[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12962-S12980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 3328 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will call up amendment No. 3328 which is 
at the desk, but in the interim, before I actually call it up and make 
it pending, I wish to discuss the Vitter amendment No. 3328. Hopefully, 
in a relatively short period of time, we can actually call it up and 
make it pending.
  This amendment is very simple and very straightforward. In fact, it 
is something this body has seen before on other bills and has strongly 
voted for before. It simply prohibits any funds in this appropriations 
bill from being used to block the reimportation of safe prescription 
drugs from Canada.
  All of us know that sky-high prescription drug prices are a very 
troubling burden every American family faces. Certainly literally every 
family I deal with in Louisiana deals with this issue in some form or 
fashion, often in the context of trying to help elderly parents or 
grandparents or others with very significant prescription drug costs.
  One partial solution to that huge challenge is to allow American 
consumers to buy prescription drugs in person or through mail order or 
the Internet from Canada, because precisely the same prescription drugs 
are available in Canada--in all cases at a dramatically lower cost.
  Unfortunately, in this country we have had Federal law that prevents 
American consumers from doing that in most cases. This amendment and 
other full-blown bills, some introduced by myself, others introduced by 
other leaders on the issue, such as Senators Dorgan and Snowe, would 
lift those prohibitions and allow American consumers their rightful 
access to safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.
  This amendment is being brought on this appropriations bill for a 
very simple and legitimate reason. Under the current administration 
there has been a task force established under the Department of Health 
and Human Services. That task force was specifically established to 
coordinate all Federal Government activity by the administration to 
block reimportation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere. That is 
governed under the Department of Health and Human Services. That is 
organized under that Department which is governed by this bill, so this 
amendment will simply say: No funds in this bill going to the 
Department can be used for that purpose. That task force has to quit 
its operation. None of that money can go to support the activity of 
that task force, which is specifically designed to block American 
consumers from getting safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and 
elsewhere.
  At this point I believe it has been cleared so I wish to formally 
call up amendment No. 3328 and make it pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3328 to amendment No. 3325.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide a limitation on funds with respect to preventing 
   the importation by individuals of prescription drugs from Canada)

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to prevent an individual not in the business of 
     importing a prescription drug (within the meaning of section 
     801(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     381(g) from importing a prescription drug from Canada that 
     complies with sections 501, 502, and 505 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, and 355).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is virtually exactly the same 
amendment I proposed with Senator Nelson to the Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill. That amendment was agreed to in the Senate 68 to 
32 on July 11, 2006, and was subsequently signed into law. More 
recently, this year we came back to the Senate floor with the same 
amendment on this year's Homeland Security Appropriations bill and that 
was agreed to by unanimous consent. So the Senate has spoken. The 
Senate has spoken strongly, by a vote of 68 votes or more, in support 
of what an even larger percentage of the American people want, and that 
is free, unfettered access to safe, cheaper drugs from Canada and 
elsewhere.
  This amendment is very simple. It says none of the funds in this act, 
in this bill before us, can be used to stop Americans from getting the 
safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. The amendment is very 
specific to Canada only.
  This amendment will take us along the path toward full-blown drug 
reimportation. Last year we had success in allowing Americans to carry 
on their person these prescriptions drugs from Canada. This amendment 
would go further and allow that, not only on an individual American 
citizen's person, but also by mail order or the Internet, as long as 
that American citizen is not in the business of wholesaling and selling 
prescription drugs, as long as it is for his or her personal use.
  I hope the Senate, both sides of the aisle come together as we have 
in the past with a strong, overwhelming majority--in the past it has 
been 68 votes or more--and pass this amendment and say enough is 
enough. Let's establish this regime of safe reimportation from Canada 
and elsewhere. Let's push the administration to put forward the safety 
mechanisms that they absolutely have the authority and ability to help 
lower the cost of prescription drugs for all American citizens, 
particularly our seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this amendment.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S12963]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                Ethiopia

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has recently 
passed the Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, H.R. 
2003.
  Although this legislation states that its purpose is to encourage and 
facilitate the consolidation of democracy and security in Ethiopia--
words right out of the resolution--in reality it focuses on the 
shortcomings, on the problems that they face, and not on the successes 
the country has made.
  Ethiopia takes great pride in being the oldest independent country in 
Africa. It continues to be a close friend of the United States, a 
strong ally in the war on terrorism in the Horn of Africa. I have to 
say that this is significant because if you kind of use your mental map 
of northeastern Africa and you think about the terrorist activity that 
has taken place in the Middle East and how it is now coming down 
through the Horn of Africa, through Djibouti and that area into the 
Uganda-Ethiopia area, it is a very significant area right now.
  Now, as many of you know, I have had quite an extensive background in 
Africa. I think I am safe to say that I have been to Africa more than 
any Senator in the history of America. I have been really tied to that 
continent and recognize the significance in the future of our country 
as well as their country. It is an area of strategic importance 
globally to this Nation.
  I have traveled to the country on several occasions, both on my own 
and as a Member of the Senate and the House. A short while ago, I was 
there with Congressman Boozman from Arkansas. Throughout my travels in 
the region, I have met and developed friendships with many political 
and religious leaders.
  In Addis 6 years ago, we found a little baby. The little baby was 3 
days old. The baby was almost dead. It was not unusual. In some 
countries in Africa, they throw away mostly young baby girls. Then 
after about 3 days, when they die, the dogs get them. We were there 
before the dogs got there. I have 20 kids and grandkids of whom I am 
very proud. My daughter Molly had nothing but boys. She always wanted a 
girl. So we were able to take this little girl from Ethiopia and nurse 
her back to health. She had several very close calls. She is healthy 
and has now been here in the United States and is my adopted 
granddaughter. Her name is Zegita Marie, which is a very common name in 
Ethiopia. I say that because I do want to impress upon this group that 
I know something about Ethiopia. I know something about its background. 
I know something about its significance to our safety.
  In Ethiopia, recently, I met with Prime Minister Meles, his wife. I 
met with members of the Parliament and with all the individuals there 
who are trying to do a good job. While there, I saw firsthand their 
democratic progress and commitment in fighting terrorism. Although I 
appreciate the increased attention being given to Africa, particularly 
Ethiopia, I believe the bill is misguided and takes the wrong approach 
by placing demands on a friend and ally that has made obvious 
advancements in democracy and human rights. While I continue to agree 
that the violence and intimidation that took place after the 2005 
election was an unnecessary use of excessive force, the Government of 
Ethiopia has taken significant steps again to regain a democratic 
process that is fair and respectful of human rights.
  On July 20, 2007, following convictions and sentencing, 38 opposition 
leaders were granted full pardons. All remaining members of the 
opposition were pardoned and released on August 18, 2007. Since these 
events, reforms have been made in the election process. So often we use 
America as a standard by which to measure democracy in other countries. 
It is the same problem we have in the Middle East. People say they are 
not reaching the goals we want them to reach, having a democracy in 
Iraq. Why would they? It took this country several years to come up 
with a democracy. Why should they be able to do it?
  The same thing is true in Africa. There are some 52 countries in 
Africa. Just recently have they come into democratization. It has been 
incredibly successful in many of those areas. The United States has 
recognized the ongoing efforts by the Government of Ethiopia and 
continues to play an important role for human rights in Ethiopia. The 
State Department recently hosted a group of opposition political 
leaders and members of Parliament in DC, providing an opportunity for 
dialog and reconciliation. By providing training in public relations, 
human rights and logistics planning and coordination for military 
procedures, the United States is developing the Ethiopian National 
Defense Force into a professional and apolitical machine.
  We need to understand the significance of what is going on right now. 
We made a decision about 6 years ago to help the Africans establish 
five African brigades. They are located in the north, south, east, 
west, and central. It happens that Ethiopia is the headquarters for the 
East African Brigade. This is not something we are imposing upon them, 
but we are saying to them: If you want to do these, we are here to help 
you. Our idea is, as I mentioned, there is a squeeze in the Middle 
East. As terrorism starts going down through Djibouti and the Horn of 
Africa into northeastern Africa, this is an area where if they are 
prepared to take care of themselves, we would not be sending our troops 
there. It is a well-conceived idea. There is no one area in Africa that 
is as significant as northeastern Africa.
  Let me digress a little bit. Go to their next-door neighbor, Uganda, 
northern Uganda. We hear so much about problems in the Sudan and other 
areas. But we don't hear anything about Uganda. In northern Uganda 
there is a butcher by the name of Joseph Knoy who, for 30 years, has 
been mutilating little kids. You have heard about the children 
soldiers. Those soldiers are taken over by these people and trained to 
fight at ages 10, 11, and 12. Then once they learn to be soldiers, they 
have to go back to their villages and murder their parents and family. 
If they don't do that, they dismember them. I have been up there to 
Gulu and other areas, and I have seen that taking place. This is right 
next door. This is what is happening in that region. Ethiopia has been 
our strong ally in the war on terror and stands on the frontlines of 
the conflict in Africa. The growing instability in Somalia and the 
Ogaden region, combined with the unresolved border disputes between 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, creates serious problems. Remember what happened 
the other day. A few weeks ago, we were sending our troops down to 
Mogadishu and the Ethiopians were fighting right there by our side. 
That was not an easy thing for them to do. That endangered them because 
there are many opposition groups who would then go into Ethiopia, and 
they paid dearly for supporting us. But they did so. They have remained 
committed to promoting regional stability and eliminating any staging 
area for al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. In 2006, they sent 
roughly 100,000 troops with us into Somalia, into Mogadishu. We were 
successful in defeating the Islamic coalition. They did that for us. 
Despite these advancements, Somalia remains a continued concern for 
growing extremism and the violence continues to escalate. The Ogaden 
region which borders Somalia is also a growing place of hostility and 
Islamic terrorism. The ongoing insurgency in the region has taken a 
drastic toll on the civilian population, significantly affecting 
commercial trade and humanitarian aid.
  In April of 2007, due to escalating violence, the ENDF initiated a 
campaign against the insurgency in Ogaden. The ongoing border dispute 
between Ethiopia and Eritrea threatens the stability in the Horn of 
Africa. I have talked to Eritrea, trying to get the two parties 
together. It hasn't happened yet. But the Eritrean Government, along 
with extremist organizations in Somalia, is providing support and 
assistance to the Ogaden National Liberation Front. Our friend in this 
fight is clearly Ethiopia. The United States remains concerned about 
human rights violations and the lack of religious and political 
freedoms in Eritrea. The United States will continue to work with 
Ethiopia to bring stability to the region and foster respect of human 
rights and freedom from political or religious persecution.

[[Page S12964]]

  Ethiopia is so significant to the Horn of Africa. It remains an area 
of strategic importance in the war on terror. This area is critical to 
stability of the entire continent of Africa and is a national security 
interest of the United States. Ethiopia continues to be the central 
bulwark in the fight to deter the growth and disrupt the influence of 
Islamic extremism in the region. Our country's strong support of 
Ethiopia during this significant time is imperative.

  In spite of all these successes, in spite of what we have talked 
about and the significance of Ethiopia, I think we have to oppose H.R. 
2003. I have talked to several people who didn't know any differently. 
They didn't object to this. I think it went through on a UC over there. 
But a lot of people couldn't find Ethiopia on a map. I don't think they 
realized the significance. This resolution's idea of encouraging and 
facilitating is to impose restrictions and ultimatums. These punitive 
actions could damage the bilateral relationship between the United 
States and the Government of Ethiopia, as well as derail progress 
Ethiopia has made in furtherance of democracy and supporting human 
rights.
  I fully support the State Department's assessment. Quite often I am 
criticized for coming down here and opposing the State Department. More 
often than not, that is the case. But in this case they are exactly 
right. They say: The bill risks damaging our ability to influence the 
Government of Ethiopia, advance reform, and to deliver effective 
development assistance.
  I will only say, then, this is a success story we have had. I can't 
think of anything worse for the surrounding states, and I would say all 
other 51 countries in Africa, than if we were to punish the very 
country that is being friendly to us, is helping us, fighting with us 
side by side, sending 100,000 troops with American troops down to 
Somalia and working on our side.
  I hope when it comes to this side, if it does come in this form, that 
we will be able to resoundingly defeat it. I look forward to being in 
Ethiopia in about 3 weeks. I will certainly hope that I don't have to 
go over there after having something like this pass the Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3328

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment in a few 
moments. First, I would like to spend a couple minutes talking about 
the amendment that was offered by Senator Vitter. I have a copy of the 
amendment. The amendment deals with the issue of drug reimportation. It 
says:

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to 
     prevent an individual not in the business of importing a 
     prescription drug from importing a prescription drug from 
     Canada that complies with sections 501, 502, and 505 of the 
     FDA Cosmetic Act.

  I don't have any particular problem with this amendment. It says that 
the FDA can't do what it is not doing. So that is largely irrelevant to 
me. It has an appearance of doing something, but it doesn't do 
anything. At the moment, if you are in Grafton, ND, and you go across 
the border to Winnipeg, Canada, and buy prescription drugs and bring 
them across, if you bring across a 90-day supply of prescription drugs 
for yourself, you are not going to have a problem. They allow a 
personal reimportation of prescription drugs because very few Americans 
have the opportunity to drive to Canada to access that. The one area 
where the Vitter amendment would allow reimportation where there needs 
to be some safety attached is with respect to Internet sites. But the 
fact is, those who are now accessing certain Internet sites are doing 
so, and the FDA is not intervening because they don't have the 
capability to intervene.
  We do have a piece of legislation that is bipartisan. Senator Snowe, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, Senator Grassley and myself, many of 
us, helped write the legislation that would allow the reimportation of 
prescription drugs on a much broader basis, in a manner that is 
determined to be safe, where we would actually require Internet sites 
to be registered and inspected. But let me talk about that in just a 
moment.

