gracious creator whose presence permeates like sunlight whose mercy is revealed through your ceaseless compassion and whose authority is called the world into being we call on you to bring forth this day in accordance with your grace plan as the men and women who serve in the u s senate gather together in this chamber to exercise the prophecies of power in politics remind them that  presides over today's deliberations your merciful will that guides the political debate and your ultimate authority that is the source and foundation of their objectives so reminded or deniz elected officials this day to wield this nation's legislative power guided by your presence to engage in partisan discourse in response to your mercy and to align their objectives in accordance with your authority so that all that is said and done here may reflect your presence your mercy and your power we stand in your grace and pray in your holy name amen  the clerk read a communication of the senate washington d c october twenty third two thousand and seven to the senate under the provisions of rule one paragraph three of the phantom rules of the senate i hereby appoint honorable john tester a senator from the reagan had dispatched u s forces and nine hundred eighty two to maintain the peace on the morning of october twenty third one lebanese terrorists drove a truck packed with explosives through three guards and a barbed wire fence straight into the lobby of the u s marine corps headquarters the bomb exploded with eighteen thousand pounds of it transformed a four story cinderblock building into rubble it was so powerful the u s district court for the district of columbia later described it as the largest non nuclear explosion that had ever been detonated some of the men and women lost that day were murdered in their sleep hamilton u s marine corps dal kentucky hospital corpsman third class robert s holland u s navy of gilbert kentucky sergeant thomas still with us today thankfully for america so are the united states marines founded in seventeen seventy five the u s marine corps has been at the tip of the spear in every one of this nation's wars and they will never be stopped by terrorist suicide attack this november the country will celebrate the corps two hundred thirty second birthday and thank them for defending our freedoms but taking the fight to the terrorists wherever they hide them arrange have put terrorists on the defensive making it less likely they will hit us again here at home by their courage on the battlefield and constant risk of danger today's marines honor every one of their forbearers who died defending our country so mr president america still remembers her brave men and women lost in the marine barracks bombing of nine hundred eighty three we honor them and their families for their sacrifice we continue to fight terror today with a study hand even if it times paired with a heavy heart and we are proud of the brave men and women who fight for their country against the would be terrorists of today and tomorrow present or under the previous order the leadership time is reserved and the previous order the senate resumed consideration of h r three zero four three which the report counter number to h r thirty forty three in act making twenty minutes of debate equally divided and then the third one would be the amendment number thirty three sixty five by the senator from kansas senator roberts would be ten minutes of debate equally divided and then the fourth one would be the  thirty three sixty five member offered i'm sorry thirty three fifty eight offered by the senator from oklahoma senator coburn would be twenty minutes to debate equally divided that upon the end of all that time senate would proceed to vote on or in relation to those amendments so mr president we are ready for the amendment from the senator from wyoming as soon as he arrives and he is mr president wyoming mr president i would call up amendment thirty four thirty seven i saw congress approval rating was twelve percent there's a reason for that we've been nibbling around the edges on a lot of things and we've been doing year by yes and i have an amendment that deals with one of the most egregious earmarks that i've seen less than a year ago we passed a bill in this body unanimously that the house then passed unanimously that addressed the ryan white aids and it included transparency it included accountability and it included a change in the formula the change in the formula gave some protection to those who had a declining population but it allowed the money to follow the people that had the problem today in this bill there's an earmark that provides for money now to go to people that may no longer even exist people that are dead it's a way that they're trying to change the authorization process that we went through so meticulously so unanimously in such a way that it undoes it in an appropriations bill we shouldn't be changing the law in appropriations bill we especially shouldn't be changing  for a specific area of the country in an appropriations bill and that's why i bring this amendment i want to discuss the ryan white program and the need to ensure that this labor h h s bill does not undo our recent work last december after months of negotiations the house and the senate passed a new three year ryan white reauthorization most importantly we ensured that those new formulas focused on the life saving treatment by including individuals with hiv not just aids one of the key items that delayed this reauthorization for months was the careful negotiations surrounding the funding formulas in that bipartisan b agreement we were very clear about the implications of those new formula changes we provided g a o data runs that were new early identical to how the funding has been distributed i hope everybody takes a look at those g a o data runs those funding formulas also included hold harmless provisions to ensure the formula funding will not decrease by my more than five percent from the previous year while i would have preferred no hold harmless provisions or ones that allowed for more dramatic fluctuations so the money could follow the hiv infected person that was what we agreed upon just a few short months ago we didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes we provided clear information about the implications of those funding formulas now with one simple pen stroke the house majority would like to undo all of those carefully crafted  bipartisan cameral compromises and insert a new hold harmless provision with little thought to how this would have how this change would affect others i'm pleased to note that the senate did not include this egregious provision and i hope today that the senate will go on record for opposing doing so what's even more ridiculous is that this provision primarily benefits san francisco a city that continues to receive funding to care for dead people san francisco would receive two thirds of the nine million dollars available racking up six million dollars of new dollars all the while nearly every other city would have reduced funding just so san francisco can receive more riches that additional six million is not based on the number of people that are treating or have many are or on how many new cases they have as a hold harmless provision it's just related to what that city has received before and as g a o noted in a report just last month even within their current funding they are receiving money for people who have died let me repeat that g a o the government accounting office confirmed that san francisco currently receives funding under ryan white for dead people that's without this additional six million dollar earmark now i don't know about you but i find this a little reprehensible when where i come from that's called cheating this is patently unfair to those cities and states that are striving to come up with the monies for basic hiv aids treatment house democrats reneged on a bipartisan buy campbell solution and are trying to slide this authorizing legislation into an appropriations bill hoping no one will notice well i noticed i object to this provisions and the implications of it rather than providing nearly ten million dollars to help those cities who don't need it why aren't we providing funds to those cities with large numbers of people with hiv so mr