Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to do that at this point.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3378 by Senator Tester and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for Mr. Baucus, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated October 17, 2007.

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. HARKIN. I agree with the remarks of the senior Senator from California.

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.

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. 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