
results in increased

[[Page 27896]]

funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions. The very minor cuts 
projected in the remaining three jurisdictions are less than one-tenth 
of 1 percent. A reduction of 30-percent is simply not manageable.
  The provision makes no changes to the underlying reauthorization. It 
doesn't prevent it from moving forward at all. It caps the total losses 
faced by any jurisdiction in fiscal year 2007 with a one-time solution. 
It doesn't reopen the reauthorization so carefully crafted by Senators 
Kennedy and Enzi and their committee.
  The epidemic, as I mentioned, is far from over in San Francisco. AIDS 
continues to be the second leading cause of premature death in the city 
and counting. Nearly 23,000 people are currently living with HIV/AIDS 
in San Francisco, which is more than at any point in the epidemic. 
Listen to that--nearly 23,000 people in San Francisco are living with 
HIV now, and that is more than at any point during the epidemic. In 
addition, the population of San Francisco living with HIV/AIDS is 
increasingly impoverished, homeless, and struggling. Many have serious 
medical needs.
  About 2 weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that San 
Francisco doctors diagnosed 15 HIV patients with Kaposi sarcoma. That 
is a form of cancer commonly found in patients early in the epidemic 
but had become rare.
  I will never forget, in a staff meeting I had with department heads 
back in 1981, when the director of public health said: Madam Mayor, 
something is happening. We are finding patients with large purple 
lesions all over their bodies, and we don't know what it is.
  His name is Merv Silverman. I said: Merv, find out what it is and 
come back and tell me.
  Three weeks later, they came back, and it was the discovery for the 
first time of AIDS in this country. So I feel very sensitive about it. 
I started the first AIDS program in the Nation. We funded it with 
property tax dollars. That is how we became a leader in the area.
  To take a 30-percent cut when we have the largest number of HIV/AIDS 
victims in our history in the city, to me, is discriminatory, 
wrongheaded, and it need not happen. So I very much hope this body will 
respond.
  I understand Senator Enzi wants to protect the reauthorization and 
the funding formula he authored, but I think we have to admit that the 
impact on some areas of the country was not anticipated. Fixing these 
unintended consequences does not require reopening the legislation. It 
can be addressed with a one-time solution that will still leave some 
cities with a decline in funds; that means the House solution of stop-
loss.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Enzi amendment, which 
would strike a dastardly blow to a city that has seen too much 
suffering, as well as others.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of points.
  I know this is a large step down for San Francisco EMA and a smaller 
step down for some of the others. But the thing that needs to be kept 
in mind is the amount of dollars spent per HIV patient in those areas 
is 2\1/2\ times what the average is around the rest of the country--
2\1/2\ times. We spend 2\1/2\ times more per HIV case in those areas 
than we do in North Carolina or Florida or Mississippi or Michigan or 
Kansas or Texas or Arizona. So what we are talking about is 
proportionality; giving the same opportunities to everybody who has 
HIV, not more opportunities.
  So with the 30-percent cut, you are still going to be spending 1\1/2\ 
to 1\3/4\ times more per HIV case in San Francisco as you are in the 
rest of the country. So I appreciate the work of the Senator in the HIV 
area, which is exemplary, and I understand she would want to protect 
this, but it is not fair to the rest of the country. It is not fair to 
tell somebody that you are going to spend 2\1/2\ times as much on 
somebody with HIV in San Francisco as you are in Dallas, TX, or Miami, 
FL. That is what this amendment is about--keeping the fairness that was 
in the Ryan White Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I don't think it is fair to take a 30-
percent cut in 1 year when you have the largest number of HIV/AIDS 
victims in the history of the epidemic in a city that has suffered such 
as no other city in America. I am not saying there shouldn't be cuts. I 
voted for the reauthorization knowing there would be cuts. What I am 
talking about is the level of cuts and the way these cuts fall because 
they decimate programs in an area that was ground zero on AIDS in the 
United States.
  If you are going to take cuts, take those cuts so the communities 
involved in fighting HIV with prevention, with education, with care, 
with treatment, with drugs, with all of it, can essentially meet the 
mandate, which is to prevent the suffering of AIDS in HIV patients and 
also to prevent the disease from spreading. That is not easy to do, I 
can tell you that firsthand.
  You take a 30-percent cut in 1 year and you decimate these programs. 
That is why the House put the stop-loss in. Take a moderate cut, and we 
will stand up like men and women and we will take that cut. Take a 
third cut and it is much more difficult and you affect services to 
people. That is all I am saying.
  So I would very much hope the Senate would understand the need and 
the compassion to defeat this amendment and, once again, I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, before we passed the legislation, there were 
waiting lines in many of the States in this country, lines of people 
waiting to get treatment and care for AIDS. I am pleased to let you 
know there are no waiting lines today. No waiting lines anywhere--not 
in San Francisco, not in Connecticut, not in New Jersey or in New York.
  There has been a cut. The cut is guaranteed to be no more than 5 
percent under the formula. Now, there has always been supplemental 
money besides the formula. We did not guarantee the supplemental money. 
The supplemental money was never guaranteed. And if there are larger 
cuts, it comes out of the supplemental money, not the formula. So I 
certainly hope we don't change the formula under the appropriations 
bill instead of through the proper process, which is authorization.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services in North 
Carolina with some very pertinent quotes.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         North Carolina Department


                                 of Health and Human Services,

                                                 October 15, 2007.
     Hon. Michael Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: Thanks to your leadership on the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), 
     Congress took an important step last year and modernized the 
     Ryan White CARE Act (RWCA). You and many of your 
     congressional colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--
     took a principled stance in order to ensure that patients in 
     need, no matter where they live, can access basic medical 
     services to treat and prevent HIV.
       The new Ryan White program funding is having a profound 
     impact in North Carolina. The increase in North Carolina's 
     AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) eligibility from 125% to 
     250% over the past two years is the direct result of your 
     legislative initiative, resources provided by the new Ryan 
     White funding and new state investments. The increased 
     eligibility levels will result in approximately 600-750 new 
     North Carolinians having access to ADAP services. The reforms 
     you championed are making a crucial difference in the lives 
     of people living with HIV.
       Unfortunately, an effort is underway in the Congress to 
     modify the original intent of the reauthorization--that 
     funding would be based on demonstrated need. As you are 
     aware, according to a Health Resources Services Agency 
     document and the newly-released GAO report that you and your 
     colleagues requested, the impact of the House-