president i offer my amendment  thirty seven this amendment is quite simple it just states that the labor h h s bill cannot be used and do all of the work that we did on ryan white we should not be diverting key funds from cities with rising  cases to go to san francisco a city that is still receiving funds for treating people who have already died from aids if you support keeping people alive i believe that you should also support my amendment we did last december to make sure the dollars follow disease to make sure people who were infected with hiv who had no other means of seeking treatment and having a why that is not the scourge of this disease with the modern medicines that have come about we created a platform where we could have care available at the for medicines and treatment and care for the disease is growing and what has come out of the house was speaker pelosi is direction is to actually take money from african american women and their medicines that they need to stay alive or medicines to treat their newborn infant and send it to san francisco who has an ever so in the last few years has not even spent the entire amount of money that has gone to center injuries ri in the fact that this violates the very agreement that we made over a long period of time to get ryan white funds to start following the disease and by taking an extra six point two million dollars and sending it to san francisco violates that number one the agreement on that bill but most importantly it takes away the opportunity for health for minority women which is where the disease is growing the greatest amount we have all these women throughout the country who have been all waiting lists for drugs for treatment they're getting some but they're not getting the thing that's going to save their lives and we're going to steal that opportunity for minority women to be adequately and fairly treated under this bill the rod why bill that we passed last year was a good compromise knowing that we needed to shift money to where the disease is and what has happened in the house bill is we've actually reneged on that commitment and what we're actually saying is is the establishment age groups in northern california deserve more money than a single african apparent american woman who is infected with d and can't get the medicines to treat her disease that's the choice for the first time the ryan white act changed the direction of where the money when the ryan white act as we passed it had the money following the disease go on to those who need treatment rather than to establish organizations who are used to a certain budget so the tragedy will be that if we don't pass the enzi amendment we're taking a step backwards from the very principle a public health principle by the way that you put the money to where the epidemic is and what is in the house bill negates that and what we're doing is playing politics with the lives of african american women who is the fastest growing numbers of people who have a child the in this country and we're taken six point two million dollars away from and we're putting it in a facility in facilities that quite frankly have done quite well under the  programs are at the greatest levels in san francisco as compared to any other place in this country and yet we choose but if we do not accept the amendment does say that that's a higher than a poor african american woman in the south that's the choice i support this amendment i think the senate in good conscience ought to live up to its agreement on the run what act and i yield back my time mr president center from california i thank the chair mr president i rise in opposition to the enzi amendment i'd like to congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member on the work they have done on this bill but this amendment significantly disadvantages at least nine jurisdictions facing h i v aids crises throughout the country because it essentially would prevent any stop loss provision enacted by the house from going into effect senator enzi senator kennedy and the rest of the health committee work tires fully for most of last year to reauthorize the ryan white care act i voted for this reauthorization and i recognize at the time that the method of counting hiv aids victims had change to more clearly reflect living victims however this then mandated huge cuts to vital programs despite the fact that states and eligible metropolitan areas were assured that no jurisdiction would face the stabilizing losses the health committee staff provided g a o data during the debate projecting that san francisco would receive approximately seventeen point one million dollars in fiscal two thousand and seven but san francisco did not receive that amount there formula award totals fourteen point six million that's two and a half million less than estimated a compromise was to offset losses by clearly making available supplemental award so that they health resources and services administration could consider the funding losses when awarding this supplemental funding this amendment seeks to do away with all of this despite these estimates and built in protections several areas of the country receive significant funding cuts when the two thousand and seven awards were announced earlier this year the san francisco eligible metropolitan area which also includes moran and sam a tale county lost approximately eight and a half million dollars that's just those three counties an eight and a half million dollar loss this accounts for thirty percent of the ryan white funding a loss that is too great for any jurisdiction to absorb in one year it didn't surprise me when san francisco lost money in two thousand and seven the city knew it would likely face losses but the protection put in place clearly were not was not adequate the loss of one third of total funding is clearly destabilizing and to be very candid with you i find it highly objectionable and this isn't only unique for san francisco five other cities also lost twenty five percent or more of their funding hartford connecticut thirty two point one percent new haven connecticut twenty three point seven percent nasa self help county new york twenty one point seven percent ponce of puerto rico twenty eight point nine percent cayugas puerto rico thirty four point three percent no jurisdiction can absorb cuts of this magnitude in one year without significant harm to those they serve now to address this the house of representatives included a stop loss provision to cap the losses faced by these jurisdictions in their version of the f y two thousand and eight labor h h s appropriations bill this provision limited the fiscal year two thousand and seven loss for eligible metropolitan areas to eight point four percent not thirty percent but eight point four percent which is a manageable amount transitional grant areas will have their losses capped at thirteen point four percent so there is a willingness to respond to the mandate and that is change your method of counting and secondly of sore breeze inable cuts i don't think that's too much to ask i think this is overkill and you know i was the mayor that first found a day and i can take you back to one thousand and eighty one and i can tell you what it was like and you won't like it and what i tried to do in the taskforce of the conference of mayors to bring mayors into the modern day san francisco essentially lead the nation in the fight against aids and i think to have to take a thirty percent cut when we are seeing some regeneration of aids again is a terrible mistake senator enzi is amendment could nala fly the houses solution now let me be clear under the house language san francisco would still lose two point three million dollars all of the cities will face significant cuts this provision is designed not to stop all reductions but to limit them to a level that can be absorbed in one year the house provided funding for this stop loss on top of a twenty three million dollar increase for part of the ryan white care act so virtually every area across the country sees an increase in funding but these areas take a dramatic thirty percent cut in funding i don't think that's right and i don't believe we should accept it the government accountability office examine the impact of this stop loss provision and what it would have on jurisdictions in two