[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 22912-22961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF ANDREW VON ESCHENBACH TO BE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND 
             DRUGS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Andrew von 
Eschenbach, of Texas, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Andrew von Eschenbach to 
be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human 
Services.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of the FDA Commissioner, 
Andrew von Eschenbach. Senators can expect to have this vote around 
10:30 to 10:45 this morning, following the 1 hour for debate. As I 
mentioned yesterday morning, this is a very important position, and to 
have this confirmation finally being accomplished will be a great 
achievement for this Congress.
  Once cloture has been invoked, we will try to schedule that vote on 
confirmation early in the day. There are several critical items the 
Senate must act on before we adjourn sine die, and therefore Senators 
should adjust their travel plans to be here voting over the coming 
days.
  I will be working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to wrap 
up our business for the Congress, and I appreciate Senators' 
willingness to work together on a number of legislative and executive 
matters.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                     moving The Legislative Agenda

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Andrew von Eschenbach is cleared on this 
side, so as far as we are concerned there is no need for a cloture 
vote. We look forward to working with the distinguished majority leader 
today, maybe tomorrow, maybe Saturday, to try to get as much 
cooperation out of Senators as possible. I know the finance folks have 
worked long and hard to try to come up with something that is very 
important for the country. We will continue to monitor that and do 
everything we can as we try to move this legislative agenda forward.


                       Protecting American Values

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to speak on 
another matter. I know we want to get to the hour of pre-vote time here 
shortly.
  Hopefully, tomorrow will officially end the 109th Congress. At the 
end of the day tomorrow, if we do our work today successfully, and 
tonight, the Senate will be able to adjourn. That will also mark, once 
we adjourn, this official change in leadership and change in the Senate 
agenda. I know many of my colleagues and many of my conservative allies 
view this change with a bit of trepidation, but change is good, change 
is constructive. It can be difficult, it can be painful, and it can be 
messy, but change forces us all to reexamine who we are, where we are, 
and where we want to go; what we know, what we believe.
  I believe it is our responsibility to protect traditional, 
commonsense American values. I believe when we give the American people 
the freedom to invest their money as they choose, the economy is going 
to flourish. It is going to have more freedom to grow. At the end of 
the day, I believe good leaders don't talk about principles--don't talk 
about them--but good leaders lead on principle. They act, and they act 
with solutions, even if they don't know that the outcome is going to be 
100-percent successful every time a bill is taken to the floor.
  I think that is one of the things that at least I tried to do, is not 
say let's only take to the floor what will necessarily pass but what is 
the right thing to do, on principle; what is the right thing for us to 
be considering.
  During my tenure in public office, it is what I tried to do, to lead 
on principle and act with solutions. It does come from that surgical 
approach of fixing things, of operating, of action.
  For example . . . for 10 years, we grappled with the issue of 
Internet gambling. We watched the industry mushroom from a $30 million 
industry in 1996 to a $12 billion industry today. We watched an 
addiction undermine families, dash dreams, and fray the fabric of a 
moral society.
  So we acted with a solution . . . by passing the Internet Gambling 
Prohibition and Enforcement Act to provide new enforcement tools to 
prosecute illegal Internet gambling.
  Let me give you a few more recent examples of how we have led on 
principle, and acted with solutions.
  We passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act . . . which 
creates a national sex offender registry, strengthens measures to 
prevent child pornography, and reinforces laws against child porn.
  We passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 
which renewed the first federal law to strengthen prosecution efforts 
against human traffickers.
  We passed legislation securing the right to prayer in U.S. military 
academies.
  We passed legislation protecting the Mount Soledad Memorial Cross.
  We passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which allows for the 
10- fold increase of FCC fines for indecency violations.
  We passed Cord blood legislation that harnesses the power of stem 
cells in cord blood to develop new cures for life-threatening diseases.
  We passed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, which prohibits the 
gestation of fetal tissue in order to use it for research.
  We passed the Stem Cell Research Alternatives bill, which provides 
federal

[[Page 22913]]

funding for a variety of stem cell research that do not involve 
destroying human embryos.
  And perhaps most notably . . . we confirmed John Roberts Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court . . . and Samuel Alito as an associate 
Justice of the Supreme Court.
  We confirmed 18 Circuit court nominees and 87 District court judges, 
including six previously obstructed nominees. America needs judges who 
are fair, independent, unbiased, and committed to equal justice under 
the law . . . and we made sure that's what America got.
  Over the past 12 years, what Republicans have done has changed our 
economy, our country, and our way of life for the better.
  Our record of success, combined with the lessons of November's 
election, ensures that our party will rededicate itself to serving the 
interests of America, both here at home and around the world.
  That vision--optimistic, forward-looking, hopeful--will be grounded 
in the fundamentals of commonsense conservative values best found on 
Main Street and in families with whom we have the privilege of 
interacting all across the country.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes for debate prior to the cloture vote, with time divided as 
follows: the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, or his designee, 30 
minutes; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, 20 minutes; the Senator 
from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, 10 minutes.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending nomination of 
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach to be the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The 
FDA has a very broad and critical mission in protecting our public 
health. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is in charge of an agency 
that regulates $1 trillion worth of products a year. The FDA ensures 
the safety and effectiveness of all drugs, biological products such as 
vaccines, medical devices, and animal drugs and feed. Let me repeat 
that: the safety and effectiveness of all drugs, biological products 
such as vaccines, medical devices, animal drugs and feed. It also 
oversees the safety of a vast variety of food products, as well as 
medical and consumer products including cosmetics.
  As Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Dr. von Eschenbach would be 
responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed 
innovations in its mission areas, and by helping the public get 
accurate, science-based information on medicines and food. Dr. von 
Eschenbach has a strong record. He is an accomplished scientist, a 
proven manager, and a man with a vision. He is also a cancer survivor, 
and he has brought that perspective, and the compassion that goes with 
it, to his Government service. He gave up a job he loved, a challenging 
but rewarding post directing the National Cancer Institute, to offer 
his service for what I believe is a much more challenging and 
definitely thankless job of leading the FDA.
  The FDA has been without a confirmed Commissioner for all but 18 
months of the last 5\1/2\ years. Have you ever seen a business that can 
run for 5\1/2\ years without a boss except for 18 months? And that was 
a tenuous 18 months. I believe we can all agree that we need a strong 
leader at the FDA now, and one who has a mandate to act. He needs full 
authority to bring back the morale of the Department and get the job 
done. We must be forward looking. There are many items before the FDA 
that require the immediate attention of an FDA Commissioner vested with 
full authority. But that authority flows directly from the act of 
Senate confirmation. Without a Senate-confirmed leader, we can't expect 
the FDA to be as effective as we need it to be. I urge my colleagues to 
consider this.
  I know some of my colleagues on and off the committee are not 
completely satisfied with their interactions with the FDA during Dr. 
von Eschenbach's tenure. Some would urge that the Food and Drug 
Administration move quickly on certain matters before it. However, I am 
not sure that holding up a nomination over single products or single 
issues is the right way to achieve faster action and to ensure that 
agency processes are free from the pressure of politics. In fact, I 
strongly believe the opposite would occur. I think this is a position 
that has more Catch-22s than any other position in Government.
  I do respect the right of my colleagues to disagree with the 
President's choice for this position or the policies a President's 
nominee might pursue. If our disagreements with the President's choice 
are so strong, we ought to vote against the nominee. But, in light of 
the trillion dollars worth of drugs and products overseen by the FDA 
and hundreds of drug approvals reviewed every year, I think we would be 
setting a dangerous precedent if any of us hold up the President's 
choice for FDA Commissioner over decisions made involving one product 
or one issue or something extraneous, even, to the Food and Drug 
Administration. It would be an especially dangerous precedent at this 
point.
  We have a lot on our plate with respect to the FDA during the 110th 
Congress. We have to reauthorize both the drug and device user fee 
programs, address two expiring pediatric programs, and improve our drug 
safety system.
  The FDA needs a leader with the backing and mandate that Senate 
confirmation provides in order to be our partner in these efforts. Dr. 
von Eschenbach has received significant support from the HELP 
Committee. This man could serve patients in many different ways, and 
has offered to serve them by running this critically important agency. 
I am talking about a doctor with cancer expertise, management 
expertise, and vision, who has agreed to run this agency at what we pay 
because he wants to give back to his country.
  I urge my colleagues who are not on our committee to give Dr. von 
Eschenbach a chance to effectively run the FDA with full statutory 
authority, so I urge my colleagues to accept the President's nominee, 
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, and vote to confirm him as the next 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Voting yes on this cloture vote will be 
the first step voting on a permanent head to oversee our Nation's food 
and drug system.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my opposition to the cloture motion is 
as much about whether we are going to be able to fulfill our 
constitutional responsibilities of oversight of the administrative 
branch of Government as it is about the particular qualifications of 
the nominee. I intend to vote against cloture and I hope that Democrats 
who are listening--particularly those Democrats in the last election 
who were bellyaching because there wasn't any oversight on the part of 
Republicans toward the executive branch of Government--would pay 
attention to the fact that this nominee has something to do with and is 
an illustration of the lack of cooperation on the part of the executive 
branch, failure to cooperate with Congress on the issue of 
congressional oversight.
  I have serious concerns about what this cloture vote means, then, to 
congressional oversight of the executive branch now and in the future, 
and what it means for Members such as me, who placed a hold on this 
nominee. This was not a secret hold. I made this hold public.
  I am voting against cloture and ask my colleagues to join me because 
I believe we need to send a message to the executive branch that it is 
not OK to impede congressional investigations. It is not OK to limit 
the Senate's access to documents, information, and employees of the 
executive branch. In his book on congressional government, Woodrow 
Wilson, before he was President, when he was a professor at Princeton, 
wrote, in 1885: ``Quite as important as lawmaking is vigilant oversight 
of the administration.''
  Our work as lawmakers does not end with the passage of a bill. This 
body has a responsibility to the American people to make sure that laws 
work and that they are being implemented

[[Page 22914]]

effectively, efficiently, and economically. Congressional oversight 
serves very important goals, and we should not lose sight. They include 
reviewing actions taken and regulations adopted by executive agencies 
to make sure that the agencies are executing law according to the 
intent of Congress, and, second, ensuring that the Federal Government 
is not wasting taxpayers' dollars. Oversight work allows us to evaluate 
the ability of agencies and managers to carry out program objectives 
and improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of Government 
programs; next, ensuring that executive policies reflect the public 
interest and that public interest is expressed in the laws of Congress; 
and, lastly, protecting the rights and liberties of the American 
people.
  Woodrow Wilson also said in his book that:

       It is the proper duty of a representative body to look 
     diligently into every affair of Government and to talk much 
     about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes, the voice and 
     embody the wisdom and the will of its constituents.

  In America, with our Government, the public's business ought to be 
public. But when you have coverups and the lack of information going to 
Congress, as demonstrated by this request for documents, and when we 
get a document back with practically 57 pages removed, what is in those 
57 pages that we ought to have access to? That is just one example of 
lack of information and the lack of cooperation from this agency.
  Throughout history, Congress has engaged in oversight of the 
executive branch. The right to congressional oversight has been 
asserted from the earliest days of our Republic. In 1792, the House 
invoked its authority to conduct oversight when it appointed a 
committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his Army 
by Indians in the Northwest and empowered the ``call for such persons, 
papers, and records as may be necessary'' for that inquiry.
  In fact, the Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to 
oversee and investigate executive branch activities.
  Congressional oversight was also recognized explicitly in the passage 
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, which required the 
standing committees of Congress to exercise continuous watchfulness 
over programs of agencies in their jurisdiction. Numerous Supreme Court 
decisions will support all the precedents for Congress to see all 
aspects of the Federal Government.
  In 1927, in McGrain v. Daugherty, the Supreme Court upheld 
congressional authority to conduct oversight of the Teapot Dome 
scandal. Justice Van Devanter writing for the unanimous Court stated:

       We are of the opinion that the power of inquiry with the 
     process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate 
     auxiliary to the legislative function.

  To do oversight, Congress needs access to information and people in 
the executive branch. And that is what I did not, and still may not, be 
getting from the FDA under the leadership of Dr. Von Eschenbach--as an 
example, 47 pages removed; another example, 43 pages removed.
  How are you going to conduct oversight when you get answers such as 
that from the Food and Drug Administration?
  I take exception to the statement made in support of the cloture 
motion. People ought to be ashamed of saying Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach 
has done a superb job in the position he is currently occupying with an 
answer such as that to the Congress of the United States. That is an 
insult. Before you cast your vote in favor of cloture, consider what is 
at stake--and particularly Members on the other side of the aisle who, 
during the campaign, in campaign commercial after campaign commercial 
after campaign commercial, said Congress is not doing its job of 
oversight, implying that Republicans were covering up wrongdoing by the 
administration. If you want to preserve your access to information and 
do the oversight that you think you are going to do, when you are in 
the majority and you get answers such as that, do you think you are 
going to be able to do the job of oversight?
  In my interactions with the Department of Health and Human Services 
and the FDA these last 8 months, I have seen a complete and utter 
disrespect for congressional authority and hence the law. The 
department and the Food and Drug Administration have repeatedly failed 
to act in good faith in responding to congressional investigations--and 
the lack of 43 pages is just one example.
  Although the Director's leadership at the FDA has failed to fully 
comply with two congressional subpoenas that were issued 7 months ago, 
efforts to accommodate the agency's concerns fall on deaf ears, and I 
wonder if I am dealing with dysfunction by design. Not only has the 
NEDA withheld documents that do not appear to be privileged, but it 
also says what has been withheld and why. The subpoenas compel a 
privilege log, but the FDA has not provided us with that privilege log.
  For Democrats in the majority next year doing the oversight that they 
said they were going to do because Republicans weren't doing it--they 
didn't let me--let me ask you this: Are you going to be able to conduct 
oversight when you get answers such as that? Are you going to be able 
to conduct oversight when, for 7 months, you don't get your subpoenas 
responded to? What is the agency's explanation? The FDA has said that 
many documents have been withheld, that it is unduly burdensome to 
provide a privilege log. Even in the FDA, general counsel, as recently 
as Tuesday of this week, could not see why the agency needed to comply 
with the law and the terms of the subpoena which was issued by the 
committee.
  In denying the committee access to the documents responsive to the 
subpoena, which the department and the FDA administration have claimed 
``prosecutorial deliberative process'' or ``confidential 
communications'' or ``agency prerogatives'' to determine who will be 
interviewed and testify before a jurisdictional committee, when those 
on the other side of the aisle get answers such as that when you are 
going to be in the majority, what are you going to do about it? Are you 
going to keep your commitment to the American people when you won the 
majority? And are you going to be able to do the oversight when you get 
rationales such as ``prosecutorial deliberative process'' or 
``confidential communications'' or ``agency prerogatives?''
  I could not talk to a line agent named West because you can't talk to 
line agents, when 3 months before I talked to line agents? There was 
someone from the Justice Department before the Judiciary Committee, 
when Senator Kennedy said, ``I want access to line agents,'' unrelated 
to what I am talking about: Line Agent West, whom I wanted to talk to 
and I was told I couldn't talk to because you can't talk to line 
agents, the official at the Justice Department said to Senator Kennedy:

       You can talk to line agents. We will get them for you.

  I do not know whether that ever happened. But that was the answer.
  When I went around doing my questioning of Justice Department 
officials, I said: What about my ability to talk to Line Agent West? It 
just seemed as if I was going to be able to talk to Line Agent West. 
But yet this very day the Justice Department is advising the Secretary 
of the Interior that we can't talk to Line Agent West, which is key to 
whether some of these investigations are allowing dangerous drugs on 
the market. In Cedar Rapids, IA, I have a family that lost an 18-year-
old because of a drug that was on the market then and which is not on 
the market now.
  It seems to me that if you are concerned about the safety of drugs, 
this information is important, and if you are going to have it covered 
up in the FDA, you aren't protecting the public. If Congress knows 
about it, you are not doing your job of oversight.
  This past summer I asked the Congressional Research Service to look 
into the department's policies regarding this matter. And the 
Congressional Research Service told me that there is ``no legal basis'' 
for the department's executive branch assertion. The legal

[[Page 22915]]

analysis provided by Congressional Research Service supports the 
committee's position that these executive agencies' claims have been 
consistently rejected and compliance with congressional requests in the 
past has been forthcoming. The CRS cites numerous court cases which 
establish and support Congress's power to engage in oversight and 
investigate activities and its access to executive branch personnel and 
documents in carrying out our powers of oversight.
  The Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA within Health 
and Human Services, says it has been responsive because the agency made 
available hundreds of thousands--even millions--of pages of documents 
to the Finance Committee in response to its subpoena. But the agency 
can give me all of the books and all the documents housed at the 
Library of Congress and it won't matter if it is not what I have asked 
for and the pages are removed.
  It is this type of cooperation that I am getting under this Director 
that you are now going to confirm. I am very concerned about the 
cooperation, if any, that we have once he becomes a permanent 
commissioner. Every Member of Congress should be equally concerned if 
they take their constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the 
executive branch seriously, and most importantly to the new majority 
when you are going to carry out your campaign promises to make sure 
that there is proper oversight, checks and balances against an 
executive branch of Government you think is exceeding authority. Every 
Member should be concerned. I cannot emphasis this enough.
  A vote for cloture today is a vote against oversight, and that is not 
what this Senate should be doing. It is not what the American people 
sent us here to do. We need to step up congressional oversight to 
protect our Nation's system of checks and balances and not reward those 
who seek to impede our constitutional authority.
  This body should not walk hand in hand with the executive branch and 
sit idly by as instances of abuse and fraud continue to endanger the 
health and safety of American people. This Senate needs to make it 
clear to the executive branch that Congress takes its oversight 
responsibilities seriously and to vote against cloture. If we do have 
cloture, I will have other remarks during postcloture debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I want to briefly comment.
  I understand the frustration. I have been working with him trying to 
get documents, trying to get the interview with Mr. West. I want you to 
put yourself in Dr. Von Eschenbach's position. He has not been 
confirmed. He does not have the full authority to run that department. 
So what he has to do is rely on the Department of Justice, as the 
Senator mentioned. The Department of Justice tells him what he is 
supposed to do. I don't think he has authority to go beyond what the 
Department of Justice says.
  The Senator is one of the most diligent Members to hold oversight 
hearings of anybody that I know. I appreciate the depth that you go to 
for individuals as well as groups. I know it is what you are doing on 
this one. Unless we give him full authority, he has to rely on the 
Justice Department. The way one has to take on the Department of 
Justice is through the Judiciary Committee and bring them to task for 
giving him that kind of advice. I think he is just following the advice 
he has gotten from those he has to rely on until he has authority. I 
think it will be different when he has full authority.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, during my time of almost 7 years as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have met with Dr. Von 
Eschenbach quite often. We had many requests for documents. I can't 
remember once that he refused. But beyond that, I came to the floor 
today to say that I have gotten to know Dr. Von Eschenbach personally, 
and I can't think of a more qualified man at this time to be confirmed 
to this position. I hope the Senate will vote cloture and we will 
confirm Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as requested by the President. I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank Senator Enzi for giving me 
this time. I am pleased to rise to support Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach's 
nomination for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I am 
speaking about a person whom I know. I know him as a person. I know him 
as a human being. I can say, with full confidence, there is no one more 
qualified and more well suited to lead this very important agency.
  I was very pleased the committee overwhelmingly, unanimously, 
supported his nomination. Not only is Dr. Von Eschenbach a wonderful 
friend of mine, but he is so qualified for this position. His 
experience and integrity make him the right choice to lead the FDA.
  He is a nationally recognized urologic surgeon, medical educator, and 
cancer advocate. He is a three-time cancer survivor. There is no one 
who can understand what it is like to go through a fight against cancer 
than someone who has done it. So many doctors haven't had that 
experience, one might not get the impression that they really 
understand what a patient is going through. Not Dr. Andy von 
Eschenbach. He has been through the hard time of being told he has this 
dreaded disease and fighting it with all his might. He does relate to 
patients' struggles.
  During his 25 years at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Medical 
Center, he led a faculty of 1,000 cancer researchers and clinicians. He 
was the chief academic officer at this great cancer institution. He was 
also the founding director of M.D. Anderson's Prostate Cancer Research 
Program. In this position, he developed integrated programs to study, 
treat, and prevent prostate cancer. Before arriving at M.D. Anderson, 
he served his country as lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Medical 
Corps from 1968 to 1971. In 1976, he joined M.D. Anderson as a urologic 
oncology fellow. He became part of the faculty and was named chairman 
of the Department of Urology in 1983.
  When he left M.D. Anderson in 2002, he became Director of the 
National Cancer Institute. At the time, he was president-elect of the 
American Cancer Society which, of course, is one of the leading 
organizations in our country that fights for victims of cancer.
  He has, also, been published in more than 200 publications. This 
year, Time Magazine named Andy von Eschenbach as one of the 100 people 
who shape our world.
  The FDA is fortunate to have Dr. von Eschenbach. It is one of the 
Nation's oldest and most respected consumer protection agencies. It 
regulates $1 trillion worth of products available to American 
consumers, and it makes sure the products are safe and effective.
  Dr. Von Eschenbach is the right person to lead the FDA's mission. I 
completely trust him. I cannot think of a more qualified candidate. I 
hope we will put politics aside in this very important nomination and 
we will confirm this very qualified individual. He is balanced. He has 
good judgment. He will continue to be a cancer advocate as well as a 
patient advocate.
  He knows, also, from the FDA standpoint, of the issues involved with 
the drug approval process--that products face extensive testing and 
studies compared to other countries. I have talked to him about this. 
Of course, their first and foremost responsibility is safety. That is 
why they have this arduous and comprehensive process of approving 
drugs.
  On the other hand, he also knows you need to make drugs available for 
patients who otherwise may not survive. He realizes these concerns from 
every angle. He knows it from the research angle, from the academic 
angle, from the Government angle, and from the patient advocate angle.

[[Page 22916]]

  It would be a tragedy if we did not give him the full authority and 
the full congressional confirmation he deserves. He deserves it because 
he left the private sector at a world renowned cancer research 
institution to serve his country and the responsibility it takes in a 
high public policy position.
  Sometimes I wonder how we attract such qualified academics and people 
who are not experienced in this arena. They are not used to the 
compromise of politics. They have been researchers and in academia all 
their lives. They come into public service and all of a sudden they are 
hit with the public exposure and scrutiny. Sometimes they are unfairly 
characterized in a way they never dreamed.
  Yet we have someone of the caliber of Andy von Eschenbach willing to 
take all of that to do something better for our country and for cancer 
patients in the country and in the world. We owe him the ability to 
have this position without any further delay, with the complete 
imprimatur of the Senate as well as the President of the United States. 
He deserves it.
  I hope our colleagues will look at this, not from a political prism 
but from the standpoint of a qualified individual who is trying to help 
medical research and safety in this country go forward, who is a 
patient advocate, first and foremost.
  I thank Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for working together to 
bring this nomination to the Senate. We should have a bipartisan vote 
in confirming Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to speak against the 
cloture motion to confirm Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as Commissioner of 
the FDA. I have had a public hold on this nomination and have been very 
upfront about it. Because my serious concerns have not been addressed 
in any significant way, I will vote against cloture. If cloture is 
invoked, I will vote against the nomination.
  In doing so, I want to be clear I have nothing against Dr. Von 
Eschenbach's technical credentials or professional experience. They are 
very impressive in many ways. I strongly object to this nomination 
because the FDA and Dr. Von Eschenbach, acting on orders from the 
administration, has had a complete and utter lack of action creating a 
reasonable, safe system for reimportation of prescription drugs from 
Canada and elsewhere.
  Clearly, this nomination making him the permanent head of the FDA 
will only further delay that reasonable implementation of a good, safe 
reimportation policy. In fact, at my extensive meeting with Dr. Von 
Eschenbach, my discussion with him made that perfectly clear. I give 
him credit, I suppose, for being very direct about that, although I am 
not sure he fully understood my serious interest in reimportation. It 
is for this reason I will vote against cloture. If cloture is invoked, 
I will vote against the nomination.
  The FDA is completely capable of setting up a reimportation system, 
one that is safe and effective. The FDA can do this. It is not a matter 
of technical ability. We have great technical and other resources in 
this country. It is a matter of political will. At any time, the FDA 
could act and set up this safe and reasonable system.
  My hold on this nomination, as I said, was very public, upfront, and 
clear. I made it clear I would lift it, contingent on a very simple 
request to implement some sort of prescription drug reimportation 
plan--perhaps beginning with personal reimportation from Canada, 
including Internet and mail order sales. The FDA could do this. It is 
fully capable of doing this. It has the know-how to do this. It simply 
will not because of lack of political will.
  The need for this is very obvious to me. Every time I talk to 
consumers in Louisiana, particularly seniors, it becomes more and more 
obvious. As obvious and as important is the growing support for this--
not just out in the country where that support has always been strong 
but in the Congress, in the Senate, in the House.
  The House passed comprehensive drug reimportation language in 2003. 
It passed it by an overwhelming majority. More recently, the Senate 
passed my amendment coauthored by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida by a 
vote of 68 to 32. That was this past July. That was a significant 
breakthrough because it was the first time we had a meaningful, 
straight up-or-down vote on a reimportation issue in the Senate. Again, 
the vote was clear. It was overwhelming. That important amendment 
passed 68 to 32.
  All this shows that the majority of Americans strongly support 
allowing all Americans to purchase safe, cheaper prescription drugs 
from Canada and elsewhere. Yet the administration absolutely refuses to 
budge. Not only does the administration refuse to budge, it even went 
so far as to quietly implement a new policy last year at U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection to go after individual American citizens crossing 
back into the United States from other countries--mostly Canada--with 
medicine, actually seizing their packages containing legal medication 
at those border checkpoints. That is a very high-handed policy, when 
these citizens are doing nothing but trying to get absolutely necessary 
prescription drugs at a reasonable cost.
  Coupled with the FDA and the administration's stubborn reluctance to 
implement even the most modern program, this has led me to conclude 
that no change would be made with the confirmation of this nominee.
  Again, this is an issue of utmost importance to every American family 
and, of course, it particularly impacts seniors. I talk to affected 
families and affected seniors in Louisiana about this all the time. 
They tell me, at a time when pharmaceutical companies are making record 
profits, the costs of prescription drugs are still skyrocketing and the 
very same medicines usually manufactured by the very same companies are 
sold at a fraction of the costs a few miles north of the border in 
Canada or in other countries around the world. Louisianians see that 
and they are very skeptical. They should be. I share that attitude. I 
share that skepticism.
  Opposing the right of an American to buy prescription drugs, FDA-
approved medication they intend to use for themselves, is a wrong 
policy. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs 
in America. Our prices subsidize not only rockbottom prices in almost 
every other country but also sky-high and escalating profits of the 
pharmaceutical companies. That is not fair. That should not be allowed 
to continue. That is why we need to pass this important policy of 
reimportation.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken about this significant issue in the 
Senate.
  In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with 
her constituents to Canada where they were able to buy safe, FDA-
approved drugs at a fraction of the U.S. cost: Lipitor, a very 
important cholesterol-lowering drug, for 40 percent less; Prevacid, an 
ulcer medication, for 50 percent less; antidepression medications such 
as Zyprexa for 70 percent less.
  In June, my colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently about the 
need to allow the reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S. 
pharmaceutical companies to lower prices here. That is the key, not 
just offering this option of cheaper drugs from another source but 
breaking up the present system that allows companies to charge 
dramatically different prices for the same drug around the world. And, 
of course, the highest prices in the world by far are right here in the 
United States. That system will not be able to withstand reimportation. 
That system will fall with reimportation.
  So that is why I continue this fight. That is why it is so important. 
Although certainly this nominee may very well be confirmed by the 
Senate today, I am very optimistic that, as we make progress on this 
issue, we march to a very certain victory, probably next year, on the 
issue.
  Again, we have been making steady progress. My amendment this past 
summer--the first vote on the floor of the Senate--was a breakthrough 
vote

[[Page 22917]]

that showed overwhelming support here on the floor of the Senate for 
reimportation. Previous House votes, similarly, showed not just 
majority support, overwhelming support for this change in policy. Just 
recently, I again joined with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to put up 
another important amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that 
would go a step further. We will continue to pursue that. Then, next 
year, I fully expect a full-blown reimportation plan to be here on the 
floor of the Senate for a full debate and a fair vote.
  So as I oppose cloture, as I oppose this nomination, I do so in that 
spirit and with real optimism that we are not only making progress, but 
we will, in fact, win on this issue in the near future. Next year, I 
expect my bill to be fully debated. In this Congress, that bill is S. 
109, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. I believe it will reach the 
floor and will get a full debate with other significant bills on the 
issue next year.
  I look forward to that continued progress. I look forward to that 
ultimate victory because Americans, particularly seniors, all across 
our country, including in Louisiana, need this very important relief. 
We can give them this relief in a safe, reliable way to dramatically 
bring down prescription drug prices.
  With that, I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the intense, 
enthusiastic, and persistent work of the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. 
Vitter, for drug importation. I do not know that I have seen anybody 
lead as much on an issue or work as hard on an issue. Around here, that 
is a talent which is very much appreciated.
  I do want to mention that, again, Dr. Von Eschenbach has not been 
confirmed, so he does not have full authority to run the Department or 
to do what he would like to do or might need to do. He has to rely on 
the advice of other people, particularly until he is confirmed. After 
that, even then, he will have to abide by the laws.
  I would point out that drug importation is illegal right now, and it 
is Congress, not the FDA, that has determined that. So until we change 
the law, until we do some or all of the things the Senator from 
Louisiana is suggesting, Dr. Von Eschenbach would really be stepping 
out of bounds to do drug importation. So I hope we do not hold that 
against him or hold up his nomination for that reason. We should hold 
him accountable for what is within his control, but urge him to work 
with Congress.
  I have had dozens of meetings with him on a variety of issues, as 
Senators have brought them up. Most of them have been resolved. Those 
within the law, those the Department of Justice has not contested, have 
been resolved.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield very briefly?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. VITTER. Just very briefly, first of all, I appreciate your kind 
comments. Very briefly, my comments regarding his and FDA's ability to 
move forward on this is based on current law, including the Medicare 
Modernization Act, which says that if they institute a safety regime 
and certify the safety of these drugs, they can, in fact, move forward 
with the reimportation regime. So under present law, that is possible, 
and that is what I was referring to. But I respect the Senator's point 
of view.
  Mr. ENZI. I appreciate that comment. If you were a person who was in 
a catch-22 position, a very qualified doctor, and you really wanted to 
do a good job with FDA and you knew that half the people or a third of 
the people or even 10 percent of the people did not want drug 
importation and you were the guy in charge of maybe making this 
determination for the first time--even though 6 or 8 years previously 
Congress had opposite opinions on it--I do not think you would want to 
put yourself in that position.
  He has just had a number of catch-22 positions where he can irritate 
half or more of us by making a decision, and nobody is going to make a 
decision in their confirmation process that way.
  It is actually the Health and Human Services Secretary who has to 
certify under the new law as well.
  So I hope we can get him confirmed and then do the kind of oversight 
we need to do to make sure he does everything that is possible to make 
sure we have safe food and drugs.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I did not plan to talk about drug 
reimportation, but coming on the heels of this conversation, I simply 
want to make this one observation: The key statement made by the 
Senator from Louisiana was safe drug reimportation. And the key problem 
here is certifying that the drugs coming across the border--after they 
have been sent and then are reimported are, in fact, the same drugs, 
they are, in fact, safe.
  The Congress has said the drugs can be reimported back into the 
United States as soon as the Secretary can certify that they are, in 
fact, safe. I have seen the sample runs, if you will, that have been 
made on this issue. They have found again and again that a certain 
percentage of the drugs coming back are, in fact, not drugs 
manufactured in the United States. They have been manufactured 
elsewhere, packaged in Canada or Mexico or wherever, and then sent back 
to the United States fraudulently, as if they were, in fact, the 
original drugs.
  Now, they have not yet killed anybody that I know of. They are not so 
unsafe that they have, in fact, poisoned anybody. Overwhelmingly, the 
history has been that the dosage in the drugs is simply not the same as 
advertised in the drugs manufactured in the United States. They have 
traces of whatever the drug might be in the fraudulent packages, but 
the dose control is not the same, and it is dangerous to the individual 
taking the drug if he or she assumes they are getting a certain dosage 
and, in fact, they are getting less.
  That has been the challenge. That has been the problem. And until the 
Secretary of HHS, be it Donna Shalala or Michael Leavitt, can come 
forward and certify that all of these are, in fact, as advertised, it 
is the law that they cannot be brought into the United States. I think 
that is an appropriate law protecting people in the United States.
  I agree with the Senator from Wyoming that it really is not 
appropriate to hold up Dr. Von Eschenbach's confirmation on this issue 
because it has to be decided by the scientists and those who are doing 
the sampling of the shipments rather than the head of the FDA.
  I have gotten to know Dr. Von Eschenbach as the chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. You usually think of 
agricultural appropriations in terms of crop supports and USDA 
activities. But for whatever reason, in its wisdom, Congress at one 
point put jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration into that 
subcommittee. So, if you will, I have been in the position of dealing 
with this man as he has come begging.
  As we are in the Appropriations subcommittees, everybody who has 
responsibility over which we have control comes begging; that is, they 
come asking for things, they come outlining their position, and they 
come describing what they will do with the money. All of us who have 
been on the Appropriations Committee have had this experience with a 
wide variety of people from the executive branch. I have never seen 
anyone who has come before our subcommittee better prepared, with a 
better understanding of how the money will be spent, and with more 
vision as to where the money ought to be spent to take the agency into 
the future than Dr. Von Eschenbach.
  We have not just sat and discussed budget issues; we have not just 
sat and talked about dollars and cents--what are you going to spend 
here and what are you going to spend there--he has outlined for me in 
our conversations where he thinks the FDA of the future ought to be and 
what it will cost to get it there.
  I have been very struck and impressed by his vision for the FDA. This 
is not a man who is content to simply superintend what he has on his 
plate.