  Mr. President, I have kept in my desk here in the Senate something I 
want to show by consent. These are a couple of bottles of Lipitor. 
Lipitor is, I think, the most common and perhaps the most popular 
cholesterol-lowering drug. These two bottles contain 20-milligram 
tablets of Lipitor. As you can see, the bottles of Lipitor are 
identical, with the exception of the color--one is blue and one is red 
on the label. Both of these bottles of Lipitor tablets were made in 
Ireland. They put some in this bottle, they put some in this bottle, 
and then they start sending them around. They sent this bottle to the 
United States, and they sent this bottle to Canada.
  Now, understand this: This is an FDA-approved drug, produced in an 
FDA-approved plant in Ireland, sent to our country, sent to Canada--the 
same pill, put in the same bottle, made in the same place, FDA-
approved. Difference? Well, one has a red label, one has a blue label. 
And there is another very big difference: one costs twice as much. 
There is a 96-percent higher price on the one the Americans get to 
purchase. Difference? Well, no difference in the pill, no difference in 
the bottle; it is just the American consumer gets to pay twice as much. 
Now, why is that the case? Well, I could hold up a dozen bottles of 
medicine and describe many popular brand names and tell you exactly the 
same thing.
  In fact, I will tell you a story. Sitting on a bale of straw once at 
the farmstead in central North Dakota on a Sunday afternoon, visiting 
with a group of people, was an 82-, 84-year-old farmer. I was in the 
farmyard visiting with some farmers at an afternoon stop, and this old 
codger, a wonderful old guy, said: ``One of the problems me and the 
Mrs. have had--yes, that is what he said--``One of the problems me and 
the Mrs. have had is being able to afford prescription drugs. My wife 
has been fighting breast cancer for a long time. For the last 3 or 4 
years, she has been fighting breast cancer. And do you know what? Every 
3 months we have had to drive to Canada to buy Tamoxifen to fight her 
breast cancer. Why do we do that? Because we save 80 percent on the 
cost, and that is the only way we can afford to buy the medicine, the 
Tamoxifen for my wife to fight her breast cancer.''
  Isn't that something? This guy sitting on a bale of straw, talking to 
me about what he has to do every 3 months to be able to afford the 
medicine his wife needs to fight breast cancer.
  Now, that is Tamoxifen. We pay, in some cases, 2 times more or 3 
times more for the same medicine, so we then have a woman fighting 
cancer and then fighting the issue of having to pay 2 or 3 times as 
much for the medicine.
  Now, first of all, this is unfair. There is no circumstance under 
which we ought to ask the American people to pay the highest drug 
prices in the world for FDA-approved drugs. It is not fair, and it 
should not happen.
  Now, how does it happen that they can enforce this, the 
pharmaceutical industry can enforce this? Well, they have a law that 
says the only ability to import drugs into this country is by the 
pharmaceutical manufacturer itself, the company itself. They are the 
ones who are able to import. Now, I just mention to you that as a 
matter of practice, they allow a personal supply of drugs to come 
across the border for about 90 days' worth of drugs. They do that. But, 
otherwise, if you are a licensed pharmacist or a wholesaler and you buy 
an FDA-approved drug, you cannot bring it into this country.
  By contrast, let me just describe this: 40 percent of the active 
ingredients in prescription drugs in this country come from China and 
India. Forty percent of the active ingredients in our prescription 
drugs come from China and India.
  Let me tell you another statistic that I think is interesting. In 
this country, we had 1,200-plus inspections of pharmaceutical plants 
that are producing medicines for the American people--1,200 
inspections. Forty percent of the active ingredients for our 
prescription drugs comes from China

[[Page S12965]]

and India, and we have had, in 2006, 16 inspections in China and 62 
inspections in India--1,222 inspections in the United States. Isn't 
that interesting?
  I tell you all that as a bit of history just to say this issue of 
prescription drugs is not new. A bipartisan group of us has worked for 
a long while on this issue, and we are going to win this issue. It has 
taken us longer than we had hoped, but we are going to win this issue 
because it is not fair for the American people to be charged the 
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
  We have so far not been able to prevail, not because someone comes to 
the floor of the Senate and thumbs their suspender and tugs in their 
trousers and puffs out like a puff adder and says: I stand up here for 
the pharmaceutical industry; the American people ought to be charged 
the highest price in the world. Nobody has ever done that. There are 
other ways to try to derail legislation like this. But, ultimately, I 
think we will win. We have a wide bipartisan group of Senators who 
believe we must fix this. Now, how do we fix it? We fix it in a way 
that allows the reimportation of prescription drugs only from FDA-
approved plants, only in circumstances where we apply pedigrees and lot 
numbers so you can track it back. For example, you could not import 
from an Internet site unless that Internet site had been inspected and 
certified to make sure this is a safe source from which to order 
prescription drugs.
  We have a piece of legislation we believe--and almost everyone who 
has testified in hearings believes--solves all of those problems, 
including dramatically increasing the security of all the other issues 
that are now being complained about with respect to counterfeit drugs. 
How does it happen we have counterfeit drugs? Well, it happens because 
we do not have enough inspections. We do not have enough attention to 
these things. We do not have a pedigree requirement. There are a number 
of things our legislation would require. But at that point, we would 
allow the American people to have access to this market and be able to 
shop for an FDA-approved drug from a country in which they pay one-
half, one-fourth, and in some cases one-tenth the price the American 
consumer is charged.
  So let me say, I do not object to the Vitter amendment. I would hope 
they would just take it. It has been offered to other issues. I would 
just say, however, that it really does not do much because it is saying 
to the agency: Don't do what you are not doing. I do not have objection 
to that. But I do want to say this: There is a serious approach with 
respect to prescription drug issues that we need to get about the 
business of dealing with, and we are trying very hard to get it to the 
floor and get it passed. We will get that done at some point soon, in 
my judgment.
  Having said that, I would like to offer an amendment to the 
underlying bill. Before I do, I think this is not only an obligation 
but an opportunity for me to say to Senator Harkin and Senator Specter 
and others who have worked on the legislation that I think they have 
done an awfully good job in putting together legislation that invests 
in people's lives and invests in the health of this country, and I 
appreciate their work a lot. So I just want to say thanks. This is a 
big piece of legislation. It is hard to put together. It is not an easy 
job to carry this to the floor of the Senate, so thanks for what they 
have done.


                Amendment No. 3335 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. President, if there is an amendment pending, I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I might send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3335 to amendment No. 3325.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the State Heart Disease and Stroke 
  Prevention Program of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention)

       On page 59, line 22, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, of which $5,000,000 shall be made available to 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an 
     additional amount to make grants under the State Heart 
     Disease and Stroke Prevention Program''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this issue is not a large issue in the 
context of the bill that has been brought to the floor of the Senate--
it deals with $5 million of resources--but I want to talk just for a 
few moments about it. It deals with the issue of heart disease and 
stroke.
  There is no one in this Chamber, I expect, who has not been affected 
by heart disease in dramatic ways. I lost a beautiful young daughter to 
heart surgery, and I think of her every day. I have dedicated a lot of 
my time and interest in working with the American Heart Association and 
many others to find the resources to continue to invest in the research 
and unlock the mysteries of this terrible disease.
  It is estimated that about 80 million American adults--1 in 3 males 
and females--suffer from heart disease. It is estimated that an 
American dies from cardiovascular disease every 35 seconds in this 
country. It has a very steep price tag. I know it. My family knows it. 
Perhaps, I would guess, every Member of the Senate knows it from having 
lost a friend, an acquaintance, a family member. The medical expenses 
attributable to heart disease in this country are about $430 billion a 
year, including lost productivity. But the good news is that this is 
one of those diseases where we have made substantial progress. In the 
past 50 years, the fight against heart disease and stroke has been 
pretty remarkable.
  I recall Senator Harkin, and myself, and Senator Specter--I think 
there were five or six or seven of us who decided we were going to 
double the investment in the National Institutes of Health. As I 
recall, about then we were funding it at around $12 billion a year. A 
group of us decided: What better investment in this country's future 
than to decide to double the amount of money at the National Institutes 
of Health to research and to discover opportunities to cure these 
terrible diseases and treat these awful diseases. I am so proud of what 
has been done. It is pretty remarkable.
  I heard this morning at a hearing over in the Commerce Committee 
something I have heard so often that I am so sick and tired of. One of 
our colleagues said there is nothing the Federal Government does that 
is really worth anything, nothing the Federal Government manages that 
ever works out.
  Well, let me tell you something. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the 
significant people who engaged in something that, by the way, came from 
earmarked funding, started here in the U.S. Congress, right here in the 
U.S. Senate, the Human Genome Project. Do you know that? As a result of 
the Human Genome Project, we now have unlocked the mysteries of the 
genetic code. We now, for the first time, have an owner's manual for 
the human body. Do you know what that means? Well, not a lot of people 
understand it every day, but every single day, scientists and 
researchers are understanding those genetic codes and making giant 
strides in beginning to find cures for diseases.
  Dr. Francis Collins came back from Cambridge, England, about, oh, 
maybe 2 months ago, and I saw him at Dulles Airport when he landed. He 
had gone for a conference in England about how the researchers were 
using the genetic information from the Human Genome Project. He said: I 
thought it was going to take much, much longer. What is going on now is 
breathtaking in using the Human Genome Project to find the opportunity 
to treat and to cure some of these diseases. He said it is 
breathtaking.
  That is the Federal Government. This is a civil servant, by the way. 
As to the research that is going on at NIH, these are people on the 
Federal payroll. So to my colleagues who think nothing works, let me 
just tell you something: There is only one place on Earth where the 
Human Genome Project reached success. And, yes, it was a collaboration, 
but we did it. It is going to improve lives, and it is going to unlock

[[Page S12966]]

the mysteries of terrible diseases. It was a good thing to do.
  But my point is, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter were two--and I 
think Senator Feinstein--and I was one who decided we were going to 
double the research funding at the National Institutes of Health. Guess 
what that has done for this country. It allows me to stand here and say 
we are making great progress on heart disease. We really are. The 
survival rates for cancer are up. So we are making progress.
  The reason I wanted to offer this amendment is this amendment deals 
with heart disease and stroke. We know the risk factors for heart 
disease and stroke. We know if you understand the risk factors, you can 
substantially reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke--by not 
smoking, by maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding diabetes, high 
blood pressure, high cholesterol. We know you can do that. In fact, by 
taking these steps, individuals often can add 10 years to their lives. 
So we have made some progress by making investments. There is a long 
way to go. We have 105 million Americans who have high cholesterol and 
72 million Americans have high blood pressure, so we have to do a much 
better job of educating the public about cardiovascular disease. That 
is the goal of what is called the State Heart Disease and Stroke 
Prevention Program at CDC.

  What I have offered, very simply, as I close, is a $5 million 
addition to the State Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program at 
CDC. It is a program that works. We know it works. It needs this 
additional funding to make it more widely available. This initiative 
will help States create the programs, the private-public sector 
partnerships, that will help individuals in controlling blood pressure, 
lowering cholesterol, and learning the signs and symptoms of heart 
disease and stroke.
  This is a program that we know works. I am hoping that finding an 
offset, which I have suggested in my amendment, would allow us to 
accept the amendment. I did not intend to take quite this length of 
time, but I needed only to say to Senator Harkin and Senator Specter 
how much I appreciate their work, and my hope is that having highly 
complimented them, they will be motivated to accept this amendment. I 
compliment them even if they do not accept it, but I have high hopes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
his longstanding effort to give our consumers a better shake when it 
comes to drug prices in this country. I also thank him for all of his 
help and support over the years for funding for NIH. I know of his 
intense interest, of course, in heart disease. The amendment is a good 
amendment. It is one I can support. We are trying to work it out now, 
of course, in terms of the offset. Our staffs will be working on it and 
hopefully we will be able to have that worked out.
  Hopefully we can set this amendment aside for right now and move on 
to other amendments, but I assure my friend from North Dakota we will 
get this worked out one way or the other.
  Also, on the Vitter amendment, I understand we don't have a clearance 
on that either at this time, so I ask to set that aside also so we can 
move on with other amendments.


                Amendment No. 3336 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself 
     and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3336 to amendment 
     No. 3325.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funding for a feasibility study on the child abuse 
                         and neglect registry)

