[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20479-20487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               MEETING PRESIDENT ALVARO URIBE OF COLOMBIA

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on a separate issue, I want to take the 
opportunity to mention a meeting I am honored to be hosting later today 
with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is visiting our country and 
who will be here with us in the U.S. Capitol. He has served as 
Colombia's President since his election in 2002 and has done a 
remarkable job. I have had the privilege of meeting with President 
Uribe during visits, both here in Washington as well as on a trip that 
I took to Colombia in January of 2004. Throughout his term, the 
President has enjoyed high levels of popular support. He has earned it. 
He deserves it. He ran on the platform of public security and he has 
delivered.
  Since his election, Colombia has seen significant decreases in 
homicides, decreases in crime, decreases in acts of terrorism. Coca and 
poppy cultivation have decreased by over a third while he served in 
office. President Uribe has worked hard to promote greater respect for 
the rule of law, institute judicial reform, and improve Colombia's 
record on human rights.
  Colombia is one of our Nation's strongest allies and our close 
partnership is key to advancing U.S. interests in the Western 
Hemisphere. Colombia is the third most populous country in Latin 
America after Brazil and Mexico. Because of its size and strategic 
location, Colombia is a key player in regional issues. In addition, it 
has played an active role in multilateral institutions such as the 
United Nations and the Organization of American States.
  The close bilateral relationship that America enjoys with Colombia 
centers on our efforts to counter terrorism and stop illicit drug 
traffic. Together, our two countries are working hard to promote 
stability and promote security, to promote prosperity in Colombia and 
the region. I look forward to discussing all of these issues with the 
President this afternoon.
  At the top of the list, we will address the President's efforts to 
defeat Colombia's insurgent groups. Three main illegal armed groups 
operate in Colombia: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC; 
the National Liberation Army, or ELN; and the United Self-Defense 
Forces of Colombia, known as AUC. All three thrive on the illegal 
narcotics trade. The U.S. Secretary of State has designated all three 
groups as foreign terrorist organizations. For years, FARC, ELN, and 
AUC have terrorized the Colombian people with bombings, murders, 
kidnappings, extortion, hijackings, and the list goes on. They have 
kidnapped dozens of American citizens, and they have murdered at least 
10.
  Their drug-sponsored terrorist activity has created destabilizing 
effects on Colombia and the region and threatens the United States. The 
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that more than 80 
percent of the worldwide powder cocaine supply and approximately 90 
percent of the powder cocaine smuggled into the United States is 
produced in Colombia. Colombian producers also account for 50 percent 
of the heroin entering the United States. The United States spends 
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in Colombia to train the 
counternarcotics forces, shore up their civilian counter-
drug efforts, and help provide crop alternatives for farmers. We are 
getting results.
  Aerial eradication alone has cut coca and poppy cultivation by a 
third since 2001.
  Human rights is another topic that the President and I and leadership 
will be discussing. Members of Congress have repeatedly and rightly 
voiced concerns about continuing human rights violations in Colombia. 
FARC, ELN, and AUC are notorious culprits. I hope to learn more about 
how President Uribe plans to demobilize these troops and address 
allegations of human rights abuses within Colombia's Armed Forces.
  The United States and Colombia have worked hard to build a solid 
foundation for a close, cooperative relationship. I look forward to 
hearing the President's ideas on how we can continue to work together 
on all of these issues of huge concern. I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to continue to support President Uribe in his efforts, his 
convictions, his determination to fight the illicit drug trade, 
strengthen the rule of law, expand economic opportunity and foster 
peace and stability in his country and in the region.When we strengthen 
the security of our neighbors, we increase our security at home.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 1718.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1718

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1718.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me briefly describe what this amendment 
does, and then I understand the representative of the minority will 
interpose an objection.
  This is an amendment that embodies a bill to prohibit Internet 
gambling and permit the enforcement of that prohibition. Most States, 
if not all

[[Page 20480]]

