Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3896-S3900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Allard, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 2691. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will
reform our immigration policies to make the United States more
competitive, called the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership,
or ``SKIL'' bill. Other original cosponsors of this legislation include
Senators Allard, Allen, Bennett, Enzi, and Lott.
Our ability to innovate is crucial to the success of our economy. By
investing in science and technology, we revolutionize our economy and
improve the world. The President has responded to this need by
proposing the American Competitiveness Initiative. And I am a proud co-
sponsor of legislation that has been introduced in the Senate: the
Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE bills) and National
Innovation Act.
But there is still more that can be done. Immigration policy must be
part of any discussion of competitiveness. The United States does not
produce enough engineers--China graduates four times as many engineers
as the U.S., and within a few years, approximately 90 percent of all
scientists and engineers in the world will be in Asia. Foreign students
fill that gap right now in the U.S., but then our immigration policy--
not our economy--forces them to return home because there are not
enough highly skilled work visas.
In the long run, we must improve our schools and encourage more U.S.
students to study engineering and mathematics. But we also must adapt
immigration policy so that when U.S. students are educated in
engineering fields, there will be U.S. jobs for them to fill. With the
SKIL bill, foreign students who graduate from U.S. institutions will be
able to stay and work in the United States. The bill will allow
companies to retain highly skilled and educated workers.
The SKIL bill requires the government to change its processes so that
companies do not waste valuable resources. If a worker has been in the
U.S. and has complied with all immigration laws, he should be allowed
to renew his visa here in the U.S. Why make that worker go to a
consulate when all of the processing can be done here in the U.S.?
The SKIL bill exempts from annual visa limit any foreign student
graduating from a U.S. university with a Master's or PhD in essential
fields. Foreign workers with extraordinary skills, such as a Nobel
Prize winner or an international scholar--should not have to wait for a
visa. The President has also called for an increase in H-1B visas.
As Chair of the Immigration subcommittee, I have seen how
immigration--both legal and illegal--affects all aspects of our lives.
I am pleased that there is so much discussion about immigration and
about improving avenues for workers to enter our country. But
immigration today will shape the country that our children grow up in.
And so there needs to be more discussion about the kinds of immigration
that will most benefit our economy and our country.
I am introducing the SKIL bill because I don't believe enough
attention has been focused on legal immigrants, especially the highly
skilled workers who contribute to our economy and comply with our laws.
It is my hope that this legislation will allow U.S. companies to retain
a highly educated workforce until we can channel more American students
into the math, science, and engineer pipeline. The SKIL bill is yet
another important piece of the U.S. competitiveness agenda, and I urge
my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
______

By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2693. A bill to prevent congressional reapportionment distortions;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have discussed
at length the problem of illegal immigration. What many may not realize
is that illegal immigration affects our system of representation as
well.
After the 1990 Census, my State of Montana lost one of its two seats
in the House of Representatives. Ten years later, our great State had
grown to more than 900,000 residents, but still did not gain a seat.
Meanwhile, we have an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this
country today, and all of them will be a factor to determine which
States gain or lose a seat in the House of Representatives after the
Census in 2010. This is because current policy tells us to count
everyone in this country, illegal or not, when determining
Congressional apportionment.
If these trends continue, we will have millions more illegal aliens
counted in the 2010 Census. The result will be more seats lost in
States that have actually increased in population of law-abiding U.S.
residents.
Thankfully, my State of Montana cannot lose any more seats in the
House of Representatives. We are down to our last one. Other States,
however, will not be so fortunate.
Law-abiding citizens should not have to lose representation because
millions of illegal immigrants ignore our laws. That is why today, I am
introducing the Fair and Accurate Representation Act. This bill will
exclude the masses of illegal aliens in this country from being part of
the Congressional apportionment process.
If we act now, we can get started on reforming this process in time
for the 2010 Census. The voting rights of law-abiding citizens should
not be diluted by those who choose to enter this country illegally. I
call upon my colleagues in the Senate to join me in correcting this
process, so that those who lawfully reside in this country receive fair
and accurate representation.
______