       On page 64, line 5, insert before the period the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $500,000 shall be available to 
     complete a feasibility study for a National Registry of 
     Substantiated Cases of Child Abuse or Neglect, as described 
     in section 633(g) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
     Safety Act of 2006 (Public law 109-248), and the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall submit the report described 
     in section 633(g)(2) of such Act not later than 1 year after 
     date of enactment of this Act''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me quickly give the background on 
this. In May of 2007, Senator Kyl, Senator Dole, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Lott, and myself sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, the Secretary of 
HHS. We pointed out that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act 
was passed in July of 2006. Pursuant to that act, there were to be two 
registries set up. The first registry was to be located at the 
Department of Justice and it would require the establishment of a 
national sex offender registry which would track details of convicted 
sex offenders and make the information electronically available to 
authorities in all jurisdictions, and even the public at large. This 
registry is up and functioning.
  The second registry authorized by the new law was a national registry 
of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. That was directed to 
be located at the Department of Health and Human Services. This 
registry is a different but equally vital resource intended for child 
protection authorities only. Believe it or not, each State already 
collects information on substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, but 
once an investigation is under way, adult perpetrators of violence or 
neglect on children need only to move to another State to escape, and 
this is the difficult part, because there may be no trace, no record 
kept that the new State can easily access. In this way, some children 
may never escape abuse in their own home, because the offender can 
simply move.
  Essentially what we have in this amendment is a request for funding 
of $500,000 to complete the necessary feasibility study which is the 
first step to the establishment of a national child abuse registry. I 
have spoken to the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin. I submit 
this on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself. I haven't had a chance to 
talk to the others--Senators Boxer, Lott, and Dole--but I am sure they 
would be associated with this as well. It is $500,000 for the 
feasibility study, and my hope is it can be accepted.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California again 
for her championing this issue for a long time. This amendment from 
Senator Feinstein will provide funds for a feasibility study so no 
offset is needed since funds are set aside within the existing total 
for HHS general departmental management. The Adam Walsh Child 
Protection Safety Act of 2006 required the Secretary of HHS to create 
an electronic national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse 
and neglect. They have not yet created that registry. There have been 
some problems that have been raised about this, and the feasibility 
study amendment Senator Feinstein has offered will address several 
implementation concerns regarding the establishment of the registry.
  So again, I support the amendment. We can accept it. I believe it has 
been cleared on both sides, so we will accept the amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking 
member. It is my understanding that--we were told, at least--HHS 
couldn't do this because they didn't have the money, so this would make 
that money available and hopefully we will get it. So I thank the 
Senator very much.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, the $500,000 will get the job done.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3336) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S12967]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alabama 
is going to speak. He was kind enough to let me make these comments 
since we are on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in the field of 
health. There are a lot of provisions in this appropriations bill that 
are absolutely necessary.
  On the subject of health, we have a critical vote that is being taken 
tomorrow in the House of Representatives. It is on the question of the 
override of the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. This is a plan that was established about 10 years ago, 
recognizing that there are children whose health care needs are not 
paid for by Medicaid because their parents earn too much money to 
qualify for Medicaid but whose family incomes for those children are 
such that they are not high enough for the family to afford health 
insurance for their children.
  What is the cost to society down the road if children's health is not 
addressed in those early years and medical complications are manifest 
in later years? Ultimately, the cost to society overall is much 
greater. So it makes good common sense, even good common financial 
sense, that we try to address health care needs for children, and that 
is an appropriate role for the Federal Government to assist if the 
parents of those children cannot afford that health care.
  That is what the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, is all 
about. There are different people who handle it different ways in 
different States. In my State of Florida, we recognized this was a 
problem, and we set up what was called the Healthy Kids Program under 
Federal law, of which there was a program to expand health insurance 
distributed through the schools so we had a point of contact--with an 
eligibility of the child according to their eligibility in the School 
Lunch Program--which was a determination of whether the child met that 
family income level. It was a tremendously successful program before 
this Federal program was ever set up 10 years ago.
  Now we are at the moment of truth of whether we are going to 
reauthorize this program and whether we are going to expand it.
  There are, for example, in my State of Florida, 700,000 children who 
are not covered by health insurance. This new program of expansion to 
cover the 6.6 million currently enrolled kids, plus another 3.2 million 
kids--a modest increase--is only going to cover about 350,000 to 
400,000 more in my State of those 700,000. It is not going to get all 
the kids, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
  Back in that early program, before this Federal program was set up, I 
was the chairman of the board of the Healthy Kids Corporation that 
reached these children. Time after time, we would have parents come to 
us in tears to what this program had done for that child who had this 
or that malady and that because they had health insurance, in a lot of 
cases, through preventive care, they diagnosed that malady and got the 
proper treatment for the child.
  There is nothing like the agony of a parent who cannot provide the 
health care for their child because they cannot financially afford it, 
and that is what this program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
set out to do.
  In the course of the debate on this legislation, and if the House of 
Representatives tomorrow overrides the veto, it is going to come to us. 
I think we have the number of votes in the Senate to override. There 
will be a lot of speeches about the legislation. It is amazing to me 
the number of misstatements that have been made about this bill and the 
likes of respected Senators, such as Senator Grassley of Iowa and 
Senator Hatch of Utah, have come to this Chamber and pointed out that 
misinformation and those misstatements about this bill. There are 
misstatements even coming out of the White House in the veto message.
  This legislation does not try to substitute adults for children. The 
whole program is about providing insurance for children. Of the 6.6 
million children who are currently enrolled under CHIP, 91 percent of 
them are in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the 
poverty level. That is approximately at or below $40,000 of income for 
a family of four.
  It simply does not provide--and I will not go into the details--this 
is not a program for adults. About the only adults who are going to get 
some care under this legislation are pregnant women. It will allow the 
States the option of providing coverage to pregnant women, but the 
pregnant women are the very women who are about to have the child, and 
we want to make sure she has the help in order to deliver a healthy 
baby.
  These scare stories people throw up about this being for adults--as a 
matter of fact, the reform legislation cracks down on a lot of the 
potential eligibility that the States were allowed to get waivers in 
order to cover adults. This stops a lot of that practice.
  Contrary to what I have heard other people saying, this legislation 
does not provide insurance for families that make over $80,000 a year.
  It becomes clear, it seems to this Senator, that it is common sense 
that when it comes to children's health, that is in everybody's 
interest. No matter whether you come from a red State or a blue State, 
whether you sit on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, 
healthy children is the commonsense interest for us to have for all of 
America.
  I certainly look forward to the House providing an override, and if, 
for some reason, they do not provide that override of the President's 
veto and we get it, that we can do the override, and then we are going 
to have to continue to work to ensure that we achieve a reauthorization 
of this bill that puts the health of our children ahead of partisan 
politics.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           Amendment No. 3324

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments now and 
call up my amendment. I wish to make some comments about amendment No. 
3324. It is an important amendment that deals with an issue that is too 
often overlooked, and I will share my thoughts about it.
  The amendment will restore funding to the Office of Labor and 
Management Standards at the Department of Labor by increasing funding 
at OLMS by $5 million. There is an important principle involved here. 
Union members should have the same protection of their moneys that 
stockholders have in businesses. In many ways, they deserve better 
protection than stockholders.
  The Office of Labor and Management Standards is to union transparency 
and integrity what the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is 
to corporate accountability. Yet for fiscal year 2008, the Senate 
appropriations bill that is now before the Senate funded the SEC at 
$905 million. That is $12 million above the fiscal year 2007 level and 
at the requested level of the President's budget.
  The Office of Labor and Management Standards is the only Federal 
agency created to protect rank-and-file union members. It enforces the 
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which requires 
financial disclosure by labor unions and union officers. It requires 
disclosure, that is all it does.
  This office audits, in addition, union books to detect embezzlement 
and other thefts of union members' dues and ensures fair elections of 
union officers.
  The mission of the OLMS, referred to on this chart, is to provide 
union financial transparency; that is, it would require the officers to 
tell their members how they are spending their money. That is all it 
does. It does not tell them what they must spend it on. It requires 
that they give a fair report of the money they obtain from their 
members.
  It has as its mission to protect union financial integrity. As I will 
point out, we have had quite a problem with that issue over the years.
  It will safeguard union democracy. That is fair elections in unions.
  All those points are important issues. Anyone close to this issue for 
the last 50 years knows we have had constant problems in this area. 
This is popular with the union members and is the right thing for us to 
do.
  This office has been funded at $47.8 million, and it has shown big 
results. It

[[Page S12968]]

is a small agency that is showing big results, and I will talk about 
that point.
  From 2001 to 2007, OLMS investigations have resulted in 796 
convictions--that is since 2001--and have resulted in court-ordered 
restitutions to unions and to union members of $101 million. Those are 
pretty good results.
  I am going to explain in a moment how they are vastly underfunded 
already. We need more. I will go into that issue in a moment.
  Since 2001, OLMS has recovered, as I noted, $101 million. I doubt 
that is all that was stolen. No doubt it is not all that was stolen. 
This is what was actually ordered and recovered in restitution. I would 
say that, by any standard, $101 million is a lot of money.

  Since 2001, the work by OLMS has resulted in convictions and 
restitution, so we are talking about an agency that is working on 
behalf of the American worker, ensuring the American worker knows how 
the union dues they have contributed are being spent. When it is clear 
their money is being abused, OLMS works to fairly return the money to 
them; this is a good program and an important program.
  Embezzlement is not something the American people support. We as a 
Congress are focusing on transparency in a lot of different areas, and 
it is embarrassing that our colleagues have decided to cut funding in 
the one office in the whole Federal Government, the only one, that is 
required to carry out this job with regard to our unions.
  Let me show this chart. As a Federal prosecutor myself for a number 
of years, I have to say I am impressed with these numbers. Since 2001, 
95 percent of indictments that have been produced as a result of OLMS 
investigations have resulted in convictions. That is a pretty good 
success rate. So it is clear they are not picking on people who have 
made honest mistakes or where honest errors are occurring and people 
are doing what they are supposed to do as union leaders.
  In fact, they have offices strategically placed around the country. 
Every union in the country has OLMS employees who live within driving 
distances of their offices. They are ready to help the union leaders 
figure out how to complete any required forms and disclosures. They are 
prepared to assist in any problems that arise in union elections. They 
are a resource and were not created as a punishing tool for unions.
  We are not, as a part of this amendment, and those who support this 
amendment, out to kick labor unions around. We are trying to make sure 
they comply with the law and ensure that the rank-and-file members have 
someone watching out for them and their money. It is clear from these 
statistics that there is still a need for oversight, sunlight, and 
transparency. That is clear. We have a problem out there and it still 
exists. It is painfully clear we need to be monitoring union officials 
who are taking bribes--and some have been convicted of that--who are 
involved in racketeering and stealing hard-earned money from working 
Americans.
  Since 2001, OLMS has been able to audit only 3,275 of the 26,000 
unions on record. They are supposed to be auditing these unions, but, 
in fact, since 2001, they have only been able to audit 12\1/2\ percent 
of the unions on record. I have to tell you, if you do more audits, you 
are going to have less criminal activity. It is when people know they 
are not being watched, know they are not likely to be audited, that 
they take chances and make mistakes and get themselves in trouble and 
cost their union members a lot of money.
  OLMS, in the year 2000, only did 204 audits out of well over 20,000 
unions. That is the equivalent of a union being audited once every 133 
years. Last year, OLMS did 736 audits, which translates into an audit 
every 33 years. So we are doing better, but we are still a long way 
from a regular audit program.
  Now, with the $2 million reduction in funding--and you have a cost-
of-living increase with salaries and electricity and all those kinds of 
things that tend to go up--if you have taken a flat net reduction of $2 
million in funding, there will be approximately 350 fewer audits each 
year. That is about half.
  Shouldn't we be seeking more audits, considering that from the 3,267 
audits that were completed between 2000 and 2007 there came 827 
indictments and 796 convictions? I think so. I think this is a good 
investment for our country.
  Now, in the very few reports OLMS audited, evidence was found in many 
of them that warranted other action. In my home State of Alabama, 41 
audits were completed, and from that came 20 convictions; that is, 
almost half the audits resulted in some conviction.
  Here in the District of Columbia, 30 audits were completed, resulting 
in 27 convictions. One of those was the Washington Teachers Union. Let 
me give that example. On October 23 of last year, in the U.S. District 
Court, Cheryl Martin, the daughter of a former Washington Teachers 
Union executive assistant to the president, Gwendolyn Hemphill, was 
sentenced to a probationary sentence--which she should be most thankful 
for, it appears to me--for her role in an embezzlement scheme which 
defrauded the union of $4.6 million. Right here, just last October. She 
pled guilty to conspiracy to laundering money and for assisting her 
husband Michael Martin in laundering more than $500,000 in Washington 
Teachers Union members' funds, most of which were funneled back to 
Hemphill and the then WTU president, Barbara Bullock.
  Well, that is quite a lot--$4.6 million stolen from only about 5,000 
union members. That is about $1,000 a member. This isn't chickenfeed, 
it is real money. I have heard stories of how some of those very same 
teachers who lost their money through union embezzlement are the same 
ones buying pencils, books, and supplies for their students out of 
their own pockets. So despite what some might say, convicting people 
who steal from unions and seeking restitution is not anti-union 
activity; it is pro-union activity.
  There are many cases such as this that need transparency to come to 
light. Since 2001, the administration, President Bush, and Secretary 
Chao have worked hard to reach consensus on how best to work with the 
unions to get voluntary compliance on disclosure forms that the law 
requires them to make. But, still, many unions are not reporting as 
they are required to do. This chart shows, unfortunately, that the 
compliance rate for unions is only 64 percent, with 36 percent failing 
to comply.
  That is an unacceptable number. If this were the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, we would not accept the fact that our stockholders 
and employees are placed at risk because those entities, those 
corporations, are not being monitored. If it were the Federal Election 
Commission and we didn't submit our financial disclosures on time, 
people would be very critical. Somebody would probably ask that we step 
down from our offices as we would be committing a violation of the law. 
However, we don't seem to be as willing to protect our workers and the 
money they pay in to their unions.
  The way this works here, we have public access when these forms are 
reported, the ones that do, and you can call or go to the Department of 
Labor in person or get online information at www.unionreports.gov and 
review these reports.
  Now, union members care about this. It is most valuable information 
to union members--those people in the town who know the community, they 
know the company, they know the union, they know their coworkers, the 
stewards, the union reps, the employees. By law they are required to 
have this information to see what is being done with the money. Union 
members want to know how their dues are being spent, and it is clear 
they are looking to see how their money is spent.
  Between May of 2006 and May of 2007, in the past year, there were 
767,000 hits on the OLMS Web site, an average of over 2,000 a day. 
People are looking to see how their bosses are spending their money. 
According to a 2004 Zogby poll, 71 percent of union members want 
disclosure. They want to know how their funds are being spent. The 
foundations of this transparency were established in the 1950s when the 
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 was passed.
  Transparency and sunlight--full disclosure of financial gains and 
losses. These are the tenets that Senator Kennedy, John Kennedy, former 
President Kennedy, and the McClellan Commission report, set in place 50 
years ago to

[[Page S12969]]

protect union members, our hard-working Americans, from corruption, 
bribery, coercion, or maybe worse.
  The data shows the actions OLMS is taking in pursuing corruption are 
spot on. They are doing what they should be doing; they just don't have 
enough resources now to do it. They certainly don't need a cut in their 
budget.
  When President Bush took office and Secretary Elaine Chao was 
appointed to be the Secretary of Labor--and she has done a fantastic 
job, in my opinion--they quickly learned that most union members didn't 
even know they had rights or what agency would enforce those rights if 
they were abused. Now there are posters placed at every union workplace 
stating clearly the rights and duties of unions and employees.
  The funding increase proposed in this amendment, which I will be 
offering, I believe is warranted as OLMS is showing substantive results 
that are benefitting rank-and-file members, and providing valuable 
resources to union leaders as so many of them work to uphold the law, 
but they need assistance in doing that correctly. In fact, the 
Department of Labor has gone to great lengths to ensure that labor 
union officials have all the help they need and that the reporting 
requirements are reasonable.
  To make the rules fair, you must sometimes work out problems you have 
and decrease the burden. Over the years, the Secretary has consulted 
with labor leaders, has made the forms easier to understand, has worked 
closely with the AFL-CIO and other unions to create exceptions, 
exemptions, and to simplify reporting requirements where possible. But 
you have to know where the money is being spent ultimately. DOL last 
year added examples and further guidance to one of the forms that is 
required, the LM 30.
  OLMS has been funded below the requested level for the last several 
years. This is beginning to accumulate in a way that is hurting their 
ability to meet their needs. This is the level requested by the 
President to keep this agency on track, and we have been seeing a 
decline in funding. Last year, the budget was $47.753 million. This 
year, the committee bill cuts it by $2 million to $45.737 million. With 
all due respect, I think that is a bad decision. We have a lot of 
increases in this agency. It is a very important agency, but that is a 
major reduction when you see it has continued to fall behind what we 
projected their growth to be.
  This agency has seen difficult times. It does seem to be an issue 
that is political, I have to say. During the Clinton administration, 
OLMS was cut to only 260 employees. Understaffed, the division was 
purposefully and expressly prohibited from even carrying out the 
enforcement duties the law required. This administration has at least 
attempted to restore resources to OLMS so it can carry out its mission. 
Even so, the President's fiscal year 2008 staffing request for only 369 
FTEs--that is full-time personnel--is still below the 1985 level, which 
was 463.
  Now, as you can see, the trend has turned away from providing even 
those resources, resulting in a more substantial cut. It indicates to 
me that if we maintain this level, this Congress is not interested in 
seeing that this agency, the only one in Government empowered and given 
the responsibility of enforcing integrity in unions, would be reduced 
in its ability to do so, to a precarious level indeed.