States, already have laws on the books that prohibit Internet gambling. 
The problem is that those bills are difficult to enforce by the 
individual State attorneys general because the Internet is ubiquitous--
it is across the State lines--and the attorney general in Arizona can't 
go to Montana and enforce such prohibition in that State.
  About 10 years ago, the State Attorneys General Association came 
before our subcommittee and asked for this Federal legislation so that 
there could be a national enforcement that would enable them to give 
force to all of the different States' laws prohibiting Internet 
gambling. We have worked on this now for a decade, and twice the 
legislation has passed the Senate. Twice the legislation has passed the 
House of Representatives, each time in somewhat different form. But we 
have never been able to get the two bodies to pass legislation in the 
same year in order to effectuate that.
  It is very troublesome because the process by which we have to 
consider legislation makes it very difficult for something like this to 
get floor time and have a week or several days on the floor to debate 
back and forth, get it passed, and do the same thing with the House and 
then work out a conference committee and the like. That is why we have 
had to resort to attaching amendments such as this to appropriations 
bills or other bills that are on the floor already and moving forward 
so that we can gain consideration of this issue. It is not particularly 
contentious. It is certainly not partisan. The legislation has enjoyed 
wide bipartisan support in both bodies.
  Let me briefly describe it. All it does is it allows banks and credit 
card companies to do what most of them are already doing voluntarily; 
that is, simply not honoring a credit card debt for Internet gambling. 
When some Internet gambling site in Aruba, for example, submits the 
bill to Master Charge or Bank of America and says, Joe Blow here 
gambled away $1,000 of his money, put it on the credit card, and you 
now owe that to our Internet gambling site in Aruba, the bank or credit 
card company says, No. That was against the law. You can't do that. We 
are not paying.
  It has had some effect on these operations. But to show you why it 
hasn't had enough, when we started a decade ago, there were 20-some 
sites. Today, there are over 2,000 sites. The amount of money was 
relatively insignificant back then. Now it is hundreds of billions of 
dollars. It is incredible.
  A Harvard law professor described this kind of Internet gambling with 
regard to kids doing it on the Internet. He said it is like the crack 
cocaine of gambling; it is so addictive; there is no supervision.
  We have gambling in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and on Indian 
reservations, and it is tightly supervised and regulated. Even our 
subcommittee found testimony from the New Jersey Gambling Commission 
and said one reason we can do it is we highly regulate it. But there is 
no way to regulate these offshore sites. That is why it is against the 
law in every State.
  We have a Federal act called the Wire Act which prohibits horse 
gambling. That is now being done on the Internet. There is a means of 
enforcing existing law in a meaningful way and ensuring that all of the 
State laws can be enforced as well. I want to indicate who is in favor 
of this, and then I will allow the process here to occur.
  Obviously, sports groups are very concerned about the adulteration of 
sports. We have seen it in college sports. Even one of the universities 
in my State was involved in a point-shaving scandal not too long ago. 
Why did this young athlete involved have to shave points in the games 
in which he played? It was because he got into trouble with gambling 
debts.
  The NFL, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, National 
Baseball Association, National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the 
NCAA strongly support this legislation because they understand that if 
Internet gambling becomes part of their sports, nobody can count on 
those sports being pure. There is always the possibility that they have 
been adulterated by gambling.
  There are a lot of groups. The National Gambling Commission called 
for legislation such as this, and a lot of the groups that testified 
before that Commission are also strongly in support. The National 
Coalition Against Gambling Expansion and groups such as the Family 
Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the 
Christian Coalition, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist 
Convention, together with their comembers of the National Council of 
Churches, and the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion--it 
includes a whole host of organizations.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                               Supporters

       National Football League, Major League Baseball, National 
     Hockey League, National Baseball Association, and National 
     Collegiate Athletic Association.
       Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Christian 
     Coalition, Concerned Women for America, National Coalition 
     Against Gambling Expansion, United Methodist Church, and 
     Southern Baptist Convention.
       Together with their co-members of The National Council of 
     Churches, which includes:
       African Methodist Episcopal Church, The African Methodist 
     Episcopal Zion Church, Alliance of Baptists, American Baptist 
     Churches in the USA, and The Antiochian Orthodox Christian 
     Archdiocese of North America.
       Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, Christian Church 
     (Disciples of Christ), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 
     Church of the Brethren, and The Coptic Orthodox Church in 
     North America.
       The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
     America, Friends United Meeting, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese 
     of America, Hungarian Reformed Church in America, 
     International Council of Community Churches, Korean 
     Presbyterian Church in America, Malankara Orthodox Syrian 
     Church, and Mar Thoma Church.
       Moravian Church in America Northern Province and Southern 
     Province, National Baptist Convention of America, National 
     Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., National Missionary Baptist 
     Convention of America, Orthodox Church in America, 
     Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 
     U.S.A., and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious 
     Society of Friends.
       Polish National Catholic Church of America, Presbyterian 
     Church (U.S.A.), Progressive National Baptist Convention, 
     Inc., Reformed Church in America, and Serbian Orthodox Church 
     in the U.S.A. and Canada.
       The Swedenborgian Church, Syrian Orthodox Church of 
     Antioch, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America, and United 
     Church of Christ.
       The National Thoroughbred Racing Association.

  Mr. KYL. This is a page and a half of religious institutions in 
support of this legislation.
  Even groups that also are involved in sports that do involve some 
form of gambling, such as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, 
understand that for their sport to remain pure--and it is highly 
regulated, as well--for them not to have the taint of gambling, they 
support this kind of legislation.
  It has been very frustrating for me because there is such broad-based 
support, it makes such sense. It is so dangerous, especially for the 
kids in our society. We have a very tight bill. It is quite similar to 
the bill that got through the Committee on Banking last year. The 
various groups directly involved in this are supportive of the 
legislation, or at least are not in opposition.
  It is time to get this done before this phenomenon explodes any 
further and--and I underline this--before the lobbying money of these 
groups defeats it again. I will not name names, but people who are 
today in trouble with the law were partially responsible for the defeat 
of this legislation previously.
  This kind of money should not be brought to bear as a special 
interest on our bodies to keep us from adopting important legislation 
such as this. That is why I have attempted to use the appropriations 
bill that is before the Senate as the vehicle to bring up this matter 
again. I understand from a purely technical parliamentary point

[[Page 20481]]

