[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 97 (Monday, July 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8395-S8403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued


                   Amendments Nos. 1229 through 1235

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have several cleared amendments to 
the State, Foreign Operations bill which I send to the desk and ask for 
immediate consideration en bloc.
  There is one on behalf of Senator Martinez regarding the Advisory 
Commission on Public Diplomacy; by Senator Leahy, a technical 
amendment; for myself regarding activities of OPIC in Libya; three 
Leahy amendments, two technicals and an amendment regarding assistance 
to Pakistan; a Leahy amendment regarding assistance for the North 
Caucus.
  All of these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask for 
their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1229 through 1235 en bloc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1229

  (Purpose: To extend the United States Advisory Commission on Public 
                    Diplomacy until October 1, 2006)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following 
     new section:


         UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

       Sec. 6113. Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) is amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2005'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2006''.

                           amendment No. 1230

            (Purpose: Technical amendment relating to Iraq)

       On page 309, line 24, after ``Fund'', insert the following:
       in chapter 2 of title II of P.L. 108-106


                           amendment No. 1231

   (Purpose: To provide an exception for activities of the Overseas 
                Private Investment Corporation in Libya)

       On page 210, on line 23, after the words ``or its agents'' 
     insert the following:
       : Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the 
     prohibition shall not include activities of the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation in Libya


                           amendment No. 1232

   (Purpose: Technical amendment concerning foreign nongovernmental 
                             organizations)

       On page 295, line 23, strike ``local'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       foreign nongovernmental
       On page 296, line 2, strike ``local'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       foreign nongovernmental
       On page 311, line 9, strike ``local'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       foreign


                           amendment No. 1233

   (Purpose: Technical amendment relating to a reporting requirement)

       On page 191, line 24, after ``Appropriations'' insert:
       and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives


                           amendment No. 1234

  (Purpose: Reporting requirement relating to assistance for Pakistan)

       On page 172, line 7, strike ``defenders'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof
       lawyers and journalists


                           amendment No. 1235

     (Purpose: To provide certain assistance to the North Caucasus)

       On page 176, line 2, after the colon insert:
       Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $5,000,000 should be made available 
     for humanitarian, conflict mitigation, relief and recovery 
     assistance for Chechnya, Ingushetia, and elsewhere in the 
     North Caucasus:

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1239

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for many years, I have been active in 
efforts to stop exploitative child labor as well as trafficking in 
child and female slaves around the world. In my travels to many 
countries, I have seen this scourge firsthand. I have come to the floor 
of the Senate many times to speak about this issue. I have spoken about 
how shocked I was to see the deplorable conditions under which these 
kids are forced to work. Many are physically, emotionally, and sexually 
abused. All of them, every child engaged in abusive child labor is 
deprived of a childhood solely for someone else's gain.
  Why should we as a nation tolerate children being used in such a 
manner? We should not. It is a moral outrage and an affront to human 
dignity. When a child is exploited for the economic gains for others, 
not only does the child lose, but the family loses and I think the 
whole world loses. It is bad economics, and it is bad development 
strategy. A nation cannot achieve prosperity on the backs of children, 
and there should simply be no place in the global economy for child 
labor.
  So when news reports about forced child labor on west African cocoa 
farms first emerged in 2001, I was not entirely surprised. According to 
one report in a series of articles by Knight Ridder, the child laborers 
of Ivory Coast ``are whipped, beaten, and broken like horses to harvest 
the almond-sized beans that are made into chocolate treats for more 
fortunate children in Europe and the United States.''
  After looking into this, I resolved to do everything I could to end 
this tragic exploitation of children working on cocoa farms. However, I 
sought a legislative remedy not as a first resort but as a last resort. 
Together with Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, we engaged the major 
chocolate companies in lengthy, intense negotiations. The result is 
what is now called the Harkin-Engel protocol for the growing and 
processing of cocoa beans in a manner that complies with the 
International Labor Organization Convention 182 concerning the 
prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms 
of child labor. This protocol would apply to everywhere cocoa is grown 
and processed.
  The agreement laid out a series of date-specific actions, including 
the development of credible, mutually acceptable, voluntary 
industrywide standards of public certification by July 1 of 2005, this 
month, in order to give a public accounting of labor practices in cocoa 
farming.
  The Harkin-Engel protocol marked an important first--an entire 
industry, including companies from the United States, Europe, and the 
United Kingdom, taking responsibility for addressing the worst forms of 
child labor and forced labor in its supply chain.

[[Page S8396]]

  Today the protocol stands as a framework for progress in west Africa, 
bringing together industry, west African governments, organized labor, 
nongovernmental organizations, farmers groups, and experts in a 
concerted effort to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced 
labor from the growing and processing of cocoa.
  Since the Harkin-Engel protocol was signed, a number of positive 
steps have been taken to address the worst forms of child labor in 
cocoa growing. These include the creation of the International Cocoa 
Initiative Foundation, which is now beginning to form partnerships with 
nongovernmental organizations to provide social protection programs in 
west Africa. Also, in Ghana, the International Labor Organization 
carried out a small pilot project, and in the Ivory Coast, the 
government is committed to conducting a similar pilot project to 
examine the labor situation and social protection needs on cocoa farms. 
These pilot programs will then be assessed and used to develop a child 
labor monitoring system.

