Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Southeast Polk Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts, everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Southeast Polk Community School District received several Harkin grants totaling $2,486,943 which it used to help modernize and make safety improvements throughout the district. The district received four construction grants totaling $2,108,922 to help build a new school in Runnells, to help provide additional classrooms at Mitchellville, Delaware, and Centennial schools and to help build Clay Elementary in Altoona. The additional classrooms and new schools are needed to address rapid growth of students in the district. This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. The district also received four fire safety grants totaling $377,951 to make safety improvements throughout the district. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Southeast Polk Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education president Brad Skinner, vice president Steve Hanson, Katie Temple, Andrew McGrean, Tom Hadden, Joanne Moeller, and Lori Slings, and former board members Pat Staggs VanderWert, Doug Workman, Gwen Seward Lewis, Jack Scrignoli, Richard Owens, Valarie Campbell, Doug Keast, and Marion Vande Wall. I would also like to recognize superintendent Thomas Downs, former superintendent Dr. Joseph Drips, associate superintendent Dr. Stephen Miller, business manager Mike Hamilton, director of support services Dan Janssen and the cochairpersons Tom Hadden and Melissa Horton and volunteers for the ``It's For the Kids'' campaign which worked to pass the bond referendum. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Southeast Polk Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Mediapolis Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Mediapolis Community School District received several Harkin fire safety grants totaling $150,000 which it used for improvements to the fire safety system including fire exits, smoke and heat detectors, and emergency lighting at several district buildings and to replace a section of the roof at the high school and to repair and replace deteriorating plaster in the middle school gymnasium. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute superintendent Frederick Whipple, former superintendent Bill Newman, the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Mediapolis Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education-- president Sandy Hedges, vice president Kenton Klenk, Michael Brown, Ralph Kaufman, Toby Gordon, Dawn Dunnegan and David Baker and former members Kim Hull, Jack Bell, Sherry Spence, Kathryn Whisler, Richard Pfeiff, Melodee Kennedy, Julie Edwards and the late Terry Miller. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Mediapolis Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the West Liberty Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts, everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The school district received a 2001 Harkin grant totaling $500,000 with additional funding from a bond referendum, local option sales tax and a donation from the West Liberty School Foundation which was used for the construction a new high school. A 2002 grant for $342,000 was used for the construction of the vocational agriculture greenhouse located at the high school. This school is the modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the West Liberty Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the Board of Education, Mike Duytschaver, Priscilla Haessig, Claire LeMay, Kevin Minor and Tim Buysse and former board members Bill Laughlin, Missy Johnson, Scott Harvey, Fay Cline, Karen Lathrop, and Joe Stiff. I would also like to recognize superintendent Robert Mata, former superintendent Rebecca Rodocker, principal Jim Hamilton, and staff members including Tom Anderson, Harry Christofferson and Richard Brand. The new high school was the result of the dedicated community leadership of Ken Morrison, Bill Cline, Jerry Anderson, Joyce Gauger, Jim Keele, Bob Owen, Geri Owen, Melody Henderson, Tesla Graham, Darren Brooke, Lori Brooke, Mark Johnson, Jan Fulwider, Lyle Zimmerman, Betty Zimmerman, and Bob Cline and the West Liberty School Foundation whose members included Tim Schneider, Linda Riley, Barb Keele, Bill Koellner, Mary Larson, and Jerry Melick. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin School Grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the West Liberty Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Do I understand from my friend from Oklahoma there was not an offset for the authorizations in that bill? And then the other was the Drug Endangered Children's Act. I am told there was not an offset for the authorization in that bill either. The Senator did not have a hold on that bill?

Mr. HARKIN. Those were just two passed by unanimous consent that did not have----

Mr. HARKIN. Certainly.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask my friend from Oklahoma, did the director of NIH--I don't have a copy of that letter. Did the Director of NIH object to this bill? Because he already said he supported it.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, that is very true, on the Emmett Till bill, but not on this one.

