Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California again for her championing this issue for a long time. This amendment from Senator Feinstein will provide funds for a feasibility study so no offset is needed since funds are set aside within the existing total for HHS general departmental management. The Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act of 2006 required the Secretary of HHS to create an electronic national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. They have not yet created that registry. There have been some problems that have been raised about this, and the feasibility study amendment Senator Feinstein has offered will address several implementation concerns regarding the establishment of the registry. So again, I support the amendment. We can accept it. I believe it has been cleared on both sides, so we will accept the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, the $500,000 will get the job done.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota for bringing up this important program. As a neighboring State Senator, telehealth is a very important part of our State. We have seen the savings, as the Senator talked about, that can accrue from this, not only in terms of money but in saving the lives of people who live in our small towns and communities. I have seen firsthand the benefit of telehealth by using the fiberoptic network system we have in the State of Iowa. I know of many cases where someone was in a car wreck in a small town and they didn't know whether they could leave them there in the small clinic or if they needed to be air-lifted, and with telehealth and with the fiberoptic system, they were able to do some diagnoses and make the decision that, yes, the person needed to be removed immediately or, no, they didn't. So it does save a lot of money, but it also saves a lot of lives. Again, I say to my friend from South Dakota, this program is a perfect example of how starved we have been in our account over the last few years--how starved we are in this bill. Ten years ago, telehealth received $15.8 million in this bill. Over the last 5 years, the funding has hovered between $4 million and $6.8 million. So again, I have no problems with the amendment. I hope our staffs can work together and we can work together to find an appropriate offset. I think there may be some things we can work out that will be acceptable to both sides on the offset. So I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his interest and for offering this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. We represent agricultural States, but we always had a good blend of manufacturing and agriculture. One of the well-kept secrets is that Iowa at one time had more foundries than any other State in the Nation, small foundries. People made things in these foundries. Those jobs have left now. Now with Maytag leaving, it is eroding our manufacturing base. We need a good industrial policy. We need a manufacturing policy for this country. We don't have one. We need a good industrial policy for this country. We don't have one. If we do not have some kind of an industrial policy and some policy that says here is the kind of manufacturing base we are going to keep, we are going to protect-- protect? I don't mind using the word ``protect.'' We are protecting our people. If we are going to have a manufacturing base that protects us in the area of national security, so we have the manufacturing wherewithal to take the raw materials and make them into items that our people need but which will provide us with that bulwark for the future against the possibility of other countries cutting us off or making trade sanctions against us--we need to have that policy. We don't have it. If we don't have it pretty soon, we are not going to be making anything in this country. We are not going to be making anything. We are going to be shuffling money around, that is all we are going to be doing. That is not what makes a great country, and it is not what is going to sustain us, if all we are going to do is shuffle money around. I thank the Senator. He has been a great leader in this area. We are going to do something. We don't have an agreement yet to accept it. I can tell the Senator I am going to work hard to make sure we get an acceptance of his amendment. I thank him for it. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for offering this amendment. It is a good amendment. I have checked with Senator Specter on our side, and it is OK on that side. It is OK with us. We will accept the amendment. Before doing so, I will again say to my friend from Missouri that in this bill we have increased funding above the President's budget for all the inspector generals in all the departments this bill covers. Basically opening it up, as her amendment does, allows more people access to what the inspector generals are doing. Hopefully we can continue to try to maintain the integrity and independence of the inspector generals. Some of them are perhaps being pressured by the administration to do certain things. But we want to maintain that integrity and the independence of the inspector generals. This amendment will help to do that.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate the sentiments by the Senator from Louisiana and accept this proposal to move the funding for this project to other priority projects for the State of Louisiana in the bill when it goes to conference committee.