[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30266-30282]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3043, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and do the 
     same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 5, 2007.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I understand the order, we now have 1 
hour; is that correct? Am I correct we have 1 hour divided up in 15-
minute blocks?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would be advised there is a total 
of 3 hours, of which the Senator controls 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I urge all Senators to support the Labor-
Health and Human Services appropriations conference report. The Senate 
version of this bill passed, as we all know, a couple weeks ago. We had 
75 votes in favor of it. We would have had 80 votes if all Senators had 
been here. So it was a strong bipartisan endorsement of a bill that 
reflected priorities on both sides of the aisle.
  I am here today to say I am pleased the conference report we are 
considering is even stronger than the bill the Senate approved 2 weeks 
ago. Much has

[[Page 30267]]

been added to the bill. I thought what I might do, for the benefit of 
other Senators, is sort of run through the priorities in this bill and 
what our appropriations bill does compared to the President's budget. I 
think it will give everyone a good idea of how strong this bill is, why 
we garnered so much support in the first place and why I hope we will 
garner even more support with the conference report.
  Right now, the conference report invests about $8.2 billion more than 
last year in education, health, and labor programs. The President's 
budget cut $3.5 billion--cut $3.5 billion--from these programs. I will 
run through those now, and I will give you a good idea what those are.
  Let's take home energy assistance. This is the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. At a time when we have record high energy prices, 
the conference report boosts it by $250 million. The President's budget 
cut the LIHEAP program by $379 million. It is a clear contrast between 
the President's budget and where we are.
  Student aid. Since this covers education, what we did is have the 
biggest increase ever in support for Pell grants for kids who are at 
the lowest rung on the economic ladder who need these grants in order 
to even go to college. So what we did in our bill is we boosted the 
maximum award to $4,925. The President's budget limited it to $4,550, 
which is far short of the amount needed to even begin to pay for higher 
tuition.
  Strengthening the poor. Now, here again, in the conference report, we 
have provided $2.4 billion in the block grants for the Social Services 
Block Grant Program and the Community Services Block Grant Program. 
These are the things that go for housing for the poor. It goes for 
things such as Head Start Programs, all that helps to shore up our 
social services system and also community systems--as I said, whether 
it is housing, homeless aid, things such as that for the country.
  We have provided $2.4 billion for that. The President's budget cut 
both of these. In fact, it cut the community services block grants to 
zero. They absolutely zeroed it out. Then they cut the social services 
block grants by about a third. So when you add them together, he cut 
them both by about 50 percent--at a time when we have more poor people 
in this country than we had in the last several years, when, again, the 
cost of housing is up, all the other things are up for poor people to 
pay. Yet he wants to cut it by 50 percent. Unconscionable. Well, we met 
our obligations. We put in $2.4 billion for that.
  The next one is medical research. Now, again, this Senate has been on 
record time and time again supporting healthy, good increases for the 
National Institutes of Health for the research needed for overcoming 
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and for the research that is being done at 
the National Cancer Institute and all the basic research that is funded 
that goes out to all our colleges and universities and other entities 
around the country.
  We made such great progress in breaking the genetic code. We are 
making such great progress in understanding a lot of the illnesses. We 
are on the threshold with stem cell research and others of entering 
into a whole new era of uncovering the causes and the therapeutic 
treatments and cures for a lot of these illnesses. So we are right on 
that threshold.
  The President's budget cut the National Institutes of Health by $279 
million--actually cut it. Our conference report has added $1.1 billion 
for the National Institutes of Health. Actually, it is slightly more 
than what we had in the Senate when we passed the bill a couple weeks 
ago.
  On special education, this Congress, about 40 years ago, said we were 
going to provide up to 40 percent of the difference in the cost of 
educating kids with disabilities when they were mainstreamed in our 
schools. We wanted to put behind us the dark history of the segregation 
and isolation of kids with disabilities who were taken away from their 
homes, taken away from their neighborhoods, and sent away across the 
State to schools for the deaf, schools for the blind or maybe a lot of 
times were not even given an education.
  So about 40 years ago, this Congress decided we were going to meet 
our constitutional requirements and make sure kids with disabilities 
had equal and appropriate education. But in doing so, we were going to 
help the States by providing up to 40 percent of the additional costs 
of special education.
  Well, the high mark has been about 18 percent. That was about 3 or 4 
years ago, if I am not mistaken--3 or 4 years ago. Since then, we have 
gone backward. We are now down, under the Bush budget, to 16 percent. 
So we are going in the wrong direction. So what President Bush's budget 
did is slashed $291 million for special education. What we have done is 
add $509 million to State grants to help our beleaguered property 
taxpayers in New Jersey and Iowa and all across this country, to help 
them meet the educational needs of our kids with disabilities. So we 
met our obligations there. The President did not.
  On Social Security, we now know people are waiting as much as 15 
months to get their cases heard. There is a backlog of several hundred 
thousand right now. If we do not add the necessary personnel, people 
are not going to get it, and maybe some of them will die in the 
meantime. I don't know. People keep getting more and more backlogged 
and get frustrated by this system. They should not have to do that. 
People paid in all their lives to Social Security. They ought to get 
their cases heard in a timely manner. So what we did is we added enough 
to cut down on the delays. The President's budget would not do that.
  On community health centers, again, the President, when he became 
President, said he wanted to have a community health center in every 
poor area in the country. I applauded loudly for that. I thought at 
least here is something the President and we could agree on.
  Well, what does the President's budget do? There is no increase at 
all for community health centers, not a dime. So we put in $225 million 
more to increase funding new community health centers in some of our 
poorer areas of this country. So we met our obligation there, also, in 
terms of meeting health care needs of people who do not have anywhere 
else to go.
  The Head Start Program, which has proven its worth clear back to the 
Great Society. It is one of the Great Society programs. The President's 
budget cut Head Start by $100 million--cut it by $100 million--leaving 
thousands of kids behind. In our conference report, we have increased 
it by $153 million--not nearly what we need to meet the needs of all 
the kids who want to get into Head Start, but at least under our tight 
budget requirements, we were able to increase it substantially. So we 
met our obligations there in Head Start.
  So these are some parts of the budget I want Senators to know about. 
There is a lot of other stuff, too, but these items kind of highlight 
the difference between where we are in this conference report and where 
the President's budget is.
  Again, I thank Senator Specter for the close working relationship we 
have had. This has been a bipartisan effort from the beginning to right 
now. Again, that is why I urge all Senators to support this conference 
report.
  Now, the President said he is going to veto it because he said our 
bill had too much social spending. I would like to ask him to define 
what he means by ``social spending.'' The way he said it was almost 
like we were funding ice cream socials or something like that in this 
bill. Again, this is out of bounds, out of touch. It shows how isolated 
President Bush has become. Every additional dime we have put in goes to 
bedrock, essential programs and services this Congress and this 
President and other Presidents have always supported.
  It is interesting that in the last 5, 6 years, the President has not 
vetoed any appropriations bills. When the Republicans were in charge, 
the President did not veto an appropriations bill, even though they 
were over what his budget requests were.

[[Page 30268]]

  Lo and behold, the Democrats, because of the last election, now 
control the House and the Senate, and the President said he is going to 
veto every one of them, except Defense, I guess, maybe Military 
Construction-VA. All the other ones he is going to veto. He is going to 
veto the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations 
bill because it has ``too much social spending.'' Yet he signed all the 
other bills before this year.
  I find that more than passing strange that the President, this year, 
says he is going to veto it. Well, it all adds up to politics. 
Evidently, the President and his advisers think somehow they are going 
to get some kind of political gain--some kind of political gain--by 
vetoing our bill for Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor.
  Well, I do not know what kind of calculus goes into that, but it is 
bad calculus. It is bad calculus if the President thinks he might make 
some political gain by cutting Head Start Programs or by cutting 
special education or by cutting funding for the National Institutes of 
Health because it is over his budget, it is ``too much.'' Well, he 
never said that before. He never said that before to any Republican 
appropriations bill that passed in the last 5 years. I guess only 
because the Democrats are in charge he wants to veto it.
  I would say to the President: This is not a Democratic bill. Yes, we 
may be in charge because of the election last year, but I still point 
out that this bill passed the Senate with 75 votes. As I said earlier, 
there were five missing who would have voted for it. It would have been 
80 to 20. You cannot get much more bipartisan than that. It is not a 
Democratic bill.
  Senator Specter and I and other people worked very hard on this bill. 
So I do not see where the President comes across in saying he is going 
to veto it. I think the President is so isolated, so out of touch that 
someone said: Well, this is over your budget, so you have to veto it. 
And he said: OK. Fine, I will do it.
  Well, again, the other thing is, when the President sent down his 
first veto message on this bill, he said he was going to veto it 
because of two things. He was going to veto it because we had included 
a provision dealing with stem cell research, which he was opposed to 
and because it was over his budget.
  Well, both Senator Specter and I agreed in the beginning--even though 
we both feel very strongly about overcoming the President's dictates on 
stopping funding for stem cell research--even though we feel strongly 
about that, we were willing to go halfway to meet the President. We 
said: OK, we will take the stem cell portion out of here. So we would 
like to meet you halfway. Well, what we heard from the White House was: 
That is not enough. It has to be all his way, all the President's way.
  Well, that is not the way we do things around here. We compromise. 
The art of democratic rule is to make our compromises. So I figured, if 
we gave up on our stem cell, then he might give up a little bit on his. 
But that is not the way the President sees it. It has to be all his way 
or no way.
  Again, we do not do business like that around here. As I said, we 
have a farm bill on the floor this year that I am also chairing, and it 
is not all I want, it is not all anybody wants. In the farm bill, we 
have to make our compromises and agreements to get the job done.
  But this President is unwilling--unwilling--to compromise, unwilling 
to sit down with us and hammer out some kind of a reasonable 
compromise. So we are left with only one course of action. We have to 
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities as appropriators to fund 
the Government, to fund that which Senators and Congresspeople think 
are priorities and, yes, that the administration also thinks are 
priorities. So our constitutional obligation is to work these things 
out and get the best bill we can that people agree upon. As I said, 
with 75 votes, you can't get much better than that. So I guess we are 
left with only one course of action: Pass our bill and get it to the 
President, and I guess he will veto it. It doesn't make sense to me. It 
makes no sense for the President to veto this bill. As I said, I can't 
figure out what he--and then to veto it without saying: Let's sit down 
and work and maybe we can get some agreement. That has not happened. 
So, again, we are left with only one course of action: Pass the bill, 
the conference report. I hope Senators will support it as strongly, if 
not more strongly, than they supported the original bill that passed in 
the Senate.
  Finally, let me say this: Even with this conference report, we have 
met all of our pay-go requirements. This bill does not add a single 
dime to the deficit of this country--not a dime. But by cutting a 
little bit here and adding there to certain priorities, we were able to 
get a bill that we basically all agree upon. Would I have liked to have 
had more in NIH? You bet I would. Would I have liked to have had more 
in the Head Start Program? Yes, I would have. Would I have liked to 
have had more for special education? Yes. The President wanted less 
than that, so we tried to meet him halfway. Yet the President says no, 
he wants it all his way.
  So I hope Senators will support this conference report on Education, 
Health and Human Services, and Labor overwhelmingly, send it to the 
President, and hopefully he will change his mind. Hopefully, between 
now and then, he will think: Well, you know, maybe I should sign it, 
after all. Hope springs eternal. We will just have to wait and see. If 
he signs it, God bless him. That is good. We will be done with it, and 
we will move on to next year. If he vetoes it, well, we will just have 
to come back and hopefully, with the 75 or 80 votes we have had for it, 
we will override the veto. It is just not a good way to do things, and 
it causes the kind of confrontation and it causes the kind of bad 
things happening in Washington that the people of this country want us 
to end. They want us to work things out and move things along. We have 
done it here in the Senate. We have done it in the House with 
Republicans and Democrats. Now it is up to the President to also sit 
down and negotiate in good faith.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased this afternoon to recommend the 
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies division 
of this conference report to the Senate. This is an extremely important 
and time-sensitive funding measure, and I urge my colleagues to adopt 
it without delay as part of the Labor and Health and Human Services 
conference report and send it to the President to be signed into law.
  I am particularly honored to be presenting this measure to the Senate 
on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Tim Johnson. We 
have worked closely throughout the entire appropriations process, and 
the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs provisions before the 
Senate today are the product of a thoroughly collaborative and a 
cooperative effort, but the leadership was provided by Senator Johnson. 
I appreciate Senator Johnson's graciousness in allowing me to offer 
this conference report on his behalf.
  I would also like to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, 
Senator Hutchison, for her excellent work and cooperation in developing 
this conference report and the chairman and ranking member of the full 
committee, Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran, for their strong support 
and guidance in shepherding this legislation to the floor.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs conference report 
before the Senate today is fair, balanced, and a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that deserves the full support of the Senate.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs portion of this 
conference report is critically important to our Nation's military 
forces and to our veterans. It includes $64.7 billion in total 
discretionary funding--$3.7 billion over the President's budget request 
for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This level of funding includes 
$37.2 billion for veterans health care, a high-water mark in the 
history of the Department--the largest sum of money ever appropriated 
for veterans health care.