thousand and eight in addition to benefiting the eleven jurisdictions whose cuts are reduced the house bill results and increased funding for forty two of the remaining forty five jurisdictions the very minor cuts projected in the remaining three jurisdictions are less than one tenth of one percent a reduction of thirty percent is simply not manageable the provision makes no changes to the underlying reauthorization it doesn't prevent it from moving forward at all it caps the total losses faced by any jurisdiction in f y two thousand and seven with a one time solution it does not reopen the reauthorization so carefully crafted by senators kennedy and enzi and their committee the epidemic as i mentioned is far from over in san francisco aids continues to be the second leading cause of premature death in the city and county nearly twenty three thousand people are currently living with hiv aids in san francisco more than at any point in the epidemic listen to that twenty three thousand people are living with hiv that's more than any point during the epidemic in addition the population of san franciscans living with hiv aids is increasingly impoverished homeless and struggling many have serious medical needs about two weeks ago the san francisco chronicle reported that san francisco doctors diagnose a staff meeting i had of department heads back in one thousand nine hundred eighty one when the director of public health said madam mayor something is happening we are finding patients with large purple lesions all over their body and we don't know what it is i said name was merciful verman i said merv go out find out what it is and come back and tell me well three weeks later they came back and it was the discovery for the first time of aids in this country so i feel very sensitive about it i started the first aids program in the nation we funded it with property tax dollars and that's how we became a leader in the area to take a thirty percent cut when we have the largest number of aids hiv victims in our history in the city to me is discriminatory it's wrong headed and it may not happen so i very much hope that this body will respond i understand that senator enzi wants to protect the reauthorization and the funding formula that he authored but i think we have to admit that the impact on some areas of the country was not anticipated fixing these unintended consequences does not require reopening the legislation it can be addressed with a one time solution that will still leave some cities with a decline in funds and that means the house solution of stop loss i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the end of the amendment which would strike a dastardly blow for a city that has seen too much suffering as well as others i thank the chair and i yield the floor so as a senator from oklahoma you'll think thank you just want to make a couple of points i know this is a large step down for the san francisco a m a and and the smaller step down for some of the others but the thing that needs to be kept in mind is the amount of dollars spent per  areas is two and a half times what the average is around the rest of the country two and a half times we spend two and a half times per each of the case in those areas than we do in north carolina or florida or mississippi or michigan or kansas or texas or arizona so what we're talking about is proportionality giving the same opportunities to everybody that has h i b not more opportunities to those so with a thirty percent cut you're still going to be spent in one and a half to one and three quarters times more per h i v case in san francisco as you are the rest of the country so i understand  it's great that the senator and her work in the age of the area is exemplary and she would want to protect this but it's not fair to the rest of the country it is not fair to tell somebody that you're going to spend two and a half times as much on somebody with a job in san francisco as your in dallas texas or miami florida that's what this amendment is about is keeping the fairness that was in the mr president i don't think it's fair to take a thirty percent cut in one year when you have the largest number of hiv aids victims in the history of the epidemic in a city that has suffered moat i think like no other city in america i'm not saying there shouldn't because i voted for the reauthorization knowing that there would be cuts but i'm talking to level of cut and the way these cuts fall because they decimate programs in an area that was ground zero on aids in the united states so if you're going to take cut take those cut so that the communities involved in fighting aids hiv with prevention with education with care with treatment with drugs with all of it can a centrally meet the mandate which is to prevent the suffering of aids and hiv patients and also to prevent the disease from spreading that's not easy to do i can tell you that firsthand you take a thirty percent cut in one year and you decimate these programs that's why the house put the stop loss in take a moderate cut and we will stand up like men and women and we will take that cut take a third cut and it's much more difficult and you affect services to people that's all i'm saying and i would very much hope that the senate would understand the need and the compassion to defeat this amendment and once would urge a no vote i thank the chair center from wyoming before we pass the legislation there were waiting lines in many of the states in this country waiting lines of people waiting to get treatment and care for aides i'm pleased to let you know that there are no waiting lines today no waiting lines anywhere not in fan francisco not in connecticut not in new jersey not in new york there has been a cut the cut is guaranteed to be no more than five percent under the formula now there has always been supplemental money besides the formula we did not guarantee the supplemental monies the supplemental money was never guaranteed and if there are larger cuts it comes out of the supplemental money not the formula so i certainly hope we don't change the formula under an appropriations bill instead of through the proper process which is authorization i have a letter from disproportionate share going to some localities in california and if i could direct of questions of the senator from some california  what is your response to the concerns raised by the senator from wyoming that the a formula was settled last year and that this is a factory opens the formula and is going to direct sons to areas in your state where those funds could be directed to the president if i may to the distinguished senator from pennsylvania it is my first of all it is my knowledge that the cut to san francisco and to eleven other jurisdictions is very large with respect to the reauthorization of ryan white we do not agree that it applies only to the fiscal year two thousand and seven cut it it takes resources actually from other jurisdictions the polo sea fix in the house ensures a significant increase for title one that would both reduce cuts to a manageable level for eleven jurisdictions and still increase for other jurisdictions so this isn't taking money away from other jurisdictions as i understand it the visions in the house bill increases funding for forty two of the remaining forty five jurisdictions under title one now i don't know the particulars to be candid with you of how these cuts fell but i do know that the cut received in the bay area was really substantial i suspect it was from the way they talented aids cases and they knew they had to change the methodology but basically the point is that the cut is substantially larger and means that you've got to cut thirty percent across the board of aids programs at a time when san francisco has the largest number of h i v aids cases in its history twenty three thousand ask how much time additional time i have minute ten a million to ten i'm not sure i should yield it to you her well i've said to you i'm undecided on of our going to vote so you have to decide that i haven't made up my mind i was listening to senator from pennsylvania while we were listening to the senator from california trying to fake trying to figure it out i don't want to be to one senatorial think about it but that's that's  remaining minute to you the problem is one of enormous