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Specter, for his very kind words, his generosity of spirit, and respond in kind that I have said many times to people that during the interregnum when the Republicans controlled the Senate--I say that jocularly--I was very fortunate and blessed to have Senator Specter as the chairman of this committee. He is right, we have worked together very closely over the years, and I thank him for that very close partnership and working relationship. He is a great leader in areas of health and education and medical research and so many other items. So I thank Senator Specter for that very close working relationship. I am pleased to bring to the floor the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. It has been said many times that the Defense appropriations bill is the bill that defends America. But this appropriations bill, the bill we have before us--the bill that funds Education and Health and Human Services and biomedical research and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--is the bill that defines America. This bill funds the most basic, essential, life-sustaining, and lifesaving services for millions of people in this country, including the most needy among us. It provides for the education of our children. It provides health care for many of our poorest citizens. It helps students from low- and middle-income families afford college. It funds medical research to help ease human suffering. It gives displaced workers a chance to get back on their feet. This bill does define us and says who we are as Americans. Despite extreme budget constraints, I believe we have produced a good bill. I wish we could have done more for these programs because we have some catching up to do. But we also have to be fiscally responsible. This bill fits within the budget resolution. It conforms to pay-go. It reflects the priorities of Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it reflects the values, ideals, and priorities of the American people. Again, I commend our ranking member, Senator Specter, for his leadership in helping to craft this bill. As Senator Specter said, we have had an amazingly productive partnership for the last, as I count it, about 17, almost 18 years. As control of the Senate has switched between the two parties, we have passed the gavel back and forth, but there has been one constant and that is our shared commitment to investing in job training, in essential human services, in education, and cutting-edge biomedical research. One notable accomplishment of our bipartisan partnership was the doubling of funding at the National Institutes of Health over a 5-year period between 1998 and 2003. It started under a Democratic President, finished under a Republican President. But today, sadly, that achievement seems like ancient history. Today, it is an achievement in this bill simply to prevent a cut at the National Institutes of Health because that is what the President proposed in his budget. The President proposed a $279 million cut in funding for NIH, in things such as cancer research, Alzheimer's research, ALS research, and other lifesaving research being done through NIH. The National Institutes of Health is just one of the critical programs in this bill that the President's budget underfunds. Head Start, special education, job training all would face cuts if the President had his way. Overall, for all the programs in this appropriations bill, his budget request was $3.5 billion below last year's level. Let me repeat that. The President's budget was $3.5 billion below last year's level--not below an inflationary increase, below last year's level. So not only did his budget fail to keep up with inflation, it would take us back. That is unacceptable. President John Kennedy once said that ``to govern is to choose''--a famous line. Well, I tend to agree. Governing is also about setting priorities. The President has set his priorities. He is just days away from sending up a supplemental budget request for the war in Iraq. We hear it to be as much as $190 billion, and he will insist that we appropriate every single penny. Meanwhile, 2 weeks ago, rejecting pleas from many members of his own party, he vetoed the SCHIP bill, which would preserve health coverage for 6 million children nationwide and cover millions more who are currently uninsured. Now, the President, with his statement of policy that he sent up yesterday, is threatening to veto this bill. So think about it. The President is demanding that we continue to spend more than $12 billion a month in Iraq on the war, yet he is threatening to veto this appropriations bill because it spends $11 billion a year more than what he wanted, for 1 year. The President says he wants $12 billion a month for the war in Iraq, but we shouldn't spend $11 billion over his budget for 1 full year for all of the other things we do in education and in health care and in human services. Under the Constitution, we know that the President proposes, the Congress disposes. So we in Congress get to set our priorities too. We also get to choose about governing. Rather than cut the essential programs and services in this bill, we have chosen in a bipartisan fashion to provide a very modest increase. So we respectfully disagree with the President. We believe it is time to make investments in this country. It is time for the President to put our own needs here at home first. For 5 years we have poured untold billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars into schools, job programs, hospitals, and human services in Iraq. It is time we looked after those same needs here in America. That is exactly what we propose to do in this bill. This bill provides a modest increase of $1 billion for the National Institutes of Health. That is 3.5 percent. That is less than biomedical inflation. But the President's budget would slash investments in NIH, cutting 800 research grants that could lead to cures or treatments for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or other diseases ravaging our people. This is a very exciting time in biomedical research. We are reaping the benefits of the Human Genome Project. It would be unconscionable and I think totally irresponsible to short-circuit this progress by cutting the funding for NIH. So we have, as I said, provided a modest increase of $1 billion for NIH in this bill. In this bill, we increase funding for Head Start by $200 million. I wish it were more. It should be more. We are just beginning to make up for the tens of thousands of children who have been lost to the program because of stagnant funding over the last several years. The President's budget would cut Head Start funding by $100 million. So the President's budget cuts it by $100 million; we increase it by $200 million. The President's budget would cut thousands more children from the rolls of Head Start; ours would add to it. That is the difference. We believe the President's approach is unacceptable. In this bill, we provide an additional $457 million for special education. Again, it really ought to be more, and I will explain what I mean by that. If we accepted the President's budget, it would cut special