[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5971-5985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT--
                               Continued


                         National Public Radio

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week I took the floor of the Senate 
to note the decision which has been made by National Public Radio 
concerning the host of Morning Edition with Bob Edwards. It was 
announced in the Washington Post that National Public Radio management 
had decided after some 24 years to relieve Mr. Edwards of his 
responsibility as host of the morning show. There was not much given by 
way of explanation, and it was clear from comments by Bob Edwards that 
it wasn't his decision.
  It has been interesting since I took the floor and noted my 
disappointment over that decision the response which I received from my 
colleagues in Congress. It turns out Members of Congress on both sides 
of the aisle feel as I do--that this decision by National Public Radio 
is the wrong decision; that Bob Edwards, who has been not only a host 
of this program but the most successful morning voice in America, is 
being moved away from this assignment in a situation and in a 
circumstance that is almost impossible to understand.
  Many of my colleagues have come to me and asked, What can we do? Can 
we go after the appropriations of NPR? I don't recommend that at all. I 
think

[[Page 5972]]

National Public Radio is such an important institution more than any 
single individual that we should do this in a positive and constructive 
fashion.
  What I encourage my colleagues to do is to remember that National 
Public Radio is, in fact, public radio; that all of us who enjoy it so 
much, who rely on it so much, and who contribute to it from our own 
individual finances, have a responsibility if we disagree with this 
decision by the management. I have encouraged my friends and those who 
feel as I do to get onto their Internet and e-mail, and to e-mail 
NPR.org, to do it immediately and let them know that their decision to 
remove Bob Edwards at the end of this month of April is the wrong 
decision. I have done it myself.
  I have received a reply from Mr. Kernis which, frankly, I find very 
troubling. When asked why they think this man who has become such an 
institution in America should be removed, the response is nothing short 
of gobbledygook. They talk about bringing someone who has depth and 
experience. But who else would you turn to rather than Bob Edwards?
  I would like to make part of the Record at the end of my statement a 
series of columns and editorials from across the United States from 
those who enjoy Bob Edwards in the morning and can't imagine public 
radio without him. Some of these, starting with the Chicago Tribune, 
were published recently as the news reached that city of the decision 
by National Public Radio.
  As they said in this editorial in the Chicago Tribune, people do not 
understand why this decision was made. Here is what they concluded in 
the Tribune editorial about Bob Edwards:

       In contrast to their audience, though, NPR executives seem 
     to have forgotten about the public part of their title. In 
     commercial broadcasting, a beloved host who had presided over 
     huge ratings gains would almost never be nudged aside. Public 
     broadcasting is valuable precisely because it is relatively 
     free from such worldly concerns. But it is also, effectively, 
     a public trust, and for the public to continue to trust it, 
     this institution needs to do a better job of explaining its 
     momentous decisions. This is not the only newspaper, by far.

  In the St. Louis area, Linda Ellerbee, known to many of us because of 
her news reporting and posting of programs wrote: ``Time and Age: NPR 
Tossing Out Bob Edwards.'' Linda Ellerbee should know. She was moved 
away from a television network position because they thought for a 
woman she was too old. She says:

       But we're not aging the way our parents did. We're 
     reinventing the process. Besides, there are a lot of us out 
     here.

  The point she made in her article about Bob Edwards is at his 
advanced age of 56--which I still consider very young--he speaks not 
only to people of my generation but so many older and younger. If it is 
the marketing belief of NPR they need to have a new, fresh voice, they 
are missing the big picture.
  For 24 years every morning when my clock radio goes on, I hear Bob 
Edwards. I know whether times are bad, dangerous, or peaceful. I can 
count on him. I have done it this morning. I have done it so many 
mornings. I cannot imagine ``Morning Edition'' without him.
  There is also a comment from the Washington Post, Richard Cohen. He 
tells about the same experience.

       Now the news from NPR is that Edwards will soon be gone.

  He talked about the fact he may just decide to start listening to 
Mozart on disk, rather than turning on ``Morning Edition.'' He says:

       NPR Executive Vice President Ken Stern told the Washington 
     Post that the firing of Edwards was part of a ``natural 
     evolution,'' that had ``to do with the changing needs of our 
     listeners.'' What ``natural evolution''? What does that mean? 
     And what is ``changing needs''?

  Mr. Cohen goes on to say to the Washington Post:

       Listen, Ken, my needs haven't changed. I still want news in 
     the morning. I still want smart features. I do not want 
     interviews with airheaded celebrities a la Matt and Katie or, 
     worse, interviews with the latest humorousless person Donald 
     Trump has just fired from ``The Apprentice.''

  He concludes:

       But the firing-cum-transfer of Edwards (he may become a 
     senior correspondent) is nonetheless disquieting. Maybe my 
     fear is misplaced and maybe the end of the Edwards era will 
     turn out not to be a bad thing. Still, it will be jarring to 
     wake up in the morning with a stranger.

  He closes by saying:

       Goodbye, Bob. Get some sleep. You've earned it.

  Mr. Cohen may have given up, but I haven't. I still believe the 
people across America should be contacting National Public Radio, 
npr.org. Send them your e-mail that Bob Edwards, ``Morning Edition'' is 
important to you. As a Senator, as a citizen, he is important to me.
  The San Diego Union-Tribune in an editorial entitled ``NPR Show Is a 
Big Hit, So It Must Need Fixing?'' by Robert Laurence:

       This story makes no sense.
       As such, it's the kind of story that can only happen in the 
     topsy-turvy Orwellian world of public broadcasting.
       It's this: The host of a hugely successful morning radio 
     show, a show where ratings have done nothing but climb for 
     years, a man whose skill as an interviewer is unexcelled in 
     the world of broadcasting, whose very voice helps millions of 
     Americans get their day grounded, is being evicted from a 
     seat in the studio.

  Mr. Laurence goes on to say:

       That's Bob Edwards, since November 1979 the host of 
     National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition . . . ''

  He goes on to talk about the explanations from NPR management, 
explanations he and I both find wanting. And Scripps Howard, Bill 
Maxwell and the St. Petersburg Times, entitled ``A Morning Voice That 
Will Be Missed:''

       All good things must come to an end.
       And so it is with the ouster of Bob Edwards . . .
       To say that Edwards is the end of an era is an 
     understatement.

  He continues:

       Thanks in large part to ``Morning Edition,'' when I report 
     to the St. Petersburg Times editorial board each morning at 
     9:30, I know what's going on in the Nation and the rest of 
     the world.

  Millions of us would say the same thing.
  Columbus Dispatch, Tim Feran: ``Shame On NPR For Axing Edwards Before 
Big Date.''
  The big date, of course, is the 25th anniversary on the air. I agree 
with Mr. Feran.
  The Cleveland Plain Dealer: ``Not a Good Way To Start The Day,'' a 
title from Connie Schultz, a columnist. She writes:

       The man I've been waking up with is leaving me.

  She talks about her disappointment and how hard it is to understand 
why NPR is making this decision.

  Turning to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Bill Radke, a columnist, 
writes: ``Mornings Without NPR's Colonel Bob.''
  He starts:

       Bob Edwards has been canned, and there seem to be two types 
     of people in the world: The ones saying, ``You've ruined my 
     life, Bob's life, and the lives of everyone I know,'' and the 
     ones saying, ``Who is Bob Edwards?'' Those who did not listen 
     to Bob Edwards may now never know. Those who do, understand 
     full well.

  The Hartford Courant, in Connecticut, by Jim Shea:

       It's not often that you can use the words National Public 
     Radio and stupid in the same sentence but such an occasion 
     has arisen:
       National Public Radio's decision to replace ``Morning 
     Edition'' host Bob Edwards is just plain stupid. What are you 
     bozos who run NPR thinking? You know, we've really got to do 
     something about the fabulous ratings we have.
       Bob Edwards is not just the bright, witty, urbane, 
     insightful and immensely likable host of ``Morning Edition,'' 
     he is for the program's 13 million weekly listeners the voice 
     of the morning.
       There is something soothing, something comforting, 
     something reassuring about stumbling from slumber into the 
     gentle embrace of Edwards' mellifluous baritone that makes 
     morning bearable.

  He speaks for many people when he writes that.
  Finally, on salon.com, Alexandra Marshall makes many of the same 
points about the importance of Bob Edwards' ``Morning Edition.''
  Those who are following this debate may be puzzled as to why a 
Senator would stand up in this Chamber to make an issue over the 
replacement of a man who is, by all measures, just another voice in the 
morning. But Bob

[[Page 5973]]

Edwards is not another voice in the morning. He is the voice we have 
counted on and the voice we rely on.
  If he is as important to you as he is to so many of us, please, 
understand National Public Radio exists because of people like us who 
listen to it and contribute to it out of our own pockets, love it, and 
want it to continue to be the great institution which it is today. 
Those who are shareholders of National Public Radio by virtue of our 
contributions, if we disagree with this decision, have an obligation to 
tell the management right now.
  I encourage those who feel as I do that the replacement of Bob 
Edwards is wrong, to do two things: First, go to your Internet, e-mail 
npr.org and let them know what you think; and second, call your local 
affiliate of the National Public Radio system and let them know this is 
a sad and sorry decision.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
327 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')


                        Recent Violence in Iraq

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to 
express my outrage and the outrage of Americans across this country in 
seeing the mutilation and the horrible attack on the Americans who were 
serving, not in the military but serving their country nevertheless, 
and the gleeful crowd gathered around.
  We have to remember that it was a relatively small group of people. 
But nevertheless, the deed was so horrendous that it is hard for those 
of us who live in a democratic environment, as we do, who live with the 
respect that we have for other human beings, to look at this and in any 
way understand what is happening.
  So we send our condolences to those families who lost someone they 
cared about, and to lose them in some kind of atrocious assault we hope 
will serve as a reminder to all of us of what responsibility we took on 
when we entered Iraq and the things we should have tried to contemplate 
before we got to the point that we are.
  One cannot criticize our military. I was in Iraq a couple weeks ago. 
Most of my colleagues have been there at one time or another to see the 
courage and the willingness to serve that we have with our wonderful 
young people there. I talked to them. I especially met with those 
service people who come from New Jersey, men and women. I was very 
impressed with the quality of their thinking, their education, their 
view of life and country.
  I served in World War II. We were some 14 million in uniform. I 
enlisted when I was 18. I remember the associations and friendships I 
made in the small unit in which I served in Europe during the war. When 
I saw the young people who are serving us today, I was truly impressed 
with the quality of those who wore that uniform.
  We now see the situation in Iraq is a very grim one. I am not sure 
that the turnover on July 1 to a ruling council, a governing counsel, 
can stem the tide of violence or reduce the volume of our 
responsibility. But I wish all of our people well and make a pledge 
here that I would like to carry back the message that I got from my 
conversations with some soldiers there.
  I asked them to be frank with me and tell me what, if anything, they 
thought they needed. And they were reluctant at first. I asked whether 
the food was all right, the shelter was OK. Oh, yes.
  But one young captain finally felt comfortable enough to speak. And 
he said: Yes, I will tell you what we could use, Senator.
  He said: The flack jacket that is the best available out there is 
being worn by members of the coalition in some places, and we don't 
have those. They are lighter, they are more efficient, and I don't 
understand why we don't have them.
  Fair enough. He said: You see this rifle?
  I think it was an M-16, but they have changed considerably from the 
time I carried a weapon in World War II.
  He said: I see members of the coalition with lighter, better aiming 
mechanisms than we have on these guns. They are easier to work with at 
any time. We don't have them, and I don't understand why.
  When he talked about armored vehicles, he said they don't have enough 
of them. I was almost dumbstruck. I didn't know what to say because I 
know we have allocated lots and lots of funds. We have placed over $160 
billion into the effort in Iraq, and we are about ready to place a lot 
more with a special allocation, a supplemental allotment. I asked our 
military leadership to tell us what it is that prevents us from 
delivering the kinds of tools, protections, and instruments that our 
people need to conduct their duty there.
  I saw something in the paper last week that said much of the material 
we would like to have there is not sent because we don't have the 
transportation available. I think we ought to get after that problem. I 
pledge to do whatever I can to search out the reasons and make sure we 
expedite the process of getting our courageous service people, who 
serve us so well, the equipment and the support that is needed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
his leadership on this and so many issues. He expresses the feelings I 
have heard from soldiers returning from Iraq who are in Walter Reed 
Hospital recuperating, who are still strong in spirit and still 
dedicated to our country and hoping that we will help them win this 
battle and let them come home safely. There is a lot more we can and 
should do. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership in 
this area.