By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 2694. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to remove
certain limitation on attorney representation of claimants for veterans
benefits in administrative proceedings before the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment
on legislation that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina,
Senator Graham, and I are introducing. This bill will provide veterans
with the right to hire counsel to represent them in proceedings before
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and will help ensure that all
who represent veterans are held to the highest standards of
professional and ethical conduct.
As President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed nearly 150 years
ago, this Nation has an obligation ``to care for him who shall have
borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In keeping with
that charge, the Federal Government provides a wide array of benefits
to veterans and their dependents, through an administrative system that
is intended to be informal, claimant-friendly, and non-adversarial.
During recent years, however, veterans' organizations, VA, and others
have observed that this system has become increasingly complex.
Enhanced legal requirements and layers of procedural steps intended to
protect the rights of veterans have increased both the complexity of
the system and how long it takes to process a claim. At the same time,
with the Nation at war and servicemembers deployed around the world,
the disability claims filed by returning veterans have become more

[[Page S3897]]

complex. Many of these claims are based on disabilities caused by
environmental exposures, traumatic brain injuries, psychological
trauma, severe combat wounds, and other highly complex medical
conditions, which by their nature may entail complex questions of
causality or intricate factual or legal analyses.
Despite the increasing complexity of many cases, all 24 million
living veterans are prohibited from hiring a lawyer to help them
navigate the VA system. It is only after a veteran has spent months and
even years exhausting the extensive VA administrative process that the
veteran then may retain counsel--a process that often takes 3 or more
years to complete. As the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates
(NOVA) testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year,
``[t]his is too late in the process for counsel to be truly effective''
because by that time the evidentiary record ``is effectively closed.''
On the other hand, NOVA testified that, if attorneys were retained at
an earlier stage of the process, they could be helpful in obtaining and
presenting necessary evidence and in ensuring that VA timely and
accurately processes claims.
So, with the potential for lawyers to help veterans successfully
navigate this increasingly complex system, why does the government
prohibit veterans from retaining counsel? This restriction, which dates
back to the Civil War, was born out of concern that unscrupulous
attorneys would improperly take large portions of veterans' disability
benefits as compensation for their services. And some will argue that
this concern is equally warranted today.
Although I understand this longstanding desire to protect veterans'
disability compensation, I would ask my colleagues to consider a simple
question posited in a recent editorial: ``If American soldiers are
mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their
country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer?'' I
believe the obvious answer to that question is ``yes.''
Particularly for veterans of to day's All-Volunteer Force--which has
been described as the ``best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting
force in the history of the world''--this paternalistic restriction is
simply outdated. These highly trained, highly skilled veterans have the
ability--and should have the right--to decide whether or not to hire a
lawyer.
This is a right that is not denied to individuals seeking other
earned benefits from the government. In fact, if a veteran were to seek
Social Security benefits for disabilities suffered during military
service, the veteran would be permitted to hire an attorney--while the
same veteran seeking benefits from VA for the same disabilities would
be prohibited from hiring an attorney based on this remnant of an
ancient policy.
The paternalistic restriction that prevents veterans from hiring
counsel may have been advisable 150 years ago, but--as one veterans'
organization recently testified before the Veterans' Affairs
Committee--there is now no logic to it ``except history.'' It has
endured for far too long and it is now time to embrace Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes' admonition that it is ``revolting'' for a law to
persist ``in blind imitation of the past.'' It is time to repeal this
archaic law and to allow our Nation's veterans the option of hiring
counsel.
Having said all that, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting
that attorneys should be considered necessary in order to obtain VA
benefits. Above all, we must ensure that the system continues to serve
veterans in a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial manner--regardless of
the presence of an attorney or any other representative--and we must
strive to reduce the complexities of this vast system. I hope that
veterans' organizations across the country will join me in pursuing
those goals.
I also want to be clear that, although I believe veterans should have
the option to hire attorneys, they should not be discouraged in any way
from utilizing the free services now provided by many dedicated
representatives of veterans' service organizations. Those
representatives are an important and valuable resource that veterans
and their families will undoubtedly continue to rely on for many
generations to come. The availability of this resource, however, is no
reason to restrict veterans' access to other options. If a veteran
would rather hire an attorney, we should not stand in the way.
At the same time, however, we should ensure that anyone who
represents a veteran is held to the highest standards of professional
and ethical conduct and that any fee charged to a veteran is patently
reasonable. To that end, this legislation will allow veterans the right
to hire an attorney at any time and it will heighten the expectations
on all individuals who represent veterans.
Specifically, this legislation will allow VA to ensure that all
attorneys who practice before VA have adequate training or experience
in this specialized area of law to competently represent veterans and
that they conform to specified standards of ethical and professional
conduct. It would also allow VA to ensure that all veterans'
representatives are honest, professional, and law abiding; that they
avoid further delaying or complicating the system by presenting
frivolous claims or arguments; and that they conduct themselves with
due regard for the non-adversarial nature of the system.
For veterans who opt to hire an attorney, this legislation would
provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with authority to reduce any
attorney fee if it is excessive or unreasonable and with authority to
set restrictions on the amount of fees that could be charged in any
case before VA. Finally, in order to avoid any drain on existing VA
resources, VA would have authority to impose on attorneys a
registration fee to defray any costs associated with allowing them to
practice before VA.
In sum, this legislation will take measures to ensure that the
interests of veterans will be protected, while allowing them to decide
for themselves whether they want to hire a lawyer. I ask my colleagues
to support this groundbreaking legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2694