[[Page 30269]]

Indeed, it is consistent with the independent budget the veterans 
organizations have proposed year after year. This is the first time we 
could match their goal with our appropriation. We have provided $2.6 
billion more than the President requested for veterans health care and 
$373 million more than the veterans service organizations sought in the 
independent budget. We have, in fact, gone beyond what the independent 
veterans organizations have suggested in their budget. This level of 
funding is a clear demonstration of the importance this Congress places 
on the health and welfare of our Nation's veterans.
  The funding included in this conference report supports a myriad of 
programs crucial to America's veterans, including funding the veterans 
hospitals, clinics, and veterans centers, as well as cutting-edge 
research into critical areas of health care such as traumatic brain 
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. As a result of the 
asymmetric combat we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan, this 
Nation is producing a new generation of veterans, and they have 
markedly different service-related injuries than were experienced in 
previous wars. Thankfully, more service men and women are surviving 
their war wounds, but many are surviving with catastrophic physical and 
mental injuries.
  The nature of veterans health care for new veterans is changing 
dramatically, while the demand for short-term and long-term health care 
for veterans of previous wars is rapidly increasing as the veteran 
population ages. We have two currents rushing together: veterans of 
World War II and Korea who are now in their seventies and eighties 
requiring more care simply because of their age, and a new generation 
of veterans coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, many of whom are 
sustaining neurological injuries such as traumatic brain injury or 
post-traumatic stress disorder. This other stream of veterans is 
flooding into our system, and we have to care for all of these 
veterans. That is why this legislation is particularly timely and 
particularly important.
  All of the challenges to the Department of Veterans Affairs are 
enormous. The conference report before the Senate today addresses those 
challenges. With this funding, we are providing the resources for the 
Department to meet the needs of both aging veterans from yesterday's 
wars and emerging veterans from today's conflict.
  The conference report also includes critically needed funding for 
military construction. It provides a total of $21.5 billion for 
military construction and an $8.4 billion increase over last year's 
funding level, with most of the increase directed toward implementing 
the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Program.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes $1.1 
billion for the Nation's Guard and Reserve forces--a 34.5-percent 
increase over the President's budget request. The wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have placed an unprecedented demand on the Nation's Guard 
and Reserve Forces. Yet the President's budget slashed construction 
funding for several of the Guard and Reserve components. This 
conference report corrects that inequity. For example, it increases 
funding for the Army National Guard 25 percent over the President's 
budget request, and for the Air Guard, the conference report more than 
triples the President's budget request.
  Military construction may not have the glamour of the Defense 
Department's sophisticated weapons and other programs, but it is, 
nevertheless, the bedrock of the Nation's military. Our troops must 
have sufficient funding to provide barracks, facilities for training 
and maintaining their equipment, and adequate housing for their 
families. Without the resources provided in this legislation, these 
crucial facilities could not be constructed. This legislation provides 
funding for an impressive array of military construction projects, the 
vast majority of which were requested by the President. All of the 
major construction projects added to the President's budget by the 
Senate have been fully vetted, are included in the authorization bill, 
and are encompassed within the service's Future Years Defense Plan.
  Some have complained that the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs conference report should not be coupled with the Labor and 
Health and Human Services conference report. I will have more to say 
about that later, but I would like to make the point now that these two 
bills complement each other in many respects, and it makes perfectly 
good sense to link them together.
  There are more than a few crossover items between the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill and the Labor and 
Health and Human Services appropriations bill. These include, to name a 
few, the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Program, 
which includes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program; the 
Department of Education's Impact Aid Program, which assists school 
districts whose student population is swelled by military dependents; 
and the Traumatic Brain Injury Program directed by the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control. There 
are numerous programs that provide benefits to veterans and their 
families that are included in the Health and Human Services program. 
Veterans are not simply veterans. They are members of communities. They 
have children. They have spouses. They require the services that are 
included not only in the Veterans' Administration bill but particularly 
their families in other legislation and other appropriations included 
in the Health and Human Services bill.
  Something else, too, I think is important to stress, and I will do 
that in greater detail, these veterans as young men and women committed 
themselves to this country, not because they anticipated collecting 
veterans' benefits but because they wanted to make a difference. They 
wanted to ensure that--mercifully and hopefully--the next generation of 
Americans wouldn't have to go into combat, but beyond that, that all 
Americans would have a chance. It was not about ensuring elaborate tax 
loopholes or sophisticated financial transactions; they were fighting--
and, sadly, being injured and too many dying--to give people a chance 
in this country, an opportunity to go to school, for children to get 
immunizations, and for bright, talented young people to go to college. 
That is why I think it is also essential that these two bills are being 
considered together, because if we provide for our veterans, they have 
earned it--and we should and we must and we will--but if we neglect the 
rest of the country, have we truly fulfilled and measured up to what 
they served and sacrificed for? I don't think so.
  The Senate has before it a comprehensive and vitally important 
conference report for funding both Departments, both areas--the 
Department of Labor and Health and Human Services, the Education 
Department, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. We have the 
opportunity--I would argue, the obligation--to send a signal to the 
President of this country and to the Nation that we are not willing to 
play favorites among appropriations bills. Funding for health care for 
our veterans is clearly a priority, but it does not trump our 
commitment to fund health care services for all Americans or education 
programs or job training for those who need it, including veterans who 
participate in many of the Department of Labor programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report in its 
entirety and send it to the President today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of 
whatever time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak on the conference report. I am 
following my chairman of his subcommittee. I hope very much that we 
will be able to take up this bill, which is our subcommittee, Military 
Construction and

[[Page 30270]]

Veterans Affairs, separately, as everyone, I believe, knows in their 
heart is the right thing to do.
  This bill is a bill that has been agreed to. We have worked on a 
bipartisan basis. We very quickly came to a conclusion in the 
conference on the Military Construction and Veterans' Administration 
bill. In fact, the President said right out that he would sign the 
bill, even though it is almost $4 billion more than he had requested, 
because he understands the urgency of both bills--Veterans' 
Administration and the Military Construction--and he knows that it is 
important to do it right away. So he said right up front that he would 
sign our bill. But he also said right up front that he would not sign 
the Labor and Health and Human Services bill. So there would be no 
reason--no common sense or substantive reason--to combine these two 
bills.
  It is incomprehensible to me that the leadership in the House decided 
to do this. In fact, they also put the Defense appropriations bill as a 
part of the Labor and Health and Human Services bill, but the 
Democratic chairman of the Defense bill agreed with the Republican 
ranking member, and they were able to take the Defense bill out.
  For the very same reason, we should be taking the Veterans-Military 
Construction bill out from under the bill the President has said he 
will veto. The President will sign the Defense bill and the Military 
Construction-Veterans bill. Why not have this Congress come together 
and accomplish something? Two major parts of our Government--it happens 
that it is the two parts that fund our warriors who are in the field, 
in harm's way right now--those could be signed right away. Why not do 
it? I hope the Congress will come to its senses and move in a 
bipartisan way, swiftly, to do this very thing.
  Let me talk about the bills themselves. Military construction: With 
the impending return of troops resulting from the current overseas 
rebasing effort through BRAC and the global war on terror, our service 
men and women are in a time of great transformation. The military 
construction section of our bill provides $21 billion for construction 
projects to support these moves and bring our troops home. I cannot 
emphasize enough that we must stay on schedule. It is important that 
the military services receive the facilities they need to bring our 
troops home, where they have better training facilities, a better 
quality of life for themselves and their families. From operational 
building to many childcare centers, we have necessary facilities in the 
bill to do that. Servicemembers, families, and local communities across 
our country are counting on us.
  Now, Congress set a deadline of 2011 for BRAC to be implemented. Yet 
we see Congress is dragging its feet in the funding requirements to 
implement the BRAC. We have given the Department their mandate. We must 
follow through with the money needed. Many of us have visited bases in 
Europe, Korea, and throughout the world. We know there are training 
constraints in many of those bases; that our service men and women are 
not able to stay in training. Sometimes it is a constraint in airspace. 
Sometimes it is an environmental problem. Sometimes it is a constraint 
in ground space and artillery space, so that we can be fully trained 
when we go into harm's way.
  The reason the Department of Defense made the announcement after our 
Congress passed the overseas basing commission amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill--the reason the Department of Defense announced that 
70,000 troops would be brought home from Germany and Korea is because 
they agreed that the training constraints would make it impossible for 
us to keep our troops fully trained for the combat into which they will 
be going. So it is important that we fund this, that we do it on a 
timely basis, and that we move swiftly on the military construction 
part of the bill.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs is the other part of this unit. I 
know there is a concern over total discretionary spending in all of the 
appropriations bills. But the President has said he will sign this 
bill. With the money appropriated, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
will be able to address the needs of over 7 million veterans who count 
on us to provide the funds necessary for medical care, medical 
facilities, research, extended care facilities, and even cemeteries. 
The appropriations increases in the bill are in areas I support.
  We will always do what is necessary to take care of our veterans and 
their health care needs. The research of the Veterans' Administration 
into prosthetics, severe trauma, and traumatic brain injury is cutting 
edge. Increasing resources in these programs is a good investment for 
our Nation's veterans and our Nation's future. We are asking the VA to 
expand research in several areas, including post-traumatic stress 
syndrome, gulf war illness, prosthetics, and geriatric care. These are 
the types of injuries the warriors of today are sustaining. These are 
the warriors in the war on terror. These are the injuries we should be 
looking for the very best ways to treat, and also the way to 
rehabilitate our injured warriors with better prostheses, better 
artificial arms and legs, so they can have a more normal life because 
they have given so much for our country.
  I think every Member of Congress shares the desire to fairly 
compensate, medically treat, and honor our veterans. The Veterans' 
Administration provides the health care to address the illnesses or 
disabilities, physical or mental, including those illnesses that might 
manifest themselves decades after military service, which is something 
we also see happening. We always have, and always will, take care of 
our Nation's veterans. Every veteran should know we are committed to 
nothing less.
  Mr. President, this Congress has shown its resolve time and again to 
care for our men and women in uniform, as well as the more than 7 
million veterans. We owe them our gratitude. We will do our part to 
take care of them. I ask that we work together to put our 
servicemembers and veterans first, to do what is best for them and our 
country.
  Mr. President, I will make the point of order at the appropriate time 
to separate these two distinct bills. The Veterans-Military 
Construction bill and the Labor-Health and Human Services bill are 
separate bills. We have separate committees, and we have dealt with the 
two committees separately. There is no reason to put them together, 
particularly when the President has said he will sign the Veterans-
Military Construction bill, and he will veto the Labor-Health and Human 
Services bill.
  Why do we delay and put our military service men and women and their 
families and our veterans in a situation where they are in limbo? Why 
not pass the bill separately because the bill is ready to go? We have 
worked in a bipartisan way to assure that it is.
  There is no common sense nor substantive reason to put these bills 
together. So I will leave it up to others to determine why the 
leadership in the House would have lumped these bills together. I will 
also say that I respect the Defense Appropriations Committee chairman 
and ranking member for coming together on a bipartisan basis to take 
their bill out because that is exactly what should have happened. I 
hope we will do the same thing for our military veterans and our 
service men and women who rely on the construction projects and 
military construction to provide the housing, training facilities, 
childcare centers, and health care centers, which are necessary for 
them and their families to have the quality care they so richly deserve 
for what they are doing for our country right now.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to make the rule XXVIII point of order at this time and for 
Senator Harkin to make the motion to waive, but that all debate time 
under the previous order be preserved.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under Senate 
rule