Mr. HARKIN. It has been objected to.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor with a heavy heart and a clear purpose. Last Thursday would have been the 56th birthday of a great actor, a devoted father and husband, Christopher Reeve. Many Americans got to know Christopher Reeve when he put on that blue and red uniform of Superman and acted in so many Superman roles. He was also on television and stage. So we always think of Christopher Reeve as the first Superman. Then, in May of 1995, Christopher Reeve was involved in an equestrian accident. He was riding a horse and got pitched off the horse. He suffered injuries to his spinal column, starting in his neck, which left him paralyzed from the neck down. In the years following the accident, Christopher Reeve not only put a face on spinal cord injury for so many, but he motivated neuroscientists around the world to conquer the most complex diseases of the brain and the central nervous system. Even before I met Mr. Reeve in 1998, I was a big admirer. Of course, I liked Superman movies. Then I watched what he did after he had been paralyzed. After the accident, he could afford the very best doctors and nurses, the best caregivers and therapies. He could have just withdrawn into himself, focused on his own well-being which was a full- time job in and of itself. Christopher Reeve made a different choice that defined him as a great human being. He chose to become the man whom I first met in 1998 when he first testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education on which I was a ranking member at that time. I had been chairman before and then Senator Specter was ranking. In 1998, Senator Specter was chairman of that subcommittee. Mr. Reeve came on a mission to give hope and help to other people with disabilities and thus became a kind of real-life hero to people around the world. Later on, I got to know Christopher Reeve as a friend, someone who had an impish sense of humor, a great smile, was warm and personable. He spent all of his waking time, days, thinking about and getting information about spinal cord injuries, research that had been done, how it was being researched here and in other parts of the world, at the same time finding time to direct a movie. Christopher Reeve began to inform me and others on the committee that the kind of research we were doing into spinal cord paralysis was disjointed; it was not well put together. Then he went on a mission to think about, with others--with scientists and researchers and those of us in the Senate and the House--how we might accomplish pulling this research together in a more unified structure. In 2002, I first introduced the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act with bipartisan cosponsors. The bill has passed the House twice, but we have never succeeded in passing it here. As I said, it is a bipartisan bill. It addresses the critical need to accelerate the discovery of better treatments and one day a cure for paralysis. As I said, currently paralysis research is carried out across multiple disciplines with no effective means of coordination or collaboration. Time, effort, and valuable research dollars are used inefficiently because of this problem. Families affected by paralysis are often unaware of critical research results, information about clinical trials, and best practices. This bill will improve the long-term health prospects of people with paralysis and other disabilities by improving access to services, providing information and support to caregivers and their families, developing assistive technology, providing employment assistance, and encouraging wellness among those with paralysis. In August of last year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee cleared this bill for full Senate consideration. Two months after that, our colleagues in the House passed the bill unanimously by voice vote. Yet for the last 12 months, this bill has languished in the Senate, as I understand it, due to the objections of one Senator, my friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma. At least that is what I am told. I could be corrected, but that is what I am told. In the past, I have heard the Senator from Oklahoma question our role in promoting health legislation because he has said sometimes in the past that too often we get caught up in one cause or another pushed by a celebrity and other worthwhile causes get left behind because they don't have someone famous out there pushing for them. I guess once in a while I might agree with that point. But even though this legislation has Christopher and Dana Reeve's names behind it, it was really written for the thousands of ordinary Americans living with paralysis and spinal cord injuries and their families and friends who pushed the cause of improved research and treatment. I want to read a couple of stories of Americans today. One story belongs to Marilyn Smith of Hood River, OR. She is one of the many paralysis advocates who volunteer their time through the Unite to Fight Paralysis organization. She took the time recently to share her story with me. I want to read a portion of it for the Record. Here is what Marilyn said: Paralysis doesn't just happen to an individual, it happens to a family. In December of 2002, our son became a quadriplegic when a careless driver failed to tighten the lug nuts on one of his wheels. It came off and flew into our son's pickup, shattering his cervical vertebra. Our family was thrown into physical, emotional and financial chaos. We have done the best we could after this calamity, but our lives will never be the same. As parents, our greatest wish before we pass on is to see our son's health restored. We have traveled from Oregon to Washington, DC, for 4 straight years to lobby for passage of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, a well-crafted piece of legislation with bipartisan support that will make a measurable difference in our lives. I think Marilyn's story underscores the tremendous cost paralysis imposes on families. The Spinal Cord Injuries and Illness Center at the University of Alabama Birmingham has done a lot of work to quantify that cost. I believe their findings might surprise some of my colleagues. According to the Spinal Cord Injury and Illness Center, the first- year cost of an injury to the C-1, C-4 vertebrae is upwards of $683,000, with costs in each subsequent year averaging out at