serious cause and it's very difficult to find a fun day with what we have allocated on our discretionary spending a context where some thirty six million dollars is being added and some six million dollars is being allocated to san francisco and i'm very sympathetic to san francisco's problems i understand president ideal back to balance my time and i yield back the balance of my time well thank you mr president senator from iowa president i am going to that you dance in agreement energy last night then i believe that the senator from south carolina would be recognized next for a man number thirty three eighty seven and with the twenty minutes of debate equally divided president center of my friend i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of the roberts amendment first and then we would after the disposal of the robbers amendment then we would then proceed to the demand amendment his or objection seeing them so order care grant program the program was authorized earlier this year as part of the supplemental spending bill that does have wide bipartisan support at this time as well as last congress when it was unanimously approved by the he committee as part of the child care community development block grant this program is different from other child care initiatives because it specifically targets small businesses and because it encourages them to work to work together these small businesses are the lifeblood of many urban and our rural communities these grants will allow the local convenience store the beauty shop the auto shop the employment data or the bank to join together to cooperatively offer their employees quality childcare while they work and right now these daycare facilities are simply not available my program is also different from other grass because it encourages sustainability and ownership over these child care facilities with an annually increasing matching requirement and a two thousand and twelve sunset provision my program offers a fiscally responsible  bipartisan effort from the get go and i want that to continue if you support hardworking american families if you support small business and community development if you support fiscal responsibility then simply support this amendment let me say that i recognize the concern and appreciate the concern of my friends and colleagues senator coburn and senator they feel that this program could be duplicity i do not think it is because the program targets small businesses and encourages them to cooperate with other entities to develop sustainable child care facilities because of the matching and sunset requirements fifty percent the first year sixty seven percent second year third year seventy five percent and then it sunsets i think we are much more fiscally responsible there was a suggestion to use tanna funds these are being held by states and emergency contingency accounts in case of a sudden economic downturn this would be another allowable use of these funds that's really not the case this is apples and oranges this is a fiscally responsible plan on the part of the states and we should encourage that yield back the balance o  this is a bill this was authorized in the emergency supplemental bill up for f y two thousand and seven grants are for small businesses that partner with each other or other organizations to establish employer own child care programs they can be used for start up cost technical assistance and training special services for sick kids or child with disabilities the program was authorized fifty million dollars as the senator said funding was not included i think it's time that we do find it have long been a supporter of expanding the role of small business and providing the kind of child care that their employees need i think the senator's amendment will further that goal and  mr president center from south carolina thank you mr president i ask unanimous consent that the an amendment be set aside a member number three three eight seven be called up for media consideration is modified under from south carolina thank you mr president and i do want to make sure we have called up a member number three three eight seven and my modification has been sent to the desk  cereal is not subject to modification thank you mr president and i appreciate the chairman agreeing to this this was just a slight change in the purpose statement not the legislative language so thank you mr chairman i will perceive amendment is is part of an effort to clear up what a lot of us have called the culture of corruption over the last several years in a lot of this has come from americans connecting the dots between the earmarks that we give to our favorite causes back home and many of the campaign contributions and political support that we get back here in congress and motivations are are generally good at best the appearances of what's going on here has alarmed the american people my own mark amendment today addresses two specific earmarks in the appropriation appalachian council these funds come in the form of what are referred to as non competitive grants according to the text of the bill in the committee report which means no one else can compete to organizations that aren't aren't competitive and they provide funds that could be better spent to achieve the department of labor's mission set out by congress in the workforce investment act of one nine eight rather than continuing to give these groups handouts without any competition we should force them to compete with other organisations so americans get the most for the most value for their tax dollars and that's exactly what my amendment will do it replaces these two earmarks that total three point seven million with competitive grants let me be clear i'm not taking the money out of the bill money is still there for the purpose that it's intended but it allows organizations to compete to deliver the services so that the taxpayers get the most for their money let me say a few things about the performance of the a f l c i a o organisation so my colleagues understand why there's such concern the a f l c i a o working for america institute originally received grants under the workforce investment act the grants were given to national organizations for the purpose of providing technical assistance in setting up systems of local and state workforce investment board whose purpose was to help unemployed workers get the training in the jobs of thing need after three years these capacity building services were no longer needed in the grants were terminated however the working for america institute failed to complete its mission in three years so the department gave it a fourth year of funding after the fourth year the department terminated its contract with the working for america institute and explain and i quote it is difficult to make the case that cio should receive yet a fifth year of funding for organizational purposes when the other national organizations were able to achieve their goals in three years additionally given that there are so many workers seeking training or retraining opportunities we believe the department of labor's emphasis is rightly placed on promoting employment and reemployment projects having measurable results and measurable outcomes the department believes the technical assistance given by the institute is duplicative and less effective than a similar program already funded in their employment and training administration it said we should focus limited financial resources on programs that deliver actual training services to workers rather than poor additional funds into organizational tempest rupture after four years the a f l c i a o should have developed sufficient ability to participate effectively in the workforce investment act system despite these failures congress overrode the department and earmark funds for me in a half dollars in  year two thousand and five in the appropriation bill in that year and it continued the project through june of this year now this appropriation bill is trying to do the same thing again this is a clear example of congress interfering with agency decisions because of parochial or political interest congress should not fund the program that is duplicative and not a critical priority for an agency it should have to compete for funds like every other organization now let me address the