  In fact, OLMS was the only enforcement agency, the only one in the 
Labor Department, that received a budget cut during the congressional 
markup of that bill. It is the only one in this bill on the floor now, 
the only office at this agency, that got a cut. The Appropriations 
Committee increased the Department's overall budget by $937 million 
above what the President requested for the Department of Labor. The 
only cut in the Department's budget, which totals $10 billion, was an 
$2 million cut for OLMS.
  Senator John F. Kennedy was instrumental in passing this act in 1959 
and the act says that a member:

      . . . must have access to union financial records and has 
     the right to recover misappropriated union assets on behalf 
     of a union when the union fails to do so.

  That is what the act called for. Senator Kennedy spoke on it 
aggressively. Then Senator Kennedy, later President Kennedy, said:

       The racketeers will not like it, the antilabor extremists 
     around the country will not like it, but I am confident the 
     American people, and the overwhelmingly honest rank and file 
     union members, will benefit from this measure for many years 
     to come.

  That was in 1959, almost 50 years ago. He said they will benefit from 
this law for many years to come, and I submit they have: 796 crooks 
have been convicted, $101 million in restitution has been received in 
the last 6 years.
  Senator Robert Byrd, a champion of union rights who, I have to tell 
you--isn't it something? is still a Member of this Senate--he was 
active in this debate. During that time, he got a letter from a member 
of the UMWA in West Virginia. They sent him a letter condemning his 
vote for it.
  Senator Byrd, who still retains great respect in the union 
membership--and leadership, too, for that matter--this is how he 
responded on the floor of the Senate:

       The bill which passed the Congress will not hurt honest 
     unions, and it will give added protection to the rank-and-
     file members in the unions. Honest union leaders have nothing 
     to fear from the legislation . . . the corruption and 
     racketeering that have been revealed in the fields of both 
     labor and management made it imperative that some kind of 
     legislation be enacted.

  I applaud the efforts of OLMS to pursue those who are misusing their 
power over our hard-working union members, those who are using that 
money for their personal benefit, abusing their position by squandering 
the hard-earned dollars of working Americans.
  Let me mention this story about the United Transportation Union. I 
think it highlights what can happen when there is no consistent 
oversight. I have a photograph that was taken in the course of an 
investigation that shows a person handing over money in a corrupt 
transaction. What is happening here is that the money is being given by 
a designated UTU legal counsel named Victor Bieganowski. The person 
receiving the money was John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, a top 
special assistant to Byron Alfred Boyd. Mr. Boyd was president of the 
UTU at the time.
  This picture shows the handing over of the money. There was an 
undercover agent working there and they recorded the deal.
  In 2004, Boyd, the international president of UTU, the nation's 
largest railroad operating union, pleaded guilty to participating in a 
bribery scheme involving Houston lawyers. Union officials extorted 
bribes from the lawyers in exchange for access to union members who 
might have been injured so they could file lawsuits.
  As a March 12, 2004, Houston Chronicle article explains, Byron Alfred 
Boyd, Jr., 57, of Seattle, is the last of four officials of the United 
Transportation Union to plead guilty--he admitted that he did it--in a 
plan to extort bribes from the lawyers in exchange for access to 
injured union members. He admitted using the bribes obtained from the 
lawyers, extorted from lawyers, to gain control of the union. He used 
it for his political strength too. He persuaded former union president 
Charles Leonard Little, 69, to resign in exchange for $100,000 and a 
new pickup, so Boyd could assume the post. He wanted to be president of 
the union. He goes to the former President and offers him $100,000 and 
a new pickup to resign so he could be president.
  Mr. Little should have been a little bit more careful before he 
resigned because when he resigned he never got his money, but he was 
out of office. Little also pleaded guilty last year, as did the former 
union insurance director, Ralph John Dennis, 51. The man in this 
picture, John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, a top assistant to 
Boyd, also pleaded guilty. The indictment alleged that some union 
presidents determined which lawyers were to be included on the union's 
designated counsel list. That position was coveted and very valuable 
because he gave those lawyers easier access to get clients from union 
members who might have been injured. They would therefore be able to 
make a lot of money off lucrative personal injury lawsuits.
  At the time of the indictments, 56 lawyers were on the list, 
including 6 in Texas. Unfortunately, we have example after example of 
this kind of disregard for doing the right thing with the money of our 
hardworking Americans.
  On August 31, let me note, Judy A. Thurman, former treasurer of 
Federated Independent Texas Union Local

[[Page S12970]]

900, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 
of Texas to embezzlement of union funds totaling $164,268.50. That is a 
lot of money.

  We also have election violations. Assisting labor unions when 
problems arise in elections is an OLMS responsibility. One union 
officer generated over 300 phony ballots using the union's computer. He 
marked the ballots for himself--who else, I suppose--placed them in 
false return envelopes and returned them to the union, where they were 
subsequently counted in the election. Those kinds of things are hard 
for an average union member to understand, ascertain or prove. An 
agency such as this, that knows how to investigate and prove these 
things, can make sure our elections in unions are legitimate.
  All of us in this Senate know we have to have good staff, and Liz 
Stillwell, with me, is very much that. So staff capacity at OLMS is an 
important reason I have introduced this amendment. In 1992, staffing at 
OLMS was around 392. During the Clinton administration, it was cut back 
to 260. Today it is back up to 315, which is a little better. As you 
can see from this chart, the cuts have hit the Department hard. As a 
result, they are still unable to audit more than 2 to 4 percent of the 
total unions each year. Only 12 percent of unions have ever been 
audited. Of those audited, there have been 796 convictions. It tells us 
something.
  Let me say this. I spent most of my professional career as a Federal 
prosecutor. I prosecuted labor cases. But let me say, if you don't want 
to have these convictions, if you don't want to have this kind of theft 
from union members, let me tell you how to stop it. Have regular 
audits. Once everybody knows the money is going to be accounted for, 
that somebody is going to be watching closely, they are not going to 
steal. It is when there are no controls that people feel they are out 
on their own in some town or city or wherever, and nobody is looking, 
there is lots of money coming through the headquarters there and they 
have an opportunity to get it and they think no one is going to know 
it--temptation takes over.
  It will happen to anybody, not just union members or business people; 
it could happen to anybody when that kind of money is lying around. It 
happens in churches. People steal from churches. They have an 
opportunity and nobody has an ability to watch and account for it. If 
we want to end this kind of thing and strengthen unions and create a 
better reputation and environment, we need to step up prosecutions and 
we will begin to see a major reduction in crime, fraud, and abuse. That 
is the way it is.
  Since 1959, when Senators Byrd and Kennedy and other leaders passed 
the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, these priorities 
that I mentioned have been the guiding standards of this agency. The 
standards are to promote union democracy, protect union members' funds, 
protect American workers and fight labor racketeering.
  This $2 million cut is not aimed at an anti-union agency. It is, I 
have to say, an act that appears political and it appears it is 
conceding and giving in to union leaders and forgetting the interests 
of union members.
  I know a lot of the union leadership have complained about this law. 
They don't want to have to file a reporting document. They don't want 
to have to put it in--36 percent of them are not getting it in on time 
or at all. But who are we representing? I say we ought to represent 
union members and 71 percent of them want this disclosure; over 700,000 
last year checked their union leadership reports on the Web site to see 
how their money was being spent. What is wrong with that?
  When it was created by Senators Kennedy and Byrd and others, it was 
not to shut down unions, it was to shut down theft, waste, fraud, 
abuse, criminal activity. Of around 26,000 unions active today, only 2 
to 4 percent have been audited each year since 2001; only 12 percent 
have been audited at all. A quarter of the unions audited, 25 percent, 
have been found to be in violation of the law; 75 have been correct, 
were not found in violation. But 25 percent were found in violation. If 
we did those audits more regularly, we would have fewer problems with 
compliance, we would have fewer criminal convictions, we would have 
less restitution to have to be paid as a result of theft and abuse of 
the money.
  This transparency will help us there. When you turn on the lights, 
you can actually see what is going on and take action to fix the 
wrongdoing. So I hope somehow we can work through this.
  I know the managers of this bill have done a tremendous job. They had 
thousands and thousands of people making suggestions on thousands and 
thousands of issues. Then, to have somebody such as me come in and tell 
them this is what I think you ought to do--one more time, I am sure our 
colleagues such as Senator Harkin and Specter get tired of everybody's 
complaining. But I think we ought to work on this. I think this 
reduction in funding cuts from an agency that is actually doing a good 
job.
  We ought to encourage that agency to do a better job and actually 
increase their funding more. So I am asking simply that $5 million be 
put back in, which would bring it a little bit above last year's 
appropriations for the agency so they can at least stay on track of 
inflation and everything to continue at the same level of auditing and 
investigating they are now doing. I wish we could do more. Frankly, I 
wish we would. This would be my suggestion.
  I continue to look forward to perhaps seeing if we could reach some 
sort of accord on this. I ask my colleagues to study it carefully. I 
urge them to vote in support of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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. 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. 3339 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I am offering on 
behalf of Senator Smith of Oregon. I send it to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  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 Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Smith, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3339 to amendment No. 3325.

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

   (Purpose: To provide a technical correction to suicide prevention 
      grants authorized under the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act)

       On page 49, line 19, insert before the period the 
     following: ``Provided further, That Section 520E(b)(2) of the 
     Public Health Service Act shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated under this Act for fiscal year 2008''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a 1-year technical fix requested 
by Senator Smith. These are the State suicide prevention grants 
authorized under the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. It is a simple 
technical correction to enable HHS to issue youth suicide grants to 
States this year. It has no cost. It has been cleared by the 
authorizers on both sides of the aisle, and we are prepared to accept 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3339) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought I might take this bit of lag 
time on the floor while we are waiting for Senators to offer 
amendments--which I hope will happen, if there are amendments; I am not 
trying to encourage any. I am saying if there are

[[Page S12971]]

amendments, Members should come and offer them because now is a good 
time--to talk about the bill and what this debate is all about, why 
this bill is so important. I say that because the President yesterday 
sent down his policy statement and said he was going to veto the bill 
because it spends too much money, that it has to stay within his 
constraints.
  I want to make it clear, we stay within our budget, the budget we 
have, and we have a pay-go budget. We are not adding anything new this 
year. We are severely constraining spending to get out of the deficit 
hole. I want to compare this bill, what we have done on a bipartisan 
basis--this appropriations bill passed our committee 26 to 3, strong 
bipartisan support in the subcommittee and full committee--with the 
President's budget so that Senators who are thinking of how they are 
going to vote on this appropriations bill might have a clearer picture. 
What would happen if we did what the President asked, if we just 
approved the President's budget instead of the bill before us? What I 
want to do is go through it.
  You can tell a lot about a person's priorities on how they spend 
their money. This bill provides a modest increase in programs that help 
people, especially Americans at the bottom rungs of the ladder. It 
helps them to lead meaningful, safe, and productive lives. The 
President wants to cut those programs. He says we are spending too much 
for education, for medical research, for job training. Again, look at 
the amount of money we are talking about. The Senate bill is about $11 
billion higher than the President's budget. That is about 1 month in 
Iraq; we are talking about a full year--1 month in Iraq versus 1 full 
year for education, health, job retraining, all the other items.
  Compared to last year, our Senate bill invests $7.3 billion more than 
last year on education, health, and labor programs. Again, as part of 
our balanced budget plan, we are within our budget constraints. The 
President's budget would cut $3.5 billion from these programs from last 
year. At the same time, he wants to spend up to almost $10 billion a 
month in Iraq.
  Again, let's look at some of the programs we are talking about; for 
example, helping the poor. Two of the most important programs in the 
bill are the community services block grants and the social services 
block grants. States get to use these funds in a wide variety of ways 
to help some of our most disadvantaged citizens. The Senate bill 
provides $2.4 billion for these two block grants. The President's 
budget requested a 50-percent cut in these two programs, a 50-percent 
cut from last year to $1.2 billion. So again, when we are talking about 
programs that help lift people up, we are at $2.4 billion; the 
President says he wants to cut it in half to $1.2 billion. That is one 
clear difference in the President's budget and in what we offer.
  Let's look at medical research. The Senate bill provides another $1 
billion for the National Institutes of Health. That is about a 3.5-
percent increase, and that does not even keep up with biomedical 
inflation. Our bill would increase the number of new research grants by 
about 400. What does the President's budget do? It would cut NIH by 
$279 million. That would slash the budget by 12 percent below where we 
were in 2003--going backward. It would cut the number of new research 
grants by 800. So the President's budget would cut the number of 
research grants by 800; our bill would increase it by 400. Members may 
choose which one they would rather have--the President's budget or the 
Senate bill.
  Let's look at special education. Three decades ago, when we passed 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we said to the States: 
Our goal is for the Federal Government to provide up to 40 percent of 
the additional cost of mainstreaming kids, getting kids into school 
rather than warehousing them in State institutions or not even giving 
them an education. We opened the door for kids with disabilities to go 
to school. But we said our goal was to get up to 40 percent of this 
additional cost. That was 30 years ago. What has happened? I can say 
that time after time we have had a number of votes on the Senate floor, 
usually a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying that we have to put 
more money for special education, we have to get up to that 40 percent. 
The Senate bill increases the State grants by $450 million to help them 
meet the needs of the additional cost of educating kids with 
disabilities. The President's budget slashes $291 million from special 
education.
  What is not on this chart is that is going backward. The high point 
we had was in 2006. In 2006, the Federal Government's percentage of the 
additional cost was about 18 percent. Last year, it went down to 17 
percent. Under the President's budget, it would go to 16 percent. This 
means a lot to our local schools because if we don't put the money in, 
there is only one way they can get it, and that is usually through 
local property taxes which are unfair in most cases.