  Although I was disappointed that the July 1 deadline was not fully 
met by the industry, they have given us a commitment to achieving a 
certification system which can be expanded across the cocoa-growing 
areas of west Africa and which will cover 50 percent of the cocoa-
growing areas of Ivory Coast and Ghana in 3 years' time. I am very 
pleased with this commitment.
  Going forward, the industry has pledged to dedicate more than $5 
million annually to support the full implementation of a certification 
system for cocoa growing farming practices and for programs to improve 
the well-being of the more than 1.5 million farm families growing cocoa 
in west Africa, including efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child 
labor and forced labor.
  Specifically, the rollout of the certification system, including 
monitoring, data analysis reporting, and activities to reduce the worst 
forms of child labor, will proceed as aggressively as possible in Ivory 
Coast and Ghana with the goal of covering 50 percent of the two 
countries' cocoa-producing areas by July of 2008. This is, indeed, a 
milestone on the way toward the ultimate goal of 100 percent coverage 
in cocoa-producing countries around the world.
  In addition, the industry pledges to improve conditions in west 
Africa cocoa farming communities and to address the worst forms of 
child labor and forced labor at the community level through the 
International Cocoa Initiative Foundation, the World Cocoa Foundation, 
and the Initiative for Africa Cocoa Communities. Congressman Engel and 
I have accepted the industry's pledge and commitment, and we 
congratulate them for this.
  The protocol framework continues. However, as President Reagan used 
to say regarding arms agreements with the Soviet Union, we decided to 
trust but verify. To ensure accountability and transparency, 
Congressman Engel and I will establish an independent oversight entity 
to monitor future implementations of the accord. This entity will 
include experts on child and forced labor, as well as on corporate 
social responsibility, and will monitor the industry's work and produce 
periodic publicly available reports on its progress.
  Again, I applaud the cocoa industry, the chocolate industry for their 
agreement to accept such an independent oversight entity.
  In addition, to accelerate progress, I support the recommendation of 
the verification working group, a group charged under the protocol with 
an independent assessment of the certification system to create a 
skilled, multi-stakeholder working group on certification.
  Yes, I am disappointed that the July 1 deadline was not fully met, 
but I am reassured that the industry is committed to the goal we all 
share, which is to eliminate the scourge of the worst forms of child 
labor and forced labor in cocoa-producing countries.
  Obviously, I will be closely monitoring progress under the protocol 
in the months and years ahead, and I will make periodic reports on the 
Senate floor and in the media. As Justice Brandeis once said, sunlight 
is the best disinfectant. Progress under the protocol will be 
transparent. It will be documented and reported for the entire world to 
see.
  Congressman Engel and I are fully committed to meeting the terms and 
goals of the protocol. As I also said, we are pleased that the 
chocolate industry likewise has pledged its full commitment to these 
terms and goals. I would also like to commend the governments of the 
Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana for their cooperation in meeting the terms of 
the protocol. Clearly, it is in the interest of these national 
governments to eradicate the worst forms of child labor for their own 
economic and social well-being.
  We all realize the stakes are incredibly high and that the time for 
just talking has passed. Child labor and forced labor continue in the 
cocoa fields of west Africa and elsewhere. Children today are 
suffering, being deprived of their childhood, being beaten, being 
deprived of education. And ultimately the chocolate companies have a 
big responsibility in stopping this suffrage. I will continue to work 
with them and with the west African governments to eliminate this 
scourge.
  At this time I would like to inform my colleagues of my intent to 
offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill that the Senate is now considering. My amendment 
simply reaffirms the industry's commitments to eradicate child labor 
from cocoa plantations. The resolution I will offer reflects the main 
points I have mentioned today. I hope it will be a noncontroversial 
amendment and that it can be accepted by the managers of the bill.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, I would remiss if I did not mention in 
passing, at least right now, some of the other problems facing the 
African continent today: HIV/AIDS, hunger, the genocide in Darfur, debt 
relief, millions of displaced people. Unfortunately, the list is long 
and the problems severe. I was pleased that the recent G8 meeting held 
in Scotland addressed some of these issues. This is a positive but, I 
must add, a small step forward. In order to successfully meet the 
challenges facing African nations, nations of the world must work 
together. And I will continue to support our chairman and ranking 
member and our committee on the foreign operations appropriations 
subcommittee to do all we can to help in those efforts.
  Mr. President, I am going to just read briefly some parts of the 
amendment that I will be offering to H.R. 3057. Basically, it is just, 
again, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to express the sense of 
Congress regarding abusive child labor practices in the growing and 
processing of cocoa. It has a number of findings, but it is a sense of 
Congress that:

       The cocoa industry is to be commended, as the Protocol 
     agreement is the first time that an industry has accepted 
     moral, social, and financial responsibility for the 
     production of raw materials wherever they are produced;
       The Government of the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire and the 
     Government of the Republic of Ghana should be commended for 
     the tangible steps they have taken to address the situation 
     of child labor in the cocoa sector;
       An independent oversight body should be designated and 
     supported to work with the chocolate industry, national 
     governments and nongovernmental organizations on the progress 
     of the development and implementation of the certification 
     system by July 1, 2008 through a series of public reports;
       The governments of West African nations that grow and 
     manufacture cocoa should consider child labor and forced 
     labor issues of top priorities;
       The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons of 
     the Department of State should include information on the 
     association between trafficking in persons and the cocoa 
     industry of Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, and other cocoa producing 
     regions in the annual trafficking in persons that is 
     submitted to Congress.

  Mr. President, I will not read all of it, but those are some of the 
basic elements of the sense-of-the-Congress resolution that I want to 
propose.
  Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there an amendment pending 
at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would ask the manager of the bill, would this be an 
appropriate time to send my amendment to the desk.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That would be fine. I would like to take a look at it. 
I am not sure we have seen it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Certainly. I just got it finished a bit ago.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think it would be appropriate to send it to the 
desk.

[[Page S8397]]

  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate it.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1239.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding abusive child 
        labor practices in the growing and processing of cocoa)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