[[Page 30271]]

XXVIII, paragraph 3, that the text of the Military Construction, 
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies bill, H.R. 2642, which 
constitutes division B of the conference report for H.R. 3043, is new 
matter as it was not contained in either the House- or Senate-passed 
bills.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there controlled time now? I yield 
myself 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader controls 54 
minutes. The Senator from Massachusetts will be using that time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I wish to express my strong 
appreciation to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for the work they have done on the Labor-HHS 
conference report. This appropriations bill is of enormous importance. 
Our national security gets attention, but so much of what makes a 
difference in the strength of our Nation is our investment in our 
people. When we talk about investment in our people, we are talking 
about education, we are talking about health care, we are talking about 
job safety, job training programs which have been tested and tried, 
examined and evaluated. The Appropriations Committee has done just a 
splendid job in allocating resources to these priorities. They have 
done it in a bipartisan way.
  Now as we see this whole process on appropriations moving forward, we 
know this will ultimately be decided this evening with a Senate vote. 
It will then go over to the House of Representatives and down to the 
White House to the President where he has indicated he is going to veto 
this legislation.
  I wish to take a few minutes to go over this legislation so the 
American people and our colleagues, as we are looking at a variety of 
proposals that are coming at us at a furious pace in the Senate, have a 
very clear understanding and awareness as to exactly what this 
legislation is about and its importance to American families. This is 
family legislation, it is children's legislation, it is health care 
legislation. It is about our ability to compete in the future.
  We hear much talk about the challenges we are facing globally, and we 
are facing serious challenges globally. This legislation deals with 
making sure American workers are going to have the kinds of skills 
which are necessary so they are able to compete.
  Global competition is going to be a knowledge-based competition. That 
is why it is so important we invest in education. That is why it is so 
important we have a healthy population, and why it is so important we 
have individuals who have the skills so we can have a knowledge-based 
economy and be able to compete internationally. This legislation is the 
heart and soul of that effort in the Congress of the United States.
  Again, I thank old friends and individuals who, for a long period of 
time, have been strongly committed to these issues on education, 
health, and training.
  When we look over these particular items, it is important to know, 
since we are talking about priorities, a billion dollars--and a billion 
dollars is real money, that is true--we are talking about a total 
budget of over $2.8 trillion. The amounts we are talking about 
certainly are very modest, indeed, particularly when one looks at the 
total scope of our budget. And particularly when one looks at what we 
are spending in Iraq, the amounts we are spending in this bill are 
basically trivial. That is why it is so discouraging, I find, that the 
President of the United States believes we have to effectively pay for 
the war in Iraq by vetoing programs that make a difference in the 
quality of education, health care, and training of American workers.
  Let's look at these items in some detail. How can we take this 
President seriously when he says he will leave no child behind, when he 
vetoes funding for education? How can we take the President seriously 
when he says he is for children's health, when he vetoes funding for 
children's health care? How can we take this President seriously when 
he announces a new food safety initiative such as he did yesterday and 
says he will veto funding for food safety? The President may have the 
wrong priorities, but in Congress, we have worked together, Democrats 
and Republicans, to pass responsible new investments in our schools, 
the health care systems, and our jobs.
  Here is what is at stake if the President vetoes this important 
legislation, and the American people deserve to know which of their 
priorities will fall to the cutting room floor when he rejects this 
bill.
  First and foremost, this bill before us today provides long overdue 
funding for education. Over the past few years, the White House and the 
Republican leadership in the Congress have neglected the urgently 
needed new investments for better teachers, stronger schools, and 
college affordability. In fact, under the Republican-controlled 
Congress, funding for the education of our children has actually gone 
down.
  This chart goes back to the last time we had Democratic 
appropriations bills and we passed No Child Left Behind. One can see 
the dramatic falloff rather than an increase in commitment to children 
all over this country. We saw the reductions. This reflects the final 
results of these battles. We can see the gradual reductions in funding. 
The red lines are what the administration actually requested. Here is 
President Bush's request, a reduction of $2.2 billion; and in 2008, a 
reduction of $1.5 billion. This is the difference between a Democratic 
resolution and a Democratic conference report, $3.2 billion. We are 
coming back in terms of increases. It provides $3.2 billion in new 
funding for education compared to last year.
  The core Federal education initiative for helping schoolchildren who 
fall behind is called the title I program. Despite all the hype from 
the administration about leaving no child behind, title I funding has 
languished since passage of that legislation. The education funding 
before us today changes all that. It includes the largest increase in 
the title I program since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed.
  Again, these are the annual increases in title I, part A funding, 
2003. It was going down. In 2006, it was flat, 250. And now with this 
proposal, there is a significant increase, $1.85 billion, an indication 
of the Nation's priority of increased funding for title I.
  Title I, as we all remember, goes back to 1965 when this country said 
we as a nation are going to make a priority the poorest children and 
neediest children in our society. We are going to give attention as a 
nation to do something about the poorest and neediest children in this 
country. That is what title I is all about.
  We will have a chance to get into those in greater detail. We are all 
familiar with the challenges we are facing with school dropout and 
increased poverty among the neediest of children. We know money is not 
the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear indication of a 
nation's priorities. And included in this legislation is title I 
funding.
  Shamefully, we have seen the Pell grant stagnate as well. In the past 
5 years, students and families have struggled as college costs have 
skyrocketed. What we have also stated as a country--there was a great 
debate actually going back to 1960, and was passed in 1965 in the 
Higher Education Act, that we as a nation say that any young person in 
this country who has the skill and the ability to be admitted to a 
college, that they will not be denied that opportunity. If they do not

[[Page 30272]]

have financial assistance, they will have at least some assistance from 
a Pell grant, named after our former colleague in the Senate, Claiborne 
Pell. With the explosion of the cost of education, we still saw flat 
funding for the Pell Grant Program, and now we are seeing a gradual 
increase. In this particular appropriations bill, we have an increase 
in the Pell grant that will be effectively eliminated if this bill is 
vetoed.
  The President should recognize that this bill finally delivers on 
many of the promises we made some 6 years ago. He should embrace the 
progress and sign the bill. Instead, the President has threatened to 
veto the bill and deny the help our schools so desperately need.
  The President rejected this bill because it includes an increase of 
$4.5 billion for education funding over what he included in his budget. 
He has requested $158 billion for the war in Iraq this year--that is 
$433 million today--$158 billion for the war in Iraq. All we are 
talking about is a $4.5 billion increase for education. Mr. President, 
$4.5 billion for education gets a veto; $158 billion for the war in 
Iraq gets his signature.
  Let's look at the choices and compare the choices of American 
families which are reflected in the legislation before us.
  This chart reflects trying to help struggling schools turn around. 
American families want to use these funds to help the 9,000 schools 
most in need of improvement, to strengthen education for all of the 
children in these title I schools. This represents 1 day of the war in 
Iraq, and the President says no.
  The most important ingredient is the education of our teachers. 
Having good teachers, well-trained teachers, knowledgeable teachers, 
committed teachers who will serve in our public school system is one of 
the highest aspirations that we see reflected on our fellow citizens. 
We need to have good teachers in many of the underserved communities, 
and we need to provide help for those teachers. We need to give 
assistance to those teachers.
  We have some $3 billion for the high-quality teachers. This would 
hire 30,000 teachers to help reduce class size and provide high-quality 
induction for 100,000 new teachers. This induction is assisting and 
familiarizing teachers in their classroom and in their homerooms. It 
has been enormously successful in the retention of high-quality 
teachers, these kinds of programs being included in this legislation. 
It provides high-quality professional development for 200,000 more 
teachers. Teachers want and need to have some time for their 
development, and this provides that help for their professional 
development.
  Every other industrialized nation in the world provides this kind of 
assistance. Teachers need this kind of support. So we are providing 
important assistance to them. But, oh no, the President says, no, that 
will be vetoed.
  We have $7 billion to help provide the high-quality early education 
through the Head Start Programs, which equals 16 days of failed policy 
in Iraq. We all know the importance of early intervention. Everyone 
should read ``From Neurons to Neighborhoods,'' the great book by Jack 
Shonkoff, who has done such an extraordinary amount of work pulling 
together these three great studies from the National Institutes of 
Health, which shows a snapshot of the child's early development, from 
birth to the very earliest years, and the difference in terms of 
cognitive skills and also social behavior. The earlier the investment 
we have in these programs, the better the results are.
  We are not taking the time to reflect all that, but it is so. We have 
demonstrated it time and time again. But that $7 billion is going to be 
subject to the veto.
  I wish to mention two very important areas. We are going through 
these areas quickly, but I wish to mention the area of health 
priorities. We have mentioned early education and education, but we 
strongly believe in the $4.9 billion in cancer research which would 
fund over 6,800 grants.
  We are living in the life science century, with the extraordinary 
progress that has been made in DNA research and sequencing of the 
genes. The breakthroughs we have seen are absolutely mind-boggling. 
Over the recent years, we have effectively doubled the NIH research and 
the results coming through are extraordinary. At the same time, we are 
now finding that instead of taking advantage of these breakthroughs, we 
are beginning to cut back and cut back and cut back in terms of the 
opportunities in the areas of cancer and cancer research.
  When you talk to families across this Nation about their priorities, 
No. 1 in the area of health care will be in the areas of cancer 
research. We have 550,000 who die every year from cancer. It touches 
every family in America either directly or indirectly. We know the 
challenges we are facing now with diabetes and the challenges with 
obesity. There is an explosion across the country in terms of diabetes.
  We have $700 million for pandemic flu, to strengthen our health 
defenses. We know there are a variety of different strains that have 
been out there, both chemical and biologics, that could be enormously 
dangerous falling into the hands of the wrong groups and threatening 
American populations in a very significant and important way. We cannot 
be seeing a reduction in terms of our commitments to pandemic flu.
  The Centers for Disease Control. Whenever we have a problem, look at 
the television news over the period of the last couple of weeks, what 
did we see when we had the problems over in the Far East and China? It 
is always the CDC that takes on the responsibility to go over and try 
to detect and find out what is happening in these areas. This is an 
enormously important health agency that has enormous capability and 
skill in terms of its personnel and commitment. We have all these 
various challenges--the increased amount of asthma that has effectively 
doubled over the period of the last 15 years, increasing obesity, and 
childhood immunizations. It is interesting there is a higher percentage 
of children in Iraq who are getting immunized for diseases like measles 
than there are in the United States of America. How do we justify that? 
Now we are seeing a reduction in terms of childhood immunizations.
  The community health centers, which are the lifeline for some 15 
million low-income Americans, we are cutting back on those at a time 
when we are seeing increasing numbers of Americans losing their health 
insurance. These are all programs that are tried, tested, evaluated and 
all extremely effective and programs the American people support. 
Immunization, the challenges of research in terms of cancer and 
diabetes and obesity, the challenges we are facing in those areas, the 
importance of investing in terms of education, all of these are 
extremely important.
  Finally, I wish to mention worker safety and health spending, which 
is a fraction of the Iraq cost. One week in Iraq, $3 billion. These are 
the total expenditures for protecting the $500 million in terms of 
OSHA. Since the passage of OSHA, we have reduced deaths in the 
workplace by more than half. We have increasing complexity for OSHA, 
because with new techniques and new toxins being used in the workplace, 
there are new challenges for OSHA. We need to make sure that in the 
United States of America we are going to have safe workplaces as well 
as workplaces where individuals can be demonstrating increased 
productivity.
  We all know the challenges that mine health safety has faced, whether 
it has been out in Utah or West Virginia, this past year. We have $340 
million to try to ensure safety in the mines. But that is going to be 
vetoed. To demonstrate this isn't out-of-control spending, we have OSHA 
last year and OSHA this year, which is a 2.8-percent increase over the 
President's request and some 12 percent in the area of mine safety. 
These are basic and reasonable kinds of expressions by the Congress in 
areas of public concern. Nonetheless, we are hearing this 
administration is going to veto it.
  Let me also say we have seen an administration that is, over the past 
years, increasing the reductions in

