Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Gutman and Jordan Anderson of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

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.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment to support the families of those National Guard and Reserve individuals serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their support and assistance in including it as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, on which we will be voting on final passage later today. This is a new era for our National Guard and Reserves. They are shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a stepped-up role here in homeland security. It speaks volumes that more than four times as many Guard members have been killed in Iraq as during the entire Vietnam war. With many Guard and Reserve members on their third or even fourth deployment, and with some deployments being stretched to at least 16 months, the stresses on their families are acute. Their children are at greater risk for depression, behavioral disorders, and academic problems. Long family separations often result in financial difficulties and troubled marriages. Earlier this year, I introduced the Coming Together for National Guard and Reserve Families Act, which is the heart of this amendment. That amendment was accepted by the majority and the minority. The amendment does a number of things: It strengthens the family assistance program to ensure there are adequate resources for Guard and Reserve families throughout the deployment cycle. It provides special attention for the children of deployed servicemembers, who often react to parental separation with acting-out behaviors, anxiety, and depression. Finally, the amendment ensures that Guard and Reserve families receive appropriately timed information about the psychological symptoms that can appear long after coming home--such as anger, depression, alcohol abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder--to help them take advantage of the services and support they may need. Shortly after introducing the bill, I received a letter from the fiance of an Iowa Guard member deployed in Iraq. It was one of many letters I received. I cannot read them all. I thought this portion of it summed it up: I received a letter from you today about the S. 902 bill that would help National Guard families, and I just wanted to say thank you. I cried when I first read this; for the first time in 2 years I feel like someone heard me. I hope this bill is passed and carried out. My fiance is in Iraq with the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard. He was due home in March but now will be there until August. To say the least, I was devastated when I heard that he was extended, and honestly believe that it is such a terrible thing. Since he has been extended, many of his friends in the unit have tried to commit suicide and even more are deeply depressed. More times than not, I hear him saying how he wishes he could just have his life back. And I ask that you keep fighting for this because our soldiers' lives are hanging in the balance. My soldier and I will have to deal with the long-term consequences of his being in a war zone for so long for the rest of our lives, and we have to stop this before our children and grandchildren have to deal with this as well. . . . I am proud to live in the United States of America. However, my fiance has done his part; he has protected this country for 22 months and he has been away from my side for that long. Let him come home, give us our lives back. Mr. President, one happy result is that the brave men and women of the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard--the same soldiers who inspired this amendment--returned home in July after serving as part of the longest continuous deployment of the Iraq war, spending nearly 2 years in active duty and 17 months in Iraq. Senator Grassley and I passed a resolution earlier honoring the service and sacrifices made by these brave soldiers and their families. But there is more we can do. Of course, I am working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and others, to begin the long, overdue process of redeploying our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. I hope we can make real progress on this in the coming weeks. Until we are able to accomplish that, we must do everything we can to make sure the loved ones and family members of our deployed soldiers receive the support they need and deserve. These families, many of whom are just starting their lives together, are dealing with tremendous stress. They include many small children who have grown up while their mothers or fathers were away. Mr. President, this is a quiet crisis that we don't read about in the morning newspaper, but it is a crisis nonetheless. This amendment addresses that crisis by strengthening family assistance programs and doing outreach to parents and professionals who serve children-- including mental health counselors and teachers--to alert them to the special needs of kids in military families, especially those with a parent in a war zone. This amendment also ensures that families receive support after soldiers come home. The amendment ensures that families receive mental health information for up to 6 months post deployment so they can have access to the services and support they need. Again, why is the amendment necessary? It became clear, after visiting with families of these National Guard troops and reservists who were overseas in Iraq that we have one set of family services and intervention and support for families of regular military personnel in the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force, but don't have the same support services for National Guard and Reserves. Many times in our small towns and communities you have one or two families who have a husband or a father overseas in the National Guard for an extended time, but those families don't get the same support and services as a family with a loved one in the regular Armed Forces, either throughout the deployment or when the soldier returns. Perhaps this made sense in the past. But the line between the Reserves and National Guard and the regular forces has become very blurred with the war in Iraq. So we see the National Guard carrying out what normally would have been done by the Active- Duty military. That is why this amendment, providing Guard and Reserve families with this support, is so important. On a final note, the benefits of this amendment will apply to all Guard and Reserve troops, as well as their families--and I might point out, even those who disagree with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They can disagree and this amendment will still apply to them. I feel obliged to say this because a prominent conservative leader, Rush Limbaugh, of radio infamy, said men and women in uniform over in Iraq who oppose the war are ``phony soldiers,'' and are presumably unworthy of the American people's support. Earlier today, I was here and I heard Senator Reid, our majority leader, speak about this. This statement is outrageous and despicable. Our men and women in uniform in Iraq have made extraordinary sacrifices. 3,800 have been killed and nearly 28,000 have been wounded, many with amputations and brain injuries they will live with for the rest of their lives. Our troops live in constant danger. Meanwhile, their families at home have had to cope with repeated separations and with the constant dread of bad news from Iraq. The very thought of Rush Limbaugh sitting in his air-conditioned broadcast studio and ranting about ``phony soldiers'' in Iraq who dare to speak their mind is just shameful. Perhaps in Mr. Limbaugh's case the correct word is ``shameless.'' I realize he and some other extremists on the right hold the view that you are either with us or you are against us; you are either a good American or a bad American, depending upon whether you agree with the conservative Republican line. But that is not the way most Americans think. We respect disagreement. We value dissent. We don't resort to name-calling when our fellow Americans--especially those in uniform--express a differing point of view. For the record, by labeling as ``phony soldiers'' those who disagree with the war or the President's comments, that denigrates many thousands of our Armed Forces serving in Iraq. Listen to this. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found that fully 42 percent of servicemembers disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war, while just 35 percent supported it. In other words, our men and women in uniform are not much different from the rest of the American people, the majority of whom also disagree with Mr. Bush's conduct of the war. Frankly, it increases my respect for those soldiers' professionalism and sense of duty. They disagree with their Commander in Chief, but they continue to perform their jobs with enormous courage, confidence, and commitment. That is cause for admiration and praise, not name-calling and denigration. I must add, as a veteran, I find it offensive that Rush Limbaugh, who never put on the uniform of this country, would attack the patriotism or dedication of any soldier fighting in Iraq. I have often said about someone like that, before they drape themselves in the flag of this country, they ought to put on the uniform first to defend it. In Limbaugh's case, he would not do that. Well, I also find it disturbing that his offensive comments have not been condemned by our Republican colleagues, or by the Commander in Chief, all of whom were so quick to condemn a similar personal attack on General Petraeus several weeks ago. The Boxer-Levin-Durbin Amendment to the Defense authorization bill said the Senate ``strongly condemns all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving in the Armed Services.'' I just point out that all but two Republican Senators voted against this amendment. Will any one of them stand up and be brave enough to take on Rush Limbaugh? Will anybody on that side of the aisle take on Rush Limbaugh for this statement? We have not heard anything yet, but I hope they do. The silence from President Bush and the Republican leadership is simply deafening. Is this because they agree with Mr. Limbaugh, or they don't want to risk angering such a prominent conservative by taking him to task. Mr. President, in August, seven soldiers published an op-ed in the New York Times criticizing the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, two of those soldiers were subsequently killed in action, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I only can assume by Mr. Limbaugh's definition that they, too, were phony soldiers. What is most despicable, Rush Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers. This makes more news. It becomes the news, more people tune in, he makes more money. I don't know, maybe he was high on his drugs again. I don't know if he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. That shouldn't be an excuse. I wish to make it clear that I respect Mr. Limbaugh's right to say whatever he wants, but we also have a right. We have a right not to listen to him. So I think the best thing to do for him is to tune him out, tune out Rush Limbaugh and listen to more responsible talk show hosts in this country. I think that it is time, again, for us to stand up for our troops, as we have, I think, in the past, to give them every bit of support and give their families support. That is what my amendment does. I am pleased this amendment has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act, because it is an important step toward ensuring that our National Guard and Reserve families receive the kind of support the families of our regular forces also receive. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an article on the death of Dr. Alvin Smith, who passed away last week at the age of 75. The son of sharecroppers, he went on to become a noted physician who worked throughout his life to increase access to the health care system, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. My condolences go out to his wife Ann, his three son, and his six grandchildren. The article follows. [From newsjournalonline.com, Sept. 19, 2007] Noted Area Physician Dies With Family at Side (By Anne Geggis) Dr. Alvin Smith devoted his life to saving the lives of his patients and curing the ills of the health-care system. Smith, 75, died Tuesday morning at his Ormond Beach home. His family was at his side. The son of Alabama sharecroppers overcame meager beginnings to become one of the most respected physicians in the area. The 1952 Mainland High School graduate was perhaps best known to the community as the director of the Herbert D. Kerman Regional Oncology Center at Halifax Health Medical Center and as the owner of Angell & Phelps Chocolate Factory that his son, Alvin Jr., now runs. In addition, he felt a strong pull toward changing the system so more people had access to medical care, serving as president of the Volusia County Medical Society and the Florida Medical Association. Smith was a self-confessed truant who went to fifth grade for only one day and didn't come back to school for a year. He quit high school in 10th grade and finally graduated from Mainland at the age of 21. But then he went on to become the first college graduate in his family, earning a biology degree from the University of Florida before getting his doctorate from the University of Miami. It was as president of the Florida Medical Association in the 1990s, however, that Smith achieved one of his most enduring accomplishments: convincing then-Gov. Lawton Chiles to form an autonomous state Department of Health. During that time, he also lobbied for legislation allowing the state of Florida to sue the tobacco industry to recover Medicaid costs. ``He wanted to make sure that no patient in Florida went without the best health care they needed, regardless of their ability to pay,'' said Dr. Carl ``Rick'' Lentz, also a past president of the Florida Medical Association and a Daytona Beach surgeon. His voice choking, Lentz recalled how Smith recently handed him his Florida Medical Association president's pin because Lentz never got one during his term as president. ``He's a wonderful human being who's been a blessing to the whole world,'' Lentz said. ``There's not a patient who has been with him that doesn't love him. Anytime you call on Al, he's there for you.'' Former County Councilman, local talk show radio host and gadfly Big John recalled meeting Smith as an ``intern'' at Halifax Health Medical Center in which community members were invited to spend time with doctors to learn about the hospital's functions. ``He was a great guy--great personality,'' John said. Smith's boyhood longing for chocolates he couldn't afford in the window at Angell & Phelps gave way to occasional indulgence. When the chocolate factory came up for sale, he bought it to make sure all his favorite recipes stayed the same. Daytona Beach Mayor Glenn Ritchey served with him on the Halifax Community Health System Board. ``I have known him to be a great community servant, as well as a wonderful doctor who has meant so much to our area,'' Ritchey said. ``He'll be greatly missed.'' Smith served in the U.S. Army, retiring as a major, and from the U.S. Army Reserves as a lieutenant colonel. He was active in civic organizations, ranging from the Boy Scouts to the People to Prevent Nuclear War. He served on boards including the United Way, Hospice of Volusia/Flagler and A Child's Place. ``Alvin's one of the really good guys,'' said John E. Evans, a former TV personality and spokesman for what was then called Halifax Community Health System. Survivors include his wife of 50 years, Ann; three sons, Alvin Jr., Ormond Beach, and Chuck and Mike, both of Palm Coast; a sister, Ginny Little, Ormond Beach; and six grandchildren. Viewing will be from 5 to 7 p.m., Friday at the social hall at Central Baptist Church, 142 Fairview Ave., Daytona Beach. Services will be at 11 a.m. Saturday at Central Baptist Church. A private military burial will be next week.