[[Page 27897]]

     passed version of the FY2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill 
     that would cap losses for certain EMAs would result in 
     decreased funding for states that would have otherwise 
     received new funding based on higher incidence of HIV.
       As a direct result of your efforts last year, North 
     Carolina and other parts of the country that have been hit 
     hardest by new HIV cases now have a fighting chance to 
     effectively increase HIV screening, link infected individuals 
     to care and reduce the number of HIV infections reported from 
     year-to-year. If this attempt to undermine the basic premise 
     of the landmark Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization 
     Act of 2006 is successful, CARE Act funding will be diverted 
     from regions of the country that are most in need of federal 
     assistance. Unless the harmful provision in the 
     appropriations legislation is eliminated, I am gravely 
     concerned for patients who are in desperate need of 
     lifesaving medical care, individuals who will be newly 
     infected because their partners did not have access to CARE 
     Act services and ultimately, the future prospects of 
     addressing the HIV epidemic in North Carolina and throughout 
     the country.
       Thank you for your leadership on the Health Subcommittee, 
     and thank you for your attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Evelyn Foust,
                                              State AIDS Director.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve my 
remaining time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in listening to this debate and having 
received a letter from the Speaker, the concerns I have are whether 
there was a disproportionate share going to some localities in 
California.
  If I could direct a question to the Senator from California: What is 
your response to the concerns raised by the Senator from Wyoming that 
the formula was settled last year and that this, in effect, reopens the 
formula and is going to direct funds to areas in your State where those 
funds could be directed to the same serious problem which Pennsylvania 
has in our big cities--Pittsburgh and Philadelphia?
  If you could first respond on the issue as to whether the formula was 
resolved last year.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, Mr. President, if I may, to the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, first of all, it is my 
knowledge that the cut to San Francisco and to 11 other jurisdictions 
is very large. With respect to the reauthorization of Ryan White, we do 
not agree that it applies only to the fiscal year 2007 cuts. It takes 
resources, actually, from other jurisdictions. The Pelosi fix in the 
House ensures a significant increase for title I that would both reduce 
cuts to a manageable level for 11 jurisdictions and still increase for 
other jurisdictions. So this isn't taking money away from other 
jurisdictions, as I understand it. The provisions in the House bill 
increases funding for 42 of the remaining 45 jurisdictions under title 
I.
  Now, I don't know the particulars, to be candid with you, of how 
these cuts fell, but I do know the cut received in the Bay Area was 
substantial. I suspect it was from the way they counted AIDS cases, and 
they knew they had to change the methodology. But basically the point 
is the cut is substantially large and means you have to cut 30 percent 
across the board of AIDS programs at a time when San Francisco has the 
largest number of HIV/AIDS cases in its history--23,000.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time to the Senator? The 
time is controlled by the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
California. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask how much additional time I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A minute 10.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A minute 10. I am not sure I should yield it to the 
Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is up to the Senator. I am not decided on how I am 
going to vote, so you have to decide that question and I will decide--
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon? Whose side did you say?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am considering it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Oh. Then I will yield. If the mind is open, I am 
happy to yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. I know it is unsenatorial to say that, but I haven't 
made up my mind.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I was listening to the Senator from Wyoming and the 
Senator from California and trying to figure it out. I don't want to be 
too unsenatorial, to think about it, but that is where I am.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield my remaining minute to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. The problem is one of enormous seriousness, and it is 
very difficult to find the funding with what we have allocated on our 
discretionary spending. In a context where some $36 million is being 
added in the House bill and some $6 million has been allocated to San 
Francisco in the House bill--and I am very sympathetic to San 
Francisco's problem and I understand the distinguished Senator from 
California was mayor of San Francisco and it is within the district of 
the Speaker of the House, so I understand their interest there--what I 
am trying to evaluate is whether there is undue funding going because 
of the prominence of the advocates of the position by the Senator from 
California.
  I think I understand it now and I will weigh and consider it. I thank 
the Senator from California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement 
entered into last night, I believe the Senator from South Carolina 
would be recognized next for amendment No. 3387, with 20 minutes of 
debate equally divided.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to 
the consideration of the Roberts amendment first, and then we would, 
after the disposal of the Roberts amendment, then proceed to the DeMint 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The chair hears 
none, and it is so ordered.
  The Roberts amendment has been proposed and is now pending. The 
Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 3365

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Roberts 
amendment, No. 3365, to fund a small business childcare grant program. 
The program was authorized earlier this year as part of the 
supplemental spending bill. It does have wide bipartisan support at 
this time, as well as last Congress when it was unanimously approved by 
the HELP Committee as part of the Child Care Community Development 
Block Grant.
  This program is different from other childcare initiatives because it 
specifically targets small businesses and because it encourages them to 
work together. These small businesses are the lifeblood of many urban 
and rural communities. These grants will allow the local convenience 
store or the beauty shop, the auto shop, the implement dealer, the 
bank, to cooperatively work together to offer their employees quality 
childcare while they work. Right now, these daycare facilities are 
simply not available.
  My program is also different from other grants because it encourages 
sustainability and ownership over these childcare facilities. With an 
annual increasing match requirement and a 2012 sunset provision, my 
program offers a fiscally responsible approach to plugging the lack of 
childcare for many hard-working American families.
  I wish to thank Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, Dodd, and Salazar 
for their support of this program in the supplemental spending bill. I 
am proud this was a bipartisan effort from the get-go, and I want that 
to continue. If you support hard-working American families, if you 
support small business and community development, if you support fiscal 
responsibility, then simply support this amendment.
  Let me say I recognize and appreciate the concern of my good friends 
and colleagues, Senators Coburn and DeMint. They feel this program 
could

[[Page 27898]]

be duplicative. I do not think it is because the program targets small 
businesses and encourages them to cooperate with other entities to 
develop sustainable childcare facilities. Because of the matching and 
sunset requirements--50 percent the first year here, 67 percent the 
second year, and the third year, 75 percent, and then it sunsets--I 
think we are much more fiscally responsible.
  There was a suggestion to use TANF funds. These are being held by 
States in emergency contingency accounts in case of a sudden economic 
downturn. This would be another allowable use of these funds. That is 
not the case. This is apples and oranges. This is a fiscally 
responsible plan on the part of the States and we should encourage 
that.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself about 3 minutes.
  The amendment offered by Senator Roberts is a good amendment. This 
was authorized in the emergency supplemental bill for fiscal year 2007. 
The grants are for small businesses that want to partner with each 
other or other organizations to establish employer-owned childcare 
programs. Funds can be used for startup costs, technical assistance, 
and training and special services for sick kids or children with 
disabilities.
  The program is authorized at $50 million in fiscal year 2008. As the 
Senator said, funding was not included. I think it is time we do fund 
it. I have long been a supporter of expanding the role of small 
businesses in providing the kind of childcare that their employees 
need.
  I think the amendment of the Senator will further that goal, and I 
offer my support to the Senator's amendment and I hope the Senate will 
adopt it.
  I yield back whatever time we may have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time is yielded back.
  Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3365) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3387 to amendment no. 3325

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3387 be called up for 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3387.