of view it is incumbent upon the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee to interpose a rule XVI objection. I understand that. I 
appreciate her need to maintain the committee jurisdiction and the 
process.
  However, I note in conclusion we have legislated on appropriations 
bills in the past. So this is not something that has never been done 
before. I had hoped we would be permitted to do it in this case because 
of the importance of the issue, the fact that there is a very large 
consensus to get this done. It is very difficult to do it any other 
way. I am disappointed we are not able to do it at this time.
  When the objection is interposed, I ask the Presiding Officer's 
indulgence to direct a brief inquiry to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the validity of 
the fact that the Senator from Arizona has worked long and hard on this 
issue and sees this as a consumer protection issue, and protection-of-
our-sovereignty issue also.
  Without taking any prejudice on the merits of the amendment, I have 
to make a point of order under rule XVI that the amendment does 
constitute general legislation on an appropriations bill and is not in 
order.
  Mr. KYL. With the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I ask a question, 
and I appreciate that the ranking member may not know the answer to 
this question.
  Can the ranking member advise me who it is that is requiring the 
imposition of this so I can speak to that Senator or those Senators to 
try to reach some kind of an accommodation so we can take this matter 
up in the future?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I say to my friend and member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I do not know. I truly do not know. I do know that 
these parliamentary mechanisms were worked out at the leadership level.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate that. I appreciate the words of the ranking 
member and make this point that this will proceed in some way at some 
time when we find out who is making the objections, if anyone. It may 
simply be a procedural matter to preserve the committee's jurisdiction.
  We will proceed. It will become law at some point at some time. I ask 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have problems with 
this legislation, please let me know so we can try to work on those 
problems. There should be no reason we cannot move forward. We will be 
back. The next time I am back, I hope there is no one who is 
interposing an objection.
  I appreciate the comments of the ranking member.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I call for the ruling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
fails.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 1706

 (Purpose: To provide funds for educational assistance to individuals 
               and schools impacted by Hurricane Katrina)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I call for consideration of amendment No. 1706.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     and Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Corzine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1706.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lautenberg and 
Corzine be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment deals with a most 
urgent matter. It is an amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Dodd, Senator Akaka, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, Senator Dayton, 
Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, and as I mentioned, Senators 
Lautenberg and Corzine.
  The purpose of the amendment is to provide some level of temporary 
and immediate short-term relief to local school districts and 
communities that have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. With great 
sadness, all of us, I am sure, have watched the faces of children who 
have been impacted by this terrible tragedy. Some of those children 
have literally lost everything. They have lost their family members, 
they have lost their homes, their schools, and their entire 
communities.
  Officials in the Department of Education estimate there are 330,000 
children from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, who have been 
displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Many of these children are now homeless 
and have taken up residence in emergency shelters in one State or 
another.
  I am confident everyone in the Senate wants to do what is right by 
these children. What has happened at the State and local level is 
amazing to watch, the way communities have come out to assist; the way 
families, individuals, volunteers, nonprofit organizations have come to 
the assistance of these children. Continuing the education of these 
children needs to be a top priority.
  Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of children from New 
Orleans and Gulfport and Biloxi and Pascagoula who are sitting at 
desks. Some of those are in Baton Rouge, some in Houston, some in 
Wichita, or Albuquerque, Memphis, Olympia, or even Philadelphia. These 
schools have not only opened their doors to these displaced children, 
they have also provided these students with classrooms, with teachers, 
with books, with supplies, with equipment and, most importantly, with a 
quality education.
  The obvious question is, What are the resources they are calling upon 
to do this? We know many of our school districts already face 
significant fiscal constraints. How can we expect these school 
districts to educate hundreds of thousands of additional children 
without additional resources?
  We should act now and provide some immediate relief to assist the 
transition of these students into their new and, hopefully, temporary 
classrooms. I am, however, very concerned that some of the ideas that 
have been discussed, at least in news accounts, are problematic and 
could get us into a difficult circumstance in Washington.
  For example, the Washington Post had an article that some believe 
this tragedy is a new opportunity to proceed with a large-scale voucher 
system and use these children to experiment on how to implement a 
voucher system. That would be a very unfortunate course to follow. As 
everyone in this Senate knows, when the subject of vouchers comes up, 
we have a great deal of disagreement. We should not be debating new 
experimental ways of providing educational assistance as part of our 
effort to assist these children in these circumstances.
  Another example of a concern, a problem that I have seen reference 
to, is the suggestion in one piece of legislation that we should 
require these displaced students to wear identifying insignia to 
differentiate them from the other students in their new schools. 
Obviously, there are all sorts of reasons we should not visit that kind 
of a requirement on these students at this point.
  The officials at the State level, at the local level, and at the 
Federal level, are just beginning to assess the magnitude of the 
devastation that has been experienced. Unfortunately, we have already 
begun to see the extent of the damage to some of the schools on the 
gulf coast. I understand the New Orleans School District, in 
particular, has been almost completely destroyed. Many schools in the 
region are still completely flooded and remain underwater and will have 
to be rebuilt completely. Others suffered extensive water and wind 
damage and remain unsafe.

[[Page 20482]]

  Last week the HELP Committee received testimony from Dr. Diane 
Roussel, the superintendent of schools in Jefferson Parish, LA, which 
has 85 schools, 51,000 students, 3,600 teachers, that lies south of New 
Orleans. It was directly in the path of Katrina. Dr. Roussel testified 
that in Jefferson Parish, much like the rest of Louisiana, the local 
tax base provided for much of the district's resources, and any 
surpluses the district had have now been expended. Jefferson Parish and 
many other school districts impacted by Hurricane Katrina are totally 
out of money, are not able to pay their teachers, are not able to 
conduct school in any way.
  Dr. Roussel said in her testimony:

       Money is not always the answer to solving the ills of our 
     public schools, but when you are talking about equipment, 
     supplies, rebuilding, and maintaining a teaching workforce, 
     money is the answer.