[[Page 22918]]

This is a man who has the capacity to look to the horizon, and maybe 
even over the horizon, to see where America ought to be.
  In the practice of medicine right now, drug therapy is the cutting 
edge. Yes, we are developing new operations. We are developing new 
surgical procedures to try to push the envelope out further as far as 
health care is concerned. But the major breakthroughs are coming 
through drug therapy. There are all kinds of situations now where it 
can be handled with drug therapy that obviates the need for an 
operation or any kind of surgical intrusion. The implications of that 
are huge, and the role of the FDA in that kind of medical revolution of 
the future is paramount. We absolutely have to have at the head of the 
FDA, in that kind of revolution, a man who is visionary, a man who 
looks to the future, and a man who understands the potential that lies 
in the area which he superintends.
  Dr. Von Eschenbach, I am convinced, is such a man. I have his resume. 
We have heard it outlined here. It is an outstanding resume. But people 
with good resumes can come before us all the time and, in fact, have no 
vision. They spend their time tending what is on their own plate. This 
is a man with vision. This is a man who sees what can happen and who 
desperately wants to take the FDA in that direction.
  He said to me: Senator, I don't feel that I can institute these kinds 
of long-term changes as long as I am acting. I feel--I think 
appropriately, from my point of view--that I cannot make these kinds of 
structural changes in FDA's mission and direction until I have the 
imprimatur of the U.S. Senate and full confirmation.
  The longer we hold up his nomination, the longer we keep him from 
being confirmed, the longer we will wait for that kind of vision to be 
established in that agency. I think we have waited too long. I salute 
the majority leader for his persistence in bringing this nomination to 
the floor. At this time, with all the other things we have to do before 
this Congress comes to an end, this is one he could easily have put 
off. I am grateful that he did not. I am grateful that he filed a 
cloture motion to hold our feet to the fire on this one and say: It is 
time for us to act. It is time for us to give this man the imprimatur 
of our confirmation vote so he can move forward, he can infuse the 
agency with the kind of vision and excitement that I know he has.
  I have spent enough time with him, I have had enough conversation 
with him--have talked to his peers outside of the agency to know that 
the President has made an outstanding choice in Dr. Von Eschenbach. We 
as a country would be well served to have him in this place, and I urge 
the Senate to invoke cloture and confirm this nomination as quickly as 
we possibly can.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to me it is simply unconscionable that the 
Food and Drug Administration, one of the best little agencies in 
Government, has gone leaderless for such a period of time.
  Here we have an agency that governs, by some estimates, 25 cents out 
of every consumer dollar, and yet we treat it as a stepchild. We do not 
provide it with the funding it needs. We allow it to exist without a 
confirmed commissioner for months and months on end, for repeated 
periods. And yet we expect it to be the vital consumer watchdog agency 
it was intended to be.
  When you think about what this agency does, what the daily business 
of the FDA is, you can see how dire the situation really is.
  This is an agency that makes certain the drugs and medical devices we 
use are safe and effective, that the cosmetics, dietary supplements, 
and over-the-counter medications we count on are sold safely, with 
truthful and nonmisleading claims. This agency regulates animal drugs 
and radiological devices and so much more. Yet, time after time, it 
does without a confirmed commissioner. And this is the absolutely wrong 
time for that to happen.
  Think about the key FDA issues we are facing: the safety of the food 
supply, how to improve drug safety, instituting a new system of 
mandatory adverse event reporting for serious events associated with 
the use of dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs, extending the 
user fee programs for drugs and devices, and the incentives for 
pediatric drug testing--and I have named only a few of the issues. We 
are facing all these pressing public policy issues, and yet we expect 
the agency to do its job without a confirmed commissioner. That is not 
right. It is simply not right.
  The President has nominated a well-qualified, more-than-capable 
medical doctor to the position of Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
  I know Dr. Von Eschenbach well. He is a man of integrity. He is a 
good manager. He is a good listener. He knows the importance of working 
well with Congress, and I believe he will work well with us.
  I urge my colleagues--no, I implore my colleagues--to do what is 
right and vote to invoke cloture on this nomination. It is what Dr. Von 
Eschenbach deserves. It is what the agency deserves. And it is what the 
American people deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
delightful comments. He speaks so clearly and explains things so well. 
I know of his contacts with Dr. Von Eschenbach. I hope people will 
follow his advice and vote for cloture.
  Dr. Von Eschenbach's qualifications are excellent. He is supported by 
many organizations. We had received a number of letters in support of 
his nomination prior to his confirmation hearing. Those were duly 
entered in the hearing record. However, since then we have received 
additional letters of support.
  I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       Omeris,

                                     Columbus, OH, August 2, 2006.
       Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Enzi: On behalf of Omeris, Ohio's bioscience 
     membership and development organization, and our member 
     companies, I am writing in support of the nomination of Dr. 
     Andrew von Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       Dr. von Eschenbach is an excellent choice to head the FDA. 
     He has an outstanding career as a physician, researcher, and 
     administrator in both the public and the private sectors. As 
     a physician, he has treated cancer patients for almost thirty 
     years. As a researcher, he has published more than 200 
     articles and books and was the founding director of M.D. 
     Anderson's Prostate Cancer Research Program. As an 
     administrator, he has served as the president-elect to the 
     American Cancer Society.
       It is critically important to our industry and to the 
     nation that the position of the FDA Commissioner be filled. 
     Strong leadership is essential if the FDA is to most 
     effectively fulfill its mission of assuring the food 
     Americans eat is safe and healthful, that the drugs they take 
     are safe and effective, and that the medical devices they 
     rely on for cures and treatment are safe and effective and 
     represent the latest and best that our industry can offer. 
     Experience has shown that a permanent director continued by 
     the Senate is necessary to assure that the agency has the 
     authoritative leadcrship it needs to respond promptly and 
     effectively to all the challenges it faces.
       Prompt confirmation of Dr. von Eschenbach is especially 
     important in view of the issues that are currently facing the 
     FDA. Next year, both the medical device and drug user fee 
     programs must be renewed by Congress, and the agreements 
     between industry and the FDA that will be the starting point 
     for the reauthorization are being negotiated right now. The 
     critical path initiative, which offers so much potential for 
     speeding the development and approval of safe and effective 
     products) is just getting off the ground and needs a strong 
     advocate. The challenge of determining how FDA can most 
     effectively conduct postmarket surveillance to assure the 
     safety and effectiveness of approved products is an issue 
     that needs strong leadership from the top. The continuing 
     challenges of food safety and preparation for a pandemic or 
     bioterrorist attack need a strong FDA voice.
       Omeris members, Ohio's bioscience companies, help 
     revitalize our state's economy while developing critical 
     tools, treatments, and technologies that benefit the world. 
     Omeris is a focal point for the bioscience and biotechnology 
     community, providing networking and educational events, 
     continually

[[Page 22919]]

     developing web-based resources, addressing public policy, and 
     analyzing resource and funding issues.
       We respectfully urge you to support Dr. von Eschenbach's 
     prompt confirmation. Thank you for considering this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                Anthony J. Dennis,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                    New York State


                            Cancer Programs Association, Inc.,

                                      Buffalo, NY, August 3, 2006.
     To: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
     From: Dr. Edwin A. Mirand, Secretary-Treasurer, NYSCPA.
     Subject: Nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as Permanent 
         Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration.
       The New York State Cancer Program Association, Inc. 
     supports the nomination by President Bush as permanent 
     Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Andrew 
     von Eschenbach.
       Dr. von Eschenbach's experience as a researcher and 
     physician will provide the FDA with a better focus to 
     confront the challenges and new opportunities facing the 
     agency. Dr. von Eschenbach will lead the agency and 
     strengthen the credibility of its decision-making process.
                                                  Edwin A. Mirand,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                           The Amyotrophic Lateral


                                        Sclerosis Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Michael Enzi,
     Chairman, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Ranking Member, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy: The ALS 
     Association strongly supports the nomination of Andrew von 
     Eschenbach, M.D., to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration and we urge the Committee to favorably report 
     the nomination to the full Senate.
       The ALS Association is the only national voluntary health 
     association dedicated solely to the fight against Amyotrophic 
     Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's 
     disease. Our mission is to improve the quality of life for 
     those living with ALS and to discover a treatment and cure 
     for this deadly disease.
       We believe that strong leadership at the FDA is essential 
     so that the Agency can fulfill its mission and not only 
     ensure that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective, 
     but also that people have timely access to the latest medical 
     technologies. This is especially important for people with 
     ALS, for there is no known cause or cure for ALS, and only 
     one drug available to treat the disease. That drug, approved 
     by the FDA in 1995, provides only modest benefits, prolonging 
     life by just a few months.
       Dr. von Eschenbach would provide the vital leadership that 
     is needed at the FDA. Moreover, his diverse background as a 
     physician, educator and advocate will be a tremendous asset 
     to the Agency and to the Nation, for he can view the Agency's 
     mission from many different perspectives and help to foster 
     the collaboration that is so important to advancing medical 
     science and quality health care.
       The ALS Association is pleased to offer our strong support 
     for this nomination and again urge the Committee and the 
     Senate to support Dr. von Eschenbach as the next Commissioner 
     of the Food and Drug Administration.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Steve Gibson,

                                                   Vice President,
     Government Relations and Public Affairs.
                                  ____



                                        Cancer Cure Coalition,

                          Palm Beach Gardens, FL, August 25, 2006.
     Senator Michael B. Enzi,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor 
         and Pensions, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: The Cancer Cure Coalition is supporting 
     the nomination of Dr. Andrew VonEschenbach as commissioner of 
     the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and we have today 
     issued a press release announcing our support. Attached is a 
     letter from the coalition to Dr. VonEschenbach which gives 
     the reasons for our support.
       The Cancer Cure Coalition supports

     changes at the FDA which will improve

     its operation. We believe the appointment

     of Dr. VonEschenbach will lead to that

     result. If it would help your committee in

     its decision on Dr. VonEschenbach's appoint-

     ment I would be pleased to appear before

     the committee to testify. My bio appears

     on the Cancer Cure Coalition's website

     www.cancercurecoalition.org and I am attaching a copy of it 
     for you to review.
       If you need any further information please feel free to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles A. Reinwald,
                                                        President.

  Mr. ENZI. Those letters are from Omeris, Ohio's bioscience membership 
and development organization; the New York State Cancer Association; 
the ALS Association; the Cancer Cure Coalition, and there are others. 
These groups recognize the absolute necessity of having a Senate-
confirmed Commissioner of Food and Drugs. I understand some of my 
colleagues are not satisfied. They seek to use this nomination as 
leverage to accomplish some other agendas. That is something you can do 
in the Senate. However, I urge them to consider the consequences of 
those actions. In the upcoming year we face an exceptionally full 
agenda with respect to the FDA. We need this man in place. This man 
could work anywhere in America, probably anywhere in the world, and do 
much better than what we are offering.
  I appreciate his sense of wanting to give back. He is a three-time 
cancer survivor and understands a lot about food and drugs outside of 
being a doctor.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in getting cloture so that we can get 
the confirmation accomplished.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. ENZI. It is my understanding that the previous speakers did yield 
their time back. So all time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, under the 
previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion 
to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive 
     Calendar No. 907, the nomination of Andrew von Eschenbach, of 
     Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of 
     Health and Human Services.
         William H. Frist, Michael B. Enzi, Richard Burr, Thad 
           Cochran, George V. Voinovich, Robert F. Bennett, Tom 
           Coburn, Norm Coleman, Conrad R. Burns, Jon Kyl, Pat 
           Roberts, Mel Martinez, John Ensign, Lamar Alexander, 
           Elizabeth Dole, Christopher Bond, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
Executive Calendar No. 907, the nomination of an Andrew von Eschenbach, 
of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health 
and Human Services, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Shelby).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 273 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray

[[Page 22920]]


     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Baucus
     DeWine
     Grassley
     Santorum
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 6. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Chamber for allowing us to do 
the cloture vote. With the strong support shown by the cloture vote, I 
would highly recommend that we get this man confirmed so he can 
actually have the opportunity to do the kinds of things that have been 
expected of him in the debate we have had. I also thank Senator Kennedy 
for his tremendous help. We have had a number of meetings, a number of 
hearings. This is the second confirmation of an FDA Director we have 
worked on. It will be nice to have somebody actually in the position, 
but I do thank Senator Kennedy and all of his staff.
  I do want to mention the staff person who has directed my health 
issues. Stephen Northrup is on the floor, and I thank him particularly 
for all of the work on all of the health issues we have had. Anybody 
who has looked at the list of those we have done will find it has been 
a very productive session in the health area, and we are still working 
on another half dozen issues that could pass yet in this session before 
the week ends. So I thank Stephen for all of his tremendous help. I ask 
that people support the nomination of Dr. Von Eschenbach.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I spoke earlier this morning against 
cloture. Cloture passed, which for the public listening means there are 
60 percent or more in support of stopping debate, and there is under 
the rules the possibility of 30 hours of debate. I don't intend to 
probably speak for more than a half hour, so if anybody is interested 
in how long postcloture debate might go on, it won't go on very long 
from my point of view. But I do want to take some time to tell people, 
even though it is quite obvious this nominee will be approved, why I 
think he should not be approved.
  I placed a hold on this nominee for quite a few weeks. That hold 
obviously was ignored by the leader when he filed cloture, which is his 
right to do. I voted against cloture because I take my constitutional 
duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch of Government very 
seriously, and I think the nominee is standing in the way of Congress 
doing its oversight of the agency of which he is now Acting Director 
and will probably soon be the confirmed Director. That sort of lack of 
cooperation violates the separation of powers and the checks and 
balances within our constitutional system.
  I hope my colleagues know that I take a great deal of time to make 
sure that we do both jobs we have the responsibility to do here in the 
Congress. One is to pass laws. But the one we are never taught much 
about in political science classes is the constitutional job of 
oversight, which is the responsibility to make sure the laws are 
faithfully executed and money is being spent according to congressional 
intent, and the overseeing of the administrative branch of Government. 
So I take a great deal of my time in the Senate trying to make 
Government work not just by passing laws but by making sure they are 
faithfully executed. I don't do that all by myself as a single Senator. 
I have good staff. I charge my staff to conduct oversight rigorously 
and to investigate any areas where the Federal Government is failing to 
be transparent, accountable, and effective. Transparency is so 
important, because the public's business, which is everything about the 
Federal Government, ought to be public. If the work of the executive 
branch fails the sniff test and the law is not being faithfully 
executed or the public's business is not being made public, that is 
when it is my constitutional responsibility to blow the whistle.
  Quite frankly, I don't want to take credit for what I am able to blow 
the whistle on, because there are a lot of good, patriotic employees in 
the executive branch of Government who also know it is their 
constitutional responsibility to execute the laws and spend the money 
right. When they see it isn't happening, and particularly when they go 
up the chain of command and don't get results, or when taxpayers monies 
are being wasted and it seems nobody cares, then they exercise the 
right they have under laws to blow the whistle to Members of Congress.
  So we obviously count on whistleblowers--in other words, patriotic 
Federal employees--who report something wrong when people above them 
don't care. They care enough to come to us and give us a lot of good 
information. So today I am blowing the whistle on this nominee. In good 
conscience, I did put a hold on the nominee, and I will not vote in 
favor of him for the reasons I have given before and reasons that will 
be more spelled out now. A vote for this nominee would be an 
endorsement of the stonewalling, but, more importantly, the disrespect 
for Congress he has shown by not cooperating with congressional 
oversight. I can say this not only because of his actions but because 
of his words which are on the record.
  In response to a nomination question in which I asked this nominee if 
he would cooperate with congressional oversight, Dr. Von Eschenbach 
identified a number of ``executive branch interests'' as a basis for 
not complying with congressional requests, including ``matters pending 
before the agency.'' And ``predecisional deliberative process 
information,'' and ``open investigation information.'' You get this 
sort of gobbledegook as excuses for not giving information to Congress 
as they promised to do but, outside of that, that the Constitution 
requires they do; that is if you believe in the checks and balances of 
our Government and if you believe it is backed up by Supreme Court 
decisions. It seems to me it has a good basis.
  This nominee was not well-served by whoever counseled him on these 
matters. He should know that during my years in the Senate, my 
investigators have obtained access to every single one of these 
categories of so-called confidential information. I would say to the 
distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee who is watching over this 
nomination process--confirmation process--he said to me before the vote 
on cloture it would help if we got Dr. Von Eschenbach approved because 
now he is an acting and maybe he can't do all the things that he can do 
as Director, and that may be true. But not once in my discussions or my 
staffs' discussions with people at FDA was there ever a hint from the 
nominee himself that once approved, he would be able to give us all of 
these documents. I use this chart as an example: You get an answer to a 
request and you get 57 pages removed. Another chart I had up here 
showed 43 pages were removed. And what is in those pages? Who knows 
what is in them. We don't even know why they were removed, and we don't 
know who made the decision to remove them.
  That is cooperation with Congress? Not once, I say to Senator Enzi, 
did he ever tell me or my staff or people who are working for him that 
if we could get this confirmation over, we will be able to satisfy what 
you want done. So I don't see anything better, with a vote of approval 
by the Senate, of cooperation with us than before.
  But he wasn't well-served by those who counseled him. He should know 
that during my years in the Senate, my investigators have obtained 
access to every single one of these categories of so-called 
confidential information. His answer is at odds with my belief that 
congressional oversight is one of the best ways to shake things up at a 
government agency and expose the truth. The truth will make Government 
look better, or if the truth doesn't make Government look better,

[[Page 22921]]

at least you are being candid with the American people. Besides, it is 
the public's business, and whether it is good news or bad news, it 
ought to be public.
  Dr. Von Eschenbach's answers happen to be at odds with my belief that 
congressional oversight is one of the best ways to get to the bottom of 
things. This is true not just of the FDA; it is true of any Government 
agency. If an agency is not doing the right thing, typically behind it 
there is an effort to keep information suppressed, an effort to keep 
people from doing what they think ought to be done, an effort to keep 
people from doing what their job requires them to do, or to not let 
them put out that information. The muzzling of dissent and information 
is too common throughout our Government. Things that should be 
transparent in Government simply are not. And under Dr. Von Eschenbach, 
the FDA has not only avoided transparency, it also has threatened those 
who are trying to desperately expose the truth.
  That is not just under Dr. Von Eschenbach. For years before him, 
there has been intense pressure brought to bear upon scientists who 
want to do the scientific process. I say ``do the scientific process'' 
because the scientific process answers itself or gives the answer. That 
is what we want: answers on safety and efficacy of drugs.
  There is a culture there--even prior to Dr. Von Eschenbach, for any 
serious Director who wants to change it--that is going to make it very 
difficult to change because you have an agency that is more interested 
in its public relations and how they look to the public-at-large than 
what their job is. That is when they end up getting egg on their face, 
when they are more concerned about their public relations than just 
doing the job. In most instances, if these agencies do what they are 
supposed to do, things get done and get done effectively, and then the 
public relations takes care of itself. Good policy, good administering 
of law, is good public relations. It will take care of itself.
  I met with this nominee after the White House sent his nomination to 
the Senate last March. I hoped he would provide the kind of strong, 
permanent leadership this agency needs to change its culture, where 
scientists are intimidated from doing their work. Over the next 9 
months, this nominee showed me that he is unlikely to provide that kind 
of leadership. My belief is what you see is what you get. I fear what 
we will get from this nominee is what we got from him where he is now 
as the Acting Commissioner. Let me tell you why, with just a few 
examples.
  First, the doctor failed to live up to his word. In our meeting, he 
said he respected and understood the important role Congress plays as 
an equal branch of Government. But it didn't take long after that 
meeting before the first red flags appeared.
  In April, the committee began its investigation of the Food and Drug 
Administrations's approval and postmarket surveillance of the Ketek 
drug, an antibiotic that came under renewed scrutiny last January. It 
looks as though it is another drug where the FDA was caught flatfooted. 
The Finance Committee issued two subpoenas in May after the FDA refused 
to provide documents related to Ketek. I referred to a family in Cedar 
Rapids, IA, who lost an 18-year-old son.
  During this time, the Food and Drug Administration also refused 
access to Food and Drug Administration officials. The Finance Committee 
was forced to issue a subpoena to a special agent in the FDA's Office 
of Criminal Investigation. The FDA refused to allow my staff to speak 
to this Federal employee, citing a policy against providing access to 
line agents. Yet, only months before, just a few weeks before that, my 
staff interviewed two line agents from the Food and Drug Administration 
on another case. What rule was in place when I interviewed them, but a 
few weeks later you couldn't interview another? Apparently, the policy 
was abruptly changed. I have seen it change over the years with other 
investigations. This policy is not law, and it is typically enforced 
when the stakes are at their highest and there is something to hide.
  I took this matter seriously enough that I went to the Department of 
Health and Human Services to meet with this agent. I was told that if 
this agent wanted to speak to me, he would have to assert his status as 
a whistleblower under Federal law. I ask today what I asked that day: 
Why does this Government employee have to become a whistleblower to 
talk to me or anybody else in Congress if the public's business is 
really public?
  So I have to ask my colleagues, is that acceptable? When you are 
doing your constitutional responsibility of oversight, is it acceptable 
to the rest of you in the Senate that they thumb their noses?
  Also, this Government employee's supervisors put him in a no-win 
situation, and because of that he risked being in contempt of Congress. 
This is an agent who put a doctor in jail for fraud in the Ketek study.
  You understand, I said this started back in January with Ketek and 
our getting involved in the oversight. There was fraud in this Ketek 
study. Did the agent do the right thing? It is a closed case. We want 
to talk to him about the closed case, and the Food and Drug 
Administration says no. So I have to ask, what does the FDA have to 
hide or cover up?
  There are enough instances of political leaders and public servants 
being ruined by coverup. Can't lessons be learned, that when, in this 
town, two people know something about it, it is no longer a secret?
  Under this Acting Commissioner, the Food and Drug Administration has 
also attempted to hide and cover up documents. The Finance Committee 
has received hundreds of pages that say, as I indicate here, ``57 pages 
removed.'' There is another poster behind it that looks exactly the 
same: ``43 pages removed.'' Other documents have whole pages, 
paragraphs, or sentences redacted, with no explanation as to why. 
Sometimes documents are marked ``redacted.'' Other times they are not 
marked, even when it is evident that information is missing. There is 
no explanation for what documents have been withheld or redacted. It is 
incomprehensible, and it looks like the work of the Keystone Cops 
rather than an agency responsible to the American public for the safety 
of drugs and devices and the efficacy of drugs and devices.
  One of the Food and Drug Administration's most incompetent and absurd 
moments was when it sent one of my own request letters back to me with 
information redacted out of it. Let's get this clear. You folks are 
defending a person who is running an agency from which I asked for 
information and they redacted the letter I sent to them. The letter I 
wrote came back as part of the information. Does that meet the 
commonsense test? Does that meet the test of competency?
  Recently, I wrote Secretary Leavitt and Attorney General Gonzales to 
explain the basis for some of these redactions. I don't know whether 
you call a blank page a redaction because you don't know what has been 
there to redact, but obviously there is no information on a blank page 
unless it is about the competency of the people who work within the 
agency.
  Again, two copies of the same document were redacted differently. 
Think of this. They want to keep us from getting information. They send 
us two copies. One copy has one sentence redacted, and the other copy 
doesn't redact that sentence but redacts another sentence. So we got 
the whole document but presumably a basis for things we were not 
supposed to know but now we know. Do you think this guy with a medical 
degree, with this sort of background, is going to go in and change that 
culture even if there was nothing wrong with him? Even if he cooperated 
with me? So it calls into question the good-faith basis for redaction 
at all.
  I could go on and on with examples showing the stonewalling and the 
withholding of information from legitimate congressional requests, 
pursuing our constitutional responsibility of oversight. What it boils 
down to is that this nominee has demonstrated he does not understand 
that Government truly is

[[Page 22922]]

the people's business. He doesn't seem to understand that the people 
who finance it, the taxpayers, have a right to know what their 
Government is doing and how their money is being spent.
  I will give one final example. I have been a longtime champion of 
whistleblowers. I was the lead Senate sponsor of the 1986 whistleblower 
amendments to the False Claims Act. Back then, we were interested in 
dismantling a too-cozy relationship between defense contractors and the 
Pentagon. Today, whistleblowers are once again the key to dismantling 
the cozy relationship between some drug companies and the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  In June, Dr. Von Eschenbach held a meeting of FDA staff involving 
this drug I have been investigating, questioning how it was handled--
Ketek. FDA employees who were present say that he used a lot of sports 
metaphors regarding being a ``team player'' and keeping opinions 
``inside the locker room.'' Basically, he said to not criticize the FDA 
outside the locker room, ``outside the locker room'' being his words. 
Apparently he stated that anyone who spoke outside the locker room 
might find themselves ``off the team.''
  How are you going to do your job of congressional oversight if you 
have somebody you are getting confirmed who says that if you want to 
talk to anybody, they better not talk to you, at least not talk off 
note, because they are no longer on the team? Just think of the 
intimidation that brings throughout the Federal bureaucracy.
  This nominee held this meeting in the midst of this ongoing 
congressional investigation of this drug Ketek. He called the meeting 
after a number of critical reports in the media about the FDA's 
handling of Ketek. A number of FDA employees interviewed by the 
committee were offended by his comments, found them highly 
questionable, inappropriate, and potentially threatening. I don't think 
there was any ``potential'' about it, they were meant to be 
threatening, and I agree with the employees.
  Leaders of an agency should not hold a meeting to suggest that 
dissenters will be kicked off the team, particularly when the lives of 
American people are at stake, when drugs are going to be put on the 
line and they might not be safe. I can refer to the death of an 18-
year-old in Cedar Rapids, IA. His is the type of action that shows the 
true stripes of the nominee. He broke his word that he respected 
whistleblowers--that is what he told me; quite obviously he doesn't 
respect whistleblowers--and that he would never raise even the 
appearances of retaliation. If this meeting isn't an example of 
retaliation, I don't know what it is. When it comes to health care and 
public safety, we need to empower whistleblowers more than ever. They 
demonstrate extraordinary courage in the face of extraordinary 
adversity. It is extremely difficult to be a whistleblower. As I like 
to say, they are about as welcome as a skunk at a picnic. Yet it is 
whistleblowers in Government who put their job security on the line to 
come forward and expose fraud or wrongdoing for the public good. My 
Finance Committee staff has been investigating serious allegations 
raised by whistleblowers at the FDA on various issues over a period of 
3 years. Many of these allegations are very serious and call into 
question whether the Food and Drug Administration is fulfilling its 
mission to protect the health and safety of Americans. The way the Food 
and Drug Administration under this nominee has handled the 
investigation of Ketek shows the agency would like to keep its business 
secret. It doesn't want these issues made public or subjected to 
scrutiny. The culture at the FDA has been we will let the public know 
what we think they need to know.
  The American people do not want the government making decisions about 
what is good for them behind closed doors.
  The goal of the Finance Committee's oversight has been 
straightforward. As chairman, I wanted to bring out in the open the 
decisions made by the FDA. For too long the agency has been making its 
decisions behind closed doors.
  This nominee is not likely to serve well because he just does not 
seem to get it. He has placed media relations over the mission of the 
FDA. First and foremost, he is supposed to do the right thing on behalf 
of Americans. Dr. Von Eschenbach has other interests to serve and they 
are not always the interests of John Q. Public.
  I hear from time to time from other agencies that particular 
documents are especially sensitive or that the release of certain 
documents could jeopardize a criminal investigation--I understand that. 
But in those circumstances, I have reached accommodations. 
Unfortunately, in this case, my efforts to work with Dr. Von Eschenbach 
and his subordinates have been all but summarily dismissed.
  As I am sure you know, I intend to keep pressing the FDA for greater 
transparency and openness. I think there is going to be new leadership 
in the Congress which is going to be even more aggressive and has a 
history of being more aggressive in this area. I have been welcoming 
and I continue to welcome that sort of help.
  As I continue with my constitutional duties to conduct oversight, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure transparency, 
accountability, and effective governance by the executive branch. The 
bottom line is Congress needs to stay committed to oversight of the 
executive branch. The public depends on Congress to fulfill its duty 
and hold executive agency leadership accountable. To sum up, that is 
what congressional oversight is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.


                       Tribute to Kenneth Jordan

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the service and 
sacrifice of Colorado Springs police officer Kenneth Jordan.
  My wife Joan and I were deeply saddened to hear of the senseless 
death of Officer Kenneth Jordan while in the line of duty this past 
Tuesday in Colorado Springs, CO, during a traffic stop.
  It takes a person of great courage to become an officer of the law. 
It takes a strong, hardworking, and considerate individual. It takes a 
special someone who is willing to pay the ultimate price in protecting 
the safety of others.
  Officer Kenneth Jordan was just this person. Unfortunately, Officer 
Kenneth Jordan paid the ultimate price.
  Officer Kenneth Jordan was the 12th Colorado Springs police officer 
to be killed in the line of duty. According to the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 17,500 officers have been 
killed nationwide since 1792, including 231 in Colorado.
  The shock to the city of Colorado Springs this week at his death is 
especially harsh--Kenneth Jordan was the second Colorado Springs 
officer to be killed this year. Officer Jared Jensen made the ultimate 
sacrifice last February. The memorial service for officer Kenneth 
Jordan held at 1 p.m. Monday at New Life Church will be a grim repeat 
of the day 10 months ago when Officer Jensen was laid to rest. Before 
Officer Jensen Colorado Springs police had not held a funeral for one 
of their own in 24 years.
  A Chicago native at 32 years of age, Kenneth Jordan joined the 
Colorado Springs Police Department in January 2000 and was known for 
his unwavering professionalism and strong work ethic. In February 2004, 
Officer Kenneth Jordan became a DUI officer, whose passion was getting 
drunk drivers off the road. According to his colleagues, Officer Jordan 
made 584 DUI arrests since joining this elite team and nearly broke the 
yearly record of 283 when he made 270 arrests in 2005. Officer Jordan 
was honored in 2004 by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers for his 
dedication to enforcing DUI laws.
  Officer Kenneth Jordan was a brother and a son. He is survived by his 
sister, his loving parents and his girlfriend. Kenneth was well liked 
by his peers and others with whom he came in contact. He was always 
willing to lend a hand to friend or a stranger alike.
  The city of Colorado Springs has lost a valuable member of its 
community,

[[Page 22923]]

and we are all forever grateful for Officer Kenneth Jordan's service 
and dedication to the safety and well-being of others. His service to 
the city of Colorado Springs is highly commendable, and his 
contributions will be remembered.
  I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Officer Kenneth Jordan. 
May his bravery and unwavering sense of duty serve as a role model for 
the future generation of law officers. Thank you for your service, 
Officer Jordan. Rest in peace, Sir.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CRAIG. 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.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that myself, the 
Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, 
be allowed to speak as if in morning business for the next 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Labor Shortage

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from California, Senator 
Feinstein, will be here in a few moments to join me in what we believe 
is an important message, to continue to speak not only to our 
colleagues here in the Senate but to America as a whole. It is a speech 
not unlike the one we gave before we recessed for the break before the 
election, when it was becoming increasingly obvious that America was 
finding itself in a major labor shortage, primarily in agriculture and 
some of the service industries. In fact, while I was home during this 
recess period of time, the shortage of orange juice in the U.S. market 
made national news as the price went up substantially.
  A shortage of orange juice today in the American market is because 
nearly a million cases of oranges rotted on the trees of Florida this 
fall, late summer, because there were not hands to pick them, put them 
in the crates, and move them to the processing sheds. That became 
painfully obvious across America as the harvest season went on, 
especially in those areas that require concentrated hand labor, whether 
it was Florida, California, and the great San Joaquin Valley of 
California, whether it was my State of Idaho that began to see labor 
shortages in a variety of areas, whether it was Washington or Oregon, 
where many of the fresh fruits and vegetable crops simply did not get 
picked and apples rotted on the trees, whether it was in Kentucky, 
Illinois, Colorado or Michigan, it became so obvious this Congress, in 
its effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, simply failed to 
do so. America grew angry about it, grew angry about the number of 
illegals in our country and the fact this Congress did little or 
nothing about it.
  A great deal is going on. One of the reasons the labor shortages 
began to appear is because this Congress insisted, and the 
administration agreed, we put money behind the securing and the closing 
of our southwest border where literally a million-plus people were 
moving across annually into our labor market.
  We viewed that as untenable and irresponsible for a great nation to 
fail to control and secure its borders. We are doing that now. We are 
continuing to invest and will continue to invest in a secured border 
environment. But in doing that, and failing to couple with a more 
secure border a comprehensive immigration reform package that allows a 
real, honest, legal, fair guest worker program, American agriculture 
now hurts as they have never hurt before.
  On December 4, all of my colleagues received a letter that in itself 
was almost unprecedented, a letter from over 400 agricultural groups 
around the country--not just agricultural groups but nursery groups, 
warehouse groups, storage groups, all of them generally agriculture 
related.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 December 4, 2006.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: The organizations on the attached list 
     urge you to support passage of a comprehensive agricultural 
     worker program this year!
       You've read the headlines. Food grown for American tables 
     has rotted in American fields this year. The cause? In this 
     case it's not the weather. It's something the Congress can 
     address--labor. We need agricultural worker reform before the 
     end of the 109th Congress.
       The facts are clear: on many American farms, immigrant 
     labor plants, tends and picks the fruits, vegetables, and 
     other crops. Immigrant workers tend the livestock--feeding 
     the chickens, turkeys, horses, sheep, hogs and cattle and 
     milking the cows. Immigrant workers also produce, install, 
     and maintain the plants that make our homes, towns, and 
     cities livable.
       The current agricultural temporary worker program--known as 
     H2A is flawed and needs reform. There is no area of the 
     country where H2A workers make up more than 10 percent of the 
     necessary farm workforce. In most areas, it's far less than 
     that. Nationally, only two percent of farm workers are 
     provided by the unresponsive and litigation-plagued H2A 
     program. American agriculture needs a reformed H2A program 
     that is timely, effective and streamlined, and a transition 
     approach that allows for retaining the experienced workforce 
     while capacity is built on the farm and at the border to 
     support wider use of a program like reformed H2A.
       Language that seeks to address the challenges specific to 
     agriculture was included in the bill passed with a bipartisan 
     majority in the Senate. Many House members of both parties 
     have acknowledged the need to address immigration reform for 
     agriculture. Polls show the American people overwhelmingly 
     favor a common-sense approach to immigration reform including 
     sensible foreign worker programs and earned legal status 
     subject to strict conditions for workers currently in the 
     country.
       Another fact we must point out, at this late date in the 
     year, is that agriculture issues are rarely partisan issues. 
     While they are sometimes regional, in this case every area of 
     the country is affected by agricultural labor shortages and 
     support for a common-sense solution comes from every region 
     of the country as well.
       Reports in the media have told the story this harvest 
     season: not enough workers to pick the apples in New York and 
     Washington or the cherries in Oregon and Michigan or the 
     oranges in Florida. One major daily newspaper showed on its 
     front page a massive pile of pears on the ground in 
     California--rejected by the packing house because they were 
     picked too late due to labor shortage. Worker shortages have 
     been reported from coast to coast, from border to border.
       It is time for the Congress to act. After a decade of 
     debate and with worker shortages now a reality, American 
     agriculture needs your help.
       The sheer number and geographic representation of the 
     organizations on the attached list show the widespread and 
     urgent need for solving this problem. We urge you to support 
     enactment of a comprehensive agricultural worker program, 
     this year!
           Sincerely,
         Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform; Agri-Mark, 
           Inc.; Agri-Placement Services, Inc.; American Agri-
           Women; American Farm Bureau Federation; American 
           Farmland Trust; American Frozen Food Institute; 
           American Horse Council; American Mushroom Institute; 
           American Nursery & Landscape Association; American 
           Sheep Industry Association (ASI); The Council of 
           Northeast Farmer Cooperatives; Dairylea Cooperative 
           Inc.; Dairy Farmers of America; Farwest Equipment 
           Dealers Association; Federation of Employers and 
           Workers of America; Irrigation Association; Landscape 
           Contractors Association; National Association of State 
           Departments of Agriculture; National Christmas Tree 
           Association.
         National Council of Agricultural Employers; National 
           Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Greenhouse 
           Manufacturers Association; National Milk Producers 
           Federation; National Potato Council; National 
           Watermelon Association; New England Apple Council; 
           NISEI Farmers League; North American Bramble Growers 
           Association; North American Horticultural Supply 
           Association; Northeast Dairy Producers Association; 
           Northeast Farm Credit Associations; Northern Plains 
           Potato Growers Association; Northwest Farm Credit 
           Services; Northwest Horticultural Council; Nursery & 
           Landscape Association Executives of North America; 
           OFA--An Association of Floriculture Professionals;