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

  (Purpose: To replace non-competitive earmarks for the AFL-CIO with 
                          competitive grants)

       Beginning on page 4, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through line 7 on page 5, and insert the following: 
     ``workers: Provided further, That $3,700,000 shall be for 
     competitive grants, which shall be awarded not later than 30 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I do want to make sure we have called up 
amendment No. 3387. I appreciate the chairman agreeing to this slight 
change in the purpose statement, not the legislative language.
  This amendment is part of an effort to clear up what a lot of us have 
called the culture of corruption over the last several years. A lot of 
this has come from Americans connecting the dots between the earmarks 
that we give to our favorite causes back home and many of the campaign 
contributions and political support that we get back here in Congress. 
While motivations are generally good, at best the appearance of what is 
going on here has alarmed the American people.
  My earmark amendment today addresses two specific earmarks in the 
appropriations bill that is in front of us. One of the earmarks 
provides $1.5 million for the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute and 
$2.2 million for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council. These funds come in 
the form of what are referred to as noncompetitive grants, according to 
the text of the bill and the committee report--which means no one else 
can compete to deliver the services that are intended by the bill, that 
these are a specific earmark to divisions of the AFL-CIO.
  These earmarks are problematic because they fund two organizations 
that are not competitive. They provide funds that could be better spent 
to achieve the mission of the Department of Labor set out by Congress 
in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Rather than continuing to give 
these groups handouts without any competition, we should force them to 
compete with other organizations so Americans get the most value for 
their tax dollars. That is exactly what my amendment will do. It 
replaces these two earmarks that total $3.7 million with competitive 
grants.
  Let me be clear. I am not taking the money out of the bill. The money 
is still there for the purposes for which it is intended, but it allows 
organizations to compete to deliver these services so that the 
taxpayers get the most for their money.
  Let me say a few things about the performance of the AFL-CIO 
organization so my colleagues understand why there is such concern. The 
AFL-CIO Working for America Institute originally received grants under 
the Workforce Investment Act. The grants were given to national 
organizations for the purpose of providing technical assistance in 
setting up systems of local and State workforce investment boards for 
the purpose of helping unemployed workers get the training and the jobs 
they need.
  After 3 years, these capacity-building services were no longer 
needed, and the grants were terminated. However, the Working for 
America Institute failed to complete its mission in 3 years, so the 
Department gave it a fourth year of funding. After the fourth year, the 
Department terminated its contract with the Working for America 
Institute and explained:

       It is difficult to make the case that the AFL-CIO should 
     receive yet a fifth year of funding for organizational 
     purposes when the other national organizations were able to 
     achieve their goals in 3 years. Additionally, given that 
     there are so many workers seeking training or retraining 
     opportunities, we believe the Department of Labor's emphasis 
     is rightly placed on promoting employment and reemployment 
     projects having measurable outcomes.

  The Department believes the technical assistance given by the 
institute is duplicative and less effective than a similar program 
already funded in their Employment and Training Administration. It 
said:

       We should focus limited financial resources on programs 
     that deliver actual training services to workers, rather than 
     pour additional funds into organizational infrastructure. 
     After 4 years, the AFL-CIO should have developed sufficient 
     ability to participate effectively in the Workforce 
     Investment Act system.

  Despite these failures, Congress overrode the Department and 
earmarked funds for $1.5 million in fiscal year 2005 in the 
appropriations bill in that year, and it continued the project through 
June of this year. Now this appropriations bill is trying to do the 
same thing again. This is a clear example of Congress interfering with 
agency decisions because of parochial or political interests. Congress 
should not fund a program that is duplicative and not a critical 
priority for an agency. It should have to compete for funds like every 
other organization.
  Let me address the second earmark in this bill. The AFL-CIO 
Appalachian Council had a longstanding sole-source contract with the 
Department of Labor that spanned several decades. The purpose of the 
contract was to provide career technical training and career transition 
services at job placement centers in Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston,

[[Page 27899]]

WV, and Batesville, MS. It is important to note that the council does 
not manage or run these three centers. It simply provides the training, 
placement, and transition services.
  The Department of Labor reviewed the council's performance in 2004 in 
light of the new requirements of the Workforce Investment Act. The 
review resulted in the Department terminating the council's sole-source 
contract because it was no longer the only and unique provider of 
career transition services and because it experienced a steady decline 
in program performance over a 5-year period.
  Despite these failures, Congress stepped in and earmarked $2.2 
million for the council in fiscal year 2005, forcing the Department to 
continue the contract. Following this, the Department canceled the 
contract again, but Congress reversed the agency's decision a second 
time with another $2.2 million earmark in 2006.
  After the second year came to a close, the Department reviewed the 
performance outcomes of the council. In 2006, the council placed 265 
graduates in apprenticeship programs and 71 graduates in jobs matching 
their vocational training. With the earmark funded at $2.2 million, the 
cost of each of these graduates was $6,547. Each of the council's 21 
staff members placed less than 2 students per month in a registered 
apprenticeship program. Despite being given a second chance by 
Congress, the Department terminated the contract again this year.
  Unfortunately, the appropriations bill we are considering gives 
another earmark to the council to continue the services and designates 
it a noncompeting earmark, which means no one else can compete to do 
the service right. Here we have two examples of earmarks that 
circumvent the normal competitive process and abuse the American 
taxpayer.
  The AFL-CIO has plenty of funds to continue these programs. In 2006, 
the AFL-CIO reported $96 million in assets and $157.2 million in 
receipts. Their top five executive officers made from $179,000 to 
$291,000 a year, with 204 employees making more than $75,000 a year. Of 
their disbursements, about $30 million, or nearly 40 percent of their 
total receipts, went for political activities and lobbying.
  The AFL-CIO should either fund the program itself or help the 
institute develop a competitive grant proposal, but these organizations 
should not get a handout. My amendment, as I said before, does not 
eliminate the funds, but it does require the AFL-CIO to compete based 
on real criteria and accountability to deliver the services for the 
American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to turn these 
noncompetitive grants into competitive grants so we accomplish the 
purpose in an accountable way. I ask my colleagues to vote for my 
amendment later on this morning. I appreciate their support.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time do we have, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 10 minutes in opposition. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the two programs which have been 
commented on by the Senator from South Carolina are very good programs, 
contrary to his assertions. The AFL-CIO Appalachian Council is a 
nationally recognized provider of educational training service. It was 
founded in 1964 and the council has represented Alabama, Georgia, 
Kentucky, Maryland, DC, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. I 
believe if the Senator from South Carolina looked closely at what has 
happened in his own State, which has been a beneficiary, he would find 
it has been a good program. The council operates major employment and 
training programs through the Department of Labor and Job Corps, as 
well as employee assistance programs, and provides funding for 
recruitment/replacement of some 1,000 Job Corps students in long-term 
jobs.
  When you talk about the Job Corps, you are talking about a group of 
young people who might well be at risk. With the rising rates of 
violence in major American cities--two of them in my State, Pittsburgh 
and Philadelphia; Philadelphia had 406 homicides last year--taking some 
of these at-risk students off the streets, young people off the 
streets, and providing job training is very important.
  The Working for America Institute, which is a program very near and 
dear to the heart of the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, 
has an important retraining component of our manufacturing base, where 
we have seen too many high-paying jobs shipped overseas. During the 
current administration, more than 3 million American manufacturing jobs 
have been lost. We are dealing with an area of some of the Rust Belt 
States where job training and job development is very important and the 
Appalachian Council runs through those States and provides a very 
important service.
  When the Senator from South Carolina talks about a political factor, 
that depends upon the eye of the beholder. These programs have worked 
very well. They are a very modest allocation with a total of $3.7 
million tackling an issue of job training in an area which has been 
beset by unfair foreign competition. They have been very carefully 
considered by the subcommittee, very carefully considered by the full 
committee, and they have been a part of the budget for a considerable 
period of time. They have established their bona fides and their 
worthwhile nature.
  I believe they are worth the money. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the DeMint amendment.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wish to join with Senator Specter in opposing the 
DeMint amendment, which would strike two congressionally directed 
fundings in the bill--one for the Appalachian Council, and the other 
one would be for the Working for America Institute.
  This institute was created, first of all, in 1989 and then in 1998 
was spun off and made into a totally separate nonprofit organization 
with a functioning board of directors and everything else. They have 
over 30 years of experience in the field of job training, workforce 
development. They work with businesses, the private sector, they work 
with unions, and they work with communities. The institute has 
basically been a showcase of how to pull people together and get people 
together for workforce development. It is doing great work, and it 
benefits communities throughout the United States. In fact, I had the 
list of some here. Just last year alone, the institute provided 
assistance to Portland, OR, the Ohio State Workforce Board, the 
National Governors Association, and the National Alliance of Workforce 
Boards. So you can see they do things all over the country.
  I point out that this institute received funding through the 
Department of Labor for over 30 years, through Republican and 
Democratic administrations. I can go back to Nixon and Ford and Carter, 
all through the Reagan years, the first Bush administration, the 
Clinton administration, and actually the first part of this Bush 
administration until just a couple of years ago when the Department of 
Labor decided to cut all funding for it. So we had to come in here a 
couple of years ago and put directed funding in there for the 
institute. It was widely supported.
  So when the Senator from South Carolina says that: Well, we will just 
make it competitive. Well, the Department will not do it anyway. They 
are not interested in it. They will not put it out for competitive 
grant. So this is another instance where I think congressionally 
directed funding has validity because we have looked at these programs 
from a bipartisan standpoint, and we agree they should be funded, even 
though the Department of Labor does not want the funding.
  Now, the second issue I wanted to address is--I do not know whether I 
caught the Senator from South Carolina correctly, but I heard something 
about lobbying and political activity. I