second earmark in this bill the a f l c e o appalachian council had a long standing sole source contract with the department of labor that span several decades the purpose of the contract was to provide career technical training and career transition services at job placement centers in pittsburgh pennsylvania charleston west virginia and ba massachusetts it's important to note that the cancel the council does not manage or run these three centers it simply provides the training placement in transition services the department of labor reviewed the council's performance in two thousand and four in light of the new requirements of the workforce investment act the review resulted in the department terminating the council's sole source contract because it was no longer the only and unique provider of career transition services and because it experienced a steady decline in program performance over a five year period despite these failures congress stepped in and earmarked two point two million for the council in fiscal year two thousand and five forcing the apartment to continue the contract following this the department cancel the contract again but congress reversed the agency's decision a second time with another two point two million earmark in two thousand and six mr president after their second year came to a close the department reviewed the performance outcomes of the council in two thousand and six the council placed two hundred sixty five graduates in apprenticeship programs and seventy one graduates in jobs matching their vocational training with the earmark funded at two point two million the cost of each of these graduates was six thousand five hundred forty seven dollars each of the councils twenty one staff placed less than two students per month in a registered apprenticeship program despite being given a second chance by congress the department terminated the contract again this year unfortunately the appropriation bill we're considering gives another earmark to the council to continue the services and designates a non competing earmark which means no one else can compete to do the service ride yet here we have two examples of earmarks that circumvent the normal competitive process and abuse the american tax top five executive officers made from one hundred seventy nine thousand to two hundred ninety one thousand a year with two hundred four employees making more than seventy five thousand dollars a year of their disburse about thirty million or nearly forty percent of their total receipts went for political activities and lobbying their fail c i a o should either fund the program itself or help the based on real crotch area and accountability to deliver the services for the american taxpayer urge my colleagues to support my amendment to turn these noncompetitive grants to competitive grants so that we accomplish the purpose in an accountable way so i asked my colleagues to vote for my amendment later on this morning and i appreciate their support and mr president  programs provides funding for a quick and find support of some one thousand job corps students and the long term jobs when you talk about the job corps you're talking about a group of young people who last year and take these some of these at risk students well off the streets young people off the streets and provide job training is very very important a working for america which is a program of very near and dear to the art of a senior senator from west virginia senator byrd has an important retraining component of our magnets actually inveighs where we have seen too many high paying jobs rust belt states where job training and job development is very very important and they appalachian council runs through those states and provides very very important  holders of these programs are work very well they are a very modest allocation a total of three point seven million dollars tackling an issue of job training  misprint i want to join with senator specter in opposing the de mint amendment which would strike two congressionally directed findings in a bill once the appalachian council the other one would be for the for the institute the working for america institute mr president this institute was created first of all in one thousand nine hundred sixty eight then in one thousand nine hundred eight it was spun off and made into a totally separate nonprofit organization with a functioning board of directors and everything else they've got over thirty years of experience in the field of job training workforce development they work with that with the businesses the private sector they work with unions they work with communities the institute has basically been a showcase of how to pull people together and get people together for workforce development is doing great work benefits communities throughout the united states that i had a list of some here just last year alone the institute provided assistance to the portland oregon the ohio state workforce or the national governors association the national alliance of workforce boards so you can see that they do things all over the country point out mr president that this institute received funding through department of labor for over thirty years the republican and democratic administrations i can go back to nixon and ford and carter all through the reagan years the first bush administration the clinton administration and actually the first part of this bush administration until just a couple years ago when the department labor decided to cut all the funding for so we had to come in here a couple of years ago and and put directed funding in there for the institute and it was widely supported so when the senator from south carolina says that that well will just make it competitive well the department won't do it anyway they aren't interested in it they won't put it out for competitive grants so way this is a another instance where congressionally directed funding has validity because we've looked at these programs from a bipartisan standpoint and we agree that they should be funded even though the department of labor doesn't want to fund it now the second thing i wanted to address is and i i don't know if i caught the senator from south carolina di direct or not but i heard something about lobbying and political activity i just want to make it very clear that section five zero three of the bill section five zero three reads and i will read it in its entirety no part of any appropriation contained this actually used other than for normal and recognize executive legislative relationships for publicity or propaganda purposes for the preparation distribution or use of any kit pamphlet booklet publication or radio television or video presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the congress or any state legislature except in presentation to the congress or any state legislature itself be no part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient or agent acting for such reception related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriation is pending before the congress or any state legislature so the recipients can't do it and they can't hire lobbyists either to lobby for them for any legislation pending before the congress so i want to make it clear that none of these money could be used for lobby or for any kind of partisan activities nor  even be used for them to hire a lobbyist or a lobbying firm for that activity so i want to make that clear so i support the senator from pennsylvania both the appalachian commission i've done a great job you're doing great work and in  concerns state workforce investment board all over this country and now is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath them and so i would join with senator specter in opposing the demand and then and i would yield back whatever time i people ages sixteen through twenty four in philadelphia there is a program where sixty one major health care employers place graduates high school jobs which are in great demand and in philadelphia that attacks an area of great importance considering the homicide rate with philadelphia much of which is caused by young people so many a rescue and this goes right to the of a very serious problem to support the funding went to something like that to with a hearing which we held on july twenty second two thousand and four where