To provide funding for the activities under the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005.

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3043, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

Harkin/Specter amendment No. 3325, in the nature of a
substitute.
Vitter amendment No. 3328 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide a limitation on funds with respect to preventing the
importation by individuals of prescription drugs from Canada.
Dorgan amendment No. 3335 (to amendment No. 3325), to
increase funding for the State Heart Disease and Stroke
Prevention Program of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Dorgan amendment No. 3345 (to amendment No. 3325), to
require that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress
regarding jobs lost and created as a result of the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Menendez amendment No. 3347 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide funding for the activities under the Patient
Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of
2005.
Ensign amendment No. 3342 (to amendment No. 3325), to
prohibit the use of funds to administer Social Security
benefit payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico.
Ensign amendment No. 3352 (to amendment No. 3325), to
prohibit the use of funds to process claims based on illegal
work for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits.
Lautenberg/Snowe amendment No. 3350 (to amendment No.
3325), to prohibit the use of funds to provide abstinence
education that includes information that is medically
inaccurate.
Roberts amendment No. 3365 (to amendment No. 3325), to fund
the small business child care grant program.
Reed amendment No. 3360 (to amendment No. 3325), to provide
funding for the trauma and emergency medical services
programs administered through the Health Resources and
Services Administration.
Allard amendment No. 3369 (to amendment No. 3325), to
reduce the total amount appropriated to any program that is
rated ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Coburn amendment No. 3358 (to amendment No. 3325), to
require Congress to provide health care for all children in
the U.S. before funding special interest pork projects.

[[Page S13173]]

Brown/Webb amendment No. 3361 (to amendment No. 3325), to
provide information to schools relating to the prevention of
violent events and other crisis situations.

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

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a)  In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$3,000,000 for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
to make grants under the State Heart Disease and Stroke
Prevention Program.
(b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting
services for the Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education
shall be further reduced on a pro rata basis by the
percentage necessary to decrease the overall amount of such
spending by $3,000,000.

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

[[Page S13174]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3369

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding at 5:30 this
evening we are going to have a vote on my amendment, the Allard
amendment No. 3369. I wish to take a few moments to review with my
colleagues the amendment, and then I understand before we have the vote
I can briefly describe the amendment again.
The Office of Management and Budget reviews Federal spending programs
with a nonpartisan analysis to determine what taxpayers are receiving
as far as the value of the taxpayers' dollars is concerned. This
program is called the Program Assessment Rating Tool or PART. They
utilize the same procedures that business executives use frequently to
determine whether their company is meeting specific goals.
In this particular instance, the Congress has directed the agencies
to put in place a similar system where they set up goals and objectives
and then determine through that process whether the program is
``effective,'' ``moderately effective,'' ``adequate,'' ``the results
are not demonstrated''--they have not made the effort yet--or the last
category would be ``ineffective.''
Well, a small percentage of programs receive an ``ineffective''
rating. Programs receiving this rating are not, according to OMB, using
your tax dollars effectively. As they elaborate on the PART Web site at
``expectmore.gov'':

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 3345

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

[[Page S13175]]