            ABUSIVE CHILD LABOR PRACTICES IN COCOA INDUSTRY

       Sec. 6113. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The plight of hundreds of thousands of child slaves 
     toiling in cocoa plantations in West Africa was reported in a 
     series by Knight Ridder newspapers in June 2001. (global)
       (2) The report found that some of these children are sold 
     or tricked into slavery. Most of them are between the ages of 
     12 and 16 and some are as young as 9 years old.
       (3) There are 1,500,000 farms in West Africa that produce 
     approximately 72 percent of the total global supply of cocoa, 
     with Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana producing about 62 percent and 
     22 percent, respectively, of the total cocoa production in 
     Africa. Other key producers are Indonesia, Nigeria, Cameroon, 
     and Brazil.
       (4) United States consumers purchase over $13,000,000,000 
     in chocolate products annually.
       (5) On September 19, 2001, representatives of the chocolate 
     industry signed a voluntary Protocol for the Growing and 
     Processing of Cocoa Beans and their Derivative Products in a 
     Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the 
     Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the 
     Worst Forms of Child Labor.
       (6) The Protocol outlines 6 steps the industry formally 
     agreed to undertake to end abusive and forced child labor on 
     cocoa farms by July 2005.
       (7) A vital step of the Protocol was the development and 
     implementation by the industry of a credible, transparent, 
     and publicly accountable industry-wide certification system 
     to ensure, by July 1, 2005, that cocoa beans and their 
     derivative products have not been grown or processed by 
     abusive child labor or slave labor.
       (8) Since the Protocol was signed, some positive steps have 
     been taken to address the worst forms of child labor and 
     slave labor in cocoa growing, but the July 1, 2005, deadline 
     for creation and implementation of the certification system 
     was not fully met.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the cocoa industry is to be commended, as the Protocol 
     agreement is the first time that an industry has accepted 
     moral, social, and financial responsibility for the 
     production of raw materials, wherever they are produced;
       (2) the Government of the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire and the 
     Government of the Republic of Ghana should be commended for 
     the tangible steps they have taken to address the situation 
     of child labor in the cocoa sector;
       (3) even though the cocoa industry did not fully meet the 
     July 1, 2005, deadline for creation and implementation of the 
     labor certification system, it has agreed to redouble its 
     efforts to achieve a certification system that will cover 50 
     percent of the cocoa growing regions of Cote d'Ivoire and 
     Ghana by July 1, 2008;
       (4) the cocoa industry should make every effort to meet 
     this deadline in Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana and expand the 
     certification process to other West African nations and any 
     other country where abusive child labor and slave labor are 
     used in the growing and processing of cocoa;
       (5) an independent oversight body should be designated and 
     supported to work with the chocolate industry, national 
     governments, and nongovernmental organizations on the 
     progress of the development and implementation of the 
     certification system by July 1, 2008, through a series of 
     public reports;
       (6) the governments of West African nations that grow and 
     manufacture cocoa should consider child labor and forced 
     labor issues top priorities;
       (7) the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 
     of the Department of State should include information on the 
     association between trafficking in persons and the cocoa 
     industries of Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, and other cocoa producing 
     regions in the annual report on trafficking in persons that 
     is submitted to Congress; and
       (8) the Department of State should assist the Government of 
     Cote d'Ivoire and the Government of Ghana in preventing the 
     trafficking of persons into the cocoa fields and other 
     industries in West Africa.

  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for taking a look at it. I hope it 
will meet his approval.
  Basically, as I said, the chocolate industry, I believe, is to be 
commended for taking positive steps in agreeing to do 50 percent of the 
farms by July 1 of 2008. We have to be vigilant. It is really a sense 
of the Congress commending them and then urging we stay on to meet 
those goals and eventually the ultimate goal of making sure that we 
don't have any forced labor and child trafficking on cocoa farms 
anywhere.
  It always struck me as really kind of telling, almost bordering on 
the obscene that so many of our kids in our country, in Europe, around 
the world enjoy eating chocolate. Who doesn't enjoy eating chocolate? 
We all love chocolate, hot chocolate, or chocolate of any form. And so 
I think many people who enjoy chocolate don't know that it is being 
produced by forced child labor in many cases, kids who are beaten, kids 
who are deprived of their childhood, kids who are basically child 
slaves. So I think this is something that we should pay attention to. 
As I said, we have been working on this now, this is our fourth year, 
working with the chocolate industry. We have this protocol. We have the 
framework. Progress is being made. We just need to make sure we don't 
slip behind, that we continue to support these efforts, to support the 
Governments, as I said, both Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana, in their efforts, 
and the chocolate industry, also.
  That is basically what this sense-of-the-Congress resolution is all 
about.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky 
said earlier, we are on the Foreign Operations, State Department bill. 
We have virtually completed our work. There is a pending amendment. We 
are going to be ready very soon to go to third reading.
  We have had a number of Members say they might have an amendment, and 
I am delighted to hear that, but if they ``might,'' they might want to 
do it while the bill is still on the floor because it is going to be 
gone.
  Some of these amendments are very well thought out. Some Members have 
their press releases already written. But if Members want the press 
release released--as well as the well-thought-out amendment--one might 
want to do it while the bill is on the floor.
  I have no desire to hold up this piece of legislation. Senator 
McConnell has no desire to hold up this legislation. We spent several 
hours of quorum calls Friday and today. If Members are serious about an 
amendment, bring it to the floor. Otherwise, from this Senator's point 
of view, as soon as there is not an amendment pending, I will have no 
objection to moving to third reading.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Prescription Drug Prices

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes. Later this 
afternoon, at 5:45, we have ordered a vote on the nomination of Dr. 
Lester Crawford to be Commissioner of the FDA. I had intended to come 
and speak prior to that vote. My understanding is that there is only a 
30-minute time period for debate, equally divided, just prior to the 
vote on that nomination, so I will take a couple of minutes now to 
explain why I am going to vote against this nomination.
  I have spent most of my time in the Senate voting for nominees sent 
to us by Presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, because I believe 
those who win the Presidency largely have the right to select their own 
team and to have their own advisers. So I have, in most cases, voted 
for the nominees who have come before the Senate to serve in the 
President's Cabinet and other important positions in the 
administration.
  This position is the head of the Food and Drug Administration, a very 
important agency--one, incidentally, that

[[Page S8398]]

has had a substantial amount of controversy in recent years. I have 
been particularly interested in the FDA because we--myself along with 
others in the Senate--have spent a lot of time working to try to see if 
we can put some downward pressure on prescription drug prices.
  Much to our chagrin--to those of us on both the Democratic side and 
the Republican side who have been working toward this end--the 
opposition, in many cases, has come from the Food and Drug 
Administration. The FDA has alleged safety issues where, in fact, there 
are no safety issues at all. It has been the Food and Drug 
Administration that has been shaking the pom-poms for and cheerleading 
with the pharmaceutical industry on these issues.