                          Dietary Supplements

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there has been an issue I have worked on 
now for almost 2 years relative to dietary supplements in America. We 
passed a law called the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act in 
1994. In passage of that legislation, we attempted to establish a 
standard for the legal treatment and regulation of dietary supplements. 
They are known to many Americans. It is a multibillion-dollar industry.
  There are many of us who take vitamins and minerals and believe they 
are good for our health. I took one this morning. I hope it helps me. I 
don't think it will hurt me. For a lot of Americans, it is something 
they rely on.
  There is another category that goes beyond ordinary vitamins and 
minerals, which are products known as dietary supplements. In many 
respects, what they consist of are herbal extracts, so-called natural 
products that are put in combination and sold in stores with many 
claims about whether they can help you from a health viewpoint.
  Most Americans who walk into a drugstore, pharmacy, or nutritional 
supplement store believe the products on the shelf being sold to them 
are, in fact, safe. They may believe they have been tested. They may 
believe the proper clinical evaluation has been done. They may believe 
the Government is monitoring whether there is something wrong with the 
drug that causes a bad health event. Those beliefs are right and true 
and accurate, when it comes to prescription drugs. They have to go 
through extensive testing before they are ever put on the market. The 
FDA and many agencies look at them carefully to make certain they are 
both safe and effective--in other words, that they will not harm you 
and, in fact, will do what they are supposed to do and help you. That 
happens for prescription drugs, and it is what happens to the key 
ingredients in over-the-counter drugs.
  When you walk into a dietary supplement store, a health store, that 
is not the case at all. What you see on the shelves there are products 
which, by and large, have never, ever been tested. Never tested. The 
law we passed said the makers of those products, unlike the 
pharmaceutical companies that make prescription drugs and some

[[Page 5974]]

over-the-counter drugs, have no responsibility to test their products 
for safety before they are sold to the public. In fact, the burden is 
shifted 180 degrees. The Food and Drug Administration of the Government 
has the burden to prove that what is sold on the shelf is unsafe.
  Think about that for a moment. Think of the hundreds, thousands, tens 
of thousands or more dietary supplements for sale in the U.S., and you 
come to the obvious conclusion that there is no Government agency large 
enough to test every possible combination that can be included in a 
dietary supplement. So the simple fact is very few are tested.
  This week, Consumer Reports magazine reported on the issue of dietary 
supplements. I think a lot of this magazine. I have subscribed to it 
over the years. I think what they present is done in a very 
dispassionate and objective fashion. In this issue, they identify the 
problem we face in America with dietary supplements. They note the fact 
that U.S. consumers, since passage of the law I mentioned earlier, have 
literally spent billions of dollars on dietary supplements. They say it 
is interesting that for 10 years, although the FDA had the authority to 
remove an unsafe dietary supplement from the shelf, they never did. I 
will quote:

       Yet, until very recently, the U.S. Food and Drug 
     Administration had not managed to remove a single dietary 
     supplement from the market for safety reasons.
       After seven years of trying, the agency announced a ban on 
     the weight-loss aid ephedra in December of 2003. And in March 
     2004 it warned 23 companies to stop marketing the body-
     building supplement androstenedione (andro).

  That is a steroid precursor. Here we have it on the books for 10 
years, with thousands of products that fall under its purview, and only 
two have been removed. Frankly, what it comes down to is described 
later by Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in 
the Public Interest, a Washington, DC, consumer advocate group:

       The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous 
     are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case.

  Years--while the product is still being sold. How many people at the 
FDA are responsible for monitoring dietary supplements, a multibillion-
dollar industry, with thousands of products? Their supplement division 
consists of about 60 people with a budget of only $10 million to police 
a $19.4 billion-a-year industry.
  Consumer Reports goes on to draw this comparison:

       To regulate drugs, annual sales of which are 12 times the 
     amount of supplement sales, the FDA has almost 43 times as 
     much money and almost 48 times as many people.

  So it is very clear this agency is not prepared and staffed and, 
frankly, doesn't have the authority to protect the American consumer. 
So what happens? People unsuspectingly go into these health food 
stores, vitamin stores, and see the dietary supplements with all sorts 
of claims on them; they buy them, they use them, and the consumers of 
America become the guinea pigs.
  We are the ones who are testing these products to see if they are 
dangerous. You might say, if they are dangerous, if they hurt someone, 
clearly then the Government will take them off the shelf, right? No, I 
am sorry, that is not right because understand that the law we passed 
at the request of the industry does not require dietary supplement 
manufacturers to report to the Government when people are literally 
dying from the products they sell.
  I am sure many people listening to this debate say that cannot be 
true. It is true.
  Let me give a specific example. Metabolife International, a leading 
ephedra manufacturer, did not let the Food and Drug Administration know 
it had received 14,684 complaints of adverse events associated with 
ephedra products. But Metabolife 356, which you may remember, in the 
previous 5 years had received notice of 18 heart attacks, 26 strokes, 
43 seizures, and 5 deaths. Under the law of the United States of 
America, Metabolife had no legal responsibility to tell the Government 
a product it was selling was killing people.
  People listen to that and say that cannot be true, but it is. It is a 
fact.
  When a Harris poll surveyed 1,000 Americans about what they thought 
the law was, they found 59 percent of them said they believe 
supplements must be approved by a Government agency before they can be 
sold. They went on to say 68 percent said the Government requires 
warning labels on a supplement's potential side effects or dangers, and 
55 percent said supplement manufacturers cannot make safety claims 
without solid scientific support.
  Sadly, every single response by the overwhelming majority of 
Americans was plain wrong. There is no Government regulation of the 
products, there is no requirement for warning labels, and these 
companies can make safety claims without solid scientific support. That 
is a fact.
  It seems the Institute of Medicine has decided it is time for a 
change, a change I believe is long overdue. Today the Institute of 
Medicine released this report. It is a framework for evaluating the 
safety of dietary supplements. In the fall of 2000, the Food and Drug 
Administration contracted with the Institute of Medicine to develop a 
scientific framework for safety evaluation of dietary supplements 
within the confines of the law. They also asked them to test their 
framework on six commonly used dietary supplements. The report took 
more than a year longer to complete than was expected, but it is 
comprehensive and thorough. It contains many observations we need to 
scrutinize closely.
  First, their framework depends on the collection of data that is not 
required to be turned over to the FDA by supplement manufacturers, 
namely adverse event reports.
  The IOM report states that the first step in the process for 
reviewing safety is to look for signals of safety problems, including 
adverse events. What do I mean by an ``adverse event''? Does it mean if 
you have an upset stomach from a vitamin you have to report it to the 
Food and Drug Administration? Does it mean if you get dizzy from taking 
any kind of supplement, from garlic to fish oil, you have to call the 
Food and Drug Administration? No.
  What I believe the standard should be is serious adverse health 
events. If you pass out, have a stroke, or heart attack, or die--
serious things that can occur.
  Lest you think this is something that does not happen, let me tell 
you the story of a young man, 16 years old, who lived a few miles from 
my home in Springfield, IL. Sean Riggins of Lincoln, IL, a 16-year-old 
high school student, played on the football team. He had a big game 
coming up. He went over to the local gas station--gas station, mind 
you--and saw a product on the shelf called Yellow Jackets. It was an 
ephedra product. Yellow Jackets were supposed to give him energy. This 
man thought: I need energy; I am going to play football. He purchased 
this product over the counter at a gas station in Lincoln, IL, washed 
it down with a Mountain Dew, which happens to be loaded with caffeine, 
and started feeling sick. When he got to the football game, he didn't 
feel good at all. The next day, his mom and dad took him to the 
hospital, and later that morning he died from a dietary supplement with 
ephedra. Under the law as it is written, if the parents of Sean Riggins 
called the company that made Yellow Jackets and said, ``Your product 
just killed my son,'' that company would not be required under law to 
even report that to the Government. That is not right.
  The Institute of Medicine report we are looking at today recommends 
that that change. Metabolife misled the Government. Companies that make 
products such as Yellow Jacket sadly are not much better.
  Let me tell you about another company called Rexall Sundown. It 
marketed an ephedra product called Metab-o-lite described by the 
Government as having adverse event reports. In other words, people were 
getting sick who took this product. We heard about it and requested the 
company provide us with information about the adverse reports, about 
people getting sick after they took this product.