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Choice of
Representation Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION IN VETERANS BENEFITS CLAIMS
CASES BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.

(a) Qualifications and Standards of Conduct for Individuals
Recognized as Agents or Attorneys.--
(1) Additional qualifications and standards for agents and
attorneys generally.--Subsection (a) of section 5904 of title
38, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) The Secretary may prescribe in regulations
qualifications and standards of conduct for individuals
recognized under this section, including the following:
``(A) A requirement that, before being recognized, an
individual--
``(i) show that such individual is of good moral character
and in good repute, is qualified to render claimants valuable
service, and is otherwise competent to assist claimants in
presenting claims; and
``(ii) has such level of experience and specialized
training as the Secretary shall specify.
``(B) A requirement that the individual follow such
standards of conduct as the Secretary shall specify.
``(3) The Secretary may prescribe in regulations
restrictions on the amount of fees that an agent or attorney
may charge a claimant for services rendered in the
preparation, presentation, and prosecution of a claim before
the Department.
``(4)(A) The Secretary may, on a periodic basis, collect
from individuals recognized as agents or attorneys under this
section a registration fee.
``(B) The Secretary shall prescribe the amount and
frequency of collection of such fees. The amount of such fees
may include an amount, as specified by the Secretary,
necessary to defray the costs of the Department in
recognizing individuals under this section, in administering
the collection of such fees, in administering the payment of
fees under subsection (d), and in conducting oversight of
agents or attorneys.
``(C) Amounts so collected shall be deposited in the
account from which amounts for such costs were derived,
merged with amounts in such account, and available for