  Let me describe the issue just for a moment.
  The American consumer pays the highest prices in the world for brand-
name prescription drugs. Consumers who purchase those prescription 
drugs are charged much higher prices in the United States than 
elsewhere around the world. The pharmaceutical industry says it charges 
these prices because it can. I held a hearing on this issue when I 
chaired a subcommittee some years ago. The result is, the drug industry 
said: Well, we can charge that amount here in the United States, but we 
can't charge it in other countries because other countries have price 
controls on prescription drugs.
  Yet I notice--because of a sweetheart little tax provision that was 
put in law about a year ago--that the drug industry has made 
substantial profits overseas. The sweetheart deal allows those 
companies that have started enterprises overseas and are earning 
profits overseas to now pay taxes at a 5.25-percent rate for the income 
they repatriate to this country, quite a deal for big companies that 
move their jobs overseas. According to newspaper reports, the 
pharmaceutical industry now has as much as $75 billion in profits they 
have made in other countries that they are set to repatriate to this 
country for a 5.25-percent income tax rate.
  Interesting. They tell us they have to charge higher prices to the 
American consumers for prescription drugs, and they charge lower prices 
elsewhere because they are required by pricing policies in those 
countries to do so. They say they do not make much money in those 
countries, yet now they have $75 billion in profits from overseas sales 
in countries in which they have charged dramatically lower prices. So, 
obviously, they are making substantial profits in their sales in other 
countries even though the consumers in those other countries enjoy 
lower prescription drug prices.
  Mr. President, let me, by unanimous consent, show two pill bottles, 
if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a medicine called Celebrex, made 
by Pfizer. These bottles are large containers that happen to be empty. 
It would contain 500 capsules; 200 milligrams, the usual adult dosage, 
it says. As you can see, this other bottle is also Celebrex. It is the 
same pill, made by the same company, put in the same bottle. The only 
difference in these bottles is the color on the labels is a bit 
different, but the pills that were inside were the same. This one 
bottle is sold in the United States and the other is sold in Canada.
  What is the difference? Well, the U.S. consumer pays $2.93 per 
capsule out of this bottle. The Canadian consumer pays $1.32 out of the 
other bottle. So the one costs almost $3, the other just over $1. The 
American consumer is charged double the price of the Canadian consumer. 
It is the same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, 
at an FDA-approved plant, sent to two different places, and the 
American consumers pay two and a half times more than the Canadian 
consumer.
  Why is that the case? Well, the drug industry says they charge that 
price in the United States because they can and because they must in 
order to gather the funds for research and development. But, of course, 
the record shows that is not the case either. The drug industry 
actually spends more money on marketing and advertising than they do on 
research and development. And they actually spend about the same amount 
on research and development in Europe that they do in the United States 
when, in fact, in Europe they charge lower prices for exactly the same 
prescription drugs.
  So what does all of this have to do with Dr. Crawford and the FDA? 
Well, for those of us who are working to allow for the importation 
of FDA-approved drugs from other countries--notably from Canada and 
Europe--one of the most significant areas of opposition has been from 
the FDA.

  Dr. Mark McClellan was the head of the FDA for a while. He was an 
aggressive advocate on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. The 
pharmaceutical industry could not have had a better cheerleader than 
Dr. McClellan. And during that time, Dr. Crawford has also been at the 
FDA serving as deputy. He has been there as acting commissioner for 
much of this administration, both before and now after Dr. McClellan. 
And during that time, the FDA has continued to be a roadblock to try to 
get lower prices on prescription drugs for American consumers.
  The problem is that there is a law on the books that says the only 
entity that can import a prescription drug from another country is the 
manufacturer of that prescription drug. So a licensed pharmacist in 
Minot, ND, cannot go to Regina, Canada, for example, and buy an FDA-
approved prescription drug, even one made in the United States and 
shipped to Canada. A licensed U.S. pharmacist cannot go to a licensed 
pharmacist in Canada, buy the FDA-approved drug at half or a third of 
the price and bring it back and pass the savings along to the customer.
  Why is that the case? Well, because once again there is a sweetheart 
deal. Under this deal, trade should apparently only work for everybody 
but the little guy, the consumer. One would think, with free trade and 
the opportunity to cross boundaries, that if you are talking about FDA-
approved medicines, that American consumers, particularly American 
pharmacists, would be able to also take advantage of the global 
marketplace, but they cannot.
  So I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, have been trying 
to change the law. We are not proposing price controls but instead 
competition. Very simple: Allow an American pharmacist, a main street 
drugstore owner to access the identical prescription drug in Canada or 
Europe at a fraction of the price and bring it back and pass the 
savings along to the consumer. We are told that American consumers 
could save as much as $38 billion--that is with a ``B''--a year if that 
were to happen.
  As a point of fact, if we were able to get our legislation passed, we 
would not have people shopping in Canada for prescription drugs. But 
the very fact that they could would force the repricing of prescription 
drugs based on market forces here in the United States. Unfortunately, 
we have been thwarted in our efforts. Senator Olympia Snowe, John 
McCain, myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Grassley, Senator Stabenow, 
and many others have all worked on this for a long, long time. The 
first bill I introduced on this was in 1999, and still drug importation 
has not been allowed because it has been blocked.
  Opponents have said there would be safety issues. Well, let me give 
you an example of the safety issue. In Europe, what we propose is done 
every single day: cross-border trading in prescription drugs. A 
pharmacist in Germany wants to buy a prescription drug from Spain, that 
is not a problem. If you are a pharmacy in England and want to buy a 
prescription drug from France, that is no problem either because they 
have something called parallel trading. In fact, we had the person who 
headed the parallel trading association come and testify before a U.S. 
Congressional committee. That person said there are no safety issues. 
But it opens the market, so consumers see lower drug prices as a result 
of it. But in this country, we are told we apparently cannot do it. It 
does not take rocket science to understand there is no safety issue.
  Let me talk about Canada just for a moment. Canada has nearly an 
identical chain of custody for the prescription drug that comes from 
the manufacturer that goes to the consumer. The Canadian system is 
nearly identical to ours. So if an American licensed pharmacist were to 
buy a lower