[[Page 5975]]

  The response I received was truly astonishing. The company said 
Rexall Sundown was a new company and had never sold ephedra products. 
Therefore, it never had any adverse event reports in their possession. 
They used the oldest trick in the book to shield themselves from 
liability for the dangerous products they sold. They had dissolved 
their old company, started a new one with the same name, and tried to 
escape any liability for the life-threatening products they had been 
selling. We tried to get more information from them and failed, but we 
will continue that effort.
  Let me also say to people who said, ``Thank goodness, ephedra is off 
the market, so you can stop worrying,'' that is not the case. The same 
Consumer Reports magazine that is coming out has a table which I 
commend to everyone who takes dietary supplements. It is impossible to 
read this chart, I am sure, on television. I will summarize a few 
points of it for those who would like to understand what Consumer 
Reports, an objective magazine, says about 12 supplements. They said 
you should avoid these supplements.
  A supplement that is ``definitely hazardous'' is aristolochic acid. 
This is something that is sold under a variety of names. They say it is 
a potent human carcinogen. It can cause cancer potentially, kidney 
failure, sometimes requiring transplant. The Food and Drug 
Administration warned consumers and the industry in April 2001. It has 
been banned in seven European countries and Egypt, Japan, and 
Venezuela. But it is still being sold in the United States. 
Aristolochic acid is also known as birthwort, snakeroot, snakeweed, 
sangree root, and so forth.
  Then they list another group of ``very likely hazardous'' products 
banned in other countries where we have a warning from the FDA: 
Comfrey, which includes blackwort, bruisewort, and so many other herbal 
names.
  Incidentally, let me say at this moment how difficult it is for 
consumers to follow this because they change the names on these bottles 
in the dietary supplement store, and you have no idea what you are 
buying. The Food and Drug Administration advised the industry take it 
off the market in July 2001, but it is still being sold. It creates 
abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible, causing death.
  Androstenedione, I mentioned this earlier. The FDA finally banned it 
in supplements.
  Chaparral is another product which is sold under a variety of names. 
It causes abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible. FDA 
warned consumers in December 1992.
  Germander is another product banned in France and Germany.
  Kava is an ingredient in a variety of products. FDA warned consumers 
in March 2002 to avoid it. It is banned in Canada, Germany, Singapore, 
South Africa, and Switzerland, but it can still be sold legally in the 
United States because the Food and Drug Administration does not have 
the power and the authority to police this kind of dangerous product.
  Under ``likely hazardous'' products there is one I would like to 
speak to, bitter orange, citrus aurantium. You will find this in 
Metabolife Ultra. When they took ephedra out, they put bitter orange 
in, and there are a lot of other products, diet products, energy 
products. It can cause high blood pressure and increased risk of heart 
arythmia.
  We wrote to seven companies that make supplements that contain citrus 
aurantium and asked them: What kind of tests did you engage in to 
determine whether citrus aurantium, which is now replacing ephedra, is 
safe? One of the CEOs wrote back and said: We have a scientific study 
to prove our product is safe. So we looked at the study. The study did 
not have anything to do with citrus aurantium or bitter orange. It was 
about the safety of using orange juice--orange juice--in drug 
metabolism studies.
  We then contacted one of the scientists involved in this study and 
asked: Do you realize this company that is selling thousands of 
products worth millions of dollars is claiming your scientific study 
says citrus aurantium is safe?
  This scientist came back to us and said: That is an improper use of 
that study to justify the sale of that product.
  So there is no scientific basis for the safety that CEO asserted. 
These manufacturers are literally putting together dangerous and 
sometimes lethal combinations of chemicals and selling them under the 
banner of dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers.
  For some consumers, it is a waste of money. For others, it is much 
more dangerous.
  There are other products that are mentioned here. I am probably going 
to fail to pronounce many of them properly: organ/glandular extracts, 
Lobelia, Pennyroyal oil, Scullcap and Yohimbe. When one goes through 
these, they will find many of these have been banned in other 
countries.
  One of the conclusions from the Institute of Medicine, after looking 
at dietary supplements, is unreasonable risk does not mean the Food and 
Drug Administration has to prove the supplement is harmful.
  The report concludes, given the limited amount of data available, 
definitive statements judging safety of these products may be difficult 
to completely substantiate scientifically.
  The committee determined that concluding a supplement presents an 
unreasonable risk does not require complete evidence a dietary 
supplement causes a serious adverse event. In other words, the 
unreasonable risk standard that is written in the DSHEA law is a 
standard which frankly is going to be a very difficult one for the FDA 
or others to prove.
  So what they are suggesting at the Institute of Medicine is we look 
to a different and more reasonable standard. They also talk about 
premarket review of some of these products, which I think is something 
that needs to be done.
  I particularly believe stimulants should be subject to premarket 
review so we have some testing to make sure they are safe so many of 
these products here, such as bitter orange, citrus aurantium, which 
cause an increase in blood pressure--and, frankly, I believe what they 
are suggesting in the Institute of Medicine report kind of parallels 
legislation which I have introduced--to try to bring some sanity to 
this industry.
  This has been a battle which I have been engaged in for almost 2 
years now. I know what happens when one takes on a giant industry in 
America, a multibillion-dollar dietary supplement industry. If one 
walks into most vitamin stores around America, they will find my name, 
not in a praiseworthy fashion. They are passing out leaflets saying: 
Write to Durbin and tell him to stop taking away your vitamins and 
minerals.
  It is a scare tactic. It is a scare tactic from an industry that 
should be running scared. There are good actors in this industry and 
there are bad actors, but unfortunately the bad actors are being 
protected by the good ones.
  Right now I believe Americans should be able to buy vitamins and 
minerals which have been tested and proven, make their own choices 
about their own health, but I also believe this industry has a 
responsibility when it sells products that can be dangerous to 
Americans to do two things.
  First, if they are selling stimulants they should be tested in 
advance so we do not have another ephedra which is going to take the 
life of an innocent young boy in Lincoln, IL, or a major league 
baseball player like Steve Bechler of the Baltimore Orioles.
  Second, I believe all of these dietary supplement manufacturers 
should have a legal obligation to report to the Food and Drug 
Administration when people get seriously ill or die as a result of 
taking their products. I think that is the least we should demand.
  I am happy to see the Institute of Medicine creating momentum for 
Congress to finally make a decision. I am happy to see the 
administration, after more than a year of urging, finally banning 
ephedra, but more has to be done. Today as we speak, innocent children 
and consumers across America are buying products which they presume to 
be safe and they are not.

[[Page 5976]]

  We have an obligation to American consumers to set a standard of care 
so they know when they make a purchase, whether it is in a drugstore or 
in a vitamin store, they are buying a product that is more likely to 
help them than hurt them. Sadly, the DSHEA law which currently exists 
does not meet that standard.
  I yield the floor, and 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. COLEMAN. 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. COLEMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   GOPHER WOMEN BASKETBALL AND HOCKEY

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, in these challenging times, it is always 
nice to rise to the floor of the Senate to speak about some good 
things, about the accomplishments of some of the folks from your State 
that elicit a great sense of pride.
  Minnesota is the home to more than 15,000 lakes. It says on our 
license plates ``10,000 Lakes,'' but there are more than 10,000 lakes. 
Judging from the performance of our homegrown college athletes this 
winter, there might be something very special in the water. I 
congratulate Coach Laura Halldorson and the University of Minnesota 
Golden Gophers Women's Ice-Hockey team, which claimed its first NCAA 
championship this Sunday with a convincing 6-to-2 victory over Harvard 
University.
  Finishing with a record of 30 wins, 4 losses, and 2 ties, a 
conference championship, and the top seed in the NCAA tournament, the 
Gophers did what so many No. 1 seeds often fail to do, they finished 
the job and they brought home the hardware.
  I think Americans love an underdog, but we also enjoy marveling at 
excellence, and the women Gopher hockey team achieved this and they 
deserve our congratulations, they deserve our plaudits.
  I wish to highlight the recent progress of women's hockey for a 
moment.
  Hockey is to Minnesota what basketball is to Indiana or football is 
to Texas. Minnesota has been the center of the hockey universe for 
almost 100 years. Until very recently, women's college hockey was 
dominated by Eastern schools. In fact, Augsburg College was the first 
Minnesota school to field a women's hockey team in 1995. I can proudly 
say that since the inception of a NCAA Division I National Championship 
in 2001, no school outside Minnesota has won the national title.
  The first three tournaments were won by the University of Minnesota-
Duluth, which I had the pleasure of meeting last year.
  The hockey rinks of Minnesota--and almost every town has at least 
one--have always been full of young ring rats wearing hockey jerseys 
with the names of Minnesota legends such as Broten, Bonin, Pohl, and 
Gaborik. Today, however, it is as common to see young ring rats skating 
around the ice with ponytails coming out of their helmets. I got my 14-
year-old daughter her first pair of Betty hockey skates this winter, 
and she uses them proudly. They have the ponytails coming out their 
helmets. They are wearing names such as Brodt, Darwitz, Wendell, and 
Potter on their backs. Minnesota has always been the State of men's 
hockey. Now, thanks to the pioneers of women's hockey such as the women 
who just won the national championship, Minnesota can rightly claim to 
be the State of all ice hockey.
  Switching from the hockey rink to the basketball gym, the story that 
has all of Minnesota abuzz right now is the Minnesota Golden Gophers 
women's basketball team's appearance in the NCAA Final Four. After 
earning a seventh seed in the regional tournament, Minnesota defeated 
the No. 3 seed, the No. 2 seed, and finally top-ranked Duke, 82 to 75, 
on Tuesday night. Prior to this year, the Gophers had never made it 
past the Sweet Sixteen in three previous NCAA tournaments. Now the 
Gophers will be the highest seed to play in a Final Four since No. 9 
Arkansas in 1998. I believe they are the first No. 7 seed to play in 
the Final Four.
  I had a chance to watch--not watch, I watched here in Washington--the 
game against UCLA with my daughter in Minnesota who, in addition to 
wanting to be a hockey player, wants to be a basketball player. On the 
phone, play by play, as we were talking about it, I just loved the 
sense of excitement.
  I was unable to watch the game against Duke the other night; I had a 
speaking engagement at the time of the game. But I was anxious, when I 
checked my cell phone as soon as that speaking engagement was over, to 
hear first a message from my daughter, with just a couple of minutes 
left, that we were ahead and then this excited message that we won. We 
won. It is great to see young kids, young women look at other young 
women and look at their sense of accomplishment, athletic 
accomplishment and say, Boy, I would like to be like that. It is great 
to have role models, and we have them at the University of Minnesota 
now, led by second year coach Pam Borton and Most Valuable Player 
Lindsay Whalen, a young woman who broke her wrist and was out for a 
while and I believe the first game back in the tournament scored 31 
points.
  The Gopher women will face the University of Connecticut at 8:30 
Minnesota time. I wish the team all the best of luck, and the thanks of 
millions of Minnesotans who will be glued to the television, cheering 
you on, including me and my daughter.
  The University of Minnesota women's ice hockey and basketball teams 
have made all Minnesotans proud. A source of intense pride for all 
Minnesotans is that these championship teams are overwhelmingly 
comprised of Minnesota-grown young women. Eleven of the 14 players on 
the Gopher basketball team, and 12 out of 20 on the hockey team, are 
from Minnesota. These young women represent cities from corners of 
Minnesota, such as Fosston, Marshall, Stewartville, Moorhead, Hibbing, 
and the Twin Cities.
  Congratulations to the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers women's 
ice hockey and women's basketball teams for their athletic success, and 
for, really, making all of Minnesota proud, doing such a fabulous job 
of representing Minnesota on the national stage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the last couple of hours since we had 
our vote today, I have been asked by a couple of press people who are 
lingering in the hallways about the issue of obstructionism. 
Apparently, there are some who suggest there is obstruction going on in 
the Senate.
  It is interesting to me that there are charges of obstructionism to 
the Senate's business. We are not voting today, really. We voted once 
on a cloture vote. We did not vote yesterday. Apparently, we are not 
voting now until next Wednesday.
  Why is that the case? Because there was an amendment offered to 
increase the minimum wage, and the majority party did not want to vote 
on the amendment.
  It seems to me if there is obstruction around here, it is obstructing 
the ability to have a vote on an amendment to increase the minimum 
wage. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder in this country 
have not had an increase in the minimum wage for years. It is perfectly 
appropriate for us to consider that in the context of welfare reform.
  So an amendment is offered; but because the majority does not want it 
to be voted on, business essentially is stopped dead on the floor, and 
there are

[[Page 5977]]

no votes, and we are at parade rest for 4 or 5 days. If anybody is 
obstructing, I would say it is those who brought the welfare reform 
bill to the floor and then decided they did not want to vote on 
anything, and we go, day after day, with no votes. And those who create 
that situation now accuse others of obstructing.
  I think it is a curious thing to do, but maybe there is a language 
here I have not yet learned and do not yet understand. But there is 
certainly no obstruction on the part of those of us who want to have a 
vote on the amendments we offered.