  Again, what we are trying to do is to meet our goal, our obligation, 
what we said 30 years ago. We put in $450 million, and the President 
wants to cut it by $291 million.
  Let's look at another program, Head Start, a popular program, one of 
the great society programs started by Lyndon Johnson. We always hear 
about how the Great Society failed. No, it didn't. I am sorry. It did 
not. Here is one of the great examples of the successes of the Great 
Society; that is, the Head Start Program. We have a lot of data over 
the years to show that kids who went through Head Start do better in 
elementary school, high school. They go on to lead healthier and more 
productive lives.
  In our bill, we expand Head Start services with an increase of $200 
million. The President's budget cuts Head Start by $100 million, which 
would leave thousands of children behind. The President's budget would 
result in a cut of over 30,000 slots for children in Head Start 
Programs. Again, the President's budget goes backward. We are moving 
ahead.
  Let's look at community health centers. One of the things I had 
always said is that I agreed with President Bush about his goal of 
having more community health centers built and having at least one 
community health center in every poor district. I thought that was a 
laudable goal. I have been supportive of that. Again, the Senate bill 
increases the Community Health Centers Program by $250 million. The 
President neglects the uninsured, people with limited health care 
access. He just says: Keep it where it is, no increase whatsoever. Yet 
we know we need to not only open new community health centers--a lot of 
them are backed up. People want to open new ones, plus the ones that 
are open, because of the increased cost of health services. Medical 
devices, equipment, and all that have higher expenditures as well. We 
need to make sure we keep up with funding of community health centers 
that are open.
  We are also expanding dental services. One of the most important 
parts of community health centers we have found in the last several 
years--maybe decade, decade and a half--is the importance of dental 
care for kids. We have begun to add more and more dental services to 
our community health centers, which has helped a lot of families who 
otherwise cannot afford dental care for their children. That requires 
some extra money as well. We have responded to that by putting in $250 
million. The President keeps it exactly where it is.
  Ours would increase the Community Health Centers Program from $1.99 
billion to $2.2 billion. The President says: Leave it where it is and 
leave a lot of low-income Americans who are uninsured without any 
access to community health centers.
  Another provision in our bill is the home energy assistance program, 
otherwise known as LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. It is a very successful program. The Senate bill maintains 
funding. We should have had an increase, but we are in a budget crunch. 
We couldn't get an increase for it, but at least we held the line. We 
know energy costs are higher now than they have ever been. What does 
the President's budget do? It cuts LIHEAP by $379 billion despite 
record-high energy prices. The President's budget would reduce the 
number of families receiving this assistance by 1.1 million. Again, 
these are the very low income, in many cases low-income elderly who we 
know are cutting back on their food, on medicine, and other things to 
be able to pay heating bills in the wintertime.
  Another issue that is of importance to all of us is Social Security.

[[Page S12972]]

  As I said earlier, we know--every Senator knows; and you can check 
with your State offices, and they will tell you--the caseload for 
people whose disability claims have not been acted on has a backlog of 
several months, a year, a year and a half, in trying to get their 
disability claims approved. Right now, it takes 1\1/2\ years--1\1/2\ 
years--to process a hearing request. In the year 2000, it was 200 days. 
It was 200 days, and now it is a year and a half. The disability claims 
backlog is about 660,000. That is about a 100,000 increase since 2006.
  Recognizing this, we have put a $426 million increase into Social 
Security for hiring more people, to accelerate the hearings decisions, 
and to try to reduce that disability backlog we have now of 660,000.
  The President's budget only put in enough money--$300 million--that 
would allow no hiring, despite the lowest staffing level since 1972. 
With the baby boom generation hitting the disability-prone years and 
closing in on retirement, the President's budget would add almost 
100,000 disability claims to the backlog, so we have put in $426 
million to reduce that backlog.
  Student aid, which is another big part of our bill: The gap between 
the cost of a 4-year public college and the maximum Pell grant has 
increased by over $3,000 since 2002. We increased the amount of money 
for Pell grants to $4,800 to help alleviate that problem. The 
President's budget falls short of that by almost $300, bringing it to 
$4,540--again, very short of the amount needed to offset the cost of 
higher tuition.
  On competitiveness, there are 7 million unemployed and millions more 
not working and not looking, as employers move jobs overseas. They hire 
foreign workers to fill jobs. Well, the Senate bill provides $4.8 
billion for job training, and career and technical education programs 
to enhance the competitiveness of our workforce.
  What does the President's budget do? It undermines U.S. 
competitiveness with a $1 billion cut--a $1 billion cut--in job 
training, a 50-percent cut in career and technical education programs. 
Almost 8 million high school and college students could see career and 
technical education courses disappear because of the President's cuts.
  That is not all that is in our bill. There is more, but I thought 
this kind of highlights the difference between the President's budget 
and what we are trying to do in this bill, keeping in mind, again, that 
our bill is a little over $7 billion more than last year--hardly an 
inflationary increase. We have kept within our budget, within our pay-
go budget. Yet we have been able to get necessary increases, as I have 
outlined.
  The President's budget basically says: No. Give me more money to 
spend in Iraq, to the tune of about $12 billion a month. We are saying 
we only need $11 billion for the entire year, for all the things I 
outlined.
  I think the choice is clear. I think the choice was clear when we 
were in subcommittee. It passed our subcommittee unanimously. It passed 
the full Appropriations Committee, as I said, by a vote of 26 to 3. I 
think it is a good, bipartisan bill. I hope we can bring it to a close 
here in the next day or so.
  I say to my fellow Senators, the floor is open if anyone has any 
amendments. As I said, I am not encouraging them, but I know there are 
some people who do have amendments, and I would hope they might come 
over and offer those amendments.
  With that, Mr. President, 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. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3333 To Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3333.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. THUNE], for himself, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3333 to amendment No. 3325.

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

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the telehealth activities 
          of the Health Resources and Services Administration)

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to any amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under this Act to the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration to carry out programs 
     and activities under the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-251) and the amendments made by such 
     Act, and for other telehealth programs under section 330I of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-14), there 
     shall be made available an additional $6,800,000, to (1) 
     expand support for existing and new telehealth resource 
     centers, including at least 1 resource center focusing on 
     telehomecare; (2) support telehealth network grants, 
     telehealth demonstrations, and telehomecare pilot projects; 
     and (3) provide grants to carry out programs under which 
     health licensing boards or various States cooperate to 
     develop and implement policies that will reduce statutory and 
     regulatory barriers to telehealth.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available under this 
     Act for the administrative and related expenses for 
     departmental management for the Department of Labor, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
     of Education, shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by 
     $6,800,000.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
provide an increase in funding for the Office for the Advancement of 
Telehealth, under the Health Resources and Services Administration. I 
am pleased to say I am joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, 
Crapo, and Conrad.
  I have spent quite a lot of time over the last month debating how to 
increase access to affordable health care in this country. Opinions 
have ranged considerably on this topic, but for most of us the goal is 
the same--it is to find ways at the Federal level to make health care 
more affordable for our constituents back home. Many of us are also 
trying to bring more options to rural areas or even urban underserved 
areas where access to care can be challenging.

  One thing that both sides of the aisle can agree on and have agreed 
on during my time here is on a very similar amendment, and that is 
increasing funding for proven technologies such as telehealth.
  Telehealth is the most effective way to deliver many types of care to 
rural and other populations that have traditionally lacked adequate 
health care access. Many Americans do not live near certain specialists 
or they don't live near affordable specialists. This is certainly the 
case among many small towns in my State of South Dakota.
  Telehealth bridges the gap between these patients and providers by 
enabling doctors and nurses to remotely care for patients, thereby 
raising the standards of care for underserved populations. Telehealth 
also increases patient and provider access to medical information and 
improves training of health care providers. Of course, with increased 
access to care and less need to travel great distances, patients and 
providers save money.
  I wish to share with my colleagues part of a story from an article in 
the Platte Enterprise, a local South Dakota newspaper, and a subsequent 
letter to the editor back in September dealing with telehealth. There 
are many different medical services that can be provided over long 
distances through telehealth technology. The Platte Health Center in 
Platte, SD, already provides some medical specialties through 
telemedicine, including dermatology and infectious disease. Now they 
will also be able to provide mental health services.
  According to the article: Patients can talk to and see a physician on 
the television screen who in turn can see and talk to them.
  In a subsequent letter to the editor from a user of these types of 
telemedicine services, my constituent, Kris Kuipers, describes:

       I recently experienced the use of telemedicine at Platte 
     Health Center Hospital. I thought it was wonderful. One of 
     our local nurses greeted me and explained the operating 
     equipment. It is great because I didn't have to do a thing.

[[Page S12973]]

       I was able to talk with my physician in Sioux Falls who was 
     on the TV screen just like if I were talking to Dr. Jerome 
     Bentz. It was very personable and I didn't have to drive four 
     hours round trip.
       I am very excited that we have this capability here in town 
     and I hope more physicians will catch on to the advantages of 
     using the telemedicine network equipment. I want to encourage 
     you to tell your out-of-town doctors about our tele-med 
     capabilities at the Platte Health Center Hospital. Maybe by 
     word of mouth, other physicians will be encouraged to use 
     this local alternative as a means of providing health care to 
     our rural communities.

  I hear from local providers and patients such as Kris Kuipers very 
often about the benefits of telehealth to rural communities in my 
State. In South Dakota, telehealth technologies are utilized by our 
three major hospital networks: Avera, Sanford, and Rapid City Regional. 
Additionally, many of the rural health clinics who serve the health 
care needs of some of the smallest communities in our State also 
utilize these technologies. These organizations touch more than 40 
different communities, large and small across the State.
  The Office for the Advancement of Telehealth under HRSA is the 
primary tool of the Federal Government to develop telehealth resources 
and to help local providers to develop these resources.
  My amendment will provide additional funding to support existing and 
new telehealth resource centers, including a resource center focused 
specifically on telehomecare; that is, telemonitoring technologies for 
patients who have to have their vital signs checked in the home. These 
resource centers currently help assist the telehealth community in 
breaking down barriers to the adoption of telehealth.
  Additional funding will also support telehealth network grants, pilot 
projects for the development of telehomecare technologies and grants to 
help carry out programs where health licensing boards and States come 
together to reduce their statutory and regulatory barriers to 
telehealth.
  My amendment is very modest. It proposes a $6.8 million increase for 
the Office of the Advancement of Telehealth, or OAT, to fulfill these 
activities which were authorized under the Health Care Safety Net 
Amendments Act of 2002. With this amendment, total funding for OAT 
would be increased to $13.8 million.
  Additionally, this amount is fully offset by a prorated reduction in 
the departmental management accounts of the Department of Labor, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Education.
  The $6.8 million provided by my amendment, while modest, will have a 
significant and positive impact on almost every health activity in this 
wide-reaching bill. Increasing the investment in telehealth is valuable 
and necessary and will help save money for patients and for the Federal 
Government.
  This is a small but important investment in the future of our 
Nation's health care system. I hope the $6.8 million increase, when you 
take it away from all of the various departments that are funded under 
this bill--this is a multibillion dollar bill--is inconsequential in 
terms of the impact that can be had by putting that $6.8 million into 
the advancement of telehealth in this country, making sure that more 
patients and more providers are able to utilize technology to meet the 
health care needs of people in rural and underserved areas across this 
country.
  So I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and help us 
advance this very important initiative.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask that 
the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 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. 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.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota for 
bringing up this important program. As a neighboring State Senator, 
telehealth is a very important part of our State. We have seen the 
savings, as the Senator talked about, that can accrue from this, not 
only in terms of money but in saving the lives of people who live in 
our small towns and communities.
  I have seen firsthand the benefit of telehealth by using the 
fiberoptic network system we have in the State of Iowa. I know of many 
cases where someone was in a car wreck in a small town and they didn't 
know whether they could leave them there in the small clinic or if they 
needed to be air-lifted, and with telehealth and with the fiberoptic 
system, they were able to do some diagnoses and make the decision that, 
yes, the person needed to be removed immediately or, no, they didn't. 
So it does save a lot of money, but it also saves a lot of lives.
  Again, I say to my friend from South Dakota, this program is a 
perfect example of how starved we have been in our account over the 
last few years--how starved we are in this bill. Ten years ago, 
telehealth received $15.8 million in this bill. Over the last 5 years, 
the funding has hovered between $4 million and $6.8 million. So again, 
I have no problems with the amendment. I hope our staffs can work 
together and we can work together to find an appropriate offset. I 
think there may be some things we can work out that will be acceptable 
to both sides on the offset.
  So I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his interest and for 
offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member to work with us on 
this amendment. I know of his interest in this particular area of 
technology of health care, and I appreciate the support. Hopefully, we 
can figure out a way to get more money into this very important account 
because it does they are doing some remarkable things, and particularly 
in the areas the Senator from Iowa and I represent, in the rural areas 
of the country, and the sky is the limit in terms of what I think can 
be accomplished. But we have to make sure it is appropriately funded. 
So I thank the Senator from Iowa for being willing to help out.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3345 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3345 to amendment No. 3325.