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take some time to remind our colleagues, and indeed all Americans, that today, September 21, 2007, is the International Day of Peace. The United Nations and its member states unanimously established an International Day of Peace in 1981. However it was not until 2001 that September 21 was agreed to as the permanent date. According to the U.N. resolution, the International Day of Peace should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples. I applaud Governor Chet Culver for his proclamation affirming Iowa's observance of International Peace Day. And, at this time, I would like to do my own part to mark this day, especially on the behalf of the many Iowans who are committed to the ideals of peace. Unfortunately, this may be International Peace Day, but this is hardly a day of peace. The United States is in the fifth year of a devastating war in Iraq, a war of choice that was launched preemptively by the current U.S. administration. The Middle East is marked by conflict and bloodshed from Lebanon to Israel to the Palestinian territories to Iraq and Afghanistan. The genocide in Darfur continues to rage. Militias continue to prey on innocent women in Eastern Congo. In Guatemala, there is an increase in violence against women and against those fighting for the rights of the indigenous population as a result of the most recent elections. HIV/AIDS continues to ravage the continent of Africa. Millions of children are forced to work in abusive conditions--in many cases, as outright slaves--and are denied an education. Historically, the mixture of strength and a preference for peaceful relations with the rest of the world is what has given the United States its moral standing. In the past, it was our willingness to come to the aid of those who could not defend themselves, and a commitment to resolving conflicts peacefully, if at all possible, that made us the beacon of hope for a better world. But a true commitment to peace is not measured by a proclamation or by high-minded speeches on one day of the year. It takes more than good intentions and high ideals. What it takes is the hard work of diplomacy, people-to-people exchanges, and active, assertive peace movements in each country. It takes a sustained effort to understand our adversaries and, if at all possible, to resolve our differences peacefully. I have long been committed to finding peaceful solutions to conflicts. That is why I was present at the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace. Throughout our long history, America has been proud of its strong, well-led military. And this outstanding military leadership is no accident. It is possible because we maintain prestigious, world-class military academies that train some of the best and brightest minds in America in the art and science of war. But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time and again, we have brokered peace agreements between warring nations, and we have intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace draws on this proud tradition, and today makes a vital intellectual investment in the art and science of peacemaking. I look forward to a time, hopefully not too far in the future, that will truly be a day of peace. But let us remember that peace is not merely the cessation or absence of hostilities. The ideals of peace require us to practice understanding, tolerance, and honorable compromise. The ideals of peace require us to look upon our fellow human beings and to see them as our brothers and sisters. The ideals of peace require us to reject unprovoked aggression and violence as acceptable instruments of national policy. On this International Day of Peace, I salute the many good people in Iowa, across America, and around the world who devote themselves 365 days a year to the cause of peace and nonviolence. The world is a better place because of their activism and engagement, and because they summon us to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a year ago, there was a large-scale outbreak of food-borne illness caused by a virulent strain of E. coli in fresh bagged spinach. More than 200 people became ill, and three died. Since then, U.S. consumers have been bombarded with news of repeated cases of contaminated food--everything from peanut butter to seafood to pet food. Just this week, there was a recall of a Dole bagged salad product because of E. coli contamination. We need to restore the public's confidence in American fresh produce and the agency that regulates it. To that end, I am introducing the Fresh Produce Safe Act of 2007. My colleague Senator Kohl has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and our aim is to create, for the first time, an effective national food safety framework for all fresh produce. Industry groups are acutely aware of the need to restore consumer confidence. For instance, the California leafy green produce industry has come up with a marketing agreement to certify the safety of its products. The Florida tomato industry has pushed the State to inspect and regulate its products. But this regional, patchwork approach is simply not adequate. We need a national program to ensure the safety of all fresh produce all across the country. Under the Fresh Produce Safety Act, FDA would have the authority to require produce companies to follow commonsense food safety guidelines. Those guidelines currently are only voluntary. Now, obviously, it would be a waste of resources to require the same stringent controls for, say, apples that we would require for leafy green produce. That is why the bill requires FDA to establish national standards tailored to specific types of produce and the particular risk factors arising from the way each is grown and handled. The legislation also requires stepped-up inspections of operations that grow and process fresh produce, such as spinach or lettuce. Other key provisions of the bill include a surveillance system to identify and stop the sources of fresh produce contamination, and a research program to better understand and prevent contamination of produce. The legislation would also require FDA to write rules to ensure that imported produce has been grown and processed under the same standards that we will have in the United States. The Fresh Produce Safety Act is timely for another reason. Eating fruits and vegetables promotes lower body weight, stronger bones, and lower risk of developing diet-related diseases such as diabetes. In recent years, major efforts and investments have encouraged people to eat these healthful foods. It can only turn people away from healthy eating to have continuous instances of E. coli contamination and fresh produce recalls. The American people need to have confidence that their fruits and vegetables are produced and handled in a safe and wholesome manner. That is exactly the goal of the Fresh Produce Safety Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a year ago, there was a large-scale outbreak of food-borne illness caused by a virulent strain of E. coli in fresh bagged spinach. More than 200 people became ill, and three died. Since then, U.S. consumers have been bombarded with news of repeated cases of contaminated food--everything from peanut butter to seafood to pet food. Just this week, there was a recall of a Dole bagged salad product because of E. coli contamination. We need to restore the public's confidence in American fresh produce and the agency that regulates it. To that end, I am introducing the Fresh Produce Safe Act of 2007. My colleague Senator Kohl has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and our aim is to create, for the first time, an effective national food safety framework for all fresh produce. Industry groups are acutely aware of the need to restore consumer confidence. For instance, the California leafy green produce industry has come up with a marketing agreement to certify the safety of its products. The Florida tomato industry has pushed the State to inspect and regulate its products. But this regional, patchwork approach is simply not adequate. We need a national program to ensure the safety of all fresh produce all across the country. Under the Fresh Produce Safety Act, FDA would have the authority to require produce companies to follow commonsense food safety guidelines. Those guidelines currently are only voluntary. Now, obviously, it would be a waste of resources to require the same stringent controls for, say, apples that we would require for leafy green produce. That is why the bill requires FDA to establish national standards tailored to specific types of produce and the particular risk factors arising from the way each is grown and handled. The legislation also requires stepped-up inspections of operations that grow and process fresh produce, such as spinach or