we had extensive testimony taken on the reserve the balance of our time awaiting the argument of the senator from south carolina at the time thank you the senator that's thirty seconds thank you mr president i agree with all the purposes you stated and all of the ideas  of getting teenagers to work in philadelphia all of these things are good and i'm not taking argument with any of them and if the a f l cio is the best source to deliver the services there shouldn't be any problem with this  at all we're asking is to make this a competitive grant so that we can have criteria and accountability in the system so that what we want to accomplish will actually get accomplished thank you how do you back off the balance of my time the center of pennsylvania when you be second in the sequence and that the remaining provisions remain in effect mr president center from oklahoma thirty three fifty eight is a pending amendment that we discussed this last friday and i believe under the you know skin scent agreement i have ten minutes and those in opposition have it i'm going to speak of economic if i may what the country is looking for us to do this with to to choose private would make good choices about the priorities of what we do with their money and quite frankly there hadn't been a top down review on all the government programs ever we have very limited oversight hearings which is should be the number one part of our job and we have in front of us a bill that has four hundred million dollars in directed earmark which we think through what the appropriations process has brought to this is an important priority what this amendment says is we're going to give members of the senate an opportunity to vote on whether those are the most important priority or whether or not we ought to have children's health care because what this amendment does is redirects this money in advance until we say we've got the kids in this country cover there's a large debate over the s chip bill that the president recently vetoed there were a lot of things wrong with it it's not wrong to help poor kids get health care and nobody in the senate opposed that what they did oppose is changing under the guise of a debate for children a debate to having the government start running all the health care for kids what it did do is spend four thousand dollars to buy twenty three hundred dollars worth of care and a lot of other things so what this amendment is about is asking the senate to choose choose your directed earmarks or back home or make a statement that says we really believe kids health care is important and we're not going to spend the money on directed earmarks that we've solved that problem and i know this makes some of my colleagues bristle that we would challenge the direction and this ad say in that specific game marks are good ideas a lot of the earmarks in this bill are good ideas what it does say is should they be a priority before we take care of one of the greatest problems this country faces which is health care are we going to go after and really change health cared where we get value we get controllable cos we get freedom and choice we going to continue to do the same old thing of putting earmarks into bills and ignoring the big problems that are in front so what this amendment says until the secretary of h h s whoever they may be certifies that we've got the kids under eighteen in this country cover we shouldn't be spending money on directed political benefits for ourselves and our careers and instead we should be spending our time solving the health care needs of the president center for my mr president i assume it comes as no surprise that i oppose the the amendment offered by the senator from oklahoma and i appreciate that the center of mocha moms mehmet raises again the issue of children's health care i think that debate should go on since the plight of for children this country needs as much attention as we can get it but i don't think this amendment is really serious about addressing the health of children the amendment doesn't put any money into it at all it just says that we won't we won't have any congressionally directed funding until every child in america has as health care coverage i believe that's the way it's worded so that really doesn't fund it it doesn't do anything at all i think i the kind of thing that i think kind of gives congress a bad name and that we we say that we want to do these things but we don't provide any funding for it and we really already know how to increase the number of children insured in this country providing an increase in  the s chip bill program the senate recently voted sixty eight to thirty one to do that sixty eight to thirty one pretty overwhelming and that bill would have provide insurance to millions of children who don't have any maybe the senator from oklahoma didn't agree with how that was done but nonetheless sixty eight senators did agree on both sides of the aisle on that approach so again i give the senator was really concerned about the plight of these children i would suggest that rather than voting against the s chip bill obviously provide some some guidance and direction if there is another way of doing it at that time but again i point out that the senate voted overwhelmingly to do that i think that vote on vote on children's health insurance and not a completely unrelated vote dealing with congressional direct spending which is what this is so i just say to my friend from oklahoma if you want more kids to have health insurance then vote for a bill that would  i don't think so i think perhaps more and more people are finding out that a vote against the s chip bill was not a very popular vote as as we hear back from our communities and states but an amendment like this doesn't change the facts at all about the s chip bill one way or the other and i also disagree with the senator's implication if i might say that that the congressionally directed projects in the bill are unworthy of federal spending i quite frankly i'm proud of the projects that i included in this bill i'll be glad defend every one of them and again with the transparency we have that came in with a new ethics reform bill all of these have been spread upon the record we know who's asked for them and we know how much my money's involves like i said i'm happy to defend every one of the ones that i put in there and i should add that many of the projects that the senator wants to eliminate in this bill are in fact directed to children's health let me give you a few years funding and here congressionally directed funding for st francis hospital in delaware to expand prenatal maternity and pediatric services to in the indigent populations there's funding for the use crisis center in jacksonville florida to address the serious health consequences facing runaway and homeless youth there is funding for st luke's regional medical center in boise idaho to expand its pediatric services  running for the st louis children's hospital in st louis for the neonatal intensive care unit expansion there's funding for the mississippi gulf coast children's health project which uses mobile units to provide primary care to there is funding for st anthony's hospital in oklahoma city i might add for construction of a newborn nursery all of these would be cut out at the senators and mehmet were adopted i think they're i think they're good  and i think they'll go a long way towards helping children's health in all of these instances around the country so again i i i don't really see this as a serious means of doing anything to helping  children's health in this country it is i'm sure an attack on congressionally directed funding which the senator is opposed to but as i said i support congressionally directed funding i always have i specially support it now with the new provisions on transparency an accountability that we have as a result of the ethics a bill that we have recently passed i must present i would reserve the balance of my time if i have any how much time rema oklahoma really safe to do is to eliminate earmarks and the amendment is broader than your marks in this bill that amendment which strike earmarks that is a specific congressional budget measure and a budget why  that would include the very vital important projects such as the grudging of the delaware the philadelphia