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

  (Purpose: To require that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress 
regarding jobs lost and created as a result of the North American Free 
                Trade Agreement, and for other purposes)

       On page 12, line 8, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall submit to Congress a report regarding the impact 
     of the North American Free Trade Agreement (in this section, 
     referred to as the `Agreement') on jobs in the United States. 
     The report shall cover the period beginning on the date the 
     Agreement entered into force with respect to the United 
     States through December 31, 2007, and shall include on a 
     industry-by-industry basis, the information regarding the 
     number and type of jobs lost in the United States as a result 
     of the agreement and the number and type of jobs created as a 
     result of the Agreement.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Brown, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Casey.

[[Page S12974]]

  Mr. President, this amendment calls for a study and a report, and I 
want to describe the purpose of it and why I am offering it today. It 
requires the Department of Labor to determine in a study and report to 
the Congress the number of jobs lost to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement and the number of jobs created due to the North American Free 
Trade Agreement.

  Now, it is interesting. In an October 4 Wall Street Journal article, 
there was a story, front page, with the headline ``Republicans Grow 
Skeptical of Free Trade.'' Republicans grow skeptical of free trade. 
Actually, the story described skepticism by everybody about what is 
called free trade, but it was talking about the politics of it, and so 
the story described a poll which found that by a 2-to-1 margin 
Republican voters believed free trade deals have been bad for this 
country's economy. It turns out that the dissatisfaction with the 
current trade strategy is bipartisan, not just Republican.
  The poll found that 59 percent of polled Republican voters agreed 
with this statement: Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy 
because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods 
and it has cost jobs here at home and produced potentially unsafe 
products.
  The poll also describes that all voters essentially feel this way; it 
is not just Republican voters. But as I indicated, it was trying to 
take a political look at an issue that is very important.
  We are going to have a number of free trade agreements come to the 
floor of the Senate soon. We will have one from Peru, Colombia, Panama, 
and South Korea. It is interesting that the Wall Street Journal 
describes how the American people feel about these trade agreements. I 
think it is not the case that people feel trade is not important. I 
believe in trade, and plenty of it. I just insist that trade be fair.
  I want to go back with this amendment to the North American Free 
Trade Agreement because that free trade agreement dates back almost--
well, it is over a decade now, and we have had substantial experience 
with it. Those who negotiated it--and, incidentally, it was negotiated 
beginning under the first President Bush, concluding under President 
Clinton. He sent it to this Senate, and I, at that point, was one of 
the leaders waging a fight against it. But when it was debated in 
Congress, it was alleged by economists and virtually everybody that it 
would result in the creation of 200,000 new jobs for our country. If we 
would pass this new trade agreement, 200,000 jobs would be created in 
our country.
  Well, what has happened with the trade agreement? Let me describe 
what has happened, and I will describe it in a way that the 
administration and the Commerce Department and Labor Department would 
describe it. They would say what an unbelievable success this trade 
agreement has been. How on Earth would you be critical of a trade 
agreement that has increased our exports from the United States to 
Mexico? It has increased our exports to Mexico. And it has. It sure 
has. But it has increased our imports from Mexico much, much, much 
more. What started prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement as 
a $1.5 billion surplus with Mexico--a trade surplus with Mexico--has 
now become nearly a $60 billion, close to $70 billion trade deficit. So 
it's a trade surplus converted to a big trade deficit.
  Now, I didn't take a lot of higher math, but I understand if you turn 
a trade surplus into a big trade deficit, that is not a positive 
outcome for your country. That is a negative approach, and it means 
lost jobs. It means you are going to have to repay that trade debt with 
a lower standard of living someday.
  In fact, the proponents of NAFTA some years ago relied on a study by 
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott. It was called the Hufbauer/
Schott, and it was the one cited by everybody. They actually said it is 
going to create 170,000 new jobs in our country--net new jobs. That was 
rounded up by the proponents to 200,000. That was going to be nirvana. 
We would pass this trade agreement and get 200,000 net new jobs. That 
was how it would work. Except that we passed it and we went from a $1.5 
billion trade surplus with Mexico to a nearly $70 billion trade 
deficit. Now, that is headed in the wrong direction, and that means 
lost jobs.
  I took a look at this, and I asked some while ago, 10 years after 
NAFTA had been approved, to commission a study from the Congressional 
Research Service to identify the top 100 American companies that had 
laid off U.S. workers as a result of NAFTA between 1994 and 2002, and 
here is the list of the top 100 companies. The list totals about 
412,000 U.S. jobs that have been certified as lost. Now, this is not 
some speculation. This is a program at the Department of Labor that a 
company has to actually certify to in order to get some help for their 
employees--trade adjustment assistance. They certify that because of 
NAFTA these jobs are gone.
  The Congressional Research Service turned to the Department of Labor, 
which has this program, and they said: Can you give us this 
information? They gave us the information. This means we can directly 
attribute these job losses to NAFTA, because that is the certification. 
Of the roughly 412,000 jobs that have been certified, actually of the 
top 100 companies, 201,000 jobs are attributable to these 100 names.
  But if you look at the companies, it is very interesting. Levi 
Strauss is No. 2. Levi Strauss. I mean, you know, slip on a pair of 
Levis. Anything more all American than putting on a pair of Levis? 
There is not one pair of Levis made in the United States of America, 
not one. We passed NAFTA and Levis go south. We still wear them, all 
right. They are just shipped north so we can slip them on. So Levi 
Strauss: 15,676 people, some were proud, I bet, going to work in the 
morning to make a pair of Levis. But no more. I understand there is not 
one pair of Levis made in America.
  Kraft Foods. Kraft Foods is on the list. Kraft Foods decided they 
were going to shut down their cookie plant in Fair Lawn, NJ. They made 
Fig Newton cookies. So they moved Fig Newton cookies to Monterrey, 
Mexico, and 955 jobs were certified as lost. Fig Newton. Now, I don't 
know whether there is some inherent capability in Mexico to shovel fig 
paste in a more expeditious manner than exists in New Jersey. I doubt 
it. My guess is, just as Levi went south in search of cheap labor, so 
too did Fig Newton cookies.
  So the next time somebody says let's go out and buy some Mexican 
food, buy Fig Newton cookies. They left New Jersey and ended up in 
Monterrey, Mexico. Mexican food.
  What about Fruit of the Loom underwear? We all understand it; some 
wear it. Fruit of the Loom underwear--5,352 workers in Texas were 
certified and thousands more in Louisiana were certified to the Labor 
Department as having lost their jobs due to NAFTA. Actually, when that 
happened it was pretty big news around the country, because Fruit of 
the Loom laid off a lot of people, and I came to the floor and said: It 
is one thing to lose your shirt--and then I stopped, because I realized 
we shouldn't joke about jobs lost with Fruit of the Loom.

  But these were people who made underwear--probably, I am sure, very 
proud of their jobs. They probably worked for a career. Is there no 
market for underwear any more? People stopped wearing them? I don't 
think so. The underwear is made, it is just not made in America. Fruit 
of the Loom is gone, and it was certified to have gone and the jobs are 
lost.
  Mattel's western Kentucky plant, making Barbie playhouses and 
battery-powered pickup trucks for nearly 30 years, 980 employees went 
from a job in Kentucky to being unemployed. The plant went to Mexico to 
produce Mattel toys.
  John Deere, 1150 employees, lawn mowers and chain saws, jobs gone to 
Mexico.
  Well, all of these are just numbers. You know, you could pick any one 
of them. Nokia, 1,980. Make it 1,979 and talk about the person, the one 
person who came home one night and said: Honey, I lost my job. They 
called me in and they told me my job was gone. Well, was it because you 
weren't a good employee? No, I am a good employee. They just said we 
are moving the jobs to Mexico.
  I have described other cases on the floor of the Senate of American 
workers who worked for careers and were making $11 an hour plus 
benefits. They all got fired in search of cheaper labor

[[Page S12975]]

by a company that moved their jobs. In that case, the jobs went to 
China. But the reason I told the story previously is that all of those 
workers who lost their jobs because they made $11 an hour--and that was 
way too much money--on the last day of work, as they pulled out of 
their driving spaces in the parking lot where their car used to park at 
a job they cared about, they all left a pair of empty shoes. It was a 
plaintive way for the employees of that company to send a message to 
the owners of that company who shipped their jobs overseas. It was a 
way of saying: You can move our jobs to China, but, by God, you are not 
going to fill our shoes. It was a message from the employees who cared 
about their jobs and cared about their work.
  Well, Hufbauer/Schott and all the others who gave us those hifalutin 
estimates of new jobs with NAFTA, they said: By the way, there will be 
some jobs that will move south. But they will be low-skilled, low-wage 
jobs. But don't worry.
  Well, guess what. The three largest imports to the United States 
today from Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics, 
all the product of high-skilled jobs. Now, that is completely at odds 
with what was represented to the Congress and the American people.
  I started this by saying the Wall Street Journal does a front-page 
feature story saying that Republicans don't believe free trade has been 
good for our country. They were doing a political story. But they 
needn't have said Republicans. Actually, the American people don't 
believe the so-called free trade agreements have been good for our 
country. Why is that? Because they are the ones who know. They are the 
ones who know, not the economists, not the folks who put on three-piece 
blue suits and suspenders every day and puff about what is going on in 
the world. It is the people who are working who lose their jobs and are 
facing downward pressure on income from these kinds of trade 
agreements.
  Now, I am not suggesting, and would not ever suggest, that we 
shouldn't trade. I believe we ought to trade. I believe trade is 
important, and plenty of it. I just insist that it be fair. Whether it 
is Mexico, or China--the bilateral agreement with China--or South Korea 
or any number of trade agreements, I can point to the examples of what 
has happened that undermines the support of the American people for 
these agreements. Let me give you a couple.
  South Korea. There is an agreement coming to the Senate Chamber 
dealing with South Korea. We have done other trade agreements with 
South Korea, and they have never met the commitments they made in those 
agreements, but nonetheless, an agreement with South Korea. Well, South 
Korea last year sent us roughly 700,000 automobiles. They put them on 
ships, sailed them across the ocean, and they offloaded them onto 
American docks and put them for sale in this country. We were able to 
sell about 5,000 vehicles in South Korea.
  So 700,000 one way, 5,000 the other way. Why? Is that consumer 
preference? It is because in Korea 99 percent of the cars on Korean 
roads are made in Korea, and that is the way they want it. They do not 
want American cars sold in Korea. They have all kinds of devices to 
keep them out. We open our market. One-way trade. The American people 
understand that, and they do not support that.
  I am going to mention one other thing. I have mentioned the bilateral 
agreement with China, with whom we have a giant trade deficit--$230 
billion a year trade deficit. Not many people know that in the latest 
bilateral agreement with China--a country that is ramping up a very 
significant powerful automobile export industry. You will see Chinese 
cars on the streets in this country soon. They are aggressively ramping 
up an automobile export industry. Here is what our country decided to 
do with a country with which we have a very large deficit. We said to 
China: When you export your cars to the United States, we will impose a 
2.5 percent tariff on cars you sell here, and it is okay for you, on 
any American cars we sell in China, to impose a tariff 10 times higher, 
at 25 percent. That is what we said to China.
  That is unbelievably ignorant of our own economic interests. Is it 
surprising the Wall Street Journal does a poll that says the American 
people don't believe in this nonsense? They are living it. They lose 
their jobs. There is not one person in the Congress who has lost his or 
her job due to a bad trade agreement. It is the other folks out there 
who go to work in the morning and care about their job, who are doing 
the best they can and are told, by the way, you have to compete with 
Monterrey, or Chihuahua, or someone in Shenzhen, or Beijing who is 
willing to work for 30 cents an hour. And if you can't compete with 
them, we are sorry.
  The result has been downward pressure on wages, fewer benefits, and 
problems for American workers. That is a very long description of why I 
wanted to offer an amendment. Finally, at long last, I wish to see a 
real evaluation done of what has been the net result of NAFTA, because 
we still have these folks running around here saying NAFTA has been a 
great success. I mean, I don't know if they are on their feet when they 
look at something and say it is successful or not, but you cannot take 
a sober look at this and say it is successful. Exports have grown, yes, 
but imports have grown much faster. The evidence is here. We have 
roughly 412,000 jobs that have been certified as having been lost to 
Mexico, certified by the Department of Labor as having been lost, 
because of the trade agreement--or at least been lost from the time the 
trade agreement was negotiated.

  What I have asked for is a study, a real study to determine the 
number and types of jobs lost due to NAFTA and the number and types of 
jobs created due to NAFTA.
  One final point. This administration has no problem figuring out how 
great trade deals will be for other countries. In fact, Wendy Cutler, 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, was touting the benefits that our 
trade agreement with Korea would offer to Korea. Let me quote her:

       An FTA with the United States is predicted to produce 
     economic benefits for the Korean economy, increasing Korea's 
     real GDP by as much as 2 percent, establishing a foundation 
     to achieve per capita income to as high as $30,000, boosting 
     exports to the United States by 15 percent, and creating 
     100,000 new jobs.