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

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

It is not surprising that people are concerned about this free trade
strategy. Free trade is a mantra, a moniker that doesn't mean very
much. I like trade. I am for plenty of trade. I come from a State that
produces a lot of agricultural product, and we need to find a foreign
home for more than half of what we produce, so I don't come to the
floor of the Senate saying let's not trade. I say let's do trade
agreements that are good for this country, not bad for this country.
We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and we were told--
by the way, this is an agreement that started under George Bush I, it
was completed by President Clinton. I opposed President Clinton and
George Bush I, President Bush. But we were told that if we completed
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, we would have 200,000
new American jobs created in this country as a result. Two economists,
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott--Hufbauer/Schott they called the
study--said, actually, 170,000 new jobs in a couple of years. The
supporters of this trade agreement rounded it up to 200,000 new jobs.
Let me tell you what has happened since that time. I told you we
turned a very modest trade surplus with Mexico, about $1.5 billion,
into a very large trade deficit, now somewhere around $60 or $70
billion a year.
We have a little program in the Labor Department that requires
companies to certify jobs that are lost because the jobs went to
Mexico. Then you get trade adjustment assistance for the workers. So
what we know is 412,000 U.S. jobs have been certified as lost because
of NAFTA under one program at the Department of Labor.
In the 10 years after NAFTA had been approved, I commissioned a study
from the Congressional Research Service, and they identified the top
100 companies that laid off U.S. workers as a result of NAFTA during
that first 10 years. To come up with that, they turned to the
Department of Labor. They have this Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program. It says these top 100 companies accounted for 201,000 jobs
they certified were lost due to NAFTA. If you look at all the
companies, that is 412,000 jobs.
Let's look at this list, a few of the names. We passed NAFTA--
Hufbauer/Schott--all the political supporters, including those in the
Senate, thumbing their suspenders, talking about what a wonderful deal
this is going to be for the United States, knowing nobody who wears a
blue suit in this Chamber is going to lose their job. It will be
somebody else.
Let's look at what happens. Levi Strauss, 15,676 jobs lost due to
NAFTA. Does that mean people aren't wearing Levis? No, you can find
some. Go outside the door, you can find Levis. They are still buying
them. You can find places where they are selling them, a popular
American jean. Except you will not find a pair of Levis made in this
country. That is gone, 15,676--that is a big number.
What about just one of them? What about one person--follow that
person home from work one day, and that person had to tell their
spouse: You know what, I lost my job today.
The spouse says: What happened?
I don't know, I have done a good job, I worked for them for 15 years.
But they told me I lost my job. They are moving the job to Mexico.
Why?
Because I make too much money, that is why. I get paid $6, $8, $10,
$11 an hour, and that is way too much money. You can hire people for
much less money than that in Mexico, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka.
Kraft Foods is on this list. Kraft Foods decided they were going to
move their Fig Newton cookies to Mexico, Monterrey, Mexico. If somebody
says to you someday: Let's go out for some Mexican food, go to the
store and buy some Fig Newton cookies. That is Mexican food.
All those folks who made Fig Newton cookies in New Jersey, they say
some of them had to shovel fig paste with a scoop shovel, but they made
too much money in New Jersey. Is there a better scoop shovel in Mexico
or is there somebody who will shovel that fig paste for much less money
per hour? Or is there some natural fig advantage in Mexico? Probably
not. It is that Kraft, similar to Levis, decided: this trade agreement
gives us the opportunity to move these jobs to Mexico.
Fruit of the Loom--5,352 U.S. workers in Texas alone. Have people
stopped wearing underwear? I don't think so. People still wear
underwear. They just don't wear underwear made in this country. Fruit
of the Loom is gone, and I suppose there are people who made a career
out of Fruit of the Loom and probably enjoyed it. Maybe their neighbors
kidded them a little bit: you work down at the Fruit of the Loom place.
But I bet they enjoyed those careers. But they are gone because those
jobs are moved in search of cheap labor.
Barbie playhouses that Mattel made in a Kentucky plant, they shifted
that factory to Mexico.
The list goes on and on. You can see the list here, the corporations
that certify to the Department of Labor that we moved our jobs. These
companies moved the jobs as a result of the NAFTA trade agreement.
My feeling about trade agreements is this. When you sign a trade
agreement with another country, it ought to be mutually beneficial to
us and them. I came from a meeting 5 minutes ago about the issue of
automobiles--nothing to do with trade, it had to do with CAFE
standards, better gas mileage for vehicles. Somebody was talking about
we are going to have Chinese cars coming into this country. We are
going to see an import of cars into this country because China is
ramping up a very aggressive automobile export industry, and we will
very soon see small, efficient cars on the streets of this country
coming from China.
Guess what. We did a trade agreement with China a while back, a
bilateral agreement. Here is what we agreed to, with China, a country
we have a giant trade deficit with--$230 billion a year. We said this:
China, when you sell your cars in the United States, we will impose
a 2.5 percent tariff on your cars. And, by the way, we agree that when
we sell U.S. cars, U.S. cars made in the United States, in China, you
can impose a 25-percent tariff. So a country we have a huge trade
imbalance with, the biggest in human history, we said to them: it is OK
for you to impose a tariff that is 10 times higher than we would impose
on bilateral automobile trade.

[[Page S13176]]

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

Amendment No. 3369

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

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

This is the President's budget. I say: Read it. It says: Sometimes if
you have an ``ineffective'' rating, maybe you ought to have greater
funding for it to overcome some shortcomings, rather than if you have
an effective program that may be getting funded, maybe it should be
done away with because either it is not a priority or has completed its
mission.
In other words, the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado,
Mr. Allard, is counter to the idea behind creating the PART process. It
was not intended as a club on an ``ineffective'' program, or it was
designed to assess the impact of programs, identify steps that could be
taken to improve them.
Now, that is not my only problem with this misguided amendment. I am
concerned about the important programs Americans need that would be
undermined by his amendment. Make no mistake about it, a vote for
Senator Allard is a vote against the programs you see listed on this
second chart. A vote for Senator Allard's amendment says we should undo
the fiscal mess created by the Bush administration policy of tax cuts
for the millionaires and the war in Iraq by reducing funding for
programs that help some students prepare for college, provide
unemployed low-income seniors with income, retrain workers who lose
their jobs due to foreign trade.
Now, here are some of the programs that would lose 10 percent of the
funding in the bill if the Allard amendment were adopted. The TRIO
Upward Bound Program is funded at $315 million in

[[Page S13177]]

the Senate bill. There are 900 sites throughout the country, including
8 sites and over 700 students in the State of Colorado, I say to the
occupant of the chair.
Here is what the Bush budget had to say about this program. This is a
quote from the Bush budget:

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

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

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

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

PART ratings do not result in automatic decisions about
funding.