[[Page 22924]]

           Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association; Perennial 
           Plant Association; Produce Marketing Association.
         Society of American Florists; South East Dairy Farmers 
           Association; Southern Christmas Tree Association; 
           Southern Nursery Association (AL, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, 
           MD, MI, MO, OK, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV); Turfgrass 
           Producers International; United Agribusiness League; 
           United Egg Producers; United Fresh Produce Association; 
           U.S. Apple Association; Western Growers; Western Plant 
           Health Association; Western United Dairymen; Wholesale 
           Nursery Growers of America; WineAmerica; Wine 
           Institute; Alabama Nursery & Landscape Association; 
           Alabama Watermelon Association; Arizona Nursery 
           Association; Pasquinelli Produce Co., Yuma, AZ; 
           Arkansas Green Industry Association.
         Allied Grape Growers (CA); Brand Flowers Inc, Wilja 
           Happe, Owner (CA); California-Arizona Watermelon 
           Association; California Association; of Nurseries and 
           Garden Centers; California Association of Wheat 
           Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers; 
           California Avocado Commission; California Bean Shippers 
           Association; California Canning Peach Association; 
           California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners & 
           Growers Associations; California Dairies, Inc.; 
           California Egg Industry Association; California Farm 
           Bureau Federation; California Fig Advisory Board; 
           California Floral Council; California Grain and Feed 
           Association; California Grape and Tree Fruit League; 
           California League of Food Processors; California Pear 
           Growers Association.
         California Seed Association; California State Floral 
           Association; California Strawberry Nurserymen's 
           Association; California Warehouse Association; 
           California Women for Agriculture; Carol and Bill 
           Chandler, Chandler Farms, LP (CA); Colab Imperial 
           County (CA); Family Winemakers of California; Fresno 
           County Farm Bureau (CA); Grower-Shipper Association of 
           Central California; Imperial County Farm Bureau (CA); 
           Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association (CA); 
           Kern County Farm Bureau (CA); Kings County Farm Bureau 
           (CA); Lake County Farm Bureau (CA); Lassen County 
           Nursery (CA); Madera County Farm Bureau (CA); Merced 
           County Farm Bureau (CA); Monterey County Farm Bureau 
           (CA); Napa County Farm Bureau (CA).
         Olive Grower Council of California; Orange County Farm 
           Bureau (CA); Pacific Coast Producers; Pacific Egg and 
           Poultry Association (CA); Raisin Bargaining Association 
           (CA); San Diego County Farm Bureau (CA); San Diego 
           County Flower & Plant Association; San Joaquin County 
           Farm Bureau (CA); Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau 
           (CA); Santa Clara County Farm Bureau (CA); Stanislaus 
           County Farm Bureau (CA); Sun Maid Growers of 
           California; Tulare County Farm Bureau (CA); Ventura 
           County Agricultural Association (CA); Yolo County Farm 
           Bureau (CA); Duane Abe, Tree Fruit, Citrus, Vegetable 
           Grower (CA); Mitch Bagdasarian, Grape and Tree Fruit 
           Grower (CA); Anthony Balakian, Fruit Patch, Inc. (CA); 
           Stephen J. Barnard, Mission Produce, Inc. (CA); 
           Charanjit Batth, Raisin & Almond Grower (CA).
         Doug Benik, Grape Grower (CA); Bobby Bianco, Anthony 
           Vineyards, Inc. (CA); Pete Binz, Raisin Grower (CA); 
           Stephen Biswell, Mt. Campbell Development (CA); Bill 
           Boos, Grape, Tree Fruit and Citrus Grower (CA); 
           Nicholas Bozick, R. Bagdasarian, Inc. (CA); Wayne 
           Brandt, Brandt Farms, Inc. (CA); Rod Burkett, Olive 
           Grower (CA); Tony Campos, Diversified Grower (CA); 
           Anton Caratan, Anton Caratan & Sons (CA); Chris 
           Caratan, M. Caratan, Inc. (CA); Blake Carlson, Tree 
           Fruit and Grape Grower (CA); Kirk Cerniglia, Royal 
           Madera Vineyards (CA); Bill Chandler, Grape & Almond 
           Grower (CA); Micheal Conroy, Conroy Farms, Inc. (CA); 
           Allan Corrin, Corrin Farming (CA); Stanley Cosart, W.F. 
           Cosart Packing Co. (CA); Verne Crookshanks, Venida 
           Packing, Inc. (CA); Anthony Cubre, Sr., Grape Grower 
           (CA); Frank Dalena, Poultry and Vegetable Grower (CA).
         Jerry Dibuduo, Ballantine Produce Co., Inc. (CA); Maurice 
           Dibuduo, Grape Grower (CA); Nat Dibuduo, Jr., Allied 
           Grape Growers (CA); John Diepersloot, Tree Fruit Grower 
           (CA); Tony Domingos, Grape Grower (CA); Edge Dostal, 
           Chiquita Fresh North America (CA); Dan Dreyer, Olive 
           Grower (CA); Russel Efird, Diversified Grower (CA); 
           Richard Elliot, David J. Elliot & Sons (CA); Ken Enns, 
           Enns Packing Co., Inc. (CA); Dan Errotabere, 
           Diversified Grower (CA); Tony Fazio, Tri-Boro Fruit 
           Co., Inc. (CA); Steve Ficklin, Grape Grower (CA); Ron 
           Frauenheim, Frauenheim Farms (CA); George Fujihara, 
           Raisin Grower (CA); Fred Garza, Farm Labor Contractor 
           (CA); Micky George, George Bros., Inc. (CA); Dan 
           Gerawan, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (CA); Randy Giumarra, 
           Guimarra Vineyards Corporation (CA); Jim Hamilton, Nut 
           Grower and Processor (CA).
         John Harris, Feed Lot, Diversified Farming (CA); Mak 
           Hase, Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Steve Hash, Steve Hash 
           Farms (CA); Doug Hemly, Greene and Hemly, Inc. (CA); 
           Phil Herbig, Enns Packing Co., Inc. (CA); Leland 
           Herman, Raisin Grower (CA); Phil Herman, Grape Grower 
           (CA); David Hoff, Raisin Grower (CA); Allen Huebert, 
           Grape and Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Tim Huebert, Tree 
           Fruit Grower (CA); Robert Ikemiya, Ito Packing Company, 
           Inc. (CA); Daniel Jackson, Tree Fruit Grower and Packer 
           (CA); David Jackson, David Jackson Farms (CA); George 
           Jackson, Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Mike Jensen, Grape, 
           Tree Fruit Grower and Packer (CA); David Johnson, 
           Citrus Grower (CA); Steve Johnson, Johnson Orchards, 
           Inc. (CA); Brian Jones, Sun Valley Packing (CA); Herb 
           Kaprielian, KCC Holding LLC (CA); Alan Kasparian, Grape 
           Grower (CA).
         Aubrey Cairns, Kaweah Lemon Company (CA); Pat Kurihara, 
           Citrus, Tree Fruit and Grape Grower (CA); Paul 
           Lanfranco, Grape & Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Ben Letizia, 
           Grape and Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Jim Lloyd-Butler, 
           James Lloyd-Butler Family Partnership (CA); Jerry 
           Logoluso, Grape Grower (CA); Dave Loquaci, Grape Grower 
           (CA); Ronald Lund, Raisin Grower (CA); Fred Machado, 
           Dairy Farmer (CA); David Marguleas, Sun World 
           International, LLC (CA); Harold McClarty, Tree Fruit 
           Grower and Packer (CA); Mark Melkonian, Tree Fruit and 
           Dehydrator (CA); Richard Milton, Tree Fruit Grower 
           (CA); Keith Nilmeier, Tree Fruit Grower (CA); James 
           Oliver, Grape and Tree Fruit Grower (CA); Louis Pandol, 
           Pandol Bros., Inc. (CA); Dennis Parnagian, Fowler 
           Packing Company, Inc. (CA); Justin Parnagian, Fowler 
           Packing Company, Inc. (CA); Ron Peters, Tree Fruit 
           Grower (CA); Scott Peters, Tree Fruit, Citrus and Grape 
           Grower (CA).
         Jerald Rebensdorf, Fresno Cooperative Raisin, Inc. (CA); 
           Bob Reimer, Tree Fruit and Grape Grower (CA); Pat 
           Ricchwti, Jr., Almond, Tree Fruit & Grape Grower and 
           Packer (CA); Cliff Rolland, Abe-el Produce (CA); Cliff 
           Sadoian, Sadoian Bros., Inc. (CA); Bobby Sano, Grape, 
           Tree Fruit and Nut Grower (CA); Sark Sarabian, Sarabian 
           Farms (CA); Tom Sasselli, Grape Grower (CA); Tom 
           Schultz, Chase National Kiwi Farms (CA); Mike Scott, 
           Raisin Grower (CA); Andrew J. Scully, Philip E. Scully, 
           Toni M. Scully, Pear & Packing (CA); Don Serimian, Tree 
           Fruit & Grape Grower and Packer (CA); Jim Simonian, 
           Simonian Fruit Company (CA); Dave Smith, Olive Grower 
           (CA); Brent Smittcamp, Wawona Packing Co., LLC. (CA); 
           Kent Stephens, Marko Zaninovich, Inc. (CA); Ty Tavlan, 
           Tree Fruit Grower and Packer (CA); Dean Thonesen, 
           Sunwest Fruit Company, Inc. (CA); Bill Tos, Tree Fruit 
           Grower & Walnut and Packer (CA); Stan Tufts, Tufts 
           Ranch LLC (CA).
         Steve Volpe, Table Grape Grower and Packer (CA); Eric 
           Ward, Tree Fruit and Nut Grower (CA); Chiles Wilson, 
           All State Packers, Inc. (CA); John D. Zaninovich, Zan 
           Farms, Inc. (CA); Jon P. Zaninovich, Jasmine Vineyards, 
           Inc. (CA); Marko S. Zaninovich, Marko Zaninovich, Inc. 
           (CA); Ryan Zaninovich, V. B. Zaninovich & Sons, Inc. 
           (CA); Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado; 
           Colorado Nursery & Greenhouse Association; Colorado 
           Potato Administrative Committee; Colorado Sugar Beet 
           Growers Association; Colorado Wine Industry Development 
           Board; Bishops Orchards (CT); H. F. Brown Inc. (CT); 
           Connecticut Nursery & Landscape Association; A. Duda & 
           Sons (FL); Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus 
           Packers; Florida Farm Bureau Federation; Florida Fruit 
           & Vegetable Association.
         Florida Grape Growers Association; Florida Nursery, 
           Growers & Landscape Association; Florida Watermelon 
           Association; Gulf Citrus Growers Association (FL); 
           Tampa Bay Wholesale Growers (FL); Georgia Green 
           Industry Association; Georgia Milk Producers; Georgia 
           Watermelon Association; Winegrowers Association of 
           Georgia; Environmental Care Association of Idaho; Idaho 
           Apple Commission; Idaho Cherry Commission; Idaho Grower 
           Shippers Association; Idaho Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; Idaho-Oregon Fruit and Vegetable 
           Association; Potato Growers of Idaho; Illinois Grape 
           Growers and Vintners Association; Illinois Landscape 
           Contractors Association; Illinois Nurserymen's 
           Association; Illinois Specialty Growers Association.

[[Page 22925]]

         Indiana-Illinois Watermelon Association; Indiana Nursery 
           and Landscape Association; Iowa Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; Farm Credit of Maine; Maine Potato Board; 
           Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association; Maryland-
           Delaware Watermelon Association; Massachusetts Nursery 
           and Landscape Association, Inc.; Michigan Apple 
           Committee; Michigan Christmas Tree Association; 
           Michigan Farm Bureau Federation; Michigan Green 
           Industry Association; Michigan Horticultural Society; 
           Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association; Michigan 
           Vegetable Council; WineMichigan; Minnesota Nursery & 
           Landscape Association; Mississippi Nursery and 
           Landscape Association; Missouri-Arkansas Watermelon 
           Association; Montana Nursery & Landscape Association.
         Nebraska Nursery & Landscape Association; New Hampshire 
           Farm Bureau; New Jersey Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; Overdevest Nurseries (NJ); Agricultural 
           Affiliates (NY); Cayuga Marketing (NY); Farm Credit of 
           Western New York; First Pioneer Farm Credit (NY); New 
           York Agriculture Affiliates; New York Apple 
           Association; New York Farm Bureau; New York 
           Horticulture Society; New York State Nursery & 
           Landscape Association; New York State Vegetable Growers 
           Association; PRO-FAC Cooperative, Inc. (NY); Torrey 
           Farms Inc., NY; Upstate Farms Cooperative Inc. (NY); 
           Yankee Farm Credit (NY); Addis Cates Company (NC); 
           North Carolina Christmas Tree Association.
         North Carolina Commercial Flower Growers' Association; 
           North Carolina Greenhouse Vegetable Growers 
           Association; North Carolina Farm Bureau; North Carolina 
           Green Industry Council; North Carolina Muscadine Grape 
           Association; North Carolina Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; North Carolina Potato Association; North 
           Carolina Strawberry Association; North Carolina 
           Vegetable Growers Association; North Carolina 
           Watermelon Association; North Carolina Wine & Grape 
           Council; North Dakota Nursery and Greenhouse 
           Association; Ohio Farm Bureau Federation; Ohio Nursery 
           and Landscape Association; Oklahoma Greenhouse Growers 
           Association; Oklahoma Nursery & Landscape Association; 
           Hood River Grower-Shipper Association (OR); Oregon 
           Association of Nurseries; Oregon Wine Board; Wasco 
           County Fruit & Produce League (OR).
         Hollabaugh Bros., Inc. (PA); Pennsylvania Landscape & 
           Nursery Association; State Horticultural Association of 
           Pennsylvania; Rhode Island Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; South Carolina Greenhouse Growers 
           Association; South Carolina Nursery & Landscape 
           Association; South Carolina Watermelon Association; 
           South Dakota Nursery and Landscape Association; 
           Tennessee Nursery & Landscape Association, Inc.; Lone 
           Star Milk Producers (TX); Plains Cotton Growers, Inc. 
           (TX); Select Milk Producers (TX); South Texas Cotton 
           and Grain Association; Texas Agricultural Cooperative 
           Council; Texas Agri-Women; Texas Association of 
           Dairymen; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas 
           Citrus Mutual; Texas Cotton Ginners Association; Texas 
           Grain Sorghum Producers Assocation.
         Texas Nursery & Landscape Association; Texas Poultry 
           Federation and Affiliates; Texas Produce Association; 
           Texas Produce Export Association; Texas-Oklahoma 
           Watermelon Association; Texas Turfgrass Producers 
           Association; Texas Vegetable Association; Western 
           Peanut Growers (TX); Winter Garden Produce (TX); Utah 
           Nursery & Landscape Association; St. Albans Cooperative 
           Creamery (VT); Vermont Association of Professional 
           Horticulturists (VAPH); Virginia Apple Growers 
           Association; Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association; 
           Virginia Green Industry Council; Virginia Christmas 
           Tree Growers Association; Northern Virginia Nursery & 
           Landscape Association; Southwest Virginia Nursery & 
           Landscape Association; Independent Food Processors 
           Company (WA); Mt. Adams Orchards Corporation (WA).
         Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Company (WA); Washington 
           Association of Wine Grape Growers; Washington Bulb Co.; 
           Washington Growers Clearinghouse; Washington Growers 
           League; Washington State Farm Bureau; Washington State 
           Nursery & Landscape Association; Washington State 
           Potato Commission; Washington Wine Commission; 
           Commercial Flower Growers of Wisconsin; Gardens 
           Beautiful Garden Centers; Hartung Brothers Inc. (WI); 
           Lawns of Wisconsin Network; Wisconsin Christmas Tree 
           Growers Association; Wisconsin Landscape Contractors 
           Association; Wisconsin Nursery Association; Wisconsin 
           Sod Producers Association.

  Mr. CRAIG. What did they say? They said it very clearly: a failure to 
reform the H-2A program has put American agriculture in an untenable 
position. As we bring in the numbers this winter to do the harvest this 
summer and fall, it is reasonable to predict the loss that the American 
consumers are now hearing about in bits and pieces through the national 
news could well be equivalent to $4 billion to $5 billion of actual 
value lost at the farm gate--meaning the produce did not leave the 
farm, it did not make it to the processor, it will never make it to the 
consumer's shelf, and American consumers will grow increasingly 
dependent upon foreign sources for their food supply. For a great 
nation like ours, that is not only dangerous, it is foolish and 
irresponsible.
  As we put American agriculture through this difficult time by our 
failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform, something else is 
going on out there on the farm. Diesel costs, fertilizer costs, 
equipment costs are at an all-time high. Of course, we know the general 
energy costs have increased at an unprecedented rate this year. Not 
only do we have the impact of high input costs in the production of 
American agriculture and agricultural foodstuffs, now there is nobody 
to pick the crop.
  I was in the upper San Joaquin Valley late summer meeting with a 
group of agricultural people. One farmer said it as clearly as it could 
ever be said. He said: Senator Craig, if you can't bring the workers to 
me or if you can't make the workers available in the valley, I will 
have to go where the workers are.
  What did he mean by that? He meant he was leasing land in Argentina 
or Mexico or Brazil where the labor force is today.
  What will happen to the land in the great San Joaquin Valley? It will 
go fallow, or it will be put in homes. It will no longer be profitable 
to produce in that greatest agricultural valley in the world which 
produces the vegetable crops and all of the other kinds of crops the 
American consumer so readily needs, knows, and wants.
  Last year, for the first time, by a near majority of months, America 
was consuming more from foreign import than they were consuming from 
their own production. That is something that should never happen in the 
greatest agricultural Nation in the world.
  I think Americans get it. There was a very loud group who distorted 
the whole debate. But they also taught us something important, that 
Government had fumbled and Congress had failed in its responsible 
approach to a comprehensive, enforceable, immigration law. We ignored 
it for decades. In ignoring it, great problems had occurred. Not only 
did we have an unprecedented number of undocumented illegal foreign 
nationals in our country, but we had allowed industries such as 
agriculture to grow increasingly dependent on an illegal workforce.
  Agriculture came to me in the late 1990s and said: Senator Craig, 
this problem has to get fixed.
  We began to work on it then. Last year, the Senate passed a 
comprehensive bill with AgJOBS, the bill I had worked on with American 
agriculture and the coalition of over 400 agricultural groups. That was 
in the bill. But when the House failed to act and would not act, when 
we recognized that we had to gain confidence with the American people 
that we knew what we were doing and we would do it right, we 
increasingly began to put pressure on the border, to secure it, to make 
it a real border, to recognize that to cross it you had to be legal, 
you had to have the right papers and credentials. That is going on as 
we speak.
  I was one who encouraged our President to maximize the use of our 
National Guard to help the Border Patrol to focus on those concentrated 
areas where greater movement of illegals coming across our border was 
occuring.
  It is an issue of security; it is not just people wanting to cross 
the border to work. Last year, over 200,000 were apprehended who were 
non-Mexican. They were from all over the world. Many of them, 
tragically enough, were drug traffickers and illegals trying to get 
into our country for illegal purposes--not just a hard day's work in 
the hot sun of an agricultural field. Border security is critical.

[[Page 22926]]

  I hope this Congress will do now what it must do, what it has to do 
for the American economy, for the American agricultural industries, and 
that is pass a responsible, comprehensive reform of the H-2A program.
  Yes, we need to deal with the illegals who are currently in the 
country, but we also need to create a legal, identifiable flow of 
people who come to work and then go home. Ninety-plus percent who work 
here want to do just that: they want to go back from where they came. 
That is where their families are in large part. That is where the 
American dollar improves their lifestyle, back in their hometowns, 
predominantly in Mexico but in other parts of the world as well.
  If we fail to pass comprehensive reform this year, American 
agriculture will go through another devastating year in the field, and 
real management choices will be made, management choices no longer to 
plant and grow in the United States, no longer to put fresh vegetable 
crops in the field in December to be harvested in February to supply 
our great and abundant markets and the needs of our consumers.
  This is a very real issue today and a very real problem. That is why 
on December 4 this coalition sent to this Congress an urgent message, a 
plea. It said: Please listen to us. Support and pass comprehensive 
agricultural worker reform. Give us an H-2A program that works. That is 
what we must accomplish because even in all of our debates this is not 
going to happen overnight. We won't get to this for several months, and 
when we do, it will take time working with the House. Then it will 
pass. Then it has to be implemented.
  So American agriculture will go through another very tough cropping 
season and billions of dollars will be lost. Wise business men and 
women will have to make decisions of whether they continue to farm in 
this country and produce in this country or if they go elsewhere to 
produce, and instead of being domestic producers, they become foreign 
importers. That is something that should never be allowed to happen.
  My colleague from California has joined me. Senator Feinstein and I 
and others have worked closely to craft the right kind of bill that 
works, that is legal, that is transparent, that recognizes the 
importance of border security and border control to get this great 
country back into the business of doing what it ought to do; that is, 
to allow into our country those we want and to keep out those we don't 
want.
  We are a nation of immigrants. We are proud of that. Most all of us 
came from somewhere else some time ago. It is because of this we are a 
great nation. It is because of the ability to assimilate, to bring into 
our culture foreign nationals to become Americans that has made our 
country great.
  In the last two decades, we failed to do that in a responsible 
fashion. Now, because of that, American agriculture hurts, other 
industries hurt. It is important we grow increasingly sensitive to 
getting this job done and getting it right. The job itself is passing 
AgJOBS, the comprehensive responsible bill to help American agriculture 
create a legal workforce.
  Under the unanimous consent the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, has the next 15 or 16 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  May I proceed, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. I also 
indicate how much I agree with the Senator.
  Before I proceed, I note that Senator Murray is in the Senate. I ask 
unanimous consent she be given 10 minutes directly following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Craig rightly stated that 
management choices are being made right now. That, in fact, is true. We 
are seeing billions of dollars of an agricultural industry effectively 
being destroyed. Some of it is competition from abroad, but much of it 
is the fact that growers and farmers have a 20-percent--it is 
estimated--labor shortage to plant, to harvest, to prune. There is 
tremendous uncertainty, I can tell you for a fact, in the largest State 
in the Union, and the largest agricultural State. Farmers do not 
believe they can get workers to harvest their crops, ergo they are not 
planting these crops.
  Senator Craig and I came to the Senate before. We have written a 
joint letter to the leader. We have asked, please, because 
comprehensive immigration reform tends to be stalled, at least pass 
AgJOBS. An industry depends on it.
  We have worked out AgJOBS. It has passed the Senate as part of the 
immigration bill. Just take out the part that is AgJOBS and pass it. It 
is a 5-year pilot. It involves the ability of the agricultural industry 
of our country to get labor, both through H-2A reform, which is 
contained, and through a 5-year pilot to try to secure a workforce for 
agriculture.
  While I was in California, I had the opportunity to meet with growers 
and farmers. The cry for labor reform has only grown louder. What I 
will do is talk a little bit about the micro impact and then the macro 
impact.
  California olive farmers delivered only about 50,000 tons of olives 
this year. That is down from 142,000 tons last year. So only one-third 
of the crop could be harvested this year because of a lack of labor. 
Farmers knew their crops were going to be light because of weather 
troubles. But even with the smaller crop to harvest, farmers had 
trouble hiring enough workers to work in their groves.
  In Stanislaus County, a farmer by the name of Kevin Chiesa he is a 
grower and is the president of the Stanislaus Farm Bureau--reported 
that they simply pulled their fig and peach trees out of the ground 
because they did not have enough workers to harvest the ripe fruit. Mr. 
President, 350 acres were pulled on his farm, leading to a net dollar 
loss of $200,000 and a gross loss of $750,000.
  Now, that may not seem like much to some, but it sure is a lot to a 
farmer who depends on this money to pay his bank loans and to support 
his family and pay his mortgage.
  In San Bernardino County, Richard Miller of Murai Farms saw his small 
farm of 130 acres struggle because of a lack of labor. He reported they 
experienced substantial loss in their strawberry crop, resulting in a 
half a million dollars in losses already this year. Mr. Miller has been 
farming since 1962, but the difficulties he has experienced have 
recently caused him to think about giving up his farm and leaving the 
profession for good.
  Over and over again, I have heard that growers need an immediate fix. 
They do not know what to plant in the upcoming spring season because 
they do not know whether they will have the workers necessary to 
harvest the crops.
  I will say that my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, and I are in 
sync on this issue. She also has talked to growers and farmers. She 
also knows the problem. She also has been a strong supporter of the 
AgJOBS program. So in making my remarks today, I want to be certain 
that this body knows I am also speaking for my friend and colleague, 
Senator Boxer.
  I have brought to the floor today a graphic illustration of one of 
our pear growers. Her name is Toni Scully. I have met Toni Scully. I 
met with her in California and she told me about the problems her 
family had experienced. Shown in this picture is Toni Scully in her 
pear orchard. Her family lost 25 percent of their bumper crop this year 
because they did not have sufficient labor to harvest the pears. As 
shown in the picture, here are the pears all over the ground. They are 
all going to be either plowed under or thrown in the garbage. Here is a 
woman who will have lost essentially everything this year.
  Now, other growers tell me they are afraid for the future. They are 
afraid to plant crops that will later be left to rot in the fields. So 
some growers are experimenting with moving their farms to Mexico. Last 
week, the New York Times ran an article that pointed out how much 
imported produce is now rising above exported produce. And one of

[[Page 22927]]

the big problems is the produce produced at home is not assured; 
therefore, more produce is coming in from outside.
  This is so shortsighted because we are throwing American families 
into jeopardy. Farming families cannot support themselves if they 
cannot produce their crops.
  The Grape and Tree League of California--now, this is a big trade 
organization representing what is a huge grape and fruit tree crop 
group--they estimate that my State alone--Senator Boxer's and my 
State--has suffered approximately $75 million in tree fruit and grape 
loss alone. That is a loss of $75 million.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that if this labor 
shortage continues, California agricultural production loss could be as 
high as $3 billion each year in the short term and as high as $4.1 
billion in the long term. This is decimating. California agricultural 
income loss is projected to reach $2.8 billion each year in the long 
term.
  The problem is not just in California. Dairy farmers in Vermont, 
citrus growers in Florida, others throughout the country, have 
complained about the labor shortage and the uncertainty it creates for 
the future.
  The Farm Credit Associations of New York estimate that if the labor 
shortage continues there, New York State will lose $195 million in 
value of agricultural production and over 200,000 acres in production 
over the next 24 months.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that if agriculture 
loses its migrant labor force, the national production loss in fruits 
and vegetables will be between $5 billion and $9 billion a year. This 
is not my estimate. This is the American Farm Bureau's estimate. They 
also say that over the long term, the annual production loss would 
increase to $6.5 billion to $12 billion each year.
  These losses are not just limited to growers. The impact is felt 
throughout the economy. For every job lost on family farms and ranches, 
the country loses three to four jobs in related sectors equipment, 
inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, 
insurance--they are all supported by having agricultural production 
here in this country.
  Low-producing farms mean a lowered local tax base as farms no longer 
generate income and create jobs.
  Ultimately, the current farm labor situation is making Americans more 
dependent on foreign food. Instead of stocking produce grown and 
harvested in our country, America's grocers are increasingly filling 
their shelves with foreign-grown produce.
  For decades, the fiercely independent fruit and vegetable growers of 
California, Florida, and other States, traditionally have shunned 
Federal subsidies. Now, they are now buckling under the pressure and 
asking us for Federal subsidies.
  In just one example, because of labor shortages, U.S. avocado farmers 
may miss the January market window and lose out to Mexican avocado 
farmers who will be allowed to import into California in 2007. This 
will wipe out our local avocado crop. The fact that they cannot get the 
labor they need to harvest the fruits and vegetables only weakens our 
whole American agricultural industry.
  Now, the reason for the shortage is simple. There is no readily 
available pool of excess labor to replace the 500,000 foreign migrant 
workers we have depended on for years. The work is hard. It is stooped. 
It is manual. The hours are long. To make a living, the laborer must 
travel around the region, from site to site, working for more than one 
employer, to coincide with the crop harvesting calendar. The problem 
is, we do not have enough American workers who are willing to do this 
job.
  This week, Senator Craig and I received a letter signed by over 375 
agricultural organizations and industry leaders from all over the 
country urging agricultural reform this year. As they point out, this 
is not a partisan issue. Every area of the country is affected.
  In November, I received a letter signed by 147 growers' organizations 
and individual farmers. They point out in their letter that they cannot 
wait another year, that our State's pear growers had an exceptional 
crop, the best-looking crop in over 40 years, yet they suffered major 
losses. They point out:

       While the pear losses were the most dramatic among the 
     commodities, other producers suffered as well from delayed 
     harvests, degraded quality and deferred cultural practices.

  These crises are a big deal. Farm worker crews in my State during 
harvest were 60 percent of normal--60 percent of normal. What they say 
is:

       Pending regulatory changes issued by the Department of 
     Homeland Security propose to turn Social Security 
     Administration's mismatch letters into immigration compliance 
     documents. The proposal would allow DHS to prosecute and 
     penalize employers across this country who do not terminate 
     employees who cannot verify their status.

  So, Mr. President, you see the problem. The farmers are going to be 
prosecuted if they hire someone who is not legal to harvest their 
crops. And they cannot find legal people to harvest their crops. That 
is the dilemma.
  Further quoting the letter:

       Even though today's employers follow current SSA 
     requirements regarding mismatch letters, they would be in 
     violation of the Department of Homeland Security proposal. If 
     finalized, the DHS proposal will aggravate the current labor 
     shortage problem in agriculture.