more than $120,000. Think about that for a moment. That figure represents a cost of personal care attendants, medical treatment and therapy, transportation, and all the necessary modifications made to one's home. Leo Halland of Yankton, ND, knows this cost all too well. He has been living with paralysis for the past 32 years. He, too, has a story to tell. I will read a short selection from a letter he sent over the weekend. He said: I know there is much in life I will never understand, and now near the top of that list are: One, how a single Senator can stop a piece of good legislation; and, two, how some of his colleagues can support those efforts. Failure to act on this legislation is doing great medical harm. I just have to say, frankly, I am surprised there continues to be an objection to moving this bill. I negotiated this bill with my Republican colleagues before it was marked up in the HELP Committee in July of last year. During the course of those negotiations, we received through Senator Enzi, who is the ranking member of that committee, specific requests to, one, remove authorizations for the titles related to the National Institute for Health Research. In the interest of getting legislation passed, we accepted this change. We removed the NIH reporting provisions in response to concerns that they were duplicative of reporting requirements in the NIH reauthorization legislation. So we took that out. We responded to all of the feedback from the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH by incorporating both substantive and technical changes they wanted. At that point, we were assured there were no more objections, and the bill passed out of our committee with no amendments and no objections. We just passed it out of committee. So given all of the efforts we made to meet concerns raised by Senators on the other side of the aisle, and given that Senators had an opportunity to file amendments at that time in the committee but chose not to, I had every expectation that the bill would pass the full Senate. Instead, it continues to be held due to one Republican objection. This bill is long overdue for passage. When I introduced the bill 17 months ago, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the NIH, spoke at a rally in support of the bill. They had suggestions on some changes which we did. But he spoke in support of the bill. Here is something Dr. Zerhouni said that day: So really as the Director of an institution that is committed to making the discoveries that will make a difference in people's lives, I feel proud and I feel pleased. But at the same time, I'm humbled. I'm humbled because in many ways [the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act] is the harbinger of what I see as the combination of the public, the leadership in Congress, and the administration and government in our country that is absolutely unique, and humbled because at the same time, I know it contains a lot of expectations from us. And I am at the same time confident that we can deliver on these expectations of NIH, with our sister agencies throughout the government. But the key thing I would like to provide is an expression of commitment. At the end of the day, if you do not have leaders and champions that look at a problem in its entirety, today in the 21st century, you cannot make progress. That was Dr. Zerhouni. I wholeheartedly agree with him. You have to look at it in its entirety. Progress is vital in science and biomedical research. It is also important in the legislative process. As Senators, of course, we have a duty to ensure due diligence in considering legislation. That is one of our responsibilities. But to keep this bill from getting an up-or-down vote, despite strong support from both sides of the aisle, and the fact that the House passed it unanimously, I am not certain that is exercising due diligence. I don't know what it is called, but I don't know if that is due diligence. Brooke Ellison of Stony Brook, NY, is another passionate advocate. She was paralyzed from the neck down when she was 7 years old after she was struck by a car while walking home from the first day of school. She is now 25 years old. In the years since her accident, she has graduated from college--Harvard--with an undergraduate degree and a master's degree, and founded the Brooke Ellison Project for those facing paralysis and adversity, and she asked me to pass along these words. I have seen up close and in person how very quickly any one of our lives can change and we find ourselves facing challenges unlike anything we may have expected. Eighteen years ago, I learned this lesson in a personal and profound way. Yet each day, an increasing number of people find themselves in similar circumstances, and we need to do all we can to alleviate their suffering. Christopher Reeve lived his life as a testament to helping to reduce the challenges people suffering from paralysis face. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is critical to changing the fate, and sometimes even dire conditions, that millions of people face. And the events in my life have shown me all too clearly how essential it is to be passed. I wish to be clear; by putting this bill on hold, we are also putting Brooke Ellison and Leo Hallan and other people living in paralysis on hold. It tells the more than 400 Iraq war veterans who have returned with spinal cord injuries that they are on hold. It puts the needs of Bethany Winkler from Yukon on hold. She has been paralyzed for 7 years, since falling in an accident. She has taken the time to come to Washington to lobby for this legislation. I met Bethany in the past, and I can testify to what a passionate and effective advocate she is for the cause of paralysis research and care. Although we often find ourselves on different sides of the table, I wish to say publicly I respect the fact that Senator Coburn believes strongly this legislation inappropriately grows the size of the Federal Government. I have heard that stated. I see my friend is on the floor, and he can state it if he wants. But if that is the case, I wish to say I disagree with that assessment. I am on the Appropriations Committee, sure, but I am on an authorizing committee as well, and this legislation appropriates no money for paralysis research. It doesn't appropriate any money for care or quality-of-life programs. It simply says we authorize funding for programs. So