[[Page 30273]]

terms of training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. The 
Workforce Investment Act was bipartisan legislation. Senator Kassebaum, 
myself, and others were involved in the development and shaping of 
that, coordinating a variety of different job training programs. We had 
strong bipartisan support, and we had support from the workers and from 
the business community. It has made an important difference. In my 
State of Massachusetts, at the end of last year, we had over 92,000 
jobs that are out there waiting for people to be able to take them. Yet 
we had more than 178,000 people who are unemployed. You would think it 
would make some sense to get the skills to those individuals who can 
work, who want to work, so they can fill those jobs, become taxpayers 
and productive members of our society. That is what we are talking 
about in terms of workforce investment. That is what happens when we 
have good programs such as this.
  Nonetheless, we are finding out that even though this legislation 
restores some $500 million to the cuts we have had these last several 
years, this President is now committed toward vetoing.
  So these are some of the items that are front and center in terms of 
this appropriations bill. As I mentioned at the outset, this is an 
extremely important piece of legislation. It is basically about the 
sole well-being of our fellow citizens. It is about educating our 
young, ensuring the health and well-being of our fellow citizens, about 
ensuring we are going to be able to have the kind of skills necessary 
so we can have a productive, expanding economy to be able to offer the 
hope and opportunity that good jobs, with good wages and good benefits, 
means to working families. That is what this legislation is about.
  The numbers that have been included represent the best judgment of 
Democrats and Republicans together. Compared to where we are in terms 
of the expenditures we have over in Iraq, all Americans, I believe, 
say: Why aren't we investing in Americans? Why aren't we investing in 
our children, in our families, in education, in health care, in 
training? Why aren't we doing the things which are going to make this 
Nation stronger in the future? Why are we going to face a veto by this 
President on these important priorities?
  Make no mistake, it is a major mistake for this President to do so. I 
hope he will reconsider his position.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
quorum call the time in the quorum be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the motion to waive rule XXVIII. 
If the motion to waive is defeated, the Military Construction-Veterans 
Affairs bill will be stricken from this conference report.
  Frankly, I am a little bit tired of the political games the 
administration plays with the health care of our veterans. It is the 
President's veto threats that necessitated the combining of the Labor, 
HHS, and Education bill and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs 
bill. The President has threatened to veto 10 of the 12 appropriations 
bills--10. This President is insisting that Congress strip $22 billion 
for homeland security, for educating our children, for NIH, and for 
fighting violent crime from the 12 bills. President Bush's budget 
request simply did not meet the needs of a veterans population that is 
suffering from the pressures of war.
  The number of disabled veterans, the type of injuries, and the mental 
health services needs produced by this horrendous Iraq war are well 
beyond the President's shortsighted budget request. Congress, on a 
bipartisan basis, recognized that the President's request for veterans 
programs was out of touch with reality, and we increased funding above 
that inadequate request by $3.7 billion. The President's own bipartisan 
study found that the veterans health care system is in need of dramatic 
reform. Yet President Bush, our President, has not requested one thin 
dime, not one thin additional dime for veterans health care to 
implement much-needed reforms. When faced with the dire political 
consequences of this bad budget decision, the President, our President, 
President Bush, did a political dance and finally agreed to the 
additional spending approved by Congress for our veterans. But--the 
conjunction ``but''--the President insisted that Congress find $3.7 
billion of savings to pay for it in other bills.
  Did the President--our President--cut his request for a 12-percent 
increase in foreign aid to pay for it? No.
  Did the President, our President--your President, my President--did 
the President reduce his--the President's--request for a 10-percent 
increase for the Department of Defense to pay for it? Did he? No.
  Did President Bush identify $3.7 billion of savings from his meager 
and inadequate budget for education or the National Institutes of 
Health to pay for it? No.
  President Bush, our President, brandishes his veto pen and refuses to 
participate in any attempt to correct his failed budget. Meanwhile, 
veterans health care, our children's education, vital health research, 
and other programs important to our citizens are at risk. As long as 
the President--our President, President Bush--as long as the President 
links veterans funding to his demand for cuts in other vital domestic 
programs, Congress has no choice--none--but to bundle these bills 
together.
  His plan, the President's plan, to veto the Labor-HHS and Education 
bill, and sign the Military Construction-VA bill would force Congress 
to make dramatic reductions in such areas as education funding, funding 
for the National Institutes of Health, and funding for low-income home 
energy assistance.
  Those decisions would be very bad decisions, and every Member of the 
Senate knows it or ought to know it. The Labor-HHS and Education bill 
passed the Senate by a vote of 75 to 19. The Military Construction-
Veterans Affairs bill passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 1.
  Bundling these bills is not an effort to jam the Senate with 
controversial legislation. These bills were fully debated. Any Senator 
could have come to the floor to offer amendments to reduce funding in 
the bill. Any Senator who votes ``no'' on the motion to waive has a 
responsibility to come down to the floor and show down on the $3.7 
billion of cuts that Senator would propose for such programs.
  This bill could be on the President's desk tomorrow. Any Senator who 
votes ``no'' on the motion to waive rule XXVIII has a responsibility to 
explain to veterans why that Senator refused to tell the President of 
the United States that he needs to sign this legislation. I urge a 
``yea'' vote on the motion to waive rule XXVIII.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud that this afternoon we 
are considering a very important bill that will fund not only the 
important investments in health, education, and the workforce but also 
historic increases in spending for our veterans and for their families.
  Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter have put together a great 
Labor-HHS bill. I am very proud to

[[Page 30274]]

support it. But this afternoon I want to take a little bit of time to 
speak directly to the importance of the Military Construction-Veterans 
Affairs portion of this package, because today it is in grave danger of 
being blocked by bipartisan gamesmanship.
  Our servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan and from so many conflicts 
before have done absolutely everything we have asked of them. They have 
answered the President's call to war with the honor and sense of duty 
we have come to expect from our Nation's bravest men and women. They 
have performed under enormous pressure in the middle of a civil war. 
They have left loved ones behind who count on them. They continue to 
put their own lives on the line every single day.
  Now, unfortunately here at home, this administration has not been 
committed to care for them when they come home. From poor conditions at 
VA facilities around the country to a lack of PTSD counselors, to a 
benefits claims backlog that keeps our veterans waiting for months and 
sometimes amazingly even years, this administration has failed to 
account for our Nation's veterans as a part of the cost of this war. It 
is unacceptable that servicemembers who return from fighting overseas 
are being forced to fight their own Government for the care and the 
services we have promised them.
  Democrats today on this floor are working to reverse the Bush 
administration's failure to care for those heroes. We have produced a 
funding bill for our veterans that includes $3.6 billion more than the 
President asked. After years of Bush Republicans cutting corners on our 
veterans, we have, with this bill, offered an honest assessment of what 
these men and women need.
  This bill takes into account the extra strains that have been put on 
our VA system from our simultaneous wars and the new battlefield 
realities that are present today. It includes nearly all of the 
``independent budget,'' a recommendation that has been compiled by our 
veteran service organizations. It makes investments that will improve 
health care and expand mental health services and allow construction 
for vitally needed new facilities.
  It is going to mean more qualified health care workers, better 
prosthetics, and more accessible veterans facilities. It is going to 
ensure our veterans get their earned benefits, see improved conditions 
at VA facilities, and get better treatment for PTSD, traumatic brain 
injury, and catastrophic injury.
  Most of all, though, this bill means that after years of neglect, our 
Government, the United States of America, will again honor the 
sacrifice of our veterans with the care they deserve.
  We are also making sure our troops are ready and that they receive 
the training they need. That is why I was so pleased about the military 
construction investment this bill makes across the country and 
especially in my home State. My home State of Washington's military 
facilities play an important role in our nation's security, from Fort 
Lewis in Tacoma, which is training the Stryker brigades--they are at 
the center of the fight in Iraq--to Fairchild Air Force Base in 
Spokane, which plays a major role in our air defense; to Naval Air 
Station Whidbey Island, which patrols our Pacific shores.
  This bill ensures they are going to get funding they need, like all 
of our military facilities nationwide. In Washington State, it means 
more than $635 million in improvement for Washington's military 
installations.
  One of the best things about this bill is it won such huge bipartisan 
support when it passed the Senate on a vote of 92 to 1--92 to 1 it 
passed the Senate. It does not get much better than that for a 
bipartisan, strongly supported piece of legislation.
  Unfortunately, today Republicans seem to be willing to jeopardize all 
the good, critical, important matters that have been put into this bill 
which they said they supported, in order to play a procedural game that 
is designed to stop this important bill in its tracks. I think that is 
a shame.
  Now they are going to say, and the President will echo them, that the 
bill before the Senate is too expensive. They will say we should have 
not joined the spending for veterans with spending for health care, 
education, and job training.
  In the same breath, they are going to say this money for veterans is 
critically important and should be sent to the President before Sunday. 
Well, I agree with my 91 colleagues who supported this bill the first 
time we voted on it, and I agree we need to get it signed into law as 
soon as possible, and we can do that very easily by voting for it 
today, along with this package. It will go to the President by 
dinnertime.
  Most importantly, veterans would go to sleep tonight knowing that the 
vital projects in this bill are on the way. But I fear that is not 
going to happen. Instead, now we have Republicans who are going to make 
a cynical political move and block this money for our veterans because 
we have combined it with the Labor, Health and Education spending bill.
  The President objects, apparently, to combining those bills. So I 
guess the Republicans are going to put their allegiances behind 
President Bush ahead of our veterans and say ``no'' to a bill that 
almost all of those Senators supported a few short weeks ago. I think 
that is wrong.
  The Labor, Health and Education bill is a good one. It won the 
support of 75 Senators a few weeks ago here on the Senate floor. We are 
joining the two because both make critical investments in a broad range 
of urgent priorities. We need to stop playing political games with both 
of these bills and we need the President to sign them now. The 
Republicans and the President are complaining about this move today. 
But it is the American people and our veterans and their families, in 
particular, who will be hurt if this political move is made today to 
separate these bills. They will pay the price, those veterans and their 
families, for this roadblock.
  Our goal is simple. We want to make up for something President Bush 
has failed to do while he has tried to build up our military. We want 
to be sure our veterans are getting the care they need.
  As I told my friends before, George Washington was the one who 
famously observed that:

       The willingness with which our young people are likely to 
     serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly 
     proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier 
     wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

  Today we want to reverse President Bush's failure and reaffirm this 
commitment. This bill keeps our military strong by honoring the 
sacrifices of our heroes and meeting their needs. When those men and 
women put on a uniform, they earn the right to a government that cares 
for them on their return. When we approve this bill, we will assure 
them they will get finally the care they need.
  Veterans Day is just a few days away. I am confident every Senator on 
this floor will head home to acknowledge the veterans in their State, 
and rightfully tell them ``thank you'' for the tremendous service they 
have given to our country. I can think of no better time than this for 
us to forget the politics and do something positive for our veterans, 
for their families, and for our country.
  I have listened to the other side and the President tell us time and 
again: We need to get the bills to the President. We need to get the 
appropriations bills to the President. That is what we are trying to do 
today, to get two of these critical bills to the President in a timely 
manner. I urge our colleagues to think twice about a procedural move 
that will not send to the President the critical funding we need for 
our veterans and our military facilities across this country. With one 
vote we can send those to the President, and by dinner tonight know we 
are doing our job for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have mixed feelings about the 
conference report now before the Senate. The chairman and ranking 
member of the Labor,

[[Page 30275]]

Health and Human Services Subcommittee and the Military Construction-
Veterans Affairs Subcommittee have done excellent work in crafting 
their respective bills. These bills represent a reasonable blending of 
House and Senate priorities. They support critical national priorities 
in medical research, veterans' care, K-12 education, and military 
infrastructure. But the fact these two bills have been joined into a 
single conference report is unfortunate. The President has stated 
unequivocally he will veto the Labor-Health and Human Services bill in 
its current form.
  By attaching the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill, the 
Democratic leadership has done nothing to change his mind. The bill 
will still be vetoed, and the veto will probably be sustained. Through 
the duration of that process, we will needlessly delay the availability 
of critical funding for veterans' care, and for the facilities 
necessary to support our Armed Forces.
  There is no procedural reason that the Military Construction-Veterans 
Affairs conference committee could not meet this evening to approve the 
conference agreement under their jurisdiction. The House and Senate 
could then approve that conference report and get it to the President's 
desk for signature by Veterans Day.
  That would be the right thing to do. The Labor-Health and Human 
Services bill could also be sent to the President, and both the 
Congress and the President would have been allowed to argue their 
respective fiscal priorities. Instead, we are being compelled to go 
through this procedural dance that adds nothing to the debate over 
fiscal policy and serves only to compound Congress's abysmal failure to 
get appropriations bills to the President.
  I am acutely aware of past failures to enact appropriations bills in 
a timely fashion. I was chairman of that committee, and I remember how 
upset and frustrated I was when the Republican leadership wouldn't call 
up the bills. I couldn't believe it, an abdication of very important 
responsibilities of the Congress, a fundamental right and 
responsibility of the Congress to set the appropriations priorities. No 
one was more frustrated with the Senate's failure to consider these 
bills last year. I was particularly exasperated by our inability to get 
what appeared to be a noncontroversial Military Construction-Veterans 
Affairs bill to conference. That was as inexcusable then as it is now. 
But past failures don't make the current failure any more acceptable to 
me. The President has a right to veto bills. There is no way around 
that. This President has strong opinions about his responsibility to be 
involved in holding down Federal spending, keeping the budget under 
control. Why are we compounding our failure to present him 
appropriations bills by wrapping into Labor-Health and Human Services 
another bill that we all agree is important and that the President has 
said he will sign?
  This procedure does nothing to change the substance of the debate, 
and it only serves to further delay the appropriations process. There 
may come a point when vetoes of appropriations bills require us to go 
back to the drawing board and rewrite some of the bills at lower 
spending levels. There may also come a point in that process where I 
believe the funding levels advocated by the President are not 
appropriate or sustainable in certain cases. We have the right to 
disagree. Somewhere along the way, I remain hopeful we will reach an 
accommodation that will allow for enactment of individual 
appropriations bills at an aggregate funding level that is lower than 
the amount contemplated in the budget resolution. But to get to that 
point, we have to send the President some appropriations bills.
  It is November 7. We have failed to send a single one to his desk. I 
hope the Senate will support the Hutchison motion so we can put two 
bills on the President's desk in short order and start to demonstrate 
to the American people that we are responsible, that we are acting on 
one of our most fundamental responsibilities, the passage of 
appropriations bills for the operation of the Federal Government.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be given 
10 minutes from the majority leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here today at this juncture to talk 
about the point of order raised against combining the MILCON bill and 
the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. There is a large 
point I will try to make, which is that these bills are complementary 
in many real ways. Veterans, for example, do not live alone with other 
veterans. They have families who require education, Pell grants, Head 
Start funds, and all of that is within the purview of the Health and 
Human Services appropriations bill. Also, they are individuals, our 
veterans, who have earned their rights. But I don't believe they 
engaged in battles for this country and wore the uniform of this 
country to get a pension or to get a health benefit; they did it for a 
broader, much larger, much more noble purpose, and that was to build a 
decent and just America. Part of that is making sure children have 
immunizations, making sure children can go to good schools and 
disadvantaged children can enjoy health through the title I program; 
making sure talented young people can go to college with a Pell grant 
or a Stafford loan; the CDC can protect all of us from disease, and the 
NIH can use their resources to research breakthroughs in medicine and 
health care to benefit all of us. It is that vision of a decent, 
humane, and just America that ultimately compelled millions of 
Americans to wear the uniform of this country and defend it.
  So the notion that we can arbitrarily or not arbitrarily separate 
these bills, I don't think it accords with one of the major functions 
of all of us as citizens, as soldiers, as Senators--to serve the 
greater good--and we are doing that, I think, with these two 
appropriations bills.
  There is another point I think which is interesting to me. These 
bills have passed the Senate overwhelmingly. They would, I think, if 
they were separated, pass overwhelmingly. But it seems to me we are now 
in a situation where we can't combine them because the President has 
said: Don't put them together because I will sign one and veto the 
other, which presents my colleagues in the Senate a very interesting 
situation: After voting for the underlying bills overwhelmingly, do 
they support the President's veto? I hope we can avoid that.
  I think we should send these bills together to the President today. 
We can do that. We can expedite the funding of the VA at record levels. 
We can fulfill our obligations to citizens across this country in many 
different ways by supporting this procedural approach of combining the 
bills, voting for the bills, and sending them to the President.
  But the premise I think is we will separate them if this point of 
order is sustained, and then we will see the VA bill probably signed 
but then have to come back and negotiate a way for a bill we all 
support--the Health and Human Services bill. I don't think that is the 
right approach. The fastest way to get this legislation, with respect 
to veterans, to the President is to vote against this point of order, 
send it to the President, he can sign it, and next week we can 
celebrate Veterans Day with the largest veterans appropriations bill 
that we have ever passed. I think that is the route we should pursue. I 
don't think we should allow the President to dictate the terms.
  One of the interesting things about the President's approach--
particularly as we have talked time and time again about Iraq--is that: 
Well, the Congress can't tell me how to run policy; all they can do is 
fund or not fund the war.

[[Page 30276]]

Well, here we are making a very bold, very assertive statement about 
funding the Veterans' administration, Military Construction, and Health 
and Human Services. But he says: Well, you can't do that. You can't 
tell me that either because I will veto one and I would not accept a 
package, even though it is a package of funding. Again, I think we have 
to--and we should--assert our will, particularly when it comes to the 
underlying legislation that passed this body with extraordinary--
extraordinary margins. This would be, I think, a different debate if we 
had taken a bill that was popular and combined it with a bill that 
could not pass this body, or barely pass this body. Both of these bills 
have commanded I think strong support, and they should go forward and 
be signed by the President.
  But there is another issue here, too, and it goes back to the initial 
point I made about there is a complementarity between these two bills, 
and it is a very direct and, I believe, powerful one. We have, for 
example, within the Health and Human Services bill, $228 million for 
the Veterans Employment and Training Program. It is in the Department 
of Labor. But if you are a veteran and you are looking for the training 
you need and employment opportunities because you have served your 
country honorably and well--and if we don't pass that Health and Human 
Services bill, that money will not be there. We have in the Department 
of Labor $23.6 million for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. 
In fact, I dare say, there is too little attention being paid to 
homeless veterans. There was a report today that one in four homeless 
individuals are veterans of the military. That is a shocking and 
shameful statistic for this country. We have in this bill one of 
several programs--very small, but they help veterans. That is in the 
labor portion of the bill; that is not in the veterans' portion of the 
bill. Funding for the Department of Education, $1.26 billion to impact 
aid payments. Those payments are targeted to school systems that serve 
military installations, large populations not only of veterans, but of 
Active-Duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. So we are saying: 
Great, we are going to give the veterans what they deserve, but for 
those veterans and Active-Duty personnel, we can't vote in this bill 
for $1.26 billion in impact aid. We can't provide their children the 
kind of school systems in adjoining neighborhoods to military posts 
that we think is adequate--not only adequate but we hope excellent.
  So these bills are not distinguished in some respects. They serve the 
veteran population and the military population, and to suggest they are 
totally opposed and diametric is, I think, wrong.
  In the area of health care funding, we went a long way in the 
Veterans' Administration bill to put significant resources into the 
veterans health care program.
  In fact, for the first time, it exceeds the independent budget which 
veterans organizations present to us each year, when it comes to 
veterans health care, the largest increase in veterans health care, the 
largest appropriation we have ever given.
  One of the areas we asked them to look at is traumatic brain injury, 
post-traumatic stress. We understand now because of the nature of 
combat and conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are thousands of 
young men and women coming back with traumatic brain injuries. They did 
surveys of returning brigades of some of our Army units and estimated 
that perhaps 20 percent of the troops might have some indication of 
traumatic brain injury--slight to moderate. Over time, this is an 
increasingly more difficult problem for the VA system. Of course, we 
have asked them to treat these individuals. But in the Health Resources 
and Service Administration--in the other appropriations bill, we have 
$9.5 million for the traumatic brain injury program.
  We have billions of dollars for the National Institutes of Health, 
for their research, which will be extremely important if we want to 
understand the phenomenon of traumatic brain injury. Of course, if we 
don't move that bill today, this bill, along with the Veterans' 
Administration bill, at least temporarily we lose these funds.
  So I think there is a synergy between the two bills. I think it goes 
back to not just the complementary programs; it goes back to what our 
veterans and our soldiers today are serving for--not self-
aggrandizement, not a pension, or to get the benefits they have earned 
alone but for something bigger. Those men and women are not out there 
putting time in so when they get to be 40 or have 20-plus years of 
military service they get the pension. They are risking their lives so 
this country lives up to its highest ideals. If we cannot provide and 
pass a robust appropriations bill and get it signed by the President on 
Health and Human Services, we are not living up to our obligations and 
our ideals.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the waiver of 
the point of order--the waiver being the motion from the Senator from 
Iowa. I agree in part and disagree in part with the acting chairman of 
the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee.
  Mr. President, two bills were passed by the Senate--one for Labor-
Health and Human Services and one for Military Construction-Veterans 
Affairs. They are two separate bills because they are very different in 
nature. They cover very different areas. There was nothing in the bills 
that was the same. They are separate subjects, and they should be 
passed in the regular order.
  I have heard criticism on the Senate floor and also in the conference 
committee of the President of the United States, as if he had told 
Congress not to combine these bills. The President never said any such 
thing. The President did exactly what I would expect a President to do 
in his relations with Congress and its understanding of the role of our 
two different branches of government--executive and legislative. The 
fact is, Congress chose to take two separate bills and put them 
together. All the President did was exactly what he should have done. 
He advised Congress that he was going to veto the Labor-Health and 
Human Services bill because it was nearly $12 billion over his budget 
request. When Congress said: OK, Mr. President, we are going to combine 
the bill that you have notified us you are going to veto with a bill 
that you have notified us you will sign, which is the Military 
Construction-Veterans Affairs bill, the President merely said: I have 
said I am going to veto the Labor-Health and Human Services bill, and I 
am putting Congress on notice. Congress can make the decision about how 
it wants to send the bills forward. The President can inform Congress 
of what he is going to do, which I think, frankly, is an advantage in 
that he has told us. The worst thing would be if he didn't tell us, if 
he just surprised us after we had worked in good faith on these bills. 
But he is not surprising us. He is telling us this is what he is going 
to do, and if we decide to play a game by putting two bills together, 
when he has told us he is going to veto one of them, the consequence 
will be that both bills are vetoed instead of just one.
  Let's not put the President in this debate. The President is doing 
exactly what he should do. The Congress should do what is right. 
Congress knows the funding for military construction and the veterans 
is crucial, that there are new things in this bill that are not 
currently able to be funded. And the sooner we get this bill to the 
President, the sooner he can sign it, and we can provide these new 
priorities.
  Where I agree with my distinguished acting chairman of the committee 
is that the bill is a good bill. We have come together in a very 
bipartisan way. We have worked out our differences, and we didn't have 
differences on the Senate side. We worked together on a very solid 
bill. We worked out our differences with the House on a bipartisan 
basis. The President agreed with us that it is a good bill. We all 
recognize that some of the best parts of the bill would be lost if 
there were another continuing resolution for Fiscal Year 2008.