                      Outsourcing of American Jobs

  Mr. President, we are going to be turning, we think, in the next week 
or two back to a piece of legislation that was on the floor of the 
Senate that was also pulled from consideration because they did not 
want a vote on an amendment that was pending. When that bill comes back 
that deals with the issue of tax incentives for foreign sales--when 
that bill comes back to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment 
dealing with an issue that has been discussed recently, and that is the 
movement of jobs from this country to overseas.
  We talk a lot about the concern of the outsourcing of jobs. This 
country, as you know, has lost over 3 million jobs in recent years, the 
last 3 years or so, 3\1/2\ years, and we are now down a net roughly 2.5 
million jobs. We gained a few jobs back, but we are about 2.5 million 
jobs less than we were 3\1/2\ years ago.
  So the question is, will this economy create new jobs? We need them 
desperately. The other question is, why are we having policies in place 
that remain in place that actually incentivize the movement of jobs 
overseas?
  Let me describe one of them I intend to fix with an amendment as soon 
as I have the ability to offer the amendment on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Assume, for a moment, there are two businesses. Both produce garage 
door openers. They are both located in the United States. They both 
manufacture garage door openers, and they sell them in the United 
States. One of them decides they will move to China, so they move their 
plant to China. They fire their American workers. They hire workers in 
China. They make the same garage door opener in China and ship it back 
to our country.
  There is one substantial difference now between those two firms, and 
that is the taxes they will pay on the profits they earn. The company 
that has moved to China to produce the product to ship back into this 
country will pay a lower U.S. income tax. In fact, they will largely 
pay no U.S. income tax.
  We have a tax incentive in our law books that says: If you move your 
plant overseas and produce there for the purpose of shipping back into 
our country, we will give you a tax cut.
  You talk about perversity, this is it. Our country says: We will 
reward you if you shut down your American company, your American 
business, move it to China, move it to another country, and ship the 
product back into our country.
  Well, at a time when we are losing jobs and desperately need jobs in 
our country, the very least we should do--at least the baby step we 
ought to take--is to shut down the perverse incentive in our Tax Code 
that says: Ship your jobs overseas and we will give you a big break.
  We will have an opportunity to vote on that. The Senate voted on 
that, actually, in an amendment I offered some years ago, and my 
amendment came up short. Perhaps having lost now 2.5 million net jobs 
in the last 3\1/2\ years, the Senate will come to a different 
conclusion. I hope that is the case because this issue of jobs is 
critically important.


                            Trade Agreements

  Mr. President, I have spoken often on the floor of the Senate about 
the subject of international trade. I will do so again briefly, just to 
say we have recently negotiated two free trade agreements, negotiated 
by the trade ambassador. I do not expect either, frankly, to come to 
the floor of the Senate this year. Why? Because I do not expect the 
administration, which negotiated these trade agreements, will want to 
have a debate on them: the Central American Free Trade Agreement and 
the Australian Free Trade Agreement. Why don't they want to have a 
debate on them? Because, like most recent trade agreements, they are 
not mutually beneficial; that is, beneficial to us and those with whom 
we negotiated the treaty. In most cases, they will end up costing this 
country lost jobs and large trade deficits.
  I will not go into great discussion about the so-called CAFTA, 
Central American Free Trade Agreement, or to go back and talk about 
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, both of which are 
terrible agreements, or the recent bilateral agreement we did with 
China, which is an awful agreement, or the agreement with Australia 
that really shortchanges us in terms of what we should have required to 
have happen with state trading enterprises. I will not do that. But 
suffice it to say, I do not expect there to be brought to this floor a 
debate on this trade agreement by the administration because that is 
the last thing they want between now and this election, because it will 
be a significant debate about jobs and whether these trade agreements 
cost us jobs or gain jobs. The record is quite clear, we are losing 
jobs as a result of these many trade agreements.
  We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country, by 
far: a $470 billion trade deficit. Every single day--every single day--
almost $1.5 billion in trade deficit; that is, goods we are importing 
in excess of goods we are exporting. Someday, someone has to pay the 
cost of that trade deficit.
  Now let me describe my concern about this trade. I am not concerned 
about expanding trade. I happen to believe it is largely beneficial to 
expand trade. I think countries that engage in activities because of 
natural resources, and other things, where they have a natural 
advantage, that it makes sense for us to trade with them, and for those 
countries to trade with us in circumstances that are the reverse.
  But that is not the case with most trade agreements today. In fact, 
the case is we have not a doctrine of comparative advantage, as Ricardo 
used to talk about nearly 200 years ago. The doctrine of comparative 
advantage is irrelevant. It is a natural advantage that becomes a 
political advantage by countries that create circumstances of 
production that are fundamentally unfair with respect to free trade.
  An example: A country says: We will not allow workers to organize. If 
they try to organize, we will fire them. And, oh, by the way, we will 
not require the payment of any kind of a minimum wage. You can hire 
workers for 16 cents an hour, if you wish. And, by the way, there is no 
age issue with respect to child labor, so if you want to pay 16 cents 
an hour, and hire a 12-year-old kid to do it, that is fine as well. 
And, also, we will not require the workplace be safe. If you want to 
hire 12-year-olds, pay them 12 cents an hour, and put them in an unsafe 
workplace, that is all right, too. By the way, when you do it, and you 
have a 12-year-old working in an unsafe plant, working 12 hours a day, 
7 days a week, you can dump the chemicals into the air and the water 
from that plant, and that is just fine as well.
  Now if countries decide that is the condition of production in their 
country, and plants move to those countries to hire those workers so 
they can produce a product to ship back into our country, is that what 
we should aspire to have American workers compete with? The answer is, 
no, of course not. Yet that is exactly what is happening today. You 
think I am wrong? Check the facts. I am not saying in every factory 
they are hiring 12-year-olds, but I am saying it is happening in many 
parts of the world. I will give you one example I have used on the 
floor of the Senate previously to describe in more specific terms the 
way this works.
  This is a picture of a Huffy bicycle. Most people know about Huffy 
bicycles--20 percent of the American marketplace. You can buy them at 
K-Mart, you can buy them at Wal-Mart, and you can buy them at Sears. 
Huffy bicycles used to be made in Ohio. They were made by workers who 
made $11 an hour. They would get up and go to

[[Page 5978]]

their jobs. I am sure they were proud of their jobs. They worked $11-
an-hour jobs in Ohio to make Huffy bicycles. Right between the 
handlebars and the front fender they had a little insignia, a little 
metal insignia of the American flag.
  Well, Huffy bicycles are no longer made in America. They are now made 
in China. The workers who made Huffy bicycles in Ohio were fired 
because $11 an hour was too much to pay someone to make a bicycle. 
Huffy bicycles are now made in China by workers who work 7 days a week, 
12 to 14 hours a day, and are paid 33 cents an hour. In fact, Huffy 
bicycles no longer have the decal of the American flag between the 
handlebar and the front fender. They have a decal of the globe, 
descriptive, it seems to me, of what is happening to the elements of 
production and the manufacturing base in this country.
  The question is this: Is it fair competition to ask workers in Ohio, 
making $11 an hour, to compete with workers in China who work 7 days a 
week, and make 33 cents an hour? Does that represent fair competition? 
Is that what we aspire to do? Or is this driving to the bottom the 
wages of American workers? And is it exporting the manufacturing 
expertise and base of the U.S. economy?
  Globalization has happened quickly. The rules of globalization have 
not kept pace. We know that we don't want the product of Chinese prison 
labor to come in and hang on a store shelf in an American store and 
represent that as fair competition. Most all in the Chamber would 
probably agree the product of Chinese prison labor ought not be sold in 
this country because it is not fair competition. But then what about 
someone in Indonesia who works for 16 cents an hour? Is that fair 
competition for an American worker? Should we aspire to have an 
American worker compete in a circumstance where someone works 12 hours 
a day, sleeps in a bunker, 12 to a room, works 7 days a week in a plant 
that is unsafe?
  The question of outsourcing of American jobs and the question of what 
is fair trade are questions that this Congress ultimately will have to 
answer because, if not, we will see a continued exodus from this 
country of jobs.
  The economists, the so-called big thinkers who wear small glasses, 
tell us we are only talking about the outsourcing of low-tech, low-
skill, low-wage jobs. That is absolutely untrue, flat out false. If 
those economists are still giving opinions and still making money, they 
should not be. I won't name the economists, but the economists who told 
us what would happen with the United States-Mexico trade agreement who 
were dead, flat out wrong. They said with that agreement we will import 
from Mexico the product of low-skilled, low-wage labor, and we will, 
therefore, benefit from that. It won't cost us high-skill, high-wage 
labor in the United States.
  That is not true. The three largest exports from Mexico are 
automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics--the product of high-
skilled labor. It has cost dearly American jobs.
  There are so many elements to this that almost defy description. Part 
of it is the start of this process, when we negotiate the trade 
agreement. Let me give you one of the most idiotic provisions in an 
agreement I have ever seen. It was done a couple years ago. I have no 
idea which unnamed and unseen negotiator negotiated this, but we 
negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with China. And we have with 
China a very large trade deficit, now nearly $130 billion a year. So 
this is what our side agreed to: we will put a 2.5-percent tariff on 
Chinese automobiles shipped to the United States, and the Chinese will 
impose a tariff 10 times higher on any U.S. cars that we aspire to sell 
in China.
  How would one come to that agreement with a country with whom we have 
such a large trade deficit? I have no idea. It is fundamentally 
incompetent to negotiate treaties that so undermine the basic 
manufacturing interests of our country.
  Another example of automobiles--I don't come from a State that 
produces automobiles--is the country of Korea. I have a chart that 
shows what is happening with Korea. We import a substantial number of 
cars from Korea. Most people know the names of those cars. They buy 
those cars. We have ships coming across the ocean loaded with Korean 
cars. In fact, in a recent year, we had 618,000 Korean cars shipped in 
the U.S. marketplace for sale. Do you know how many cars we sold in 
Korea? Two thousand eight hundred. So there were 618,000 cars coming 
from Korea to the United States and 2,800 cars from the United States 
to Korea.
  Why is that the case? Is it because Korean consumers don't want to 
buy American cars? No. It is because the Korean government has put up 
barrier after barrier to try to stop such sales. That is why you have a 
ratio of 217 to 1 Korean cars sold in the United States to U.S. cars 
sold in Korea. Why do we put up with it? It is because this country 
lacks the backbone and the spine and the will to demand fair trade and 
stand up for our products. If our producers can't compete, shame on us. 
Then we lose. But requiring our producers to compete when the game is 
rigged, saying our producers ought to compete, when foreign markets are 
closed to us, is fundamentally wrong. Yet that is what is happening. 
Japan, Europe, Korea, China--you can go right down the list.
  I have mentioned a number of times that we have a trade regime in 
this country and people who work in that area seem to lack the stiff 
backbone that is necessary to stand up for our own economic interests. 
There is no evidence that we ever get tough with anybody, no matter the 
circumstances, because most of our trade policy is mushy-headed, 
foreign policy rather than sound, sensible economic policy.
  We had a dispute with Europe on about beef trade, because Europe will 
not allow U.S. beef into its market. The WTO, for a change, ruled that 
the United States was right, and that we could retaliate on Europe for 
blocking our exports. And what do we do? We put tariffs on Roquefort 
cheese, goose liver, and truffles. That is going to scare the devil out 
of somebody, scare them with tariffs on Roquefort cheese, goose liver, 
and truffles, won't it?
  Our country's trade officials don't have the foggiest idea how to 
deal with trade problems, whether it is standing up for beef interests 
in this country or standing up for manufacturers or the interests of 
workers. Our trade officials simply have been AWOL.
  There is much to talk about with respect to international trade and 
jobs. The discussion about all of this relates to whether we have a job 
base to allow those who aspire to go to work to find a job. We have 
seen 2.5 million fewer jobs now than 3\1/2\ years ago, and at least a 
part of that is because we are outsourcing and seeing jobs move from 
this country to other countries.
  At least two of the reasons for that are, one, we have a perverse Tax 
Code that actually rewards companies that move their jobs out of this 
country, and we ought to do something about that. And, second, we have 
basically incompetent trade agreements that fail to stand up for this 
country's economic interests.
  My hope is that we could have a debate on trade in the Senate this 
year. It appears to me we are going to have a debate on virtually 
nothing. The minute someone offers an amendment, the others pack up 
their duffel bags and leave town. I don't understand it. Day after day 
we have no votes. Why? Because someone dared come to the floor to say, 
after 6 or 8 years, maybe we should have an increase in the minimum 
wage.
  What does that do? It fills up airplanes leaving Washington, DC, 
because nobody wants to vote. And while they are out of town, they tell 
the press that those who offered the amendment are obstructionists, 
forgetting, of course, that the obstruction is really the refusal to 
give a vote to those who offered a very sensible amendment to the bill.
  Most of us came here because we want to do serious things about 
serious issues. It would be good if, in the interest of this country, 
we could, in a spirit of some cooperation, decide here is the 
legislation we want on the floor, offer your amendments, have 
reasonable