they still have to be funded through the regular appropriations process. So I come down to the floor with renewed hope. This past week, the Senate passed several bills by unanimous consent with new authorization for Federal spending. Two of those bills, the Drug Endangered Children Act and the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which were also being held up, and again were authorizations for appropriations, received unanimous consent and were passed. So I have come to the floor today, and as soon as I finish, in another page or two, I will ask unanimous consent that the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act pass. But I am going to give two more cases. One is from Donna Sullivan, another of the many concerned advocates for paralysis research and care. Donna is fighting not for herself but for her son, and here is what she said: Three years ago, my son was the lone survivor of an airplane crash. His injuries were extensive, and my heart literally felt as if it was broken. After numerous operations and procedures, under the care of well-trained doctors in three States, he has overcome all of his injuries except for one, it is his spinal cord injury, which waits for science to move forward and allow him further recovery. Together, we have attended research symposiums and visited our legislators in Washington, DC, to share our story and the promise that research holds. It is our hope that the Senate will join others who understand the potential and release this bill. When you understand the potential paralysis research holds, it is difficult to ignore, and it is difficult for me to accept that some do. Christopher Reeve spoke up passionately for people such as Donna Sullivan and her son. Christopher Reeve's untimely death in 2004 robbed the paralysis community of its most passionate and effective advocate. As we know, his widow, wife Dana, continued her husband's quest until her untimely death in 2006 of lung cancer. Across the country, thousands of ordinary Americans, whose lives have been touched by paralysis, have taken up Christopher and Dana Reeve's advocacy work at great cost to their health and wealth. Well, I have one last story I have to share with you. It has to do with a young man--a big kid; strong. His dad had been in the Navy in World War II and imbued that in each of his kids. Each kid went in the military--different branches. But this one kid, Kelly--big Irish kid-- he went in the Navy. He went in the Navy. He went to work on an aircraft carrier. He was one of the launch people, an enlisted guy on the deck of an aircraft carrier. They were cruising off the coast of Vietnam. Unbeknownst to Kelly, on one of the planes--it was an A-6 Intruder--the pilot had run up his engine. The intakes on an A-6 are on the bottom. They are big intakes. He was not supposed to have run up his engine, but he ran up his engine to 100 percent of power. Kelly, doing his job, got too close to the intake and got sucked into the intake. He had a hard hat on--his Mickey Mouse ears and his hard hat on--and evidently the pilot, through later investigations, saw something going wrong with his engine, heard a thud in his plane, and pulled the power back. Someone saw Kelly's feet sticking out of the intake, and they got people up there and rushed him down to the infirmary on the ship and then put him in some kind of traction thing, got him off the ship, and got him back to the States. I will never forget the day my sister called me about Kelly. It was my nephew. When my sister called me, I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and she called me up to see what I could do to help. She was extremely distraught, as you can imagine. Kelly was 20 years old and had his life ahead of him. So I went to work, as any Congressman would, for my family, and I got him in at the VA hospital out in California, near Stanford, and that is the first time I flew out to see him. He was quadriplegic at the time. He couldn't move anything. I can remember walking in there and seeing this kid--and I don't mean to be overly maudlin about this, but you see, I was a Navy pilot. I used to fly my plane around a lot of times, and these kids always looked up to their father because he was in the Navy and I was in the Navy. I was a Navy pilot. I still have pictures of my jet and young Kelly as a kid sitting in the cockpit of my jet with my helmet on dreaming that someday he, too, would do something such as that. So I kind of felt a lot of responsibility for this because I had encouraged him to get into the Navy, to go into aviation, to do things with airplanes. I will never forget the first time I saw him lying in that hospital bed at Stanford--I think that is right, the Stanford VA hospital--and the look on his face. I mean, this kid was scared. He couldn't move anything, and he was wondering what was going to happen to him. Well, he had good medical care, and the good news is that over some years he actually got the use of his arms back, through sheer will and determination. And through those years he then went back to school. I remember how tough it was for him, using a wheelchair to get around on campus. That was before the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was before we had ramps and widened doorways and things such as that. This was in the 1980s when he was going to school. I remember his father building him ramps and stuff so he could get in and out of places and learn how to live. Well, that happened 28 years ago--28 years ago. Now, the good news is Kelly is alive and well. He lives by himself, in his own home, and has a van that has all these automatic lifts that put him into the van so he can drive himself around. He can't use the lower half of his body, but he can drive around. He started a small business and he is very self-sufficient. I saw Kelly--well, whenever the Democratic Convention was--because he lives in Colorado, and so I went to see him. We were talking about this and that, a lot of things, and I can't begin to tell you what a profound effect Christopher Reeve had on my nephew's life. It seemed as though all of a sudden there was someone like him, who was big and strapping and full of life, with a lot of energy, and then one accident and that is it. So I could see Kelly could identify with someone such as a Christopher Reeve, a healthy, strong, vibrant man, and suddenly one accident and that is it. So he followed