[[Page 30277]]

  Delaying base-closing commission implementation: As a Congress, we 
have required the Department of Defense to complete the implementation 
of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission report by 2011. Every 
day, every week, every month that we delay the BRAC funding is going to 
delay that implementation process. It is very important that we give 
our troops who are going to be coming back from bases in Germany and 
Korea the housing, the health care facilities, and the childcare 
centers that will provide a quality of life for our military personnel 
and their families. We owe them that, Mr. President.
  We could send this bill to the President before the end of the week 
and make sure they have that funding. It is our responsibility to do 
it. It is our responsibility to do it in the regular order, when the 
regular order will give us a Presidential signature. It will also 
provide new research, new treatments, and added facilities for our 
veterans. We know our veterans are suffering from different kinds of 
injuries than in previous wars. We know we are saving more lives, but a 
higher percentage of our wounded veterans are returning home with 
burns, loss of limbs, traumatic brain injuries, and mental health 
problems. We know that. So we provide for that in this bill. We have 
done it in a bipartisan way. We have provided more treatment, more 
facilities, more emphasis, and more research on post-traumatic stress 
syndrome, traumatic brain injuries, better prosthetics, artificial legs 
and arms that are lost by the bombs being used by the insurgents. All 
of that is in this bill, which could go through on its own in the 
regular order and be signed by the President.
  One of the things we have heard from our veterans month after month 
after month is how long it is taking them to get through the system 
from when they leave military service to begin receiving their benefits 
and even to enter into the VA health care system. It is ridiculous for 
them to wait months and months when we should have a seamless 
transition. What our bill provides is more employees to cut that 
backlog and give these new veterans who are coming into the system the 
opportunity to have a seamless transition. That is in the bill.
  If we pass a CR, this year's priorities would not be in it. The bill 
contains funds to implement the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala 
Commission. The Dole-Shalala Commission is the Commission that was 
appointed by the President to look at the best way to improve the care 
and service we provide to Active Duty Military and veterans who have 
returned from battle. They made recommendations. They did a thorough 
study. These are two great Americans: Donna Shalala and Robert Dole. 
They came up with recommendations, and we begin to fund them in this 
bill.
  Mr. President, why wouldn't we pass this bill as a stand-alone 
measure when we know it is going to be vetoed if it is combined with 
the Labor-Health and Human Services bill? It does not pass the smell 
test to combine these bills when there is no reason to. In the original 
House action, they combined Health and Human Services with Defense and 
Military Construction and Veterans. The Defense bill was separated out 
because the chairman and the ranking member agreed that it had no 
business under Labor-Health and Human Services. That bill, by 
agreement, was separated out. We didn't get that agreement on Military 
Construction. So now we are faced with having a point of order, under 
the newly passed rule by the Democratic majority, that says you cannot 
put something in a conference report that has not passed either House 
in that bill.
  So the point of order is going to succeed. We all know it is going to 
succeed. Why do we play this game? It is a game that is going to affect 
veterans and military personnel and their quality of life. There is no 
reason, there is no substantive reason, and there is no logical reason.
  I urge my colleagues, let's vote unanimously to separate these bills, 
send the MILCON and Veterans bill to the House and ask them to quickly 
appoint conferees. The bill is agreed to. We have hashed out the 
differences. We can still get this bill to the President before 
Veterans Day. What a great accomplishment for this Congress, what a 
great way to say the President and the Congress are in agreement on 
something. I think the American people are looking for that. We see 
that the ratings of Congress and the President are at an all-time low. 
Why not give the American people some confidence that we can accomplish 
something together for the good of the people? It is very easy, very 
clear that this is a bill the President says he will sign. Let's send 
it to him. There can be no logical reason not to.
  I urge my colleagues to come together on a bipartisan basis and stop 
the game playing, especially with our veterans and our military 
families who are depending upon the new initiatives in this bill to be 
done, and we have the power to do it. Let's do our jobs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business, with the time coming from the majority 
leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Democracy in Pakistan

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to strongly 
condemn General Musharraf's declaration of martial law in Pakistan, his 
decision to suspend that country's constitution, and his brutal 
suppression of freedom and democracy and human rights.
  Since Saturday, General Musharraf of Pakistan has ordered the police 
and military to arrest thousands of lawyers, human rights activists, 
and political workers. At this very moment, as we dither in Washington, 
Musharraf's thugs--thugs--are cracking down on democracy advocates 
across that country. Lawyers in coats and ties are being viciously 
beaten in the streets and thrown into jail. One out of four lawyers in 
Pakistan has been arrested since Saturday--one out of every four. In 
Lahore, police are being given cash bonuses for beating and arresting 
lawyers. Any of us who have watched television have seen the scenes of 
lawyers being picked up by plainclothes policemen, pushed into vans, 
and the plainclothes thugs beating them on the heads and backs as they 
pushed them into vans. This is especially sad and ironic inasmuch as 
the founder of Pakistan, the much revered Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was 
himself a lawyer trained at Lincoln's Inn in London.
  Since 9/11, the United States has given General Musharraf and 
Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid, supposedly to crack down on the 
terrorists, the Taliban, and al-Qaida in their sanctuaries in Pakistan. 
Instead, General Musharraf is cracking down on lawyers, political 
opponents, and human rights activists or anyone who dares to stand in 
his way of total power in Pakistan.
  Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, is under house arrest, 
and the widely admired chair of the Human Rights Commission, Asma 
Jahangir, with whom I have met twice when I was in Pakistan--on two of 
the occasions I have been in Pakistan, I met with Asma Jahangir. She is 
a wonderful, lovely woman fighting for human rights for people in 
Pakistan. Her house has been declared a ``subjail'' by the Government.
  What crimes have these people committed? They are guilty only of 
speaking out against General Musharraf's claim of absolute, unchecked 
power.
  These are truly the actions of a desperate man. Obviously, General 
Musharraf is worried that the supreme court would rule in favor of 
those opposing his latest attempt to hold on to the Presidency and to 
remain a general in charge of the military at the same time. This is a 
blatant violation of international human rights standards enshrined in 
Pakistan's own constitution. General Musharraf has also cracked down on 
the independent

[[Page 30278]]

media, shutting down all private television channels and radio 
stations.
  What has been the reaction from our President and Secretary of State 
to this brazen violation of human rights and the democratic aspirations 
of the Pakistani people? President Bush has said he is ``deeply 
disturbed.'' He has pointedly refrained from saying anything or 
condemning General Musharraf's actions.
  I guess what set me off today was Negroponte. Deputy Secretary of 
State Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that President Pervez 
Musharraf is an ```indispensable' ally in the U.S.-led war on 
terrorism. . . .'' I am sorry, Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Musharraf is not an 
indispensable ally. The Pakistani people are an indispensable ally in 
our fight against terrorism. What a double standard.
  Look at how the administration responded when Myanmar's military 
regime cracked down on prodemocracy protesters in September. Oh, my 
gosh, we condemned them to the high heavens--rightfully so. Now here is 
General Musharraf doing the same thing in Pakistan and barely a peep 
from this administration. And then we have Negroponte, who has shown 
his colors in the past by calling dictators in Latin America in the 
past, now coming out saying Musharraf is indispensable. What does that 
say to the Pakistani people? What a double standard. No wonder the 
United States is held in such low esteem around the world today when we 
have President Bush and Mr. Negroponte taking after the brutal 
dictators in Myanmar, but, oh, not General Musharraf.
  This is a profound mistake. This is the time to stand with the 
Pakistani people and not with the dictator who is dismantling their 
democracy. This is the time for the President to announce that he is 
suspending all U.S. aid to Pakistan except for humanitarian assistance 
directly related to the health, education, and human needs of the 
Pakistani people.
  As of yesterday, President Bush has not even placed a call to General 
Musharraf. He should do so immediately. He should demand that the 
general immediately return the country to constitutional rule, restore 
freedom of the press, and unconditionally release the lawyers, human 
rights activists, and opposition leaders who have been arrested since 
Saturday, and he should inform General Musharraf that the United States 
is suspending all assistance to Pakistan, except for humanitarian aid, 
until such action is taken.
  The world's greatest democracy, the United States, cannot turn a 
blind eye to the tragedy unfolding in Pakistan today. The time to act 
is now, and if the President will not act, I am prepared to work with 
my colleagues in Congress to suspend all assistance, except 
humanitarian aid, to Pakistan and to do it as soon as possible.
  As I said, since 9/11, we have provided more than $10 billion in aid 
to Pakistan. The overwhelming amount of this went to the military to 
boost its capacity to fight terrorism. But, unfortunately, the Pentagon 
and OMB have very little transparency or oversight of just how that 
money is being used or has been used.
  In fiscal year 2007, Pakistan received an average of $83 million a 
month at a time when Musharraf had negotiated a so-called peace 
arrangement with tribal leaders and was not even conducting 
counterterrorism operations in tribal areas. I think it is time for our 
GAO to look into where this money went, and I will be working with my 
colleagues on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that 
Congress is provided an accounting of all these expenditures. There are 
too many rumors, too many stories being told around Pakistan that a lot 
of this money has found its way into the pockets of high-ranking people 
surrounding General Musharraf.
  Now I am told that some of our military money is being spent by 
Pakistan on Harpoon missiles. These are antiship missiles used in naval 
warfare. Why in the world do they need these missiles? Is al-Qaida 
operating major surface warships? Hardly.
  While this administration and Mr. Negroponte say that Musharraf has 
been a partner in the war on terror, the evidence is different.
  Recently, Musharraf entered into a peace agreement with Baitullah 
Mehsud, a well-known Taliban supporter and sympathizer who operates in 
south Waziristan. This is the tribal area bordering Afghanistan where 
it is thought that maybe Osama bin Laden is hiding out. General 
Musharraf agreed to withdraw all Pakistani troops from the area and 
release 25 Taliban militants.
  Additionally, Mr. Mehsud would not even agree to stop dispatching 
fighters to Afghanistan, where suicide bombings against American and 
NATO forces have dramatically increased this year. Just yesterday, 
there was a horrific Taliban bombing in northern Afghanistan, with 
dozens of people killed, including at least six members of the Afghan 
Parliament.
  I ask: Why is General Musharraf making deals with the sponsor of 
attacks such as this? Is General Musharraf helping or hurting our fight 
against militant Islamic extremists in Pakistan? He makes an agreement 
with a known Taliban supporter, but he won't make any agreements with 
lawyers and human rights activists in Pakistan.
  It is time for the Bush administration to make our efforts in 
Pakistan more effective. We need a real partner in this fight, not 
General Musharraf. He has severely undercut his ability to effectively 
fight terrorism. It is time to understand that only a government that 
is supported by its people will actually have the ability to crack down 
on extremists who seek to hurt and harm American interests.
  The people of Pakistan have spoken out. They do not want Musharraf, 
but he is not listening. He is a dictator, and he is going to stay 
there, and he is going to trash the Constitution, he is going to jail 
lawyers and human rights activists and members of the supreme court.
  Just remember, Musharraf came to power in a coup d'etat in 1999, 
ousting the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He 
assumed the title of chief executive. Later, he assumed the office of 
President of Pakistan, all the while remaining commander in chief of 
the military. Now he is seizing absolute power.
  I have come to the floor many times in the last 13 years to speak 
about America's relationship with Pakistan, to praise Pakistan and the 
Pakistani people as a steadfast ally going back for more than half a 
century. I have been to Pakistan many times. Make no mistake, I am a 
friend of the people of Pakistan. I admire them greatly. They have been 
great, strong friends of the United States for over 50 years. In the 
fight against communism and in every war we have ever conducted, they 
have helped us out. But at this time, I must speak out about the grave 
injustices being inflicted on the Pakistani people by General Musharraf 
in his grab for absolute power.
  In the months and years ahead, the people of Pakistan will be asking: 
Who stood with us against General Musharraf's attempt to destroy 
democracy and seize absolute power? That is why it is so important that 
we in Congress, and the President as well, make it clear that we stand 
with the Pakistani people and Pakistani democracy and the rule of law 
and we reject Musharraf's power grab.