[[Page 5979]]

time agreements, have votes, and move on. Whatever the will of the 
Senate is, that is what we ought to do.
  But instead, especially recently, we have seen a regrettable 
situation of the Senate deciding, if there is a controversial amendment 
that is offered, the majority doesn't like it, we will just stop 
working.
  There is a lot to do. This country has an economy that regrettably at 
this point, while producing some growth, is not producing jobs. I just 
finished reading an article by an economist from the Reagan 
administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the architects of 
the economic strategy back in the 1980s. Paul Craig Roberts has it 
about right. He said this may well be an economic recovery without new 
jobs--a jobless recovery. And if that is the case, we are in trouble.
  We need to search for ways to begin to create these jobs. If we have 
a recovery and no new jobs being created, we face some pretty difficult 
times. The American people want to go to work. These kids coming out of 
college want jobs. They want opportunity and hope. They want a good 
future. You do that by having an economy that produces jobs. There is 
no social program we discuss in the Congress that is as important or as 
productive as a good job that pays well.
  That is what allows people to have a good life, provide for their 
family, and do the things they want to do. So the question for us is, 
what happened here? Why the disconnect? Why is an economy that is 
growing not producing jobs?
  One answer is that we are seeing jobs moving to Sri Lanka, 
Bangladesh, China, Mexico--you name it. They are leaving. As they 
leave, a part of that departure is to be rewarded with a reverse tax 
cut, a tax incentive that says we will reward you while you leave.
  We ought to close that now. We ought to go back and look at some of 
these trade agreements and decide whether it is in this country's 
interests not to be protectionist but to demand that the rules of trade 
be fair. If we are unwilling to do that, we are not going to see the 
creation of the kind of jobs that are necessary to restore the 2\1/2\ 
millions jobs that were lost and provide the additional jobs an 
increase in population requires year by year.
  Mr. President, there are no votes today, tomorrow, Monday, or 
Tuesday. I guess the Senate comes back with perhaps a vote on 
Wednesday. I hope that perhaps we can start over and decide to treat 
seriously those things that are serious. There is such a tendency here 
to treat lightly those things that are serious and treat seriously 
those things that should be treated lightly. We never get to where we 
should be with respect to the interests of this country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Get Outdoors Act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise with my colleague from 
Tennessee, to recognize the introduction of legislation in the House of 
Representatives today by Congressmen Don Young of Alaska and George 
Miller of California. The Get Outdoors Act is similar to an effort that 
many of us in the House and Senate were involved in during the 106th 
Congress.
  I am particularly pleased to be joined by Senator Alexander to 
announce our intention to introduce similar legislation in the Senate 
in the coming weeks.
  The principles and concepts within this legislation from the 106th 
Congress were then and continue today to be one of the most significant 
conservation efforts ever considered by Congress. Our goal is to 
provide a steady, reliable stream of revenue to fund some of the most 
urgent conservation needs in the country.
  The Get Outdoors Act, or GO Act, as the House bill will be referred 
to, is almost identical to the legislation considered by the House and 
Senate in the 106th Congress. That legislation had overwhelming 
bipartisan support. It was a landmark, multi-year commitment to 
conservation programs benefitting all 50 States.
  The legislation we will be introducing uses a conservation royalty 
earned from the production of oil and gas off the Outer Continental 
Shelf for the protection and enhancement of our natural and cultural 
heritage, threatened coastal areas and wildlife habitat. It also 
reinvests in our local communities and provides for our children and 
grandchildren through enhanced outdoor recreational activities.
  By enacting this legislation, we can ensure that we are making the 
most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever and 
ensure a positive legacy of protecting and enhancing cultural, natural, 
and recreational resources for Americans today and in the future.
  As many of our colleagues will remember, during the 106th Congress 
the House of Representatives passed almost identical legislation by a 
vote of 315 to 102 and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources reported a similar version that had the support of both the 
Chairman and Ranking Member.
  In addition, in September of 2000, a bipartisan group of 63 Senators 
sent a letter to the majority and minority leaders indicating their 
support to bring the bill to the floor. The effort was supported by 
Governors, Mayors and a coalition of over 5,000 organizations from 
throughout the country.
  Unfortunately, despite that tremendous and unprecedented network of 
people who came together in support of the legislation, our efforts 
were cut short before a Bill could be signed into law. Instead a 
commitment was made by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee 
funding for these programs each year through the appropriation process.
  However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment 
has not been honored. What has happened is exactly what those of us who 
initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant 
programs has been shortchanged and a number of them have left out 
altogether or forced to compete with each other for scarce resources. 
So, today, the House has taken a great step to introduce similar 
legislation. The principle of the bill Senator Alexander and I will 
soon introduce provides a reliable, significant and steady stream of 
revenue for the urgent conservation and outdoor recreation needs of our 
rapidly growing cities.
  If we were to look at a map of the country and put lights where most 
of the population is, we would see a bright ring around the country 
because two-thirds of our population reside within 50 miles of our 
coasts. As a Senator from a coastal State, I understand the pressures 
that confront many of our coastal communities.
  Today, with the price of oil near a 13-year high we should channel 
some of those revenues and re-invest them in our natural resources.
  Some of the programs in the legislation we plan to introduce will 
include: impact assistance, coastal conservation and fishery 
enhancement for all coastal States and eligible local governments and 
to mitigate the various impacts of producing States that serve as the 
``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy 
resources from the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not reward 
drilling, but it does acknowledge the impacts to and the contributions 
of States that are providing the energy to run the country; flexible 
and stable funding for the State and Federal sides of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund while protecting the rights of private property 
owners and with a particular emphasis on alleviating the maintenance 
backlog confronting our national parks; wildlife conservation, 
education and restoration through the successful program of Pittman-
Robertson; urban parks and recreation recovery to rehabilitate and 
develop recreation programs, sites and facilities enabling cities and 
towns to focus on enhancing

[[Page 5980]]