[[Page S3898]]

the same purpose, and subject to the same conditions and
limitations, as amounts in such account.''.
(2) Applicability to representatives of veterans service
organizations.--Section 5902(b) of such title is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) An individual recognized under this section shall be
subject to suspension under section 5904(b) of this title on
the same basis as an individual recognized under section
5904(a) of this title.''.
(3) Applicability to individuals recognized for particular
claims.--Section 5903 of such title is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Suspension.--An individual recognized under this
section shall be subject to suspension under section 5904(b)
of this title on the same basis as an individual recognized
under section 5904(a) of this title.''.
(b) Additional Bases for Suspension of Individuals.--
Subsection (b) of section 5904 of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and sections 5902 and 5903 of this
title'' after ``under this section'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) has failed to conduct himself or herself with due
regard for the non-adversarial nature of any proceeding
before the Department;
``(7) has presented frivolous claims, issues, or arguments
to the Department; or
``(8) has failed to comply with any other condition
specified by the Secretary in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary for purposes of this subsection.''.
(c) Repeal of Limitation on Hiring Agents or Attorneys.--
Subsection (c) of section 5904 of such title is amended by
striking paragraph (1).
(d) Modification of Requirements to File Attorney Fee
Agreements.--Such subsection is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); and
(2) in that paragraph, as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``in a case referred to in paragraph (1) of
this subsection'';
(B) by striking ``after the Board first makes a final
decision in the case'';
(C) by striking ``with the Board at such time as may be
specified by the Board'' and inserting ``with the Secretary
pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary''; and
(D) by striking the second and third sentences.
(e) Attorney Fees.--Such subsection is further amended by
inserting after paragraph (1), as redesignated by subsection
(d)(1) of this section, the following new paragraph (2):
``(2)(A) The Secretary, upon the Secretary's own motion or
at the request of the claimant, may review a fee agreement
filed pursuant to paragraph (1) and may order a reduction in
the fee called for in the agreement if the Secretary finds
that the fee is excessive or unreasonable.
``(B) A finding or order of the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) may be reviewed by the Board of Veterans'
Appeals under section 7104 of this title.''.
(f) Repeal of Penalty for Certain Acts.--Section 5905 of
such title is amended by striking ``(1)'' and all that
follows through ``(2)''.
(g) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect six months after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe the
regulations, if any, to be prescribed under the amendments
made by subsection (a) not later than the date specified in
paragraph (1).
(3) Claims.--The amendments made by subsections (b), (c),
(d), and (e) shall apply to claims submitted on or after the
date specified in paragraph (1).
______

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2695. A bill to provide for Federal agencies to develop public
access policies relating to research conducted by employees of that
agency or from funds administered by that agency; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend Senator
Lieberman in introducing legislation that will ensure U.S. taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely, and will help enhance America's ability to
compete in the global economy.
Each year, our Federal Government invests more than $55 billion on
basic and applied research. That s roughly 40 percent of the current
two-year budget for my home State of Texas.
The bulk of this money is spent by approximately 10 agencies,
including: the National Institutes of Health, National Science
Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of
Agriculture. These agencies use the money to fund research which is
usually conducted by outside researchers working for universities,
healthcare systems, and other groups.
Most of the time, researchers will publish the results of their work
in an academic journal. The NIH, for example, estimates that roughly
65,000 articles are published each year that report on research either
partially or entirely funded by NIH.
Unfortunately, as it stands now, most Americans have little--to no--
timely access to this wealth of information, despite the fact that
their tax dollars paid for the research. Some Federal agencies, with
the NIH chief amongst them, have taken some very positive steps in the
right direction to require that these articles reporting on government-
funded research be freely available to the public in a timely manner.
In fact, today marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation
of a ground breaking public access policy at NIH developed by Director
Elias Zerhouni. I thank Dr. Zerhouni and his colleagues for their
leadership on this important issue and for energizing this debate.
While Dr. Zerhouni and NIH have made strong progress, Sen. Lieberman
and I believe more must be done, not only at NIH and in medical
research, but throughout the Federal Government and the sciences in
general.
That is why today we are introducing the Federal Research Public
Access Act of 2006, legislation that will refine the work done by NIH
and require that the Federal Government's leading underwriters of
research adopt meaningful public access policies.
Our legislation is a simple, common sense approach that will advance
the public's access to the research it funds. We hope this access will
help accelerate science, innovation, and discovery.
Under our bill, all Federal departments and agencies that invest $100
million or more annually in research will be asked to develop a public
access policy. Each policy will require that all articles that result
from federal funding be deposited in a publicly accessible archive no
later than six months after publication.
Our bill simply says to all researchers who seek government funding
that we want the results of your work to be seen by the largest
possible audience. It will ensure that U.S. taxpayers do not have to
pay twice for the same research--once to conduct it, and a second time
to read it.
This legislation is an opportunity for our government to better
leverage our investment in research, and to ensure a greater return on
that investment, which is all the more important given the current
budget situation. By sharing this information quickly and broadly with
all potential users, we can advance science, accelerate the pace of new
discoveries and innovations, and improve the lives and welfare of
people at home and abroad.
All Americans will be positively affected as a result of this bill:
patients diagnosed with a disease or condition will be able to use the
Internet to access the full text of articles containing the latest
information on ent and prognosis; students at small institutions will
have equal access to research articles they need to complete
assignments and further their studies; researches will have their
findings more broadly and more quickly disseminated, possibly sparking
further discovery and innovation
The Internet has dramatically altered how the world gathers and
shares information. The Internet gives the homemaker in Houston the
ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical diagnosis
given to a family member. It allows a young community college student
in rural West Texas--a great distance from the nearest research
library--to learn the latest in scientific discovery and hopefully spur
him to continue his studies.
While a comprehensive competitiveness agenda is still in the works,
ensuring greater access to scientific information is one way we can
help bolster interest in these important fields and move this issue
forward while at the same time helping accelerate the pace of discovery
and innovation. Through this legislation, I hope to ensure that
students, researchers, and every American has access to the published
results

