[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 33779-33781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CHRISTOPHER AND DANA REEVE PARALYSIS ACT AND TRAINING FOR REALTIME 
                              WRITERS ACT

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on two bills that should 
have passed by unanimous consent because they are so widely supported, 
but there are objections to them by some Republicans.
  The first is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, and the 
other is Training for Realtime Writers Act. First, I am disappointed 
objections have been raised against the Christopher and Dana Reeve 
Paralysis Act on the other side. I do not speak for myself, but I speak 
on behalf of tens of thousands of Americans who suffer from paralysis 
and their families.
  The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is a bipartisan bill. It 
is a fiscally responsible bill. It addresses a critical need to 
accelerate better treatments and one day a cure for paralysis. 
Currently, paralysis research is carried out across multiple 
disciplines with no effective means of coordination and collaboration. 
Time, effort, and valuable dollars are used inefficiently because of 
this problem. Families affected by paralysis are often unaware of 
critical research results, information about clinical trials, and best 
practices. The bill will improve the long-term health prospects of 
people with paralysis and other disabilities by improving access to 
services, providing information and support to caregivers and their 
families, developing assistive technology, providing employment 
assistance, and encouraging wellness among those with paralysis.
  I am, frankly, surprised there continues to be an objection to moving 
this bill forward. I negotiated this bill with my Republican colleagues 
on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee before it was 
marked up in July. We received specific requests relating to the NIH. 
We accepted those requests. We moved forward. We removed the NIH 
reporting provisions in response to concerns that they were duplicative 
of reporting requirements NIH already had. We responded to all the 
feedback from the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH 
by incorporating both substantive and technical changes. At that point 
we were assured there were no objections. As a result of these good-
faith negotiations, the bill passed out of the HELP Committee with no 
amendments. Given all of the efforts we made to meet concerns raised by 
Senators on the other side of the aisle, and given that Senators had an 
opportunity to file amendments at that time but chose not to, I had 
every expectation that the bill would quickly pass the full Senate. 
Instead, it continues to be held due to Republican objections.
  One of my Republican colleagues has said he will object to all 
disease-specific bills because he does not believe that Congress should 
be able to pass legislation specifically targeting the fights against 
cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and so on. I strenuously disagree with the 
Senator on this point. I believe Congress can and should be involved in 
setting national priorities in these fields. But putting that aside, 
the fact is, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is not a 
disease-specific bill. Paralysis and mobility impairment are not 
disease-specific issues; they are symptoms or side effects that result 
from numerous diseases and situations, including traumatic brain 
injury, stroke, ALS, injuries from athletic activities, injuries, of 
course, from combat in the U.S. Armed Forces, and many others. So 
paralysis is not disease specific.
  Now, again, there seems to be another objection to this bill. One of 
our Republican colleagues has said he will not allow any bills to pass 
by unanimous consent that include spending without an offset. Well, let 
me be clear: There is no funding in the Christopher and Dana Reeve 
Paralysis Act legislation. It is only an authorization that allows the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve the quality of 
life and long-term health status of people with paralysis and other 
physical disabilities.
  Our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, made this case very 
clear in his discussion of the Water Resources Development bill. He 
explained the significant difference between authorizing and 
appropriating. Authorization bills are not spending bills; they 
determine which projects and programs are eligible to compete for 
future funding and provide for congressional review and oversight. 
Authorization bills provide the criterion for spending bills, but they 
do not contain direct spending. So any spending for the paralysis 
program authorized by this legislation will be subject to the annual 
appropriations process.
  The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act passed the House in 
October. It is long overdue for passage in the Senate. When I 
introduced this bill, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of NIH, spoke in 
support of the bill, and let me read something he said that day.

       So, really, as the Director of an institution that is 
     committed to making the discoveries that will make a 
     difference in people's lives, I feel proud and feel pleased. 
     But at the same time I'm humbled. I'm humbled because in many 
     ways the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is the 
     harbinger of what I see as the combination of the public, the 
     leadership in Congress, and the administration and government 
     in our country that is absolutely unique, and humbled because 
     at the same time, I know it contains a lot of expectations 
     from us. And I'm at the same time confident that we can 
     deliver on these expectations of NIH, with our sister 
     agencies throughout the government. But the key thing I would 
     like to provide is an expression of commitment. At the end of 
     the day, if you do not have leaders and champions that look

[[Page 33780]]

     at a problem in its entirety, today in the 21st century, you 
     cannot make progress.