lettuce. Other key provisions of the bill include a surveillance system to identify and stop the sources of fresh produce contamination, and a research program to better understand and prevent contamination of produce. The legislation would also require FDA to write rules to ensure that imported produce has been grown and processed under the same standards that we will have in the United States. The Fresh Produce Safety Act is timely for another reason. Eating fruits and vegetables promotes lower body weight, stronger bones, and lower risk of developing diet-related diseases such as diabetes. In recent years, major efforts and investments have encouraged people to eat these healthful foods. It can only turn people away from healthy eating to have continuous instances of E. coli contamination and fresh produce recalls. The American people need to have confidence that their fruits and vegetables are produced and handled in a safe and wholesome manner. That is exactly the goal of the Fresh Produce Safety Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007 to recognize the extraordinary value of the services that home health care workers perform. This legislation is in response to a Supreme Court decision in June that ruled that home care workers are not entitled to the protections provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. At the center of that case was a 73-year-old retiree named Evelyn Coke, who spent some two decades of her life cooking, bathing, feeding, and caring for the everyday medical needs of people who cannot take care of themselves. Today, Evelyn Coke suffers from kidney failure. But despite 20 years of working more than 40 hours a week, she can't afford a home health care worker to take care of her. She sued her employer for not paying time-and-a-half pay for all those hours that she worked overtime but was denied premium pay by way of compensation. Unfortunately, Evelyn Coke lost her case before the Court because of an outdated exemption to the Federal minimum wage and overtime laws. In 1974, Congress expanded the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, include protections for most domestic workers, such as chauffeurs and housekeepers. However, a narrow exemption was created for employees providing ``companionship services'' to seniors and people with disabilities. At that time, home care, like babysitting, was largely provided by neighbors and friends. In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long- term health care services in their homes rather than in institutions. There are more than 1 million home care workers in the U.S. They provide physically and emotionally demanding and often life-sustaining care for the elderly and disabled still living in their own homes. This bill brings together two issues that are very close to my heart--on the one hand, independent living and quality of life for seniors and people with disabilities, and, on the other hand, the basic rights of American workers to premium pay for overtime work. Service providers and the people they serve agree on this: no one is served well when home care workers are not paid a living wage. Home care workers deserve fair pay. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve continuous relationships with home care aides that they can trust to deliver the care that they need. Last week, several constituents who provide these kinds of services came to my office. One man, Pete Faust, has worked in home care settings for 30 years. Pete makes $12 an hour and admits he has trouble making ends meet; the overtime pay he receives makes it possible to pay the bills. He knows that he could go work somewhere else and make twice as much, but he worries that it is hard on his clients not to see the same friendly familiar face on a regular basis. Casey Cole is another of my constituents, and he is in a similar position. He works 12 days in a row, and then gets two days off. Often, however, there isn't anyone else to cover the shifts when he is off, so he will work 26 days in a row. Even his days off aren't really days off, because he's answering calls or checking in to make sure that all the people under his care are getting their needs met. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a Pete Faust or a Casey Cole to help them out. There is a shortage of qualified home care workers, and of there is high turnover in the field. Some 86 percent of direct care workers turn over every year. Almost 90 percent of homecare workers are women, and they are predominantly minority women, making an average of just $9 an hour. The reason for the shortage of people to do this work is certainly not a shortage of compassion. The problem is that people need to be able to make a living wage when they have their own families to take care of. It is high time to grant these hard-working people the minimum wage and overtime protection. That is why I am introducing this legislation, today. The Fair Home Health Care Act will include home care workers under the same rules that currently cover babysitters. That is to say, they will be entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act protections if they are not employed on a ``casual basis.'' Casual basis is defined as employment on an irregular or intermittent basis, when the employee's primary vocation is not the provision of homecare, the employee is not employed by an agency other than the family or household using his or her services, and the employee does not work more than 20 hours per week. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. The bill will improve pay for hardworking caregivers, and it will increase access to care for our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007 to recognize the extraordinary value of the services that home health care workers perform. This legislation is in response to a Supreme Court decision in June that ruled that home care workers are not entitled to the protections provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. At the center of that case was a 73-year-old retiree named Evelyn Coke, who spent some two decades of her life cooking, bathing, feeding, and caring for the everyday medical needs of people who cannot take care of themselves. Today, Evelyn Coke suffers from kidney failure. But despite 20 years of working more than 40 hours a week, she can't afford a home health care worker to take care of her. She sued her employer for not paying time-and-a-half pay for all those hours that she worked overtime but was denied premium pay by way of compensation. Unfortunately, Evelyn Coke lost her case before the Court because of an outdated exemption to the Federal minimum wage and overtime laws. In 1974, Congress expanded the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, include protections for most domestic workers, such as chauffeurs and housekeepers. However, a narrow exemption was created for employees providing ``companionship services'' to seniors and people with disabilities. At that time, home care, like babysitting, was largely provided by neighbors and friends. In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long- term health care services in their homes rather than in institutions. There are more than 1 million home care workers in the U.S. They provide physically and emotionally demanding and often life-sustaining care for the elderly and disabled still living in their own homes. This bill brings together two issues that are very close to my heart--on the one hand, independent living and quality of life for seniors and people with disabilities, and, on the other hand, the basic rights of American workers to premium pay for overtime work. Service providers and the people they serve agree on this: no one is served well when home care workers are not paid a living wage. Home care workers deserve fair pay. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve continuous relationships with home care aides that they can trust to deliver the care that they need. Last week, several constituents who provide these kinds of services came to my office. One man, Pete Faust, has worked in home care settings for 30 years. Pete makes $12 an hour and admits he has trouble making ends meet; the overtime pay he receives makes it possible to pay the bills. He knows that he could go work somewhere else and make twice as much, but he worries that it is hard on his clients not to see the same friendly familiar face on a regular basis. Casey Cole is another of my constituents, and he is in a similar position. He works 12 days in a row, and then gets two days off. Often, however, there isn't anyone else to cover the shifts when he is off, so he will work 26 days in a row. Even his days off aren't really days off, because he's answering calls or checking in to make sure that all the people under his care are getting their needs met. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a Pete Faust or a Casey Cole to help them out. There is a shortage of qualified home care workers, and of there is high turnover in the field. Some 86 percent of direct care workers turn over every year. Almost 90 percent of homecare workers are women, and they are predominantly minority women, making an average of just $9 an hour. The reason for the shortage of people to do this work is certainly not a shortage of compassion. The problem is that people need to be able to make a living wage when they have their own families to take care of. It is high time to grant these hard-working people the minimum wage and overtime protection. That is why I am introducing this legislation, today. The Fair Home Health Care Act will include home care workers under the same rules that currently cover babysitters. That is to say, they will be entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act protections if they are not employed on a ``casual basis.'' Casual basis is defined as employment on an irregular or intermittent basis, when the employee's primary vocation is not the provision of homecare, the employee is not employed by an agency other than the family or household using his or her services, and the employee does not work more than 20 hours per week. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. The bill will improve pay for hardworking caregivers, and it will increase access to care for our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I call to the attention of my colleagues three very special families from Rose Hill, IA, and their extraordinary contributions to our Nation. First, a little bit of background. As we all know, the National Guard and the Reserves have been shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not only away from their families, they are also away from their employers. Bear in mind that these are citizen soldiers. In civilian life, they are teachers, firefighters, farmers, attorneys, and members of just about every other profession. And when they are deployed, their employers also have to make sacrifices. Every year, the Department of Defense presents its Freedom Award to a small number of employers that go above and beyond the call of duty in supporting employees who are deployed with the Guard or Reserve. This year, one of those employers is Augustine & Sons farm in Rose Hill, IA. Augustine & Sons is not one of those big corporate conglomerate farms. We are talking about a family farm owned and worked by brothers Dan and Mike Augustine. They are the sixth generation of the Augustines to farm this land since it was homesteaded in 1852. They have just two employees on the farm, and one of those employees is Matthew Strasser, a first sergeant with the Iowa National Guard who is on his second deployment overseas. First Sergeant Strasser previously served in Kosovo, and he is now deployed in Afghanistan. The next time we see one of those bumper stickers that says, ``Support Our Troops,'' we should think of the Augustine families. When First Sergeant Strasser left for Afghanistan, the Augustines lost one- half of their two-man workforce. But the Augustine brothers have continued to pay his entire salary, including an annual bonus. The Strasser family continues to live rent-free in a house on the farm. The Augustine families look in on the Strassers like they are just one big family--helping with chores, taking the boys fishing, and much more. It is just an extraordinary story of good, decent people going the extra mile--I should say, the extra 100 miles--to extend a helping hand and to be endlessly generous. The Augustines may have a relatively small farm, but they have very big hearts. The Augustine and Strasser families are in Washington today, and the Augustines will be presented with a 2007 Freedom Award at a special dinner this evening. It was a great honor to have them at my weekly constituent breakfast this morning. I had the pleasure of meeting Dan Augustine, his wife Teresa and son Ryan; Mike Augustine, his wife Leesa, and son Caitlin; and Jessica Strasser, the wife of 1SG Matthew Strasser, and their sons Reece and Tyler. I am sure that the entire Senate joins me in saluting 1SG Matthew Strasser for his courageous service in Afghanistan and also for the sacrifices on the homefront by Jessica Strasser and their sons. We also are deeply grateful to the Augustine families for their generosity and their very special brand of patriotism. Yesterday, Americans commemorated the anniversary of the September 11, 2007, attacks. It has always struck me that those attacks, which represented humanity at its very worst, have led to so many acts of generosity and sacrifice that represent humanity at its very best. The Augustine and Strasser families make me very proud to be an American, and it was wonderful to meet them this morning.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the last 3 months a majority of project-based section 8 housing had payment disruptions with HUD not making timely payments under its contractual obligations to the owners of the housing facilities. As of the end of August, 50 facilities had not received payments just in my State of Iowa. The payments not received cover 2,466 apartments. Twenty-two percent of those projects were designated as ``family projects,'' and 78 percent are elderly or disabled projects or a combination of the two. Some of those facilities were still waiting for their June and July payments when the August payments failed to arrive. As of yesterday, I understand that about 20 projects in Iowa which have reached their contract expiration date at the end of June, July, or August still have not seen the routine work to renew the contracts, and payments have not been received in Iowa. I expect that Iowa is typical of the Nation in this regard. The failure to make timely payments not only results in added costs to owners, it creates a chill on future investments in low-income housing. With that chill, I fear that the number of low-income housing units available to families and the elderly in need will be reduced. I urge that the committee work to provide for methods and requirements as well as financial resources so HUD will provide proper timely payments to all project-based section 8 projects in the coming fiscal year. I am particularly concerned with the situation that may occur if the Congress passes one or more short-term continuing resolutions for the beginning of the fiscal year. I would like to work with Chairman Murray and Senator Bond to accomplish these goals.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes to greet these fine Parliamentarians.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I take great pride now in asking unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes so we may greet five Parliamentarians from the Republic of Slovenia. I take great pride in this. As the occupant of the Chair knows, my mother came from the small village of Suha in Slovenia, was an immigrant to this country. I know the grandfather of the Senator from Minnesota also came from Slovenia. So for those of us with Slovenian roots, this is a proud moment. In its 16 years of independence, Slovenia has established a stable multiparty democracy, a free press, an independent judiciary, and an excellent human rights record. In 2004, Slovenia joined NATO and became a member of the European Union. In fact, in January of 2008, Slovenia will ascend to the presidency of the European Union. So we are proud to have five members of the Slovenian Parliament here: Miro Petek, Marijan Pojbic, Jozef Horvat, Samo Bevk, and Marjan Drofenik.