[[Page S3899]]

of federally funded research, and I ask for my colleagues' support.
______

By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Coleman, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 2696. A bill to extend all of the authorizations of appropriations
and direct spending programs under the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 until after implementing legislation for the
Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization negotiations is
enacted into law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, America has the safest, most abundant,
best tasting, and least expensive food supply not only in the world,
but in the history of the world. There are a lot of good people in the
food and fiber production industry who deserve credit for that. But the
heart of food production in the United States and the world and the
center of the rural communities that produce our food and fiber, is
none other than the American family farmer and rancher.
I want to assure everyone here of this. There are a lot of us in
Congress and in the country that believe in agriculture; we intend to
continue supporting policies that help farmers; and we're not going to
apologize to anyone for doing it, especially foreign countries that are
not negotiating in good faith with the United States through the WTO.
When I am in Missouri, I hear strong support for the current farm
bill. Producers all over the State tell me that they like the programs
created in the farm bill and they want to see it extended, especially
when we have the uncertainty of the current WTO negotiations hanging
over the head of our domestic agriculture industry.
It would be unfair to our nation's agriculture producers to write a
new farm bill in the midst of ongoing international trade negotiations.
Today, Senator Lincoln, and I, with a number of other members, filed
legislation to extend the current farm bill until the Doha round of
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations is complete.
Our Nation's farmers and their lenders should not be asked to operate
under rules that keep changing. We must have fair global trading rules
in place before we write the next farm bill. A farm bill extension is a
reasonable and sound approach.
Everyone knows that safe food is abundant in the United States.
Farmers and farm workers constitute 2 percent of the total workforce in
the United States, yet they help feed the entire world. Unfortunately,
some people in Washington believe that we spend too much in securing
that safe and abundant food supply.
What does this safe and inexpensive food supply cost the Federal
taxpayer? In the United States, domestic support programs amount to \3/
4\ of one per cent of the total Federal budget. For \3/4\ of one per
cent our farmers are able to sustain an agriculture industry that
produces 25 million jobs and 3.5 trillion dollars in economic activity.
For three quarters of one per cent of the Federal budget, Americans
have a hedge against ever being held hostage to food imports the way we
are now held hostage to energy imports. Where would our security be
without the American family farm? What would it mean for the United
States if our family farmers went out of business, and foreign powers
could threaten our food as they now threaten our energy? Do we want to
rely on Brazil for food the way we rely on Venezuela for oil?
I believe the best way to continue support for this strong sector of
our economy is to extend the farm bill until we have a WTO agreement
that is good for American agriculture. I do not believe that we should
negotiate with our trading partners and against ourselves.
As George Washington wrote in 1796, ``Agriculture is of primary
importance. In proportion as nations advance in population and other
circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent, and
renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public
patronage.''
America will be more than ever what George Washington predicted in
1788 it would be: the ``storehouse and granary for the whole world.''
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would extend the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill until our
trading partners in the WTO have at least matched our commitment to
level disparities in global agriculture trade. I would like to thank
Senator Talent for working with me on this important piece of
legislation to farm families in my State of Arkansas and across the
Nation.
This legislation would extend our current farm bill until one year
after implementing legislation for a WTO Doha agreement is enacted.
Then . . . and only then . . . will Congress know what to expect of our
trading partners and what our trading partners expect from us.
Four years ago, President Bush, after some noted reluctance, signed
into law the 2002 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee and a farmer's daughter, I played an active role in that
debate and was pleased with the outcome, which I view as a compromise
between many different interests. Most importantly, I view it as a
contract between the farmers in my State of Arkansas and their
government. It is meant to offer what little certainty can exist for
those who choose to make a living providing the safe and affordable
food supply which we as Americans depend on. Unfortunately, certainty
is something that's hard to come by in farm country these days.
This Administration has repeatedly asked Congress to cut funding or
make structural changes to the 2002 Farm Bill, regardless of the fact
that CBO estimates it has come in approximately $13 billion cheaper
than anticipated.
This Administration has also refused to provide emergency assistance
to agriculture producers, despite the fact that farmers across the
Nation faced weather-related disasters of all kinds and record high
fuel and fertilizer costs in 2005. A wet spring, followed by extreme
drought and rising fuel prices, cost farmers in my State $923 million
last year. In Arkansas, where one in five jobs is tied to agriculture,
this impacts the entire State economy.
All the while, producers wait and watch as U.S. negotiators offer
proposals in the WTO that would require drastic reductions and changes
in our farm support, while our trading partners continue to protect
their markets with tariffs and subsidies far higher than we have in the
U.S.
I am tired of waiting, and so are my farmers. Very little was
accomplished at the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong, and trade officials
recently announced that the April 30th deadline for reaching a
negotiating framework would pass without progress. The 2002 Farm Bill
is set to expire in September of next year, and we are no closer to an
agreement in the WTO than we were one year ago.
No doubt our trading partners are quite content to take the wait and
see approach. This Administration has made it quite clear that it
supports drastic changes to our farm policy, with or without an
agreement in the WTO. Our trading partners are demanding that we
dismantle our farm program . . . meanwhile they do little to nothing to
show that they are willing to do the same. Why would they?
This Administration is sending them the very clear message that they
agree with them . . . and envision 2007 as the year to make those
changes. If that is the case, what incentive then do our trading
partners have to come to the negotiating table at all? More
importantly, what does it say about our negotiating priorities if we
are simply negotiating with ourselves?
Some may argue that we must change our agriculture policy to avoid
further litigation against our farm programs by WTO countries. But
without a completed WTO agreement, like the one negotiated in the
Uruguay Round, how are we expected to write new farm policy that is
compliant? Compliant with what?
In my view, and I think many of my colleagues agree, the best course
of action is to extend the current farm bill until we know the rules of
the road. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, with
jurisdiction over international trade . . . and as a farmer's daughter
who understands full well the importance of international markets to
the U.S. agriculture industry . . . I am introducing this legislation
to send a message to our friends in the WTO. We will not negotiate by
ourselves . . . we