  Bottom line, we cannot continue the way we are going. That is why 
Senator Craig and I have come to the floor. He has worked on this bill 
for 7 years. I finally got involved and we made some agreed-upon 
changes. I was able to introduce it in the Judiciary Committee as part 
of the immigration bill with these changes. We were able to address H-
2A reform--and I will go into that in a minute--and it passed the 
Senate. And, as I say, we believe we have in fact 60 votes in this 
House.
  The letter I spoke about and quoted from is signed by the Allied 
Grape Growers; California Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers; 
California Association of Wheat Growers; California Association of 
Winegrape Growers; California Bean Shippers Association; California 
Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners & Growers Associations; 
California Egg Industry Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; 
California Fig Advisory Board; California Floral Council; California 
Grape and Tree Fruit; California Grain and Feed Association; California 
League of Food Processors; California Pear Growers Association; 
California Seed Association; California State Floral Association; 
California Warehouse Association; Far West Equipment Dealers 
Association; almost every county farm bureau; Nisei Farmers League; 
Olive Grower Council of California; and on and on and on, with 
different farms, grape growers, olive growers, cotton ginners, poultry 
farmers--pages and pages of people pleading with us to do something. 
And we do nothing.
  We will not repass a bill that has been passed by this Senate once, 
and we are in the middle of a major crisis. So I am kind of at my wit's 
end.
  Let me tell you a little bit about the AgJOBS bill. It is a 5-year 
pilot. It would provide a one-time opportunity for trained and 
experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal 
status. It would reform the H-2A visa process so that if new workers 
are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers to 
harvest their crop. Workers can apply for a blue card if they can 
demonstrate with records that they have worked in American agriculture 
for at least 150 days within the previous 2 years.
  I can see my time is running out. May I have a couple minutes more to 
sum up?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from California be allowed to proceed for at least 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
  The blue card would require that they work in American agriculture 
for an additional 150 workdays per year for 3 years, or 100 workdays 
per year for 5

[[Page 22928]]

years. At the end of that time, they would be able to obtain a green 
card. Over the 5 years, it would apply to 1.5 million individuals, 
which would provide a stable, ongoing workforce for the United States. 
Workers would be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are 
current on their taxes, that they have not been convicted of a crime 
that involves bodily injury or harm to property in excess of $500. 
Employment would be verified. The program would be capped and sunset.
  The Department of Homeland Security would ensure that the ID cards 
are encrypted, that they have biometric identifiers, that they contain 
anticounterfeiting protections. So you would be able to identify 1.5 
million people who are currently illegal. You would know who they are. 
You would know they are now legal. You would know they were working in 
agriculture, which desperately needs them.
  We would also streamline the current agricultural guest worker 
program, the H-2A program, which is now unwieldy and ineffective. The 
bill would shorten the labor certification process, which now takes 60 
days or more, reducing the approval process to 48 to 72 hours.
  There are a number of specifics. It freezes the adverse wage rate for 
3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard. The 
H-2A visas would be secure and counterfeit resistant. In this way, 
agricultural labor would have a permanent workforce and you would have 
a secure guest worker program, H-2A, where necessary, to go in to areas 
for short periods of time. It is a win/win situation. It has passed 
this Senate.
  The losses are in the hundreds of millions of dollars across the 
Nation, and we do nothing. We stiff the American agricultural industry. 
I have a hard time understanding that. I know the votes are here to do 
it. We could probably do it. Through the Chair, I ask Senator Craig, 
does he not believe we could pass this bill with maybe an hour on the 
floor of the Senate.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for asking the question. This is not 
an unknown issue. We all understand it. The Congress understands it. 
The election is over. People can decide whether they survived or failed 
because of their position one way or another on immigration. The 
reality of what she and I talk about is so real today. We knew it then; 
we know it now. We have the 60 votes. We have had them for some time. 
There is no question in my mind, with the reforms we are talking about, 
this could become law and we could pass it in the Senate.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, the letter we wrote to Leader Frist asking 
that it be calendared, has the Senator received a response? Because I 
have not.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have not either. Obviously, we are in the closing hours 
of the 109th Congress. Whether we could get it done now, but more 
importantly, get it done when we get back very early in the year, is 
going to be critical to us.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is the point. We did not just write this letter. 
Perhaps the frustration is showing today. It would be my hope we could 
get this calendared sometime in January and get it passed so that the 
spring plant can happen all throughout this Nation. Otherwise, I can 
only tell you, in my State, farmers who can are going to go to Mexico. 
Farmers who can are going to plant in Mexico. Is this what we want to 
have happen? I don't think so.
  I thank Senator Craig for his longstanding work on this issue and for 
his leadership. When one comes to the floor of the Senate, sometimes 
one thinks nobody is listening. I hope somebody is listening. I hope 
people recognize that we have a huge industry out there. It needs 
attention. It needs a workforce. Americans will not do this work. 
Therefore, it is a migrant workforce that does the work. There is a 
methodology to legalize it, to limit it, to sunset it, and to fix what 
has been a broken H-2A program and in a bill that has already passed 
the Senate once already during the 109th Congress.
  I thank the Chair and my colleague from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the 
Senator from Maryland be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           A TERRIBLE LEGACY

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here because families across this 
country are going to be hurt because this Republican Congress has not 
done its job. We have all heard that this session of Congress is a do-
nothing Congress. It has earned that title. But there is one thing 
everybody ought to understand. When Congress doesn't do its job, it 
makes it harder for all Americans to do their jobs, whether it is 
teaching our children or providing health care or improving 
transportation or making our communities safer.
  This may seem like a debate over process, but it affects you. If you 
fly on an airplane and are concerned about your safety, it affects you. 
If you drive on a highway and are concerned about traffic congestion, 
this affects you. If you want our Government to stop the flow of money 
to terrorist organizations, this affects you.
  Today I want to share with the Senate a few examples of how it is 
going to hurt because the Senate Republican leadership has not done its 
job. I want to point out how it is going to hurt the priorities in my 
State of Washington, from their fight against drugs and gangs to the 
cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. This Republican Congress's 
failure is going to make it harder for all of us to do our jobs next 
year, and that is a terrible legacy for the Republican leadership to 
leave our country.
  Every year Congress has to pass its annual spending bills. They fund 
our Government. We work very hard on those bills. We craft them so they 
meet the needs that our constituents tell us about, on everything from 
health care to transportation to education. Sometimes it takes a while 
to finish those bills, but we get them done. Then the country is able 
to move forward. This year it has been very different. We did our work 
on the Appropriations Committee, but then the Senate Republican 
leadership blocked our progress. I serve on that Appropriations 
Committee. We did our job on time in a bipartisan manner back in July, 
under the leadership of Senators Cochran and Byrd. We completed work on 
11 appropriations bills and sent them to the Senate floor.
  Here is what is impressive. Every single Senator on the committee 
voted to report each and every bill. But since then, the Senate 
Republican leadership blocked our progress. They decided to only let 3 
of those 11 bills move forward. Those bills cover extremely important 
functions--defense, homeland security, and military construction--but 
they are just 3 of the 11 bills. What about the needs of our 
communities? What about the needs of our schools and colleges and 
universities? What about the support of health research or investing in 
infrastructure or meeting the needs of our farmers or ranchers or law 
enforcement? Those are critical needs. The Senate Republican leadership 
decided this past summer that they could go on the back burner.
  Never in my 14 years in the Senate have we started a new fiscal year 
with so little progress in the Senate in passing the appropriations 
bills and funding the critical functions of Government. Nine weeks ago 
we entered a new fiscal year. I came to the floor at the time to 
complain about the unfinished business of the Senate and expressed my 
disappointment that we were recessing for the elections without moving 
these bills. I always thought we would come back and the Republican 
leadership would finish its work this session. But they have made a 
different choice. It is now December 7. We have not seen one additional 
funding bill clear the Senate. And we are now hearing talk that the 
Republican leadership may formally adjourn the Senate by the end of 
this week, with most of the 11 appropriations bills never being sent to 
the President.
  I think it is worth remembering that when this happened last time, 
there was a major shift of power back in November of 2002. I was 
serving at the time as chair of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee. After the election, just as now, the appropriations 
process was not complete. But

[[Page 22929]]

Democrats still worked to fulfill our responsibility by moving bills on 
the floor and sending them to conference. Unfortunately, we were 
blocked from completing our job. The Republican leadership that was due 
to come into the majority in January of 2003 prohibited us from moving 
those bills forward. They decided they wanted to complete the 
appropriations process when they were in control.
  This year Democrats are taking a different approach. We should 
complete the appropriations process now, because it is important to 
America's families and communities. We are already 2 months into this 
fiscal year. The American people are paying a price for these delays. 
Democrats are willing to complete this process now, even under 
Republican control, because we believe the American people have waited 
long enough. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership didn't get the 
message. Now American families are going to pay the price of this 
negligence.
  Some Senators have been suggesting that we simply pass a continuing 
resolution for the next entire fiscal year and everything will be fine, 
claiming there is no real difference between passing these bills we 
have worked so hard to put together and putting Government on auto 
pilot for a full year. There is a big difference. This country will pay 
a price under that scenario for airline safety.
  Under a full year's CR, my colleagues should know we will only be 
able to hire half of the air traffic controllers we need, and we will 
not be able to hire the air traffic safety inspectors who are 
desperately needed. We are going to pay a price in highway safety 
because we are not going to be able to reverse the recent increase in 
traffic fatalities. We are going to pay a price in the fight against 
terrorism, because we are not going to be able to fund the Treasury 
Department's efforts to stop terrorist financing. And we are going to 
pay a price in educating our kids and improving our communities and 
training our workforce. Everywhere you look, we will pay a price if we 
fail to do our job.
  The Republican mismanagement will hurt my State of Washington, from 
the fight against drugs and gangs to the cleanup effort at the Hanford 
Nuclear Reservation. If you sit down with law enforcement officers in 
my home State, as I have, they will tell you they are facing a 
methamphetamine epidemic. It is destroying families and communities, 
and law enforcement needs help to deal with it. Over the past few years 
I have worked to provide funding each year for the Washington State 
meth initiative. It is a coordinated Statewide effort that focuses on 
cleanup, treatment, prevention, and law enforcement, and it is a great 
model for other States. Again, this year in the Senate bill, I got a 
commitment to support my State's meth initiative. But now this funding 
is going to be delayed and put in jeopardy because Senate Republicans 
have refused to do their job and pass the Commerce-Justice-State 
spending bill. Because Republican Senators are not going to do their 
job, they are going to make it harder for police in my State to do 
their job, and that is wrong.
  This failure to act will also delay and put at risk support for an 
antigang program in Yakima Valley. Back on October 16, I was in Yakima 
at the police department for a meeting with two dozen local officials, 
law enforcement, and prosecutors. They told me about the tremendous 
challenges they were facing, and the top issues on their list were meth 
and gangs. I heard their message, and I have fought for a commitment in 
the Senate to support a community-based gang task force. That funding 
is needed immediately. Now I have to go back to Yakima and tell those 
hard-working leaders that the funding I got was delayed and put at risk 
because Republicans don't want to do their jobs and pass the annual 
spending bills. People in my State deserve better than that.
  Let me offer another example of how the Republicans' failure to do 
their jobs is hurting my State. Our Government has an obligation to 
clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, WA. As I speak, 
that community is working hard to clean up nuclear waste, protect the 
community, and the environment. Here in the Senate I have fought for 
the funding we need to keep that cleanup moving forward. But now the 
Republicans are refusing to move the Energy and water bill. As a 
result, funding for Hanford cleanup is going to be delayed. That means 
it is going to take longer, and it will cost more money. The Republican 
leadership is going to have to explain to the people I represent in the 
Tri-Cities and throughout my State why Hanford funding is being 
delayed. They are going to have to answer for their failure to act on 
these and other priorities.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Rather than spending the month of 
July and September debating unrelated bills for political reasons, we 
could have been debating these appropriations bills that are critically 
needed for our Nation's safety and security.
  We could have been fighting for the people we represent. We could 
have been meeting their basic needs and protecting their livelihoods 
and ensuring their safety. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership 
said ``no,'' and now our families are going to pay a price.
  I think this Senate deserves better, but more important, the people 
we represent deserve a lot better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from 
Washington State for commenting on the law enforcement aspects that are 
going to be lost under the way we are proceeding because she is 
absolutely right. I say to the Senator before she leaves the floor, 
that is in the Commerce, Justice, Science Committee, on which I am 
currently ranking member. We worked on a bipartisan basis--Senator 
Shelby and I--to produce the bill that would have given the financial 
tools to local enforcement to fight the meth epidemic, the gangs that 
are coming, all with the most grim and ghoulish approaches in our local 
communities.
  But we are saying, you know what, we are cutting and running. So we 
are cutting their budget, and we are running out of here. That phrase 
``cut and run'' has been used so cavalierly, but I am telling you that 
is exactly what we are doing now. We are cutting and running from our 
responsibility to fund the programs that meet compelling human needs in 
our own States, in our own country, as well as those things that help 
with the national security, such as funding the FBI and to the security 
in our own communities. We are talking about meth and gangs, but I know 
the Senator feels as strongly as I do about sexual predators. We worked 
with Mr. Gonzales, the Attorney General, in terms of a very good 
antisexual predator approach, with listing and watch lists and those 
things that, again, empower the local law enforcement. We have a 
program that helps sheriffs.
  So if we want to bring in the posse, we have to bring in the bucks. 
What I like about the sheriff initiative is it is in every community, 
not only urban areas but also out in the rural areas. But, oh, no, we 
have to get home. Well, I think we have abdicated our responsibility. I 
thank the Senator for what she has said.
  Mr. President, we are abdicating our responsibility, and in 
abdicating our responsibility to pass the outstanding appropriations 
bills, we are having a very dire impact on our own country. Of the 12 
appropriations bills, only 2 have passed. One is Defense and one is 
Homeland Security. I am so glad that we did pass those and we did them 
in a responsible way and in a timely manner. But one can say, then, we 
met our national security responsibilities. Well, not the way this 
Senator sees it. The national responsibility for national security also 
comes to our own FBI, comes to local law enforcement, comes to our U.S. 
Attorney's Offices, and we are walking away from this.
  The voters have said they want us to change the tone and they want us 
to change the tempo. I can honestly say that working in Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations, we have had an outstanding tone. I 
compliment my current chairman, Senator Shelby from Alabama. Gosh, we 
worked so

[[Page 22930]]

well in producing our appropriations bill. The Senator from Alabama 
made sure I was consulted, along with my staff. We worked on the 
compelling needs that must be funded but in a fiscally responsible way. 
That subcommittee doesn't need to change the tone, but, wow, do we need 
to change the tempo. Not because of what Shelby and Mikulski did. We 
did our bill; we finished it. We have moved it out of the committee. It 
is now ready to go to the Senate floor. We did it on a bipartisan 
basis, and we feel confident, each of us and our members, of the bill 
we produced. So we are ready to go. We are similar to a plane circling 
the airport, but we are running out of fuel.
  I am concerned particularly about those programs affecting the FBI 
and Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as the locals. The FBI to 
the sheriffs are going to be shortchanged, resulting in, I think, very 
serious consequences. We use budget-speak, Senate-speak with words such 
as ``CR'' and ``omnibus,'' but whatever we are talking about, the fact 
is we are not finishing our job, when we could have done it if there 
was a willingness from both the House and the Republican leadership to 
move these bills. Many of them have been worked out--again, on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I come to you today with my great concern about the global war 
against terrorism. I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am on 
the Appropriations Committee and I am also a member of Defense 
Appropriations, Homeland Security and also currently ranking--and soon 
to be chair--of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and 
Related Agencies that funds particularly the FBI. I live, along with my 
constituents, in the national capital region. We are a high-risk area. 
So we are committed to national security--whether it is the Port of 
Baltimore or whether it is Bethesda, whether it is the Naval Academy 
and looking out for them, but we need these resources. Sure, we need to 
fund defense and homeland security, but don't we need to fund the FBI? 
The CIA can spy around the world, but ultimately any information to 
come back and protect us against predators here comes through the FBI. 
The National Security Agency--hopefully, completely within the law with 
reforms that need to be made--can pull out these ``cyber snitches,'' 
with the Internet, that is going on somewhere in the Middle East and 
prevent those attacks. We are proud of what they did in working with 
our British counterparts in London. No matter what happens over there, 
when it comes back here, the FBI needs to protect us. But, oh, no, we 
have to get home. That is what I mean about cutting and running. We are 
cutting and running.
  When we do what we are about to do soon, the FBI will be short $100 
million. What does that mean? Well, it means that the FBI will not be 
able to maintain the operations tempo that they have achieved since 
September 11. It means that they will not be able to hire and keep the 
agents that they have, including the important linguists. We have had 
to recruit people who can speak Farsi and a whole variety of other 
languages that are not well known and available in our universities. 
But Director Miller went out and found them. They are ready to go. They 
are already being trained. But we are saying: Oh, no, we cannot hire 
you now because the Congress had to go home. They have to cut and they 
have to run. Let me tell you, linguists, even though the private sector 
will hire you for more money, at an easier lifestyle, we know you were 
ready to join the FBI, but we have to go fa-la-la, fa-la-la somewhere. 
This is outrageous.
  That is the basic kind of thing that will directly impact on our 
ability to fight terrorism here at home. It is what we said during the 
9/11 Commission about the famous watch list and emerging technology. We 
have been working on the integration of the fingerprint systems between 
the FBI, DHS, and also Immigration, to make sure that we truly are 
stopping the people we need to stop who are trying to get into this 
country. But, oh, no, we are going to delay that and other 
technological improvements that the FBI so desperately needs. We are 
shortchanging the FBI.
  Then, when we look at the global war against terrorism and how it is 
acted out in our own communities, I salute the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
For them, this CR and this cutting and running we are doing will 
essentially mean that the U.S. attorneys will be again shortchanged. In 
my own State, they run something called the Joint Terrorism Task Force. 
It is the U.S. attorney who gets all of the stakeholders in the same 
room, providing important legal guidance to all of the police chiefs, 
certainly, in the Baltimore area, and those involved in port security 
and local law enforcement. The people from the Governor's office run 
that. Whether it is in the national Capitol region, that we are in, or 
L.A. or New York, our U.S. attorneys run these forces. The local people 
love it, and they are part of the global war against terrorism because 
we don't have enough FBI agents, but with enough cops on the beat, we 
can do that. So we are shortchanging the U.S. Attorney's Office.
  Let's go to the Bureau of Prisons. We are going to lose correctional 
officers. We might say that they are just thugs anyway. Let's talk 
about those ``just thugs anyway.'' Right this minute, we are very 
concerned and have significant flashing yellow lights about the fact 
that right now in our Federal prisons there could be underground 
recruitment efforts going on to recruit people for terrorism or for 
these Latin American gangs, such as M-13. Talk to the head of the 
Bureau of Prisons and to the Attorney General. We have to stand 
centrally with own Federal prisons that we do not become the incubators 
not only of thugs but of terrorists and terrorizing gangs in our local 
communities.
  When I talk about grim and ghoulish, I am going to use an example 
that is difficult to bring to the Senate floor. In my own State, there 
was a gang attack, where they cut off the arms and legs of a victim, 
using a machete. I could describe more ghoulish things, but I will not 
offend civilized people to give those examples.
  We have to get serious. Are we going to fight the global war against 
terrorism or are we going to cut and run from the appropriations? Are 
we going to stand up for our FBI or cut and run from our duty? Are we 
going to stand up for Federal law enforcement, such as the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who are working here and 
helped us catch the snipers and are working over there so we can deal 
with the IEDs that are killing our troops? Are we going to stand up for 
the DEA that is fighting drugs on the street corners of our communities 
and dealing with the drug problems in Afghanistan, with Mr. Karzai, 
that is now funding the Taliban? Oh, no, we have to cut and run.
  Well, I am opposed to this strategy. I oppose this do-nothing 
Congress. We could do the job. I worked with my Republican colleague 
and, I must say, he worked with me. We don't have to worry about 
changing the tone, but we sure have to change the tempo. That is why 
the voters made a change in the Congress. So we are going to have to 
swallow this, but I will tell you that they can count on Barb Mikulski 
not to cut and run from her duty, her responsibility in fighting the 
global war against terrorism and the thugs and bums on our streets in 
America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Senate Service

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, it has been almost 6 years since I was 
sworn in as Minnesota's 33rd U.S. Senator with my friend and colleague 
Paul Wellstone at my side. I began my term hopeful and optimistic. The 
Senate was evenly divided, with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, and 
President-elect George W. Bush was promising to change the tone in 
Washington with a new era of bipartisan cooperation.

[[Page 22931]]

  Our country enjoyed peace and relative prosperity. Outgoing President 
Bill Clinton, a Republican-controlled Congress, and over 6 years of 
economic expansion had combined to create the first annual surpluses in 
the Federal Government's on-budget account in 39 years, and they were 
projected by OMB to continue for at least the next decade.
  The Social Security trust fund's annual surpluses were going to be 
saved in a lockbox for the upcoming retirements of a large baby boom 
generation. There was even discussion of paying down the national debt 
to further strengthen our financial position. Yet we still would be 
able to increase funding for such essential needs as public education, 
affordable health care, seniors' drug coverage, and infrastructure 
improvements.
  Just 6 years later, our country's condition has changed drastically, 
and mostly for the worse. We are mired in a disastrous war in Iraq 
despite the heroic efforts and sacrifices by our Armed Forces. The 
fiscal integrity of the Federal budget has been destroyed, with record-
high annual deficits continuing, despite budget gimmickry and a modest 
economic recovery. The Federal tax base has been decimated by huge tax 
giveaways to the rich and superrich that will burden our children and 
grandchildren. The Social Security trust fund's surpluses have been 
spent every year on what the nonpartisan Concord Coalition has called 
``the most reckless fiscal policy'' in our Nation's history.
  The Bible says if the leaders don't lead, the people perish. 
Unfortunately, the Bush administration and the Republican majority in 
Congress have not led this country well, and our people are suffering 
the consequences: lost jobs, businesses, and farms; lost incomes, 
standards of living, and security; and lost loved ones killed or maimed 
in Iraq.
  We have lost the national unity which followed the terrible 
atrocities of September 11, 2001, and the Bush administration has lost 
the world's support which they had after that awful attack. The 
President's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, the absence of 
weapons of mass destruction that had been the initial justification for 
that invasion, and his administration's disastrous mismanagement of 
Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has squandered most of 
our national unity and international goodwill.
  The Congressional Record will show that I opposed those failed 
policies and supported other and better alternatives. I was 1 of 23 
Senators to vote against the Iraq war resolution. I opposed the large 
tax giveaways to the rich and superrich. In fact, during my 6 years in 
the Senate, I voted 29 times to raise my own taxes. Why? Because our 
country needs those tax revenues, and I can darn well afford to pay my 
fair share of them, as can all other Americans with my good fortune.
  I tried seven times unsuccessfully to get the Senate to honor its 30-
year promise to school districts and schoolchildren and fully fund 
special education. The Senate did pass my ``Taste of Our Own Medicine'' 
amendment limiting Members of Congress's prescription drug coverage to 
what they provided to senior citizens through Medicare. However, my 
amendment was discarded by the House-Senate conference committee.
  It has pained me deeply to see the Senate's majority lead our country 
into what I consider the wrong direction. Our Nation's founding 
principle was ``we the people,'' and it remains so today. If we are not 
always united by the common cause, we are bound together by a shared 
destiny. If the laws this Senate passes are successful, ``we the 
people'' benefit together. If those laws fail, we suffer together. Some 
Americans will suffer more than others as unfair victims of social and 
economic injustices, but ultimately all Americans cannot escape our 
common national fate. United we stand and succeed; divided we fall and 
fail. I regretfully believe that during my Senate term this 
administration and its congressional followers have caused too many 
divisions, declines, and failures.
  Thus, I leave the Senate with strong feelings of frustration and 
disappointment. I have been unable to pass most of what I believe was 
most important to Minnesota, to our country, and to the world. I remain 
convinced that those policies would improve the lives of most Americans 
far better than what the majority here enacted.
  A cornerstone of democracy, which I honor, is that the majority 
prevails. Winning, however, does not make them right and, 
unfortunately, it does not make them wise. In those decisions with 
which I have disagreed, time will tell us and the American people who 
was right and who was wise.
  I do want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the 
privilege to serve these last 6 years with them. I am grateful for the 
friendships I have made, which I hope will continue after my departure.
  I thank my excellent staff, those here in Washington and those in 
Minnesota, for their tremendous dedication and many hours of hard work. 
Most of the successes I have enjoyed here have been the result of their 
dedication and their abilities, and I thank them again for their 
support.
  I especially want to thank the people of Minnesota who gave me this 
extraordinary opportunity to serve them in the Senate. Our democracy 
is, through all of human history, throughout the entire world, the most 
advanced and successful form of self-governance that human beings have 
ever devised. It is far from perfect, but it is far better than 
anything else. We who are elected as its leaders and its stewards have 
sacred duties to uphold its principles, to elevate its policies, and to 
improve its practices before we bequeath them to our successors. I have 
done my very best to fulfill those duties before I pass them on to my 
outstanding successor, Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar. We in the Senate 
and in the House of Representatives also have the duty to serve the 
best interests of all Americans. To be successful and sustainable, our 
Government must improve the lives of all of our citizens.
  Unfortunately, here in Washington, the people who already have the 
most keep getting more than anyone else. The excessive influences of 
their money and political power on the Federal Government are serious 
threats to our democracy. They skew decisions and laws in favor of the 
rich and powerful, often at the expense of other Americans: the hard-
working people who pay their taxes and hope their elected 
representatives will look out for them in Washington. It isn't too much 
for them to expect. However, it is too often more than they are 
getting.
  They are told repeatedly that new laws and policies will improve 
their lives. Yet their real lives become worse, not better. They 
experience a deep disconnect between what they are told will happen and 
what is actually happening to them.
  In attempts to hide those disparities, the words used in Washington 
are often carefully selected by very clever people in order to disguise 
reality rather than to describe it. For example, legislation that 
stripped many Americans of their bankruptcy protections for major 
medical expenses was named the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act. Another bill that would have increased industrial 
pollution was entitled the Clear Skies Act. No Child Left Behind has 
knowingly underfunded Head Start, title I, and special education, which 
has left millions of schoolchildren behind.
  These discrepancies and the disparities they create will be even more 
destructive to the American people's trust in their Government in the 
years ahead. That is because the choices facing Congress will become 
even more difficult as the needs of an aging population grow but 
revenues do not. In about a decade, the Social Security trust fund's 
large annual surpluses will be replaced by deficits, and its IOUs from 
the general fund will add to that fund's own chronic deficits. If 
combined with today's enormous and unsustainable balance of trade 
deficits and a continuing erosion of our manufacturing job base, the 
consequences could be catastrophic.
  That somber forecast has replaced my hope and optimism of 6 years ago

[[Page 22932]]

to my deep regret. Following the wisdom of ``speak truth to power,'' I 
present my truth to the world's most powerful legislative body, the 
U.S. Senate, and one of the two institutions that must act to keep our 
Nation strong. I hope that you will. I will pray for your wisdom to 
discern what is right, for your courage to act accordingly, and for 
your success on behalf of our great Nation and the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for one final time, I wish to address 
the nominee before us, Dr. Von Eschenbach, who is up for Commissioner 
of the Food and Drug Administration and who I think should not be 
approved for the position by the Senate.
  I have considered Dr. Von Eschenbach's performance on the job for 
more than a year now because he was appointed Acting Commissioner in 
September of 2005. In fact, over the last year I have closely monitored 
his actions, reactions, and his public and private comments to the FDA 
staff and to the public.
  This nominee inherited a Food and Drug Administration plagued by 
cultural and structural and personnel problems, and I surely do not 
blame him for the problems, but I have to look at whether he is the 
person to correct those problems. Because this agency is plagued by 
these cultural and structural and personnel problems, FDA is in 
desperate need of a leader, a leader who can not only restore the 
public's confidence in the agency but also restore the agency's 
confidence in itself.
  I met with Dr. Von Eschenbach more than once. We talked, and he 
seemed to be very nice. He has, of course, without dispute, excellent 
credentials. He promised me full cooperation in my oversight work I was 
doing and the investigations I was doing, but, in fact, it did not 
happen. Instead, I had to issue two subpoenas. So far, he has not 
complied with those subpoenas which were issued 7 months ago. This 
reflects a lack of respect for the authority of Congress conducting its 
constitutional responsibility of oversight of the executive branch of 
Government.
  In addition, under Dr. Von Eschenbach's leadership, the FDA remains 
in a state of denial about all these cultural problems to which I have 
referred. A coherent action plan to address the problems is nowhere to 
be found. Dr. Von Eschenbach has told me that there is room for 
improvement in the area of technology, but it does not appear that he 
understands the depth and breadth of problems affecting the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  The FDA is in serious trouble, and I am not the only one saying so. 
Over the last year, we have heard from the Government Accountability 
Office, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and just a few months ago we 
had a scathing report from the Institute of Medicine.
  The Institute of Medicine completed a $3 million, 15-month study and 
set forth 25 recommendations. This report by the Institute of Medicine 
conveys a sense of urgency to fix the problems. Just last month at the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, the chairman 
of the Institute of Medicine committee that produced the report said:

       If there ever was a time that it was critical to address 
     these issues, it is now.

  The next Food and Drug Administration Commissioner must be a person 
who not only has excellent credentials, as I have said he has, but who 
also will accept the criticism of the agency and develop coherent 
solutions.
  Here is what the Institute of Medicine reported:

       The committee believes that cultural changes are urgently 
     needed to support a stronger, more systematic and more 
     credible approach to drug safety in the Center of Drug 
     Evaluation and Review and it recommends solutions to the 
     problems created or exacerbated by the elements of the 
     Center's management, structure and environment.

  Now a short quote:

       Many have observed signs of an organizational culture in 
     crisis.

  Another quote:

       The Center's leaders have to be prepared to address the 
     underlying cultural problems that divide and impair the 
     optimal functioning of the Center's staff and effectively use 
     the existing and new authorities and resources to achieve the 
     Center's public health and regulatory mission.

  These criticisms of the Food and Drug Administration have come from 
outside the agency, not from whistleblowers reporting to me. But I also 
continue to hear from these employees inside and also from managers 
inside the Food and Drug Administration who were concerned about the 
integrity of the Food and Drug Administration's work. What is also 
troubling is that some of these employees have experienced intimidation 
or reprisals for voicing legitimate concerns.
  I have fought long and hard over the last two decades to protect the 
rights of numerous whistleblowers who expose fraud, waste, and abuse. 
When I met with Dr. Von Eschenbach in March, he told me that he was 
``committed to whistleblowers.'' Yet his actions seem to suggest 
otherwise.
  The worst example may be when Dr. Von Eschenbach ordered a meeting 
with the FDA staff after the press reported information that was 
critical of how the FDA handled safety issues with the drug Ketek. I 
keep referring to Ketek because it is a drug involved in the death of 
an 18-year-old boy in Cedar Rapids, IA. As I understand it, Dr. Von 
Eschenbach sent a clear message at this staff meeting. Some suggested 
that this attempt was simply to boost morale among FDA employees, but 
some longtime FDA employees saw it differently. They took his word that 
anybody who spoke ``outside the locker room'' might find themselves 
``kicked off the team''--literally. And I don't blame them for taking 
offense at that. People are trying to do their job, and you talk about 
what is wrong and you might be fired for it? People like that ought to 
be upheld and honored. In the final analysis, they ought to have their 
concerns addressed within the agency and not have to come to those of 
us in Congress because they are not getting any ear in the agency. So 
they took his message to mean: Your career is in jeopardy if you happen 
to come to Senator Grassley or outside the agency or to any Member of 
Congress. To me, it shows his poor judgment and intolerance for 
dissenting opinions and also for what is basic to American government, 
that the public's business ought to be public.
  Dr. Von Eschenbach also told me that he was a man of ``discipline, 
rigor and precision.'' Those are his words. He used those same words in 
a speech:

       We will retain all the rigor, all the discipline and all 
     the precision of regulation, but our efforts will be geared 
     so that things can move faster rather than slower.''

  We can all agree that new drugs and devices should be available to 
the public as soon as possible, but there is also the issue of safety 
and the protection of the public. The FDA must do its job and ensure 
that the drug's benefits outweigh its risks before approval.
  My other concern regarding Dr. Von Eschenbach is that he assured me 
of his commitment to respond promptly to requests from Congress. That 
is a promise which was never kept. So do I have a reason to be 
concerned about this person, regardless of the very good credentials he 
has? My oversight of the FDA has consequently been slowed by inaction 
on the part of his agency. In fact, he has not responded to a letter I 
sent to him 9 months ago, and my requests for interviews with some FDA 
officials were ignored for more than 3 months and some still have not 
been scheduled. As Acting Commissioner, he has ignored congressional 
requests, and I do not expect that will change if he is confirmed by 
the Senate.
  Before I close my remarks, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the full text of a letter I sent to the Acting Commissioner 
in September.

[[Page 22933]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                         Committee on Finance,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.
     Andrew C. Von Eschenbach, M.D.,
     Acting Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 
         Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Von Eschnbach: As a senior member of the United 
     States Senate and as the Chairman of the Committee on Finance 
     (Committee), it is my constitutional duty to conduct 
     oversight into the actions of executive branch agencies. For 
     nearly three years, I have been investigating matters related 
     to, among other things, the safety and efficacy of products 
     regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or 
     agency).
       I have reviewed and questioned how the FDA handles the pre-
     market review and postmarket surveillance of drugs, 
     biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether 
     or not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the 
     public health. Additionally, I have worked to give voice to 
     the concerns of a number of rank-and-file scientists and FDA 
     managers who share a common complaint: a deep-seated cultural 
     divide exists within the FDA, and it has led to systemic 
     problems that plague the agency. Together we have shed 
     sunlight on how frequently differences of scientific opinion 
     are quashed, the nature of the cozy relationship between the 
     FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate, and the 
     failure of the agency to be adequately transparent and 
     accountable to the public.
       Others also have identified serious leadership problems at 
     the FDA. Editorial pages of publications across the nation, 
     including a number of the most esteemed scientific journals, 
     have recognized and expressed outrage at the FDA's failures 
     in recent years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), 
     the independent and non-partisan agency that works on behalf 
     of Congress and the American people, has also identified 
     serious and systemic problems at the FDA. Still, the most 
     powerful messages come from the increasing numbers of current 
     and former FDA personnel, who often come forward at great 
     personal and professional expense to express their 
     disenchantment that the FDA has lost its way and ``sold out'' 
     to the industries it is charged to regulate.
       In the face of such criticism, the FDA appears to be 
     focused on damage control rather than addressing its core 
     problems. As a science-based agency, the FDA is remarkable 
     for its lack of introspection, second-guessing, and failure 
     to assess its own performance and capabilities in a 
     systematic way. Despite all the recent criticism, the agency 
     does not have a comprehensive plan of action in place to 
     address its weaknesses. Instead, the FDA comes off as an 
     agency in denial that chooses to keep its head in the sand in 
     the hope its problems will go away. I am writing this letter 
     to encourage you to establish and implement a resuscitation 
     plan to restore the FDA's credibility in the mind of its own 
     employees and the American public. An agency that hemorrhages 
     whistleblowers is an agency needing critical care. The 
     following concerns are by no means comprehensive, but they 
     illustrate several common themes of my oversight of the FDA.