[[Page 27900]]

just wanted to make it very clear that section 503 of the bill reads--
and I will read it in its entirety:

       No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     used, other than for normal and recognized executive-
     legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes, for the preparation, distribution or use of any 
     kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television or 
     video presentation, designed to support or defeat legislation 
     pending before the Congress or any State legislature, except 
     in presentation to the Congress or any State legislature 
     itself.
       B. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall 
     be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient or agent acting for such recipient related 
     to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature.

  So the recipients cannot do it, and they cannot hire lobbyists, 
either, to lobby for them for any legislation pending before the 
Congress. So I wanted to make it clear that none of this money can be 
used for lobbying or for any kind of partisan activities, nor can it 
even be used for them to hire a lobbyist or a lobbying firm for that 
activity. So I wanted to make that clear.
  I support the Senator from Pennsylvania. The Appalachian Council has 
done a great job. They are doing great work in a number of States. The 
Working for America Institute, again, is one that has proven its worth. 
It has been widely supported throughout America, through business 
concerns, and State workforce investment boards all over this country.
  Now is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath them. So I 
would join with Senator Specter in opposing the DeMint amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a supplemental comment or two. The 
Job Corps program, which is part of this overall operation, funds young 
people ages 16 through 24. In Philadelphia, there is a program which 
places graduates with 61 major health care employers in higher skill 
jobs which are in great demand in Philadelphia. That attacks an area of 
great importance, considering the homicide rate in Philadelphia, much 
of which is caused by young people, so many at-risk youth. This goes 
right to the heart of a very serious problem, to support the funding.
  I want to supplement that, too, with the hearing which we held on 
July 22, 2004, where we had extensive testimony taken on the subject to 
establish the value of the program.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Just under 1 minute 50 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. We reserve the remainder of that time awaiting the 
argument of the Senator from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina. 
The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I agree with all the purposes the Senator 
stated, all of the ideas of getting teenagers to work in Philadelphia. 
All of those things are good. I am not taking argument with any of 
them. If the AFL-CIO is the best source to deliver these services, 
there should not be any problem with this at all. All we are asking is 
to make this a competitive grant so that we can have criteria and 
accountability in a system so that what we want to accomplish will 
actually get accomplished. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. When you talk about accountability, it is present. It is 
an open book. The Job Corps is administered by the Department of Labor. 
It is not unusual to have a sole-source contract. When you have 
somebody like the AFL-CIO, which has so much knowledge, and so many of 
their experts are at work on this program, it makes very good sense to 
give the opportunity to carry out the program. It is all subject to the 
review by the Department of Labor. I think the quality of this program 
speaks for itself. There is agreement on it. It has an important 
purpose. I believe the record shows that these funds have been wisely 
spent.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered. Under 
the previous order, that vote will occur after debate on the Coburn 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3358

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, now we are going to go to the Coburn 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence be changed and that 
the vote in relation to the Coburn amendment be second in the sequence; 
that the remaining provisions remain in effect.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3358 is a pending amendment 
we discussed this last Friday. I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement I have 10 minutes, and those in opposition do also. I am 
going to speak a few moments, if I may.
  What the country is looking for us to do is to choose priorities, to 
make good choices about the priorities of what we do with their money. 
Quite frankly, there has not been a top-down review on all the 
Government programs, ever. We have had very limited oversight hearings, 
which should be the No. 1 part of our job. And we have in front of us a 
bill that has $400 million in directed earmarks, which we think, 
through what the appropriations process has brought to us, is an 
important priority.
  What this amendment says is that we are going to give the Members of 
the Senate an opportunity to vote on whether those are the most 
important priorities or whether we ought to have children's health care 
because what this amendment does is redirects this money in abeyance 
until we say we have the kids in this country covered.
  There is a large debate over the SCHIP bill that the President 
recently vetoed. There are a lot of things wrong with it. It is not 
wrong to help poor kids get health care. Nobody in the Senate opposed 
that. What they did oppose is changing, under the guise of a debate for 
children, a debate of having the Government start running all of the 
health care for kids. What it did do is spend $4,000 to buy $2,300 
worth of care, and a lot of other things.
  So what this amendment is about is asking the Senate to choose--
choose your directed earmarks for back home or make a statement that 
says: We really believe kids health care is important, and we are not 
going to spend the money on directed earmarks until we have solved that 
problem.
  I know this makes some of my colleagues bristle, that we would 
challenge the direction. This is not saying specific earmarks are not 
good ideas. A lot of the earmarks in this bill are good ideas. What it 
does say is: Should they be a priority before we take care of one of 
the greatest problems this country is facing, which is health care? Are 
we going to go after and really change health care to where we get 
value, we get controllable costs, we get freedom of choice, or are we 
going to continue to do the same thing of putting earmarks into bills 
and ignoring the big problems that are in front of us?
  So what this amendment says is that until the Secretary of HHS, 
whoever they may be, certifies that we have the kids under 18 in this 
country covered, we should not be spending money on directed political 
benefits for ourselves and our careers; instead, we should be spending 
our time solving the health care needs of the kids in our country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition? The 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I assume it comes as no surprise that I 
oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I appreciate that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma raises 
again the issue of children's health