           Robert H. Clampitt Foundation Children's PressLine

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a provision in 
this bill that I sponsored. With funding in this conference report 
designated in the fund for the improvement of education, the Robert H. 
Clampitt Foundation's Children's PressLine will establish a New Orleans 
bureau to teach journalism skills to at-risk youth in New Orleans.
  Using an oral journalism methodology created 31 years ago by its 
predecessor, Children's Express, New York City-based Children's 
PressLine, CPL, has a proven model of civic engagement and issues 
awareness by youth that facilitates the participation of children of 
all ages and literacy levels. Every year, CPL enables more than 75 
children and teens to be trained quickly and easily, empowering them 
with

[[Page 30279]]

real-world critical thinking, learning and writing skills outside of 
the constraints of a traditional classroom environment. This CPL model 
has a proven track record for creating an engaging program that teaches 
critical professional skills and media literacy in a format that 
invests children in the lasting journalism that they produce.
  This funding would provide for CPL personnel to work with local 
education and community leaders to establish a New Orleans bureau, 
implementing the CPL model for youth training and development. In the 
spirit of CPL's acclaimed ``In Search of Faith'' project following 9/
11, the bureau's youth reporters would apply their skills to creating 
an oral history of children's experiences recovering from Hurricane 
Katrina. As CPL content is syndicated nationally through the Scripps 
Howard News Service and through online news sites including PBS 
OnlineNewsHour, the program would also create a national forum for 
children's voices to be heard.
  By sharing their poststorm experiences with a national audience, 
these children will both process their traumatic experiences in a 
creative way, while also developing important writing skills that will 
bolster their academic achievement. These types of creative programs 
are critical for children's development, particularly after a traumatic 
experience, and we are excited that CPL will now have the resources 
necessary to build a New Orleans bureau and work with children who will 
benefit greatly from the program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you to the senior Senator from Louisiana for 
speaking so eloquently about the benefit that her State will get from 
funding in this bill. I understand there has been some confusion about 
the intent of this funding. I want to assure my friend from Louisiana 
that I will communicate to the Department of Education that the intent 
of this funding is to help children in New Orleans.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will join the chairman in his efforts to clarify this 
provision.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you to the chairman and ranking member for their 
efforts.
  Mr. McCAIN. President, I wish to discuss the appropriations package 
before this Chamber today. We find ourselves, once again, dealing with 
the bulk of our Nation's spending bills at the end of the year, behind 
schedule, devoid of the careful consideration these important measures 
warrant. It is distressing that year after year, the Congress fails to 
produce legislation on time and free of unrequested, unauthorized, and 
wasteful spending. It is unfortunate that this year is no different.
  In hopes of avoiding a veto from the President on a bloated Labor, 
Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the majority has decided 
to lump the bill together with the popular Military Construction-
Veterans Administration appropriations bill. Instead of allowing this 
body to consider each bill on its own merits through robust and 
transparent debate, the majority and its members of the appropriations 
committees have attempted to shield their wasteful ways with the 
treatment and well-being of our servicemen, women, and veterans covered 
under the MilCon-VA bill. Not only is this an unconscionable tactic, it 
also is a violation of Senate rules, specifically rule XXVIII and 
represents the continued devolution of our annual budgeting process. I 
am confident that there will be enough collective wisdom mustered today 
to uphold the Senate rules and send this conference report back to the 
House.
  Let us address briefly the reasoning behind the President's 
threatened veto of the underlying bill. The Labor-HHS bill currently 
stands $9.8 billion above the President's request, and $841 million 
over the Senate-passed level. Not only is this an unacceptable 
inflation of the original funding request, but it also highlights the 
egregious practice of earmarking funds. During conference, behind 
closed doors, there were at least 117 earmarks added to the Labor-HHS 
portion of the bill, and an additional 109 earmarks inserted into the 
MilCon-VA portion. Overall, the package before us today contains an 
eye-popping total of nearly 2,200 earmarks. I am ashamed of this 
graphic display of waste. It is disconcerting that in this time of 
necessity for our men and women returning from service overseas, 
lawmakers have attempted to hijack a bill vital to ensuring their 
proper care and treatment.
  As usual, the majority of earmarked funds in this bill will go to the 
States represented by members who serve on the appropriations 
committee. I have long stressed the necessity of reforming the 
excessive and irresponsible ways of earmarking, and the state of the 
bill before us today only reinforces that need. And to think, less than 
months ago, most Members heralded the enactment of the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, believing it would change 
business as usual. Well, it hasn't.
  Allow me to take a moment to highlight a few earmarks of particular 
note: $350,000 to study the relationship between residential floor 
coverings and distributive patterns of airborne particulates in Smyrna, 
GA; $320,000 for the American Jazz Museum, Kansas City, MO; $400,000 
for a study of the feasibility of establishing a graduate school in the 
medical sciences at Radford University in Radford, VA; $130,000 for the 
First Ladies Museum in Canton, OH; $325,000 for the South Florida 
Science Museum, West Palm Beach, FL; $150,000 for the Italian-American 
Cultural Center of Iowa in Des Moines, IA; $150,000 for the American 
Ballet Theatre in New York, NY; $1.42 million for the virtual 
colonoscopy outreach program at Marshall University in West Virginia; 
$100,000 for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum; $250,000 for exhibit 
preparation at the James K. Polk Presidential Hall TN; $75,000 for the 
Monterey Bay Aquarium in California; $211,900 for exhibit preparation 
at Utah Art and History Museum.
  While some in this body may feel that it is in our vital national 
interest to spend $350,000 of the American taxpayers' money to study 
the spread of dust on residential floor coverings, I simply disagree. 
The above,mentioned projects are only a small snapshot of the many, 
many other wasteful items tucked away in the 853 pages of this bill.
  Our Nation remains at war, and as a result we continue to see our 
brave service men and women in uniform returning home in need of 
comprehensive and effective care from our VA system. It is our 
responsibility as Members of Congress to address the needs of those who 
have born so valiantly the sacrifices of armed conflict by providing 
our VA system with the resources needed to accomplish its mission. The 
President has stated publicly his intention to sign a clean version of 
the MilCon-VA bill when it reaches his desk. However, rather than 
addressing the needs of our veterans in a timely fashion, the majority 
has chosen to unnecessarily delay passage of this vital bill. The 
American taxpayer expects more of us, as do our brave service men and 
women who are fighting abroad on our behalf. We must stop these 
Washington games and return to placing our Nation's interests before 
our own.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to address the pending legislation, 
the conference report for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations legislation, which has been 
combined with the Fiscal Year 2008 Military Construction VA 
appropriations legislation.
  I encourage my colleagues to cut right to the chase. Packaging these 
bills together is an effort to force President Bush to sign the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill, which he opposes and will veto, by combining 
it with a Military Construction Veterans funding bill that cleared the 
Senate with almost unanimous consent. We ought to be working to write 
funding bills that are acceptable on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue 
and debating these conference reports separately. Instead what we are 
seeing is 2008 election year politicking at work.
  I voted against the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor 
because of the overall spending level, which was roughly $9 billion 
over the administration's request. Now I understand that this portion 
of the conference report

[[Page 30280]]