him. Kelly is on the computer, on the Internet, and he follows research all the time. During this period of time in the late 1990s, he became more and more encouraged by what Christopher Reeve was doing and how he was pulling all this stuff together. He kept asking me about it: What are you guys going to do? Are you going to pass this? Are you going to do something about paralysis research? Kelly follows this today to the nth degree. Then Christopher Reeve passed away, and then his wife. I saw my nephew Kelly out in Colorado last month. Once again he asked me, he said: Are you going to get that bill passed or not? I said: I don't know. I will try. I am still trying. Of course he knows all about this. He knows it passed the House. He follows all this. He just wondered what the problem was. I said: A person has a hold on it. Can't you bring it up, do this? I don't know if we can bring it up or not--go through cloture and debate and all that kind of stuff. I don't know. He reminded me it passed the House. I said: I know that, it passed the House unanimously. It passed out of our committee. So I told Kelly when I saw him in August: We will come back in September and I will try another go at it and we will see what happens. I hope we get it passed. Here we have the medical community, in the personage of Dr. Zerhouni, saying this does what we should be doing, bringing everything together, coordinating it. It authorizes appropriations but doesn't appropriate any money. I can tell you, it is not just because there was a famous person behind it. There are people such as my nephew Kelly all over the United States who are wondering, are we going to pursue this? I don't like to give anyone false hope. My nephew is a realistic person. He has lived with this for 28 years now. But he still believes strongly that we ought to be pushing the frontiers and that we ought to be doing everything we can to promote research, of course--obviously into paralysis, because that is what affects him. If anybody wants to talk about this and what needs to be done, he can talk about it at greater length and in more depth and understanding than can I. I was not going to do this until my colleague from Oklahoma came to the floor. I see him here. All I say is I hope we can move this bill. I am hopeful, after looking it over and understanding we do not appropriate any money, and looking at what we did with a couple of other bills earlier, we can get this bill through. I will be glad to engage in any colloquies such as that. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1183 I am constrained to ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 326, S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, that the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as I mentioned, and I ask my friend from Oklahoma, two bills I understand went through by unanimous consent this week, the Drug Endangered Children's Act and the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes bills. I understand the Senator from Oklahoma had holds on those bills. Is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my friend from Oklahoma, one of the reasons he wouldn't mention this is because, as my friend from Oklahoma surely knows, paralysis is not a specific disease. Paralysis can happen across a wide spectrum of diseases and illnesses and conditions. So this is not a specific disease. In that way, this is not a disease-specific bill as such, and that is probably where the confusion comes in. Because Dr. Zerhouni was very supportive of this approach; I read it in his comments that he made. But he is against disease-specific authorizations or appropriations. I can tell the Senator from Oklahoma, so am I, and I chair that. I chair it now. I have been ranking member or chair of that subcommittee going back 18 years. I cannot remember one time ever appropriating specifically one disease over another. There are times, of course, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, in which we as legislators, as public servants, take information and input from our constituents or from the country and through the hearing process--and this is usually on the authorizing side more than the appropriating side--try to give some guidance and direction to those to whom we give our taxpayers' money. Again, we have prodded NIH in the past to perhaps do certain things. I mean we, the Congress, have started different institutes at the National Institutes of Health. At different times people come together and say there should be an institute to look at this and we, as public policy people, set that up. Then there are times when we get the Director of NIH, or some of the other heads, some of these people here from these different institutes, and we ask them, What are you doing about this kind of research? Spinal muscular atrophy, which I never heard of before until a few years ago, I found out it is even more prevalent and has a higher mortality rate than muscular dystrophy. But they weren't doing much research into spinal muscular atrophy, so we talked about that, we explored that. We talked about a lot of things in cancer or Parkinson's disease, in which we explored with these heads of NIH what the public wants and what we are hearing from the public. They take that into account. They may make some adjustments one way or the other. I don't see anything wrong with that. That is part of our legitimate role as public servants, and responding to the legitimate requests and needs of the public. The people who work at NIH, and the people who run these institutes, are not high priests of some religious order who do not answer to anyone except the head person. They have to answer to the public. These are public moneys that go in there. Sometimes we consult with them, we talk with them, bring them information and say, here, the public wants to know why we are not doing more in this area. They take that into account, sometimes respond--sometimes better than others--sometimes not. But at least that is the input we have and that is what we are saying here with this legislation. We are not telling them exactly what they have to do. Again, the Senator from Oklahoma says they can do everything that is in this bill. But they are not doing it. That is the point. They are not doing it. You can disagree. You can say they should not do it. I did not hear the Senator from Oklahoma say they should not be doing what we have in the bill. He is not saying that. All I heard him say was that he wanted to debate it for a couple of hours and offer an amendment. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, as a member of the HELP Committee from which this bill came, the Senator from Oklahoma had all kinds of opportunities in the committee to amend this bill. For all I know, some of the changes we made may have come from him. They came through Senator Enzi, who is the ranking member, and we incorporated them into the bill. But the Senator from Oklahoma cannot deny that he was a member of this committee when this bill passed out of committee. If the Senator from Oklahoma wanted to amend it, he had every opportunity to do so at that time. Yet no objection was raised when we passed it out of committee; only when we get it here on the floor. We operate around here a lot of times on unanimous consent. And we usually do it on bills that are generally accepted by everybody. We hotline, and our staffs look at them to see whether anyone has an objection. This bill has been hotlined on both sides of the aisle. Out of 100 Senators, only one Senator has an objection, the Senator from Oklahoma. Now, again, people wonder--this one letter from this one woman says: How can one Senator stop something like this? Well, you are seeing one Senator can. Now, again, to the extent that the Senator from Oklahoma has a legitimate point, his point is that this could be brought up under the normal process and debated and passed. Well, it looks as though we are going to be back again on Wednesday. I will have to consult with our leadership. But if the Senator from Oklahoma would agree to a couple of hours of debate, an amendment that would be voted up or down, if he has an amendment or two, and then final passage, maybe we could do that on Wednesday. I do not know what the heck we are going to be doing Wednesday. Quite frankly, we could do that. I understand we are going to be in tomorrow, but no legislative business can be done tomorrow under the Jewish holiday, but we could on Wednesday. So if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to enter into an agreement for an hour or two, I do not know if anyone else wants to debate it. If he wants to offer an amendment or two or something like that, maybe we can have a vote on it, voice vote it. Maybe he wants a record vote on it. I do not know. But I have not heard any kind of a suggestion from the Senator from Oklahoma that we could do something like that. So, again, we operate around here in a spirit of comity. What that means is we kind of trust one another. You know, I kind of trust the Senator from Michigan; I trust the Senator from Idaho on a lot of things. We build ourselves on trust. We do not try to pull the wool over someone's eyes here. We do not try to slip something through to which someone may have an objection. So if we have bills like this we hotline them. We have them called around. Lord knows, we have plenty of staff around here. They look at all of these things to see if there is something in a bill their Senator would object to or want to change. We do that for bills that are generally widely accepted. A lot of times bills come back: There is no objection. Go ahead and pass them through. I thought this was one of those simply because it came out of committee. The Senator from Oklahoma was on the committee--is on the committee--and had no objections when it came out of committee. We had incorporated all of the changes that Senator Enzi gave us. We incorporated those plus changes from NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services. So it is very frustrating then to have this objection at this time. Now, one other point the Senator from Oklahoma said. He said this is an authorization for appropriations. That is true as most of the bills are that we pass around here. One way or the other it is an authorization. But he says that will lead to new spending and blah, blah, blah. That is not necessarily true. It may be that we may want to put some money in this program, but we may want to take it from someplace else. We could do that. That has been done a lot around here. We may think that, well, perhaps we will take a little bit here and a little bit here and put it into this. Appropriations committees do that all the time. So it is not necessarily true this is going to lead to any new spending. It may lead to a realignment of spending but not necessarily new. So the Senator from Oklahoma is not quite correct that it would lead to new spending. Secondly, paralysis is not a disease-specific illness. It cuts across all kinds of diseases, illnesses, and conditions. Then I do not know-- the Senator mentioned something about $5.9 million. I brought that down, but I have no idea what that is all about. I also have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, dated July 25, 2008, to the Honorable Kent Conrad as chairman of the Committee on Budget. There were certain questions in here that I thought were pertinent to one of the objections raised by the Senator from Oklahoma. Question No. 1: Does an authorization of future appropriations provide the authority for Federal programs or agencies to incur obligations and make payments from the Treasury? Answer: No. A simple authorization of appropriations does not provide an agency with the authority to incur obligations or make payments from the Treasury. Question: Even if legislation authorizes appropriations for a program, is it not the case that a subsequent act of Congress is required before an agency can spend money pursuant to the authorization? Answer: Yes. This is from the head of the Congressional Budget Office. For discretionary programs created through an authorization, the authority to incur obligations is usually provided in a subsequent appropriations act. An agency must have such an appropriation before it can incur obligations. Question No. 4: If no new spending occurs under authorizing legislation, does it have the effect of increasing the Federal deficit and/or reducing the Federal surplus? Answer: No. An authorization of appropriations by itself does not increase Federal deficits or decrease surpluses. However, any subsequent appropriation to fund the authorized activity would affect the Federal budget. I ask unanimous consent this letter appear at this point in the Record, as well as the July 30, 2008, letter to Congressman Barton from Dr. Zerhouni.