[[Page 27901]]

care. I think that debate should go on since the plight of poor 
children in this country needs as much attention as we can give it. But 
I do not think this amendment is serious about addressing the health of 
children. The amendment does not put any money into it at all; it just 
says that we will not have any congressionally directed funding until 
every child in America has health care coverage. I believe that is the 
way it is worded. So it really does not fund it. It does not do 
anything at all. I think it is the kind of thing that kind of gives 
Congress a bad name in that we say we want to do these things, but we 
do not provide any funding for them.
  We really already know how to increase the number of children insured 
in this country--by providing an increase in the SCHIP bill program. 
The Senate recently voted 68 to 31 to do that--68 to 31, pretty 
overwhelming. That bill would have provided insurance to millions of 
children who do not have any. Well, maybe the Senator from Oklahoma did 
not agree with how that was done but, nonetheless, 68 Senators did 
agree on both sides of the aisle on that approach.
  So, again, if the Senator was really concerned about the plight of 
these children, I would suggest that rather then voting against the 
SCHIP bill, which obviously provides some guidance and direction, that 
there is another way of doing it. Again, I point out that the Senate 
voted overwhelmingly to do that.
  That vote on SCHIP was a key one on children's health insurance, not 
a completely unrelated vote dealing with congressionally directed 
spending, which is what this is.
  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, if he wants more kids to have 
health insurance, then vote for a bill that would provide more health 
insurance to kids. If it is not the SCHIP bill, then what is it? It has 
been suggested that maybe a vote for the Coburn amendment might be a 
nice cover vote for those who oppose the SCHIP bill. I don't think so. 
Perhaps more and more people are finding out that a vote against the 
SCHIP bill was not a very popular one, as we hear from communities and 
States. But an amendment such as this doesn't change the facts about 
the SCHIP bill, one way or the other.
  I also disagree with the Senator's implication, if I might say, that 
congressionally directed projects in the bill are unworthy of Federal 
spending. I am proud of the projects I included in this bill. I will be 
glad to defend every one of them. Again, with the transparency we have 
that came with the new ethics reform bill, all of these have been 
spread upon the record. We know who asked for them and we know how much 
money is involved. I am happy to defend every one of the ones I put in 
there. I should add that many of the projects the Senator wants to 
eliminate are, in fact, directed to children's health. Let me cite a 
few examples.
  There is congressionally directed funding for St. Francis Hospital in 
Delaware to expand prenatal maternity and pediatric services to 
indigents. There is funding for the Youth Crisis Center in 
Jacksonville, FL to address the serious health consequences facing 
runaway and homeless youth. There is funding for St. Luke's Regional 
Medical Center in Boise, ID to expand pediatric services. There is 
funding for the St. Louis Children's Hospital in St. Louis for neonatal 
intensive care unit expansion. There is funding for the Mississippi 
Gulf Coast Children's Health Project which uses mobile units to provide 
primary care to indigent children along the gulf coast. There is 
funding for Child Sight in New Mexico, a vision screening and eyeglass 
program especially for Native Americans on reservations. There is 
funding for St. Anthony's Hospital in Oklahoma City for construction of 
a newborn nursery. All of these would be cut out if the amendment were 
adopted. They are good provisions, and they will go a long way toward 
helping children's health in all of these instances.
  Again, I don't see this as a serious means of doing anything to help 
children's health. It is an attack on congressionally directed funding 
to which the Senator is opposed. As I said, I support congressionally 
directed funding. I always have. I especially support it now with the 
new provisions on transparency and accountability as a result of the 
ethics bill we recently passed.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opposition has 4 minutes 50 
seconds. The proponents have 6 minutes 50 seconds.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator whatever time he requires.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa, chairman of the subcommittee, 
has already advanced the substantive argument about our efforts to deal 
with health care for children. I have supported it with a very solid 
vote. We will take care of that issue. The President has vetoed the 
bill, and I and others have signified our willingness to vote to 
override. It was not overridden in the House. The President has 
signified his willingness to negotiate. There are some who do not want 
to negotiate on the congressional side. I believe that is a mistake. If 
they want to attach political blame to the President if the program 
should lapse, ultimately, we will have a negotiation because the 
American people would see through the facade and understand that those 
who refuse to negotiate are the ones responsible if the program lapses 
and is terminated. We will take care of congressional and Federal 
action for children's health.
  What the amendment seeks to do is to eliminate earmarks. Earmarks 
have a specific congressional designation budget-wise and are vitally 
important projects, such as the dredging of the Delaware in 
Philadelphia to provide a 45-foot channel which traditionally has been 
the responsibility of the Federal Government under constitutional 
provisions on waterways and related matters. It would eliminate flood 
control, which is vital. It would eliminate many items where there is 
congressional expertise and understanding.
  Take the budget that is on the floor now. It is $152 billion. We have 
allocated $400 million, which is about one-quarter of 1 percent. So 
99\3/4\ percent goes to the bureaucrats in the Department of Education, 
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Labor. I suggest that is an imbalance. People in the House of 
Representatives know their districts much better than people sitting 
downtown in big bureaus in Washington. Senators know their States 
better than the bureaucrats. I dare say the astute Senator from 
Oklahoma, the proponent of this amendment, knows what is going on in 
Oklahoma better than the bureaucrats and would be in a better position 
to identify projects which are worthwhile. But to limit congressional 
control to one-quarter of 1 percent is certainly not appropriate, 
certainly not overbearing. I wouldn't call it de minimis because no 
dollar amount is de minimis. We understand it is not the Government's 
money; it is the taxpayers' money.
  The Senator from Iowa has made a very fundamental point. In fact, he 
made a couple of fundamental points; in fact, he has made several 
fundamental points. One is the transparency. It is all out in the open. 
We are prepared to debate any move to strike any of the so-called 
earmarks. Earmarks has become a dirty word. But when you reach a real 
need somewhere and have an application for Federal funds that a Member 
of the House or the Senate understands, and in the broader context of 
one-quarter of 1 percent, I don't think that goes too far to having 
Members who know their States and know their districts make those 
allocations.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 6 minutes 50 
seconds, and the opposition has 23 seconds.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  I stand somewhat amused that we are so powerless that the bureaucracy 
is