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

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

So there may be effective programs that are rated as ``effective''
that probably ought to be cut. I am sure the administration and OMB are
probably doing that, because they have either completed their mission
or it is not a priority.
On the other hand, there may be some of those rated ``ineffective''
as mentioned in the TRIO program, rated as ineffective. When they
looked at the overall score, they said: Well, it is effective if you
look at higher risk students. So they carved it out and said: Thirty
percent has to go to higher risk students. Then they requested the
continued funding for it.
I say to my friend from Colorado, I understand his desire. Everybody
wants to cut down on something that is ineffective. But I do think that
if the Senator were to read and understand completely what that Program
Assessment Rating Tool does, he might agree with the President's own
words on his budget.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments the Senator from
Iowa was making. I was not elected to this body--I do not think the
Senator from Iowa was either--to make easy votes. This can be a
difficult vote. There are programs on there that I support, I support
wholeheartedly, but I want them to be effective. How can I go back to
my taxpayers in the State of Colorado and say: Well, we are spending
billions of dollars on this program, but it is ineffective. It is not
measuring up to the standards which most businesses would be expected
to measure up to for performance, or maybe other agencies are going to
measure up to for performance.
I do not know how else to get the attention of the bureaucracy except
to deal with them where they pay attention. That is their pocketbooks,
their budget. I think when we have an ineffective program, we are not
doing our jobs as Senators if we do not figure out a way to bring
accountability to the program.
Now, this is a modest attempt to try to bring some accountability. We
do not eliminate any programs. We do a reduction on a few programs that
are listed as ``ineffective.''
In the business world, they use the same process that OMB puts in
place. This is not a partisan process. You know, you referred to
President Bush's actions on it. It may be a Democratic President 3
years from now. He is going to be dealing with the same problems this
President is dealing with, that he has programs out there that simply
are not measuring up.
So let me get back to what the standard business world does. They
look at a program and say: Well, look, we are spending a certain amount
of money, and it is not performing. Because it is not performing, we
have either got to redo the program, which is an option the Congress
can look at, or we eliminate it altogether, or we create some other
kind of modification that is going to make it accountable to the
stockholders of that company.
The stockholders in this case are the taxpayers of the country. They
are the ones putting money in this program. They are the ones who
expect the program to do what it says, for what it is set up to do.
This is a program that has been in place for 10 years. It is not a new
program.
The agencies have had plenty of time to respond and react to this
particular effort. I would credit those agencies or programs that are
listed as ineffective for at least having tried to comply with the law.
There is another group there I did not address. There are those where
results have not been demonstrated. They are sort of thumbing their
nose at the Congress and saying: Heck, we are not even going to bother
to set up any goals and objectives for our program. We are going to let
it run on auto. In some cases they have a legitimate reason for doing
that, but I do

[[Page S13178]]

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

Amendment No. 3347, as Modified

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

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

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

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

amendment no. 3331

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

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

amendment no. 3419

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

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

amendment no. 3434

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

On page 66, line 7, strike ``$756,556,000'' and insert
``$786,556,000''.
On page 66, line 10, strike the period and insert ``, and
of which $189,000,000 shall be

[[Page S13179]]

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

amendment no. 3405

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

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

amendment no. 3411

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

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

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

Amendment No. 3369

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 381 Leg.]

YEAS--68

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

NAYS--21

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

NOT VOTING--11

Biden
Clinton
Crapo
Dodd
Ensign
Graham
Hagel
Kennedy
McCain
McCaskill
Obama
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have one vote to follow right now. The
managers have been working to finish this piece of legislation as
quickly as possible. The staff has worked through a number of
amendments today--in fact, a significant number of amendments. We are
on a glidepath to finish this legislation by 12:30 tomorrow, so
everyone is going to have to cooperate and get things done. We have a
lot to do this week, but the key to getting it done is finishing this
bill.

Amendment No. 3347, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on
the Menendez amendment, as modified.
Who yields time?
Senators will please take their conversations off the floor. The
Senate is not in order. Will the Senate please come to order so we may
hear the Senator from New Jersey.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hutchison be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wanted to thank Senators Harkin and
Specter for their leadership on the bill and their strong support of
this amendment, which is to put $8 million in the

[[Page S13180]]

Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Act. It is strongly
supported by a letter that was issued by the American Cancer Society,
the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, the National Association of Community
Health Centers, the National Medical Association, the National Patient
Advocate Foundation, and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.
What they say in their letter sums it up in its totality. It says:
Improving the health of America as a whole depends significantly on our
ability to improve health outcomes for the uninsured, those who live in
rural areas, minorities--
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator from
West Virginia is correct. Will the Senators please take their
conversations off the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the American Cancer Society and all of
these other organizations tell us that this amendment will help
individuals who are in rural communities, minorities, and other
medically underserved populations who suffer from a disproportionate
burden of cancer, navigate the health care system, create more positive
outcomes, save money, and save lives. That is why we urge all of our
colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time in
opposition?
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time in
opposition.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 382 Leg.]

YEAS--88

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

NAYS--3

Coburn
DeMint
Kyl

NOT VOTING--9

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

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

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

amendment no. 3432, as modified

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a)  In addition to other amounts made available
in this title, $3,000,000 shall be made available for trauma
care activities.
(b) Amounts made available under this Act for consulting
services for the Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education
shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by the percentage
necessary to decrease the overall amount of such spending by
$6,000,000.

amendment no. 3377, as modified

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

Amendment No. 3378

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3378 by Senator
Tester and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Tester,
proposes an amendment numbered 3378.