Mr. HARKIN. So, again, I see my friend from Oklahoma has departed the floor briefly. Madam President, I put in a unanimous consent request. Has it been objected to?

Mr. HARKIN. I heard there was a reservation.

Mr. HARKIN. I am about done. Well, I am sorry for so many people who suffer from paralysis in this country who really have, many of them, traveled to Washington at their own expense, at great personal not only expense but inconvenience and trouble and effort--can you imagine what it must be like--who had every reason to believe this would pass and give them new hope, new encouragement that we were now going to be able to bring a new focus, coordination, to this. Now, again, the Senator says they can do everything that is in this bill already. The fact is, they are not. That is why we are here. That is why we are Senators. That is why we are public servants. That is why the public elected us to come here and do things, to get the Government to do things that it is not doing or to stop it from doing something that it is doing. This is one of the things we ought to be telling the people who are involved in this research they ought to be doing. They ought to do this. We do it all the time. And if they will not do it, we ought to be telling them to do it. I am sorry, again, that this Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act has been stopped by a single Senator. I wish we could find some way of getting around it. I ask my friend from Oklahoma if he does not mind, the Senator said something about debating this bill and opening it for amendment. We are going to be here on Wednesday. Now, I have not cleared this with our leadership--I have to do that, of course; I do not run the Senate. But I would have to clear it with our leadership, and then our leadership would have to clear it with the other side. But if we can get a couple of hours on Wednesday to debate this bill and amend it in a 2-hour period of time, with an up-or-down vote on an amendment or two, would that be acceptable to the Senator?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Oklahoma again, the Senator from Oklahoma did not object to a bill passing this week by unanimous consent that has an authorization for appropriations in it. Is that not correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I can assure my friend--I said this when my friend from Oklahoma was off the floor--the Senator from Oklahoma seems to say that since it was an authorization for appropriations in here, that we are going to appropriate new money. That is not always the case. Sometimes the Appropriations Committee will take money from other things; maybe take a little bit here, take a little bit here and put it into something else. That happens a lot, I can tell the Senator, as an appropriator. So it does not always necessarily follow because we authorize the money that we are going to add new money. We could take it from other places. We do not know.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, he just let a bill go through this week that had an authorization for appropriations on it and let it go through under unanimous consent, but not this one. So I see it is up to the Senator from Oklahoma, as one Senator, to decide what is good and what is bad around here.

Mr. HARKIN. What assurances? I am an appropriator. I did not give you any assurances. No one asked me about it. So, obviously, now the Senator from Oklahoma has set himself up as the arbitrator of what is good and bad and right and wrong and everything else around here. Now, come on, there are 100 Senators around here. I wish to respond to one other thing about Amtrak. The Senator from Oklahoma mentioned the airlines. This is something I know a little bit about. I fly a lot of airplanes. Every commercial airline in the country now uses GPS, global positioning satellites. Do you know how much they spent to put all those satellites up there? Zero. The taxpayers of this country put up billions of dollars. We maintain them. We keep them in orbit. When one decays, we put another one up. We keep 24 in orbit all the time. Not only do our airlines use it, every airline around the world uses it, as do ships and everybody else. That is not a subsidy for the airlines? How about all the traffic controllers? They don't work for the airlines, they work for the Government. How about all the navigation systems we maintain, the Approach System, the ILSs, and everything else, paid for by the taxpayers? We appropriate money around here all the time for airports, runway lights, approach systems that all the airlines use. They don't pay for all of those facilities. How about all the airports? Local cities provide the land. If my friend really wants to see how much we are subsidizing the airlines, add it up. It would be a heck of a lot more than what we are subsidizing Amtrak. But I am not opposed to that, subsidies for transportation, for new technologies, for moving people. I am not opposed. The Senator from Oklahoma is sort of saying we subsidize Amtrak but we don't the airlines. I didn't mean to get into that, but that is the point I was trying to make. Lastly, on this issue of offsetting authorizations, now we have to offset every authorization that comes up here. I want to ask the Senator from Oklahoma--we just passed a Defense authorization bill, authorizes a lot of new things in there. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, were any of those offset?