to provide a forty five foot channel which is traditionally been the of civility of the federal government items where there is congressional expertise and understanding that now you take the budget of less on the floor now it's one hundred fifty two million dollars have allocated four hundred million dollars which is about one quarter of one to send so ninety nine and three quarters percent goes to the bureaucrats department of education department of health and human services at the department of labor well i would suggest that that's an imbalance people in the house of representatives know their districts much better one is the transparency it's all out in the open and we are prepared to debate any move to strike any of the so called earmarks your marks become a dirty word but when you reach a real need somewhere to have an application for federal funds as a member of the house of a member of the senate that stands and in the broader context one quarter of one percent i say i am somewhat amused that we are so powerless that the bureaucracy is going to decide for everything else earmarks are not the only way to decide how the budget is put out and the fact that we use the excuse fact is is we don't want to do the hard work of oversight because it is easy to earmark something but in fact a dredging can you can hold the corps of engineers to a priority list you can bring them before congress and say why aren't you dread zenith this how is this a priority against something else we don't do the hard work of oversight that's our problem instead we want to do the easy way now i don't deny that these are good project i'm not saying that they're not what i'm saying is what about the long term what about the fact that a child born today is inheriting four hundred thousand dollars in unfunded liabilities and that earmarks happen to be the tool that allow us to spend more than what we should not directly or through the air market but by voting for bills that shouldn't be devoted on but because we have an earmark in the bill we vote for the bill we have  unfunded liability right now in medicare thirty four trillion dollars right now we're never going to be trusted to fix that problem when we can't be trusted to have an arm's length separate allocation and look at what the problems are in front of us in terms of labor health and human services i don't deny that what people want to do in this bill could be privatized and they have made it but the number of request were thirty six thousand this year thirty six thousand and the fact is is that can we get water priorities for this country if we continue the process earmarks now how about children's health you know we passed a bill we passed a bill that truly one paid for unless you want twenty two million americans to start smoking we passed a bill that said we're going to pay four thousand dollars device twenty three hundred dollars care we're really great steward's when it comes to american people's taxpayer's money on this new s chip bill there's no question we're going to get an ass chip bill and that bill is going to truly reflect the needs of the poor people in this country who are ineligible for medicaid and we're going to put the amount of money in that that we need to do that but to confuse that bill with the process which has got us nine and a half trillion dollars in debt and hung every one of our kids out to dry that's what about it is the process that i am attacking i'm not attacking individual senators i'm saying that if we're going to get control of the spending at some point in the future we've got to look at the process and how it works and for us to say it's easier for us to earmark than to hold the bureaucracy accountable means we're not doing our job we can hold the bureaucracies accountable all you've got to do is have an oversight hearing three times a week and make them come up here and explain how they're spending their money and you know what it changes their behavior they start spinning it in a priority this american people would want we are not don't have our hands tied behind us just because we don't do earmar the real question that americans are asking are we going to change our ways about real priorities the real future for our country are we going to continue the same old process that has bought us all the corruption that we've seen come through the house in the past that leads to conflicts of interest we talk about transparency we modified we got it the transparency rules as far as appropriations are concerned in this bill and in our ethics bill because no longer you say who's getting it or what is for your say worst going on so the very things that are in the house bill in terms of transparency aren't available to the senate so we can't claim transparency we're going to get transparency september next year when the  transparency bill comes about now senator harkin mentioned that we didn't offer an option senator byrd i both in every american kid insured a we talked about it on this floor during the debate of the s chip bill there are other ways to do this give them all a tax credit let them buy the insurance we have nine million kids out there that are uninsured three million over more within one year there are ways for us to solve that but this is a farce amendment this is amendment about very real problem will we will we have the right priorities when it comes to this country or are we going to say and forty two million dollars the international labor organization with no accountability whatsoever from the united nations that's what we're doing that's what this bill does and we've got another four hundred million dollars where the earmarks that are not competitively bid will never be overseen and you'll never see where the money goes so the question of the amendment is about will we change the opposition mr president again i would say going out that that government doesn't put one cent into helping children's health not one penny yet in the bill itself as i pointed out there's a number of programs in  actually go to help children's health all over this country and the  at the moment there's not a sufficient second on the amendment itself yet there appears to be a sufficient says the president parliamentary inquiry is the unanimous consent request that we agreed to was it in not agreed to that we were going to have votes on these amendments that i think we're getting close with these three votes coming up now hopefully we're just a few amendments away from completing the bill and hopefully we'll have it done early afternoon i'd hope that we'd have it done by twelve thirty but that doesn't look possible now but we're getting close and well i hope that when senators come over here we can work out some other amendments that are still up not at that are pending at this point and perhaps we can get a consent to limit the number of amendments and bring  amendment to strike what we're talking about here is an earmark is six point two million dollars for san francisco and another three million dollars for a few other towns we're changing we're changing the law that we passed less than a year ago under an authorization process it's much harder to pass an authorization bill and it is an appropriation bill we shouldn't be changing formulas under an appropriation bill that the g a o numbers that we said would happen or approximately what happened of the nine million dollars san francisco gets six in two tenths million dollars they already get twice as much per a hiv aids case as any of the rest of the towns we put in a hold harmless provision so that nobody would lose more than five percent of their money we've been staying by that we didn't guarantee supplemental monday that was done less than a year ago this is an earmark there were waiting lines for people that needed hiv treatment and care there are no waiting lines to date what we did last year worked we shouldn't change it under appropriations now i ask that you vote for my amendment time is expired i would request the a's and a's one minute not position to the amendment this is feinstein mr nelson of nebraska i joe lieberman mr lieberman no mr in a way  any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote  on this the eyes are sixty five the nays are twenty eight amendment is agreed to take your conversations out of the senate the senate