[[Page 27902]]

going to decide where everything goes. Earmarks are not the only way to 
decide how the budget is put out, and the fact that we use the excuse 
that we don't have any control, it is called oversight. Last year in 
the last Congress more oversight hearings were held by myself and Tom 
Carper, true oversight hearings, than all the rest of the Senate. The 
fact is, we don't want to do the hard work of oversight because it is 
easy to earmark something. But in fact, in dredging, you can hold the 
Corps of Engineers to a priority list. You can bring them before 
Congress and say: Why aren't you dredging this? How is this a priority 
against something else? We don't do the hard work of oversight. That is 
our problem. Instead, we want to do it the easy way.
  I don't deny these are good projects. They are. I am not saying they 
are not. What I am saying is, what about the long term? What about the 
fact that a child born today is inheriting $400,000 in unfunded 
liabilities and that earmarks happen to be the tool that allows us to 
spend more than we should, not directly through the earmarks but by 
voting for bills that should not be voted on? But because we have an 
earmark in the bill, we vote for the bill.
  We have an unfunded liability right now on Medicare of $34 billion. 
We are never going to be trusted to fix that problem when we can't be 
trusted to have an arm's-length separate allocation and look at what 
the problems are in front of us in terms of labor, health, and human 
services.
  I don't deny what people want to do in this bill could be 
prioritized. But the number of requests were 36,000 this year. The fact 
is, can we get what are priorities for this country if we continue the 
process of using earmarks?
  How about children's health? Yes, we passed a bill. We passed a bill 
that truly wasn't paid for unless we want 22 million Americans to start 
smoking. We passed a bill that said: We are going to pay $4,000 to buy 
$2,300 worth of care. We are great stewards when it comes to the 
American taxpayers' money on this new SCHIP bill. There is no question 
we are going to get an SCHIP bill. That SCHIP bill is going to truly 
reflect the needs of the poor people who are not eligible for Medicaid. 
We are going to put the money there we need to accomplish that. But to 
confuse that bill with a process which has got us $9.5 trillion in debt 
and hung every one of our kids out to dry, that is what this amendment 
is about. It is the process I am attacking.
  I am not attacking individual Senators. I am saying if we are going 
to get control of the spending, at some point in the future we have to 
look at the process and how it works. For us to say it is easier for us 
to earmark than to hold the bureaucracy accountable means we are not 
doing our job. We can hold the bureaucracies accountable. All we have 
to do is have an oversight hearing three times a week and make them 
come up here and explain how they are spending their money. They will 
start spending on priorities Americans want. We don't have our hands 
tied behind us just because we don't do earmarks.
  The real question America is asking is, are we going to change our 
ways about real priorities, the real future for our country, or are we 
going to continue the same old process that has brought us all the 
corruption we have seen come through the House in the past that leads 
to conflicts of interest?
  We talk about transparency. We gutted the transparency rules as far 
as appropriations are concerned in this bill and in our ethics bill, 
because no longer do you say who is getting it or what it is for. You 
only say where it is going. The very things that are in the House bill 
in terms of transparency are not available to us in the Senate, so we 
can't claim transparency. We are going to get transparency in September 
of next year when the transparency bill comes about.
  Senator Harkin mentioned that we didn't offer an option. Senator Burr 
and I both did, the Every American Kid Insured Act. We talked about it 
on this floor during the debate on the SCHIP bill. There are other ways 
to do this. Give them all a tax credit. Let them buy the insurance. We 
have 9 million kids out there uninsured, 3 million more within 1 year. 
There are ways for us to solve that. But this is not a farce amendment. 
This is an amendment about a very real problem. Will we have the right 
priorities when it comes to this country or are we going to send $42 
million to international labor organizations with no accountability 
whatsoever from the United Nations? That is what we are doing. That is 
what this bill does. We have another $400 million worth of earmarks 
that are not competitively bid and will never be overseen, and you will 
never see where the money goes. So the question on the amendment is, 
will we change the process.
  It is a serious amendment. We should not be earmarking things until 
we do our business of taking care of kids' insurance.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 23 seconds remaining for 
the opposition.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I point out that the Coburn amendment 
doesn't put 1 cent into helping children's health, not 1 penny. Yet in 
the bill itself, as I pointed out, there are a number of programs that 
actually go to help children's health all over this country. The Coburn 
amendment would eradicate those.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I do want to give the yeas and nays to the 
Senator. I was just going to move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second on the 
amendment itself?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: As to the unanimous 
consent request that we agreed to, was it not agreed to that we were 
going to have votes on these amendments up or down?
  Mr. HARKIN. No.
  Mr. COBURN. That was not part of the unanimous consent agreement? 
Fine.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, it was 
on or in relation to. So, yes, ask that again.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been ordered 
on the amendment itself.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the matter of management, after these 
votes we will move ahead to take up any other amendments that any 
Senators wish to offer. We had an understanding to conclude this bill 
by 12:30 today, and we are anxious to come as close to that time as we 
can. If Senators want to pursue any other amendments, they ought to 
consult with the managers immediately or we intend to go to third 
reading to complete this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I 
think we are getting close. With these three votes coming up now, 
hopefully we are just a few amendments away from completing the bill, 
and hopefully we will have it done early this afternoon. I had hoped we 
would have it done by 12:30, but that does not look possible. But we 
are getting close. I hope when Senators come over to the Chamber we can 
work out some other amendments that are pending at this time, and 
perhaps we can get a consent to limit the number of amendments and 
bring closure to this bill sometime early this afternoon.


                           Amendment No. 3437

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
question recurs on the Enzi amendment. There is 2 minutes evenly 
divided.

[[Page 27903]]

  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, again, I would ask that Senators support my 
amendment to strike what we are talking about, which is an earmark of 
$6.2 million for San Francisco and another $3 million for a few other 
towns.
  We are changing law that we passed less than a year ago under an 
authorization process. It is much harder to pass an authorization bill 
than it is an appropriations bill. We should not be changing formulas 
under an appropriations bill.
  The GAO numbers that we said would happen are approximately what has 
happened. Of the $9 million, San Francisco gets $6.2 million. They 
already get twice as much per HIV/AIDS case as any of the rest of the 
towns. We put in a hold harmless provision so nobody would lose more 
than 5 percent of their money. We have been staying by that. We did not 
guarantee supplemental money. That was done less than a year ago. This 
is an earmark.
  There were waiting lines for people who needed HIV treatment and 
care. There are no waiting lines today. What we did last year worked. 
We should not change it under appropriations now.
  I ask that you vote for my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator's 1 minute has 
expired.
  There is 1 minute in opposition to the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since no one wants to be recognized in 
opposition, I yield back the time.
  Mr. ENZI. 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 amendment No. 3437.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 ``no.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 383 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                                NAYS--28

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3437) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Coburn amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I make a point of order that the 
Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we now proceed to 2 minutes on the Coburn 
amendment. After that, then we will have 2 minutes on the DeMint 
amendment and vote. These will be 10-minute votes as per the prior 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment. It is 
an amendment about where our priorities lie. Do they lie in our 
directed spending or do they lie with the children of this country who 
aren't covered?
  It is a very simple amendment. I know there are things in the bill 
for children, but the fact is out of the 9.5 million who are uncovered, 
we have 3.6 million who have not been covered for a year.
  So this amendment simply states we are not going to spend any money 
on the directed spending until the HHS Secretary certifies that we have 
done our job in terms of taking care of the kids. Whether that is the 
SCHIP bill, negotiations with the administration or whatever it is, we 
are not going to spend the money.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senate please be called to 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The senior Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the issue of providing health care for 
children will be taken care of on the SCHIP bill, which ultimately will 
be subject to negotiations between the President and the Congress. The 
allocations on earmarks amount to approximately one-quarter of 1 
percent. Ninety-nine and three-quarters percent will go to the 
bureaucrats in the departments.
  Members of the Senate and House have more knowledge about what is 
going on in their districts and their States, and this is a very modest 
application for very worthwhile programs. The Senator from Oklahoma 
conceded in the argument earlier that he is not challenging the 
worthwhileness of any of these programs. Any of them are subject to 
attack to be stricken, and they are all defensible.
  I ask that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Coburn amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 384 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman

[[Page 27904]]


     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3387

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there will now be 2 minutes 
prior to the vote on the DeMint amendment, which we already have moved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' attention. I 
would first like to ask unanimous consent to add Senator Enzi as a 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that 
my amendment does not remove any money from this bill for its intended 
purpose. In fact, the amendment addresses the Workforce Investment Act, 
money that goes to training and job placement in several places in the 
country. My amendment only changes the language from a sole-source 
noncompetitive grant, which we would refer to as a direct earmark, to a 
competitive grant.
  We have all seen that the competitive grant system is a better way to 
deliver Federal money to specific causes that we support as a Senate 
because there are criteria, there are standards, and there is 
accountability. So we are not excluding the AFL-CIO as a provider of 
the services that we intend, but it opens it for competitive bids. And 
it is important to realize that the Department of Labor, after judging 
the performance of the AFL-CIO, has found the performance lacking and 
has discontinued the contracts.
  So please open this for competitive bidding. Please vote no on the 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this program has been in operation for 
decades and has proven to be very effective. A hearing held by the 
subcommittee back on July 22, 2004, went into some of the detail. The 
program addresses job training and Job Corps. One program, 
illustratively, in Philadelphia seeks to give training to young people 
who are at risk, come from broken families--no father and a working 
mother. It is directed toward training across the Appalachian Council, 
States in the Rust Belt, which have been hit very hard by unfair 
foreign competition, to have training and to have workmanship skills 
developed.
  It has been a successful program, and it ought to be retained. Vote 
aye to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 385 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order be 
delayed so the manager can propose a unanimous consent so that I can 
offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


Amendments Nos. 3351, as modified; 3376, as modified; 3397, 3401, 3430, 
                      3436, 3418, and 3388 En Bloc

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will 
withhold for a second, I have two modifications I send to the desk, a 
modification of amendment No. 3351, a Smith amendment, and amendment 
No. 3376. I have two modifications I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are so 
modified.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendments No. 3351, as 
modified; 3376, as modified; 3397, by Senator Lautenberg; 3401, by 
Senator Cardin; amendment No. 3430, by Senator Feingold; amendment No. 
3436, by Senator Hatch; amendment No. 3418, by Senator Lieberman; and 
amendment No. 3388, by Senator DeMint. These have all been agreed to. I 
ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc.
  If there is no further debate, the amendments are agreed to without 
objection, en bloc.
  The amendments considered and agreed to en bloc are as follows:


                    amendment no. 3351, as modified

       At the end of title II, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount made available under the heading 
     ``aging services programs'' under the heading 
     ``Administration on Aging'' in this title shall be increased 
     by $10,000,000 of which--
       (1) $5,000,000 shall be used to carry out part B of title 
     III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3030d) for 
     fiscal year 2008 (for supportive services and senior centers 
     to allow area agencies on aging to account for projected 
     growth in the population of older individuals, and 
     inflation);
       (2) $2,000,000 shall be used to carry out part C of title 
     III of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3030d-21 et seq.) for fiscal year 
     2008 (for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services to 
     help account for increased gas and food costs); and
       (3) $3,000,000 shall be used to carry out part E of title 
     III of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3030s et seq.) for fiscal year 
     2008 (for the National Family Caregiver Support Program to 
     fund the program at the level authorized for that program 
     under that Act (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)).
       (b)(1) The 3 amounts described in paragraph (2) shall be 
     reduced on a pro rata basis, to achieve a total reduction of 
     $10,000,000.
       (2) The amounts referred to in paragraph (1) are--
       (A) the amount made available under the heading ``salaries 
     and expenses'' under the heading ``Departmental Management'' 
     in title I, for administration or travel expenses;
       (B) the amount made available under the heading ``general 
     departmental management'' under the heading ``Office of the

[[Page 27905]]

     Secretary'' in this title, for administration or travel 
     expenses; and
       (C) the amount made available under the heading ``program 
     administration'' under the heading ``Departmental 
     Management'' in title III, for administration or travel 
     expenses.


                    amendment no. 3376, as modified

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, there shall be made available under this Act a total of 
     $7,500,000 for the National Violent Death Reporting System 
     within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
        (b) Amounts made available under this Act for travel and 
     administrative expenses 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 $7,500,000.


                             amendment 3397

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting 
   through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services, to submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
Senate on workers' compensation set-asides under the Medicare secondary 
  payer set-aside provisions under title XVIII of the Social Security 
                                  Act)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services, shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives on workers' 
     compensation set-asides under the Medicare secondary payer 
     set-aside provisions under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act.
       (b) The report described in subsection (a) shall contain 
     the following information:
       (1) The number of workers' compensation set-aside 
     determination requests that have been pending for more than 
     60 days from the date of the initial submission for a 
     workers' compensation set-aside determination.
       (2) The average amount of time taken between the date of 
     the initial submission for a workers' compensation set-aside 
     determination request and the date of the final determination 
     by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
       (3) The breakout of conditional payments recovered when 
     workers' compensation is the primary payer separate from the 
     amounts in Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-aside Accounts 
     (in this section referred to as ``WCMSAs'').
       (4) The aggregate amounts allocated in WCMSAs and 
     disbursements from WCMSAs for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal 
     year 2006.
       (5) The number of conditional payment requests pending with 
     regard to WCMSAs after 60 days from the date of the 
     submission of the request.
       (6) The number of WCMSAs that do not receive a 
     determination based on the initial complete submission.
       (7) Any other information determined appropriate by the 
     Congressional Budget Office in order to determine the 
     baseline revenue and expenditures associated with such 
     workers' compensation set-asides.


                           amendment no. 3401

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
 Health and Human Services should maintain ``deemed status'' coverage 
   under the Medicare program for clinical trials that are federally 
funded or reviewed as provided for by the Executive Memorandum of June 
                                 2000)

       On the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services should maintain ``deemed 
     status'' coverage under the Medicare program for clinical 
     trials that are federally funded or reviewed, as provided for 
     by the Executive Memorandum of June 2000.


                           amendment no. 3430

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
   submit a report to Congress on student preparation techniques for 
                      standards-based assessments)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a)  Not later than May 31, 2009, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit a report to 
     Congress on student preparation techniques to meet State 
     academic achievement standards and achieve on State academic 
     assessments.
        (b) The report required under subsection (a) shall include 
     a compilation of data collected from surveying a 
     representative sample of schools across the Nation to 
     determine the range of techniques that schools are using in 
     order to prepare students to meet State academic achievement 
     standards and achieve on State academic assessments, 
     including the extent to which schools have--
       (1) extended the school day;
       (2) hired curriculum specialists to train teachers or work 
     with individual students or small groups of students;
       (3) de-emphasized academic subjects of which State academic 
     achievement standards and assessments are not required under 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.);
       (4) used commercial test preparation material;
       (5) provided increased professional development for 
     teachers;
       (6) targeted low-performing students for specialized 
     instruction or tutoring;
       (7) instituted formative or benchmark exams;
       (8) distributed old exam questions to teachers and students 
     and focused instruction on these old exam questions;
       (9) increased instructional time on tested subjects; or
       (10) used any other techniques to prepare students to meet 
     State academic achievement standards and achieve on State 
     academic assessments.
       (c) The data collected pursuant to this section shall be 
     reported--
       (1) as data for all schools; and
       (2) as data disaggregated by--
       (A) high-poverty schools;
       (B) low-poverty schools;
       (C) schools with a student enrollment consisting of a 
     majority of minority students;
       (D) schools with a student enrollment consisting of a 
     majority of non-minority students;
       (E) urban schools;
       (F) suburban schools;
       (G) rural schools; and
       (H) schools identified as in need of improvement under 
     section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316).
       (d) The representative sample described in subsection (b) 
     shall be designed in such a manner as to provide valid, 
     reliable, and accurate information as well as sufficient 
     sample sizes for each type of school described in subsection 
     (c).