The amendment is as follows:

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to on the
other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment No. 3360 Withdrawn

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3360 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is the situation. Everybody wants to
know if there will be more votes tonight. We don't know yet. We are
trying to work out amendments with the other side. We have been
instructed by the leadership to finish this bill by 12:30 tomorrow. We
still have a lot of amendments pending. We are trying to work them
through. Depending on the progress within the next half hour or so, we
will know whether we need to have more votes tonight.
There are a lot of amendments pending. If somehow we can get these
offered tonight and stacked for votes tomorrow, we might be able to do
that. If not, we may have to have votes further tonight. I have been
instructed by my leader to continue in that vein. So I cannot say yet
if we are going to have more votes tonight. It depends on how many can
be accepted on both sides. We will know shortly.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be recognized for 10
minutes to speak about the fires in California; that upon the end of
her presentation, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, be recognized
for 5 minutes for the purpose of offering an amendment; that at the end
of that 5 minutes, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, be
recognized for 5 minutes to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S13181]]

The Senator from California.

California Wildfires

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

Amendment No. 3400 to Amendment No. 3325

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

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

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

(Purpose: To provide support to Iraqis and Afghans who arrive in the
United States under the Special Immigrant Visa program)

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

[[Page S13182]]

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

Amendment No. 3446 to Amendment No. 3325

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

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

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first let me say I wish to be added as a
cosponsor to Senator Cardin's amendment. I was very taken by his
presentation about the responsibility that we do have, and it has been
on my mind, actually, for several weeks about our allies and support
staff in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I want the clerk to note that I wish
to be a cosponsor to the Cardin amendment.
But I rise to speak about an amendment I am offering, and I have had
some very good advice and counsel on this amendment from several
members of the committee, and I will speak about the amendment as if it
is modified, because Senator Kennedy suggested I might make some
changes to it.
As you may remember, last week the Senate was very helpful in
reinstating one mental health program that had been cut, I think very
inappropriately, and it couldn't have been at a worse time for us in
the gulf coast. It was an outstanding model program. Last week the
Senate adopted my amendment to reinstate a child's health program that
LSU had been running for 4 years, because after Katrina and Rita hit,
it was literally the only child counseling program in the metropolitan
area. That has already been done.
Tonight I come to the floor to try to help again in the same area of
mental health. We have crafted this amendment so that it has no impact
on the underlying bill because what it does, basically, is set a
competitive preference. This is not a set-aside but a competitive
preference for programs within the already existing and already funded
school-based mental health program. That has been well established and
well run for many years.
My amendment, with the Kennedy modification, simply says that the
Department should look out in the country, and if there are areas where
a disaster has been declared, they would give a competitive preference
to those areas and to those schools in giving out these grants for
counseling.
I cannot even begin to express the heroic efforts of our schools--
public schools, private schools, and parochial schools--and the things
some principals, teachers, faith-based organizations, and foundations
have done to help rebuild hundreds of schools that were destroyed. We
found, in our disaster--and of course we are learning a lot from the
lessons learned in the disasters of Katrina and Rita, but one thing I
know for sure, and I don't need a survey or anybody else to tell me
about it because, as you know, I have been following it pretty closely,
is that

[[Page S13183]]

the first thing parents and a community want back, basically, is their
schools.
After a whole neighborhood is destroyed, or large parts of a city, no
matter how large or how small, in order to get back to normal, parents
first have to get their children safe and into a school. So we noticed
right after Katrina-Rita, with 300,000 children looking for a place to
go to school on Monday morning, there was a great struggle underway for
parents to start to stabilize their family situation by getting their
children back in school. Even if the family had no home, even if the
father or mother had no job, even if they couldn't locate the
grandparents, they were first thinking about where can our children go
to school on that Monday morning.
Imagine the children coming into schools--and I could tell you so
many stories, extraordinary stories of teachers and schools and
principals who opened their arms to children who came in and who had
been traumatized from not only, of course, losing their own home, but
some of the children swam out of water, some children, unfortunately,
saw many people die in the disaster, and some had losses in their own
immediate families. So I don't think I have to explain the need and the
importance of mental health counseling.
That is what this bill does. Senator Harkin has been a phenomenal
supporter of this program. I think he actually helped to create it.
Again, I am not asking for any new money to be added. I am not even
asking for a set-aside for any of the programs in the gulf coast. I am
simply saying as we look to the future to fund these programs that we
give a competitive preference, if you will, for schools that find
themselves in disaster areas.
Senator Boxer spoke for 10 minutes on the crisis underway in Southern
California. Imagine the trauma some of these children are going to be
dealing with over the next months and years trying to rebuild in those
communities, or if their home was completely destroyed by fire. These
disasters, by their very nature, cluster in certain communities. So you
might have a group of schools where 90 percent of the children lost
their homes, or a large proportion of children might have lost someone
in their family in a disaster. So it makes common sense for us to be a
little more sensitive to these mega disasters, and that is what my
amendment does. So I offer it now. I don't know if it can be accepted
by voice vote. I am happy for it to be voted on at any time. If
everything else is in order, I will leave the rest to the managers.
While I am waiting on some documents in another matter, let me say a
few more things about this. The funds would be divided between four
grantees to leverage funds for mental health services, as I said, to
the schools. The schools play a central role after a communitywide
traumatic event. Schools are a very important site for delivering
mental health services. Schools are often best situated to recognize
immediate mental disorders. School-based mental health services lead to
increased academic achievement, decreased attention problems and
disciplinary issues, and reduce special education referrals.
The national average, unfortunately, as we know--and I think we need
more resources in this area--is 476 students for every 1 counselor. The
recommended ratio in our schools is 250 to 1. So imagine in the
devastated areas along the gulf coast and in other places, such as in
Kansas, where Senator Pat Roberts experienced a great tornado disaster
in a much smaller community, but it was pretty much a complete
destruction of a town in Kansas; or as Senator Boxer is experiencing
right now in Southern California, this amendment would look forward.
Again, it would not add anything to the budget, but I think it would
give us an opportunity to give some appropriate competitive preference
to these children.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce to all Senators there
will be no more votes tonight. But I must say there are a lot of
amendments floating around that have not been offered, and we do have
some that are pending. We are working on those right now, and shortly--
I hope within the next few minutes--I will be propounding a unanimous
consent request that when we come in at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning we
will have a list of amendments that we will be voting on.
So I say to Senators, if you have an amendment that is floating
around out there, and we have a list of them, and you want it offered,
I would suggest you better get over here tonight and do it, because
once we start the votes in the morning at 10 o'clock--and hopefully we
will reach unanimous consent with the other side on that, as I said, in
a few minutes--that is going to chew up a lot of the clock. And since
an agreement has been reached that we would finish by 12:30 tomorrow,
that means if you have an amendment to be offered, you are going to get
squeezed tomorrow morning. We may have to have one of those kind of
agreements where you get 1 minute to speak, and you can offer your
amendment, but it is going to be pretty hard to get an amendment in
tomorrow morning.
I have to say to Senators, if you have an amendment that you feel
strongly about and you want to have offered, you better get over here
this evening. Because tomorrow morning the traffic is going to be
pretty crowded around 10 o'clock.
Mr. President, while we wait to work out some other matters, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