  Communities cannot thrive without their schools. Families will not 
return to these communities if their children do not have a place to go 
to school. Local businesses cannot survive if those families do not 
return to those communities.
  Rebuilding the schools has to be a first priority, not a last 
priority. These communities need our help now. The extent of the 
devastation is known by all, or at least we are beginning to know.
  Let me mention one other area of great concern that we try to address 
in this amendment, the issue of displaced college students. There are 
literally tens of thousands of displaced college students. The colleges 
in the New Orleans area have been devastated by this storm. I am very 
encouraged to see the way other States, other educational institutions 
have stepped up to provide assistance.
  In my own State of New Mexico, we have some examples of that. New 
Mexico State University has welcomed the University of New Orleans 
baseball team to Las Cruces. Members of the University of New Orleans 
baseball team will be going to school at New Mexico State University 
and playing baseball there as the New Orleans team.
  The Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and do all it 
can, and do so right now. The amendment does not attempt to meet all 
the needs we will be identifying resulting from this catastrophe, but 
it does begin the process. It does indicate that the Senate believes it 
needs to be a priority to provide some immediate relief. These 
communities need to know now that we are willing to act to help them.
  It provides temporary assistance to school districts experiencing 
unexpected increases in their student populations because of Katrina. 
It provides funds, grants to school districts, it facilitates the 
temporary placement of students in elementary and secondary schools 
within their jurisdiction, and it helps to ensure that quality 
instruction is available.
  This is a very worthwhile amendment and one that we should adopt as 
part of this first appropriations bill being considered since we have 
returned from the August recess. I hope very much my colleagues will 
agree to add this to the bill.
  I understand there will be a point of order raised in connection with 
this, but I urge my colleagues to vote with me to override that point 
of order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 1665

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 1665.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                Amendment No. 1713 To Amendment No. 1665

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1713 to amendment No. 1665.

  The amendment reads as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide that funds must be used in a manner consistent 
       with the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002)

       Strike all after ``Sec.  522.'' and insert the following: 
     ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used in a manner that is inconsistent with 
     the principle negotiating objective of the United States with 
     respect to trade remedy laws to preserve the ability of the 
     United States--
       ``(1) to enforce vigorously its trade laws, including the 
     antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws;
       ``(2) to avoid agreements that--
       ``(A) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping 
     and subsidies; or
       ``(B) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that 
     United States workers, agricultural producers, and firms can 
     compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of 
     reciprocal trade concessions; and
       ``(3) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, what I have tried to do in this 
second-degree amendment is correct some flaws in the Dorgan amendment. 
My amendment is also meant to ensure that we maintain the strength of 
our trade remedy laws.
  My amendment makes it clear that no funds may be used to negotiate 
trade agreements that do not enable the United States to preserve our 
ability to enforce rigorously our trade laws, including antidumping and 
safeguard laws.
  Quite obviously, if we have laws on our books to protect our economy 
from unfair competition, every Senator wants to make sure those laws 
are rigorously enforced, including antidumping and safeguard laws.
  In addition, under my amendment, our trade negotiators must avoid 
agreements that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
disciplines on unfair trade, especially for dumping and subsidies. This 
pertains to a situation if they would lessen the effectiveness of 
domestic and international safeguard provisions.
  My amendment is a good amendment which will ensure our trade remedy 
laws remain strong and that U.S. workers have effective protection 
against unfair import competition.
  The underlying amendment I am amending, the Dorgan amendment No. 
1665, purports to do the same thing. And it might. But it also has some 
very serious--and perhaps, hopefully, unintended--consequences. The 
Dorgan amendment says no funds may be used ``to negotiate or enter into 
a trade agreement that modifies or amends any law of the United States 
that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. . . .''
  Now, that sounds pretty good. But if you look at this amendment a 
little deeper, you can see that it has serious problems. Such a 
sweeping amendment would prohibit our negotiators from entering into 
trade agreements even if the trade agreement resulted in stronger trade 
remedy laws.
  For example, if we could not negotiate bilateral agricultural 
safeguards similar to those we have recently negotiated in our 
bilateral agreements with Chile and Australia--and these are only two 
examples--or maybe even in the plurilateral agreement, such as passed 
by the Senate, CAFTA--we could not negotiate multilateral agreements 
such as the OECD steel negotiations that could strengthen our trade 
remedy laws.
  At the same time, the Dorgan amendment would severely hamper our 
ability to negotiate trade agreements that benefit U.S. exporters.
  Now, that may be a well-intended position of my friend from the 
agricultural State of North Dakota--and I work with him on a lot of 
agricultural legislation--but it is a slippery path where we cannot 
even discuss trade remedies even if those discussions end up 
strengthening some of these remedies, such as in the case of CAFTA and 
Australia and Chile.
  It will happen that our trade partners will respond by demanding 
other items be taken off the table. In other words, once we go to the 
table in good faith to negotiate, and we start saying, ``This is not 
negotiable, that is not negotiable,'' then you could understand that 
trading partners are all going to have their pet projects off the 
table. If we want to negotiate strengthening some remedies,

[[Page 20483]]