  That is what the USTR is saying, here is the nirvana that is going to 
exist if we can simply do this trade agreement: Here is what is going 
to exist for Korea.
  Ask them, what will exist for our country? What will be the 
consequences for our country? What are the comparable numbers for the 
United States? They make no similar projection.
  In fact, the Korean agreement comes to us now, not having addressed 
the issue of the imbalance in the bilateral automobile trade with 
Korea.
  Anyway, it is a case where I hope, perhaps, repetition will someday 
breed success. It is a case where I believe we should trade. I believe 
our country should be a leader in trade. I believe our leadership ought 
to say we aspire to lift others up in the world, not push our workers 
down. We spent 100 years creating standards--safe workplace, child 
labor law, minimum wage, a whole series of standards that we ought to 
be proud of.
  I believe in our trade agreements we ought to aspire to lift others 
up rather than push ourselves down, push our standards down. That has 
regrettably not been the case with NAFTA. It has not been the case with 
a number of other trade agreements and will likely not be the case with 
the next four agreements that will be brought to the Senate.
  My colleagues and I, several of us, will be proposing establishing 
benchmarks and accountability at long last attached to trade 
agreements. We ought to have benchmarks and some accountability 
attached to those benchmarks to find out what has happened. You can't 
go on forever with a bad trade agreement. You can't go on forever with 
one that doesn't work. When we are awash in debt, as we are, over $700 
billion a year in trade deficit--which inevitably will be repaid with a 
lower standard of living in the United States--then we are headed for 
trouble. We need a better trade strategy, one that encourages trade but 
one that demands and insists on fair trade for our own economic 
interests.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan for his many years

[[Page S12976]]

championing the cause of our skilled workers in this country, 
championing the cause of manufacturing in this country. He warned us a 
long time ago about what NAFTA was going to do. Frankly, his dire 
predictions have turned out, unfortunately, to be true. When Senator 
Dorgan speaks about NAFTA, or any trade agreement, and the impact on 
jobs in this country, it would do us well to pay attention.
  There is no one I know who knows more about this area than Senator 
Dorgan. His amendment, I say to him, is one I can fully support. I hope 
all Members of the Senate could support it. As he said, it requires the 
Department of Labor to provide Congress with a fuller picture of the 
impact of the NAFTA agreement.
  Frankly, this is key information we ought to have anyway so we can 
understand the changes to our economy that have occurred since NAFTA 
has passed. Again, I thank him for it. This has been a key issue in my 
State of Iowa.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, I remember all the speeches he 
used to give about Huffy bicycles and now talking about Levis. What 
could be more American than that?
  I might say something equally as American as that is the Maytag 
washing machine. The Maytag washing machine, what could be more 
American than that Maytag repairman who never had anything to do 
because the Maytag washers and dryers were so good?
  We have always taken great pride in Iowa that Iowa was the home of 
the Maytag, has been since the beginning, since Fred Maytag started his 
business in Newton, IA. I hate to tell you, but your Maytag washers are 
now coming from Mexico. All these great jobs we had, and these were 
good-paying jobs. A lot of people in the past worked at Maytag. It was 
part of their community. They built good schools, educated their kids, 
the kids went on. Some of the kids grew up and they then went to work 
at Maytag. It was a wonderful community, a wonderful business. They had 
great relations with organized labor there.

  To make a long story short, Whirlpool came in, bought out Maytag, 
shipped all the jobs to Mexico. Now all those jobs are missing in Iowa. 
What do we do? We scramble to get some retraining, some job retraining 
and things such as that. But the jobs the people are getting are much 
lower paid jobs. They are not as good, and all the manufacturing jobs 
are now in Mexico.
  Of course, maybe I am being a little chauvinistic because it was such 
an Iowa institution, Maytag, and to think they are not making them 
there anymore, they are gone.
  Mr. DORGAN. The town of Bryan, OH, was enormously proud of its 
product. It was the product that defined Bryan, OH. It was Etch A 
Sketch; every little kid played with Etch A Sketch. The folks in Bryan, 
OH, made Etch A Sketch and every kid played with them. Etch A Sketch is 
gone. They couldn't compete with China. And the Radio Flyer Little Red 
Wagon was made in Chicago for 110 years. It was made by an immigrant 
who started the company. Why was it called Radio Flyer, the Little Red 
Wagon? This immigrant was fascinated with two things. He liked Marconi, 
so he named it Radio, and he loved airplanes. So he decided to name it, 
the Little Red Wagon he crafted in Chicago, IL, as Radio Flyer, and 
virtually every kid in this country has ridden on Radio Flyer wagons.
  Mr. HARKIN. I did myself when I was a kid.
  Mr. DORGAN. They were here for 110 years but no more. Now they are 
made in China. We could go on at some length. Some people will say: 
Don't you understand, you two, the world has changed, for God's sake, 
the world has changed and they are going to make these things where you 
can pay 20 or 30 cents an hour.
  My question to them is this: If that is where the jobs are, who is 
going to buy the products? In this country, it seems we built standards 
for a century to provide good wages and working conditions for the 
American worker and that is what provided the income and development 
and expansion of the middle class and gave them the earning power to 
buy products. I know the Senator agrees with me. He agrees with trade.
  We come from agricultural States. We need to find a foreign market 
for what we produce, but trade has to be fair.
  Mr. HARKIN. We represent agricultural States, but we always had a 
good blend of manufacturing and agriculture. One of the well-kept 
secrets is that Iowa at one time had more foundries than any other 
State in the Nation, small foundries. People made things in these 
foundries. Those jobs have left now. Now with Maytag leaving, it is 
eroding our manufacturing base.
  We need a good industrial policy. We need a manufacturing policy for 
this country. We don't have one. We need a good industrial policy for 
this country. We don't have one. If we do not have some kind of an 
industrial policy and some policy that says here is the kind of 
manufacturing base we are going to keep, we are going to protect--
protect? I don't mind using the word ``protect.'' We are protecting our 
people. If we are going to have a manufacturing base that protects us 
in the area of national security, so we have the manufacturing 
wherewithal to take the raw materials and make them into items that our 
people need but which will provide us with that bulwark for the future 
against the possibility of other countries cutting us off or making 
trade sanctions against us--we need to have that policy.
  We don't have it. If we don't have it pretty soon, we are not going 
to be making anything in this country. We are not going to be making 
anything. We are going to be shuffling money around, that is all we are 
going to be doing. That is not what makes a great country, and it is 
not what is going to sustain us, if all we are going to do is shuffle 
money around.
  I thank the Senator. He has been a great leader in this area. We are 
going to do something. We don't have an agreement yet to accept it. I 
can tell the Senator I am going to work hard to make sure we get an 
acceptance of his amendment. I thank him for it.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam 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. 3347 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendments so I can offer an amendment that has been sent 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3347 to amendment No. 3325.

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

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the activities under the Patient 
     Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005)

       On page 79, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to any other amounts appropriated 
     or otherwise made available under this Act, $15,000,000 shall 
     be available to carry out activities under the Patient 
     Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109-18).
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amount made available under this Act for the Reading First 
     State Grants program under subpart 1 of part B of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6361 et seq.), as specified in the committee report of the 
     Senate accompanying this Act, shall be reduced by 
     $15,000,000.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first I wish to thank Senator Harkin 
for his leadership on this bill, as well as the ranking Republican, and 
his strong support of what I am trying to do here, which is to fund the 
Patient Navigator Program.
  The amendment provides $15 million for initial implementation of the 
Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005. 
This

[[Page S12977]]

act creates a 5-year, $25 million demonstration program within the 
Health Resources and Services Administration for patient navigator 
services through community health centers, National Cancer Institute 
centers, Indian Health Service centers, and rural health clinics, as 
well as hospitals, academic health centers, and certain nonprofit 
entities that enter into partnerships to provide patient navigator 
services.
  This funding is the culmination of years of bipartisan and bicameral 
compromise. I was then, at the time, in the House of Representatives, a 
sponsor with Congresswoman Deborah Pryce from Ohio. Here in the Senate, 
Senators Hutchison and Bingaman were champions of this legislation. It 
passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and President Bush signed it 
into law in 2005. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided funding last 
year, but unfortunately that did not make it into the final bill.
  This Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Act and the 
patient navigators that are called for in the bill have strong 
grassroots support from organizations such as the American Cancer 
Society. Actually, it was our work with the American Cancer Society 
that at the time had it as its No. 1 or No. 2 top legislative 
initiative. So we got the bill passed into law, but we haven't been 
able to fund it yet. It also has the support of the National 
Association of Community Health Centers, the National Rural Health 
Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical 
Association, the Intercultural Cancer Council, the National Alliance 
for Hispanic Health, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the 
National Patient Advocate Foundation, and many others.
  The goal of a patient navigator is to improve health outcomes by 
helping patients, including patients in underserved communities, to 
overcome barriers they face in getting early screening and appropriate 
followup treatment.
  Patient navigators benefit people across the country, from all walks 
of life, regardless of class, location, culture, or language, and 
navigators help get people into a health care provider for preventive 
screenings and help them navigate our complex health care system if an 
abnormality is detected. They conduct year-round outreach into 
underserved communities so people are aware of the importance of early 
detection and screening. They help them find followup testing and 
treatment. They stay with them throughout the process to make sure they 
get to that next doctor's appointment and they get early treatment. 
This is a small investment with huge benefits, benefits in terms of 
lives and dollars saved.
  I was fortunate enough, in the House of Representatives, when I 
served there, to actually get some pilot projects of patient navigators 
in what was my former congressional district in New Jersey. It 
replicated two very successful programs that were the forerunners of 
this idea--Dr. Harold Freeman in Harlem Hospital, who works with the 
American Cancer Society, and here in Washington, DC, at the Washington 
Cancer Center, Dr. Elmer Huerta, who had a different variation on it, 
but both of them created patient navigation, the effort to bring 
individuals into a preventive setting, and in doing so, help them 
navigate. We took that example and we brought it to my home State of 
New Jersey.
  What we did is, at one of the family health centers, we found 
ourselves significantly bringing in people into a preventive setting. 
We found a fair number of individuals who had abnormalities, and 
because of the screening we put them through, we detected their 
abnormalities. Then, through the patient navigator, we navigated them 
through the health care system in a way that we saved lives and we 
saved an enormous amount of money from people whom we caught early in 
their illness, particularly cancer-related, and whom we ultimately were 
able to not only save their lives but at an enormous cost of having 
individuals not wait longer in the process and end up, at the end of 
the day, in an emergency room with far greater costs.
  So this is a small investment with huge benefits, benefits in terms 
of lives and dollars saved. By getting people in to see a doctor before 
symptoms develop, we can catch diseases such as cancer or diabetes 
early. Then we can get patients into treatment early, which means they 
will have a better chance of survival, and the health care costs will 
be lower.
  This is a win-win proposition which has strong bipartisan support in 
the House and Senate, signed by the President. We are just simply 
looking to get it funded. We look forward to working with the chair of 
the subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking member to get it 
accepted. We think we have an appropriate offset, but at the same time, 
we are open to others as well in order to achieve this goal.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, on October 11, we marked the fifth 
anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the resolution authorizing 
the war in Iraq. I believe we should take this opportunity to tally up 
what this war has cost our Nation.
  We are all very aware of the human cost. More Americans have died in 
Iraq than died on September 11. These are our friends and neighbors, 
fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, gone forever. Twenty-eight 
thousand men and women have come back home wounded, some with their 
legs or arms blown off by bombs, some blind from shrapnel in their 
eyes, some thrown into a state of mental shock from which they will 
never fully recover.
  As for the Iraqi men, women, and children who have died in this 
conflict, we cannot even say. Some estimates say the body count is more 
than 100,000. As for the people who have been forced to abandon their 
homes, they are about to number 4\1/2\ million, a disproportionate 
number of them being children.
  We all know that the Iraq war is a human calamity of vast 
proportions. It can be harder to visualize the direct damage that comes 
from the financial cost of the war, to see it as the cancer that it is, 
making our debt metastasize, threatening our budget, eating away at the 
financial stability of our entire Nation.
  We are paying for this war with borrowed money, racking up massive 
debt, severely threatening the future of our country. We know our 
country has spent more than $450 billion on this war so far. We 
continue to spend about $10 billion every month. That does not just add 
up to a stack of bills that could have sat in the Treasury; it is 
equipment at ports that can scan for nuclear weapons and other measures 
that actually make the homeland more secure. It is children healed with 
better health care. It is more teachers in our schools, better training 
for our jobs, energy that is clean and does not strengthen repressive 
regimes in the Middle East, payment of our debts so future generations 
will inherit a country that is financially viable. Those are casualties 
we cannot fail to count.
  When our money gets burned in Iraq, we deserve to know what we are 
trading away. What we are trading away cannot be summed up in one 
speech, however, so I will be coming back to the subject as many times 
as necessary to give each sacrifice fair attention.
  When we add it all up, the bottom line is very clear: If we had never 
gone into Iraq, our lives would be better. The sooner we get out of 
Iraq, the better our lives will be. I will repeat this until our troops 
have come home. If we had never gone into Iraq, our lives would be 
better, and the sooner we transition out of Iraq, the better our lives 
will be.
  Today, I wish to speak about what the failed war in Iraq has cost us 
in terms of our security here at home. The Bush administration likes to 
parrot the line that:

       We are fighting them over there, so we do not have to fight 
     them here.

  Nevermind that the war has created more terrorists than there were 
before. Beyond that, it has directed funding away from programs that 
actually would prevent terrorists from attacking the homeland. The 
administration's budget for the failed war in Iraq is 13 times this 
year's budget for Homeland Security--13 times this year's budget for 
Homeland Security. Do we really think the Iraq war is 13 times more 
important to America than the Department of Homeland Security's 
mission? When it comes to our money, the administration's motto really 
is:

[[Page S12978]]

We are spending it over there, so we do not have to spend it here.
  Every time we ride the subway or the bus, we put ourselves at risk 
because our public transportation systems are unnecessarily vulnerable 
to terrorist attacks. The American Public Transportation Association 
estimates that it will cost $6 billion to make them substantially more 
secure. That includes funding for personnel, training, communications 
systems, cameras, detection systems. Well, we spend that much--that is, 
$6 billion that the Public Transportation Association says would make 
us safer--we spend that much in Iraq every 18 days. Every 18 days. That 
is what the war costs. Security on public transportation versus 18 days 
in Iraq--what is our choice?
  Money being spent in Iraq could have substantially improved security 
in our Nation's ports, where 95 percent of the cargo slips into the 
country without any inspection whatsoever. For the cost of 3 days of 
operations in Iraq, we could fund a year's worth, a year's worth of 
strong port security initiatives throughout our country--purchasing 
radiation detectors, giving individual grants tailored to the specific 
needs of each port, and drastically increasing the number of containers 
screened.
  Here is an example. There is something called a container security 
device. It attaches to the hinges of a container and lets inspectors at 
ports know if the container has been tampered with from the port it 
came from. They cost about $25 each. You could provide a device for 
every one of the 11 million-plus containers that enter our ports every 
year for the same money it costs us to be in Iraq for 1 single day. We 
could take 11 million containers that enter our ports every year and 
for 1 single day in Iraq make our country more secure. That is what the 
war costs--electronic security for every container entering the United 
States versus 1 day in Iraq.
  As we have considered the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill that we passed yesterday, it is as good a time as any to discuss 
how funding for the Iraq war impacts local police departments here at 
home. With the billions of dollars going toward a failed effort to 
secure the streets of Baghdad, we could boost our efforts to fight 
terror and violence of gangs on the streets of the neighborhoods we 
call home.
  The FBI tells us that crime rates are going up in the United States. 
This is no coincidence considering the Bush administration has 
repeatedly cut funding for hiring new police, law enforcement 
technology, and successful prevention programs.
  Luckily, this Senate under Democratic leadership has changed that 
course. We are taking action to reverse that situation. I was proud to 
cosponsor Senator Biden's amendment to boost funding for the COPS 
Program, one of the most successful Federal crime prevention programs 
in history. Eight hours of Iraq funding pays for that amendment to put 
community police officers on the streets of our Nation. That is the war 
cost--more police on the streets versus 8 hours of spending in Iraq. 
When it comes to our money, the message the administration is sending 
is clear. We are spending it over there so we don't spend it here. But 
in terms of security, if we had never gone into Iraq, our lives would 
be better. The sooner we transition out of Iraq, the better our lives 
will be.
  Costs of the war for the United States are going only to escalate as 
Great Britain withdraws its troops. So the financial question we have 
to answer as a nation is as urgent as any we have ever faced. We have 
to decide what we value as a Nation: the war or keeping our country 
safe. These are the questions we are going to continue to ask to put a 
real sense of what it is costing us here at home in real terms. Today 
was about security. We will come back to the Senate floor and talk 
about education and health care and economic expansion and reducing 
debt, because we have to offer a real sense to the American people of 
what this war is costing us here at home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 3332 to Amendment No. 3325

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment to be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3332.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. McCaskill], for herself and 
     Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 3332.