[[Page S8399]]

priced FDA-approved drug from a licensed Canadian pharmacist, how on 
Earth could there be any kind of safety issue? There simply is not.
  This is not about safety. It is about profits for the pharmaceutical 
industry. Now, I understand that issue. If the pharmaceutical industry 
were represented by people here--rather than serving in the Senate, 
they served the pharmaceutical industry--I would understand why you 
would make the case you want maximum profits. But that is not the way 
our economic system works. It works best for consumers when you have 
competition and open borders and an opportunity to trade. That is what 
we have been trying to do.
  It is disappointing that over 6 years now we have found a lot of 
opposition to something that is so filled with common sense. The 
opposition comes from the pharmaceutical industry, from allies of the 
pharmaceutical industry here in this Chamber in the Senate, and from 
the FDA. Now, the FDA is supposed to regulate, not represent. The FDA 
is to regulate the pharmaceutical industry, not represent the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  These are, in many cases, lifesaving drugs. I don't diminish the 
importance of prescription drugs. They provide miracles in many cases. 
But miracle drugs offer no miracles to those who cannot pay for them. 
We have all heard from people who go to the grocery store and go to the 
pharmacy in the back of the store first to buy the pharmaceuticals in 
order to understand how much money they have left for groceries. We 
also know that senior citizens are especially hard hit. They make up 12 
percent of America's population, yet they consume one-third of the 
prescription drugs. It is not unusual to talk to a senior citizen who 
is taking 5, 7, 12 different prescription drugs every single day. Many 
of them simply can't afford it. America's most vulnerable population 
represents those who are hardest hit by prescription drugs prices.
  I was at a farm in North Dakota last summer, as I was touring around. 
One fellow, who was about 85 years old, and his wife, who was in her 
mid 80s, sat on a hay bale and told me their story. He said: My wife 
has been fighting breast cancer for 4 years. For 4 years we have driven 
to the Canadian border to buy Tamoxifen because you can buy Tamoxifen 
at 80-percent less cost in Canada than in the United States. He talked 
about the number of trips they made. The only reason they could afford 
Tamoxifen was because they could drive to the border and get it. A 
small supply of drugs for personal use, a 3-month supply, has been 
allowed to come across the border for individuals. But very few 
Americans can reach that Canadian border and, on a routine basis, find 
a way to buy their FDA-approved drugs from Canada.
  I took a group of American retired folks to Canada in a bus. We went 
to a little, one-room drugstore in Emerson, Canada. I saw person to 
person the prescription drugs they had to buy and the savings with each 
of them. You should have seen the look of surprise on their faces when 
they found out what the price was in Canada versus what they had been 
paying here in the U.S. This is unfair pricing. We need to do something 
about it. But the cavalier attitude at the FDA, the attitude of 
representing the drug companies rather than regulating the drug 
companies, means that we will continue to have to battle the FDA. 
Having to battle the FDA to do something that is so filled with common 
sense is a frustrating thing for those of us who have been working on 
this for years and years.
  Incidentally, there are some other issues with this Commissioner, and 
I will not spend my time talking about those.
  My colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, with whom I spoke the other 
day, will make the point eloquently that we need an FDA Commissioner. 
It is unbelievable that we have gone all this time without having an 
FDA Commissioner. We have had someone who is acting for the bulk of 
this administration. I don't disagree with that notion. It doesn't make 
any sense that we have not had a full-time, permanent FDA Commissioner 
filling that term. But that doesn't mean that Dr. Crawford is the right 
person. He is not in my judgment. I wish I could vote for him, but I 
don't intend to.
  My hope is that in the coming months, we will persuade the majority 
leader and others, to get a vote on drug importation legislation. If 
necessary, we will offer amendments at the right time and on the right 
bills that forces the hand of those who oppose the work we are trying 
to do.
  My hope is at the end of the day, we will get a vote. If we get a 
vote allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs, there is no 
question it is going to pass the Senate. It will get 60-65 or more 
votes in the Senate. The question is getting the vote. We thought we 
had a commitment in the last Congress for a vote. The Senate majority 
leader and I had a disagreement about what the commitment said, and so 
we didn't get the vote. What has happened is, the majority has 
successfully blocked it, and the White House that stands with the 
pharmaceutical industry has successfully blocked it. There is now a 
very strong bipartisan group of Senators. I mentioned Senator Snowe, 
Senators Vitter, McCain, Stabenow, Kennedy, and many others. We have 
over 30 Senators who have now joined as cosponsors of this legislation. 
One way or another we are going to prevail. When it is passed, we will 
see reasonable and competitive prices for prescription drugs.
  I regret to say that I will vote against Dr. Crawford's nomination 
when the vote occurs. I wish I could come to the floor and say I will 
vote for the nominee. But I don't want to put further roadblocks in the 
way of those of us who are trying to get fair prescription drug pricing 
for American citizens. I believe it is critically important that we 
understand prescription drugs are something different, something 
unusual. Most countries have already understood that. If you need a 
prescription drug, a lifesaving drug that can either save your life or 
keep you out of an acute care hospital bed, you don't have a choice. 
You have to try and buy it, at prices that are double, triple and, in 
some cases, 10 times the cost for the identical drug in other 
countries. That is unfair to the American consumer.
  Some day we will force enough people on the floor of this Senate to 
stand up and vote. When we do, we will have sufficient votes to move 
this through the Senate. I will say this: I doubt whether it will be 
with anything other than the obstruction of Dr. Crawford. He and Dr. 
McClellan before him have run the play called by the pharmaceutical 
industry. I really regret that is the way it is going.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to be filing an amendment and 
also noticing an intention to suspend the rules for such an amendment. 
I want to preserve the right to address it on this piece of 
legislation. This is an amendment that would prohibit the sale of 
Unocal, an American oil company, to CNOOC, a Chinese Government-
controlled and owned oil company.
  I mentioned Friday that I think that this is a fairly simple 
proposition. The Chinese Government would never, ever allow an American 
company, let alone an American oil company, to buy a Chinese oil 
company. The Chinese oil companies are controlled by the Chinese 
Government. What we have here is a proposal by CNOOC, which is a 
Chinese oil company controlled by the Government, wishing to purchase 
an American oil company. You don't have reciprocal capabilities.
  They say: Let the free market deal with this. Let's let the 
marketplace decide.
  There is no free market or marketplace in a circumstance where the 
Chinese Government controls a company and the controlled company, 
through deeply subsidized Government loans, wishes to buy an American 
company, especially in something as strategic as oil.
  I don't bear any ill will toward the Chinese. They are a big and 
growing country with a significant impact around the world. They will 
be a significant part of our future. But we do