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Nevada, our distinguished majority leader, on this issue. Basically, what the bill does, again as I said, is to boost training for all Department of Veterans Affairs staff, contractors, and medical personnel, teaching them to identify risk factors for suicide and refer veterans to the appropriate mental health counseling and mental health centers. As I said at the outset, this has been the most bipartisan piece of legislation I can imagine. Senator Grassley and I introduced it in the Senate, appropriately since Joshua Omvig was from Iowa. We have 30 different cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It was introduced in the other body by Congressman Leonard Boswell of Iowa, who is the Congressman from the district in which Joshua Omvig lived. In fact, it is that version of the bill we are trying to pass today. I may have misspoke earlier. He secured 152 bipartisan cosponsors of the bill. It passed the House in March by a vote of 423 to 0. No Republican objected over there. No one; 423, not a single dissenting vote. That is why I was so surprised and, quite frankly, dismayed when an objection was raised on the other side of the aisle preventing passage of the bill before the August recess. How many more veterans have committed suicide since that time who might have been, through counseling, through outreach, through some way given the appropriate support services so they wouldn't have to commit suicide? This morning, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, offered several reasons for his objection. That is what I would like to respond to now. He mentioned that the bill is duplicative of the VA's plans to prevent suicide and that veterans' receipt of benefits would be contingent on the screening. He also raised concerns about the validity of the peer counseling provisions of the bill. Finally, he expressed concern that if the VA asked veterans about their mental health, this information might be used to inhibit their ability to purchase handguns. All of these concerns are unfounded, and I want to explain. In 2004, the VA developed a series of suicide prevention initiatives as part of a comprehensive mental health strategic plan. All well and good. Unfortunately, very few of the initiatives have been implemented. During the first 2 years following development of the plan, a Government Accountability Office report found that the VA did not even spend $100 million of the $300 million that was specifically allocated for this initiative. One-third of the money specifically allocated was not spent. I think our veterans have paid a steep price, a tragic price for this foot dragging. When the VA has announced plans to undertake suicide prevention initiatives, usually it is in response to some highly publicized incident. They usually announce the plans and then they do not follow through. For example, in February the VA finally announced it would put suicide prevention crisis counselors in VA facilities. That was only after the tragic, high-profile suicide of Jonathan Schulze, a marine who received two Purple Hearts for his service in Iraq. When Schulze informed his local VA facility that he was thinking about killing himself, he was told he was 26th on the local VA's waiting list for VA mental health services. He went home and killed himself that night. In response to that, the VA said: We are going to put VA suicide prevention crisis counselors in all VA facilities. Although they announced it, 7 months later they have still not fully implemented this initiative. Yes, if there is a tragic case like that, the VA will come out and say they are going to do things. Seven months later they still have not implemented the initiative. What would our bill do, the Omvig Act? The Omvig Act would require the Veterans' Administration to designate a suicide prevention counselor at each medical facility. No more foot dragging; it would require them to do that right now. In late July, the VA announced the implementation of a 24-hour suicide prevention hotline. That is also in the Joshua Omvig bill. That VA plan has been around since 2004. Three years later they say they are finally going to put it into effect. I suppose that is some kind of progress. But by writing this very sensible provision into law, we will ensure that the VA does not backslide on this either. As part of its 2004 strategic plan, the VA set a plan to train all front-line staff on suicide prevention. In 2004, they said that. They still have failed to provide this training. Maybe that is what the Senator from Oklahoma is saying is duplicative. Yes, we say you have to have a 24-hour suicide hotline. The VA said they were going to do that in 2004. They said they were finally going to implement it in July. It still isn't manned, and the counselors they said they were going to have do that in February, 7 months later they haven't done that. We say you have to do it. Is that duplicative? No, it is putting into law and mandating that the VA has to do this. The Omvig Act directs the Secretary to ensure that staff members have the training necessary to identify risk factors for suicide and to make appropriate referrals for assistance. Is that too much to ask? Is that too burdensome for veterans who put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places? It just says the staffs have to have the training necessary to identify risk factors for suicide to make appropriate referrals for assistance. The VA said they were going to do that in 2004, but they never have. Because they have not done this, many Armed Forces personnel who have been discharged and have VA benefits are not receiving these services. The Omvig family and numerous veterans support groups testified during our hearings about the importance of outreach to reduce the stigma associated with mental health issues and to assist veterans and their families in transitioning to civilian life. This legislation, the Omvig bill, would establish a program to provide education and outreach to families to help them identify symptoms of mental health problems and to encourage families to seek assistance. The VA inspector general issued a report this May, confirming that the VA is falling short of the necessary system-wide implementation of suicide prevention programs--their own inspector general. They found that many VA clinics lacked properly trained staff. Need I repeat myself? They did not provide 24-hour services and provided inadequate mental health screening. That is their own inspector general. The inspector general also found that the VA had not established best practices research to ensure a standard of suicide prevention. The Omvig bill addresses all these issues. The aim of the bill is to improve early detection and intervention, provide access to services for veterans in crisis and thereby prevent suicide among those who have put their lives on the line to defend our Nation. The Senator from Oklahoma objected. He expressed concern that the receipt of benefits would be contingent on the screening, and that there is no opt-out provision. Let's look at this. The fact is, the Department of Defense already requires soldiers returning from deployment to complete a checklist of symptoms such as anxiety, difficulty sleeping, suicidal thoughts. There are no opt-outs for this mental health screening because these programs are critical to ensure that those with mental health concerns receive the assistance they need. The DOD, the Department of Defense, says if you are going to be redeployed, you have to have mental health screening--no opt-out. We are saying the screening provision in the Omvig bill does not mandate a formal checklist of mental health symptoms. It just ensures that medical professionals incorporate questions about veterans' mental health into primary care visits. In other words, what we are trying to say is mental health care should be integrated into primary health care. That is all we are saying. Just as a medical professional would ask questions about risk factors for heart disease, it is responsible medicine to ask about risk factors for suicide, especially among this group since the data show how high it is, how high the incidence is of suicide. Doctors ask their patients all the time if they are getting enough exercise and eating healthy. They should also ask if a veteran is sleeping well and if they have been anxious. These questions are critical in order for doctors to get a full picture of the veteran's health and well-being. I want to make it very