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

amendment no. 3427, as modified

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

amendment no. 3379, as modified

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

amendment no. 3344, as modified

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

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

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 17, 2007.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington,
D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: As part of the FY
2008 appropriations process, I have submitted requests for
earmarks for FY 2008 appropriations bills or reports as
required by the Senate Appropriations Committees and the
individual Subcommittees.
I am writing you to certify that neither I nor a family
member has a pecuniary interest in the FY 2008 earmark
request I submitted in an October 17, 2007 amendment to H.R.
3043, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.
This

[[Page S13184]]

is in compliance with Senate Rule XXXVII (4) .
Thank you for your leadership on the Appropriations
Committee. If you or your staff has any questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Will Sehestedt of
my staff.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerly,
Max Baucus

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

SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY

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

COPD

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

[[Page S13185]]

Harkin to ensure CDC is responsive to this issue and begins developing
a national plan to address COPD.

low income home energy assistance

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

GME Program

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank everyone for all their work
in putting this bill together. I fully appreciate the significant
challenges that Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter face in
balancing spending priorities with limited resources. I want to thank
them for restoring $99 million in funding for the Children's Hospital
GME program. Unfortunately, that level is still almost $200 million
below last year's level.
CHGME is a valuable investment. It made it possible for children's
hospitals to sustain and expand their teaching programs without having
to sacrifice their commitments to clinical care for all children and
research to improve children's care. These hospitals are major safety
net providers of inpatient and community-based ambulatory care for low-
income children and--as most of us know--the hospitals we depend on to
care for seriously and chronically ill children.
Spending has grown less than 4 percent over 5 years since the program
was fully funded. Congress reauthorized the program with overwhelming
bipartisan support last year and set a new funding level at $330
million, which is based on continuing equity with Medicare GME. The
House Labor-HHS appropriations bill funds the program at the $307
million level, which I hope we can achieve in conference.
I know that both the chairman and the ranking member are strong
supporters of this program, and it is my hope that we will be able to
work together to secure the House number in conference.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I join Senator Bond in his recognition of the
challenges that Labor-HHS appropriations presents, and I sincerely
appreciate the continued efforts of my colleagues to emphasize the
importance of increased funding for CHGME. I support an increase in
funding for CHGME to $307 million, and I thank the chairman and ranking
member for their support in trying to increase funding in conference.
The number of children throughout our country is rapidly increasing,
and we must provide the necessary funding to train pediatricians and
pediatric subspecialists at a pace that reflects the child population
growth. For example, from 2000 to 2006, the number of children in my
home State of Texas increased by an astounding 501,800, and the
projected increase of children in Texas from 2006 to 2010 is over
346,000. CHGME funding helps provide access to pediatric medical
services and ensures the needs of children are addressed with
specialized health care.
CHGME is essential to ensuring that pediatricians and pediatric
subspecialists in cardiology, emergency care, gastroenterology and
other fields receive the necessary medical training to provide the best
level of care to our children. In Texas, 60 percent of pediatric
residents and 84 percent of pediatric subspecialists are trained at
children's hospitals, and CHGME funding supports children's hospitals.
Without this funding, we risk facing a national decline and ultimate
shortage in the number of physicians that have received the specialized
training to treat our smallest and youngest patients.
I support an increase in funding because CHGME strengthens each
State's ability to retain pediatricians after completion of the
residency program. Of the residents and fellows trained by CHGME
hospitals, nearly 60 percent remain to practice in the State in which
they completed their pediatric residency. In some States, this
percentage is even higher.
Texas and the Nation depend heavily on children's hospitals to care
for critically and seriously ill children, as well as the low-income
children in their communities. Increasing CHGME funding is an
investment in children's health. For these reasons, I proudly join my
colleagues in emphasizing the importance of this issue, and I hope we
can increase the funding for CHGME when we conference with the House of
Representatives.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program, known by many
as CHGME.
Medicare is the only provider of graduate medical education funding,
but because children's hospitals care for the young not the elderly,
they are unable to access funding provided by Medicare. To correct the
disparity of

