Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007. The Committee will meet off the Senate Floor in the Reception room to consider the nomination of LTG James B. Peake (Ret.) for Secretary of Veterans Affairs after the first Floor vote that occurs on Thursday.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Prioritizing Management: Implementing Chief Management Officers at Federal Agencies.''

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 392, 397, 398, 399, and 400; and the Coast Guard nominations at the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee-reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2408 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1585 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on two bills that should have passed by unanimous consent because they are so widely supported, but there are objections to them by some Republicans. The first is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, and the other is Training for Realtime Writers Act. First, I am disappointed objections have been raised against the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act on the other side. I do not speak for myself, but I speak on behalf of tens of thousands of Americans who suffer from paralysis and their families. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is a bipartisan bill. It is a fiscally responsible bill. It addresses a critical need to accelerate better treatments and one day a cure for paralysis. Currently, paralysis research is carried out across multiple disciplines with no effective means of coordination and collaboration. Time, effort, and valuable 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. The 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. I am, frankly, surprised there continues to be an objection to moving this bill forward. I negotiated this bill with my Republican colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee before it was marked up in July. We received specific requests relating to the NIH. We accepted those requests. We moved forward. We removed the NIH reporting provisions in response to concerns that they were duplicative of reporting requirements NIH already had. We responded to all the feedback from the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH by incorporating both substantive and technical changes. At that point we were assured there were no objections. As a result of these good- faith negotiations, the bill passed out of the HELP Committee with no amendments. 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 but chose not to, I had every expectation that the bill would quickly pass the full Senate. Instead, it continues to be held due to Republican objections. One of my Republican colleagues has said he will object to all disease-specific bills because he does not believe that Congress should be able to pass legislation specifically targeting the fights against cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and so on. I strenuously disagree with the Senator on this point. I believe Congress can and should be involved in setting national priorities in these fields. But putting that aside, the fact is, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is not a disease- specific bill. Paralysis and mobility impairment are not disease- specific issues; they are symptoms or side effects that result from numerous diseases and situations, including traumatic brain injury, stroke, ALS, injuries from athletic activities, injuries, of course, from combat in the U.S. Armed Forces, and many others. So paralysis is not disease specific. Now, again, there seems to be another objection to this bill. One of our Republican colleagues has said he will not allow any bills to pass by unanimous consent that include spending without an offset. Well, let me be clear: There is no funding in the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act legislation. It is only an authorization that allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve the quality of life and long-term health status of people with paralysis and other physical disabilities. Our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, made this case very clear in his discussion of the Water Resources Development bill. He explained the significant difference between authorizing and appropriating. Authorization bills are not spending bills; they determine which projects and programs are eligible to compete for future funding and provide for congressional review and oversight. Authorization bills provide the criterion for spending bills, but they do not contain direct spending. So any spending for the paralysis program authorized by this legislation will be subject to the annual appropriations process. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act passed the House in October. It is long overdue for passage in the Senate. When I introduced this bill, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of NIH, spoke in support of the bill, and let me read something he 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 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'm 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. So that is what Dr. Elias Zerhouni said on the day we introduced the bill. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Zerhouni. Progress is vital in science and biomedical research. It is also vital in the legislative process. As Senators, we have a duty to ensure due diligence in considering legislation. But for one Senator, or two Senators or three, to stall this bill, I believe without legitimate cause--if the objections are that it is disease specific, I have pointed out it is not. Secondly, if it is being held up because there is not an offset, I point out it is only an authorization bill, not a spending bill. If it were an appropriations bill, it would then be legitimately subject to a hold or objection to unanimous consent because it did not have an offset, if that were the case. Anyway, I think for a handful of Senators to block action on this bill seems to undermine the trust that people put in us as legislators to move forward on things, to respond to certain national needs. Let us be clear: By putting this bill on hold, Senators are also putting people with paralysis and their families on hold. It is a shame, I say to these Senators. I am not asking you to vote for the bill. If you don't like it, you don't have to vote for it. I am only asking you to allow the entire Senate to work its will. Don't slam the door on our fellow citizens who are living with paralysis. There are some 2 million Americans right now living with paralysis of the arms or legs, or both. Many others are living with multiple sclerosis. Hundreds of young soldiers are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with spinal cord injuries and paralysis, facing a lifetime of disability. They should not be placed on hold. They shouldn't have to wait. They shouldn't have to have further delay. They should have this bill passed. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their decision to block this bill. As I said, I worked with Republicans before it went to the HELP Committee. We worked with the Department of Health and Human Services downtown, with NIH, and we met all their objections. We redrafted it and there weren't any objections when it went through the HELP Committee. No amendments were offered. That is the kind of legislation you would think would be subject to a unanimous consent procedure here on the Senate floor. It is a fiscally responsible bipartisan bill, as I said, that does not spend any money. It only authorizes. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Four minutes. I also wanted to talk about the Training for Realtime Writers Act. On behalf of more than 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, I express my deep disappointment that again one or two Senators on the other side of the aisle are blocking passage of this important legislation, the Realtime Writers Act of 2007. Again, it is a bipartisan bill. It is fiscally responsible. It addresses an urgent national need to train more real-time captioners at a time when the demand for these professionals has far outstripped the supply, and when, in fact, the law of the land says that all programs have to be real-time captioned. For those who don't know what real-time captioning is, these are the people, if you are in your offices and you are watching the Senate floor and you put your button on mute, you see the little closed caption go across the bottom of the screen. That is someone sitting down here in the bowels of the Capitol watching what we say and, on a machine, typing this in so that if you are deaf or hard of hearing you can read what is happening. This is true on programs you watch on normal television as well. Again, we all use that, I know, at different times. You don't have to be deaf or hard of hearing to use closed captioning. But what has happened, and how this came about is very simple. In 1996, in the Telecom Act, it required that all English language television broadcasts be captioned by the year 2006. All television broadcasts must be real-time captioned by 2006. That was last year. So it is now 2007, and many stations across the country are not in compliance with the law. As a result, a lot of deaf and hard of hearing Americans are not able to access the full range of television programming we take for granted. And why aren't they compliant? Well, it is a legal requirement, but the fact is there are not enough captioners. We knew that back when the bill was passed in 1996. That is why we gave it 10 years for implementation. And little by little we have been trying to get more real-time captioners, but we don't have them. This bill is an effort to bolster that program and to put focus on it. Again, it is an authorization bill. It is an authorization bill. It authorizes the creation of a competitive grant program to train captioners at the funding level of $20 million a year for 5 years. So, again, it is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. There has been a shortage of real-time captioners. And you might say, well, if there is a shortage, why aren't there more people? Well, a lot of people don't know about it. They don't know about the demand. We need the training and expertise. This is a difficult job. I mean, our stenographers here, who take down our words, have a difficult job, but at least they have time to go back and print it out after they put it into the machines. A real-time captioner has to listen and watch what we are saying and put it on immediately. So it takes a lot of expertise and training to do this. This act authorizes, again, the funding. It creates no new entitlements. It sunsets after 5 years, because once we get the number up and we get schools across the country teaching this, I have no doubt that we will have enough in the pipeline. And let me point out that this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent three times before, only to languish in the House of Representatives.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

