Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the next amendment is the Schumer amendment No. 3404.

Mr. HARKIN. As amended by the Durbin amendment No. 3449.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been agreed to on both sides.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am informed that amendment No. 3391 by Senator Chambliss can be withdrawn, so I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3391 be withdrawn.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. study on folic acid

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Salazar, I will work with you to expand folic acid fortification of foods and beverages.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. This hearing will examine the Surface Transportation Board's recent and ongoing efforts related to the commercial regulation of railroads, including rulemakings and recent cases. Witnesses will provide their perspectives on the STB and its effectiveness in balancing the commercial needs of railroads and their customers and will provide an update on the Government Accountability Office 2006 report reviewing the freight railroad industry.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is on the nomination of Mr. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General--Designate, United States Department of Commerce; Mr. Robert Clarke Brown, Member of the Board of Directors--Designate, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Mr. Carl B. Kress, Commissioner-- Designate, Federal Maritime Commission; and Mr. A. Paul Anderson, Commissioner (Reappointment), Federal Maritime Commission.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to hold a hearing entitled, ``Examining the human health impacts of global warming.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing entitled ``EEOICPA: Is the Program Claimant Friendly for Our Cold War Heroes?'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Six Years After Anthrax: Are We Better Prepared to Respond to Bioterrorism?''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement entered into last night, I believe the Senator from South Carolina would be recognized next for amendment No. 3387, with 20 minutes of debate equally divided. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the Roberts amendment first, and then we would, after the disposal of the Roberts amendment, then proceed to the DeMint amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, now we are going to go to the Coburn amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence be changed and that the vote in relation to the Coburn amendment be second in the sequence; that the remaining provisions remain in effect.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I assume it comes as no surprise that I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma raises again the issue of children's health care. I think that debate should go on since the plight of poor children in this country needs as much attention as we can give it. But I do not think this amendment is serious about addressing the health of children. The amendment does not put any money into it at all; it just says that we will not have any congressionally directed funding until every child in America has health care coverage. I believe that is the way it is worded. So it really does not fund it. It does not do anything at all. I think it is the kind of thing that kind of gives Congress a bad name in that we say we want to do these things, but we do not provide any funding for them. We really already know how to increase the number of children insured in this country--by providing an increase in the SCHIP bill program. The Senate recently voted 68 to 31 to do that--68 to 31, pretty overwhelming. That bill would have provided insurance to millions of children who do not have any. Well, maybe the Senator from Oklahoma did not agree with how that was done but, nonetheless, 68 Senators did agree on both sides of the aisle on that approach. So, again, if the Senator was really concerned about the plight of these children, I would suggest that rather then voting against the SCHIP bill, which obviously provides some guidance and direction, that there is another way of doing it. Again, I point out that the Senate voted overwhelmingly to do that. That vote on SCHIP was a key one on children's health insurance, not a completely unrelated vote dealing with congressionally directed spending, which is what this is. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, if he wants more kids to have health insurance, then vote for a bill that would provide more health insurance to kids. If it is not the SCHIP bill, then what is it? It has been suggested that maybe a vote for the Coburn amendment might be a nice cover vote for those who oppose the SCHIP bill. I don't think so. Perhaps more and more people are finding out that a vote against the SCHIP bill was not a very popular one, as we hear from communities and States. But an amendment such as this doesn't change the facts about the SCHIP bill, one way or the other. I also disagree with the Senator's implication, if I might say, that congressionally directed projects in the bill are unworthy of Federal spending. I am proud of the projects I included in this bill. I will be glad to defend every one of them. Again, with the transparency we have that came with the new ethics reform bill, all of these have been spread upon the record. We know who asked for them and we know how much money is involved. I am happy to defend every one of the ones I put in there. I should add that many of the projects the Senator wants to eliminate are, in fact, directed to children's health. Let me cite a few examples. There is congressionally directed funding for St. Francis Hospital in Delaware to expand prenatal maternity and pediatric services to indigents. There is funding for the Youth Crisis Center in Jacksonville, FL to address the serious health consequences facing runaway and homeless youth. There is funding for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center in Boise, ID to expand pediatric services. There is funding for the St. Louis Children's Hospital in St. Louis for neonatal intensive care unit expansion. There is funding for the Mississippi Gulf Coast Children's Health Project which uses mobile units to provide primary care to indigent children along the gulf coast. There is funding for Child Sight in New Mexico, a vision screening and eyeglass program especially for Native Americans on reservations. There is funding for St. Anthony's Hospital in Oklahoma City for construction of a newborn nursery. All of these would be cut out if the amendment were adopted. They are good provisions, and they will go a long way toward helping children's health in all of these instances. Again, I don't see this as a serious means of doing anything to help children's health. It is an attack on congressionally directed funding to which the Senator is opposed. As I said, I support congressionally directed funding. I always have. I especially support it now with the new provisions on transparency and accountability as a result of the ethics bill we recently passed. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator whatever time he requires.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I point out that the Coburn amendment doesn't put 1 cent into helping children's health, not 1 penny. Yet in the bill itself, as I pointed out, there are a number of programs that actually go to help children's health all over this country. The Coburn amendment would eradicate those.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I do want to give the yeas and nays to the Senator. I was just going to move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. No.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, it was on or in relation to. So, yes, ask that again.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I think we are getting close. With these three votes coming up now, hopefully we are just a few amendments away from completing the bill, and hopefully we will have it done early this afternoon. I had hoped we would have it done by 12:30, but that does not look possible. But we are getting close. I hope when Senators come over to the Chamber we can work out some other amendments that are pending at this time, and perhaps we can get a consent to limit the number of amendments and bring closure to this bill sometime early this afternoon. Amendment No. 3437

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I make a point of order that the Senate is not in order.