the quality of life for populations within our more densely inhabited 
areas by providing more green-spaces, more playgrounds and ball fields 
for our youth and the parents and community leaders that support them; 
historic preservation programs, including full funding of grants to the 
States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and 
administering the numerous historic preservation programs that are 
crucial to remember our proud past and fully funding the Payment In 
Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, in order to compensate local 
governments, predominantly out west, for losses to their tax bases 
because the Federal Government owns so much land in a number of those 
States.
  While we confront the challenges of a war, budget deficits and a 
struggling economy, I believe it would be wise and we would show good 
stewardship to take this opportunity to set aside a small portion of 
the oil and gas royalties to our States and localities for initiatives 
such as outdoor spaces or recreation facilities where our children can 
play. The essence of this legislation, the American Outdoors Act, is to 
take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of 
reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and 
enhancement of our renewable resources.
  We wanted to come to the floor today to share these ideas with our 
colleagues, to encourage their input and ask them to be a part of this 
unique conservation effort.
  I would also like to add how much I appreciate the leadership of 
Senator Alexander. I think we will make a great team and thank him for 
his cosponsorship as we attempt to move this legislation through the 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Presiding Officer and I are new 
Members of the Senate, but we learn our lessons pretty quickly. One of 
the things you learn here is if you want to have an impact in the 
Senate, you have to put a focus on something you care about and then 
keep after it.
  The Senator from Louisiana has done that. In her first term here she 
focused on the great American outdoors. Working with others, she came 
pretty close to passing an important piece of legislation 3 years ago.
  There were some problems in it for Members of the Senate. It is my 
goal, working with her this year, and we hope with many others of our 
colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and others of 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to solve those problems and 
come up with legislation that represents the conservation majority, the 
huge conservation majority that exists in the United States of America.
  The conservation majority of this country does not have a line down 
the middle with chairs on each side. It exists on both sides of every 
aisle and has broad support. We are good legislators, and if we are as 
good as we hope we are, we will be able to work and represent what our 
constituents would like us to do. So it is a privilege for me to work 
with Senator Landrieu. We both serve on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. We are fortunate under Chairman Pete Domenici and 
ranking member Jeff Bingaman that we, most of the time, are able to 
work in a bipartisan way. So we are off to a good start in terms of 
fashioning a piece of legislation that will gain the support of our 
colleagues.
  We are deliberately today not offering legislation. We want to 
discuss it first with members of our committee. We want to discuss it 
next with others, such as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, who has 
a long interest in conservation matters. We want her ideas and those of 
others. Then, perhaps in 3 weeks, after the recess, we will be able to 
come forward with a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan 
support.
  As the Senator from Louisiana said, this morning Congressman Young of 
Alaska and George Miller of California introduced the GO Act, the Get 
Outdoors Act of 2004. I believe they used it to emphasize we might do 
some work on this obesity problem that is really worrying us, in terms 
of health, if more of us spend a little more time walking outdoors, 
playing outdoors, and taking advantage of our country.
  As the Senator from Louisiana said, the bill therefore will provide, 
I believe, about $3 billion in guaranteed annual funding for outdoor 
recreation purposes. It would be paid for, as she described, by what I 
think of as a conservation royalty. This is the way I think of it. It 
is a royalty on the revenues from oil and gas drilling on offshore 
Federal lands. After the royalties are paid to the landowner and after 
the royalties are paid to the State, this conservation royalty would be 
paid to a trust fund which would then spend the money for the benefit 
of conservation. Then, after that, the rest of the Federal revenues 
would go into the regular Federal appropriations process.
  That is the way I like to think about it and I hope that is the way a 
majority of the Members of the Senate will want to think about it as 
well.
  As the Senator said, we will be discussing these concepts that she so 
well outlined with our colleagues. And we hope they will join us as 
cosponsors. As she said, our bill will be similar to that which was 
introduced this morning in the House of Representatives, but it will 
not be the same.
  In addition, it will be similar to the so-called CARA legislation 
that Senator Landrieu and many others worked hard on 3 years ago, but 
it will not be the same. There are some lessons that we need to learn 
from what happened 3 years ago.
  For example, the cost of the Senate legislation may not be as much as 
the cost of the legislation offered in the House. That is yet to be 
determined.
  In addition, as the Senator said, we intend to discuss with our 
colleagues whether States should have the option, for example, of 
spending the Federal share of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 
maintenance of Federal lands rather than for acquisition.
  I have learned over the years that there is a big difference of 
opinion between Senators from the West and Senators from the East about 
the acquisition of Federal lands. In North Carolina and Tennessee, we 
don't have much Federal land. So a lot of us--even many of us 
conservative Republicans--would be glad to have a little more. Out West 
there are a lot of people who think the Federal Government not only has 
enough but it has too much, and they don't want to see legislation that 
would acquire more.
  We need to take that into account as we develop a piece of 
legislation that will represent the conservation majority but do it 
with respect for those States that are already largely owned by the 
Federal Government.
  Our legislation, like that proposed in the House, will ensure that 
State and Federal parts of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 
fulfill the intention that Congress originally envisioned. It will 
provide for wildlife conservation. That will benefit hunters and 
fishermen. There are more hunters and fish people with hunting and 
fishing licenses in Tennessee than there are people who vote. I am not 
sure that is a statistic to admire, but it is a fact, and it is one to 
which I pay attention. Bird watchers and all Americans who enjoy 
outdoor recreation will benefit from this legislation. It will provide 
funds to establish city parks so the children in and around our 
metropolitan areas can have decent, clean places to play; so families 
can have decent places to go; and so senior Americans can have decent, 
safe places to walk.
  Someone once said Italy has its art, England has its history, and the 
United States has the Great American Outdoors. Walt Whitman wrote, ``If 
you would understand me, go to the heights or watershores.''
  Our magnificent land, as much as our love for liberty, is at the core 
of the American character. It has inspired our pioneer spirit, our 
resourcefulness, and our generosity. Its greatness has fueled our 
individualism and optimism and has made us believe that anything is 
possible. It has influenced our music, literature, science, and 
language. It has served as the training ground of athletes and 
philosophers, of poets and defenders of American ideals.
  That is why there is a conservation majority--a large conservation 
majority--in the United States of America.

[[Page 5981]]

  That is why so many of us, as the Senator from Louisiana said, feel a 
responsibility in our generation to ensure to the next generation the 
inspiration of the dignity of the outdoors, its power, its elemental 
freedom; the opportunity to participate in the challenges of its 
discovery and personal involvement; and the fulfillment that is to be 
found in the endless opportunities for physical release and spiritual 
release.
  Some of the words I just used came from the preamble of President 
Ronald Reagan's Commission on American Outdoors, which I chaired in 
1985 and 1986.
  In 1985, President Reagan asked a group of us--I was then the 
Governor of Tennessee--to look ahead for a generation and see what 
needed to be done for Americans to have appropriate places to go and 
what they wanted to do outdoors.
  Our report, issued in 1987--very nearly a generation ago--recommended 
that we light a prairie fire of action to protect what was important to 
us in the American outdoors and to build for the future. We focused on 
the importance of a higher outdoors ethic, suggested an ``outdoor 
corps'' to improve recreational facilities. We examined the role of 
voluntarism. We pointed out that the park most people like is the park 
closest to where they live and how important it is, therefore, to have 
urban parks as well as great national parks. We warned of how the 
liability crisis and runaway lawsuits threatened our outdoor activities 
and called for a new institution or set of institutions to train 
leadership for outdoor recreation.
  We formed State commissions, such as Tennesseans Outdoors, which went 
to work with the same objectives in our own State that we had in our 
national Commission.
  We envisioned a network of greenways, scenic byways, and shorelines. 
Most of the action we suggested was not from Washington, DC, but was 
community by community by community.
  But we also acknowledged the important role the Federal Government 
has to play in providing outdoor recreation opportunities. Of course, 
we must have clean air and clean water, and we must protect and enhance 
recreation opportunities on Federal lands and waters.
  Almost all of us on the Commission called for the creation of a $1 
billion fund to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund--both 
the State share and the Federal share. This is a way of balancing our 
need for more oil and gas with our need for recreational opportunities 
in the outdoors.
  As I mentioned earlier, I think of these annual payments from the 
revenues derived from offshore drilling for oil and gas on Federal land 
as a royalty payment. Pay the owner a royalty, pay the State its 
royalty, then pay a conservation royalty for the use of that resource. 
Then the rest of those revenues go into the Federal Treasury to be 
appropriated. Pay a $3 billion annual conservation royalty--that is the 
number that the House bill uses--before it ever gets to the Federal 
appropriations process. Then appropriate the rest.
  I believe this legislation will have broad bipartisan support in the 
Senate.
  I look forward to working with Senator Landrieu, Chairman Domenici, 
with our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and 
with all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fashion 
legislation that is good legislation, that represents the overwhelming 
conservation majority in the United States of America, and which can 
pass the Senate and the House of Representatives this year.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I commend my colleague, the Senator 
from Tennessee, for his leadership--as I said, for not just this year 
and the years he has been in the Senate but for his years of service in 
Tennessee, and as Chairman of this important Commission that outlined 
some of the principles we are talking about and searching for solutions 
to today; and for his eloquence in reminding us that even more than 
good stewardship is required.
  One particularly fresh idea that he has brought to this effort is the 
conservation royalty.
  I think we can begin to see that the companies are not only paying a 
royalty to the Government, but they are paying a royalty to future 
generations through conservation. I think it is royalty they would 
gladly pay. We are not asking them to pay more than they are today. But 
a portion of what they pay today.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to 
getting, as we said, ideas from our colleagues, taking it to the Energy 
Committee and developing broad bipartisan support. Even in these days 
of tight budgets, we can think about setting aside a portion of these 
revenues which are not insignificant. As you know, last year we 
generated $6 billion off the coast primarily of Louisiana, Texas, 
Mississippi, and Alabama, while still honoring the moratorium that is 
in place along the western coasts the eastern coasts and Florida. Even 
honoring the moratorium in place, we still were able to generate 
billions of dollars. Hopefully through this legislation we can dedicate 
that conservation royalty, a portion, to the worthy causes.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  Her comments make me think of this report. Let me hold this up. So 
staff will not worry, I will not ask to put this in the Congressional 
Record. There is a summary I will bring to the Senate when we introduce 
the bill. This is the report of President Reagan's Commission on 
Americans Outdoors, published in 1987. It is a very good resource and 
backup for many of the ideas we envision being part of this 
legislation.
  I learned very quickly as Chairman of this Commission that most of 
the decisions we have to deal with in environmental and conservation 
matters involve balance. Senator Landrieu and I know, because of our 
service on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as we work hard 
to try to develop a national energy policy, that we are having a 
difficult time as a country compromising, creating balance between our 
need to produce and our need to conserve.
  I certainly do not want to draw into this discussion all of those 
arguments. I will say very little more about it except it would be nice 
to find in this contentious Presidential year, in this time when we 
have so much disagreement about energy production and conservation, one 
area where we could show we are skilled enough as legislators to 
properly represent the huge conservation majority in the United States.
  Most Americans, as President Reagan's Commission thought and almost 
all Members thought, of course, we have to drill for oil and gas; 
otherwise our natural gas prices are going through the roof; our jobs 
will be in Mexico; our lights will be out. Of course we have to do 
that.
  Is that an insult to the environment? Yes, it is. What do we do about 
it? Shut down the wells? No, one thing we can do is take some of that 
money--actually a lot of this money--and pay a conservation royalty, 
compensate for that by creating a conservation benefit on the other 
side. This idea of the land and water conservation fund has been 
endorsed by politicians of both parties for a long time. What we are 
trying to do today is assure a steady stream of revenue to the State 
and Federal side of the conservation fund, plus a number of other 
conservation areas, in a way that respects each of our States. We can 
do it. There is enough of a majority; we can do that.
  President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors from 1985, 1986, 
and 1987, and the work that Senator Landrieu and the majority in both 
Houses did, form a wonderful beginning. We will see in the next few 
weeks if we are wise enough to take that to a successful conclusion.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

[[Page 5982]]


  Mrs. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            fallujah deaths

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I watched with horror yesterday as the 
media displayed the images of crowded streets, in Fallujah--and burning 
bodies in the center of that horrific celebration. In the middle of 
that city that is part of the volatile Sunni Triangle, four Americans 
were attacked, executed, and then burned as a mob of Iraqis danced 
around the corpses.
  I found it hard to believe I was watching a news program, given that 
the scene playing out before my eyes looked far more like a gruesome 
movie than tragic reality.
  Sadly, it was a reality--and that reality continues today. Families 
have been notified that their loved ones were among the four casualties 
and are mourning the loss of these brave souls.
  My home state of North Carolina grieves today as well. The four men 
who were brutally assassinated yesterday were employees from Blackwater 
Security Consulting, based in a city in northeastern North Carolina. 
Preliminary reports tell us that three had been Navy SEALs and one had 
been an Army Ranger.
  The four contractors were stationed in Fallujah to provide a convoy 
of security--the very purpose of their presence was to protect the 
lives of Iraqi men and women and they in turn were subjected to such 
barbaric and despicable acts.
  Yesterday's attack on these innocent men only further illustrates the 
evil influence Saddam Hussein still has over so many Iraqis. We are 
told that the 150,000 residents of Fallujah are being held captive by a 
brutal regime that wants nothing more than to return to the past days 
of tyrannical rule and streets of violence. The perpetrators of these 
ghastly acts hate freedom, loathe democracy and wish to turn back the 
clock--it is important to say now more than ever that we will not let 
this happen.
  Mr. President, the horrific slaughters yesterday will not weaken the 
American resolve to bring order, democracy, and peace to this war torn 
nation. The criminal who orchestrated these murders are few--and the 
Iraqis who stand firm against such violence are the men and women we 
are seeking to serve as the Coalitional Provisional Authority acts to 
establish stability in the middle of chaos.
  As peace and order are brought to all regions of Iraq, may justice 
arrive alongside them. It is my sincere hope that those responsible for 
these attacks will not escape punishment. Let our response be swift and 
just.
  While I wish there were more I could offer to the families who grieve 
the horrific loss of their loved ones, my condolences and my prayers 
are all I have. My heart aches for the tears of so many--and my earnest 
prayer is that we see the end of these tragedies as brave Americans 
continue their work in Iraq. I deeply believe in their mission and in 
the cause of democracy, freedom, and peace.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Energy Prices