[[Page S13186]]

Federal support between adult teaching hospitals and freestanding
children's teaching hospitals, Congress created the Children's
Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program in 1999.
CHGME allows our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train
many of the pediatricians American children visit each day as well as
almost all of the pediatric sub-specialists who care for our Nation's
most fragile children. And through stabilizing pediatric education,
CHGME has also advanced the patient care and research missions of some
of the Nation's most trusted hospitals for children. Without this
Federal assistance, these hospitals might be forced to sacrifice a part
of their critical missions.
In the current fiscal year, the program is funded at $297 million. I
am proud to say that that over $30 million of those funds--more than 10
percent of the total--has supported the training of pediatricians and
pediatric specialists at six outstanding children's hospitals in Ohio.
But more must be done, and I urge my colleagues to provide $307 million
for this program in fiscal year 2008.
In our country today there is a shortage in virtually every
subspecialty of pediatrics. So it is noteworthy that the CHGME has led
to the creation of fellowship programs to train pediatric specialists
in areas of need such as pediatric endocrinology, surgical critical
care, pediatric neurology, and child abuse and neglect--to name just a
few.
The CHGME Program needs to be maintained as a sustainable and
reliable source of funding for children's hospitals across the Nation.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank Senator Bond, Senator Hutchison, and Senator
Voinovich. As I said in committee, I am committed to providing an
increased level of funding for Children's Hospitals GME in conference.
The children's hospitals in Pennsylvania exemplify everything they have
said. They have been both regional and national leaders in centers of
excellence in pediatric care and pediatric research--while meeting the
needs of vulnerable and low income children across our State. Their
teaching programs are an integral part of all they do--in providing
services and making sure that children have the doctors they need.
My colleagues may not realize the continuing shortages in pediatric
specialty care--which is centered in these institutions--or the waiting
periods that all children and families face for nonemergency specialty
care. CHGME has provided a cost effective and valuable program in
providing enormous assistance to these children's hospitals and their
ability to continue services and teaching. Most importantly, it
directly benefits children's health care.
Mr. HARKIN. Children's Hospitals GME provides freestanding children's
hospitals with the same support for graduate medical education that all
other teaching hospitals receive through Medicare--as my colleagues
have said. In Iowa, we don't have freestanding children's hospitals--
instead our children's hospitals are part of larger systems or
institutions. Yet I have heard from our hospitals and pediatricians
about the workforce shortages they face and how important this program
is in making sure the children of my State get the best care possible.
For that reason, I join Senator Specter in our commitment to working
toward a higher level of funding for this program.

funding for the Organ Donation and Recovery Act

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking
Member Specter for putting together a funding bill for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that reflects our
Nation's priorities making college more affordable, increasing our
investment in medical research at the National Institutes of Health,
restoring funding for critical rural health programs, and increasing
our investment in a number of proven education programs.
I was pleased that the bill includes a $2 million increase for the
Division of Transplantation at the Health Resources and Services
Administration to implement the Organ Donation and Recovery Act. There
are currently more than 97,000 Americans on the organ transplant
waiting list. Unfortunately, nearly 6,000 people on the list die every
year while waiting for a transplant.
More than two-thirds of those on the waiting list suffer from end
stage renal disease and are in need of a kidney transplant. The good
news is that patients with end stage renal disease who require a kidney
transplant no longer need to wait for a kidney from a deceased donor or
from a blood relative. Advances in medical science now make it possible
for friends and spouses to donate a kidney to a patient in need. The $2
million increase provided in the bill for the Organ Donation and
Recovery Act will help increase the number of donations from living
donors by reimbursing travel and subsistence expenses for donors who
could not otherwise afford to donate.
This modest investment will save lives. It also makes economic sense.
Patients with end stage renal disease require dialysis, which is
covered by Medicare. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, Medicare spends about $55,000 per patient per year for
dialysis. On average, patients with end stage renal disease wait four
years before receiving a kidney transplant. This means that every
kidney donation made from a living donor has the potential to reduce
the number of people on the waiting list and save the government as
much as $220,000.
I hope the chairman and ranking member will continue to support this
important program in conference and support maintaining the Senate
funding level.
Mr. HARKIN. I share the Senator's support for organ donation, and I
thank my friend from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue.
This program is a smart investment and one that I will work to sustain
in conference. By helping pay the travel and subsistence costs of
donors who could not otherwise afford to donate, we will save lives and
reduce the number of people on the organ transplant waiting list.
Mr. SPECTER. I also strongly support efforts to increase the number
of organ donors and will work to maintain this funding in conference.
Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senators' support, and I look forward to
working with them to support this program and other initiatives to
increase the number of organ donors.

