National Service Reauthorization Act
Floor Speech
NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT -- (Senate - March 26, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 722 TO AMENDMENT NO. 687
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank you, and I thank the managers of this legislation.
It was my hope I could come to the floor with another amendment that was acceptable on both sides, and I am still anxious and optimistic that we can do it because the spirit of this amendment is not for the purpose of a poison pill to the bill. It was the recognition that when we deal with an expansion of these volunteer efforts that we reach out in a much bigger way and cast a much bigger net to Americans.
Let me say this: To offer this amendment is not to imply that those who work in AmeriCorps today in any way are criminals or nefarious individuals; it is to recognize the fact that we are creating an architecture to take care of the American people, and that includes specifically children, individuals over the age of 60 who are in the senior years of their lives, and individuals who are classified as disabled and have some deficiencies, and we owe it to them and we owe it to the general population to take into consideration as
we, the Federal Government, allow a funding mechanism for people to come in and to participate.
So let me explain for my colleagues simply what this amendment does. What we do is apply this to individuals who, on a continual basis--a recurring basis; let me make that correction--on a recurring basis work with vulnerable populations: kids, the elderly, and the disabled. The amendment allows a 2-year period to ramp up this program before becoming effective. We understand rulemaking will most likely be needed, and we know it doesn't happen overnight in this town. Three, this legislation retains the good cause exemption language.
Now, let me explain. We are asking that individuals who work with vulnerable populations be fingerprinted. We would like them to go through the FBI check process. We would like to know there is no criminal history, that there is not a reason for us to be suspect if they are with our children, our parents, or with a vulnerable person who is disabled.
The good exception clause is there and very broadly written, and I might go to the language. It says ``shall except in a case approved for good cause by the Corporation''--``shall'' not ``will''; it is not mandatory--``shall go through a fingerprint process, good cause exception, for good cause,'' very loosely defined. That could be the size of the corporation, no access to FBI fingerprint check, it could be the size of the entity without the financial capabilities to go through it.
Now, I added something overnight to this bill. I didn't want to do it, but I did. I added drug testing. Drug testing is a very applicable thing, I say to my good friend, the manager on the majority side. This is not in stone for me. It wasn't in my original amendment. I think it shows my frustration that I went through last night, not being able to work out something that made unbelievable common sense to me.
I would think this would be a threshold we would set. I would prefer to do it in a bipartisan way versus just to have a vote because I know today the vote would be on a motion to table, I would lose, and this initiative would not be in place. Although my children aren't old enough, my father is. If, in fact, there was any volunteer who came into the facility he lives in and works with him, I would like to have the comfort of knowing at least somebody said: Let's make sure the individuals, in fact, don't have criminal backgrounds, that they have gone into this with a truly volunteer reason versus for some aspect of criminal intent.
Now, my chief concern and the reason for wanting this is kids, the elderly, and the disabled. It is no more than that. We know a vast majority of folks who work in these programs do it because they believe in it. They want to have an effect, a positive effect on somebody's life, and that is what they have chosen to do. I think it is important for us to realize that it doesn't matter whether it is AmeriCorps for title I schools or childcare centers or an entity that accepts CDBG subsidies. When parents leave their children in the hands of somebody every day while they are at work to look after their kids, they want to know the volunteers who are there meet the threshold, the standard they would expect. We really wouldn't have an investment except we are talking about Federal Government funding, and I think the American people expect us to uphold what their expectations are; and that is, people who shouldn't be there aren't there.
So I say to my colleagues on both sides, it is my hope we can come to an agreement. It is my hope this can be whittled down to FBI checks only. It is my hope we will all understand the full latitude of the clause for the exception and the word ``shall'' versus ``will.'' It is my hope we can pass the bigger bill with an amendment that resembles what I have offered so we can look at every American family and say: We have looked at those who are the most vulnerable, and to the best of our ability we have tried to make sure somebody who shouldn't be there isn't there.
Now, as every American realizes, even the FBI fingerprint check is not perfect. There is no way for us to look at the population and say nothing can ever happen. But I would suggest today that the standard America holds us to is that we should do something, not nothing; that we should attempt, not just roll over and play dead. If, in fact, we come to the tabling of this, we are going to roll over and play dead. We are not going to take it on. I don't think this requirement chases anybody away except the individuals who shouldn't be in the program to start with, who might not pass the threshold, who might be found to be in one of those databases, so that we certainly wouldn't want them to participate in this program.
So at this time, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her remarks. She is right. I think we can come to a suitable agreement. I can assure her that if I did not think it was necessary to do an amendment, I would not have done it. It might not be the first time I have been wrong, my wife tells me that frequently. But in my understanding of it, the teeth that are in the bill are not the teeth I have in this amendment as it relates to the FBI background check.
Make no mistake about it. I am not married to the drug testing, though I will tell my colleague this: I think a lot of Americans listening to this would probably say: Why not? But I think in the spirit of how I started this negotiation, it is not an area I believe is important to make as a foundation of this amendment. So I accept the Senator's offer. I will bring my staff over immediately, even though I won't be able to stay, and we will both then be briefed by our staffs and know exactly what we are dealing with.
If, in fact, we have misinterpreted what the content of the bill says, and we believe the appropriate protections are in it, I will be the first to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate that, as we have engaged with each other on so many other occasions. Therefore, I think that is an excellent way to proceed.
I have only two concerns. One is already in the bill, and the other could be onerous costs to very small agencies. I think we can deal with it and approach it the way we always have--rationally, civilly, and with a commitment to get the job done.
Mr. BURR. I hope the Senator will interpret it the same way I have spelled out the exception clause, and that exception clause could be interpreted, and has been interpreted, to mean the lack of financial capability for a company to engage.
I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 722 WITHDRAWN
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 722.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.
AMENDMENT NO. 727 TO AMENDMENT NO. 687
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment that I filed on behalf of myself and Senator Mikulski.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Madam President, again, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Mikulski and myself. We worked diligently over the last several hours to try to fix a previous amendment. We have come to that agreement.
I remind my colleagues that what we have done is clearly targeted at individuals who, on a recurring basis, deal with vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. We have allowed the 2-year ramp-up to remain in the bill. In addition, we have left the ``for good cause'' exemption and added specific additional exemptions to the bill.
This is a good piece of legislation. It should give every Member a strong belief that we are doing everything we can to protect those individual populations by making sure those who volunteer, in fact, meet the threshold we think is appropriate.
With that, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source