[[Page S8400]]

have an extraordinary trade deficit with China which is dangerous for 
us. It is headed to over $200 billion this year. That is completely 
unsustainable. It is dangerous for us. Our relationship with the 
Chinese should and must be mutually beneficial, especially in the area 
of trade. Regrettably, it is not.
  We are a cash cow for the hard currency needs of China. They continue 
to ratchet up these deficits in a significant way. In many cases, the 
Chinese markets are closed to our country. We also find on the streets 
of China a substantial amount of counterfeit and pirated goods that 
come from intellectual property in this country. The Chinese say they 
have trouble controlling all that. They don't have trouble controlling 
it. In fact, the logo now that belongs to the Chinese Government for 
the Olympic games, the minute that showed up on the streets in China 
under counterfeiting, the Chinese Government took immediate action, and 
you can't find it any more because the Chinese Government had an 
interest in stopping counterfeit and piracy when it came to the logo 
for the Chinese Olympic games.
  We have a lot of issues with the Chinese--counterfeiting, piracy, 
trade deficit, many more. This issue is simple; should we allow a 
Chinese-controlled and largely Chinese-owned oil company to purchase an 
American oil company, especially in circumstances where they would not 
allow that same transaction to take place?
  My answer to that is no. I don't think it makes sense for this 
country's strategic or economic future, and it does not make sense from 
the standpoint of national security. I don't believe it makes sense 
from the standpoint of reciprocal trade opportunities, and I don't 
believe those who say this is some sort of marketplace transaction. 
There is not a marketplace when you have government control of both the 
industry and the companies in the industry trying to buy American 
businesses.
  I am filing the amendment and noticing along with it an intent to 
suspend the rules which would be required for me to do when I offer 
such an amendment. I mentioned that I also likely would offer a funding 
limitation amendment in the Appropriations Committee, and the House of 
Representatives has done the same. The funding limitation would apply 
to the Treasury Department, where approval for such a transaction would 
be required to take place.
  This is not a reflection of whether I think the Chinese country is 
trying to do harm to our economy or anything of the sort. China is a 
large and growing country with 1.3 billion people, an economy that is 
growing by leaps and bounds. I have been to China a couple of times, 
and it is quite a remarkable place. But with respect to our 
relationship with China, that relationship must be mutually beneficial, 
especially in the area of international trade. It is not now mutually 
beneficial. There is one-way trade going on, and we are up to our neck 
in trade debt to the Chinese.
  This transaction does not advance our interest. It might advance the 
Chinese interest by giving them more access to oil, but it does not 
advance America's interest. I hope that it is viewed through the prism 
of what advances our country's interests. What is it that represents 
the best policy choice for our country?
  My sense of that is that we ought to prohibit this sale. The 
amendment is very simple. It doesn't beat around the bush. It is very 
short. It is an amendment that would prohibit the sale of an American 
oil company to a Government-controlled and deeply subsidized oil 
company in the country of China.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read into the 
Record a statement about the passing of one of our most dedicated 
public officials.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 1245

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up an amendment to the underlying 
bill, Foreign Operations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1245.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the use of funds 
           for orphans, and displaced and abandoned children)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


             ORPHANS, AND DISPLACED AND ABANDONED CHILDREN

       Sec. 6113. (a) Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its commitment to the founding principle of 
     the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-
     Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, that a child, 
     for the full and harmonious development of the child's 
     personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an 
     atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding;
       (2) recognizes that each State should take, as a matter of 
     priority, every appropriate measure to enable a child to 
     remain in the care of the child's family of origin, but when 
     not possible should strive to place the child in a permanent 
     and loving home through adoption;
       (3) affirms that intercountry adoption may offer the 
     advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family 
     cannot be found in the child's State of origin;
       (4) affirms that long-term foster care or 
     institutionalization are not permanent options and should 
     therefore only be used when no other permanent options are 
     available; and
       (5) recognizes that programs that protect and support 
     families can reduce the abandonment and exploitation of 
     children.
       (b) The funds appropriated under title III of this Act 
     shall be made available in a manner consistent with the 
     principles described in subsection (a).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and I 
ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. We can vote on the 
amendment at any time before, of course, the final passage of this 
bill. I send this amendment to the desk, and I will spend a few minutes 
this afternoon talking about the underlying bill as it relates to the 
U.S. work and position on orphans.
  We have done a lot of great work promoting the idea that children 
should be raised in families. We have in the United States made a lot 
of progress over the last 10 years. The former administration, the 
Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration have made 
child welfare a priority, have made families a priority.
  We believe very strongly in the Congress, both on the Republican side 
and the Democratic side, that children are best raised in families. We 
would like our budget to reflect that commonsense principle. I have 
been in a couple of hearings and a couple of meetings over the course 
of the last year or two that have given me, some question whether that 
is clear in this Foreign Operations bill. So my amendment attempts to 
make clear in the underlying bill what I think is the clear and 
overwhelming contention of the Senate--and I would imagine the House of 
Representatives--that we spend money promoting social policy around the 
world, and that we adhere to a very commonsense principle--it is not an 
American principle; it is a universal principle. But I can most 
certainly say in America people feel very strongly about the fact that 
children should not raise themselves and should not be raised in 
orphanages, unless absolutely necessary. They should not be raised in 
group homes and should not be left alone to raise themselves on the 
street. We should do everything we can to keep children in families.
  Let me spend a few minutes being a little more specific. A couple of 
years ago, under the great leadership of Senator Jesse Helms, we passed 
an international treaty that put into place this principle, which 
basically says that in our foreign policy it is the principle of the 
United States to say clearly that