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

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how much time remains, or how much time does the Senator from Iowa have on this amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does Senator Bingaman have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield that time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee and all the Senators speaking on that amendment, for or against it. Under the unanimous subsequent request, we will turn to the Gregg amendment No. 3673. There will be 2 hours evenly divided. I say to the Senators, if you are opposed or for the Gregg amendment No. 3673, which would cap noneconomic damages in OB/GYN medical malpractice lawsuits, if Senators want to speak on that, we are on it now, with 2 hours evenly divided. Hopefully, we can reduce that time. I ask Senators to please come to the floor if they want to speak.

Mr. HARKIN. We have a little over half an hour of time left on this side, about 20 minutes on the other side on this amendment. For those Senators, this is the medical malpractice amendment by Senator Gregg from New Hampshire. By consent, we had 2 hours of debate. The clock is running. If any Senators wish to speak on this amendment, they better hurry over here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. On both sides.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I hope the Senate will reject these Alexander amendments. The first one on transmission easement payments, again, if we want to encourage the building of renewable energy resources, they are going to take place in rural areas. These easements they have to get have to take place on farms and rural areas. I was pleased the Finance Committee in their tax package provided this income exclusion for transmission easement payments because it can help support transmission access development and it does it for renewable energy. So this is part of the tax package that came from the Finance Committee supported both by the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee. If you want renewable resources built in rural America, then this amendment should be defeated because it will slow it down and stop it from happening.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I could not agree with the Senator more. When I hear what he says, the answer is, yes, I wish we could figure out how we do that. We have not done that, and we should do that. On the 71 percent, that might sound alarming, but that says to me there are a lot of people out there farming who aren't making a lot of money on the farm. They do have some farm income, but think about it this way: people who may be bona fide farmers or ranchers, but they may have another business in town--maybe they are an elevator operator or something, but they are farmers. I think we have to be very careful about this. I think there are a lot of these people in that 71 percent--I haven't looked at the breakdown--who are these younger farmers and have to have some off-farm income to help make ends meet or maybe they need farm income to put away for college savings or something.