education by $291 million. When IDEA passed--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act-- when it passed the Congress--I guess it was about 30 years ago; yes, it has been about 30 years--when we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we committed ourselves, we committed the Federal Government to paying up to 40 percent of the additional cost of educating kids with disabilities in our schools. Now, consider this: Prior to that time, most kids with disabilities were shunned aside. They were sent to State institutions, warehoused, and many of them never even went to school. But because of a decision--and I say to the Senator sitting in the chair, it was a Pennsylvania case, PARC, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Pennsylvania, a landmark case. From that case, it was decided that if a State decided to provide a free public education for all its children, if it decided to do that, it could not then discriminate against kids with disabilities in providing that free, appropriate public education. Well, that then led, of course, to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that passed the Congress. In that, we said: We are going to help. We think States should do this. States are mandated to do this under the Constitution, but we are going to help. So we are going to try over the years to build this up to where we provide at least 40 percent of the additional funding to mainstream kids with disabilities in our public schools. Where are we? Under President Bush, we are going backward. Two years ago, the Federal Government got up to 18 percent of this additional funding for kids with disabilities. We got up to 18 percent 2 years ago. In the last fiscal year, the Federal share dropped to 17 percent. If the President gets his way with his budget in 2008, we will be down to 16 percent. We have had a number of amendments on this floor, sense- of-the-Senate resolutions, to get this up to 40 percent. Republicans and Democrats have voted for this. Yet the President's budget is taking us in the opposite direction, and that, of course, again is unacceptable. When we don't pick up the tab, when we don't do our share and our part in providing for special education, who gets stuck with the bill? Local property taxpayers. The States have to increase and keep increasing the share of local property taxes to pay for this. Again, that is unacceptable. Turning now to college education, we all know the cost of a college education is rising. It hits all of us pretty hard. It hits all middle- class families and anyone who wants to get a college education. Obviously, it hits the poorest families the hardest. This bill provides an increase of more than $800 million for Pell grants over last year-- Pell grants, so that our poorest students have a chance to get a higher education. Building on that increase we put in the bill earlier, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, the chair and ranking member of the authorizing committee on education, wrote a budget reconciliation bill that raises the maximum Pell grant award from $4,310 to $4,800. That is a boost of almost $500 a year for the neediest students--the largest increase in more than 30 years. But under the President's budget, the increase would be less than half that--about $230 a year. So again, our bill would increase that and provide for $800 million more for Pell grants over last year. One other item which is something of importance to every Senator is this bill increases funding for administering Social Security by $125 million above the President's request. Now, why is that important? I will bet my colleagues every Senator here and their State offices have been getting all kinds of cases coming in from people who have disability claims, but they are backlogged, backlogged, backlogged. They wait months and months, sometimes years, to get their disability claims administered. Well, this increase would allow us to make a dent in that backlog of disability claims. Again, we ought to be even more aggressive in reducing the backlog. But make no mistake, if we accept the President's budget, the Social Security Administration would have to institute a hiring freeze and the backlog of claims would skyrocket. It is bad enough the way it is right now, but under the President's budget, it would be unacceptable. So our bill would provide $125 million more for Social Security to begin to reduce the disability claims backlog. I think one of the most disturbing problems with the President's budget is it is kind of a total disregard, I would say, for the needs of our poorest people, the poorest citizens of our country. Just consider three programs that serve low-income children and families in this country. The three programs are the LIHEAP program, which is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Community Services Block Grant Program, and the Social Services Block Grant Program. Let's look at those three. These all serve the lowest income people in our country. The President's budget would cut LIHEAP by $379 million despite predictions of record energy prices this winter. This cut would force States to lower their benefits or serve fewer low-income individuals, many of whom are elderly and poor, many who are going without medical care, some cutting down on their food and other necessities in order to pay their heating bills. Then, the two block grants I mentioned, the community services block grant and the social services block grant, many of the States tie these together to provide essential services for our most disadvantaged people in this country. The community services block grant is a key safety net, providing assistance in areas such as job training, housing, and emergency food aid. This bill increases funding for the community services block grant by just a modest $40 million. The President's budget eliminated--the President's budget didn't just cut community services block grants, they zeroed it out--all $630 million zeroed out. The other block grant, the social services block grant, addresses some of our country's most vital human services needs, such as protecting children from abuse and neglect, caring for homeless seniors, providing services to children and families with severe disabilities, to mention just a few. The President's budget slashed the social services