clear, the bill does not make the receipt of benefits contingent on veterans undergoing a separate mental health screening. Rather, it merely seeks to incorporate into their screening process, into their primary health care process, this process, that the health professionals are incorporating appropriate questions about suicide risk into their practice. Not to do this is totally irresponsible. The Senator from Oklahoma also mentioned his concern that the peer counseling provisions in the bill are not effective. Again, I am surprised by this as there is a large body of research that peer support programs are effective in alleviating post-traumatic stress symptoms, PTSD symptoms and depression, reducing the likelihood of hospitalization and increasing social support. President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recognizes peer support approaches as an emerging best practice in helping people to recover from traumatic events. Who better to counsel with a soldier who has served in Iraq and had a lot of trauma, or from Afghanistan who had a lot of trauma, than a peer, one of their own peers to talk to them about it, or their families? Peer support approaches offer a low-cost and effective supplement to traditional services in which transitioning veterans can talk to someone who had similar experiences and understands what they are going through. This is well-recognized, evidence-based service that allows veterans to talk to someone who had similar experiences and, as I said, understands what they are going through. How can there be an objection to that? Finally, regarding the concern of the Senator about veterans' ability to access firearms, I am very puzzled. This bill ensures that the VA takes appropriate measures to follow up with veterans who are at risk for suicide. OK. There are strict privacy laws that govern the doctor- patient relationship. Privacy laws prevent the release of information about any patient. There is an exception if the patient is a serious threat to himself or others, but no medical professional can refer an individual to the background check system that would limit access to firearms. Let me repeat that: No medical professional can refer an individual to the background check system that would limit access to firearms. This can only be done through the judicial process. In other words, before an individual can be placed on the NICS list where they can't purchase a handgun--and this prevents an individual who is mentally ill from purchasing a firearm--a judge must make a determination that the individual belongs on that list. As many of my colleagues are aware, there is legislation that has passed the House and was recently approved by the Judiciary Committee that would encourage States to do a better job reporting to the NICS system in the wake of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. If Senators have concerns about how the NICS system operates, it seems to me that legislation is the appropriate venue for those concerns. But to hold up the Omvig suicide prevention bill that delivers critical suicide prevention services to veterans based on concerns related to an unrelated pending bill is very troubling. There is an editorial that appeared in the New York Times on August 30. Let me read from that. Here is what the editorial in the New York Times said on August 30: As the Army's suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there's small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government's record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns. Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame at this example of Second Amendment idolatry. The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans' medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front. Again, the editorial goes on. The Senator's office points to another bill near passage-- prompted by the Virginia Tech gun massacre--that would encourage states to do a better job of listing mentally troubled individuals on the Federal roll of risky gun purchasers. But tying these two measures together is itself evidence of defective reasoning, or at least scurrilous politicking. The Virginia Tech measure has nothing to do with veterans and affects only those Americans formally judged by a court to be mentally disturbed. It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measures would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that's to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right to life--liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader. I ask the leader, if we can, if the objection is not withdrawn, I hope we can bring the bill up and move the bill legislatively on the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. That is true.

Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, Mr. Coburn spoke on the floor and mentioned his staff had made suggestions about the language. Again, I am very surprised to hear this. Staff from my office and Senator Grassley's office met with Senator Coburn's staff before the recess in an attempt to resolve any differences. Their staff made no suggestion as to what it would take to lift Senator Coburn's hold. Over recess, I instructed my staff to make attempts to meet with his staff, but his staff was always unavailable. Over the last few days, we once again attempted to reach out to his staff in an effort to move the bill. But, again, we have not heard anything back. We suggested we would be willing to work with Senator Coburn on the tracking language he was concerned about. But we have not heard anything from his office until the Senator spoke on the floor this morning. This bill has received full consideration, as I said, in the House and the Senate. It passed without a single dissenting voice in the House. Is the Senator from Oklahoma saying there are 423 totally irresponsible people in the House? I mean, there are people in the House every bit as conservative as the Senator from Oklahoma. They did not raise any objections to this. We had three hearings in the Senate on the bill, two hearings in the House. Josh Omvig's parents testified before the Senate VA Committee in April. I wish to recount something they said. At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that Joshua Omvig, before he went into the military, had been a member of the Grundy Center Volunteer Fire Department and Police Reserve. He had hoped to return to serve his community as a police officer. I said: Remember that, because I am going to return to it. I now return to it. It was his dream to one day become a police officer. As he pursued that dream, he worked alongside many Grundy Center fire and policemen. Here is what Mr. Omvig said to the committee: The day after Josh's suicide, the Grundy Center police department and fire department had a time where a professional counselor was brought in to help them cope and deal with what happened that day. Do we as a nation take the same measures for our troops who have served for us for months in a combat area? Are we providing our military men and women the appropriate services to help them assimilate to civilian life? Are we providing them with what they need to survive the peace? Ellen and I have to say ``No'' not at this time. We can and must do more! Now, I saw Joshua's parents at the time when they were here in Washington. And, you know, it is always awkward to talk to parents about the death of any of their children, especially a young person taking his own life. I said to both the parents: Was there any indication? I mean, do you have any idea why Joshua would take his own life? Mr. Omvig said: Yeah, I know exactly why. I said: Why? He said: Well, Joshua always wanted to be a police officer, all his life growing up. That is why he volunteered on the police reserves, volunteer fire. He went into the service thinking that would help him to become a police officer. He was worried that if he sought mental health services, he would never be able to become a police officer. What a shame. What a shame that in this country we still treat mental health like that. That is why we have to do a better job. That is why counseling, someone talking to Joshua, one of his peers who has been through the same thing who may have then gone on to become a police officer could say: You can get mental health help. You can get