Mr. HARKIN. You can look at society and say there are a lot of problems out there. You can look at this Congress and say we spend a lot of money that we don't agree on. There is a lot of money spent in this Congress I don't like, that I don't agree with. But does that mean this one Senator should stand here and stop good things from happening just because I don't like the way something is being spent, the way something is being done, that I should use the privilege of being a Senator, a privilege, a right, a privilege of being a Senator to just stop something that is good? There are 435 Members of the House, not one objection; 99 Members of the Senate, not one objection. But one Senator, the Senator from Oklahoma, is concerned about deficits and about appropriations. OK. I agree. There are some problems. We have to face our deficits and debt. Does that mean, then, that we stop every good thing from happening around here until that is taken care of? That is taking the privilege of being a Senator way beyond what we ought to have a right to do, to stop something like this just because we are upset about something else that is bad about spending. Heck, I can share with the Senator from Oklahoma a lot of horror stories about how we are wasting money in this Government. He doesn't have a corner on that market, I assure him. Some of the things he may think are wasteful, I might agree. Maybe some of the things I think are wasteful, he may not agree. I don't know. But that is how we work things out here, in a collegial manner, working together to try to get these things solved. It is very hard to explain, when I tell people that one Senator can stop something like this. They don't understand how that is possible, but it is. One Senator can stop things around here. I wish this weren't so in this case because there are too many people with paralysis who were counting on us to get this done and move ahead to coordinate the research in paralysis and bring all of it together. But we never give up. We just keep trying. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes, today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Sioux City Community School District and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire-safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Sioux City Community School District received six Harkin grants totaling $2,225,000 which it used to help modernize and make safety improvements throughout the district. The district received a 2000 grant for $500,000 to help with a science classroom addition to East Middle School and a 2002 grant for $1 million to install a new HVAC system which improved efficiency and indoor air quality at North High School. The district received four fire-safety grants totaling $725,000 for fire alarms, emergency lighting, and other repairs in several schools throughout the district. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Sioux City Community School District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education--president Doug Batcheller, vice president John Meyers, James Daane, Greg Grupp, Walt Johnson, Nancy Mounts and Jackie Warnstadt and former board members Anne James, Flora Lee, John Mayne, Judy Peterson, Bob Scott, Valorie Kruse, Ron Jorgensen, and Barbara Benson. I would like to recognize superintendent Dr. Paul Gausman, former superintendent Larry D. Williams, director of operation and maintenance Mel McKern and supervisor for environmental systems Ralph Guenther. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Sioux City Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Mount Ayr Community School District and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts-- everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Mount Ayr Community School District received several Harkin fire safety grants totaling $124,500 which it used to repair fire safety problems. The grants were used to install new heat and smoke sensors, self-closing fire doors, evacuation lighting, and improved emergency exits and to rewire the fire panel. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute superintendent Russ Reiter, the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Mount Ayr Community School District. In particular I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education--president Rod Shields, former president and board member Craig Elliott, Beth Whitson, Dave Richards, James Uhlenkamp, and board secretary Jeanette Campbell. I would also like to recognize former superintendent Bill Decker who was instrumental along with the district staff in applying for and implementing the first grants. Also, the work of the following people should be cited: head custodian Clint Poore, secondary head custodian Mike Gilliland, and local contractor Ed Rotert. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Mount Ayr Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them and wish them a very successful new school year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in Iowa and across the United States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores are among the highest in the Nation. I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Chariton Community School District, and to report on their participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities. This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121 million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district. The Chariton Community School District received several Harkin fire safety grants totaling $193,750 which it used to install fire alarm systems with emergency lighting and smoke detectors, replace doors with fire rated doors, and upgrade emergency exits in all five district facilities. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students. Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned citizens. I salute superintendent Paula Wright and former superintendent Robert Newsum, the entire staff, administration, and governance in the Chariton Community School District. In particular, I'd like to recognize the leadership of the board of education-- president Chuck Crabtree, vice president Nick Hunter, Craig Huff, Craig Scott and Dave Rich as well as buildings and grounds director; Dave DeBok. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United States is nearly 50 years. Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our young people about our priorities. We have to do better. That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in the Chariton Community School District. There is no question that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school year.