as we did in the case of Australia, Chile, we could not do that. So I 
am trying to correct some of the inadequacies within this amendment.
  Of course, when you start getting things taken off the table--the 
United States takes something off; the European Union takes something 
off; India takes something off--it has to have all items on the table 
in order to protect the economic interests of the United States. 
Particularly I found that going back to the Uruguay Round of trade 
negotiations, you had to have everything on the table to win any 
benefit for American agriculture.
  The amendment by my friend from North Dakota would only serve to 
hamstring our negotiators, particularly if those negotiators want to 
strengthen our positions, as we did in Australia and Chile. And this 
amendment would be doing it at a time just as we are pushing the 
Europeans, we are pushing the Brazilians, we are pushing the G20 group, 
the G10 group--and for that matter I think we are pushing every other 
G-numbered group you can think of--to get some help for the American 
economy, which comes from negotiations to get down trade barriers, to 
get all of these groups, Europeans, Brazilians, G20, G10, G-everybody, 
serious and start making meaningful concessions in these negotiations, 
especially for the benefit of American agriculture.
  Today, foreign agricultural markets are among the most protected 
sectors in world trade. Global tariffs on agriculture average about 62 
percent. The United States, I believe, is about 11 percent. Thus, 
America's farmers and ranchers have much to gain if we can deliver a 
comprehensive, multilateral trade agreement that lowers tariffs across 
the board and forces subsidizing nations to harmonize and reduce their 
tariffs.
  Let me quantify that: 62-percent worldwide average of tariffs up here 
of other countries; the United States at 11 percent down here. We bring 
these other countries down to ours, or down part way to ours; or if we 
bring ours down lower, as they bring theirs down lower. Common sense 
dictates a win-win situation for our farmers.
  Because of some of these concerns as to the Dorgan amendment that I 
have raised about maybe the inability to even strengthen some of our 
trade remedies, as we did in Australia and Chile, many groups have been 
concerned. This amendment by my distinguished friend from North Dakota 
has been before the Senate now for about 4 days, so a lot of other 
groups have written to me about their opposition because they are 
concerned about it: the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, 
Coalition of Service Industries, the Comprehensive Market Access 
Coalition, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business, 
and, lastly--and one that is very important to the upper Midwest--the 
Corn Refiners Association.
  All of these groups I have listed have expressed their strong 
opposition to the Dorgan amendment and I would hope would be satisfied 
with the amendment I have put before the Senate.
  Even more important than those who want this bill to become law, the 
administration has weighed in strongly against the Dorgan amendment. I 
would like to quote from a letter I received from our Commerce 
Secretary, Mr. Gutierrez, and our U.S. Trade Representative, former 
Congressman and now Ambassador Rob Portman:

     . . . Senator Dorgan's amendment would undermine our efforts 
     to protect our workers and firms from unfair trade practices 
     and to open foreign markets to America's goods and services. 
     . . . the amendment would prevent us from negotiating 
     agreements to improve protections against unfair trade 
     practices where the current rules may not be fully effective.

  Then they go on to say:

       The amendment could also prevent us from negotiating 
     stronger disciplines on foreign subsidies and protections for 
     U.S. exporters against abuses by foreign users of trade 
     remedy laws.

  In fact, the Secretary and the Ambassador feel so strongly about the 
damages this amendment could do, they sent a letter saying they would 
recommend that the President veto the Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill if the Dorgan amendment is included.
  So the bottom line: the choice is pretty simple. If Senators want to 
take away an opportunity to strengthen trade remedy laws, in effect, 
hamper our negotiators, and at the same time ensure a veto of this 
bill, a veto of a bill that is very important, then support the Dorgan 
amendment. But if Senators want to preserve strong trade remedy laws, 
and even opportunities to make them stronger, and avoid a veto, then 
please support my second-degree amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the stakes in this vote. I 
think the stakes are high. There is a way to both preserve and improve 
our trade remedy laws, also a way of avoiding a Presidential veto, and 
that would be voting for my amendment No. 1713, which is a second-
degree amendment to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665.
  I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota intended to not 
give our negotiators an opportunity to strengthen our trade remedy 
laws, as we did in Australia and Chile, but my amendment will take care 
of that oversight.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, has offered a second-degree amendment to the amendment I have 
pending dealing with our trade laws. This amendment is just fine, as 
far as I am concerned. I hope everyone will support it. It restates 
what is already in the underlying bill. It reminds me of those days 
when, as a young boy, I used to buy magic kits and they would have 
vanishing ink. You would write it and then you wouldn't see it. There 
was nothing there. So we have these vanishing ink amendments that mean 
nothing, say nothing, do nothing. I am for it. We apparently will have 
an opportunity to vote on the Grassley amendment. I hope we will have 
side-by-side opportunities to vote on the Grassley amendment that does 
nothing, and then an amendment that does something, something that 
stands up for the economic interests of the American people.
  This is probably one of the only institutions in the entire world in 
which failure is deemed a success, and the more failure, the more we 
ought to do of it, according to the philosophy of some here in the 
Senate.
  This chart shows our trade deficits, the red ink. This is the record 
trade deficit of last year, and it is going to be higher now. This is a 
description of how much we are buying from abroad more than we are 
selling abroad and, therefore, a description of how many American jobs 
are being sent abroad. That is what it means. Every single day--today 
is Thursday--we buy $2 billion more from other countries in goods and 
services than we sell to other countries. That means every single day 
someone outside of this country ends up with a $2 billion claim against 
America, American assets, American securities, American property.
  Does it matter? To some it doesn't. Some think this is wonderful. 
They are like hogs in a corncrib; they can't get enough of this. Why? 
Because as we move American jobs overseas and fire American workers and 
then hire workers in Bangladesh or Indonesia or China, and pay them 33 
cents an hour to make bicycles and trinkets and trousers and shirts and 
shoes, and send them to the big box retailers in America in Toledo and 
Los Angeles and Chicago and Fargo, the consumer gets to go in and buy 
an Etch A Sketch for $9.99 or a shirt for $9.99.
  What a wonderful thing that is that the consumers get to buy a cheap 
shirt