                           amendment no. 3436

 (Purpose: To assess the impact of education funding in western States 
                with a high proportion of public lands)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``Provided further, That the Secretary of Education shall 
     assess the impact on education felt by students in States 
     with a high proportion of Federal land compared to students 
     in non-public land States. The study shall consider current 
     student teacher ratios, trends in student teacher ratios, the 
     proportion of property tax dedicated to education in each 
     State, and the impact of these and other factors on education 
     in public land States. The Secretary shall submit the report 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3418

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to close a field office of the 
Social Security Administration before submission of a report justifying 
                              the closure)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act or any other Act making appropriations 
     to the agencies funded by this Act may be used to close or 
     otherwise cease to operate the field office of the Social 
     Security Administration located in Bristol, Connecticut, 
     before the date on which the Commissioner of Social Security 
     submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     comprehensive and detailed report outlining and justifying 
     the process for selecting field offices to be closed. Such 
     report shall include--
       (1) a thorough analysis of the criteria used for selecting 
     field offices for closure and how the Commissioner of Social 
     Security analyzes and considers factors relating to 
     transportation and communication burdens faced by elderly and 
     disabled citizens as a result of field office closures, 
     including the extent to which elderly citizens have access 
     to, and competence with, online services; and
       (2) for each field office proposed to be closed during 
     fiscal year 2007 or 2008, including the office located in 
     Bristol, Connecticut, a thorough cost-benefit analysis for 
     each such closure that takes into account--
       (A) the savings anticipated as a result of the closure;
       (B) the anticipated burdens placed on elderly and disabled 
     citizens; and
       (C) any costs associated with replacement services and 
     provisional contact stations.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3388

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by cities that provide safe 
                     havens to illegal drug users)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be allocated, 
     directed, or otherwise made available to cities that provide 
     safe haven to illegal drug users through the use of illegal 
     drug injection facilities.


                Amendments Nos. 3350 and 3446 Withdrawn

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, regarding amendment No. 3350 by Senator 
Lautenberg and No. 3446 by Senator

[[Page 27906]]

Landrieu, I ask unanimous consent they both be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3398 to amendment no. 3325

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know we want to and need to break for 
recess in a moment so I will not be very long at all. I call up 
amendment No. 3398. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendments? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3398.

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


                           amendment no. 3398

      (Purpose: To provice funding for the Fire Fighter Fatality 
                 Investigation and Prevention Program)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  To enable the National Institute for Occupational 
     Safety and Health to carry out the Fire Fighter Fatality 
     Investigation and Prevention Program, $5,000,000, which shall 
     include any other amounts made available under this Act for 
     such Program. Amounts made available under this Act for 
     travel expenses for the Department of Labor, the Department 
     of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education 
     shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by the percentage 
     necessary to decrease the overall amount of such spending by 
     $2,500,000.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in February of this year, I sent a letter 
to the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human 
Services regarding a report from the Centers for Disease Control that 
actually blocked an investigation into the death of 6 firefighters 
whose personal safety equipment had failed them between 1998 and the 
year 2000. In the response to me, the inspector general reported that 
funding of the current funds that exist in the Firefighter Fatality 
Investigation and Prevention Fund within the National Institutes of 
Occupational Health and Safety is flat. Their resources are such that 
they have had to pick and choose where they can conduct those kinds of 
investigations.
  Every year, about 100 firefighters die in the line of duty in America 
and about 87,000 are injured. This fund is an investigative fund that 
helps find ways in which we can protect firefighter lives--whether 
there is a certain kind of equipment that might have made a difference 
or a certain procedure that might have made a difference. Obviously, 
for those fire stations, fire houses with the losses or those that face 
a future risk, to know we are selectively choosing where we investigate 
and where we do not does not do the job. We need to investigate all of 
those fatalities, and we need to do everything possible to provide our 
firefighters the procedures and equipment necessary to save lives.
  This funding will add an additional $2.5 million to that 
investigative fund and allow us to complete our responsibility to those 
courageous firefighters across the country.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from the International Association 
of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 18, 2007.
     Hon. John F. Kerry
     304 Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the International 
     Association of Fire Chiefs, representing nearly 13,000 chief 
     fire and emergency officers, and the International 
     Association of Fire Fighters, representing more than 280,000 
     professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, 
     we are writing to express our strong support for your 
     amendment to the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act providing 
     $5 million for the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and 
     Prevention Program (FFFIPP) of the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
       Of the 1.1 million fire fighters who selflessly serve their 
     communities and their country, approximately 100 die on the 
     job each year. Additionally, the National Fire Protection 
     Association estimates that 80,100 fire fighter injuries 
     occurred in the line of duty in 2005 alone. The FFFIPP is 
     instrumental in discovering the primary factors contributing 
     to fire fighter deaths and recommending ways to prevent 
     future deaths and injuries.
       Since its inception in 1998, the FFFIPP--in cooperation 
     with fire departments and fire fighters around the country--
     has conducted over 300 fatality investigations. The findings 
     and recommendations of these investigations have led to 
     increased awareness of fire fighter safety and health 
     hazards, and led to numerous cooperative efforts among and 
     between the fire service and NIOSH to improve fire fighter 
     safety and health.
       Despite such successes, fatality investigations are not as 
     common nor as comprehensive as they should be. According to a 
     recent report by the inspector general of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, such shortcomings are caused, in 
     part, by a lack of resources.
       Congress clearly intended for NIOSH to thoroughly 
     investigate every fire fighter line-of-duty death. By 
     doubling the funding allocated for the FFFIPP in FY 2007, 
     your amendment will allow NIOSH to better fulfill its 
     Congressional mandate and help prevent fire fighter injuries 
     and deaths.
       Thank you for your leadership in protecting the health and 
     safety of our Nation's first responders. We look forward to 
     continue working with you to prevent future deaths and 
     injuries among fire fighters.
           Sincerely,
                                  Chief Steven P. Westermann, CFO,
                            President, International Association  
                                                   of Fire Chiefs.

                                       Harold A. Schaitberger,

                                  General President, International
     Association of Fire Fighters.
                                  ____

  Mr. KERRY. I think both sides have now agreed to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, can we withhold for a second? The 
amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts is accepted on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3398) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and the distinguished manager.

                          ____________________