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

(Purpose: To require the Departments to establish and maintain on their 
 website home pages a direct link to the websites of their Inspectors 
                    General and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Departments, agencies, and 
     commissions funded under this Act, shall establish and 
     maintain on the homepages of their Internet websites--
       (1) a direct link to the Internet websites of their Offices 
     of Inspectors General; and
       (2) a mechanism on the Offices of Inspectors General 
     website by which individuals may anonymously report cases of 
     waste, fraud, or abuse with respect to those Departments, 
     agencies, and commissions.

  Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeMint as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, we have successfully added this 
amendment to all appropriations bills to date. It is a very simple 
amendment. It requires the Departments under this bill to maintain a 
direct link to the agency's inspector general Web site, on the home 
page of his or her department's Web site. It requires this direct link 
because the information the inspector general provides to the public 
needs to be easily available. They are the eyes and ears of the 
taxpayers in many ways. They are on the front lines in terms of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. They provide a valuable service. In many departments, 
one can't find the information. This amendment will require that on the 
home page of the Web sites of the Departments of Education, Labor 
Health and Human Services, there be a direct link to the inspector 
general of that Department's Web site so taxpayers, Members of 
Congress, and members of the executive branch can easily find the 
important information that is provided by the inspector general's 
office.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for 
offering this amendment. It is a good amendment. I have checked with 
Senator Specter on our side, and it is OK on that side. It is OK with 
us. We will accept the amendment.
  Before doing so, I will again say to my friend from Missouri that in 
this bill we have increased funding above the President's budget for 
all the inspector generals in all the departments this bill covers. 
Basically opening it up, as her amendment does, allows more people 
access to what the inspector generals are doing. Hopefully we can 
continue to try to maintain the integrity and independence of the 
inspector generals. Some of them are perhaps being pressured by the 
administration to do certain things. But we want to maintain that 
integrity and the independence of the inspector generals. This 
amendment will help to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3332) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 3345

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to support the Dorgan amendment 
offered earlier this evening. I thank him for his amendment. I am a 
proud cosponsor.
  The Dorgan amendment makes sense for a variety of reasons. Most 
importantly, we need updated and current information on what NAFTA, the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, which passed in November of 1993, 
means for our country today and, most importantly, because the North 
American Free Trade Agreement has become

[[Page S12979]]

the model, for good or bad, for trade policy since. The Central 
American Free Trade Agreement was built on the NAFTA model. Trade 
agreements Presidents asked this Congress to pass, negotiated with Peru 
and Colombia, Panama and South Korea, while tweaked, while having some 
improvements, perhaps, in the case of Peru and Panama, some significant 
improvements, nonetheless are based on the same failed trade model that 
NAFTA was based on, a trade model that entertains investor-state 
relations giving more authority to corporations to undercut 
environmental laws in our country, to undercut labor law, and to 
undercut the values of our society.
  I wish President Bush would sit down with the steel worker in 
Steubenville or the machinist in Toledo or the tool and die shop owner 
in Lorain and talk about what these trade policies, this NAFTA model 
the Dorgan amendment addresses, in fact means for American workers, 
what they mean for American small manufacturers, what they mean for our 
communities, what they mean in Hamilton and Middletown and Ashtabula 
and Maineville, what impact that has on communities. These trade 
policies, which are set in Washington and negotiated across the globe, 
have a direct impact on Toledo, on Wauseon, on Findlay, on Bowling 
Green, all across our State. That is why the voters in my State and 
across the country sent a message loudly and clearly in November 
demanding a very different direction in trade policy, a trade policy 
that serves workers, consumers, families, and communities rather than 
one that serves investors, especially the wealthy in other countries 
and the wealthy in this country.
  Working men and women in Ohio, including the machine shop owner in 
Akron and the factory worker in Columbus, know that job loss doesn't 
just affect the worker or the worker's family or the business owner. 
Job loss in the thousands affects communities and police, the number of 
police and firefighters and teachers and workers in a community and the 
economic vitality of that community.
  What we have seen in the last few years in this country is disturbing 
especially in this sense. American workers all across the board, 
whether they are in the State of the Presiding Officer, Washington, or 
in Lima, OH, are more productive; whether they work with their hands or 
minds or whether they are a retailer or whether they are a factory 
owner, workers are more productive, provably, quantifiably, 
quantitatively way more productive than they were 5 years ago. That is 
a testament to our Nation's hard-working and skilled labor force. It is 
a testament to our job training and education system. The problem is, 
those workers' productivity is no longer parallel to their wages. It 
used to be in this country, after the war, since the 1940s, that as 
productivity went up, workers' wages and profits went up roughly at the 
same pace. But we have seen a disconnect. As productivity goes up and 
up because workers with their capital investments are more and more 
productive, we have not seen wages keep up. In a nutshell, that is 
because ultimately what has happened is, our Nation's workers don't 
share in the wealth they have created for their employers. If you are a 
worker and you create more wealth for your employer, you should share 
in the wealth. But that is not what is happening. That disconnect is 
more and more obvious in this country, especially in a State such as 
Ohio.

  Some years after NAFTA passed the House and Senate and was signed 
into law, took effect, the agreement among Mexico and the United States 
and Canada, some 5 years later, at my own expense, I flew to McAllen, 
TX, rented a car with a couple friends, went across the border into 
Reynosa, Mexico. I wanted to see how NAFTA was working on the other 
side of the border. I knew how it was working in Lorain and Akron and 
Sandusky and Findlay, but I wanted to see how it worked on the other 
side of the border. I went to the home of two General Electric workers. 
They worked for GE Mexico. They lived in a 20-by-20-foot shack, dirt 
floors, no running water or electricity. When it rained hard, the dirt 
floors turned to mud. These were full-time workers, 3 miles from the 
United States of America, just south of the Rio Grande. These workers 
were working every bit as hard as any workers in the United States. But 
they weren't sharing in the wealth they created for their employers.
  As you walked around their home, in the community behind their shack 
was a ditch maybe 4 feet wide, 2 by 4 across the ditch. This ditch was 
filled with I am not sure what, human/industrial effluent waste running 
through the neighborhood. The American Medical Association says along 
the Rio Grande River is one of most toxic places in the western 
hemisphere. There were children playing in the ditch contracting who 
knows what kind of diseases that they might pick up along this very 
polluted little waterway, if you could call it that. But as you walked 
around this neighborhood and you looked at these shacks, you could tell 
where the workers worked because the workers' shacks were constructed 
from the packing materials of the companies for which they worked. The 
roofs, the walls were made of cardboard boxes and other kinds of 
packing materials, crates where these workers worked.
  Not far away from these shacks I visited an auto plant. This plant 
looked just like an auto plant in the United States. It was modern, 
maybe more modern, more up to date, the best technology. The workers 
were working hard. The floors were clean, all that you would want in a 
modern industrial plant. But there was one difference between the 
Mexican auto plant and an auto plant in Norwood or Toledo. The auto 
plant in Mexico had no parking lot because the workers there weren't 
paid enough to buy the cars they made. They weren't sharing in the 
wealth they created. You could go halfway around the world to a 
Motorola plant in Malaysia, and workers weren't paid enough to buy the 
cell phones they make. You could come back to Costa Rica and go to a 
Disney plant, and the workers weren't making enough to buy toys for 
their children. You could go halfway around the world to China and go 
to a Nike plant or a bicycle plant, and the workers were not making 
enough to buy the Nikes or the bicycles they were making, that they 
were building. That is the key.
  In our trade policy, which has become international in this 
globalized economy, because of what is happening around the world and 
because of the way we write trade policy, workers are simply not 
sharing in the wealth they create. Whether it is a Mexican auto plant, 
a Malaysian cell phone plant, a toy plant in Costa Rica, or a shoe 
plant in China, the workers are not making enough to share in the 
wealth. The workers are not sharing in the wealth they create. That is 
what has happened in our country, this disconnect between productivity 
and wages. More than anything, that is why the middle class is 
shrinking. That is why the Dorgan amendment is so important to show the 
world, to show the country, to show us in this body what we need to do 
to fix our trade policy.
  This trade policy hurts local business owners, not just the plant 
that might lay off or close, but it hurts the drugstore, the grocery 
store, the neighborhood restaurant. It hurts teachers and firefighters 
and police. It hurts the people whom the police and the firefighters 
and the teachers serve. When I first ran for Congress, our trade 
deficit was $38 billion. Today, after NAFTA and NAFTA clones, like the 
Central American Free Trade agreement, the WTO and PNTR with China, our 
trade deficit has topped $800 billion, from $38 billion in 1992 to $800 
billion today. Our trade deficit with China in 1992 was barely double 
digits, barely $10 billion. Now it probably--for 2007, we don't know 
for sure--is going to exceed $250 billion. The first President Bush 
said a $1 billion trade surplus or deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. 
Whether he is right, he is close enough to be right. When you do the 
math, a $1 billion trade surplus or trade deficit translates into 
13,000 jobs. When you do the math, you can see the kind of effect our 
trade policy has on us, not just with lost jobs but with what it has 
done to break that connection between productivity and workers' wages.

  That is the story of our trade policy and why the Dorgan amendment is 
so important. The current system is not sustainable. We want trade. We 
want plenty of trade but not under this NAFTA model. We want trade 
under a whole new set of rules. Now is not the time for more bad trade 
deals.

[[Page S12980]]

  We need to adopt the Dorgan amendment, look at what has happened with 
our trade policy, pause, and have a national conversation about a new 
direction for trade in the 21st century.
  Let's wait on the passage of Peru and Panama. Let's wait on the 
passage of South Korea and Colombia. We need a conversation that 
includes all parties involved. That means investors. It means workers. 
It means small business owners. It means communities with people who 
are so affected by trade. The Dorgan amendment is a significant first 
step in doing that.
  We should adopt the Dorgan amendment. We should pause and look at 
where our trade policy is going, and then we should embark in a new 
direction on trade in this country.


                          family forum earmark

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a project I 
sponsored in the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health, Human Services and 
Education appropriations bill. The project, which would develop a plan 
to promote better science-based education in Ouachita Parish by the 
Louisiana Family Forum, has raised concerns among some that its 
intention was to mandate and push creationism within the public 
schools. That is clearly not and never was the intent of the project, 
nor would it have been its effect. However, to avoid more hysterics, I 
would like to move the $100,000 recommended for this project by the 
subcommittee when the bill goes to conference committee to another 
Louisiana priority project funded in this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate the sentiments by the 
Senator from Louisiana and accept this proposal to move the funding for 
this project to other priority projects for the State of Louisiana in 
the bill when it goes to conference committee.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with my colleague and will 
agree to move these funds in conference committee.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, since the year 2000, shortly after news 
reports attributed hundreds of deaths to asbestos exposure from decades 
of vermiculite mining in Libby, MT, I have worked hard on behalf of the 
people there to ensure that they received the care they needed. The 
Center for Asbestos Related Disease plays an important role in 
screening Libby residents and providing them with the health care they 
need as a result of this tragedy.
  The people living in Libby suffer asbestos-related diseases at a rate 
40 to 60 times the national average. They suffer from mesothelioma at a 
rate 100 times the national average. The culprit for this unprecedented 
tragedy is a highly toxic tremolite asbestos amphibole. Due to the 
shipping of Libby asbestos to processing sites in 30 States, and its 
subsequent use as insulation material in all parts of the country, the 
toxicity of this amphibole is an issue of national importance.
  The Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental 
Protection Agency have designated the Center for Asbestos Related 
Disease as a clearinghouse for information that facilitates clinical 
epidemiological and pathologic studies of asbestos-related diseases. 
This new role unfortunately comes without adequate funding to 
accommodate the transition to this national leadership role.
  This is an issue of national concern to scientists who rely on 
tremolite asbestos data for their work. Support letters have been sent 
to Members of this body by researchers at the Mesothelioma Applied 
Research Foundation from California, Mount Sinai Medical School in New 
York, Wayne State University in Michigan, North Carolina State 
University, the University of Vermont, the University of Pittsburgh, 
the University of Pennsylvania, and Montana State University. These 
letters all emphasize the importance of the Libby data to the national 
research efforts on asbestos related disease.
  That is why I submitted an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2008. My amendment would provide $250,000 to the Center for Asbestos 
Related Disease in Libby, MT, so that the clinic can provide its 
critically important information to clinical researchers and 
universities across the country. The raw data and data management that 
the center provides for research institutions will facilitate 
meaningful research into amphibole asbestos toxicity and health 
impacts.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________