[[Page 20484]]

 made in Indonesia or China, a shirt that used to be made by an 
American worker who got fired. Because we buy all of that merchandise, 
goods and services from abroad every day, and because China ships $170 
billion more of it to our country in 1 year than it buys from our 
country, it means American jobs are leaving in wholesale numbers.
  So this is what results, massive trade deficits, getting worse and 
worse, and nobody seems to care. This body, the White House, the entire 
Congress seems to sleep through it all. It is kind of a ``Rip Van 
Winkle'' public policy strategy. Why? Because there is not one person 
here who is going to lose their job over it. There is not one person 
wearing suspenders, not one person wearing a blue suit or smoking a 
cigar who is going to lose their job because jobs are outsourced to 
Indonesia or China. It is working folks. Bob Wills of the Texas 
Playboys--I have quoted him often in a song from 1941 which says: The 
little bee sucks the blossom, the big bee gets the honey. The little 
guy picks the cotton, the big guy gets the money.
  So it is all of this red ink for America and jobs moving overseas 
which is represented as a foundation of injury to American workers and 
profits to those who can pole-vault over all of those nuances in public 
policy, such as child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental laws, 
the right to organize.
  Well, the small trade amendment I have offered to this bill that 
caused such an apoplectic seizure yesterday so that we could not 
continue to vote, that small trade amendment I offered, does the 
following: It says there is a trade negotiation going on in a place 
called Doha. Not many have been to Doha. It is not a secret why trade 
negotiations are held behind closed doors in Doha because if they held 
them in any major city in the world there would be traffic jams with 
protesters, people concerned about what this is doing to their jobs.
  There is a negotiation going on in Doha, and in that negotiation 
other countries have objected to something we have done in this 
country. We have something called antidumping laws to try to protect 
American businesses, American farmers, American workers. If other 
countries decide, look, we are going to target the American 
marketplace, there is only one American marketplace on this Earth of 
ours, we are going to target it because we want to go in and dump 
products at below cost, destroy the domestic industry, and then we will 
have the entire market to ourselves in the United States. If they try 
to do that, it is unfair trade. That is unfair trade.
  So we have something called antidumping laws that would take action 
against those countries that try to engage in unfair trade. We also 
have laws that deal with countervailing duties if a country is deeply 
subsidizing its product in order to dump it into the U.S. marketplace. 
So we have protections for American businesses, American workers, 
American farmers, American ranchers.
  At the trade negotiation in Doha, other countries are demanding that 
we get rid of the protections that exist that would prohibit dumping of 
products into our marketplace. They demand that we get rid of these 
protections. Our trade negotiators have said, all right, everything is 
on the table to be negotiated. It should not be, and I do not agree 
that it should be, and so I have introduced an amendment that says 
nothing in this act that funds our U.S. trade ambassador's office or 
the Commerce Department should allow them or can allow them to engage 
in negotiations that will weaken the basic protections that exist in 
this country that require trade fairness.
  The White House has issued a veto notice if my amendment should pass. 
Curious and strange that a provision that stands up for the economic 
interests of our country would engender a threatened veto from the 
White House.
  The Cato Institute has sent around the following, and they can be 
counted on, by the way, to provide aggressive support. They have 
everything except the pompoms to be bona fide cheerleaders. As we get 
in deeper and deeper trouble, these folks think moral failure 
represents success. Here is what the Cato Institute says: This 
amendment--speaking of my amendment--is highly irresponsible, 
shortsighted, opportunistic, and severely detrimental to the U.S. 
economic interests and the conduct of U.S. trade and foreign policy.
  I do not know, but as I read that work, it seems they do not support 
my amendment.
  The United States hopes to open foreign agricultural, 
nonagricultural, and service markets. To achieve those goals, it must 
be willing to reform its agricultural and antidumping policies. What 
does that mean? The United States must be willing to reform its 
policies on antidumping and agricultural policies? Interesting, is it 
not?
  This is what the Cato Institute is really saying: We have to get rid 
of these protections that exist in current law in this country to 
protect American workers and American business. We have to get rid of 
that because others do not like it, so let us negotiate it away. If it 
hurts farmers, so what. I mean, that is the attitude. Talk about 
elitists. A lot of people throw around the term ``elitists.''
  If it hurts farmers and ranchers, so what; just negotiate away the 
protections that currently exist for farmers and ranchers in 
international trade, protections incidentally that are seldom 
implemented because we have trade officials who do not have a will, a 
backbone, or a nerve. Aside from those anatomical deficiencies, they 
exist in law. Now we have people who want to negotiate away the basic 
protections.
  My colleague has come to the floor to offer a second-degree 
amendment, the purpose of which is to kill the basic premise of what I 
am trying to do. The second-degree amendment is interesting, and I was 
at first thinking curious, but it is not curious because it is simple. 
It simply restates that which is in current law. It will do nothing to 
prevent our negotiators from doing what they say they are able to do in 
the current Doha negotiations, which is to negotiate away the basic 
protections that exist for our farmers, our ranchers, our businesses, 
and our workers.
  The Cato Institute further says: If Senator Dorgan is unhappy with 
the final text of the Doha agreement, should it come to fruition, he 
can vote against its passage.
  Well, one can do that for sure. The only thing one cannot do is they 
cannot amend it. Why? Because this Congress, with the support of Cato 
and the President, decided what would be smart for all of us to do is 
put all of us in a straitjacket and decide beforehand that we will give 
fast-track trade authority for people to negotiate--in this case in 
Doha--behind closed doors, in secret, and the product they bring back 
to this institution will not be able to be amended. We are able to 
amend almost anything else, including nuclear arms agreements, but 
trade agreements, no; no, because those are negotiated in secret. And 
when they come back, they come back under something called fast track. 
So there are no amendments, even to correct the obvious deficiencies.
  We have had almost this exact scenario previously. It occurred in 
2002, May 14, my birthday, incidentally. We had an amendment on the 
floor of the Senate by Senator Dayton and Senator Craig, a bipartisan 
amendment, that would have done essentially the same thing. It said 
there is no fast-track authority for any trade agreement that comes 
back in which our negotiators have negotiated away the basic 
protections, the antidumping laws and so on, that exist for our 
farmers, ranchers, and businesses. That passed with 61 votes. It was 
true then that I believe either Senator Grassley or Senator Baucus 
offered another amendment that was kind of a cover amendment, and that 
passed 98 to 0 because it did not particularly mean much. It set up 
objectives but objectives that are similar to a strainer, enough holes 
so that whatever one wants to put through it goes through it.
  So Senator Grassley now has a second-degree amendment that says: Let 
us all agree to that which we previously agreed to that does not do 
anything.