will come to order that it will come to order take your conversations out of the senate senate will come to senator from iowa i thank the presiding officer we now proceed to two minutes on the governor on the coburn amendment after that then we will have two minutes on the demand amendment and now the d's will be ten minute votes as prior prior agreement from oklahoma a straightforward amendment it's not meant to be a trick or anything else it's it's a minute about where our priorities lie do they lie and in our directed spending or do they lie with the children in this country that aren't covered it's a very simple amendment i know there's things in the bill for children but the fact is out of the nine point five million that we have are uncovered we've got three point six million that have not been covered for a year the fact that the senate will come to order senator has a right to be heard and it will come to order please take conversations out of the senate so this moment and this amendment simply states that we're not going to spend any of the money on the directed spending until the h h s secretary can certify that we've done our job in terms of caring for many conversations going on and we got an even here the senator from oklahoma take your conversations out of the senate that includes staff the senior senator from pennsylvania the issue of providing health care for children will be taken care of on the s chip bill which ultimately will be subject to negotiations between the president b allocations on earmarks i'm out to approximately one quarter of one percent ninety nine and three quarters percent go to the bureaucrats if there's a park as members of the senate and house have more knowledge about what's going on in their districts or their states and this is a very modest application for very very worthwhile programs senator from oklahoma conceded in the argument earlier that he's not challenging the worthwhileness of any of these programs any of them are subject to attack to be stricken and they're all defensible so i asked the senator's me amanda for the senator from oklahoma be rejected friend senator from iowa baucus mr by mr bennett mr biden mr bang on and mr bond mrs boxer mr brown mr brownback mr bunning mr chambliss mrs clinton mr coburn mr cochran mr conrad mr hatch mr martinez mr mccain mr pryor mr reed of rhode island mr reid of nevada mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr warner mr webb mr white house mr wide and either ok any any senators in the chamber who are wishing to vote or change their vote on this the i's are sixty eight the nays are twenty six the motion to table is agreed to please take your conversations out of the senate i will come to order the senator from south carolina thank you mr president i appreciate my colleagues attention and i would first like to ask unanimous consent to add the senator  be in order i thank the chairman please take your conversations out of the senate the senate will come to order the senate will come to order and may proceed thank you mr president i think you've done the best you could but i would like to reassure my colleagues that my amendment does not take any money from this bill for its intended purpose in fact the amendment addresses the workforce investment act money that goes to training and job placement in several places in the country the only thing my mimic does is say that changes the language from a sole source noncompetitive grant which we would refer to as a direct earmark to a competitive grant we've all saying that the combat competitive grant system is a better way to deliver federal money to specific causes that we support as a senate because their criteria their standards there's accountability so we're not excluding the a f l c e o as a provider of the services that we intend but it opens it up for competitive bids and it's important to realize that the department of labor after judging the performance of the a f l cio has found the profoundest hiking byard and has discontinued the contract so please open this up for competitive bidding please vote no on the motion to table president the senate will be in order and i will be in order to take your conversations out of the senate staff as well mr president senior senator from pennsylvania  this program has been in operation for decades has proved to be very effective hearing held by the subcommittee back on july twenty second two thousand and four where the some detail the program addresses job training and job corps one program illustrative way in philadelphia so you have to give training to young people who are at risk come from broken families no father or working mother it is directed toward training across the appalachian council states in the rust belt which have been hit very hard by unfair foreign competition to have  previously ordered the clerk will call the mr bingaman mr bond mrs boxer mr brown mr brownback mr bunn mr durban time wishing to vote or change their vote on excuse me on this the i's are sixty the nays are thirty four the motion to table is agreed to isn't the senator from massachusetts which president if the senator from massachusetts would just withhold for a second to present i have to modifications i sent to the desk modification on member number thirty three fifty one smith amendment and thirty three seventy six i have to modifications i send the desk without objection and i call the amendments are so modified mr president i now call up amendments thirty three fifty one is modified thirty three seventy six as modified thirty three ninety seven by senator lott berg thirty four zero one by senator cardin a member number thirty four thirty by senator feingold member number thirty four thirty six by senator hatch number thirty four eighteen by senator lieberman and number thirty three eighty eight by senator de mint and and  all been agreed to and asked the media consideration and block is served action with without objection the amendments will be considered on block zero for the debate senator landrieu i ask consent that they both be withdrawn without objection so ordered i think that is great the senator from massachusetts was president the chair i know that we need we want to and we need to break for recess  moment so i will not be very long at all but i call up senate amendment with thirty three ninety eight and i ask for its immediate consideration is their objective objection to setting aside the pending amendments without objection the clerk will report the senator from massachusetts mr kerry proposes sentimental number thirty three ninety eight the president asked for the reading be dispensed with without objection mr president in february of this year i sent a letter to the inspector general for the department of health and human services regarding a report that the center for disease control that actually blocked an investigation into the deaths of six firefighters whose personal safety equipment had failed them between  hundred eighteen year two thousand in the response to me the inspector general reported that flat funding of the current funds that exist in the firefighter fatality investigation and prevention fund within the national institute of occupational health and safety is flat and their resources are such that they've had to pick and choose where they can conduct those kinds of investigations every year about  hundred firefighters die in the line of duty in america and about eighty seven thousand are injured this fund is a fund this investigative fun helps to find ways in which we can protect firefighter lives whether there's a certain kind of equipment that might have made a difference a certain kind of procedure that might a made of difference and obviously for those fire stations firehouses with the losses or those that face a future risk to know that we're selectively choosing where we investigate and don't doesn't do the job we need to investigate all of those fatalities and we need to do everything possible to provide our firefighters with the procedures and equipment necessary to save lives so th funding will add an additional two point five million to that investigative fund and allow us to complete our responsibility to those greatest firefighters across the country i would ask unanimous consent that a letter in the senate stands in recess until two fifteen p