OBESITY

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

Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grants

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. I appreciate his efforts,
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, on the appropriations bill before us today. I commend
his continual

[[Page S13187]]

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

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention

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

public charter school funding

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate all of Chairman Harkin's
efforts in bringing this bill forward and thank him for his continued
support of the Nation's public schools, including charter schools,
which increase the academic achievement of our Nation's most low-income
students. Unfortunately, the committee did not provide

[[Page S13188]]

enough funding for public charter schools.
Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents, and
other community stakeholders to educate students of all backgrounds and
educational abilities. In exchange for greater accountability for
student achievement, these schools are free from many local and State
regulations. This flexibility and accountability has allowed
individuals with nontraditional backgrounds to create cultures that
have made charter schools top academic performers often in some of the
Nation's largest urban centers. Because of this unique approach to
education, demand for these schools has been remarkable over the last
decade. In New Orleans, charters schools have been an engine of our
school systems rebirth. For the 2006-2007 school year almost 60 percent
of New Orleans' public schools students were enrolled in charter
schools, the largest market share of any city in the country. Charter
schools are not a panacea, but they are a tremendously valuable piece
of education reform, and we should be cautiously optimistic about their
potential to help close the achievement gap. In my State, charter
schools have come in and filled the intense need we faced following the
hurricanes of 2006.
As the chairman knows, I have filed an amendment to restore funds to
the Credit Enhancement Program. I understand the chairman is not in a
position to be able to support that amendment at this time. Before I
withdraw my amendment, I hope that the chairman will commit to support
as much funding as possible for Public Charter Schools.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I join the Senior Senator from Louisiana in asking
Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter to provide as much funding as
possible for public charter schools.
One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992
was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging
them to create charter schools. I saw these charter schools as ways to
remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers
could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help
children and so parents could have more choices of schools.
Today, there are over 4,000 charter schools serving more than 1.15
million students in 40 States and the District of Columbia. Over half
of these schools report having waiting lists, averaging 166 students.
I am pleased that 12 charter schools have opened in Tennessee since
passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter
schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from
local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic
organizations.
Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering
students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs
and styles. They vary in specific mission and focus but not in their
commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return
for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they
accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If
charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals
of their charters, they are closed.
I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across
the Nation as word of their success spreads. Five years ago, the
President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains
several programs that support charter school development and provides
school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools
into charter schools.
It is my hope that the leadership of the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations subcommittee can look at every possible option, in
consultation with the House, to support as much funding as possible for
this worthy program.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Louisiana and
Tennessee for their interest in this matter and for their request. Yes,
I agree to support as much funding as possible for public charter
schools.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this bill is about making sure families
have access to health care and children get a good education. It
supports cutting-edge research, helps build a skilled workforce, and
ensures that crucial services are in reach for people who most need
them. Most important, it gives Americans hope that their Government is
working for them.
These programs help every family and every community. They are
priorities for me. I know they are priorities back home. So I want to
thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their leadership and
important work on this bipartisan bill.
These programs should be priorities for this administration too.
Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation.
He opposes this bill it because it represents an increase over his
requested budget. He says it is ``irresponsible and excessive.'' Yet
the $9 billion increase over the President's request represents a
fraction of the $190 billion in emergency spending he wants this year
for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is less than the $10 billion he spends in
Iraq in one month alone. As the President has waged war overseas, our
education, job training, and health systems have been left to cope with
unfunded mandates and empty promises. That--not this bill--is what is
``irresponsible and excessive.'' This bill simply restores some of the
money the President cut and takes a modest step forward after years of
going in the wrong direction.
Among other things, this bill boosts American competitiveness by
investing $4.8 billion in job training and career- and technical-
education when the President would have cut these programs by more than
$1 billion. It adds $1 billion to expand critical research at the
National Institutes of Health, reversing years of stagnant budgets. And
it strengthens education and health care by providing money for Head
Start, school improvement, and community health centers.
This bill recognizes how important access to quality health care is
for working families. While the President's budget neglected the
uninsured and those with limited access to health care, the Senate bill
invests an additional $250 million over the President's request in the
community health center program. This will help those families get
medical care without having to seek it in the emergency room. We have
all heard stories about how overburdened emergency rooms are by
patients who seek care there because they don't have health insurance
or are underinsured. But access to a doctor can prevent a child's
earache from turning into a serious infection, and it can make sure a
father gets screening and preventive care so that he doesn't develop a
serious and expensive form of cancer.
This bill also makes investments in another critical health care
concern--making sure we have enough doctors and nurses and other health
care professionals. Last week, I heard about it again in roundtables I
held across the State.
This bill provides $357 million for the Health Professions and
Nursing Programs to recruit and hire new health care professionals--
that is $242 million over the President's proposal. Of this, $169
million is for nursing education. That is $20 million over last year's
level. Our nurses are the front line of care in hospitals and nursing
homes. This will help address the serious nursing shortage we already
face.