[[Page 20485]]

  So sign me up. If there is a list, let me be signed up real quick to 
say: Let me agree to that which was previously agreed to that does 
nothing. And then we will have a vote on my amendment that says: Let us 
stand up for the economic interests of this country; let us stand up 
for the economic interests of businesses and workers and insist to 
other countries that the right way to do trade is fair trade. If it is 
not fair, then every country has a right to use its remedies to address 
and take action against unfair trade.
  I mentioned yesterday we very seldom take any kind of action under 
any circumstances. We do not ever take trade action. We did once 
against Europe recently. We slapped the Europeans with tariffs on 
truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. That scared the devil out 
of the Europeans. This big old strong country decided to take action 
against Europe. We are going to single out truffles, Roquefort cheese, 
and goose liver.
  That is hardly the ``John Wayne'' approach to dealing with what we 
understand and know to be unfair trade.
  This represents a crisis. This represents a real problem, and nobody 
seems to care very much. My amendment is an attempt to prevent further 
damage in the new negotiations. It is not, as the Cato Institute 
insists, that I do not believe in trade. I believe in expanded trade. I 
believe it makes sense to have expanded trade, provided it is fair. I 
believe trade ought to try to lift other countries up, not press 
American workers and firms down.
  Perhaps there will come a time when we will look back and say: Why 
did we not understand what this meant to our country? Why did we not 
understand the danger that buying $2 billion a day from abroad more 
than we send abroad in exports, the danger that portrayed to our 
economy? Why did we not understand that? Why did we not catch it? Why 
did somebody not blow the whistle on it?
  My hometown is 400 people, and we had a whistle similar to a lot of 
hometowns. We have a fire whistle, but it is also used for other 
purposes. Every noon, the whistle blew in my hometown. Every day at 6 
the fire whistle blew in my hometown. Every day at 10 the whistle blew. 
We had the fire whistle blowing three times in a town of 400 people. 
Small towns did that to signal that it is 12. Everybody in town should 
know it is 12, the fire whistle is blowing. We do not have any signals 
around here.
  I would like to see somebody blow a whistle around here at some 
point. When do you blow the whistle--at a $700 billion, $800 billion, 
$1 trillion trade deficit in 1 year? We had people doing gymnastic 
exercises earlier this week because the trade deficit in the past 
month, I think it was announced last Friday, was only 57-plus-billion 
dollars in 1 single month, the fifth worst trade deficit in history, 
and people said: What a great thing that is. It actually improved a 
little from the month before momentarily.
  My only point is, I think that those who are content to sleep through 
what is a growing American crisis do no favors to American workers and 
American business and certainly do no favors to future economic 
opportunity in this great country of ours. This country is measured in 
terms of its wealth, not by what it consumes but rather by what it 
produces, and if we do not stand up for producers to insist and demand 
fair trade, yes, ranchers and farmers, manufacturers and businesses, we 
do not have the strength and backbone to do that, if we are content to 
let people with tiny, little glasses and big degrees go halfway around 
the world, behind closed doors, and negotiate in secret trade 
agreements that continue to give us this kind of performance and move 
American jobs overseas and undermine American business and undermine 
American farmers and ranchers, then this Senate and this Congress ought 
to hang its head.
  We can do a lot better, and should, and the place to start the first 
baby step, in my judgment, is to start with two things: Vote for the 
Grassley second-degree amendment that says we agree with which we have 
previously agreed and want to vote yes for something that does nothing, 
but it does not harm anything, so we will all vote yes and then vote 
for the amendment that I have offered--it has been now pending for 
almost a week--that does stand up for this country's economic 
interests. It does not impede fair trade or free trade. It demands and 
insists that we have the right to protect ourselves when others will 
use trade practices to injure our country, our workers, our 
manufacturers, our farmers, our ranchers. So we will vote at some point 
and my hope is that those who feel as I do will support the amendment I 
have offered for the reasons I have described.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1713, as Modified

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Grassley amendment No. 1713 be modified to be a first-degree amendment 
and that at 11:45, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
Grassley amendment No. 1713, as modified, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665, with no amendments in order 
to the amendments prior to the votes and with 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                      AMENDMENT 1713, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       ``Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used in a manner that is 
     inconsistent with the principle negotiating objective of the 
     United States with respect to trade remedy laws to preserve 
     the ability of the United States--
       ``(1) to enforce vigorously its trade laws, including the 
     antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws;
       ``(2) to avoid agreements that--
       ``(A) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping 
     and subsidies; or
       ``(B) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that 
     United States workers, agricultural producers, and firms can 
     compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of 
     reciprocal trade concessions; and
       ``(3) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.''.

  Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Grassley 
amendment No. 1713, as modified.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Grassley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey Mr. (Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn

[[Page 20486]]


     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 1713, as modified) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1665

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). There are now 2 minutes equally 
divided on the Dorgan amendment.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have spoken previously on this 
amendment. I will not prolong the debate. This amendment is very 
simple. It says that our negotiators, in negotiating a new trade round, 
shall not be allowed to negotiate the weakening of the basic 
protections in our trade law, antidumping laws, countervailing duties, 
the protections that protect American ranchers and farmers and 
businesses and workers. We must stand up for the economic interests of 
this country.
  The reason this amendment is necessary is because it has been widely 
announced that our negotiators are prepared to agree with others to lay 
on the table the weakening of our basic protections, such as 
antidumping laws and countervailing duties. That would injure this 
country, move more jobs outside of this country, hurt farmers, 
ranchers, businesses, and workers.
  I hope support for this amendment will send a very strong signal to 
those who are negotiating these trade treaties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment, No. 1, because Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and Mr. Portman, 
our Trade Representative, have said they are going to recommend a veto 
of the bill if the Dorgan amendment is adopted.
  Also, I have these organizations that have sent a letter in 
opposition to the amendment. The organizations include the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the American Peanut Product Manufacturers, 
Inc., the American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, 
the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, the Food Products 
Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the International 
Dairy Foods Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the 
National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, et 
cetera, et cetera--with about eight more I could read.
  We have adopted my amendment now. We have a policy that is broad to 
make sure things are not weakened, but if they want to be strengthened, 
they can be strengthened, as well, as we don't take a lot of things off 
the negotiating table. If we are going to be successful in agriculture, 
we have to have a broad number of issues on the table to get any 
success for agriculture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 1665) was rejected.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 1719 through 1721, En Bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' 
amendments I now send to the desk be considered and agreed to en bloc. 
These amendments have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1719

  (Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 in the Southwest United States for 
  hiring officers dedicated to the investigation of manufacturers of 
  fraudulent Federal identity documents, Federal travel documents, or 
             documents allowing access to Federal programs)

       On page 120, line 24, after the colon insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $5,000,000 may be expended for hiring officers in 
     the Southwest United States dedicated to the investigation of 
     manufacturers of fraudulent Federal identity documents, 
     Federal travel documents, or documents allowing access to 
     Federal programs:''.


                           Amendment No. 1720

 (Purpose: To provide funds for economic adjustment and development to 
                  areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina)

       On page 147, line 5, strike ``$283,985,000'' and all that 
     follows through line 6 and insert the following: 
     $483,985,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That $200,000,000 shall be for assistance described in 
     section 209(c)(2) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2)) and is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
       On page 147, line 10, strike ``$30,939,000: Provided'' and 
     insert the following: $40,939,000: Provided, That $10,000,000 
     shall be for salaries and expenses of carrying out section 
     209(c)(2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2)) and is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress): Provided further


                           Amendment No. 1721

 (Purpose: To permit certain health professionals who are displaced by 
    Hurricane Katrina to provide health-related services under the 
medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, and Indian Health Service programs in States 
                 to which such professionals relocate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. WAIVER OF LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
                   APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an eligible health professional may provide health-
     related services under the medicare, medicaid, or SCHIP 
     program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq., 1396 et seq., and 1397 et seq.) 
     and under Indian Health Service programs, regardless of the 
     licensing or certification laws of the State in which such 
     services are being provided, during the 90-day period that 
     begins

[[Page 20487]]

     on the date on which eligibility is determined by the State 
     licensing board of the State in which such professional will 
     provide health-related services under this subsection.
       (b) Eligible Health Professional.--To be eligible to 
     provide health-related services in a State during the period 
     referred to in subsection (a) without State licensure or 
     certification, a health professional shall--
       (1) be a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, mental 
     health professional, or allied health profession, or any 
     other professional determined appropriate by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services;
       (2) have a valid license from, or be certified in, at least 
     one of the States affected by Hurricane Katrina, as described 
     in subsection (d), and not be affirmatively barred from 
     practicing in that State;
       (3) have been evacuated from Louisiana or Mississippi as a 
     result of Hurricane Katrina; and
       (4) have applied, prior to March 31, 2006, for a license or 
     certification in the State in which such professional will 
     provide the health-related services under subsection (a) 
     without State licensure or certification.
       (c) Evidence of Licensure.--
       (1) In general.--A State may develop a process to verify 
     the licensing credentials of a health professional to which 
     this section applies if the professional has no official 
     evidence of licensure in his or her possession.
       (2) Fraud.--An individual who wilfully provides any false 
     or misleading information to a Federal, State, or local 
     official for purposes of being covered under the provisions 
     of this section shall, in addition to any State penalties 
     that may apply, be subject to a fine, as determined 
     appropriate by the Attorney General in accordance with title 
     18, United States Code.
       (d) States Described.--The States described in this 
     subsection are Louisiana and Mississippi.
       (e) Limitation.--A health professional may only elect to 
     utilize the provisions of this section for a single 90-day 
     period.
       (f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as altering or affecting any procedures adopted by 
     State health professional licensing or certification boards 
     relating to waivers of licensing and certification 
     requirements for health professionals affected by Hurricane 
     Katrina.
       (g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``health-related 
     services'', as such term is applied to health professional 
     under this section, means services provided by a health 
     professional that are consistent with the scope of practice 
     of the professional in the State in which such professional 
     is seeking licensure or certification.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request for a piece of legislation that is within my 
jurisdiction, and then, also, as a favor to another person, to make a 
unanimous consent request. Before I make that unanimous consent 
request, I would like to make a short statement, and then have Senator 
Baucus make a short statement before I proceed to the unanimous consent 
request. May I go ahead?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________