the necessary treatment, and you can still become a police officer. Well, while we delay and fail to act, we are losing more and more veterans to suicide. As I said, the VA plan was written 3 years ago, and they are still not implementing it. The PTSD program treatment at Walter Reed accepts only 65 patients each year. Yet more than 45,000 veterans sought medical help for post- traumatic stress disorder in the first 3 months of 2007; Walter Reed accepts 65 a year. The VA must be better equipped to deal with veterans who are in crisis. With this bill, we can ensure that the VA will provide comprehensive and critical services, even when the issue is not in the headlines because of some tragedy. We need to hold the VA accountable. As I said, even their own inspector general said they were not living up to it, our GAO said they were not. We need to make it clear that preventing suicide among our veterans is a congressional and national priority. For our veterans who have served their country, fought for our country, many times they are being left to fight their own private mental health life wars alone, private wars they too often lose. I urge the objecting Senator to reexamine this important bill, reconsider his objection. Lives are at stake. We need to move forward with the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor at this Time to respond a little to the comments made prior to the recess for our Republican and Democratic caucuses today, made on the floor by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, regarding the bill called the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. I want to lay out what the bill does, where we are on it, and respond to some of the objections that the Senator from Oklahoma raised. Shortly before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, we sought unanimous consent to pass this bill, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act, and send it to the President for his signature. Unfortunately, an objection was lodged on the other side of the aisle by--as we know from this morning--the Senator from Oklahoma. I am saddened by the objection to this legislation. My staff and I have spent a great deal of Time trying to understand the reasons behind this objection and respond to the concerns that have been raised. I thought it would be helpful for my fellow Senators, and anyone who is watching, if I took some Time to review why I believe the Senate needs to act now to pass this important bill, and why I find it so puzzling that one Senator would object. Let me give a little bit of history. I introduced this legislation, along with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, after learning about the case of a young Iowan--his name was Joshua Omvig--who tragically took his own life shortly after returning home from an 11- month deployment in Iraq. Joshua was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, 339th MP Company, based in Davenport, IA. Before leaving for Iraq, he was a member of the Grundy Center Volunteer Fire Department and the Grundy Center Police Reserves. He was honored to serve his country in the Reserves and hoped to return to his community to serve as a police officer. Please remember what I just said. He was honored to serve his country in the Reserves, and he hoped to return to his community to serve as a police officer. Keep that in mind. I will return to it later. His family is convinced that if the Veterans' Administration had more services for veterans in place, Joshua would have received the help he needed and he would still be alive. But rather than withdrawing into their grief, Joshua's parents have dedicated themselves to ensuring no other family has to suffer this way. Ellen and Randy Omvig, Joshua's parents, have assisted countless veterans and their families in navigating the VA system. They have been outspoken advocates of improved mental health services for servicemembers and veterans. In April, the Omvigs testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on the importance of appropriate suicide prevention, early detection, and treatment programs for our veterans. The goal of the Joshua Omvig Act is simple: to improve suicide prevention and early detection and to improve assistance to veterans in crisis in order to prevent suicides among those who have so bravely served our country. We know there is an urgent, overwhelming need for this bill. A study in last month's issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that those who have been in combat are twice as likely to commit suicide as those who have never served in a war. The Veterans' Administration estimates that more than 5,000 veterans take their lives each year. These numbers are certain to increase dramatically, given the growing number of soldiers returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suicide rates are 35 percent higher for Iraq veterans than for the general population. Let me repeat that statement. Suicide rates are 35 percent higher for Iraq war veterans than for the general population. The Department of Defense recently reported that the Army is seeing the highest rate of suicide in 28 years. So what does the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act do? It directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to create a comprehensive program to address the troubling rate of suicide among veterans returning from combat. The legislation takes a multifaceted approach toward the prevention of suicide. It emphasizes the importance of social support, family involvement, readjustment services, as well as further research to decrease the number of suicides among our veterans. It also boosts training for all Department of Veterans Affairs staff, contractors, and medical personnel who interact with veterans, teaching them to identify risk factors

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my leader for joining with me on this issue. I respond to him, I just said--I don't know if the leader was on the floor at the time--that suicide rates for Iraq veterans-- Iraq veterans--is 35 percent higher than the general population. The Department of Defense has said their suicide rate in the Regular Army is at the highest rate in 28 years. I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, this bill I am talking about was introduced in the House earlier this year. There were 154 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. This bill, the Joshua Omvig suicide prevention bill, passed the House in March 423 to 0--423 to 0. We can't get much better than that. It came to the Senate. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee had three hearings on it and the House had two hearings, for a total of five hearings. Every veterans group, every veterans support group, disabled veterans, everyone came to testify on the need for this legislation. We went through the committee process, had the hearings, and had all the testimony. Joshua's parents testified. We brought it out on the floor for a unanimous consent agreement before we left on the August break. It passed the House 423 to 0. Then I found there was an objection raised. I started to nose around to find out who raised the objection. It was Senator Coburn from Oklahoma. I talked with the Senator from Oklahoma. He said, first of all, he was upset that there were not any hearings. He told me that right out in the back of the lobby. I said: Senator, we had hearings. We had three in the Senate, two in the House. Well, he had to go check on it. Then he raised other objections and came on the floor this morning to say why he has objections. Now I am going to respond to those objections in kind to let the Senator know his objections are unfathomable. So here we are faced with a dire situation among our veterans, with the highest suicide rates ever, and we are trying to pass legislation to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to do certain things to set up processes and procedures so that our veterans will have the kind of counseling and the kind of medical intervention so they do not commit suicide, and yet we have one objection raised.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill Antonishak, a member of my staff, be given the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. HARKIN

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