grew by an additional $840 million beyond what the Senate passed. The 
level of spending in this title of the conference report is excessive 
and will add to the huge financial burden we are leaving for our 
children and grandchildren. So while this legislation is well 
intentioned, I cannot support it. Nine billion dollars may not seem 
like much money in the context of a budget that totals more than $2 
trillion. But the cumulative effect of excessive spending will total in 
the tens of billions in any given year unless we act to maintain some 
form of fiscal discipline. Some of the additional spending, 
particularly related to education, I support--but the vote being cast 
today is in relation to the entire $151 billion discretionary package, 
which on the whole I do not believe should be approved.
  The military--veterans title of this package first passed the Senate 
by a vote of 92 to 1. I supported this bill on the floor, which was $4 
billion over the administration's request, because I agree with the 
vast majority of the policies and support the increased commitment to 
our Nation's veterans during a time of war. I fully support this 
portion of the conference report--and my understanding is that if the 
Congress presented this title to the administration as a free-standing 
bill, the President would sign the legislation. So what we are seeing 
on the floor of the Senate here today is the majority party's 
willingness to use whatever means necessary to get their way on 
excessive domestic spending--even if it means stalling a bill that 
would provide immediate resources to our Nation's veterans. Rather than 
working for the best interests of our veterans, they are being used for 
political theater. That, to me, is shockingly bad judgment.
  I understand that a point of order lies against this package for 
violating Senate rule XXVIII, and that it will be raised this 
afternoon. I will vote to sustain the point of order because the end 
result could be President Bush receiving the Labor-HHS title and the 
military-veterans title as free-standing packages. Thus the military-
veterans package would be signed and needed funds for our veterans will 
be available.
  My understanding is that, for a variety of reasons, the President 
will veto the Labor-HHS title. The administration has been vocal about 
their concerns for some time, so this should not come as a surprise to 
my colleagues. The Senate has been on notice.
  I tried to improve the Labor-HHS title during the floor debate by 
offering an amendment dealing with the Ryan White HIV/AIDS funding 
formula. My amendment was accepted by a rollcall vote of 65 to 28, but 
dropped during the conference process. My amendment simply ensures that 
the current Ryan White funding formulas would not be altered by this 
appropriations bill, neutering a provision in the underlying House bill 
that changes the formula that was unanimously agreed to in the Senate 
just last year. We agreed the money would follow the patients. The 
conference report will revert to waiting lines, while providing San 
Francisco a funding increase--even though they receive money in part 
for people who are already dead.
  Last December, the House and Senate passed by a overwhelming majority 
authorization legislation for Ryan White. Our recent revisions to Ryan 
White ensured that no large city lost more than 5 percent of its 
formula funding from the previous fiscal year. In addition to the 
formula funding, cities sometimes receive additional supplemental funds 
to deal with severe need. To ensure more stability, we reduced that 
supplemental funding--from 50 percent of the total to one-third of the 
total appropriations--to provide additional formula funding.
  The House provision I mentioned, which Senator Feinstein stated on 
the Senate floor was a ``Pelosi fix,'' funnels $9.4 million away from 
the current Ryan White Fiscal Year 2008 formulas so that 11 cities 
could benefit from yet another hold harmless provision for Fiscal Year 
2007. This new, retroactive hold harmless provision is added on top of 
the hold harmless provisions under the current Ryan White funding 
formulas. While some have called this a stop-loss, it is still a change 
to the funding formulas because it alters how the appropriations 
dollars would be directed to cities receiving Ryan White funds. This is 
a retroactive application of the stop-loss, applying to 2007 grant 
awards, not 2008 grant awards. Quite frankly, this earmark ensures that 
11 cities arbitrarily receive additional funds for Fiscal Year 2007 at 
the expense of 45 other cities.
  Even though my amendment was supported by a majority of Senate 
conferees, it was dropped in the conference negotiations. Because no 
amendments were allowed during the conference meeting, there was no 
chance for all conferees to take an up-or-down vote. Is this democracy 
at its best? Our constituents deserve a better, more fair process.
  As I said previously during the Labor-HHS floor debate, I stand ready 
to work with all of my colleagues on a compromise product that can 
garner support from both the legislative as well as the executive 
branch of our Government. It is unfortunate that we have to waste yet 
another week on this political exercise, rather than using that time to 
write a quality compromise product that can actually become the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I alert my distinguished counterpart, 
Senator McConnell, that I am going to use 4 or 5 minutes of leader 
time. So if he needs more time, I alert him to that fact. Our time is 
basically gone. I didn't know that when I came to the Chamber.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am prepared to use a couple minutes 
of my leader time.
  We have before us a combination of two bills--the Labor, Health and 
Human Services bill and the Veterans bill. We know the President will 
sign the Veterans bill. He has been hoping to get it for the last 
couple of months. We know he will veto the Labor, Health and Human 
Services bill. So Senator Hutchison from Texas has made a point of 
order that the Veterans bill should not have been placed into the 
Labor-HHS bill in conference.
  The principal reason for sustaining that point of order is to 
separate these bills and give us a chance to get a Veterans bill to the 
President by Veterans Day, which is next Monday. Today is the last day 
the House of Representatives could appoint conferees on this bill in 
order to get it to the President by next Monday, Veterans Day. So the 
only way we can get a signed Veterans bill by Veterans Day is for the 
point of order to be sustained, thereby separating these two bills and 
giving us a chance to get the job finished for our veterans, who richly 
deserve this important bill, by next Monday on Veterans Day.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the point of order, to give 
us a chance to get these bills separated and get this much needed 
relief to our veterans by next Monday, Veterans Day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Labor, Health, and Education bill 
passed the Senate with 75 votes. When the bill originally passed the 
Senate, I applauded my Republican colleagues for joining with us in 
such great numbers to support a bill of such great importance to our 
country's domestic well-being.
  This bill makes significant investments in education, and isn't it 
right that we do that? It supports the No Child Left Behind programs 
such as title I grants. In one school district in Nevada, 315,000 
students go to that school district. I have another school district in 
Nevada that has 88 students in it. We have 17 superintendents of 
schools in Nevada, but I have met with every one of the 
superintendents, and they believe the No Child Left Behind Act is 
really creating problems. Whether it is a big school district or a 
little one--problems. One of the big problems is the financial aspects 
of it are too short.
  The conference report that is before the Senate will do something to 
magnify our ability to educate children

[[Page 30281]]

with disabilities. That is the right thing to do. Why should the burden 
be left with local school districts? That money is taken from programs 
that enrich schools and is used to take care of a Federal mandate--
educating these children. I support educating those with disabilities--
physical, emotional, mental disabilities. They should be educated. But 
we required the States to do that. We should step forward. We have not 
done that. This bill conference report does that.
  This legislation helps families pay for college with Pell grants and 
other aids. It is important that is done.
  This legislation supports our economy and the well-being of our 
workforce with job-training programs for adults, young people, and 
dislocated workers, and supports funding for the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health.
  For health care, it makes critical investments, including local 
health care centers like community health care centers, to improve 
access to care and train nurses and other health care professionals.
  I can remember as a young Senator, Senator Moynihan was back there. 
He sat right back there. We were debating, at the time, one of the 
problems of the day--homelessness. Senator Moynihan said to me--he said 
it as a professor would tell a student--he said that one of the big 
problems with homelessness is we haven't lived up to our obligation as 
a Congress. When we emptied the mental institutions around the country, 
one of the obligations we had was to have community health centers so 
these people could go back and have their medicine readjusted. He said 
we have not done that. Very few community health centers exist, and 
this is the reason we have so many homeless. This legislation doesn't 
cure it, but it helps, it helps with community health centers.
  In this legislation, crafted by Senators Harkin and Specter, there 
are new funds for medical research to study diseases such as diabetes, 
cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.
  I had a conversation with J.C. Watts yesterday. He is retired from 
Congress but an All-American quarterback from Oklahoma, a great 
athlete. He said: Have you seen David Humm lately? I said: No, I 
haven't. David Humm was an All-American from Nebraska, and, of course, 
J.C. Watts knew of him and knew him. I told him: You wouldn't know 
David Humm. Handsome--he should have been a model. He played college 
football. He played professional football for 10 years. But he was 
stricken with multiple sclerosis. David Humm is very sick now.
  You think of people like David Humm when you recognize that we need 
to do medical research. This legislation increases funding for diseases 
such as multiple sclerosis. It gives the National Institutes of Health 
resources to do things in medical research that they cannot do unless 
they get money.
  Right now, people who want to do medical research are stymied. They 
know they make these applications to the National Institutes of Health, 
and if they are lucky, one out of every five grants will be funded, so 
a lot of people don't bother to even apply anymore because their 
chances are so remote that they are going to be able to do their 
medical research. This bill will help.
  This legislation fights poverty with community service block grants 
and social service block grants. It adds money to programs such as Head 
Start to keep kids healthy and start them on a path to good education 
and helps families cope with ever-rising energy prices.
  It does it all. It works in tandem with the VA portion to support 
America's veterans with funds for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration. There is money in this to support the 
Department of Labor's veterans employment and training programs to help 
returning troops.
  There are additional moneys for emergency and hospital care, 
rehabilitation, education, and long-term support for Americans with 
traumatic brain injuries.
  It is a good partner with the bill that is part of this conference 
report, the veterans aspect of this. In the Labor-HHS bill, there is 
care for homeless veterans, who comprise an outrageous 23 percent of 
America's homeless population. If you see a homeless person on the 
street, you can bet, No. 1, there is a 25-percent chance that person is 
a veteran. What a shame.
  The priorities I talked about here are not Democratic or Republican 
priorities; they are American priorities. We all want to keep our 
economy strong and growing, we all want to provide our children with 
keys to unlock a future of limitless opportunity, and we all want to 
give every American a chance to share in the blessings of our country. 
The bill now before us reflects those ideals in a responsible way. Yet 
President Bush has threatened another veto.
  Remember, ``veto'' is a new part of his vocabulary. He has been 
President for 7 years, and that is just something new he has picked up. 
In fact, he has threatened to veto all 12 appropriations bills before 
they were even written. He has already vetoed children's health 
insurance and is threatening to veto the farm bill, which is bipartisan 
legislation that both sides of the aisle have worked hard to write. In 
the 7 years of his Presidency, after having rung up record deficits and 
debt with his tax and spending policies that were rubberstamped by a 
Republican-dominated Congress, President Bush has suddenly decided to 
act as if he has newfound fiscal discipline.
  Given his fiscal record, everyone should understand the President's 
latest stand is driven by partisan politics rather than a desire to 
pursue proper fiscal policy. I understand that. I am sure many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. We all do 
understand it, but it is irresponsible. His failed Presidency has left 
him with little else to become relevant. But he should not attempt to 
score political points on the backs of our veterans who have given so 
much to our country and received so little in return.
  We have, in this conference report, $4 billion more than he asked 
for. Why? Because it is needed. The President should not attempt to 
score political points on the backs of working families who are 
struggling mightily after 7 years of his failed economic policy. Gas 
prices in Nevada are way over $3 a gallon now, and they say they will 
arrive at $4 a gallon. The President should not attempt to score 
political points on the backs of children in need of a good education, 
those who are ill and in need of a cure and those who are homeless in 
need of a place to sleep.
  He should not, and we must not let him, and we have that right here. 
We have the ability, and we have that obligation when we vote on this 
later today.
  Some Republicans are seeking to separate the two bills--to force a 
vote just on the VA bill and vote just on the Labor-HHS bill. If we do 
that, here is what happens. This bill will go back to the House with 
only the Labor-HHS bill. That is all the President will get. He will 
not get the veterans bill. At some time he will get it, but he could 
have it today. Remember, one bill we passed by 92, the other one by 75. 
Why would people change their votes? They agreed on these two bills. We 
have not changed the amount of them.
  So I hope we can do both of these bills. With the same bipartisan 
support that has brought this bill to the floor, we can pass it and 
send it to the President. We can get aid to veterans before Veterans 
Day. We can start investing in America's domestic priorities right 
away.
  We must not dance around the reality of the situation. President Bush 
wants these bills separated so that he can pressure us to make even 
deeper cuts in education, health care, and homeland security. Why do 
you think increases were made in the Labor-HHS bill? To help the 
American people as we see it. We are an equal branch of Government.
  The President and some of his allies here in the Senate are sure to 
recycle their well-worn language that we are holding up funding for 
veterans. That is false. It is untrue. We stand ready to pass this bill 
today. We stand ready to make right the awful conditions many veterans 
face as a result of this administration's neglect. We will not take

[[Page 30282]]

from Peter to pay Paul. We need not make that choice.
  Mr. President, 92 Senators who voted for the VA bill believe it sets 
the right priorities for America. I do too. Clearly, the 75 Senators 
who voted for the Labor-HHS bill believe it, that it sets the right 
priorities for America.
  What we have before us now are the same priorities. They have not 
changed. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing.
  We are the legislative branch of Government. The Founding Fathers, in 
setting up this wonderful country with our Constitution, made three 
separate and equal branches of Government. We, the Congress, do not 
serve under the President; we serve with the President.
  Why in the world would Senators who voted 75 in number now suddenly 
vote against the bill for which they voted? That is what they are 
doing. Why wouldn't we just send this whole piece of legislation to the 
President? Seventy-five Senators voted for one part of it; 92 Senators 
voted for the other.
  Be the legislative branch of Government; that is who we are. Don't 
kowtow to the President. We did what we thought was right, and it is 
unfair for him now to tell us how we should legislate.
  I ask that Senators vote the way they did the first time around: 92 
supported the VA bill; 75 supported the Labor-HHS bill. They are both 
badly needed for this country.
  Madam President, if we have remaining time, I yield it back.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the point of 
order. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 404 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the language that is the subject 
of the point of order is stricken.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I am not going to exercise my privileges 
under the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, the Senate now considers the 
question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the 
House bill and concur with a further amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 405 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--37

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________