block grant by 30 percent. Our bill says no. The President has already cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. We are not going to decimate programs for the poor at the same time. Enough is enough. So the bill we have before us invests in job training and employment services programs to help Americans develop the skills they need to find work. The President's budget cut job-training programs by $1 billion; that is, from $3.6 billion last year, he would cut it to $2.6 billion. This bill rejects that. This bill also provides $483 million for community services jobs for older Americans. The President's request was $350 million, which would have actually cut a lot of seniors from the program, seniors who are already working in that program. America's working families also count on the Labor Department to ensure that their workplaces are safe and that employers comply with labor laws. Unfortunately, the President has consistently underfunded the agencies that enforce these laws. Since 2001, OSHA--that is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--has lost almost 10 percent of its enforcement staff because of the President's budgets. This bill charts a new course. We invest $12 million over last year to rebuild OSHA staffing. When I describe the funding choices in this bill as ``investments,'' I choose my word carefully. It is a simple fact that when we invest in these programs, we save money in the long run and our country saves money in the long run. When the Minneapolis bridge collapsed this summer, we all talked about the large costs of failing to invest in our infrastructure, our physical infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our highways, our rails. Well, what about failing to invest in our human infrastructure, our people? What can be more important than that investment? We know some things. We know that early childhood education pays many dividends later on in life and saves us money. We know that quality K-12 education pays big dividends. We know that enabling kids to go to college and not be burdened with a lot of debt pays off with big dividends. We know that adding community health centers pays off, pays dividends by preventing emergency care and disability down the road. We know that job training pays big dividends by getting workers who are laid off of jobs--maybe they have gone overseas--retrained and equipped for new kinds of jobs so they can be productive, taxpaying citizens. All of what I mention pays huge future dividends. I said earlier that this bill defines America. It is important that this bill defines America as a compassionate nation, a nation that invests in its future, a nation, as the late Senator Hubert Humphrey used to say, that meets the needs of those at the beginning of life, those in the twilight of life, and those in the shadows of life. Again, I ask, how can we continue to pour endless billions of dollars into Iraq--more than $12 billion a month now, and counting--and yet we cut funding for the basic essential services here at home for our most needy citizens? This is a case of seriously misplaced priorities. We are doing our best to correct it in the bill before us today. Obviously, we have not been able to do everything we want or need to do, but this bill reflects the priorities of Senators on both sides of the aisle, and, as I said, we stayed within our budget allocation. Again, given all of this, I am genuinely saddened that the President has already pledged to veto the bill. I really cannot believe the President wants us to cut funding for cancer research and other lifesaving research through the NIH. I cannot believe the President wants to cut children from the rolls of Head Start. I cannot believe the President wants to eliminate the community services block grant, which is a basic life support for many of our neediest citizens. I cannot believe the President wants to cut funding for home heating assistance for poor elderly. Yet the President's budget would require all of these cuts to essential programs and services. It would be unconscionable. So all I can assume is that the President is getting very bad advice. Perhaps his advisers have told him to veto this bill to score some political points--whatever that might be. If so, it is bad advice because there is not an ounce of extravagance in the bill. It meets the essential needs of the American people in terms of education, health and human services, and job training. It passed out of committee 26 to 3. You cannot get much more bipartisan than that. I might again point out, as I did earlier, that over the last 5 years, this appropriations bill--again, it was under the leadership of Senator Specter, and I was ranking member--every year was above the President's request. Not once did the President threaten to veto it. Well, this year, some games are being played. The President's budget slashes all these programs. We come in to replenish the money and put it in and to give modest increases, all within our budget allocation, but for the first time in 6 years the President says he is going to veto it. What is the difference? Is the only difference now that the Democrats are now in charge? Because, as I said, every year, Senator Specter's bill was higher than the President's request, but he never threatened to veto one of those bills and he never did. This year, he says he will. It sounds to me like the last Karl Rove tactic before he left town. This sounds like a Rove tactic. I say to the President that he is gone, he is history--bad history, but he is history. Now, Mr. President, do the right thing. Do what we have for the last 5 years and work with Congress. We are willing to meet you halfway, as I said earlier. One of the objections in the President's veto threat, which he sent down here yesterday and I have here, was that he opposes overturning the President's policy regarding human embryonic stem cell research. All right. We took it out, even though Senator Specter and I and our committee feel very strongly about this. We have had hearings and hearings on this since 1998. Under Senator Specter's leadership, we have passed legislation to overturn the President's policy. I think we got, if I am not mistaken, about 66 votes in the Senate to do that. I think I am right on that. So, again, we feel strongly about that, as strongly as