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have spoken in the last 3 days about 
the current price crisis this country is experiencing with the critical 
resource energy. The American consumer is going to the pump in their 
local community today to refuel their car and paying record high 
prices; in fact, the highest ever recorded on average in our history. I 
would hope they are beginning to ask the question why, why is this 
happening and why am I having to pay another $5 or $6 per tank of gas, 
an average of maybe $15 or $20 or $30 a month more.
  In fact, I and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Pete Domenici, 
and others, held a press conference to speak to the issue of energy and 
why the Senate was not yet debating a comprehensive energy bill that is 
ready for us to debate once again and vote on.
  At that time I mentioned the average consumer today will pay, as an 
individual, $300 or $400 more a year for the price of energy, and 
collectively, as a family, they may well pay more than that. When you 
consider their electrical bills and space heater bills, the average 
family is going to pay considerably more this year. That is money that 
won't come as a result of having a pay raise and, therefore, having the 
money to offset those costs. Those are dollars and cents that are going 
to come directly out of the family budget this year. It will have a 
substantial impact on that family's ability to do what they did a year 
ago, whether it was providing food for the table, clothes for their 
children, or maybe the family vacation, or the recreational value they 
place on a certain activity that would cost them a certain amount of 
energy.
  I mentioned some days ago that I think probably families are already, 
if they own a motor home, recalculating whether they will actually be 
able to take that home and go someplace in the country this summer 
because of the potential cost, additional cost that 15 or 20 cents on a 
gallon of gas will mean this year. Those are all very real issues and 
some that clearly this Senate ought to address.
  I have said for that average consumer who is asking the question why, 
I have an answer. The answer is that the Senate of the United States 
has refused to bring out and pass and set on our President's desk a 
comprehensive energy bill that addresses those and other issues that in 
the long term will get us back into the business of producing energy 
for our country and becoming less dependent on foreign supplies and, 
therefore, certainly dependent upon ourselves more than others. It is 
an important issue that we have before us today.
  We have even seen it now break into Presidential politics, as Senator 
Kerry speaks of ways he can propose to bring down those prices. I have 
noticed he has not talked about production. He has not talked about 
increasing production. So there are going to be a lot of schemes. I use 
the word ``scheme'' because some are scheming at this moment as to how 
they might turn this to their political advantage, tragically enough; 
that is, the price of energy at this moment.
  Why don't they just stop and ask the Senate why they can't pass a 
comprehensive national energy policy for our country? We have been 14 
years without any new directions or new ideas as it relates to energy 
production, and it is clearly time we speak to that. There is a 
proposal that has just been brought forth. It is called the Gasoline 
Free Market Competition Act of 2003. Each time we see something like 
this as an idea, it is important that we put it in the right context. 
Each time a government agency investigates gasoline prices--and there 
have been 29 such investigations by Federal and State agencies over the 
past several decades--the findings literally have been all the same. 
The market controls the price of energy, not some unscrupulous 
producer. It is the market forces that ultimately produce the price at 
the pump.
  The purpose for antitrust law is to protect the interests of the 
consuming public, not to increase the profit of any level or type of 
distributions, which is what happens in the legislation I have 
mentioned, which is S. 1731. That particular legislation would try to 
dictate refiners' distribution practices. I don't think our Government 
ought to ever get into the micromanagement of a marketplace. Our goal--
and it always should be our goal--is to create transparency in the 
markets so all of the parties involve can understand them.
  As noted in a recent economic study on ``The Economics of Gasoline 
Retailing,'' a Dr. Andrew Kleit, professor of energy and environmental 
economics

[[Page 5983]]

at Penn State University, puts it this way:

       There is a difference between protecting competition and 
     protecting competitors. Protecting competition means moving 
     to provide consumers with the lowest sustainable prices, not 
     protecting the profits of any level of production or any 
     individual firm.

  Professor Kleit's analysis shows that eliminating the ability of 
refiners to restrict where their brands can be distributed, as proposed 
in S. 1737, would likely reduce refiners' investment in distribution 
outlets and ultimately harm consumers.
  From a competitive point of view, Professor Kleit says, ``these calls 
[for this type of distribution concepts in legislation] are [clearly] 
misguided.''
  The strategy at issue is the result of competition between various 
forms of distribution in gasoline marketing. This competition promotes 
efficiencies which benefit consumers by bringing products to market for 
less cost. My fear is S. 1737 would not protect competition, only some 
of the competitors.
  That is clearly where we ought not be going. But what I think S. 1737 
really does is it tries to speak to a market today that is a product of 
Government interference in the past. By that I mean standards and new 
standards that do not allow the normal marketplace to flow and that, 
ultimately, confuse the process and create dislocations, whereas a more 
free market approach certainly would allow that to happen.
  As we have seen in recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has 
carefully studied many of the proposals about mergers within the 
industry. In many instances, the FTC has required companies to sell 
assets to new competitors as these mergers occur. Let me give some 
examples.
  For example, the Exxon Mobil merger in 1999 resulted in the largest 
retail divestiture in FTC history--the sale or assignment of 
approximately 2,431 Exxon Mobil gas stations in the Northeast and mid-
Atlantic, some 1,740; California stations, some 360; Texas stations, 
319; and in Guam, 12; and the sale of Exxon refineries in California, 
terminals, a pipeline and other assets.
  So my point is, while we may try to micromanage and use that as an 
excuse or an attempt to help the marketplace, what the FTC has done 
relating to these mergers has in part done that. In other words, we 
have given them the authority to do so.
  Similarly, when British Petroleum merged with Amoco in 1998, they 
agreed to make certain divestitures to free up more than 1,600 gas 
stations in 30 markets in order to satisfy FTC concerns that their 
merger would substantially lessen competition in certain wholesale 
gasoline markets.
  Let's stop passing the buck on energy prices.
  Let's stop attempting to tinker with the energy bill and apply 
untested concepts and theories in the hope that we can create the 
perfect bill while our citizens are being crushed by high energy 
prices.
  Let's pass the energy bill and implement the energy policies included 
in that bipartisan piece of legislation.
  Let's stop the partisan rancor and do what our constituents sent us 
here to do--protect their jobs, protect their quality of life, and 
protect their security by passing this energy bill.
  While many Senators may come to the floor well meaning in the next 
several months to find some political safe haven in which to address 
the issue of high energy prices, there really are not any. Nobody is 
scheming today. Nobody is glutting the marketplace. The reality is a 
problem of supply and demand. While I am quite sure you will have some 
State attorneys general out there calling for investigations, the 
problem is supply and demand. It clearly is that, and there is no other 
argument that can really fit or begin to explain why we have record 
high gas prices.
  This Senate needs to pass a comprehensive energy bill, and we have 
one. It is ready to come to the floor. We are being denied that 
opportunity to bring it to the floor. All I am saying is use due 
caution as it relates to all kinds of new ways to argue the problem in 
the marketplace. But when you don't have enough supply of product or 
crude to go around, when you have world demands and us now depending on 
a world market for our supply of crude, we have a problem. This Senate 
refuses to address that problem.
  I hope in the coming days as gas prices continue to spike, consumers 
will ask the question why, and turn to the Senate and say very simply: 
Do something. Pass a national energy policy. Put it on the President's 
desk and allow this country to get back into the business of production 
and meeting the supply to the market, instead of trying to find a 
scheme or another excuse that will only be a short, limited political 
ground on which to stand.
  I believe there is no place to hide today and no Senator can have 
that opportunity. The vote has been on the record. Let's change the 
record and improve the record by the passage of a national energy 
policy that will once again put our country in the business of energy 
production.
  Madam 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2274 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            jobs crisis and indifference to working families

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the last 3 years, America has lost 
nearly 3 million private-sector jobs, including nearly 2.9 million good 
manufacturing jobs.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 8.2 million Americans 
out of work today.
  But that doesn't include the millions of ``discouraged workers'' who 
have stopped looking for jobs. And it doesn't include millions more who 
are under-employed.
  All together, nearly 15 million American workers today are 
unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work.
  A month ago, the President's Council of Economic Advisors released 
its annual report on the economy. It predicted that the economy would 
create 3.8 million new jobs this year.
  The President's own Labor and Commerce secretaries refused to endorse 
that prediction. Then the President himself backed away from those 
numbers.
  After 3 years of promising jobs that never materialized, the Bush 
administration won't even predict anymore how many jobs their policies 
will create.
  Last month, the economy added only 21,000 new jobs--every one of them 
in government. 21,000 new jobs. That is one job for every 389 Americans 
who need jobs.
  All over America, people who have lost jobs are draining their 
savings accounts, tapping their 401(k)s, and running up expensive 
credit card debt to try to make ends meet.
  The average length of unemployment is at a 20-year high.
  When people finally find work, it often involves a substantial cut in 
pay. Jobs in growing industries pay, on average, 21 percent less than 
the jobs in industries that are shrinking.
  We have a jobs crisis in this country. And it is not just unemployed 
workers who are feeling the pain.
  With wages stagnant or falling, and health care and child care costs 
rising, many parents are working longer and harder than ever--and it's 
still not enough.
  Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Home mortgage foreclosures, car 
repossessions, and credit card debt are all at record levels.