                   Suppression of Scientific Dissent

       I am very troubled by FDA's attempts to suppress scientific 
     dissent by muzzling its own scientists. Such actions by the 
     FDA show a lack of respect for the dedicated scientists 
     working at the agency and a lack of respect for the 
     scientific process.
       In February 2004, the FDA held an advisory committee 
     meeting to discuss whether or not there was a link between 
     some antidepressant drugs and suicidal behavior in children. 
     Dr. Andrew Mosholder, the FDA's expert on this matter, 
     concluded that there was a link. However, his FDA supervisors 
     disagreed and canceled Dr. Mosholder's presentation to the 
     advisory committee. Instead, Dr. Mosholder was given a script 
     by his supervisors to read if he were asked why he was no 
     longer presenting before the advisory committee.
       Similarly, in February 2005, Dr. David Graham was finishing 
     a study on Medicaid patients taking COX-2 inhibitors and was 
     told by his supervisors that he could not present his 
     findings regarding these drugs at an upcoming advisory 
     committee meeting. The scientific process ultimately 
     prevailed, but only after then-Acting Commissioner Lester 
     Crawford overruled Dr. Graham's supervisors to allow him to 
     present his findings. This was not the FDA's first attempt, 
     however, to muzzle Dr. Graham. Several months prior to the 
     advisory committee meeting, Dr. Graham went public with 
     allegations about the FDA's mishandling of the COX-2 
     inhibitor Vioxx, which was manufactured by Merck & Co, Inc. 
     (Merck). According to Dr. Graham himself, as well as 
     information and documents obtained by the Committee, senior 
     FDA officials attempted to intimidate him so he would not 
     testify about the adverse cardiac effects of Vioxx before 
     Congress. The FDA also tried to prevent the publication of 
     Dr. Graham's findings in Lancet.
       In July 2005, the FDA approved the Vagus Nerve Stimulation 
     (VNS) Therapy System, a medical device for treatment-
     resistant depression (TRD), even when FDA scientists could 
     not determine if the device worked. Rather than allow the 
     scientific process to dictate FDA's decision, a senior FDA 
     official overruled a team of more than 20 FDA scientists, 
     medical officers, and management staff who recommended 
     against approval of the device based on their comprehensive 
     scientific evaluation of the sponsor's application. In 
     addition, while the FDA has publicized differences of 
     scientific opinion within the agency regarding controversial 
     regulatory decisions in the past, in this case, the FDA did 
     not publicize scientific dissent regarding the effectiveness 
     of the VNS Therapy System for TRD.
       More recently, my office was approached by yet another FDA 
     scientist who is being prohibited from submitting an article 
     to a major scientific journal despite the fact that an 
     appropriate disclosure statement would be made.


                    Cozy Relationship with Industry

       I have frequently criticized the FDA for its relationship 
     with the industry, which I believe is far too cozy. The FDA 
     needs to distance itself from the industry and return to its 
     role as regulator, not a facilitator. Despite findings from a 
     Merck study that heart attacks were five times higher for 
     Vioxx patients than for patients on another drug, nearly two 
     years passed before label changes were made. The overriding 
     concern of the FDA should have been the health and safety of 
     the American people. However, while the FDA was negotiating 
     label changes with the company, patients and doctors remained 
     largely unaware of the cardiovascular risks. In addition, 
     Merck was aggressively marketing Vioxx during that time.
       Another troubling example of FDA's coziness with industry 
     is the removal of Dr. Victoria Hampshire, a drug safety 
     reviewer, from the review of ProHeart 6, a heartworm 
     prevention drug for dogs. Dr. Hampshire was reassigned 
     following the drug company's presentation of findings from 
     its private investigation of Dr. Hampshire after the company 
     met with then-Commissioner. It appears the purpose of that 
     investigation was retaliatory and an effort to discredit Dr. 
     Hampshire. The company's investigation led to a criminal 
     investigation by the FDA; however, the investigation resulted 
     in no action taken against Dr. Hampshire. In fact, Dr. 
     Hampshire subsequently received an award for her job 
     performance related to ProHeart 6.
       Unfortunately; it appears that Dr. Hampshire is not the 
     only FDA employee who was the target of a company's campaign 
     to discredit individuals who may present impediments to its 
     agenda. Two months ago, I wrote to the Department of Health 
     and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) to 
     investigate whether or not one or more FDA employees 
     conspired with Merck to discredit Dr. Graham and/or call into 
     question Dr. Graham's allegations regarding the safety and 
     efficacy of Vioxx. FDA's handling of the antibiotic Ketek is 
     another example where the FDA appears to have accommodated a 
     drug company despite the fact that the company submitted 
     fraudulent data from a safety study to the FDA and repeatedly 
     provided incomplete safety information. What baffles me even 
     more is the fact that the FDA continued to cite Study 3014 in 
     publicly released safety information for Ketek even after its 
     Division of Scientific Investigations concluded that Study 
     3014 involved ``multiple instances of fraud'' and that ``the 
     integrity of data from all sites involved in [the] study . . 
     . cannot be assured with any degree of confidence.''


                Pressure to Alter or Exclude Information

       Not only has the FDA disregarded and downplayed important 
     concerns and warnings from its own scientists, but FDA 
     supervisors have also pressured some of these scientists to 
     change their findings or conclusions regarding the safety 
     and/or efficacy of a product. Most notably Dr. Mosholder and 
     Dr. Graham, among others, have been pressured by their 
     supervisors to soften their safety findings or conclusions 
     regarding antidepressants and Vioxx, respectively. In 
     addition, a survey released by the Union of Concerned 
     Scientists (UCS) and the Public Employees for Environmental 
     Responsibility (PEER) on July 20, 2006, found that 
     approximately one-fifth of the nearly 1,000 FDA scientists 
     surveyed said that they had been asked, for nonscientific 
     reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical 
     information or their conclusions. One-fifth said that they 
     have been asked explicitly by FDA decision-makers to provide 
     incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the 
     public, industry, the media and government officials. My 
     Committee staff are presently reviewing such allegations in 
     ongoing investigations.


                      Pressure to Approve Products

       Throughout numerous investigations by my Committee staff, 
     FDA employees have also stated that they are under constant 
     pressure to approve drugs within deadlines established by the 
     Prescription Drug User Fee Act. For example, during the 
     Committee's investigation into the delay in labeling changes 
     regarding blindness risks for Viagra, the safety evaluator 
     for that drug informed my staff that the Office of New Drugs 
     is under such time pressure to approve new

[[Page 22934]]

     drugs that safety concerns were often ``fit in'' wherever 
     they could. According to a survey by the HHS OIG in 2002, 
     nearly one in five scientists polled said that they had been 
     pressured to approve or recommend approval of a new drug 
     despite concerns about its safety, effectiveness, or quality. 
     This needs to be corrected immediately, and FDA needs to 
     resume its science-based mission.


                     Atmosphere of Fear of Reprisal

       According to the FDA, there are regulations and procedures 
     in place to help resolve organizational and individual 
     disagreements. However, my Committee staff continues to hear 
     from FDA employees who experience intimidation and 
     reassignments when they raise concerns about the integrity of 
     FDA's work. In addition, the 2006 UCS and PEER survey found 
     that over one-third of the FDA scientists who responded to 
     the survey said they could not openly express any concerns 
     about public health within FDA without fear of retaliation. 
     Moreover, the GAO found that the dispute resolution processes 
     for disagreements over postmarket drug safety decisions 
     ``have not been used and may not be viewed as sufficiently 
     independent.''
       Your recent meeting with FDA staff involved in the review 
     of Ketek is a disturbing example that FDA's internal dispute 
     resolution processes are not working. Instead of reassuring 
     FDA employees that they can raise concerns without being 
     subjected to retaliation or intimidation, the meeting itself 
     appears to be an act of intimidation. Scientists who speak up 
     about problems and concerns, whether internally or 
     externally, help ensure that our government operates 
     efficiently, effectively, and in the best interest of the 
     American people. FDA employees need to hear from the leader 
     of the agency that they can freely voice their concerns 
     without fear of reprisal.


                       Organizational Challenges

       The GAO report released on April 21, 2006, calls for long 
     overdue reform at the FDA. Under the current FDA review 
     system, patient safety takes a back seat to the fast approval 
     of products. For example, the drug safety office, now known 
     as the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, is under the 
     thumb of the Office of New Drugs (OND), which is hampered by 
     real and perceived conflicts of interest. According to the 
     GAO report, the drug safety office is under-funded, lacks 
     independence and lacks decision-making responsibility. OND--
     which is responsible for approving or disapproving drug 
     applications in the first place--is the office responsible 
     for taking regulatory actions related to the safety of drugs 
     already on the market, not the drug safety office.
       To improve the decision-making process for postmarket drug 
     safety, the GAO has recommended that Congress expand the 
     FDA's authority to require drug companies to conduct 
     postmarket studies when additional data is needed. A number 
     of us in Congress have repeatedly asked the FDA what 
     additional authorities and/or resources are needed to enable 
     the agency to achieve its mission. In a related matter, 
     during private meetings with FDA management, the need to have 
     pharmaceutical companies submit their applications for new 
     drugs and other requests electronically comes up repeatedly 
     as critical to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 
     the FDA. Yet, the FDA continuously denies the need for 
     greater authority and resources. Why the FDA is resisting 
     such offers from Congress is a mystery to me.


                           Lack of Leadership

       The FDA has been without a permanent leader more often than 
     not in recent years. The agency needs and deserves a strong, 
     permanent Commissioner who is unequivocally committed to the 
     scientific process and can make the administrative reforms 
     necessary to ensure greater transparency and accountability. 
     While you are not the permanent Commissioner of the agency, 
     you are nevertheless in the position, as Acting Commissioner, 
     to turn things around and restore public confidence in the 
     FDA. I sincerely hope you seize the opportunity to do just 
     that.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The letter lays out the major problems at the FDA. I 
encourage my colleagues to read it and, maybe more important, emphasize 
again reading the Institute of Medicine's criticism of the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  The FDA needs a permanent commissioner to tackle these problems. 
Unfortunately, I believe the nominee is not the person for the job. 
Over the past year, the nominee has failed to step to the plate and 
failed to keep his assurances to me. He has said the agency needs to be 
a facilitator, but think what the word ``facilitate'' means or what 
``being a facilitator'' means. It could mean a cozy relationship 
between the FDA and industry. What is called for is someone who 
recognizes that the FDA is supposed to be a regulator, not a 
facilitator.
  I am also afraid he will allow FDA management to continue pressuring 
FDA scientists to change their findings or conclusions and to approve 
the products despite concerns about the safety and efficacy of the 
product. Dr. Von Eschenbach is not prepared to provide the leadership 
necessary to restore confidence in the FDA.
  Given these concerns, I hope my colleagues will take them in 
consideration before they vote. I intend to vote no. I hope my 
colleagues will so that we can have a person in this position who will 
change the culture but also cooperate with the constitutional 
responsibilities of the Congress of the United States to oversee the 
executive branch.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take just 5 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Gratitude For Expressions of Concern

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to express my 
gratitude for the response I have gotten over the last month from my 
friends and neighbors in the Senate.
  As many of you know, about on election day I was diagnosed with 
leukemia, and I have spent the last month in the hospital. I got out 
last Saturday, and I am now back on the job, and I am very delighted to 
do that. Certainly Susan and I wish to express our real thank-you for 
all the comments and contacts, expressions of hope, and prayers we have 
gotten from the Members in the Senate. It is very meaningful. It is the 
first time I have been through a thing of this kind, and I can tell you 
that it means a great deal. We also got literally hundreds of comments 
from our voters in Wyoming. So we are so pleased, so grateful for that 
kind of response.
  The process has gone well. As I said, I was in there for a month. I 
have gone through the chemo, I have gone through the other activities 
and may have to go back for some additional treatments, but the fact is 
I am out, my blood cell count is up, and I am very positive.
  I want to urge people to be very careful about their own health, and 
when there are signs of problems, to be sure they take care of them 
because Bethesda was a wonderful place for me to be.
  Again, my real purpose here is just to express my gratitude for all 
the kind feelings I have had from the staff and from the Members of the 
Senate, and I appreciate it very much. It has been very helpful, and I 
am grateful.
  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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Honoring Senatorial Service

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of being here for 
the 28th year beginning shortly. I calculated not long ago that I have 
served with 261 individuals. I am not about to try and review all of 
the many magnificent friendships I am privileged to have through these 
years. Indeed, if one looks at the rewards, of which there are many 
serving in this historic institution, the Senate, it is the personal 
bonds, the friendships that we so firmly cement and that will last a 
lifetime as a consequence of our duties of serving the United States of 
America and in our respective States.
  We are called ``United States'' Senators. I often believe it is the 
first obligation, our Nation, the Republic for which it stands.


                              George Allen

  For my colleague now of 6 years, George Allen, this will be his last 
service as a Senator as this brief session closes. I have said it 
before, I will say it again and again, I rank him at the very top of 
the 261 Senators I have been privileged to serve with these many years.
  In fact, I have looked back at the history of Virginia and would like 
to note for the record that my colleague,

[[Page 22935]]

George Allen, is one of only five Virginians to have served in the 
Virginia General Assembly, as Governor, as a Member of the House of 
Representatives; and as a U.S. Senator--the first in more than 150 
years of our State's history.
  Together, we have shared a long history of serving the people of 
Virginia--I as a Senator and he as a member of the Virginia House of 
Delegates, House of Representatives, Governor, and U.S. Senator. I 
remember participating in his first campaign and all the successive 
campaigns. George Allen served the Commonwealth of Virginia in public 
office for 25 years. How well I know. I campaigned for him when he ran 
for the State legislature, then for the Congress, then for Governor, 
and he won those elections handily. Then he ran for the Senate. It was 
a tough race. Tough because he was up against a very able opponent, a 
man whom I admire, a man with whom I have served with in this Chamber. 
But the voters of Virginia--and therein rests the final decision--sent 
George Allen to the Senate where I believe he has served with great 
distinction.
  I have been privileged to share the warmth and vigor of this 
magnificent man with his lovely wife Susan and their children, Tyler, 
Forest, and Brooke. What a privilege, a joy for me to see them as they 
have grown nourished by the love of two strong parents.
  In 1981 he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates to the seat 
once held by his philosophical inspiration, Thomas Jefferson. 
Throughout his career in public office, George Allen has consistently 
been guided by that same inspiration of smaller government and 
individual freedom. He has also been driven by the thoughts of two 
other leaders important to him; Ronald Reagan who said ``If not us who, 
if not now when?'' and his father who always told him ``The future is 
now.''
  Throughout his career in public service George has worked as an 
advocate of economic development, recruiting companies to Virginia and 
espousing policies to create jobs. As Governor, he oversaw the creation 
of 312,000 new jobs in Virginia by making the Commonwealth a better 
place to do business. He reformed the parole system to keep repeat 
offenders off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. His welfare 
reform set the stage for the Congress to act to help people get back on 
their feet and get back to work. He implemented the Standards of 
Learning in our schools to make sure all of our children receive the 
same quality education.
  I remember well our first effort together when he came to the Senate 
in 2001. As is often the case here in the Senate, there had been some 
problems confirming a federal judge who was ultimately recess appointed 
in late 2000. We came together and worked with the President to bring 
his nomination back to the Senate and as a result, Judge Roger Gregory 
was confirmed by the Senate to become the first African American seated 
on the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  We were working partners. We shared everything--our staffs work 
together, our wives work together--and we crisscrossed this State from 
one end to the other over those 6 years. When either George Allen or I 
felt, for whatever reason, we could not keep an appointment somewhere 
in the State, one would fill in for the other.
  We were quite parallel in our thinking, the philosophy, the things so 
important to Virginians, and I think to most Americans, first and 
foremost the preservations of our freedoms, a strong national defense, 
a right to work, to hold a job and to compete fairly, to hold that job 
and to advance, to have a system of health care that did not serve only 
those more affluent than others but would serve any individual who 
suffered from pain or the need for medical attention.
  We have joined together in countless efforts for Virginia's 
communities; helping to fund museums, youth centers, innumerable 
infrastructure projects, and research at our colleges and universities. 
We also worked together on the Teacher Tax Relief Act. I am very 
hopeful if we pass this tax package, there will be a provision that 
George and I worked on together for many years, to be extended in 
statute; and that is, the Teacher Tax Relief Act. I will never forget, 
I was down visiting a small school. And as is so often the case, you 
are rushed through, and the teachers and the principal want you to meet 
as many students as you possibly can. It is always quite interesting to 
do that.
  I remember I was rushed into one class, and I think they were first 
graders. They were all sitting on the floor, and the principal said: 
You have a few minutes. So I started talking away, and I asked the 
first graders: Is there a question you might have? And this absolutely 
magnificent little girl, who sat there riveted to every word I spoke, 
looked up and said: Yes. My question is, how much longer must we sit 
here until the Senator comes? Well, you don't forget those things. And 
I had difficulty answering the question, I was so taken aback. I felt I 
was universally recognized, but it is not the case in the first grade.
  Then I was in another classroom, and for some reason I--I went 
through basic engineering school, and I have always been interested in 
pencils and writing instruments--and I saw a pencil, a rather fancy 
one, and I picked it up, and the teacher saw that I liked it, and she 
said: Take it. Keep it. I said: Oh, no, I don't take any gifts or 
anything. You know, we have rigid rules in the Senate, and nobody is 
going to bribe me with a pencil. And she said: Oh, please, please, 
please. It is not school property. I said: Oh? She said: Yes. Senator, 
you must understand that as teachers--and this is prevalent not only in 
Virginia but it is prevalent all across the land, particularly among 
teachers in the elementary grades--we have to take part of our own 
salary to buy what we deem are the essential tools that are needed to 
educate our students.
  Well, I just could not believe this, because teachers are not among 
the more well paid. So George Allen and I fought for years to get the 
Teacher Tax Relief Act signed into law. It is on the books, and we need 
to extend it, and I am optimistic that will be done. But it simply 
says, if you can establish that you took your own salary and you bought 
school supplies which were necessary for teaching and the profession 
you are in, you get a $250 above the line deduction--a small amount of 
money, but a great sense of satisfaction.
  George has been a strong member of the Commerce and Foreign Relations 
Committees seeking to make our nation a better place for business, 
ultimately creating more economic opportunity for all Americans.
  We joined together after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, to 
try to help the people of Northern Virginia and indeed all America 
respond and recover.
  We worked on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces. How 
proud we are in the Commonwealth of Virginia of the extensive number of 
bases and institutions of the U.S. military which we are privileged to 
have. There is no greater responsibility of the Congress of the United 
States than its specific--specific--obligation under the Constitution. 
As my great teacher and mentor, Senator Byrd, so often has told me, 
that is to provide for the care and the welfare, and to raise the 
armies and maintain the navies that this Nation requires. George Allen 
has been a partner with me as we have done those things for these many 
years.
  In life we go through a series of stages. We are raised and nurtured 
by our parents, receive an education, raise a family of our own, and 
serve in various careers. George Allen and his family have been public 
servants to the people of Virginia and America for the past 25 years. 
The people have been fortunate to have such a dedicated Delegate, 
Congressman, Governor, and U.S. Senator. I am proud to have served with 
this man and to call him my friend all these years. Therefore, I bid 
him a fond farewell from this institution. But I look forward to 
working with him as he goes on and accepts challenges perhaps even 
greater than the ones he had in the years that he so loved serving in 
this Chamber.
  The people of Virginia spoke, and George Allen, with great courage,

[[Page 22936]]

took that decision and quickly said: I understand. He accepted it and 
has gone on about his business.
  I would also like to pay tribute to nine other United States Senators 
who will retire from the Senate in the coming days.
  I have previously spoken in honor of my colleague from the 
neighboring state of Maryland, Senator Paul Sarbanes. Since my first 
days in the Senate, Senator Sarbanes and I worked together on a host of 
important regional initiatives, including: the restoration of the 
Chesapeake Bay; improvements to our Metro system; the creation of the 
office of the National Capital Region Coordinator; and on funding for 
the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson bridge. His retirement is 
certainly a loss to the region as Senator Sarbanes has been a true 
champion of many issues vital to the Maryland, Virginia, and DC 
metropolitan area.
  Now, I would like to take a few moments to salute our majority 
leader--Senator Frist--as well as Senators Chafee, Burns, Santorum, 
DeWine, Jeffords, Talent, and Dayton. Each and every one of these U.S. 
Senators has served his State and his country with great distinction.
  Without a doubt, I could speak at-length in honor of each of these 
outstanding individuals. In light of time constraints, however, and the 
fact that so many of my colleagues wish to similarly pay tribute, I 
shall endeavor to keep my remarks brief.
  First, I would like to say a few words about our distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. You know, in this post-September 
11, 2001, world, we think of national security as the most important 
issue of the day. Certainly, Bill has worked hard in that area over the 
years--not only as majority leader but as a hard-working member of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But, right behind national security 
comes the issue of the health of our citizens, and Bill Frist has been 
at the forefront of every major piece of health care legislation during 
his 12 years in the Senate.
  Whether it has been ensuring that America's seniors have access to a 
sorely needed Medicare prescription drug benefit or whether it has been 
his efforts to encourage the use of new technology in medicine so that 
the knowledge of one doctor in one part of the world could help a 
doctor and a patient in another part of the world, Bill Frist has 
improved the healthcare system for all Americans.
  The Senate will no doubt miss Bill Frist's leadership, but I have no 
doubt that his public service will continue, particularly his heartfelt 
healthcare work in impoverished areas of the world. I wish him, and his 
magnificent wife Karen all of the best in their future.
  Now, I will speak a few words about our colleague Lincoln Chafee. I 
have known the Chafee family for many years, and count the late John 
Chafee and his wife Virginia as my dearest friends.
  The year was 1969, this country was engulfed in a war in Vietnam, and 
I was privileged to be asked to serve as Under Secretary of the Navy. I 
was told that the Secretary of the Navy, who would be my boss one step 
up, would be a man named John Chafee, former Governor of the State of 
Rhode Island.
  I will never forget we both served in the Marines, at different 
times. He was a captain and I was a captain in the Marine Corps 
Reserve, and we met on a cold day in February outside the Pentagon, 
shook hands, and walked upstairs. And there we were greeted by the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations.
  Chafee turned to me, and he said: You know, the Navy and the Marine 
Corps constitute almost a million uniformed men and women. It was that 
large in the height of the war in Vietnam. And he said: Here we are, a 
couple of lowly captains, and now it is our responsibility. Let's 
square our jaws and stick out our chins, get this job done, and provide 
the leadership that these men and women of the Armed Forces so richly 
deserve.
  John Chafee was an absolute teacher and mentor of mine in every way 
during those years we worked together in the Department of Defense. He 
would take his trip to Vietnam. I would stay back and man the store. He 
would return, and I would take my trip. We had problems throughout the 
world. It was in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. John 
Chafee was a magnificent man. He had been Governor of the State of 
Rhode Island three times, and he was a magnificent leader of the men 
and women of the Armed Forces.
  He decided that he was going to move on and consider running for the 
Senate, and resigned, and I succeeded him then as Secretary. But I 
never lost the feeling that he was right there, should I need him to 
help carry out my duties. And then, as luck and good fortune would have 
it, he came to the Senate, and not too many years thereafter I came to 
the Senate and once again joined him.
  I will never forget my first day in the Senate he came up to me and 
said: Do you remember I was Secretary and you were Under Secretary? I 
said: Yes, sir. He said: Well, that's the way it's going to be here for 
a while. You listen to what I say and what I do, and I will give you 
some advice as we go along.
  That was the kind of man he was. I never heard him speak a harsh word 
about any other colleague. But he achieved his special niche in this 
institution through his absolute love for the environment as well as 
the men and women of the Armed Forces. Those were the two things on 
which he worked. And as luck would have it, his son came to join us, 
and he has so many of those magnificent attributes of his father and 
his mother. An absolutely magnificent human being, his mother, and all 
his family, as a matter of fact.
  It is my honor to share with my colleagues some of the important 
accomplishment of Lincoln Chafee during his 7 years as a member of this 
body, and to personally express my appreciation for his service to our 
country.
  Senator Linc Chafee came to the Senate from local government serving 
on the city council and later as mayor of Warwick. I believe it is this 
experience of leading a major city that solidified his commitment to 
fiscal responsibility. In his service in the Senate he was steadfast in 
his belief to restore controls on the federal budget and to promote 
responsible government spending.
  We were privileged to serve together on the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works where he quickly became a skilled legislator. He 
successfully authored legislation to stimulate the redevelopment of 
brownfields areas previously contaminated by hazardous waste, that 
plague our urban areas. This law is already producing results in 
improving neighborhoods and bringing new industries back to urban 
areas.
  Senator Chafee was also a leading voice in fostering bipartisanship 
in the Senate, and was an active member of our informal group of 
Senators known as the Gang of 14. We were a group of seven Republicans 
and seven Democrats, but we had no formal standing in the Senate. We 
would meet regularly to share our thoughts on judicial nominees pending 
on the Senate Calendar to ensure that the Senate could continue its 
responsibilities under article II, section 2, of the U.S. 
Constitution--the advice and consent clause. Senator Chafee was an 
integral part of this effort which allowed candid and respectful 
discussions of the qualifications of individuals to serve in the 
federal judiciary and prevented the continued use of party-led 
filibusters on judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.
  Linc Chafee will be remembered in this institution for his 
independence. We all fight to try to maintain that independence. We are 
respectful of our party leadership. We are respectful of our party 
affiliations. We know the demands of our State. But there are times 
when we feel we must act and make decisions that reflect our own 
innermost feelings of independence, and Lincoln Chafee will be 
remembered for that.
  As Senator Chafee prepares to depart the Senate, I thank him for his 
meaningful contributions to the Senate, and wish him, his wife 
Stephanie,

[[Page 22937]]

and his children, Louisa, Caleb and Thea, ``fair winds and following 
seas.''
  Now, Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about Conrad Burns. 
Senator Conrad Burns has an impressive record of public service, 
beginning with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1955 to 1957. 
Conrad has served the great State of Montana with distinction in the 
U.S. Senate since 1989.
  I will never forget when his first campaign came along, I was asked 
to go out and campaign with him. I acknowledged I would do it. I didn't 
know him, so I went on out to Montana. I had been in Montana in earlier 
years. I had been actually an employee of the U.S. Park Service and had 
been a firefighter out in Montana in 1943 and then again in 1947, I 
think it was.
  Most recently, in August I toured Malmstrom Air Force Base with 
Senator Burns. On this tour, I saw firsthand the love and pride that 
Senator Burns has for the people of his State. As a senior member of 
the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he has worked 
tirelessly for the men and women in the Armed Forces.
  And old Conrad--he embodies all of those great qualities of Montana. 
Talk about independence, he has it, and robustness, and a thirst for 
life and laughter. It was a sheer joy to campaign with Conrad Burns 
because wherever he went, he would walk into a room and he would tell a 
story, talk to his people.
  He loves every square foot of that State. And I shall miss him. I 
shall dearly miss Conrad Burns. We have to have a few characters around 
here who do our duties and accept our daily bread, and he is one. And 
you could kind of go to the bank on what he told you. He was never at a 
loss for telling a story to cheer up a colleague. Whenever he felt that 
colleague was a bit down, Conrad would cheer that colleague up. He and 
his lovely wife and family will go on to other challenges.
  Senator Rick Santorum has an impressive record of public service. 
Subsequent to his service in local and state government, he was elected 
to the United States House of Representatives. In 1994, Rick was 
elected for the first time to the United States Senate. From his first 
day in the Senate until 2002 we had the opportunity to serve together 
on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Throughout his time on that 
Committee, and since he left the Committee, Rick could always be 
counted on for his deliberate and reasoned decisionmaking to ensure the 
best possible policies for the men and women in the armed forces. Since 
2001, Senator Santorum has also played an important role in the Senate 
leadership as Republican conference chairman. As conference chairman, 
Senator Santorum has tirelessly represented the Republican Party as the 
party spokesman. There is no doubt in my mind that Rick Santorum's 
passion, enthusiasm, and leadership will be missed here in the Senate.
  Senator Mike DeWine has been in public service nearly his entire 
adult life. He was an assistant prosecuting attorney, he has held 
various state elected positions, he was a member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and most recently, since 1995, he has served the state 
of Ohio in the U.S. Senate. I am pleased to have served on the HELP 
Committee with Senator DeWine where we worked together on various 
children's health issues. There is not a bigger champion of children's 
health than Senator DeWine. Senator DeWine was also an instrumental 
member with me on the Gang of 14. Throughout his years in the Senate, 
Senator DeWine has proven to be a thoughtful, highly respected member 
who has always been willing to do what is right. In my view, he is a 
true statesman.
  From 1956 to 1959, Senator Jim Jeffords served in the United States 
Navy. He later served in the Naval Reserves. In 1989, after Jim had 
served the citizens of Vermont in State positions and in the United 
House of Representatives, Jim was elected to the United States Senate. 
In the Senate, I have been pleased to work closely with him, 
particularly in serving with him on the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee and on the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
Jim chaired both Committees during his years in the Senate.
  While Senator Jeffords legislatively had many interests, I believe 
that improving the education of our children, particularly children 
with special needs, is the issue most dear to his heart. I remember him 
time and time again on the floor of the United States Senate pushing 
for increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA. And, I remember joining him, and others, in pushing hard for 
mandatory IDEA funding after it became clear that the Congress would be 
unable to fulfill its funding commitment through the discretionary 
funding process. While, to date, we have not achieved full funding, it 
is without question that Jim Jeffords' Senate career has left a 
lasting, positive imprint that will improve America's education system 
for years to come.
  Over the past 4 years, I have been fortunate to have been given the 
opportunity to work closely with Jim Talent on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Since his first day on the Committee--Jim Talent 
has been one of the hardest working Committee members.
  As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, Senator Talent has been at 
the forefront of the Committee's efforts to strengthen the Navy's 
shipbuilding program, working closely with the Chief of Naval 
Operations in the formation of the CNO's plan for a 313-ship Navy. He 
showed steadfast determination in working with the administration and 
the Congress to secure the funding required to build the future Navy; 
spearheading the effort to raise the top-line for shipbuilding by over 
20 percent during the course of his tenure as Seapower Chairman.
  Senator Talent has also been passionate in his support for the needs 
of our brave men and women in uniform; championing quality-of-life and 
quality-of-service initiatives. Most notably, he has been a strong 
advocate for legislation that will put an end to predatory lending 
practices against military personnel and their families.
  Senator Dayton was elected to the Senate in 2000, and throughout his 
years in the Senate I have had the privilege of serving with him on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. As a hard-working member of that 
Committee, Mark was a strong advocate for our armed forces. Notably, he 
was a strong supporter of increasing the death benefit gratuity for 
survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces from a little more 
than $12,000 to $100,000. Thanks in part to his efforts, this increased 
death benefit gratuity is now law.
  Senator Dayton also reached across the aisle and worked closely with 
me in support of efforts to provide Medicare beneficiaries with a 
prescription drug benefit. Together, we introduced legislation to 
provide America's seniors with a refundable tax credit to help off-set 
the costs of prescription drugs.
  In conclusion, over the years I have served with each of these 10 
Senators, each has not only been a trusted colleague, each has also 
been my friend. I will miss serving with each of them in the Senate but 
know that each will continue in public service in some capacity. I wish 
each and every one of them well in the years ahead.
  Mr. President, I see a number of colleagues here anxious to speak, 
and I have taken generously of the time the Presiding Officer has 
allowed me to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am mindful that the majority 
leader will be coming here in approximately 6 minutes to speak, and I 
am looking forward to his comments.
  Mr. President, I want to say that one of the great delights of being 
a part of the Senate is to sit at the knee of such great leaders, such 
as the senior Senator from Virginia, and to learn from him and to hear 
the stories that so often he can weave into any circumstance that is 
facing us, that has some application of a story he had encountered in 
the past. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his 
contribution. And I thank him for being a mentor to so many of us in 
this Senate.

[[Page 22938]]




                    Water Resources Development Act

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the remaining moments here, 
I want to say one of the things this Senator will address in the next 
Congress is the fact that we did not pass a Water Resources Development 
Act, which has so many important projects for this Nation. We have not 
had a Water Resources Development Act bill since 2000, and we are 
suffering for it.
  As to this great ecological restoration project down in my State, the 
Florida Everglades Restoration Project, there are two critical projects 
in this WRDA bill--the Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand. The 
Indian River Lagoon is a 156-mile-long estuary that I grew up on as a 
boy. It runs from basically just north of Cape Canaveral all the way 
south to Palm Beach County. It has been altered by unnaturally large 
and poorly timed freshwater discharges arising out of the St. Lucie 
Canal. They have altered the water quality and depleted the water 
supplies in the Everglades ecosystem. So that is one project that is 
going to be necessarily addressed in the new Congress. There are many 
components to that project. The Everglades restoration is an $8 billion 
project over 20 years, shared by the Federal and the State governments.
  The other major project--I will close with this--is the Picayune 
Strand restoration project. It is going to remove roads and canals and 
other infrastructure to increase freshwater flows. It encompasses 94 
square miles in Collier County, FL, and it includes such things as the 
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the 10,000 Islands National 
Wildlife Refuge, and many others.
  These ecosystem protections and alterations are absolutely necessary 
for the future of keeping this beautiful planet Earth and protecting 
this very fragile ecosystem.