It is also important that we provide opportunities and encouragement
for students who want to go into nursing so that we can replace these
retiring caregivers and meet the increasing demand for nursing care. I
applaud the committee for recognizing this looming concern, and I
repeat that the time to invest in our health care system is now--before
these problems become an urgent issue. We can't afford to wait.
This bill also supports our scientists and our biotech industry by
funding landmark research. The President's budget would have eliminated
hundreds of research grants from the National Institutes of Health--
money that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, MS, and
diabetes, among other diseases. This is on top of years of inadequate
funding for NIH. The Senate bill adds $1 billion for NIH funding
nationally.
This allows scientists at prestigious universities--including the
University of Washington--to continue their innovative medical and
biotech research. It also will provide hope for people with serious
diseases--hope that they won't

[[Page S13189]]

have if this research is cut off because of lack of funding.
We have heard the President say that education is one of his top
priorities. That is why it is so frustrating to me that he is
threatening to veto this bill. I am committed to ensuring Federal funds
are there to help build and improve our Nation's schools. Strong
schools make strong communities. We want everyone in this country to
have a promising future and a promising job--and education is how you
get there.
The Senate bill supports increased funding for Pell grants that help
kids afford college when they might not otherwise have had a chance to
get a college degree. It increases funding for school improvement by
$500 million. It sends $1 billion in badly needed money to help schools
in low-income communities raise children's achievement levels and
provide more opportunities for learning. And it reverses the
President's proposed $100 million cut to Head Start.
As a mom, a former preschool teacher, and school board president, I
saw firsthand that giving kids a boost early on can pay off in the
future. Reaching kids early makes them more likely to graduate and
succeed. This isn't frivolous spending. The money we spend on education
today will help children grow into better educated, better prepared
workers.
Providing Americans with the skills they need to excel in the global
economy while keeping them safe on the job are very basic needs that
every working family has the right to expect from their Government.
That is why I continue to be baffled by the administration's lack of
commitment to workers in our Nation. With strong bipartisan support for
this bill, the Senate is proud to stand with working families and
support the priorities that shape their daily lives.
When I travel around my home State of Washington, employers tell me
they are desperate to find workers with the skills they need to grow
their businesses. And we have thousands of people on waiting lists
hoping to get trained for these family-wage jobs. Yet for the last 7
years, the President has proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in
cuts for job-training programs, shutting the door to millions of
dislocated workers, youth and disadvantaged adults who deserve to share
in the American dream.

Under his watch, worker safety on the job has also been put at risk.
With OSHA's lack of enforcement, workers are unprotected. And today's
miners continue to work under an administration that values voluntary
compliance above safety and enforcement. This is the wrong direction
for working families and the wrong priority for America.
How do we begin to solve it? Well, one thing is clear--it isn't by
cutting $1 billion dollars in job training funds at a critical time in
our economic growth, as the President has proposed, nor is it by
proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to job training
programs, as he has one over the last 7 years. This bill rejects the
President's misguided cuts and goes to great lengths to maintain a
viable workforce and training system. If we want our local businesses
and our Nation to be competitive in the global economy, we must make
skills training for every worker a national priority. This bill does
that.
For some here in the Senate, this might be an abstract debate about
Federal funding. But this debate is about real people. It is about 30
kids in a classroom and a teacher struggling to make sure they succeed.
It is about hardworking parents searching for a way to get health care
for their families when it isn't provided by their employers. And it is
about workers who need training that will help them get a job that pays
enough to support a family.
When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope
and change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or access to
health insurance--people feel a real weight on their shoulders. They
are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel, and by vetoing these
important bills--and failing to invest in the health, safety, and
economic future of all Americans--the President keeps putting out that
light.
Mr. President, in this bill, we are investing more than $7 billion
over last year in the future of our country. I urge all my colleagues
to support this legislation on behalf of the millions of American
children and families who would benefit.
And I hope the President is listening.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 3043 tomorrow, Senator Enzi be
recognized to call up amendment No. 3437 and there be 30 minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the
use or yielding back of time, the amendment be temporarily set aside,
and Senator DeMint be recognized to call up amendment No. 3387, and
there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendment
be temporarily set aside, and the Senate then resume the Roberts
amendment No. 3365, and there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided
and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 3358,
and there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior
to a vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
return to the Enzi amendment and vote in relation to the amendment;
that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume the DeMint
amendment and vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition
of the DeMint amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
Roberts amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 3358; that
there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and
controlled, with no amendments in order to any of the amendments
covered in this agreement prior to the vote; and that after the first
vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. So, Mr. President, this ends our business for this
evening, so that when the Senate comes in tomorrow morning, we will
have four amendments that will take about an hour, and then there will
be four votes that will start. They will be stacked votes, and they
will then take place 1 hour after we come in.
Again, I say that if we come in at 10 in the morning and this takes
an hour and then we vote on four amendments, that will take us just
about to the noon hour, and we are supposed to finish by 12:30. So I
say again, if Senators have amendments, it looks as if they may be
getting crowded out, unless they get over here in a hurry.
With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________