[[Page 5984]]

  Millions and millions of American families are just one health 
crisis, one pink slip, or one bad break away from financial disaster.
  You would never know any of this to look at the agenda of the Bush 
administration and Congressional Republicans.
  The President and Congressional Republicans tell us, ``don't worry, 
the economy is getting stronger.''
  Getting stronger for whom?
  Not the millions of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. 
Not the workers whose jobs are being shipped overseas with help--help--
from this administration.
  Not the 43 million Americans who can't afford health insurance and 
are living with the daily dread that one serious illness or accident 
could put them in a financial hole they will never dig their way out 
of.
  America's families need jobs. And workers who have lost their jobs 
need help until they get back on their feet.
  They need unemployment insurance, job training, and health care until 
they can find their next job.
  Yet, this week, instead of just ignoring the economic stress so many 
American families are under, the Bush administration is knowingly, 
deliberately, increasing that stress.
  Yesterday, the Federal unemployment insurance program expired.
  Despite repeated Democratic efforts to extend the program, the Bush 
administration and Congressional Republicans have refused.
  As a result, over one million workers have seen their unemployment 
benefits expire over the past 3 months, and nearly one million more 
will see their benefits expire in the next 3 months.
  Last week, the President's Commerce Secretary said President Bush 
would sign an extension of the Federal unemployment program if Congress 
passed it.
  So I urge President Bush to use his powers of persuasion to convince 
the Members of his own party to extend unemployment benefits.
  It is wrong to punish workers who can't find jobs in a jobless 
recovery.
  There is something else the President should do.
  President Bush should make it clear that he will not strip overtime 
pay protections from one American worker. Not one.
  Any day now, the Labor Department is expected to issue new 
regulations that could deny 8 million American workers their right to 
overtime pay. Those regulations were expected to be released yesterday, 
but they have now been delayed for some reason.
  Bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate voted last year to 
overturn the Bush regulations stripping workers of their overtime 
protections.
  But the White House worked behind closed doors with Republican 
leaders in Congress to push the regulations through anyway.
  If they have their way, up to 8 million workers--including 
firefighters, nurses, store supervisors and others--will lose their 
overtime pay.
  Overtime pay isn't for luxuries; it is essential family income that's 
needed to pay mortgages, tuition, grocery bills, utility bills, health 
insurance premiums, and prescription drug costs.
  For eligible workers, overtime pay makes up, on average, 25 percent 
of their income.
  Last week, Republican leaders in the Senate actually pulled the JOBS 
bill to avoid voting on a Democratic amendment that would have 
preserved the overtime rights of American workers.
  The Bush administration would rather force American companies to pay 
tariffs on the goods they sell in Europe than protect the overtime pay 
of American workers.
  That shows how deeply out of touch this administration and its allies 
in Congress are with the real needs of average working Americans.
  There are other signs as well. Two days ago, the Senate voted 
overwhelmingly to increase child-care funding in the welfare bill so 
that mothers who are moving from welfare to work won't have to leave 
their children home alone or with strangers.
  Even though States are slashing funding for child care, the Bush 
administration insisted that no more money for child care is needed. If 
their view prevails, 450,000 children would be forced out of child 
care. That is how out of touch they are with this economy.
  This administration has also refused, repeatedly, to raise the 
minimum wage.
  It has fought to deny the earned income tax credit for low-income 
parents--at the same time it insists on more and bigger tax cuts for 
the wealthiest one percent.
  The President's economic advisors even suggested re-classifying 
Burger King jobs as manufacturing jobs to try to disguise how many 
manufacturing jobs America is losing.
  I have some advice for them: Forget about creating better-sounding 
statistics and figure out how to create better-paying jobs here in 
America.
  Millions of Americans are hurting and need help.
  I urge the President and the members of his administration, and 
Republican leaders in Congress, to listen to them and extend the 
federal unemployment insurance payments, stop this effort to deny 
working people overtime pay, work with us in a bipartisan way to create 
and keep good jobs here in America and make affordable health care and 
child care available for working families.


                          VIOLENCE IN FALLUJAH

  Mr. President, today, I offer my condolences to the families of the 
nine Americans who lost their lives in Iraq yesterday.
  Five Marines were killed in the most deadly car bombing our forces in 
Iraq have yet seen in the 11 months since the fall of the Saddam 
Hussein regime.
  In addition, yesterday four private security contractors were 
attacked and brutally killed by a mob in Fallujah.
  The barbarity of these acts is shocking, and it reminds us of the 
courage of the men and women--both civilian and military--serving in 
Iraq, working to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.
  Every day, our soldiers and the private contractors engaged in the 
work of serving our military and rebuilding Iraq face the fear of 
violence.
  Yet every day, they go about their work with skill and resolve 
because they understand that their efforts are building a safer Iraq, 
and a more secure Middle East.
  The cost to our Nation has been profound.
  Six hundred American service men and women have lost their lives 
since the beginning of hostilities.
  Over 3,000 soldiers have been wounded.
  Just over the weekend, in fact, a young man from my hometown of 
Aberdeen, SD, Sergeant Sean Lessin, sustained a severe head injury in 
the course of his duties in Iraq.
  Sgt. Lessin is a member of the 147th Field Artillery Unit and is now 
receiving treatment at the U.S. Military Combat Support Hospital in 
Baghdad.
  Our thoughts and prayers go out to Sgt. Lessin and his wife Jessica 
in Aberdeen.
  Someone once wrote that ``True heroism is remarkably sober, very 
undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, 
but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.''
  The Americans who lost their lives yesterday--indeed, all those 
serving their Nation in Iraq--are true heroes.
  At times such as these, when our Nation faces great challenges, the 
loss of such heroes is particularly painful, because they are so rare, 
and so important.
  To the families of those killed, we offer our deepest condolences and 
our unbounded thanks for the sacrifice your loved ones have made.
  To the men and women still serving in Iraq, you have the thanks and 
admiration of your Nation.
  We recognize the escalating violence you face, and we will spare no 
effort to ensure that you have every tool, every resource, every 
possible advantage we can offer to help you complete your work and 
return home safely to your loved ones.
  America will not be intimidated by barbaric acts whose only goal is 
to spread fear and chaos throughout Iraq.
  Yesterday's events will only serve to strengthen America's resolve 
and seal America's unity.

[[Page 5985]]

  The brave people who lost their lives did not die in vain.
  Americans stand together today and always to finish the work we 
started and bring peace and democracy to the citizens of Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Senator 
Wyden's amendment to the PRIDE Act that provides States the option to 
extend current TANF waivers and create additional waiver authority.
  Virginia has been a leader in many important national reform 
movements throughout the history of our country. In February of 1995, 
during my tenure as Governor of the Commonwealth, Virginia enacted one 
of the most principled, tough, comprehensive welfare reform measures in 
the United States. It was a tough fight to get this measure passed by a 
Democrat led General Assembly.
  Many other States enacted successful reforms and our approach and 
that of Wisconsin and Massachusetts served as a model for the entire 
Nation and encouraged self-sufficiency, the dignity of work and the 
pride of independence rather than dependence.
  The ``Virginia Independence Program'' transformed an outdated welfare 
system that was failing taxpayers, sapping initiative from welfare 
recipients, and breaking up families. I have had many former welfare 
recipients thank me for ending the downward cycle of dependency and 
despair.
  Unlike the Federal work requirement outlined in the 1996 law, able-
bodied recipients in Virginia were required work within 90 days, the 
State had a 2-year limit on benefits, with transition assistance in the 
third year and promoted individual responsibility by allowing no 
increase in State benefits for recipients who have more children while 
receiving welfare.
  Vital reforms were made for children. Virginia ended the marriage 
penalty, increased enforcement of child support by suspending 
professional and driver's licenses for ``deadbeat'' parents, required 
mothers to identify the father to receive benefits, or receive no 
benefits--this led to 99 percent identification and more child support.
  Finally, the law required that minor-age mothers having children 
while on welfare must live with a parent or guardian and stay in 
school, more commonly referred to as ``Learnfare''.
  These reforms resulted in a 60 percent decrease in welfare rolls, and 
saved more than $357 million in taxpayer funds in Virginia which were 
used for other priorities in education and law enforcement. Ultimately, 
I measure our success not by how many people are receiving welfare 
checks, but rather by how many people are leading independent, self-
reliant lives.
  Virginia's trailblazing welfare reform has been extremely successful 
in setting the stage for Federal welfare overhaul, significant declines 
in welfare roles nationwide, and increasing the number of former 
welfare recipients getting back to work. Virginia's waiver from Federal 
law has enabled much of the success in requiring able-bodied men and 
women to work for their benefits.
  With the passage of the Federal welfare reform in the fall of 1996, 
Congress intended to give the States flexibility with the law. 
Flexibility through these waivers has allowed States the ability to 
develop innovative programs that best serve their citizens. Fifteen 
other States opted for waivers. Indeed, Virginia has far exceeded the 
goal of the Federal welfare legislation offering Virginians the best 
tools to provide for themselves and their families.
  As of June 2003, Virginia's welfare waiver expired. It is imperative 
that the PRIDE Act, a continuation of welfare reform started in 1996, 
include waivers for States that have taken the initiative to make 
comprehensive welfare reforms. We need to ensure that States can 
continue to encourage independence through work, promote families and 
marriage and guarantee child-support enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that States can 
maintain these positive results and successful welfare reforms.


                       unemployment compensation

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the extension 
of the temporary extended unemployment compensation program, which 
expires today. I support this effort because, in my view, we still face 
an extremely serious problem of unemployment in the United States, 
specifically as it relates to the number of workers who have exhausted 
their unemployment insurance benefits and are still unable to find 
work.
  The Democrats have tried to extend this program through unanimous 
consent at least a dozen times this winter and the effort has been 
rejected by Republican leadership every time. We tried in February of 
this year. We tried in January of this year. And we tried a number of 
times in November 2003. Each time the other side of the aisle said the 
program was no longer needed. Even worse, they said that extension of 
the program would only give incentives to workers to stay home instead 
of look for work. This is a very different view of American workers 
than I have.
  According to the latest data from the Department of Labor, between 
December and February there will be at least 781,000 workers that will 
have exhausted their regular State benefits and will go without 
additional Federal unemployment assistance. Based on extrapolations 
from that analysis, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities argues 
that with each week that goes by, another 80,000 workers will be added 
to this list. In no other comparable data on record has there been this 
many ``exhaustees.''
  In my State of New Mexico, it is estimated that 4,300 workers have 
exhausted their benefits from December 2003 through March 2004. Through 
September 2004, it is estimated that 7,200 workers will have exhausted 
their benefits. In a State where the most recent unemployment rate is 
5.7 percent and jobs are very difficult to come by, this is hardly an 
encouraging figure.
  The Bush administration has argued that extension of the TEUC program 
is not necessary because the unemployment rate is low and the economy 
is growing. They suggested again and again that we are on the verge of 
an economic recovery and jobs are being created. I respectfully 
disagree.
  In 2001, the Bush administration claimed that their tax cuts would 
create at least 800,000 jobs by 2002. That did not happen. In 2002, the 
Bush administration claimed that 3 million jobs would be created in 
2003. That did not happen. In February, the Bush administration claimed 
in their economic report that 2.6 million jobs will be created in 2004, 
but everyone in the administration quickly backed away from that 
number. No one truly believes that this will happen.
  Given the lack of coherent or comprehensive policy proposals by the 
administration, I say it is time we in Congress act to address job 
creation and help the victims of their failed policies. Extending the 
temporary emergency unemployment compensation program is, in my view, 
the least we can do for Americans that have been attempting to find 
work but cannot do so. As a practical matter, this means workers can 
continue to get unemployment insurance benefits while they continue to 
search for work.
  So I want to add my voice to the others today and say that we must 
pass this legislation before it expires. American workers deserve to be 
dealt with in a fair and equitable manner, especially in this time of 
need. They need a lifeline, and it is up to us to provide it.

                          ____________________