                           Building Consensus

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleagues for allowing me the 
time. As we are awaiting the majority leader to arrive, I might say 
that since many Senators are here, I want them to know what a great 
privilege it has been for this Senator to serve with each of you and to 
serve in a bipartisan way.
  One of the messages of this election I have just come through is that 
people do not want this partisan bickering they have seen. They want us 
to come together, to build consensus, to perform, and to do it in a 
bipartisan way. This Senator is dedicated to doing that from now on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. 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. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         FAREWELL TO THE SENATE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, about 2 months ago, late Sunday afternoon, 
when no one was around, I came into this Chamber to carry out a time-
honored tradition, nearly as old as the institution itself. I came over 
to this desk and I opened the drawer and the tradition of carving your 
initials or your name into the bottom of that drawer was carried out. 
As you open these drawers, as many of us do when we are sitting here 
listening and debating, you tend to look at the names that are there. I 
see Robert Taft at the bottom of this drawer, Hugh Scott, Everett 
Dirksen, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and the list goes on. And 
with the quiet here, you begin to reflect a little bit. But then all of 
a sudden you start thinking, as you are carving your name into that 
drawer, that there aren't very many things that you leave that are 
permanent around here, but that is one.
  It confronted me, as it hits me with such force today, that our time 
here, indeed, is temporary, and that we are here to occupy these seats 
at these desks just for a period of time. We can never forget that we 
don't own these seats. We don't own our presence in this U.S. Senate. 
It is with that recognition that I address my colleagues today.
  I have reflected a lot over the last several weeks, and I think back 
to that nonpolitician who came to this city, this body, 12 years ago 
with a whole lot of hope for the people of Tennessee and a whole lot of 
hope for this country. I think back to the people who put their trust 
in that man's hands.
  Indeed, it was 12 years ago that Karyn and I came to Washington. I 
came as a citizen legislator with absolutely no, no political 
experience. I was a doctor. I spent 20 years in the profession of 
healing. In my acceptance speech back 12 years ago, I pledged at that 
time to my fellow Tennesseans that Karyn and I would go to Washington, 
that we would serve for 12 years, for a limited amount of time, and 
that we would go back to Tennessee and live under the laws that we 
helped enact. And that is exactly what we will do. We are going to go 
back to Tennessee in a few weeks, and I am going to live in the very 
same house that I was born in 54 years ago.
  I still remember coming to the Hill early on, and I know a number of 
new colleagues are coming to the Hill. I think back, and my former 
chief of staff, who was very green at the time--I just told you how 
green I was at the time--I remember standing right in front of the 
Capitol, and we had to stop somebody and ask: Where is this building 
called the Russell Building? And they told us. Luckily, I don't think 
they knew who I was at the time.
  But I did come believing deeply in the promise that I had made. I 
believed in my heart that with determination--and I had seen it in 
surgery and in the operating room--one can make a difference in this 
world. Today, I look back and I see that I was only half right. One 
person can make a difference, and each of us do in our own ways. But to 
make a difference, we can't do it alone.
  I certainly couldn't have done it without people who stood both 
behind me and with me over the last 12 years. I agree with all of my 
colleagues. I know they know Karyn. And, indeed, she has honored me by 
her unwavering love each step along the way. Her grace in carrying out 
her official responsibilities, her commitment to the development of 
character in our three boys, her moral support, her spiritual support 
for me and our family, she has been that guiding river that has kept us 
on course as we traveled two very different professions occupations: 
that of being a heart surgeon and that of serving as a U.S. Senator.
  Our three boys most of you know as well. You have watched them grow 
up over the last 12 years: Bryan, Jonathan, and Harrison. Obviously, we 
are so proud of each of them. I will speak directly to them because 
they, as with anybody growing up, faced the huge challenges of growing 
up in public life, taking in stride the various swipes that the media 
takes from time to time, but doing so with real dignity and strength. 
The boys know that Tennessee is home. They have been able to take in 
the rich texture that is afforded all of us as we raise children here 
in this town. And they have grown from three young boys when we came 
here to three young men.
  I want to thank staff members, and we never do that enough, those 
staff members who have been with me from the very beginning: Emily 
Reynolds, Ramona Lessen, Bart VerHulst, Cornell Wedge, Mark Winslow, 
and Carol Burroughs. I thank my series of chiefs of staff: Mark Tipps, 
Lee Rawls, Howard Liebengood, Eric Ueland, Andrea Becker, Bart, and 
Emily, and all those who have come in and out of these doors since that 
very first day 12 years ago when, yes, I, like somebody every cycle, 
was 100th in seniority. It is the staff that puts the needs of this 
country before their own needs. And with a lot of hard work and a lot 
of passion and a lot of hope, they have accomplished so much.
  A few moments always stand out in my mind, and I will not recite all 
of them, but a few do stand out in my mind, victories like the $15 
billion in funding for global HIV/AIDS, which I have seen firsthand the 
power in the hundreds of thousands and, indeed, I would say millions of 
lives that have been saved by American leadership

[[Page 22939]]

there; the prescription drugs for seniors; confirming John Roberts and 
Sam Alito.
  And through all of this time, we have borne witness to days that have 
literally changed the face of this Nation and the face of this Capitol, 
things like the Capitol shootings,
  September 11, anthrax and ricin, and Katrina. But through all of 
that, we kept it the best way we could, with hard work and a lot of 
hope.
  I thank my colleagues who placed their faith in me to serve as their 
leader. As I said four Decembers ago, when you elected me, it was and 
has been ever since, every day, a very humbling experience. On that day 
4 years ago I quoted Proverbs: In his heart a man plans his course, but 
the Lord determines his steps.
  And what fulfilling steps have been afforded me as leader. I cannot 
let today pass without expressing gratitude for the close friendships 
of people who are here and some people who have passed through this 
Chamber: Howard Baker, the great Republican leader from Tennessee whose 
shoes as majority leader I have done my best to fill. He has counseled 
me over the years both as a Senator and as leader. His sage advice I 
have relied upon many times in those capacities.
  You have to be very careful going around a room, but behind me, 
people like Pete Domenici, who became a mentor to me on that very first 
day in 1995; and people like John Warner, whom we saw in action just a 
few minutes ago on the floor and, yes, on the Gates nomination; and 
former Senators, people like Don Nickles who so wisely set the stage 
for the Republican tax cuts of the last several years; my colleague and 
confidante, Mitch McConnell, whose wisdom and service has been 
indispensable to leading the Republican majority, who ascends in party 
leadership, who will be sitting at this desk in a few weeks, a 
temperament and skill with which no one is better prepared; my 
Tennessee colleagues, Fred Thompson and now Lamar Alexander, two great 
statesmen with whom I have had the honor to work side by side as we 
have addressed the needs of our constituents.
  I thank the two Democratic leaders, Tom Daschle and now Harry Reid. 
As Harry and I have said publicly many times, everybody sees the public 
contrast between one leader to the other, between Harry and me. But 
what people don't see are the daily conversations, the private 
conversations off the floor where views are mutually respected, where 
burdens are shared, and where family is discussed. Karyn and I leave 
this body with tremendous respect for Harry and for Landra, for their 
contributions to this country.
  To all my colleagues who have reached across the aisle and across 
differences when you could, thank you.
  Twelve years ago, it was people in Tennessee who took a big chance, 
who took a great chance. They took a chance on a doctor who was little 
known, who had never served in public office, obviously had never run 
for public office. They began by opening their minds and then opening 
their homes and then opening their lives and then opening their hearts. 
And I am eternally grateful to them for giving me that trust and taking 
that chance.
  On this floor many times I have mentioned my parents and I mentioned 
my dad. Dad used to say: It is a powerful thing to know where you are 
going in life, but it is equally powerful to know where you have come 
from.
  To the good people of Tennessee, I thank you for never letting me 
forget where I have come from. You never let me forget those promises 
made on the trail over a decade ago, the promises that have been the 
heart of everything that we have done. Yours are the voices that have 
called out to me from Mountain City in east Tennessee to Memphis in the 
west, the people out there who are working hard every day to raise a 
family, to grow a business, to run a farm, to get ahead. As long as I 
live, I will never forget those voices. Those voices are clear, those 
voices of common sense that called out and counseled me time and time 
again.
  Two people who won't hear me thank them today are two who were at my 
swearing in but who have since passed on: my parents Dorothy and Tommy 
Frist. They have left a fascinating legacy that the five children--I am 
the last of those five--have been the beneficiaries of, a legacy of 
honesty, of civility, of fairness, of hard work, and of service. And we 
all--at least I try to--struggle to capture what they did in passing 
that legacy on to our children.
  My own brothers and sisters, Mary, Bobby, Dottie, and Tommy, all in 
their own way, with their children and grandchildren, have been 
successful in living lives of service to others. Many friends are here 
today, including Jean Ann and Barry Banker and Denise and Steve Smith. 
It is that friendship, that team, that gives people, I believe, the 
strength and foundation to carry out that mission of serving this great 
country.
  In the past few weeks, I have spent a lot of time reflecting about 
the future of this institution. As I prepared to leave here and return 
to my home, many people have asked, don't you ever regret the promise 
that you made to serve just for 12 years, two terms? Did you regret it 
when you became chair of the RNC or majority leader? If you knew then 
what you know today, would you have made that promise 12 years ago? My 
answer is yes, because I believe today, as I believed then, in the 
ideal. It is, I guess, that ideal of a citizen legislator. It might 
seem bittersweet today, but it is right.
  I hope that in some way, as I leave here, that my service--people may 
say it was effective or ineffective, and that is all very important--is 
an example of someone who had never, ever run for public office, never 
served before, and who had spent his lifetime--in fact, twice as much 
time as I spent in the Senate--pursuing another profession, coming here 
like so many people today and starting at 100th in seniority over in 
the basement of the Dirksen and rising to majority leader over that 12-
year period; an example of a committed doctor who is able to find 
purpose and fulfillment in serving others, as all of us do as Senators, 
through elected office. I hope that will inspire others to seek office 
and to do public service. It is my hope that those who come to serve 
after me as a true citizen legislator will bring perspective and new 
ideas in a small way, a serendipitous way, or maybe a large way, and 
make this country a little better and contribute to this institution.
  You have heard me talk about, and champion at times, term limits. 
Most people don't like them. They were popular for a period of time. I 
am a great believer in self-imposed term limits. Every morning you get 
up, you say I have 3 more years, 2 more years, or 1 year, or a half 
year, or 10 days, and you know that as every day goes by. If you don't 
have an understanding that there can be an end, you tend to forget 
that. Self-imposed term limits are the extreme exception here today, 
not the practice of this city. I think as a consequence we are moving 
toward a body that has too much of a 2-year vision, governing for that 
next election, rather than a body with a 20-year vision governing for 
the future.
  As we consider the future of the institution, I urge that we ask 
ourselves what it is our forefathers envisioned. Is today's reality 
what they foresaw? I urge that we consider our work in this Chamber. 
What is it all about? Is it about keeping the majority? Is it about red 
States versus blue States? Is it about lobbing attacks across the aisle 
or is it about war rooms whose purpose is not to contrast ideas but to 
destroy or is it more? When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, 
delegates considered how best to structure this legislative branch of 
new Government. They were determined not to repeat the mistakes made in 
the Articles of Confederation, which had a single, unicameral 
legislature. Speaking to the convention, Virginia's James Madison set 
forth the reasons to have a Senate. His words:

       In order to judge the form to be given to this institution, 
     it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by 
     it.

  These were, first, to protect the people against their rulers and, 
secondly, to protect the people against transient impressions into 
which they themselves might be led.

[[Page 22940]]

  I think we need to remember this vision of the Senate that the 
Framers established--that the Senate is to protect people from their 
rulers and as a check on the House and on the passions of the 
electorate. Let us not allow these passions of the electorate to be 
reflected as destructive partisanship on this floor.
  Taking the oath of office, which many of our good colleagues will be 
doing shortly, commits each Senator to respect and revere the Framers' 
dream. To my successor, Bob Corker, and to all the Senators who will 
follow me in service to this great Nation, I urge you to be bold, make 
the most of your time here, and look at problems with fresh eyes and 
the steely determination to give the American people a reason to 
believe in you and to hope for a better tomorrow.
  To serve in this grand institution has been a labor of love. To lead 
here is a challenging responsibility that is set out before me and each 
of us. It has been a profound honor to serve.
  I will close with just one story. It happens in southern Sudan. As 
many of you have heard me say, because it is such an important part of 
my life, I go to Sudan just about every year--a thousand miles south of 
Khartoum and 500 miles west of the Nile River. I started going there in 
the mid to late nineties. I had been there operating back in the bush, 
and I was ready to come home. Actually, it was in January. The State of 
the Union was a few days off. We finished operating in a hut. I 
operated by flashlight late at night. Somebody in a little hut said, 
``I want to see the American doctor.'' Well, I didn't want to go. I 
wanted to get back home. I wanted to get on the plane and come back 
home, but I went to see him. I was tired. I walked over and pulled the 
curtain aside--the rug that was used as a curtain--and in the back 
there was somebody smiling. You could see the bandages on his hands and 
legs, and I went over; and through a translator I said, ``I am the 
American doctor.'' He said, ``Thank you to the American doctor.'' As a 
physician, I am accustomed to that because when you operate on 
somebody, they say thank you. So I said, ``you're welcome,'' and I got 
ready to leave. He was frustrated and he said, ``Come back.'' He said. 
``Thank you for being the American doctor.'' I still didn't quite get 
it. He picked up his arm and said, ``I lost my arm fighting in this 
civil war. I lost my leg 8 days ago. It was about 2 years ago that I 
lost my wife and my 2 children. Thank you for being the American 
doctor.''
  And then I started to get it. He was saying thank you for being the 
American doctor. Then he said, basically, that: It is you who are a 
representative of America, and for democracy and liberty and freedom I 
sacrificed my wife and my children and my arm and my body. Thank you 
for what you represent.
  Then all of a sudden, it began to hit me. To me, that image cuts 
through just about everything that we do. It is about preserving as 
best we can the great hope that we represent here in America, which is 
embodied in this institution, the freedom, the responsibility, the 
opportunity, the compassion, and the basic decency that is at the heart 
of who we are as Americans. Beyond Democrat or Republican--which came 
out of the campaign--now is the time to again remind ourselves and 
state again and again that beyond being Democrats and Republicans, we 
are Americans. Together, we are one people. It is our responsibility to 
uphold the dream and protect that hope for every American and indeed 
the people around the world who seek that freedom.
  I opened by saying that our time here is temporary; we are just 
passing through. Now is the time to close. Your patience has been 
generous. As I have spent a lifetime learning, to everything there is a 
season. We say that and hear it and tend to repeat it when there are 
changes. But to everything there is a season, and my season here draws 
to a close. Tomorrow is the time for birth and rebirth. Tomorrow is a 
day and a time for new rhythms.
  My dad did a great thing that I shared with some of you. Each of us 
should do this for our children or for the people we care about. He 
knew he was going to die in the next couple of years. We asked him to 
write down his thoughts, advice, and counsel for the next generation--
not just his kids and theirs, but for the great-great-grandkids that he 
would never see, a simple 4 to 5 pages. He ended that letter to his 
great-grandchildren with the following words:

       The world is always changing, and that's a good thing. It's 
     how you carry yourself in the world that doesn't change--
     morality, integrity, warmth, and kindness are the same things 
     in 1910, when I was born, or in 2010, or later, when you will 
     be reading this. And that's a good thing, too. Love, 
     Granddaddy.

  So under the dome, it is time for fresh faces and fresh resolve. 
Change is good. Change is constructive. The Senate changes, the people 
who serve here change; but what doesn't change is that every one of us 
who serves believes deeply in the genius of the American democracy.
  It is with the deepest appreciation that Karyn and I thank you all 
for 12 wonderful years. There are no words to describe the honor it has 
been.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parting really is sweet sorrow. Mr. 
President, thank you very much for being here today honoring not only 
Senator Frist, our majority leader, but the entire Senate.
  On the surface, some may ask how the Senate and the operating room 
are the same. What do they have in common? Senator Frist has shown us 
that helping people is what he did as a doctor and what he has done as 
a Senator. Serving others is a trait as we have observed by knowing 
this good man is that he learned from his family. His father was also a 
doctor. As a young man he was obviously academically very talented. He 
wanted to follow in his father's footsteps. He went to Princeton 
University, which shows that he is someone who is talented academically 
and socially. He graduated from that great American learning 
institution and decided he was going to go to Harvard, which speaks 
well, again, of his intellect and, of course, his ability to get along 
with people. His surgical training came at Massachusetts General 
Hospital and Southhampton General Hospital in England.
  Senator Frist was a pioneer, but he learned his transplant surgery 
from the pioneer. I have heard Bill Frist talk about Norman Shumway on 
many occasions--the first doctor to perform a successful heart 
transplant in the U.S. Senator Frist--then Dr. Frist--started 
Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Heart and Lung Transplant 
Center. I don't know if anybody knows--I am sure someone knows--how 
many heart and lung transplants Senator Frist has done, but most say it 
was nearly 200. Think about that. Some of these operations took many 
hours, and some of them took days.
  I heard Dr. Frist talk about those first transplants, where he 
actually went and got the organs and personally brought them back to 
the operating room.
  Things have changed since then. Pioneer, doctor, Senator Frist has 
and will write a lot about his success as a surgeon and as a Senator. 
And not only will he talk with his family and his friends about this, 
things will be written about his service as a doctor and as a Senator.
  When we talk about these nearly 200 transplants, we are talking about 
200 human beings whose lives have been saved by virtue of his talent. 
Senator Frist helped hundreds of people continue their lives. Here, as 
a public servant, a Senator, he has affected the lives of millions of 
people.
  I have had the good fortune of serving with Senator Frist during his 
12 years in the Senate. I knew him before I became the Democratic 
leader and, as all of you know, I spend a lot of time on the floor and 
I worked with him very closely.
  Over the years, we have had our ups and downs. It has been tough. 
These jobs, I can tell my colleagues up close, are not real easy. We 
have had problems over budgets, over committee structure, disagreements 
about schedules--oh, yes, about Senate rules. I

[[Page 22941]]

have never once doubted--never once doubted--that what Senator Frist 
was doing he was doing because he believed in his heart it was the 
right thing. That is why I, Harry Reid, at his home on a very personal 
level, told Senator Frist he should run for reelection. I don't believe 
in term limits. I truly believed then, as I do now, that he should have 
run for reelection. I told his good wife Karyn the same thing in her 
home, in their home.
  I have come to learn a number of things about Bill Frist. He loves 
medicine. He has done his work in the Senate. But the thing that is 
first and paramount in his mind and his heart every minute of the day 
is Karyn and his three boys.
  All of you out here have seen our fights publicly, and we have had 
them, but they have been fair. I can remember only once has Senator 
Frist ever raised his voice at me, and it was right from here because, 
even though I didn't mean to, he thought I had said something that 
reflected upon his family, and I apologized to him. This man loves his 
family and is an example of how people should treat their family.
  Karyn is a wonderful woman. She has treated my wife--my wife is a 
very shy person. She has always been very shy. Karyn has taken good 
care of her, and I will always, Karyn, appreciate that.
  In the years that go on, I, frankly, will never think about or, if I 
try, not remember any of the differences we had on the Senate floor, 
but I will always remember the friendship I have developed with the 
good man from Tennessee, a citizen legislator.
  Senator Frist, Karyn, I wish you the very best. You are a good man. I 
love and appreciate everything you have done for the country and for 
me.
  (Applause.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I, on behalf of all the Members on this 
side of the aisle--and Senator Reid acknowledged the same as well--am 
grateful for your presence here today. Being here today to help honor 
our outgoing majority leader, I know, means a lot to him. It means a 
lot to all the rest of us.
  Rare is the person who rises to the top of one profession, not to 
mention two. We are honoring today a man who has done that--he has 
risen to the very top of not one but two extraordinarily difficult 
professions. And I am absolutely certain, as all of his colleagues are, 
that he will excel in whatever challenge he takes on next.
   Bill Frist embodies what our Founding Fathers meant when they spoke 
of ``citizen legislators.'' By his early forties, he had already risen 
to prominence as a renowned heart and lung surgeon. But Bill felt a 
call to public service. After achieving enormous success in that field, 
he came to us in the Senate and rose to the top here as well. He had 
not sought the leader's office, but in some ways it could be argued 
that it sought him and, once again, he was top in his field.
  After 4 years, Bill has been an effective and courageous leader. I 
have been here for a pretty long time now, Mr. President, and I can 
honestly say that the last 4 years have been some of the most 
productive years in the Senate that I have seen.
  Under Bill Frist's leadership, we have made the lives of people 
across America better and safer. More opportunity lies ahead for 
today's children than ever before. Most of all, Bill has never relented 
in leading this Senate to fight the war on terror. America is more 
secure thanks to his tenacity and thanks to his talents.
  Bill is leaving us, as we all know, sticking to his promise to the 
voters of Tennessee to serve only two terms. Legend holds that 
Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer, became ruler of Rome at the behest of 
his fellow citizens. But after leading them to victory against 
invaders, he gave up the mantle of power and returned to his farm.
  Whether Bill returns to medicine or continues to serve the public in 
some other way, we can be sure of this: He will continue to be one of 
America's great leaders. And if he does return to public office, it 
will be because he was asked by his fellow citizens to serve and to 
lead.
  Words such as ``sacrifice,'' ``duty,'' and ``service'' mean something 
to Bill Frist. This Senate and this country are the better for it.
  It has been a joy to know Bill's lovely family--his wife, Karyn, and 
his three sons, Harrison, Jonathan, and Bryan. They are all proud of 
their father and husband.
  I am going to miss you, Bill. It has been a great honor working with 
you every day over the last 4 years, and it will be an honor to take 
the baton from Bill to lead Senate Republicans during the 110th 
Congress.
  Just as Kentucky and Tennessee share a border 320 miles long, Bill 
and I share a bond as Senators, party leaders, and, yes, as friends. I 
can see that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the 
same way I do. It is sad to see you leave. You have done a magnificent 
job. People come and go in the Senate over the years and, candidly, I 
guess some of them didn't make a whole lot of difference. But you did, 
and you will be remembered with great pride by all of us. Thank you for 
your service.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in this chorus of salutations and 
praise for the retiring majority leader. I listened carefully to 
Senator Frist's recollection of his public service, and I noted the 
first item on his agenda was the $15 billion in the fight against 
global AIDS. It is an issue on which we joined together many times, an 
issue where President Bush showed extraordinary leadership, and there 
was extraordinary bipartisan support for what he was trying to achieve.
  As one reflects on his life and his background, it was no surprise 
that led the list. Senator Frist dedicated his time before the Senate 
to the healing arts, and I think he brought some of that same 
dedication to this role in the Senate, trying to use his post as the 
Senator from Tennessee and as a leader in the Senate to heal the world 
and our Nation. I thank you for all your efforts in that regard.
  I know when he came to this job, it was thrust upon him rather 
quickly. I know he had his critics, and there might even have been a 
few on this side of the aisle from time to time, but, by and large, I 
think his leadership has been symbolized by a lack of cunning, a lack 
of sharp elbows and an effort to try and patch up our differences and 
get things done. Once again, you were the healer when you had the 
chance to do it.
  I have traveled to Africa, as he has, probably not as often. I have 
seen some of those dusty villages where there is no one to be seen for 
miles around. But I cannot imagine your taking your surgical skills to 
those villages and those huts and operating under a flashlight, hour 
after hour, day after day, week after week. That defines Bill Frist, in 
my mind--a person who may not have been recognized by anyone on the 
road to that village, did some good, and left a legacy that will be 
remembered.
  To you, to Karyn, to your family, let me add my voice in saying you 
left a great legacy in the Senate, and I wish you all the very best.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, former Senator Lyndon Johnson used to 
say about himself that having Lyndon Johnson as majority leader was 
good for the United States of America and it hasn't hurt Texas one bit.
  When I think of our country and Bill Frist, I think of lower tax 
rates, I think of two Supreme Court Justices, I think of a record 
number of judges who would interpret the law, rather than make it up as 
they go along. I think of the personal imprint of Senator Frist on the 
prescription drug Medicare benefit millions of Americans need and are 
enjoying, and I think of the $15 billion generous gesture of this 
country toward Africa to combat HIV/AIDS, which would not have happened 
were it not for Bill Frist.
  When I think of Bill Frist and Tennessee, I think of our new TVA 
board to keep our rates low and reliable. I think of our ability to 
deduct our sales

[[Page 22942]]

tax from Federal income tax and dozens and dozens of other things that 
have been good for Tennessee.
  When I think of Bill Frist, I think of civility, of decency, a good 
smile, hard work, and an ego that is surprisingly under control for a 
Senator in the midst of all of this and an example of which his parents 
would be proud. So I think we can say today, and Lyndon Johnson 
wouldn't mind, that having Bill Frist as majority leader of the U.S. 
Senate has been good for our country and it hasn't hurt Tennessee one 
bit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my friends and colleagues in 
paying tribute to a friend and a distinguished colleague. When Bill 
Frist arrived here, there were at least some of us with some qualms on 
this side of the aisle because he ran successfully against one of our 
dear friends, Jim Sasser. So, initially, there was a natural reluctance 
among some of us about this doctor who had defeated a great friend and 
a great Senator.
  But early on, it was clear that Bill was special. As someone who had 
been trained in the medicine, in my own State of Massachusetts no less, 
he brought a new and fresh perspective to our national debates.
  He was obviously a person of impressive skill, and it is no surprise 
that he rose so quickly to become majority leader. The roles of 
Senators and physicians are profoundly different in many ways, but at 
their core their missions are identical to help others to the maximum 
extent of our ability. And that is what Bill Frist has done from the 
day he set foot in this chamber.
  He was one of the first to understand the very real threat of 
bioterrorism to our Nation, and that was well before 9/11 or the 
anthrax attacks. Senator Frist knew first-hand that our public health 
infrastructure was incapable of meeting the threat of a massive natural 
epidemic, let alone a deliberate biological attack. It was a privilege 
to work with him on the first bio-terrorism legislation, which because 
of his leadership we were able to pass before 9/11.
  He has also been a pioneer in the effort to bring modern information 
technology into all aspects of health care, and to end the enormous 
human and financial costs caused by medical errors and by the needless 
administration of health care with outdated paper records. He has also 
helped shine a bright line on the serious problem of health disparities 
in our country.
  He has inspired each of us with his commitment to addressing the 
horrific tragedy still unfolding in the world, especially in Africa, 
because of AIDS. He has dedicated himself to this issue for years, 
giving of himself personally, and urging Congress to act more 
expeditiously. He made time to continue this missions of mercy, even 
after he became majority leader, and I was deeply touched by it every 
time.
  I have had the good opportunity to meet his family, and I know, as 
others have said, where his values come from and how committed he is to 
them. I hope he'll be able to enjoy more time with them now without the 
burden of running the Senate.
  We wish Bill Frist the best as he prepares to leave the Senate. We 
know he will have great success, and we thank him for his service to 
our country. We will miss the majority leader, but we know he will 
continue to use his immense talent to make a very real difference for 
all humanity in the years ahead, and continue to make us proud to call 
him our friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words before the 
leader left. I even hate to call him leader or majority leader. He has 
become a great friend. I don't know how to explain it, but I didn't 
really think coming to the Senate that I would have a chance to meet 
somebody like our good departing leader. I have met all kinds of people 
here. Henry Bellman once said: If you sit down with all 100 of them, no 
matter what you have said about criticizing them, there are no better 
100 men put together in America than the 100 Senators who serve. I 
believe that is true. I am wondering now about whether the Senator 
wouldn't rival military leadership.
  But the point is, I didn't think Bill--I know we can't do that in the 
Senate, use first names--but I didn't think I would ever meet in the 
Budget Committee of the U.S. Senate--sitting in the very last seat 
available was this man whose name is so simple, but I had so much 
trouble with it. Do you remember? I didn't say ``Frist,'' I kept saying 
``First.'' I don't know why, but I did that for a long time, and then 
it became sort of a--people would come up and punch me so I would say 
it right. But whether it is ``Frist'' or ``First,'' I guess they mean 
about the same thing to me. You are truly first.
  What we have gone through personally will not be reflected in the 
Record. People know I have had a few years of illness. It is mostly 
gone now. But I found out he was a superb doctor, and eventually I 
found out there weren't too many better anywhere. That made it easy 
because I had a ready-made doctor and he was the best. And we would 
meet in his office, and people would think it was always business, but 
they had no idea that it was half business, a little bit family--we got 
to know each other's families, and what a terrific and exciting thing 
that was for me--and I got to know about his excellence as a doctor.
  It will be a different Senate, there is no question.
  You have been dealt some cards that are not right. The years you were 
here, the things that were accomplished were not quite presented to the 
people as accomplishments or as big accomplishments, as they are. But 
if there is anybody interested in searching the Record during his term 
and during his leadership period to see what he accomplished, I believe 
you will have to end up saying there was nobody during his time here 
who accomplished more for his State and for the country. I believe an 
in-depth search of what he has done may even rival the best, even 
though he does not know how to legislate, and there is no question 
about that, and he does not know how to appropriate, and there is no 
question about that. He might not even know how to bring an 
appropriations bill up, and there might be no doubt about that. He may 
doubt it, but this Senator doesn't, and I am his best friend, but I 
have great doubts whether he knows how to get an appropriations bill up 
and passed.
  But I still believe the business of the Senate is not done in those 
very overt ways that people think. It is done as you sit down for long 
hours on a conference report and come out with a health bill that all 
of a sudden is better than anything we have had before. When you find 
out who did it, it might not have been named for the Senator or for the 
chairman of this or that, but you will find out that for many hours, 
many trips were taken to his office, and many times, he said: Wait and 
we will do it in the morning, and I will tell you how to do it. And 
that happened.
  I could go on for much longer, but I really wanted him to know that I 
just waited for my time. Being the fifth or sixth eldest here in 
seniority, I waited for my time here, and I didn't want to wait until 
tomorrow or the next day in fear that I would not find time or that the 
Senate would not accommodate. So I thought I would, as usual, be late 
for a next appointment, but I have a good excuse for being late for 
this next one.
  I had to come here and say goodbye in a very interesting way, 
although it is not a goodbye. But I do think it is true that this will 
be a very major change in our friendship, in the way we react to each 
other, and the time we get to spend with each other. So it is an 
occasion, this leaving of the Senate, because you won't come back very 
often. Even though you say you will, you won't, and we won't get to see 
you. I really believe we will remember you, and probably we will call 
you more times than you will call us because I think we may just from 
time to time figure out more times than you will that we need some 
advice, and it will probably run in your direction, not in ours, in the 
ensuing years.
  Good luck in whatever you do. It is not going to be this little 
return to being a country doctor, if that is what

[[Page 22943]]

you are saying. You can't sell me on that. You are not going to be a 
little country doctor; you are not even going to be a regular doctor. 
You are going to do something much bigger than that. It is just 
waiting. Somebody is going to place it in front of you, and then you 
will do it and it will be something big and exciting for America and 
for our people, probably more exciting than you did here, so that will 
be a third one--one, the heart transplants and all that, one here with 
us, and then you will have a third one. In the meantime, you can do a 
lot of duck hunting, no problem with that. You can probably go with me, 
if you want. But if you shoot too well, I won't bring you anymore 
because it is embarrassing. It has to be sort of a modest hunt, not so 
superb that I am embarrassed. So we will have to work that out some 
way. And your son--he can't come anymore because he shoots too well. It 
is truly not the right thing to do. He should not be hunting with an 
old man like me. No way. But if it happens, we will accommodate it some 
way.
  Having said all that I should and much more, I will say goodbye and 
thank you.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               Jim Talent

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise on the floor to pay tribute to my 
very good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Talent, who will be leaving 
the Senate next month.
  I have known Jim for over 20 years, since he was minority leader in 
the Missouri House of Representatives. Throughout all these years, when 
he was in the State legislature and in the House as chairman of the 
Small Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small 
Business Committee, I found Jim to be unfailingly a man of honesty, 
integrity, and hard work. He has been a wonderful friend and colleague.
  I am going to miss him very much, and many people in Missouri are.
  We all know that Washington can change a person, but it hasn't 
changed Jim. Jim still has the same commonsense Missouri values he 
brought with him to Washington. He still has the same calm, polite 
demeanor. He still has strong convictions and a work ethic. As I said 
to our folks back home in Missouri, in an arena of show horses he has 
been a work horse.
  I was with him on the night he got the news that he lost the 
campaign. He was a man of unfailingly good humor and courage. And 
still, he thanked his Lord, his friends, and graciously accepted his 
fate.
  I have a feeling and hope that public service will see much more of 
Jim Talent somewhere, sometime. And whatever he decides to do in the 
public or in the private sector, the qualities he has demonstrated to 
so many of us in the Senate will be one he will carry with him.
  He served in the Senate for only 4 years, but when you look at his 
record of legislative achievements, he has had so many positive impacts 
on people's lives. It is hard to believe he could cram all of that into 
4 years.
  He has been a leader on national security, energy, and criminal 
justice.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim worked to 
extend production of the C-17 line, allowing 30,000 workers across the 
country to keep their jobs, and more importantly to give our military 
strategic lift capability which they need to move troops and equipment 
to very difficult to reach places.
  Jim also cares about our troops in battle. He sponsored legislation 
to end predatory lending to active servicemembers and their families. 
The new law just took effect 6 weeks ago. Some of our soldiers were 
paying almost 400 percent interest on money loaned to them. Thanks to 
Jim Talent, the rates are now capped at 36 percent. I trust that 
applies to the Marines as well.
  Last year, Jim worked very hard to include a renewable fuel provision 
in the Energy bill. On a bipartisan basis, under his leadership, the 
United States will produce up to 7\1/2\ billion gallons of renewable 
fuels with ethanol and biodiesel. That will be implemented by 2012.
  Jim's work in this area will only become more important as we see in 
the future America continuing to face high energy costs and our attempt 
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Another accomplishment Jim will be known for is something which is 
extremely important in our State of Missouri, and this work--again on a 
bipartisan basis with the Senator from California--was to fight meth. 
Meth is a drug that has been destroying lives and communities across 
our State for many years and now even across the country.
  The Combat Meth Act has helped stop the supply of meth ingredients to 
dealers through the ban on over-the-counter sales. You see a 
significant reduction in meth lab busts. It shows that we are finally 
beginning to make progress against this drug.
  Obviously, I have to mention his other bipartisan successes, such as 
the sickle cell disease bill and the Emmett Till bill.
  On a narrow focus, Jim and I have worked together on many 
transportation and economic development projects to serve our State of 
Missouri, including the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the Page 
Avenue Extension in St. Charles, and countless others throughout the 
State.
  I should also mention that my friend Jim Talent has put forward some 
terrific proposals that he has been working on that have been enacted. 
His effort to allow small business employers to pool together to form 
association health plans comes to mind, and those of us who have been 
working to change the law so that small business employees and their 
families will have access to the same kind of insurance benefits that 
employees of major corporations have will not give up the fight. We are 
going to continue with his great leadership in mind.
  I am sure the next Congress will follow up. This idea should be 
central to any discussion of expanding health care coverage to the 
uninsured.
  Jim, as we prepare to say goodbye to you now from this floor, thank 
you for your years of devoted service to our State, to our Nation. With 
heartfelt gratitude, on behalf of my wife Linda and I, we wish you, 
Brenda, and your children the very best in future endeavors. And I know 
for a fact that there will be great successes ahead.
  I yield the floor.