[[Page S8401]]

children should remain in the families to which they are born--that our 
policies should promote family stabilization, family reunification, 
reunifying children who might be separated because of war or disease. 
We should try our very best to keep children in the families to which 
they are born.
  Separation is occurring at an alarming rate in this world today for a 
number of reasons. AIDS is like a factory for orphans. There is an 
unprecedented number of children becoming orphaned because of this 
particular disease. The way this disease affects families, it takes 
both the father and the mother, leaving children truly orphaned. 
``Double orphaned'' is the way the international community talks about 
a child who has lost both a mother and a father. So we have a growing 
number of orphans in the world because of the AIDS epidemic.
  But even if it weren't for the AIDS epidemic moving through, for 
instance, Africa and India at an alarming rate, we would still have a 
growing number of orphans in the world. The question is: What do we do 
as a human family to see that each of these children has a home, a 
place? That is simply what my amendment does. It recognizes it is the 
sense of the Congress and it recognizes the principle that children 
should grow up in the homes to which they were born. But if they are 
separated by disease, or war, or death, or for good reason--because 
some children are at risk in the home, perhaps from mental or physical 
abuse; sometimes children, unfortunately, have to be taken from 
parents, according to laws and customs of some countries. When that 
happens, those children should be raised by a relative, a caring, 
responsible relative, someone right there in the extended family.
  If a relative is not available or willing or able to take on the care 
of this orphan or sibling group, then those children should be raised 
right there in the community or within the country of origin. And if 
not, then we should find a way for these children to be adopted 
somewhere in the world. My amendment is not making this the law; this 
is the law now in the United States. These are the principles that are 
followed by our treaty, as passed by this Congress.
  My amendment simply restates, for the purpose of this bill, that the 
$1.6 billion the U.S. taxpayers are sending out all over the world to 
support children's health and survival through USAID, which is our 
primary agency that distributes these funds, shall be distributed 
mindful of this principle on which this Congress has already acted.
  I believe we will have a unanimous vote on this amendment. I do not 
think it is something that will generate opposition, but if there are 
Members who oppose it, I will be happy to talk with them about 
adjusting any language they find objectionable.
  One of the things we need to promote in this world, not only at home 
but abroad, is the strength and support of families because if families 
are strong, if children can be nurtured and cared for within the loving 
context of a family, then I believe communities are strong, and when 
communities are strong, then nations are strong. It does start with the 
family unit.
  Any idea that we could promote successful social policy around that 
principle or over it or underneath it instead of embracing it fully I 
think is a real mistake.
  That is all my amendment does. The language tracks from The Hague 
Treaty which has already been passed. It will leave no shadow of a 
doubt that the Members of this body think that as USAID gives this 
money to NGOs or to regular recipients, that this principle be included 
in the distribution of this $1.6 billion.
  I would be happy to answer any questions about the amendment. The 
amendment is rather short, a page and a half. It is rather clear. 
Again, I think it will go a long way in restating in this funding bill 
that we are, in fact, committed to the idea that children should be 
raised in families and that there is really so such thing as unwanted 
children, just unfound families. If we would spend a little extra time 
and be a little bit more committed on this issue, we could, despite the 
growing numbers, I believe, find a home for every child who needs one. 
I know that is a tall order, and I know people will say: Senator, that 
can never be done. I know the number of orphans is on the rise. But I 
also know from my personal experience and the thousands of parents who 
have adopted children that there is plenty of room in the homes and 
hearts of people all over the world. If governments would just make a 
little better effort to identify some of these families and to promote 
these concepts and continue to restate them in all of our work, that is 
not as farfetched as it may seem.
  We want to respect the family, recognize the extended family, 
recognize the right of relatives to raise children, but when relatives 
and extended family members cannot be found, we believe that children 
should be placed in another family, to be raised as their own, and 
sibling groups kept together, which is the new practice in child 
welfare, not only in the United States but around the world, and that 
governments have an obligation to reduce barriers to adoption, to cut 
down the costs, to eliminate the corruption, to encourage transparency, 
to cut down on the paperwork, and to do their best to make what is so 
natural and what happened before governments existed, I am certain of 
it. When a parent or parents died, the most responsible adult next to 
the child took that child under their wing and raised them as their 
own. It is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. I 
don't know why governments in this world find this very complicated. It 
really is not. It is quite simple.
  I want to make sure our primary aid giver USAID, understands clearly 
that the Members of this Senate are not trying to dictate, are not 
trying to earmark, are not trying to tell them the specifics of how to 
do their work. This amendment says that in giving money for social 
welfare and child survival and health, the principle that children 
should be raised in a family should be ever present in their 
decisionmaking. I believe this amendment would make this issue very 
clear, and there needs to be clarity on this subject.
  If there are no other questions, I submit the amendment for 
consideration by the body and will expect a vote sometime at the 
managers' discretion. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Landrieu amendment now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Landrieu amendment is 
pending.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Landrieu amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Amendment Nos. 1248, 1249, and 1239, as Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have taken a look 
at three amendments. We find them acceptable. I send them to the desk 
and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1248, 1249, and 1239, as modified, en 
     bloc.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1248

 (Purpose: To encourage assistance for programs to address protracted 
                          refugee situations)

       On page 189, line 14, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading should be made available to develop effective 
     responses to protracted refugee situations, including the 
     development of programs to assist long-term refugee 
     populations within and outside traditional camp settings that 
     support refugees living or working in local communities such 
     as integration of refugees into local schools and services, 
     resource conservation projects and other projects designed to 
     diminish conflict between refugee hosting communities and 
     refugees, and encouraging dialogue among refugee hosting 
     communities, the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees, and international and nongovernmental refugee 
     assistance organizations to promote the rights to which 
     refugees are entitled under the Convention Relating to the 
     Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951 and the Protocol Relating 
     to the Status of Refugees, done at New York January 31, 
     1967.''.

[[Page S8402]]

                           amendment no. 1249

            (Purpose: Technical amendment relating to Nepal)

       On page 303, line 17, strike ``a commitment to a clear 
     timetable for the return to democratic representative'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof:

     ``, through dialogue with Nepal's political parties, a 
     commitment to a clear timetable for the return to multi-
     party, democratic''.
       On page 303, line 21, strike ``Royal'' and everything 
     thereafter through ``process'' on line 25 and insert in lieu 
     thereof:

     ``Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority is 
     receiving adequate support to effectively implement its anti-
     corruption mandate and that no other anti-corruption body is 
     functioning in violation of the 1990 Nepalese Constitution or 
     international standards of due process''.
       On page 304, line 6, strike ``ensuring'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``restoring''.