  So that is what Dr. Elias Zerhouni said on the day we introduced the 
bill. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Zerhouni. Progress is vital in 
science and biomedical research. It is also vital in the legislative 
process. As Senators, we have a duty to ensure due diligence in 
considering legislation. But for one Senator, or two Senators or three, 
to stall this bill, I believe without legitimate cause--if the 
objections are that it is disease specific, I have pointed out it is 
not. Secondly, if it is being held up because there is not an offset, I 
point out it is only an authorization bill, not a spending bill. If it 
were an appropriations bill, it would then be legitimately subject to a 
hold or objection to unanimous consent because it did not have an 
offset, if that were the case. Anyway, I think for a handful of 
Senators to block action on this bill seems to undermine the trust that 
people put in us as legislators to move forward on things, to respond 
to certain national needs.
  Let us be clear: By putting this bill on hold, Senators are also 
putting people with paralysis and their families on hold. It is a 
shame, I say to these Senators. I am not asking you to vote for the 
bill. If you don't like it, you don't have to vote for it. I am only 
asking you to allow the entire Senate to work its will. Don't slam the 
door on our fellow citizens who are living with paralysis. There are 
some 2 million Americans right now living with paralysis of the arms or 
legs, or both. Many others are living with multiple sclerosis. Hundreds 
of young soldiers are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with spinal 
cord injuries and paralysis, facing a lifetime of disability. They 
should not be placed on hold. They shouldn't have to wait. They 
shouldn't have to have further delay. They should have this bill 
passed.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider 
their decision to block this bill. As I said, I worked with Republicans 
before it went to the HELP Committee. We worked with the Department of 
Health and Human Services downtown, with NIH, and we met all their 
objections. We redrafted it and there weren't any objections when it 
went through the HELP Committee. No amendments were offered. That is 
the kind of legislation you would think would be subject to a unanimous 
consent procedure here on the Senate floor. It is a fiscally 
responsible bipartisan bill, as I said, that does not spend any money. 
It only authorizes.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator has just under 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Four minutes.
  I also wanted to talk about the Training for Realtime Writers Act. On 
behalf of more than 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard of 
hearing, I express my deep disappointment that again one or two 
Senators on the other side of the aisle are blocking passage of this 
important legislation, the Realtime Writers Act of 2007. Again, it is a 
bipartisan bill. It is fiscally responsible. It addresses an urgent 
national need to train more real-time captioners at a time when the 
demand for these professionals has far outstripped the supply, and 
when, in fact, the law of the land says that all programs have to be 
real-time captioned.
  For those who don't know what real-time captioning is, these are the 
people, if you are in your offices and you are watching the Senate 
floor and you put your button on mute, you see the little closed 
caption go across the bottom of the screen. That is someone sitting 
down here in the bowels of the Capitol watching what we say and, on a 
machine, typing this in so that if you are deaf or hard of hearing you 
can read what is happening. This is true on programs you watch on 
normal television as well.
  Again, we all use that, I know, at different times. You don't have to 
be deaf or hard of hearing to use closed captioning. But what has 
happened, and how this came about is very simple. In 1996, in the 
Telecom Act, it required that all English language television 
broadcasts be captioned by the year 2006. All television broadcasts 
must be real-time captioned by 2006. That was last year. So it is now 
2007, and many stations across the country are not in compliance with 
the law. As a result, a lot of deaf and hard of hearing Americans are 
not able to access the full range of television programming we take for 
granted. And why aren't they compliant? Well, it is a legal 
requirement, but the fact is there are not enough captioners. We knew 
that back when the bill was passed in 1996. That is why we gave it 10 
years for implementation. And little by little we have been trying to 
get more real-time captioners, but we don't have them.
  This bill is an effort to bolster that program and to put focus on 
it. Again, it is an authorization bill. It is an authorization bill. It 
authorizes the creation of a competitive grant program to train 
captioners at the funding level of $20 million a year for 5 years. So, 
again, it is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.
  There has been a shortage of real-time captioners. And you might say, 
well, if there is a shortage, why aren't there more people? Well, a lot 
of people don't know about it. They don't know about the demand. We 
need the training and expertise. This is a difficult job. I mean, our 
stenographers here, who take down our words, have a difficult job, but 
at least they have time to go back and print it out after they put it 
into the machines. A real-time captioner has to listen and watch what 
we are saying and put it on immediately. So it takes a lot of expertise 
and training to do this.
  This act authorizes, again, the funding. It creates no new 
entitlements. It sunsets after 5 years, because once we get the number 
up and we get schools across the country teaching this, I have no doubt 
that we will have enough in the pipeline. And let me point out that 
this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent three times before, 
only to languish in the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask that 2 more minutes be added to our time; 
otherwise, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, 2 minutes will be added to 
the Republicans' time as well.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, the House indicated they would take it up. It 
languished here. It passed the Senate, as I said, by unanimous consent 
three times already. Again, it is time to keep the promise that 
Congress made to 30 million Americans in 1996. I would hope we would 
not block the Realtime Writers Act, and let it go through, and with 
unanimous consent, as it has done three times in the Senate before. I 
would ask those who have a hold on the bill, are they saying that 100 
Senators before, who let this legislation go through, didn't know what 
they were doing? We all have staffs, and we all pay attention to what 
legislation goes through here. I think it is indicative of the support 
we had on both sides of the aisle that the Realtime Writers Act, as I 
said, passed by unanimous consent three times in the past.
  I wanted to talk about these bills because again I think they are 
both widely supported. We have worked out agreements with people in the 
past, and I don't think there is any real, legitimate reason to keep a 
hold on these bills and not let them pass.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and 
pass Calendar No. 326, S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve 
Paralysis Act, and Calendar No. 291, S. 675, the Training for Realtime 
Writers Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I object to both, and I will give my 
reasons why during our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as part of my closing remarks, in case an 
objection was raised to the Training for Realtime Writers Act, I want 
to say this is something that can be done already by the 
administration, but I

[[Page 33781]]

would point out that they have not done it in 10 years, either 
Democratic or Republican Presidents. Quite frankly, they are not 
focusing on it. They have said they can do it as part of their high-
growth job training initiative, but they haven't done it. That is the 
point of the legislation. They have not done this.
  And for those interested in earmarks around here, 90 percent of the 
money in the high-growth job training----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I want to close with 30 seconds, by saying that 90 
percent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Ninety percent of the money is noncompetitive. Over $235 
million over 6 years has gone out in noncompetitive grants, and not one 
penny for real-time writers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on this 
side of the aisle in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 90 minutes 16 seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, Mr. President, that the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed 
by myself, followed by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and 
then the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, for the first 40 minutes of 
our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________