                 Appropriate Level of Military Funding

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, my great friend and colleague from 
Missouri has an Intelligence Committee meeting to go to. So he went 
ahead and did his kind tribute before I give my speech, and those who 
are not aware of that may have thought that maybe they would be able to 
get in short tributes and avoid the long farewell speech. That is not 
true.
  I will devote my time to a substantive and very important subject--
the appropriate level of funding for America's military. It is an issue 
that I have worked on and fought for since I went to the House of 
Representatives in 1993.
  I am grateful for my friend's remarks, and I want to say that I have 
always enjoyed serving in legislatures, in part because of the 
collegial nature of the service. When you are done, yes--it is the 
legislation that you worked on that you want people to remember, but 
what you remember are the friendships and the associations and the 
bonds that you have made. And, fortunately, those do not end with your 
service. I look forward to continuing to visit with my friends in the 
Senate for years to come. I hope to be able to work with them in other 
venues on issues of importance to America. Nothing is more important 
for America than her security.
  Mr. President, America has the most capable military in the world by 
a large margin; in fact we have the best military that has ever served 
any nation at any time in human history. We

[[Page 22944]]

should be proud of that; we should especially be proud of the men and 
women who make America's military what it is. But it would be wrong for 
us to believe that because our military is the best in the world or 
even the best ever, that it is as capable as it needs to be. True, 
America is many times stronger than other nations, but its 
responsibilities are many times greater as well. If Denmark's military 
is inadequate, it doesn't matter that much, even to Denmark; if 
America's military is inadequate, it matters tremendously, first to 
America, but also to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the 
world.
  We must understand the importance of this issue very clearly, without 
the distortions of ideology, politics, expediency, or wishful thinking. 
Like it or not, the progress of the international order towards peace 
and democracy depends on the reality and perception of American power. 
Like it or not, America is the first defender of freedom in the world 
and therefore always a prime target for those who hate freedom. And 
like it or not, while there are many tools in the basket of western 
diplomacy, the underpinning of them all is an American military 
establishment which the world knows is capable of swiftly, effectively 
and at minimal cost defeating every substantial threat to our security 
and to our freedom.
  Judged by this standard--the only appropriate standard--the situation 
is very grave. I have substantial doubt--as good as the men and women 
are--whether our current military establishment is strong enough. 
Because of decisions over the last 15 years driven more by budgetary 
than military considerations, our Army and Navy may well be too small, 
and much of the equipment in all the services is too old and 
increasingly unreliable.
  Whatever the current status of the military may be, there can be no 
doubt that without a substantial increase in procurement spending 
beginning now and sustained over the next 5 to 10 years--an increase, I 
suggest to the Senate today, that must be measured not in billions but 
in tens of billions of dollars above current estimates every year--our 
military will be set back for a generation. We will not be able to 
modernize our forces to the degree necessary to preserve our security 
with the necessary margin of safety.
  I said that our current military is too small and inadequately 
equipped to execute the national military strategy. I will not go into 
detail on this point because my main focus is on the future, but a 
brief explanation is warranted. The world is, on balance, at least as 
dangerous today as it was at the end of the Cold War. And we may thank 
God we are no longer in danger of a massive nuclear attack from the 
former Soviet Union, nor is a major land war in Europe likely.
  Against this, however, we are engaged in a global war on terror that 
will continue for years to come. The end of the Cold War led to the 
emergence of dangerous regional conflicts, such as the conflicts in the 
Balkans. We are in greater danger today of a rogue missile attack than 
ever been before, and China is emerging as a peer competitor much 
faster than anyone believed.
  These conditions either did not exist, or like the conflicts in the 
former Yugoslavia, were suppressed, during the Cold War. As a result, 
the operational tempo of our conventional forces--and that means the 
rate, intensity and duration of their deployment--was far higher 
beginning in the mid-1990s, even before September 11, than it had ever 
been during the Cold War. Yet at the beginning of the 1990s, our forces 
were 30 to 40 percent bigger than today. For example, the active-duty 
Army was cut from 18 divisions at the time of Desert Storm to only 10 
divisions by 1994. Don't we wish that we had those additional divisions 
today to relieve the pressure in Iraq. The Navy has gone from 576 ships 
in the late 1980s to 278 ships today.
  At the same time, procurement budgets have been cut substantially, 
far greater than the cuts in force structure warranted. The contrast in 
the average annual procurement of major equipment from two periods--
1975 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2000--is startling. For example, we 
purchased an average of 78 scout and attack helicopters each year from 
1975 to 1990, and only 7 each year from 1991 to 2000. We purchased an 
average of 238 Air Force fighters each year from 1975 to 1990, and an 
average of only 28 each year from 1991 to 2000. We purchased five 
tanker aircraft each year from 1975 to 1990, an average of only one per 
year from 1991 to 2000.
  The implications for these dramatic reductions are profound. Older 
platforms--that is what the military calls ships, planes, and 
vehicles--are rather tired and not replaced, which means that force 
structure is reduced. Military capabilities are reduced. If platforms 
are not replaced, the average age of the fleet increases, readiness 
levels drop, and the cost of maintaining the smaller, older inventory 
climbs rapidly because maintenance costs increase.
  For these reasons, I suggest that the current force today is too 
small and its equipment too old, relative to the requirements of our 
national military strategy. That strategy calls for a military capable 
of defending the homeland, sustaining four peacekeeping engagements, 
and fighting two large-scale regional conflicts, at least, at 
approximately the same time. We are supposed to be able to do all that 
at once. I believe the requirements of our military are actually 
greater than this, but in any event, we cannot execute even these 
commitments, and we certainly will not be able to do so in the future, 
within an acceptable level of risk, unless at least the Army is made 
bigger and unless all three services have the money to robustly 
recapitalize their major platforms with the most modern equipment.
  For years, the various services, in response to pressure from 
political authorities to reduce the budget below what they needed, have 
delayed or cancelled new programs. They have been reducing the number 
of new ships or planes they say they need, kicking crucial decisions 
down the budgetary road, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and otherwise 
trying to avoid confronting the approaching funding crisis.
  That crisis is upon us now. We are entering the crucial phase of 
recapitalization. Beginning with the next budget and intensifying over 
the next 5 to 10 years, the services are scheduled to bring online the 
new platforms that will anchor American security for the next 
generation. No one can say these programs are unneeded. The Navy must 
buy new destroyers, must ramp up procurement of Virginia-class 
submarines, must finalize the design and buy large numbers of Littoral 
Combat Ships and design and build a new CG-X cruiser.
  The Air Force must buy large numbers of the F-22. That is our new 
air-superiority fighter. We must maintain the ability to have complete 
air superiority over any combat theater. The Air Force must buy large 
numbers of Joint Strike Fighters or equivalent aircraft. In addition, 
the Air Force must buy out its airlift requirement. That is how we 
transport personnel, equipment and supplies from one place to another 
in the world. It must build a new generation of tankers, must design 
and build a long-range strike bomber to replace the B-52. Our B-52 
inventory is 45 years old.
  The Army must rebuild, modernize or replace almost its entire capital 
stock of ground combat and support vehicles including many of its 
tanks.
  The current procurement budget for all three services is $80.9 
billion. Simple budgetary mathematics tells us that the services cannot 
possibly meet their crucial requirements without an average budget over 
the next 5 to 10 years that I estimate is at least 30 billion dollars 
higher than what we are now spending.
  Perhaps I have gone into more detail than the Senate is willing to 
indulge me in already, but I want to look in some depth at the 
situation of the Navy. Here I speak from what I know because I have 
been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower for the last 4 years. 
Currently, there are 278 ships in the U.S. Navy. The Navy shipbuilding 
plan calls for 326 ships by the year 2020, eventually settling down to 
an average of 313 ships. The plan actually calls for fewer aircraft 
carriers, a substantial drop in attack submarines,

[[Page 22945]]

and fewer major surface combatants, but it attempts to make up for 
these reductions with modern destroyers, more capable submarines and 
what it calls pre-positioning ships that allow us to establish sea 
bases, from which to project forces ashore, as well as a whole new 
class of smaller multi-mission modular vessels called Littoral Combat 
Ships. There is no margin whatever for error in this plan. It is, at 
best, the minimum necessary for our security.
  The Chief of Naval Operations--that is the admiral who leads the 
Navy--has estimated the plan will require a shipbuilding budget of 
$13.3 billion for fiscal year 2008, the upcoming budget year. That is 
$5 billion more than what was spent this year on ship building. His 
plan calls for that figure to escalate to $17.5 billion by 2012. I 
believe these figures are too conservative. It is a good-faith effort 
to calculate what we need but too conservative. I think the plan will 
require billions more each year to execute. Both the Congressional 
Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service agree. In any 
event, I say on my oath as a Senator, that it will be utterly 
impossible, at current levels of defense spending, for the Navy to 
reach and sustain the $13.3 billion figure, to say nothing of the even 
higher sums required in the outyears of the 5-year defense plan and 
beyond.
  Beginning no later than 2009, there will be a growing shortfall in 
the ship-building accounts, in addition to an annual shortfall of $1 
billion to $2 billion in Navy aviation procurement. I expect the total 
deficiency to be no less than $45 billion over the fiscal year 2008 to 
fiscal year 2016 period; and remember, this assumes that the 313-ship 
Navy is sufficient to protect American security, an optimistic 
assumption.
  Lest the Senate get lost in all the figures, let me sum it up this 
way. The Navy, responding to budgetary pressure, has formulated a plan 
for a 313-ship Navy in the future which, frankly, may be inadequate; 
the Navy estimates a figure for funding the plan which independent 
authorities, using long-term historical cost data, believe is far too 
low. And yet without substantial increases in the Navy's procurement 
budget, it is a dead certainty that even that figure cannot be 
sustained.
  As a practical matter, the expected shortfall means the sacrifice of 
two to three attack subs and two to three surface combatants, a 
reduction in purchases of the Littoral Combat Ships, and delays to the 
Sea Basing Program and the new CG-X Cruiser Program, which is necessary 
for missile defense.
  The short of it is that the Navy needs at least an $8 billion 
increase per year in procurement above current estimates. The Marines 
need about $3 billion more. It is not necessary to go into the same 
level of detail with regard to the budgetary picture for the other 
services. The pain has been spread fairly evenly across the service, so 
they are in roughly in the same situation. That means a procurement 
shortfall over the next 10 years of at least $30 billion per year 
adjusted for inflation. Most independent experts believe the number is 
far higher.
  For example, the CBO estimates that the overall defense budget 
shortfall will be no less than $52 billion per year. We should add to 
this the fact that the active-duty Army is clearly too small, as we 
have learned in Iraq. Even in an age of transformation and nonlinear 
battlefields, there are still times when America needs to put large 
numbers of boots on the ground, particularly in the post-September 11 
period. The United States needs the ability to carry on sustained, 
large-scale peacekeeping or low-intensity combat operations, without 
having to send the same units three or four times to a combat theater 
over the duration of a mission. A nation of our size and strength 
should not have to use essentially its whole active-duty Army, much of 
its Marine Corps, and many of its Reserves to sustain 130,000 troops 
over time in a combat view.
  In 1992--which was right after Desert Storm--the Defense Department 
stated a requirement of 12 Active-Duty Army divisions. That was before 
the increases in operational tempo of the 1990s and before the global 
war on terror. The Army should surely be at least 12 divisions today. 
It costs approximately $2 billion to stand up and sustain an addition 
to the Army or Marine Corps of division strength so we need to invest 
$4 billion per year in increased force structure for the Army, in 
addition to the $30 billion more in new procurement funding.
  So to sustain our military over the next generation at the 
appropriate level, we need to increase procurement spending and 
spending on the size of the Army by about $34 billion per year. And 
that is above current baseline estimates. It would have to be sustained 
over the life of the current defense plan and beyond.
  I want to emphasize that this is, of necessity, a ballpark figure. It 
is always difficult to predict precisely the cost of new programs--some 
of which are in the design phase, particularly given the uncertainties 
associated with developing technologies. We will be acquiring this 
equipment over the next 10 to 20 years and needs in technology are 
going to change. We must confront the fact that whatever the necessary 
amount turns out precisely to be, the procurement budgets we are 
projecting today are fundamentally inadequate. We have to ramp up 
spending. We must begin now. And we have to accept the fact that it 
will not be cheap.
  I, also, want to make clear that this additional $34 billion must 
come from an increased overall defense budget. There may be some who 
say that it is possible to cannibalize the rest of the defense budget 
to produce all or most of this additional procurement funding. That is 
a dangerous fantasy. The money cannot come from the supplemental 
appropriations bills. Those are necessary to pay the day-to-day costs 
of the war and may not have been adequate to do that. The money cannot 
come from reducing the readiness budget because that budget is 
overstressed already. It cannot come from reducing the number of 
service personnel because the military is already too small. It can't 
come from reducing salary and benefits. We have to retain the best 
people. Besides, Congress is far more likely, and properly in my view, 
to increase personnel benefits rather than reduce them. Take a look at 
the last 7 years. Total spending on defense health care, for example, 
increased from $17.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $37 billion in 
fiscal year 2006--an increase of more than 100 percent over the last 7 
years, appropriately so.
  The men and women of America's military deserve good salaries and 
benefits, and so do those who are retired. The savings from base 
closing is not going to supply the additional funds. Those are highly 
speculative. They will not occur, if at all, for many years, and they 
are unlikely to be more than a billion dollars per year.
  Some say we can save money by reducing congressional earmarks or 
additions to the defense budget, and within limits that is true. But 
the total of such earmarks is no more than $3 billion to $4 billion per 
year. Realistically, Congress is not going to give up all of them, and 
at least some number of them are clearly justified because they simply 
restore to the budget items that our service chiefs desperately wanted 
and omitted only because of budgetary pressure.
  Still others will say we can get the necessary additional funding by 
lowering the cost of new programs through procurement reform. I am all 
for procurement reform. I have been for it ever since Secretary Bill 
Perry, who was a great Secretary of Defense, proposed it over 10 years 
ago. We have had several waves of procurement reform since then. 
Several Defense Secretaries have all championed its virtues. We 
continue to hold oversight hearings to pressure the defense industry to 
lower costs. We keep trying to catch people in the Department who might 
be violating procurement regulations. I have chaired some of those 
hearings.
  Meanwhile, the cost of new programs keeps going up. I suggest the 
reasons have less to do with deficiencies in the procurement system, 
bad as it is, than with the stress on the industrial base and on the 
military caused by the budgets that are consistently too low and 
unstable.

[[Page 22946]]

  One of the arguments supporting reductions in force in the past has 
been that transformational technology and tactics can empower the 
military to do more with less. The idea is to make each servicemember, 
each plane, ship, and vehicle less vulnerable so we lose fewer of them, 
and more lethal so we need fewer of them. Within limits, that is 
sometimes true. But the best technology costs money, and changing 
technology, tactics, and doctrine makes it more difficult to fix stable 
requirements. Program instability costs money, too.
  Here is an example. The Navy originally planned to procure 32 DD(X) 
next-generation destroyers. The ship has a truly advanced design. It is 
a marvel of transformational technology. But its unique capabilities 
have driven the per ship cost to about $3 billion. As a result, the 
Navy plans to procure only seven new destroyers. The problem is that 
the complexity of the ship's design, the unprecedented capabilities of 
the vessel, and the high price of the best technologies, have all 
driven up cost to the point where the ship is impossible to procure in 
sufficient numbers at current budget levels.
  Another example, the Air Force desperately needs more air lift, and 
it also needs a new tanker aircraft. The Air Force shoulders much of 
the mobility mission, and it also performs the mid-air refueling 
mission. Normally, the Air Force would simply buy more C-17 aircraft. 
It is a perfectly good, modern cargo aircraft. Then the Air Force would 
design and procure a new tanker. But because the service is under 
tremendous pressure to save money, it has decided to develop a cargo-
tanker, combining the two missions into one aircraft. The service 
assures us that it is not going to have any bells and whistles on the 
new plane, and the aircraft will be low in cost.
  Surely, the concept of a cargo-tanker allows the Air Force to claim 
that it will be able to perform both of these missions while relieving 
some of the pressure on its budget. But, again, reality must and will 
eventually bite. As requirements build and changing technologies force 
changes in design, the odds are very high that the cost of the new 
aircraft--if it is to do the combined mission it is supposed to do--
will go up substantially.
  The problem of cost is exacerbated by the stress on the defense 
industrial base. Procurement budgets have been too low for 15 years and 
because of budgetary pressured they constantly change. The Department 
regularly projects what it intends to procure in the outyears of its 
defense plan but then often makes last-minute cuts and changes.
  Under those circumstances, it is no surprise that contractors are not 
investing sufficiently in the defense industrial base. It is shrinking, 
and it is undercapitalized. That means fewer competitors, more sole-
source contracts, less research, and, therefore, higher costs. No 
amount of oversight, reform, or pressure on procurement officials can 
change that.
  The good news is that a robust and consistent commitment to adequate 
funding would soon begin to reverse these trends. Again, I am all for 
improvements in the way we design and build new systems, and those 
improvements can save money. But they cannot work miracles. Sufficient 
and stable funding is not only consistent with transformation and 
efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars, it is necessary to both. If 
Congress were to commit to my proposal, for example, the service chiefs 
and the defense industry would know that substantial new money was 
coming--enough to make it at least plausible they could produce and 
acquire the systems they need. They could budget for the long range, 
knowing that funding would be stable. They could work together in a way 
that would reduce costs instead of trying to pull money away from other 
services or maneuver year to year just to keep vital programs alive, 
and often, in a way, that ends up costing the taxpayers more in the 
long run.
  We must stop thinking that facing reality and funding our military 
adequately is beyond the reach of this great Nation. Yes, the Federal 
Government has fiscal problems. Yes, the two major parties have very 
different views on what to do about those problems, but nobody can or 
does claim that the defense budget is the cause.
  Right now, we are spending 3.8 percent of our gross domestic product 
on the regular defense budget. That is a very low percentage 
historically, far less than we spent at any time during the Cold War. 
Under President Carter, we spent 4.6 percent of the GDP on national 
defense.
  If we spent only 4.2 percent now, we could easily fund what I have 
proposed. We would have a fighting chance to support our service men 
and women with the equipment they need and deserve. We could sustain 
the military power that the last two Presidents have used to protect 
our freedom and stabilize the post-Cold-War world. We would send the 
clearest possible message to both our friends and enemies, and to those 
nations who are deciding now whether they are going to be a friend or 
enemy, that whatever happens, whatever the direction our foreign policy 
takes, the United States has the ability to sustain our freedom and the 
hope of freedom for the world.
  To those who worry about the price of strength, I say there is a 
greater price to be paid for weakness. How many conflicts will we 
invite, how much instability will we engender, if we allow this 
restless and troubled world to doubt America's ability to defend 
herself?
  Let's look at the risks of alternative courses of action. If we adopt 
the course I suggest, and it turns out that I was wrong, all we will 
have lost is a fraction of our wealth wealth that would be spent in 
this country on products produced by our workers, for a margin of 
safety that, in the end, we did not need. But if we stay on our current 
course, and it turns out that I was right, how much will we pay then in 
lost lives and treasure, fighting in conflicts that a policy of 
strength would have deterred?
  How big will the deficit become then, in a world made less stable by 
American weakness? What effect will that have on the economy, and not 
just the economy, but on the hopes and opportunities of the next 
generation--our children and our grandchildren--who have the right to 
expect that we are looking out for them?
  Twenty-five years ago, our country was also in a difficult situation. 
Our enemies doubted American resolve. They were challenging us on a 
number of fronts. We had just gone through a period of chronic 
underfunding of the military, probably worse than what has happened 
recently. As a result, the force was hollow, unable to reliably perform 
the missions necessary to protect America. That is why the tragic 
Desert One mission went so wrong in the desert during the Iranian 
hostage crisis.
  When President Reagan assumed office, he faced the situation squarely 
and honestly, and with the support of a Democratic House and Republican 
Senate, he secured two double-digit increases in the overall defense 
budget, and reasonable increases for several years thereafter. On the 
strength of that bipartisan commitment, America's service men and women 
and America's defense industrial base transformed our military into the 
truly dominant force that fought and won Operation Desert Storm.
  A united government sent the message to friend and foe alike that 
whatever our differences about foreign policy, America was still 
willing to pay the price of freedom. It is not too much to say that the 
decisions made in 1981 and 1982 laid the basis for the collapse of the 
Soviet Union, the success of Operation Desert Storm, and the benefits 
of peace and security that we enjoyed throughout the 1990s.
  With this speech, I bring my career in the Senate to a close. I 
believe I can do no greater service to my country than to urge Senators 
not to be dissuaded by the counsels of those who say that what I have 
proposed cannot be done.
  At the beginning of my remarks I stated that America's service men 
and women are the finest who have ever served in any military on behalf 
of any nation at any time. I should have included their families as 
well. I realized

[[Page 22947]]

that when today, just a few hours ago, I had the privilege of meeting 
with Dana Lamberson and her two children, Kelsi and Evan.
  Mrs. Lamberson's husband, SFC Randall Lamberson, was killed in Iraq 
only 8 months ago. Mrs. Lamberson told me that before her husband 
deployed, their family openly discussed the sacrifice which he, and 
they, might be called on to make. I asked her how she was able to bear 
her grief with such grace and fortitude. She told me that when she was 
tempted to be discouraged, she remembered what her husband had always 
said when times were tough: that ``life is only as difficult as you 
make it.''
  Mr. President, I have met thousands of Americans over the last 4 
years like the Lamberson family, not just soldiers and their families, 
but people from every walk of life, who live each day with courage, 
resilience, and optimism. Because of them, I believe with all my heart 
that America's time of leadership is not done.
  I ask the Senate to honestly face the true cost of defending this 
Nation. If we do, if we carry that burden with confidence, we will find 
the weight of it to have been a small thing compared to the blessings 
of peace and liberty we will secure for ourselves, and the hope we will 
give to freedom-loving people all over the world.
  Mr. President, I cannot close without thanking my dedicated staff who 
served the people of Missouri so well over the last 4 years, who have 
kept me going, kept me on time, who are largely responsible for the 
many pieces of legislation which Senator Bond was kind enough to 
mention. I just ask the Senate to indulge me for another moment or two 
because I am going to read their names. I think they deserve it: Mark 
Strand, my chief of staff; Cortney Brown, my scheduler; Les Sealy, our 
great office manager who always got us what we needed; Brian Anderson, 
our IT manager. I am glad he understood it because I never do.
  I thank our legislative staff: Brett Thompson, legislative director; 
Faith Cristol, our great legislative counsel; and my legislative 
assistants: Lindsey Neas, Katie Smith, Heath Hall, Jesse Appleton, 
Katie Duckworth, Christopher Papagianis, Shamed Dogan, and John Cox, 
who works so hard and so well on veterans issues, a man who has served 
this country in many different venues; Andy Karellas, Martha Petkovich, 
and Sarah Cudworth, who did legislative correspondence, grants and case 
work; Peter Henry, who managed the mail; Sarah Barfield, my staff 
assistant; two great Navy Fellows: CDR Dan Brintzinghoffer and LCDR 
Lori Aguayo, two patriots and both outstanding officers; and Mark 
Hegerle, my Energy Fellow who came over from the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission just in time to help me make a real difference on 
the Energy bill.
  I want to thank our press shop: Rich Chrismer, my great 
communications director; Erin Hamm, and Andrew Brandt.
  Casework--we handled over 10,000 cases. I am a big believer in 
casework. This is a big government, and navigating it is hard, and if 
we could help, we wanted to help. I thank Nora Breidenbach, Jenny 
Bickel, Abby Pitlick, Debbie Dornfeld, and Jessica Van Beek.
  And the State staff, we always tried to integrate the work of the 
State staff and the Washington staff, and I think we did it. I thank 
Gregg Keller, our State director; in St. Louis: Kacky Garner, my 
district director; Peggy Barnhart; Rachel McCombs; and Angel McCormick 
Franks; in Kansas City: Joe Keatley, my great district director; Danny 
Pfeifer; Emily Seifers; Greg Porter; and Erick Harris; in Jefferson 
City: Donna Spickert, who was the State capitol director; and Becky 
Almond, my instate scheduler, as well as a great staff assistant; in 
Springfield: Terry Campbell, the district director; Christopher Stone; 
and Coriann Gastol; and in Cape Girardeau: Jeff Glenn, who directed 
that office; and Liz Mainord.
  I also want to thank, as other Senators have done, my family, my 
wife, obviously, in particular, who has shared the highs and lows of 
this job, and my wonder kids.
  Mr. President, it remains only for me to thank my colleagues in the 
Senate for the many kindnesses, personal and professional, which they 
have shown me and my family over the last 4 years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss a 
number of matters briefly.


                      Honoring Senatorial Service

                               Bill Frist

  First, I want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our majority 
leader, Senator Bill Frist, who has done such an outstanding job in the 
past 12 years.
  Senator Frist came to this Senate as a real all-American. He has 
displayed extraordinary talents, academically, professionally, public 
service, as a family man, as a friend, at Princeton and Harvard Medical 
School, a renowned heart and lung transplant surgeon, then selected to 
be the majority leader and has taken this body through a very difficult 
4 years and a very productive 4 years.
  A great deal has been said about Senator Frist earlier today. I just 
wanted to add my personal congratulations to him on his service and to 
wish him well.


                             Rick Santorum

  Mr. President, I regret the departure of my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Rick Santorum. He has been really a ball of fire in the U.S. 
Congress. He was elected in 1990 to the House of Representatives, 
defeating a long-term incumbent by literally going door to door in his 
district in the Pittsburgh area.
  He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, reelected in the year 
2000, and has displayed admirable qualities--energy, determination, 
confidence, and the pursuit of his own personal values. There is no 
doubt that Senator Santorum has espoused, articulated, and pushed 
causes he deeply believed in which may not have been popular in many 
quarters, but he was determined to undertake the pursuit of those 
values because he believed in them so deeply. I counseled him from time 
to time to save some of his philosophy for December of the year 2006.
  A famous quotation about President Lincoln; he was asked by a little 
boy, in effect: How do you serve, Mr. President?
  He said: I represent my true beliefs and values 90 percent of the 
time.
  The little boy said: Well, what about the other 10 percent?
  The famous statement by President Lincoln: So that I can represent my 
true values 90 percent of the time.
  It is not unknown in our body to occasionally defer some of the more 
controversial positions. But Senator Santorum didn't do that. He spoke 
his mind and he spoke his heart. Those are rare qualities in public 
life and public service and in politics. For that, I salute him.
  On a personal level, Rick and I have had a superb relationship, not 
only professionally, not only politically, but also personally. A more 
devoted family man could not be found. He has taken this turn of 
electoral results philosophically and in a good spirit. I have had some 
experience on the losing end of elections and, having been there, I say 
that he has responded with great class, with great style. His comment 
earlier this week was: Tough on the family, tough on Karen, tough on 
the children, but now they have their husband back, and they have their 
father back. And he had a big smile and a sense of satisfaction. He 
spoke to the caucus yesterday, and he exuded confidence. He exuded 
personal pride in what he had done. I join him in that. As a colleague, 
I personally will miss him very much. I know that will be the sentiment 
of this body, even those with whom he has tangled in a rigorous way.


                         Confirmation of Judges

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to move ahead with the 
confirmation of judges.
  We have U.S. District Judge Kent Jordan, of the District of Delaware, 
who has been nominated to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit. He has been approved by the Judiciary Committee and 
is ready for floor action. Nobody has anything adverse to say about 
Judge Jordan. He

[[Page 22948]]

is endorsed by both of the Delaware Senators, both of whom are 
Democrats. They have a judicial emergency in the Third Circuit, and he 
ought to be confirmed.
  We also have a list of some 13 district court nominations pending on 
the executive calendar. I ask unanimous consent that the list be 
printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. A good number of these nominees are also in districts 
where there are judicial emergencies. I think that from time to time we 
in the Senate, where we have the responsibility for confirmation, don't 
really take seriously enough the impact of judicial vacancies. The 
courts are busy. The Third Circuit, my circuit, is overwhelmed. 
District Court Judge Jordan ought to be confirmed. My colleagues have 
told me about the problems posed by vacancies in their states. If these 
other 13 districts nominees are not confirmed today, they will languish 
until who knows--January turns into February and February in March. We 
always find a reason around here not to do something. That applies most 
emphatically to the judges.
  It is my hope that in the 110th Congress, we will approach judicial 
confirmations a little differently. I have already consulted with 
Senator Leahy, who will become chairman of the committee. Senator Leahy 
and I have had an excellent working relationship on a bipartisan basis, 
and the record shows it. I don't have to go into detail about that. I 
have recommended to the White House that the it consult with Senator 
Leahy and the Democrats, as well as with Arlen Specter, as ranking 
member, and the Republicans. There is a limited amount of time. We know 
what happens in a Presidential election year.
  Let us make a determination about which judges can be confirmed--
judges who meet the standards and criteria of President Bush but who 
also pass muster in the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle. We have 
had vacancies for interminable periods of time. I have discussed this 
with Senator Leahy and with the White House.
  I hope we approach the 110th Congress differently. And before this 
Congress adjourns, the 109th, I hope we will confirm these judges who 
are on the calendar awaiting floor action.

                               Exhibit 1

             Judicial Nominees Pending on the Senate Floor

  The following nominees were all reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee prior to the October recess. Eight of the 14 nominees on the 
floor are in districts where judicial emergencies have been declared.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Nominee                        Position                Date Nominated         Total Days Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit:
    *Kent A. Jordan...............  Third Circuit.............                6/29/2006                      161
District:
    Valerie Baker.................  Central District of                        5/4/2006                      217
                                     California.
    Nora Barry Fischer............  Western District of                       7/14/2006                      146
                                     Pennsylvania.
    Gregory Frizzell..............  Northern District of                       6/7/2006                      183
                                     Oklahoma.
    *Philip Gutierrez.............  Central District of                       4/24/2006                      227
                                     California.
    Marcia M. Howard..............  Middle District of Florida                 6/6/2006                      184
    John A. Jarvey................  Southern District of Iowa.                6/29/2006                      161
    *Robert J. Jonker.............  Western District of                       6/29/2006                      161
                                     Michigan.
    Sara E. Lioi..................  Northern District of Ohio.                7/14/2006                      146
    *Paul L. Maloney..............  Western District of                       6/29/2006                      161
                                     Michigan.
    *Janet T. Neff................  Western District of                       6/29/2006                      161
                                     Michigan.
    *Lawrence J. O'Neill..........  Eastern District of                        8/2/2006                      127
                                     California.
    *Leslie Southwick.............  Southern District of                       6/6/2006                      184
                                     Mississippi.
    *Lisa Godbey Wood.............  Southern District of                      6/12/2006                     178
                                     Georgia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Indicates a Judicial Emergency.

                attorney-client privilege protection act

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I introduced legislation which will 
modify practices of the Department of Justice on the attorney-client 
privilege where the Department of Justice, acting under a memorandum 
called the Thompson Memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Thompson, has 
initiated a policy where requests are made to waive the attorney-client 
privilege, and if the attorney-client privilege is not waived, then 
that is considered in the charges brought by the Federal Government, 
and also a commitment that corporations will not pay counsel fees for 
their employees whom they are customarily expected to defend. This is 
an encroachment and a violation of the sixth amendment right to jury 
trial.
  Because of the limited time and other Senators waiting, I will not 
elaborate upon the provisions of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. __

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Attorney-Client Privilege 
     Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Justice is served when all parties to litigation are 
     represented by experienced diligent counsel.
       (2) Protecting attorney-client privileged communications 
     from compelled disclosure fosters voluntary compliance with 
     the law.
       (3) To serve the purpose of the attorney-client privilege, 
     attorneys and clients must have a degree of confidence that 
     they will not be required to disclose privileged 
     communications.
       (4) The ability of an organization to have effective 
     compliance programs and to conduct comprehensive internal 
     investigations is enhanced when there is clarity and 
     consistency regarding the attorney-client privilege.
       (5) Prosecutors, investigators, enforcement officials, and 
     other officers or employees of Government agencies have been 
     able to, and can continue to, conduct their work while 
     respecting attorney-client and work product protections and 
     the rights of individuals, including seeking and discovering 
     facts crucial to the investigation and prosecution of 
     organizations.
       (6) Despite the existence of these legitimate tools, the 
     Department of Justice and other agencies have increasingly 
     employed tactics that undermine the adversarial system of 
     justice, such as encouraging organizations to waive attorney-
     client privilege and work product protections to avoid 
     indictment or other sanctions.
       (7) An indictment can have devastating consequences on an 
     organization, potentially eliminating the ability of the 
     organization to survive post-indictment or to dispute the 
     charges against it at trial.
       (8) Waiver demands and other tactics of Government agencies 
     are encroaching on the constitutional rights and other legal 
     protections of employees.
       (9) The attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, 
     and payment of counsel fees shall not be used as devices to 
     conceal wrongdoing or to cloak advice on evading the law.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to place on 
     each agency clear and practical limits designed to preserve 
     the attorney-client privilege and work product protections 
     available to an organization and preserve the constitutional 
     rights and other legal protections available to employees of 
     such an organization.