[[Page S3900]]

will not make wholesale changes to our domestic policies until we know
that you are willing to do the same.
So long as we maintain the status quo in our international trade
agreements, then we should maintain the status quo with regard to our
domestic farm policy as well. That is the type of message that I wish
our trade negotiators were sending to our trading partners. And that is
the message that I hope our trading partners receive today. That is the
type of certainty that America's farmers need and deserve.
The legislation Senator Talent and I introduce today will provide
this certainty to our farming communities and send a strong signal to
our trading partners. Congress will not make drastic changes to our
farm policy without a meaningful agreement in the WTO.
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Obama):
S. 2697. A bill to establish the position of the United States
Ambassador for ASEAN; to the committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce ``The U.S.
Ambassador for ASEAN Act'', which signals the importance of bolstering
the U.S.-ASEAN relationship for our mutual benefit.
ASEAN was originally established in 1967. The founding Members,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, remain as
anchor participants of ASEAN today. Overall membership has expanded,
with ten countries now comprising ASEAN.
Over the years, ASEAN has contributed to regional stability in East
Asia and has partnered with the United States to combat global terror.
In addition to promoting regional peace and stability, ASEAN is
committed to accelerating economic growth, social progress, and
cultural development.
ASEAN is the third largest export market for United States products,
and has received approximately $90 billion in direct investment from
U.S. sources. Nearly 40,000 ASEAN students are studying in the United
States.
The United States maintains bilateral relationships with the ASEAN
Member countries. However, as ASEAN develops an integrated free trade
area and addresses matters of common concern with the United States--
ranging from environmental and financial challenges to avian influenza
and terrorism--it is appropriate for the United States to enhance its
overall relationship with ASEAN.
With this in mind, my legislation establishes the position of U.S.
Ambassador for ASEAN, subject to advice and consent of the Senate. I
believe this initiative will be an important step in advancing an
already positive relationship. In addition, I am hopeful that once the
position is established, the U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN will help
facilitate ongoing implementation of the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced
Partnership, announced last November by ASEAN leaders and President
Bush.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Salazar):
S. 2698. A bill to establish the Granada Relocation Center National
Historic Site as an affiliated unit of the National Park System; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to
designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a
National Historic Site in Colorado.
The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado
between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an
important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the
1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used
it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the
``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was
settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado
and endured a move further west for expansion.
The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp
Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as
important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten
interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the
United States government during World War II as a place to house the
Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp
Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John
Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became
its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess
tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and
hospital.
While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an
important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our
own history.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2699. A bill to promote the research and development of drugs
related to neglected and tropical diseases, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduced with my colleague,
Senator Lieberman, the Elimination of Neglected Diseases Act of 2006.
This legislation is designed to confront and combat a group of
dangerous parasitic diseases that together claim more than 500,000
lives each year and adversely affect millions more. These 13-15
neglected tropical diseases, NTD, as they are called, are the most
common infections in the developing world, and include such
debilitating diseases as leprosy, guinea worm, and trachoma. Many are
described in the Bible, exposing the sad fact that humans have been
suffering from these diseases for millennia. Moreover, research has
shown alarming rates of comorbidity of NTD's with HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria, resulting in severe complications with these
already devastating diseases.
The biggest challenge to finding cures for these diseases is the lack
of a market. Pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop, and since
neglected diseases disproportionately affect poor and marginalized
populations in the developing world, there are fewer incentives for
conducting research and development for new treatments. The purpose of
this act is to encourage drug development by creating market incentives
for investment in new research. Specifically, the bill awards a limited
patent-term extension or patent-term restoration for certain lifestyle
and tropical disease drugs provided the company successfully develops a
new FDA-approved drug for an NTD. In this way, a drug company can
recoup costs for the large investment in NTD research and development.
With the exception of market incentives, we have all the right
ingredients to develop new drugs that would dramatically reduce the
number of NTD cases and improve the quality of human life worldwide. I
strongly believe that this legislation will add the last remaining step
to jumpstart competitive research and development for combating NTD's.
I urge my colleagues to join in this effort by supporting this bill.

____________________