the President may feel about it, but in the spirit of compromise and getting our bill done and moving it ahead, we decided to take it out, and we did. So I hope that in the next 24 hours the White House will listen to the debate and they know what is going on and they have their people up here; this is no secret--I hope the President will revisit this, and I would like to see a new Statement of Administration Policy coming down saying: You did, in good will, take out the stem cell thing, and that was half of our objection. We will meet you halfway and accept the bill as you have it. Mr. President, that would be the good thing to do. I still am hopeful that the President will do that. There is really no justification now for vetoing this bill. If we are over what he wanted, we have been over what he wanted for the last 5 years and he never vetoed the bill. So I hope the President will send down a new statement of policy and that they will support this bill because I think the bill is going to have big support here. It passed committee 26 to 3. If I am not mistaken, those three votes were opposed to the stem cell provisions we had in the bill. Had they not been there, we would have had a unanimous vote in committee. I think this bill will get a big vote here on the Senate floor. It would be helpful and would ease things and would, I believe, lift a lot of the contentiousness that goes on around town here if the President would come out and say: OK, we will meet you halfway; you took that out, so we will take the bill as it is. That would make things go very smoothly. Again, we look forward to the consideration of the bill on the floor this week. We want to use our time productively. I encourage Senators, if they have amendments, to bring them to the floor in a timely fashion today so we can complete our work and get the bill to conference as soon as possible. Senator Reid said on Monday that we would stay in this week--and Saturday, if necessary--to finish this important bill. Well, I have placed all my plans on hold. I intend to be here, if necessary, Friday and Saturday--or Sunday, if necessary--to finish this vitally important bill. I take the leader at his word that we will be here Friday and Saturday if we need to be. However, if Senators come over today and offer amendments today and tomorrow, hopefully, we can finish this bill in a timely manner. Again, Mr. President, we are on the bill, and I hope Senators will come over and offer their amendments. Mr. President, on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83 to 14 this Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The President signed the legislation on September 14, 2007. This ethics reform legislation will significantly improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative process. Pursuant to the new rule XLIV, it is required that the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required information be available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill. In addition, Members who request such items are required to certify in writing that neither they nor their immediate family have a pecuniary interest in the items they requested, and the committee is required to make those certification letters available on the Internet. The information provided includes identification of the congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who requested such spending. This information is contained in the committee report numbered 110-107, dated June 29, 2007, and has been available on the Internet for 8 weeks. The Member letters concerning pecuniary interests are also available on the Internet. I am submitting for the Record the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator Byrd. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

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 Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding consumer practices of the wireless industry.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond. Again, I want to read from the bill so it is clear in everyone's mind that none of the money the Senator from South Dakota is taking out of Legal Services will come from administration. The bill itself says, page 81: $372 million is for basic field programs, $13.8 million for management and administration-- exactly what they had last year. Again, we are not rewarding LSC management for being bad actors, nor are we rewarding the board for the poor oversight they provided. We are keeping the management and administration account to the same level it was funded at last year. So the money Senator Thune is proposing to cut will come from field operations. Secondly, there is a glass half full/half empty story about the increase in this bill for Legal Services. Over 11 years ago, this Congress cut Legal Services in half. Since that time, the number of people in poverty has grown. We have more poor people. Yet we still are not even at the level we were in 1995 for Legal Services. Imagine that. If we had kept pace with inflation from 1995 to now, Legal Services would be funded at the level of about $566 million. This bill only gets it back to $390 million. So we are not even where we were in 1995. Lastly, while I understand what the Senator from South Dakota is saying about violent crime in Indian country and on reservations, we are cognizant of that, but why take the money away from the very services helping our Native Americans. As I said, 67 percent of Legal Services money spent in South Dakota goes to Native Americans. I would submit that a lot of that goes to help prevent the kind of domestic violence that results in prosecutorial action later on. Think of it like preventive medicine. Better to have Legal Services there, access for poor Indians who want to come in who may have domestic problems, landlord-tenant problems, child custody problems, whatever, that may lead to some kind of domestic violence. Better to let them have access to Legal Services and take care of it that way before it blows up into a violent situation. I, again, hope Senators will reject the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. HARKIN. I also appreciate the efforts of the Senator from South Dakota. Again, if you are asking whether I have any problems with where the Senator from South Dakota wants to provide additional funding, no, I