                     Amendment No 1239, As Modified

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding abusive child 
        labor practices in the growing and processing of cocoa)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


            ABUSIVE CHILD LABOR PRACTICES IN COCOA INDUSTRY

       Sec. _. (a) The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The plight of hundreds of thousands of child slaves 
     toiling in cocoa plantations in West Africa was reported in a 
     series by Knight Ridder newspapers in June 2001. (global)
       (2) The report found that some of these children are sold 
     or tricked into slavery. Most of them are between the ages of 
     12 and 16 and some are as young as 9 years old.
       (3) There are 1,500,000 farms in West Africa that produce 
     approximately 72 percent of the total global supply of cocoa, 
     with Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana producing about 62 percent and 
     22 percent, respectively, of the total cocoa production in 
     Africa. Other key producers are Indonesia, Nigeria, Cameroon, 
     and Brazil.
       (4) United States consumers purchase over $13,000,000,000 
     in chocolate products annually.
       (5) On September 19, 2001, representatives of the chocolate 
     industry signed a voluntary Protocol for the Growing and 
     Processing of Cocoa Beans and their Derivative Products in a 
     Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the 
     Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the 
     Worst Forms of Child Labor.
       (6) The Protocol outlines 6 steps the industry formally 
     agreed to undertake to end abusive and forced child labor on 
     cocoa farms by July 2005.
       (7) A vital step of the Protocol was the development and 
     implementation by the industry of a credible, transparent, 
     and publicly accountable industry-wide certification system 
     to ensure, by July 1, 2005, that cocoa beans and their 
     derivative products have not been grown or processed by 
     abusive child labor or slave labor.
       (8) Since the Protocol was signed, some positive steps have 
     been taken to address the worst forms of child labor and 
     slave labor in cocoa growing, but the July 1, 2005, deadline 
     for creation and implementation of the certification system 
     was not fully met.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the cocoa industry is to be commended, as the Protocol 
     agreement is the first time that an industry has accepted 
     moral, social, and financial responsibility for the 
     production of raw materials, wherever they are produced;
       (2) the Government of the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire and the 
     Government of the Republic of Ghana should be commended for 
     the tangible steps they have taken to address the situation 
     of child labor in the cocoa sector;
       (3) even though the cocoa industry did not fully meet the 
     July 1, 2005, deadline for creation and implementation of the 
     labor certification system, it has agreed to redouble its 
     efforts to achieve a certification system that will cover 50 
     percent of the cocoa growing regions of Cote d'Ivoire and 
     Ghana by July 1, 2008;
       (4) the cocoa industry should make every effort to meet 
     this deadline in Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana and expand the 
     certification process to other West African nations and any 
     other country where abusive child labor and slave labor are 
     used in the growing and processing of cocoa;
       (5) an independent oversight body should be designated and 
     supported to work with the chocolate industry, national 
     governments, and nongovernmental organizations on the 
     progress of the development and implementation of the 
     certification system by July 1, 2008, through a series of 
     public reports;
       (6) the governments of West African nations that grow and 
     manufacture cocoa should consider child labor and forced 
     labor issues top priorities;
       (7) the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 
     of the Department of State should include information on the 
     association between trafficking in persons and the cocoa 
     industries of Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, and other cocoa producing 
     regions in the annual report on trafficking in persons that 
     is submitted to Congress; and
       (8) the Department of State should assist the Government of 
     Cote d'Ivoire and the Government of Ghana in preventing the 
     trafficking of persons into the cocoa fields and other 
     industries in West Africa.

  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of our colleagues, these are three 
amendments, one is a modification to the Harkin amendment previously 
filed, one is a Leahy technical amendment regarding Nepal, and one
is a Lieberman-Brownback-Kennedy amendment regarding refugees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised these amendments are cleared 
by all the parties with interest on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1248, 1249, and 1239, as modified) were agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know Senator Leahy shares my view 
that we are going to finish this bill tomorrow. Last year, we were 
fortunate to finish it in half a day. Obviously, that will not be the 
case this year because we started it on Friday and clearly will not be 
able to finish it tonight. We do intend to finish it tomorrow. The 
Senate will be interrupted in the morning by a speech to a joint 
meeting by the Prime Minister of India, which many Members will want to 
attend. But we intend to press on as rapidly as possible. If any 
Members on this side of the aisle have any amendments they have not 
discussed yet with either myself or staff, we would appreciate them 
coming over now and discussing it with us because we intend to move 
rapidly tomorrow and hopefully clear this bill out of the Senate by 
sometime in the afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally concur with the senior Senator 
from Kentucky. Friday, both he and I were here in a rather lonely 
Chamber, I might say. We would have been happy to have gone to third 
reading on Friday. We were advised Members on both sides of the aisle 
had matters to come before this committee. Of course, extending the 
normal courtesy managers do on such bills, we did not go to third 
reading so we could accommodate those Members. We are fast approaching 
that time. Frankly, if we reach a time tomorrow where we are ready to 
wrap up this bill, I will join with the Senator from Kentucky in doing 
that.
  I note to all Members that the bill is different than it has been in 
past years. We have both the operations of the State Department as well 
as what we normally consider the foreign aid bill. There are a number 
of items in the bill strongly supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans and a number of items sought by the President as part of 
his efforts in foreign policy.
  We have crafted what, by anybody's measure, has to be considered a 
bipartisan piece of legislation, one that should get overwhelming 
support by this body. We have taken into consideration those items the 
White House needs in the normal conduct of foreign affairs, as well as 
those items the State Department needs in their normal operations. But 
we still have to pass the bill. The bill, if it was brought to a vote 
right now, would pass overwhelmingly. But it still has to pass.
  I have never served as either leader of the Senate, but I sympathize 
with them. The leaders of this Senate--majority leaders Senator 
Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, 
Senator Lott, Senator Frist, as well as their counterparts--Senator 
Scott, Senator Griffin, and some of the same Senators I mentioned 
served as both minority and majority leaders, and Senator Reid. It is 
not an easy job to schedule the Senate. The distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky is the deputy Republican leader. He knows that. We are trying 
to accommodate him. We have done everything Senator Frist or Senator 
Reid have asked us to do in moving this bill forward. With a little 
cooperation from everybody else, we can wrap up this bill and get on to 
other matters because we still have to go to conference, which I would 
like to get to very quickly so we can get a final package before the 
Senate.
  I say that hoping someone will hear and know what the heck we are 
talking about, other than Supreme Court Justices. We really do want to 
get this bill wrapped up. Please do because once we reach a point with 
the amendments, we

[[Page S8403]]

are going to vote them up or down and finish the bill. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me add, we will finish the bill 
tomorrow for certain. It will be, obviously, easier on the membership 
if we do it earlier in the day.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________