do not. I have problems with where we are taking it from. That is my basic problem, because all of the data and all of the testimony tells us that Legal Services are helping the very people we are talking about, especially women who are victims of domestic violence. Because, a lot of times, Legal Services attorneys are handling family law matters. But before they get to the prosecutorial level, for example, there are things that can be worked out. Individuals have a lawyer--for example, domestic violence restraining orders, separation agreements, or child custody arrangements, those types of things, which are civil matters. U.S. attorneys do not handle that. That is what Legal Services does. The incidence of violence toward Native American women is tragic. As the Senator from South Dakota pointed out in his presentation earlier, he said Native American women are seven times more likely to be victims of domestic violence than other women. That is what the Senator from North Dakota also just told us. But, again, it is precisely these citizens whom Legal Services Corporation-funded programs assist. Three out of four clients of Legal Services are women--three out of four. Legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of the top priorities in their caseloads. Recent studies have shown that the only public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is women's access to legal aid, the very assistance this amendment would drastically curtail. So legal services does make a big difference. As I said, it is not just Native Americans I am talking about. Legal Services is still helping victims of 9/11, flood victims, Katrina victims. Now we have a whole new group of people accessing Legal Services. I am almost embarrassed to say this. There is another group we now see accessing Legal Services in a big way. Do you know who they are? Our soldiers and their families. Our soldiers and their families, because some of these enlistees who are privates and below do not get enough money. They may have problems, separations. They have been gone a long time. There are family problems. They do not have enough money to hire an attorney. Their spouses might not. So they are accessing Legal Services. This amendment would say: No, we are going to cut back on that. So, again, I think it is important for us to keep this in mind. I know the Senator from South Dakota had mentioned the recent management problems at Legal Services headquarters. Believe me, no one was more upset than this Senator when the reports came out a year ago, first with the IG investigation and then GAO report. I say that because I started my life after law school as a Legal Services attorney. That is what I did. I know that every cent in the field counts. So if they are wasting money up here in Washington with chauffeured limousines and fancy hotels and all of that kind of stuff, it makes my blood boil, because I know what the Legal Services attorneys in the field are living with, and they are pinching pennies. They are not paid a lot. That is why I was glad, in the education bill that passed earlier, we included Legal Services lawyers as those who would have their loans repaid if they stayed and became Legal Services attorneys. Again, I share with the Senator from South Dakota and others my total abhorrence of what was going on in the hierarchy. I will say this: The GAO recommended a number of things for Legal Services to do to address these problems that are now being implemented, in terms of the board structure and other important oversight protections. Why it was not done before, I do not know. There is no excuse for it. There is absolutely no excuse for it. But I can say that the board is now implementing the suggestions and the recommendations of the GAO. I made it very clear as a long-time supporter of the Legal Services Corporation, I made it very clear to management that they needed to act immediately to address the GAO recommendations. I know both Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski have said the same thing to LSC. So LSC management knows that people here are watching. I know they are acting to address it. Their board of directors has publicly accepted all of GAO's recommendations. They have begun their implementation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Legal Services Corporation's response to GAO which outlines the steps they are taking to ensure better management at headquarters.

Mr. HARKIN. Regardless of what we may think about the management of Legal Services, and what the board was or was not doing, asleep at the switch, it is important to note that this amendment would not impact management. Only $13 million of the $390 million appropriated in the bill goes for management and administration. That account has not received a single penny increase in the funding, thanks to Senator Shelby and thanks to Senator Mikulski. I know this because I worked with them and I championed the increase included in the bill, but to ensure that the money went where it was needed, to the programs in the field and not to management here in Washington. Senator Thune's amendment, in taking this money out of Legal Services, may talk about the management, but none of the increase we put in here goes to management. It all goes to the field operations. Those are the people who need it the most. Again, I echo what my friend from North Dakota said. I think the thrust of what Senator Thune is trying to do is laudable. Obviously we do have a problem with domestic violence and abuse of Native American women. Obviously this needs to be prosecuted. I would say before that step, though, we need to make sure we have legal services available to them, so that we cut down on the incidence of domestic abuse and domestic violence. For that reason I would oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am hear to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The amendment he offered would reduce the vital legal assistance to our most vulnerable citizens, low-income Americans who need help with their most critical legal needs. First of all, I wish to say I am a strong supporter of the bill before us. The President proposed drastic cuts in funding for State and local law enforcement, but the bill provides a total of $2.6 billion for State and local law enforcement which is about $1.5 billion above the President's request. The President's budget also proposed to reduce the number of Federal law enforcement agents working to combat violent crime, but this bill rejects that cut, as well as lifting the hiring freeze on DEA agents. I wish to point out something else. The bill further provides $1.7 billion for U.S. attorneys, $92 million more than last year, and it directly addresses Native American needs. The bill provides $35 million for tribal law enforcement efforts. The bill further provides $1 million in research on violence against Native American women. I know Senators Mikulski and Shelby did their best to provide additional resources, especially given the severe budget constraints we face, but the answer to the problems that Native Americans have with domestic violence and violent crime is not to deprive them and other poor citizens of our country of basic legal services. That is what the Thune amendment does. Senator Thune is putting more money into the U.S. attorneys to combat violent crime, but he is taking it out of Legal Services. That tradeoff is wrong and I encourage my colleagues to reject the Thune amendment and support the level of funding provided in the bill. Let me take a minute to explain why the increase in funding for Legal Services is so important. In 1996, Legal Services took a drastic cut in funding by the Congress. It went from $415 million to $278 million. It was almost cut in half. We have been trying to get the funding back up since that time. I point out if at that time, from 1995 to now, we had kept pace with inflation, Legal Services would currently be funded at about $566 million. This bill gets it up to $390 million, so we are not even back up to where we were in 1995. As I said, the Thune amendment cuts $20 million out of the increase provided in this bill and gives it to U.S. attorneys. But I also pointed out, the U.S. attorneys already got a $92 million increase in the bill, for $1.7 billion in total funding. Of course, it is not just Native Americans but a wide range of low- income Americans including, in recent years, victims of Hurricane Katrina and even victims of 9/11, who utilize legal services. We have all read in recent months about the vast increase in the number of people losing their homes because of foreclosures and the scandal in the subprime lending market. Many of these people are low income, and they are going to need help from Legal Services because they will not be able to afford an attorney. Again, make no mistake, even under this bill as it is, Legal Services is not able to serve the legal needs of all low-income Americans. For example, 50 percent of eligible applicants requesting legal assistance from the Legal Services Corporation grantees are turned away because of lack of funding. Keep in mind that, in order to be eligible for Legal Services, you have to be at or below 125 percent of poverty level. That is an income of $25,000 a year for a family of four. That means right now we are turning away half of the families earning less than $25,000 a year who need legal help. In some parts of the country, it is even higher. In Wisconsin, 80 percent of poor households who face legal problems do so without an attorney. In California, 66 percent; in Nebraska, 86 percent; in Utah, 87 percent; in New Mexico, 80 percent. On and on. Those are the percentage of low-income people in those States who face a legal problem yet do not get any help. With so many people going unserved, every cent is crucial. The adoption of the Thune amendment would only result in furthering the justice gap in this country and in many cases hurt the very people the Senator from South Dakota wishes to help, Native Americans. The clients of Legal Services Corporation funded programs are the most vulnerable among us, and many of them are Native Americans. Since 2001, 2.8 percent of all of the appropriations going to Legal Services has gone to meet the legal needs of disadvantaged Native Americans in this country. That means that under this bill about $10.4 million would go to Native American legal services. That includes South Dakota. In many of these States like South Dakota, a majority of legal services goes to serve Native American populations. In fact, in 2006, fully 67 percent of the clients served by civil legal services in South Dakota were Native Americans--67 percent. By taking money from Legal Services, you are hurting the very people who need legal help, including many of our Native Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, each October, the eyes of the world appropriately turn to Des Moines for the presentation of the World Food Prize, called by the former President of Mexico, ``the Nobel Prize for Food.'' Created by Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, each year on or around October 16-- World Food Day--representatives from more than 60 countries gather in the magnificent Iowa State Capitol to honor the newest laureate for his or her exceptional breakthrough achievements in increasing the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world. In past years, this honor has gone to individuals from India, Denmark, Brazil, China, and Sierra Leone. This year the winner is an American from Indiana. But no matter where they are from, all of these laureates have in common that they have reduced hunger and human suffering around the globe. It is most fitting that this weeklong celebration begins today, October 16 with the first ever Iowa Hunger Summit. There are people flying today from the east coast and the west coast to Des Moines. No, they are not Presidential candidates--although there are already plenty of them in the State. Rather, they are national leaders of the Alliance to End Hunger and representatives of the U.N. Foundation, and ambassadors from the United Nations and leaders of the OneVote08 campaign. They are all coming to join hundreds of Iowans to listen to the leaders of Bread for the World and MAZON, the Jewish Response to Hunger offer an inspiring vision about how to diminish hunger at home and abroad in this inaugural Iowa Hunger Summit. At the center of this endeavor will be Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, Iowa's and America's greatest hero in the struggle against hunger. Today is U.N. World Food Day all around the globe. But I would argue, that perhaps the most significant observance of this special day will be taking place in Des Moines, where it is also Dr. Norman E. Borlaug/ World Food Prize Day. I want to commend Iowa's three former Governors, Tom Vilsack, Terry Branstad, and Robert Ray for their bipartisan leadership in making this first ever Iowa Hunger Summit possible. I also express my appreciation to the World Food Prize Foundation for its initiative in starting this new program. Iowa has a rich legacy of coming together above partisan differences when human suffering is involved. Governor Ray has exhibited exemplary leadership of Iowa SHARES to feed emaciated Cambodians, who had suffered under the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Similarly, Governor Branstad has led Iowa CARES to send food to starving populations in Ethiopia. And here at home, Governor Vilsack has worked in Iowa to greatly expand the number of hungry people receiving assistance. I am pleased to add my name to the list of those in support of this marvelous new focus on hunger--the Iowa Hunger Summit. It is most fitting that we in the Congress would also join together in a bipartisan fashion to further commit ourselves to efforts to alleviate malnutrition and human suffering wherever it is found, at home or abroad.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the great joys of my job as a Senator is the opportunity to recognize exceptional people. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize seven exceptional people: Ivana Hong, Nastia Liukin, Samanthat Peszek, Alicia Sacramone, Bridget Sloan, Shayla Worley, and Shawn Johnson. These young ladies make up the U.S. women's gymnastics team. In September of this year at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championship in Stuttgart, Germany, the U.S. women's team won a total of four gold, two silver, and one bronze medal, placing them first overall in the women's team competition. I congratulate the members of this team, their coaches, and families on their success and for their exemplary representation of our country. As an Iowan, I would like to recognize a particular member of the U.S. women's team, Ms. Shawn Johnson of West Des Moines, IA. Ms. Johnson won the all-around women's gymnastics title at the 2007 World Artistic Gymnastics Championship. With this great achievement, she became just the fourth U.S. woman ever to win a world all-around title. Receiving such a title takes incredible talent and athletic ability. But, without a doubt, it also takes a lot of hard work. At the age of 3, Ms. Johnson began her gymnastic training at Chow's Gymnastics in West Des Moines, IA, where she continues to train today. As a result of years of hard work and training, she has competed and won at progressively higher levels of competition. In 2006, she won the U.S. Junior National Championship; in 2007, the Visa National Championships and the Pan American Games, where she won four gold and one silver medal. Next, Ms. Johnson will be competing for a spot on the U.S. women's gymnastic team at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I extend my sincere congratulations to the U.S. women's gymnastics team on their success and I wish them luck on their future endeavors.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the next 10 days, a remarkable event will unfold in Shanghai, China. Every 2 years, thousands of Special Olympics athletes from around the world come together to showcase their athletic skills and celebrate the spirit of Special Olympics. Starting today, more than 7,500 Special Olympians will begin competing in Shanghai in the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games. Over the coming 10 days, tens of thousands of athletes, coaches, volunteers, family members, government and industry officials, plus experts in health and education from 165 countries have come together to celebrate the talents of those among us who have intellectual disabilities. This spectacular event is not about athletic skill as much as it is about determination, courage, and the desire to compete. I can speak firsthand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. Last year, my State of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience. I am pleased that three extraordinary athletes from Iowa are now in China competing: Corey Leonhard in track, and Jenna Schrack and Jody Sheriff competing in bowling. Team USA includes 401 athletes, and 102 of them are at the World Games today. Special Olympics is not just about sports. It is about spirit, and it is about drawing out the best in all of us. The Special Olympics organization is responsible for much more than the games. Its Special Olympics Healthy Athletes Program, developed over a decade ago, focuses on the health, fitness, and well-being of people with and without disabilities. Last year alone, it made possible more than 135,000 health care screenings. Volunteer health care professionals and students were trained to provide the screening and compile the data. In China, medical volunteers will provide health examinations free of charge, including dental, vision, and hearing exams. The Special Olympics is both a world-class sporting event and a world-class humanitarian experience. Many countries have sent delegations to the games. In addition to our athletes and volunteers attending the Opening Ceremonies, the U.S. delegation will include Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, figure skating champion Michelle Kwan, former Assistant Secretary of Education John Hager, Ernie Banks of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, Lynn Fuchs, Professor of Special Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University, Anne Sweeney of Disney Media Networks and Disney-ABC Television Group, Jennifer Polk Wardlow, a Special Olympics North Carolina athlete, Dr. Tim Shriver, chairman of the board of Special Olympics, and the incomparable Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder of Special Olympics. Mr. President, I regret that, with the Senate in session, I couldn't attend today's opening ceremonies. But my thoughts are with each and every one of Special Olympics athletes. I wish them all the very best.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the closing of my remarks, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, be recognized.