     SEC. 3. DISCLOSURE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR 
                   ADVANCEMENT OF COUNSEL FEES AS ELEMENTS OF 
                   COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 201 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 3013 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3014. Preservation of fundamental legal protections 
       and rights in the context of investigations and enforcement 
       matters regarding organizations

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Attorney-client privilege.--The term `attorney-client 
     privilege' means the attorney-client privilege as governed by 
     the

[[Page 22949]]

     principles of the common law, as they may be interpreted by 
     the courts of the United States in the light of reason and 
     experience, and the principles of article V of the Federal 
     Rules of Evidence.
       ``(2) Attorney work product.--The term `attorney work 
     product' means materials prepared by or at the direction of 
     an attorney in anticipation of litigation, particularly any 
     such materials that contain a mental impression, conclusion, 
     opinion, or legal theory of that attorney.
       ``(b) In General.--In any Federal investigation or criminal 
     or civil enforcement matter, an agent or attorney of the 
     United States shall not--
       ``(1) demand, request, or condition treatment on the 
     disclosure by an organization, or person affiliated with that 
     organization, of any communication protected by the attorney-
     client privilege or any attorney work product;
       ``(2) condition a civil or criminal charging decision 
     relating to a organization, or person affiliated with that 
     organization, on, or use as a factor in determining whether 
     an organization, or person affiliated with that organization, 
     is cooperating with the Government--
       ``(A) any valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege 
     or privilege for attorney work product;
       ``(B) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the 
     legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of that 
     organization;
       ``(C) the entry into a joint defense, information sharing, 
     or common interest agreement with an employee of that 
     organization if the organization determines it has a common 
     interest in defending against the investigation or 
     enforcement matter;
       ``(D) the sharing of information relevant to the 
     investigation or enforcement matter with an employee of that 
     organization; or
       ``(E) a failure to terminate the employment of or otherwise 
     sanction any employee of that organization because of the 
     decision by that employee to exercise the constitutional 
     rights or other legal protections of that employee in 
     response to a Government request; or
       ``(3) demand or request that an organization, or person 
     affiliated with that organization, not take any action 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Inapplicability.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit 
     an agent or attorney of the United States from requesting or 
     seeking any communication or material that such agent or 
     attorney reasonably believes is not entitled to protection 
     under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product 
     doctrine.
       ``(d) Voluntary Disclosures.--Nothing in this Act is 
     intended to prohibit an organization from making, or an agent 
     or attorney of the United States from accepting, a voluntary 
     and unsolicited offer to share the internal investigation 
     materials of such organization.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 201 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``3014. Preservation of fundamental legal protections and rights in the 
              context of investigations and enforcement matters 
              regarding organizations.''.
                                  ____


            Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2006

       The bill protects the attorney-client relationship by 
     prohibiting federal lawyers and investigators from: (1) 
     requesting that an organization waive its attorney-client 
     privilege or work product doctrine; and (2) conditioning any 
     charging decision or cooperation credit on waiver or non-
     waiver of privilege, the payment of an employee's legal fees, 
     the continued employment of a person under investigation, or 
     the signing of a joint defense agreement.
       All of the acts and considerations prohibited by the bill 
     are acts and considerations that federal prosecutors must 
     factor into any corporate or organizational charging decision 
     under DOJ's Thompson Memorandum, which is described in more 
     detail below.
       The bill is appropriately narrow. It allows organizations 
     to continue offering internal investigation materials to 
     prosecutors, but only if such an offer is entirely voluntary 
     and unsolicited by the prosecutors. The bill also allows 
     prosecutors to seek materials that they reasonably believe 
     are not privileged.

  Mr. SPECTER. I well understand that there will be no action on this 
matter during this Congress, but I want to put it into the public 
milieu so there can be comment about it and it will be pursued in the 
next Congress. The Department of Justice has advised that they are 
going to revise the Thompson Memorandum to a memorandum called the 
McNulty Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General. I had hoped we 
would have had it before the Senate went out of session so that we 
could have reviewed it and perhaps accepted their work, but it is not 
ready. I have advised Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and also 
Attorney General Gonzales that this legislation would be introduced and 
we can work on it in the next Congress.

                              Hedge Funds

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will include for the Record proposed 
legislation to deal with hedge funds. The Judiciary Committee has had a 
series of hearings on this important subject, now $1.3 trillion in the 
economy, 30 percent of the stock transactions. After reflecting on the 
matter, I have decided not to introduce the legislation but simply to 
put the draft bill in the record so that there can be further comment. 
I talked about this proposed legislation earlier this week and had said 
that I was going to introduce the legislation, but I want to give 
interested parties more time to comment on it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the bill 
itself be printed in the Record. I am not introducing the bill. I do 
not look for a Senate bill number on it. But it will be in the public 
record, and there will be more time for people in the profession to 
evaluate and comment upon it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. __

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal Misuse of Material 
     Nonpublic Information and Investor Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Unlawful insider trading causes a loss of confidence in 
     the integrity of the securities markets, increases the cost 
     of equity capital, and places small investors at a 
     disadvantage.
       (2) Unlawful insider trading and other misuse of material 
     nonpublic information is insidious and has become pervasive. 
     The number of insider trading referrals to the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission from the New York Stock Exchange has 
     doubled in the past 2 years.
       (3) There is a need to increase the probability that 
     wrongdoers will be detected and successfully prosecuted and 
     to decrease the opportunity for misuse of material nonpublic 
     information.
       (4) Criminal prosecutions and effective compliance programs 
     are the most effective deterrent to unlawful insider trading 
     and other misuse of material nonpublic information.
       (5) Effective criminal enforcement has depended on close 
     cooperation and sharing of expertise and duties of 
     investigation among civil regulatory agencies, such as the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures 
     Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, and self-
     regulatory organizations. Certain recent court decisions have 
     chilled this cooperation.
       (6) Misuse of material nonpublic information by 
     manipulating the grant dates of stock options or timing of 
     publication of material nonpublic information for purposes of 
     more profitable trading is a form of unlawful insider trading 
     that harms investors. Public companies that adhere to a 
     regular and objectively identifiable program for selecting 
     option grant dates presumptively are not engaging in 
     fraudulent behavior regarding the grant of those options.
       (7) The hedge fund industry currently accounts for 
     approximately 30 percent of all United States equity trading 
     volume, and this percentage has been growing rapidly. A 
     substantial percentage of the open investigations of insider 
     trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006 
     involve hedge funds.
       (8) Hedge funds increasingly are making loans, 
     participating in private placements, and sitting on 
     bankruptcy committees and corporate boards. These changes 
     increase hedge funds' access to material nonpublic 
     information. Pressure on hedge funds to deliver high returns 
     may increase the risk of insider trading or other misuse of 
     such information.
       (9) Light regulation, secrecy, unregulated recordkeeping, 
     and limited compliance programs of hedge funds increase the 
     difficulty of detecting and proving unlawful insider trading 
     by hedge funds.
       (10) Hedge funds enhance market liquidity and contribute to 
     pricing efficiency and market stabilization, but these 
     sophisticated instruments should be restricted to wealthy 
     investors. Recent hedge fund collapses and fraudulent trading 
     activities have harmed retirees and smaller investors who 
     increasingly are exposed to the risk of hedge funds through 
     intermediaries such as pension funds and long term growth and 
     saving vehicles. Requiring registration with the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission by hedge funds or hedge fund advisers 
     that sell securities to or manage investments of pension

[[Page 22950]]

     funds and smaller investors strikes the appropriate balance 
     between investor protection and capital formation needs.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure 
     effective criminal enforcement of prohibitions against 
     unlawful insider trading and effective protection of the 
     integrity of the securities markets and investors who use 
     them by authorizing coordination of investigation by civil 
     regulatory agencies and the Department of Justice, providing 
     effective incentives for private citizens to report and 
     provide evidence of misuse of material nonpublic information, 
     requiring hedge funds to create and enforce effective 
     compliance programs and ensure maintenance of records, and 
     removing exemptions from coverage under the Securities Act of 
     1933, and the Investment Company Act of 1940, for hedge funds 
     that choose to sell to and manage investments of pension 
     funds and retail investors, unless the adviser or manager is 
     registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``hedge fund''--
       (A) means a privately offered, pooled investment vehicle--
       (i) that is not widely available to the public; and
       (ii) the assets of which are managed by a professional 
     investment management firm or other fund manager or adviser; 
     and
       (B) does not include a private equity, venture capital, or 
     real estate fund; and
       (2) the term ``qualified purchaser'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 2 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 
     (15 U.S.C. 80a-2).

     SEC. 4. MISUSE OF MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION.

       Section 1348 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Whoever''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--
       ``(A) knowingly use material nonpublic information of a 
     specific nature gained by means other than research and skill 
     as a significant factor in a trading decision (including a 
     decision affecting the timing or volume of trading) in 
     connection with any security of an issuer with a class of 
     securities registered under section 12 of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to 
     file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o) (including trading in options 
     contracts), regardless of whether such person owes a duty to, 
     has an agreement with, or makes a disclosure of intent to 
     trade to the source of the information; or
       ``(B) knowingly use material nonpublic information of a 
     specific nature to establish, or to otherwise manipulate, the 
     grant date or strike price of stock options or the timing of 
     the publication of material nonpublic information for the 
     purpose of creating the potential for increased profitability 
     of the exercise of stock options or other trading in 
     securities.
       ``(2) Penalty.--Whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or 
     both.
       ``(c) Investigations of Offenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may, in the 
     discretion of the Attorney General, and in no way in 
     limitation of any other authority of the Attorney General--
       ``(A) make such investigations as the Attorney General 
     determines necessary to ascertain whether any person has 
     violated, is violating, or is about to violate any provision 
     of this section;
       ``(B) request or receive, at any stage of an investigation, 
     evidence concerning such acts or practices as may constitute 
     a violation of this section from the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission, or 
     another Federal agency; and
       ``(C) coordinate the investigation and prosecution of acts 
     or practices as may constitute a violation of this section 
     with the attorney general of any State or States.
       ``(2) No requirement to disclose.--The Attorney General and 
     agents of any other Federal agency have no duty, and shall 
     not be required, to disclose any contact or investigation 
     described in paragraph (1) to any person, except under a 
     court order issued on good cause shown that the sole basis 
     for the civil investigation is to assist in a criminal 
     investigation by the Attorney General.''.

     SEC. 5. INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS TO REPORT AND ASSIST 
                   IN THE INVESTIGATION OF UNLAWFUL INSIDER 
                   TRADING; PROTECTION FROM RETALIATION.

       (a) Awards.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United States 
     may award an amount equal to not more than 30 percent of any 
     fine, penalty, or settlement recovered by the Attorney 
     General to a person who provides information leading to the 
     prosecution of unlawful insider trading, or other violation 
     of section 1348 of title 18, United States Code, (as amended 
     by this Act), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78a et seq.), or a related wire or mail fraud.
       (2) Considerations.--In making an award under this 
     subsection, the Attorney General shall take into account--
       (A) the importance of the information provided by the 
     person;
       (B) whether the Federal Government had some or all of the 
     information provided by the person before that person 
     provided that information;
       (C) whether the information was provided voluntarily;
       (D) whether the person was complicit;
       (E) the assistance of other persons; and
       (F) the amount of the fine, penalty, or settlement from 
     which the award will be paid.
       (3) Identity.--The identity of a person providing 
     confidential information regarding unlawful insider trading 
     or related fraud may remain anonymous, and that person may 
     still be eligible to receive an award under this subsection, 
     if that person provides sufficient evidence to allow the 
     identification of that person as the source of that 
     information.
       (4) Exclusions.--A Federal employee or an employee of a 
     self-regulatory organization (as that term is defined in 
     section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78c)) may not receive an award under this subsection if the 
     information provided to the Federal Government was gained in 
     the course of the employment of that person.
       (b) Retaliation.--A person who suffers retaliation because 
     that person, in good faith and with reasonable basis, has 
     provided specific information about unlawful insider trading 
     to the Federal Government, or has assisted in a Federal 
     investigation of unlawful insider trading, may file a private 
     action in a United States district court against the person 
     or entity that has engaged in the retaliation, and may 
     recover damages based on economic losses resulting from such 
     retaliation, and attorneys' fees.

     SEC. 6. COMPLIANCE AND RECORDKEEPING BY HEDGE FUNDS AND FUNDS 
                   OF HEDGE FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each hedge fund, fund of hedge funds, 
     and manager of a hedge fund or fund of hedge funds that 
     offers securities to, or manages investments of, residents of 
     the United States shall--
       (1) establish a written code of ethics that contains 
     provisions reasonably necessary to prevent misuse of material 
     nonpublic information;
       (2) design a formal compliance program and written policies 
     and procedures that address--
       (A) safeguarding of material nonpublic information;
       (B) misuse of material nonpublic information;
       (C) the personal securities transactions and ownership of 
     employees;
       (D) employee education and acknowledgment of education;
       (E) the role of trained compliance personnel in the 
     monitoring and control of material nonpublic information; and
       (F) detection and prevention of misuse of material 
     nonpublic information; and
       (3) implement procedures, internal controls, and 
     recordkeeping systems adequate to ensure compliance with the 
     code, program, policies, and procedures described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (b) Penalty.--Any hedge fund, fund of hedge funds, or 
     manager or adviser of a hedge fund that fails to comply with 
     subsection (a) and offers securities to, or manages 
     investments of, residents of the United States shall each be 
     fined not more than $5,000 per day of material violation of 
     this section.
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Compliance with this section shall be 
     enforced by the Department of Justice and the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission.
       (2) Records.--The records of a hedge fund, fund of hedge 
     funds, or manager or adviser of a hedge fund relating to a 
     requirement of this section or compliance with this section 
     are subject to reasonable periodic, special, and other 
     examination by a representative of the Department of Justice 
     or the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of 
     determining compliance with this section.
       (d) Disclosures.--Each hedge fund and fund of hedge funds 
     shall provide any investor or prospective investor in that 
     hedge fund with information to enhance the ability of that 
     investor or prospective investor to evaluate investment 
     decisions regarding that hedge fund, including information 
     regarding--
       (1) the investment objectives, strategies to be employed, 
     and range of permissible investments of that hedge fund;
       (2) the risks of making an investment in that hedge fund, 
     including the use of debt to leverage returns;
       (3) base-line performance information regarding that hedge 
     fund;
       (4) any agreement between the hedge fund and investors that 
     varies the material terms of the arrangements with certain 
     investors; and
       (5) whether that hedge fund has engaged qualified external 
     auditors to audit annual financial statements.

[[Page 22951]]



     SEC. 7. REGISTRATION OF HEDGE FUNDS THAT CHOOSE TO OFFER 
                   SECURITIES TO PENSION FUNDS AND SMALLER 
                   INVESTORS.

       (a) Securities Act of 1933.--On and after the date that is 
     300 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the sale of 
     securities, directly or indirectly, by a hedge fund, fund of 
     hedge funds, or manager or adviser of a hedge fund to a 
     pension fund or investor who is not a qualified purchaser 
     shall be a public offering for purposes of section 4(2) of 
     the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(2)).
       (b) Investment Company Act of 1940.--On and after the date 
     that is 300 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     hedge fund manager or adviser that manages, directly or 
     indirectly, the investments of a public or private pension 
     fund or of any person who is not a qualified purchaser may 
     not be determined to be excluded from the definition of an 
     investment company for purposes of the Investment Company Act 
     of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) based on paragraph (1) or 
     (7) of section 3(c) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)).
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) to any hedge fund or fund of hedge funds if less than 5 
     percent of the capital of that fund is attributable, directly 
     or indirectly, to investments by pension funds or investors 
     who are not qualified purchasers; or
       (2) to a hedge fund adviser, if that advisor is registered 
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the 
     Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

     SEC. 8. REVISING DEFINITION OF ACCREDITED INVESTOR AS APPLIED 
                   RETAIL INVESTMENT IN HEDGE FUNDS.

       A hedge fund may not charge a performance fee, if more than 
     5 percent of the assets under management of the hedge fund 
     are owned by persons whose net worth, or joint net worth with 
     the person's spouse, is less than $3,000,000, excluding the 
     value of the primary residence of the person.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge the confirmation of Dr. Andrew von 
Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. 
Von Eschenbach is a native Philadelphian. He has had a very 
distinguished professional record. He has served as the director of the 
National Cancer Institute. He has made a commitment publicly to lead 
the way to conquer cancer by the year 2015. Frankly, that is not good 
enough for me. I think we ought to do it sooner.
  In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer. Had we pursued that 
war with the same diligence we have pursued other wars, many people 
would not have died and many people would not have contracted cancer. 
Dr. Von Eschenbach has done an outstanding job in his professional 
career, and he would make an excellent Commissioner of the FDA.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement of his qualifications and 
background be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement of Senator Arlen Specter--Nomination of Dr. Andrew von 
      Eschenbach Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     speak in support of the nomination of Dr. Andrew von 
     Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration. Dr. von Eschenbach brings an extraordinary 
     record to the FDA as he has accomplished a great deal.
       I am pleased that the Senate invoked cloture on Dr. von 
     Eschenbach's nomination, and that the Health, Education, 
     Labor and Pensions committee unanimously supported the 
     nomination of such an accomplished Pennsylvanian. A native of 
     Philadelphia, Dr. von Eschenbach earned a B.S. from St. 
     Joseph's University in Philadelphia in 1963, and his medical 
     degree from Georgetown University School of Medicine in 1967. 
     He completed residencies at Pennsylvania Hospital in general 
     surgery and urology and taught urology at the University of 
     Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He also served in the U.S. 
     Navy Medical Corps with the rank of lieutenant commander from 
     1968 to 1971. Dr. von Eschenbach is a nationally recognized 
     urologic surgeon and oncologist, and his distinguished career 
     as a leader in the fight against cancer spans over three 
     decades.
       As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education Appropriations subcommittee, I have worked with Dr. 
     von Eschenbach in his capacity as director of the National 
     Cancer Institute (NCI). When Dr. von Eschenbach was 
     president-elect of the American Cancer Society, he was 
     selected by President George W. Bush to head the NCI in 
     December 2001. As director of the NCI, he announced in 2003 
     that his organization's goal was to ``eliminate suffering and 
     death'' caused by cancer by the year 2015.
       In 1970, the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, 
     declared war on cancer and had that war been pursued with the 
     same diligence and resources that we pursue other wars, I 
     would not have gotten cancer, my former chief of staff, Carey 
     Lackman would not have died of cancer, a good friend of mine, 
     Paula Kline, wife of Tom Kline, my former law partner, and my 
     good friend Federal Judge Edward Becker would not have died. 
     It is something that we hear about every day. Dr. von 
     Eschenbach, a cancer survivor himself, understands the need 
     for better cancer treatments. During Dr. von Eschenbach's 
     tenure as Director of the NCI, funding for the NCI for FY03 
     was $4.67 billion. Today, recommended Senate funding for the 
     NCI is $4.8 billion, an increase of $13 million. However, it 
     is concerning that the funding for the NCI in fiscal year 
     2006 was $50 million less than fiscal year 2005.
       If Dr. von Eschenbach is confirmed, I look forward to 
     working with him as Commissioner of the FDA. His expertise, 
     experience, and commitment to public service will be of great 
     services to our nation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                             Rick Santorum

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am going to take a couple minutes to 
talk about my great friend Rick Santorum. Election night; a lot of 
emotions going on; no question my heart was torn because my best friend 
in the Senate lost the election that night. I was saddened simply from 
a personal level, but I was also saddened for our country because I 
believe Rick Santorum has served this country so well. His integrity, 
his vision--so many things about this man have really been 
extraordinary.
  I have gotten to know a lot of the people around him, his staff. It 
says a lot about him because of how many of them are sitting in this 
room today. The quality of the people he has around him says a 
tremendous amount about him, as does the passion with which they served 
him and the passion with which he serves the country.
  I also came to know Karen and his six kids. They are extraordinary 
people. Rick is a great leader of his home. Just seeing the love and 
respect that Karen has for Rick and that his children have for him as a 
father says a lot about him as an individual as well.
  I am going to keep this short. This is completely from the heart. I 
can say with confidence that as a human being, there have been maybe as 
good human beings who have served in this Senate, but there have been 
no better. He is that quality of a human being. His faith leads him to 
that. I consider it a great privilege to have served with him and to 
call him a friend over these last 6 years. I know the friendship he and 
I share will be a lifetime friendship.
  Rick, this body will miss you greatly, but no one in this body will 
miss you more than I.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me thank my great friend and 
colleague from Nevada for his very kind words. I thank him for coming 
to hear my last speech on the floor of the Senate. I know there are 
many listening who are applauding at this moment for that. But I come 
here with a wonderful spirit. I have written on the top of the page the 
same words that I wrote the night of the election, and that is the word 
``gratitude'' because that is all I feel--an incredible sense of 
gratitude.
  Mark Rodgers is my long-time friend and chief of staff, now head of 
the conference. We were talking again this morning about coming to work 
every day and walking up to the Capitol Building every day for 16 years 
now and still feeling that, wow, I work here--every day for 16 years. 
It was such a gift, such an incredible gift to be blessed to serve the 
people of the 18th District in the Congress, southwestern Pennsylvania, 
in Allegheny County, and for 12 incredible years to be able to serve 
the people of Pennsylvania here.
  So first and foremost, I want to thank who is most responsible--and 
that is God--for this great gift he has bestowed upon me and my 
family--to be able the serve the greatest country in the history of the 
world and to serve in a body that is, and hopefully will be, the 
greatest deliberative body in the world. I think back to my dad, when 
he came to this country, and my mom, who is a second generation, and I 
think of how I grew up. It is amazing what a great country this is and 
how God has bestowed upon me and my family tremendous blessings. So I 
thank Him for

[[Page 22952]]

the opportunity he has given me to serve. We are all called to serve. 
Some are frustrated because they don't think they are in a job or a 
position in life where they are doing what God has called them to do. 
God has blessed me with the opportunity to do this and to serve in a 
way that I hope he has called me to serve.
  Second, I thank my family. Karen and the kids are watching. They have 
suffered a lot and have sacrificed a lot in 16 years. I was telling 
John the other day that it is amazing how you think you are doing 
certain things well, and then you have the opportunity to spend a 
little more time doing those things and you realize how insufficiently 
you did them in the past. A phrase from the Bible is ringing in my 
ears, ``the scales falling off of the eyes.'' In the last month or so, 
I have had a lot of scales fall from my eyes--to see not just what the 
2 years have been to my family, which have been a tough 2 or 3 years, 
but the accumulation of 16 years in what is a very difficult life. I 
know everybody here recognizes that because you live it. They know how 
difficult this life is, how public everything we do and say is or what 
we are accused of. We think we understand how difficult that is for our 
family, but I don't think we really do. I want to say thank you to 
Karen, who I picture in my mind with this T-shirt dress she wore and 
had stenciled on it ``Santorum for Congress.'' She went knocking on 
doors in 1990, when no one gave us a chance. We did the impossible. We 
were able to defeat a 14-year incumbent who no one thought could be 
beat. I would not have even come close to winning that election but for 
her.
  In 1994, it was the same thing. She went out with the two children at 
home and she spent day after day--not traveling with, no; she was 
giving speeches in her own right and traveling all over the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, sacrificing. They continued to do that 
day after day, year after year. I was a Senator, and I had important 
things to do.
  I tell stories all the time about debates that were held on the floor 
of the Senate, when I would call Karen and say I had to come back to 
this very place and say more. There was never a hesitation. She served 
more than I did. My children--none of them have known their father 
without being in politics. I got married in 1990 to Karen, and 
Elizabeth came along 11 months later. Their life has been with their 
father in politics, in the public arena. They have had to deal with 
that in both pleasurable ways and some very painful ways. So I thank 
them for being without their dad far too often. Even when they are with 
their dad, I am not as attentive as I should have been. But I think 
they knew and they shared in the endeavor because they knew it was 
important for them and for our country.
  So, hopefully, out of this experience they have been given a sense of 
purpose, and they know more about what life should be all about and 
that is to serve--serve God, serve your family, serve your community, 
and to serve your country. It is a great blessing. I thank them for the 
opportunity they have given me, through their sacrifice, to do that for 
the last 16 years.
  I thank my mom and dad and Karen's mom and dad and all in our family 
who have been supportive every step of the way--sometimes wondering why 
I was doing this, sometimes unable to walk to the end of the driveway 
and pick up the paper for fear of what next was going to be said about 
their son-in-law or son. But they stood with us and fought with us and 
they comforted us. I thank them.
  John mentioned the people who are here in this room, my staff.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed a list of all of the folks 
who worked for us over the last 12 years in the Senate at the end of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish I could read all these names, but 
there are a lot of names. These are people who worked for me in my 
personal office in Washington and in my offices across the State and 
the people who worked here in Washington in my leadership office at the 
Senate Republican Conference. John said it so well. These are 
incredible people. I have had the opportunity now in the last few days 
to sit and talk with each one of my staff members to find out what they 
are doing and to get any final thoughts they would have. One after 
another, I have been amazed at the dedication, intelligence, caring, 
and the commitment of service they had to the people of Pennsylvania, 
or to the causes I have attempted to do my best to fight for in the 
Senate. These are incredibly talented people whom I have been so 
blessed to be associated with and to work with.
  I looked at the list of our legislative accomplishments and I can 
say, yes, I worked on that, but on the autism legislation, Jennifer 
Vesey wrote it, not me. She spent 16 months working with 15 offices. In 
fact, let me do something at this point.


                      COMBATING AUTISM ACT OF 2006

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a 
message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 843) to 
combat autism through research, screening, intervention and education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives.

                                 S. 843

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 843) entitled 
     ``An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to combat 
     autism through research, screening, intervention and 
     education'', do pass with the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Autism Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE; IMPROVING AUTISM-RELATED 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) Centers of Excellence Regarding Research on Autism.--
     Section 409C of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.284g) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``autism'' and 
     inserting ``autism spectrum disorder'';
       (2) by striking the term ``autism'' each place such term 
     appears (other than the section heading) and inserting 
     ``autism spectrum disorder''; and
       (3) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Expansion of activities.--The Director of NIH (in 
     this section referred to as the `Director') shall, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, expand, intensify, and 
     coordinate the activities of the National Institutes of 
     Health with respect to research on autism spectrum disorder, 
     including basic and clinical research in fields including 
     pathology, developmental neurobiology, genetics, epigenetics, 
     pharmacology, nutrition, immunology, neuroimmunology, 
     neurobehavioral development, endocrinology, gastroenterology, 
     and toxicology. Such research shall investigate the cause 
     (including possible environmental causes), diagnosis or rule 
     out, early detection, prevention, services, supports, 
     intervention, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder.
       ``(2) Consolidation.--The Director may consolidate program 
     activities under this section if such consolidation would 
     improve program efficiencies and outcomes.''.
       (b) Centers of Excellence Generally.--Part A of title IV of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 404H. REVIEW OF CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 2008, and 
     periodically thereafter, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of NIH, shall conduct a review and submit a report 
     to the appropriate committees of the Congress on the centers 
     of excellence.
       ``(b) Report Contents.--Each report under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       ``(1) Evaluation of the performance and research outcomes 
     of each center of excellence.
       ``(2) Recommendations for promoting coordination of 
     information among centers of excellence.
       ``(3) Recommendations for improving the effectiveness, 
     efficiency, and outcomes of the centers of excellence.
       ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `center of 
     excellence' means an entity receiving funding under this 
     title in its capacity as a center of excellence.''.

     SEC. 3. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SURVEILLANCE AND RESEARCH 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                 ``PART R--PROGRAMS RELATING TO AUTISM

     ``SEC. 399AA. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SURVEILLANCE AND 
                   RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Autism Spectrum Disorder and Other Developmental 
     Disabilities.--

[[Page 22953]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     may award grants or cooperative agreements to eligible 
     entities for the collection, analysis, and reporting of State 
     epidemiological data on autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities. An eligible entity shall assist 
     with the development and coordination of State autism 
     spectrum disorder and other developmental disability 
     surveillance efforts within a region. In making such awards, 
     the Secretary may provide direct technical assistance in lieu 
     of cash.
       ``(2) Data standards.--In submitting epidemiological data 
     to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1), an eligible 
     entity shall report data according to guidelines prescribed 
     by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, after consultation with relevant State and local 
     public health officials, private sector developmental 
     disability researchers, and advocates for individuals with 
     autism spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive an award 
     under paragraph (1), an entity shall be a public or nonprofit 
     private entity (including a health department of a State or a 
     political subdivision of a State, a university, or any other 
     educational institution), and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Centers of Excellence in Autism Spectrum Disorder 
     Epidemiology.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, award 
     grants or cooperative agreements for the establishment of 
     regional centers of excellence in autism spectrum disorder 
     and other developmental disabilities epidemiology for the 
     purpose of collecting and analyzing information on the 
     number, incidence, correlates, and causes of autism spectrum 
     disorder and other developmental disabilities.
       ``(2) Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a grant or 
     cooperative agreement under paragraph (1), an entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application containing such 
     agreements and information as the Secretary may require, 
     including an agreement that the center to be established 
     under the grant or cooperative agreement shall operate in 
     accordance with the following:
       ``(A) The center will collect, analyze, and report autism 
     spectrum disorder and other developmental disability data 
     according to guidelines prescribed by the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after 
     consultation with relevant State and local public health 
     officials, private sector developmental disability 
     researchers, and advocates for individuals with developmental 
     disabilities.
       ``(B) The center will develop or extend an area of special 
     research expertise (including genetics, epigenetics, and 
     epidemiological research related to environmental exposures), 
     immunology, and other relevant research specialty areas.
       ``(C) The center will identify eligible cases and controls 
     through its surveillance system and conduct research into 
     factors which may cause or increase the risk of autism 
     spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities.
       ``(c) Federal Response.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     Federal response to requests for assistance from State 
     health, mental health, and education department officials 
     regarding potential or alleged autism spectrum disorder or 
     developmental disability clusters.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this part:
       ``(1) Other developmental disabilities.--The term `other 
     developmental disabilities' has the meaning given the term 
     `developmental disability' in section 102(8) of the 
     Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002(8)).
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands.
       ``(e) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after September 
     30, 2011.

     ``SEC. 399BB. AUTISM EDUCATION, EARLY DETECTION, AND 
                   INTERVENTION.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) to increase awareness, reduce barriers to screening 
     and diagnosis, promote evidence-based interventions for 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder or other 
     developmental disabilities, and train professionals to 
     utilize valid and reliable screening tools to diagnose or 
     rule out and provide evidence-based interventions for 
     children with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities; and
       ``(2) to conduct activities under this section with a focus 
     on an interdisciplinary approach (as defined in programs 
     developed under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act) 
     that will also focus on specific issues for children who are 
     not receiving an early diagnosis and subsequent 
     interventions.
       ``(b) In General.--The Secretary shall, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, establish and evaluate 
     activities to--
       ``(1) provide information and education on autism spectrum 
     disorder and other developmental disabilities to increase 
     public awareness of developmental milestones;
       ``(2) promote research into the development and validation 
     of reliable screening tools for autism spectrum disorder and 
     other developmental disabilities and disseminate information 
     regarding those screening tools;
       ``(3) promote early screening of individuals at higher risk 
     for autism spectrum disorder and other developmental 
     disabilities as early as practicable, given evidence-based 
     screening techniques and interventions;
       ``(4) increase the number of individuals who are able to 
     confirm or rule out a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder 
     and other developmental disabilities;
       ``(5) increase the number of individuals able to provide 
     evidence-based interventions for individuals diagnosed with 
     autism spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities; 
     and
       ``(6) promote the use of evidence-based interventions for 
     individuals at higher risk for autism spectrum disorder and 
     other developmental disabilities as early as practicable.
       ``(c) Information and Education.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the 
     Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of Education 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, provide culturally competent 
     information regarding autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities, risk factors, characteristics, 
     identification, diagnosis or rule out, and evidence-based 
     interventions to meet the needs of individuals with autism 
     spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities and 
     their families through--
       ``(A) Federal programs, including--
       ``(i) the Head Start program;
       ``(ii) the Early Start program;
       ``(iii) the Healthy Start program;
       ``(iv) programs under the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990;
       ``(v) programs under title XIX of the Social Security Act 
     (particularly the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, 
     Diagnosis and Treatment Program);
       ``(vi) the program under title XXI of the Social Security 
     Act (the State Children's Health Insurance Program);
       ``(vii) the program under title V of the Social Security 
     Act (the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program);
       ``(viii) the program under parts B and C of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act;
       ``(ix) the special supplemental nutrition program for 
     women, infants, and children established under section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786); and
       ``(x) the State grant program under the Rehabilitation Act 
     of 1973.
       ``(B) State licensed child care facilities; and
       ``(C) other community-based organizations or points of 
     entry for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities to receive services.
       ``(2) Lead agency.--
       ``(A) Designation.--As a condition on the provision of 
     assistance or the conduct of activities under this section 
     with respect to a State, the Secretary may require the 
     Governor of the State--
       ``(i) to designate a public agency as a lead agency to 
     coordinate the activities provided for under paragraph (1) in 
     the State at the State level; and
       ``(ii) acting through such lead agency, to make available 
     to individuals and their family members, guardians, 
     advocates, or authorized representatives; providers; and 
     other appropriate individuals in the State, comprehensive 
     culturally competent information about State and local 
     resources regarding autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities, risk factors, characteristics, 
     identification, diagnosis or rule out, available services and 
     supports, and evidence-based interventions.
       ``(B) Requirements of agency.--In designating the lead 
     agency under subparagraph (A)(i), the Governor shall--
       ``(i) select an agency that has demonstrated experience and 
     expertise in--

       ``(I) autism spectrum disorder and other developmental 
     disability issues; and
       ``(II) developing, implementing, conducting, and 
     administering programs and delivering education, information, 
     and referral services (including technology-based curriculum-
     development services) to individuals with developmental 
     disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates 
     or authorized representatives, providers, and other 
     appropriate individuals locally and across the State; and

       ``(ii) consider input from individuals with developmental 
     disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates 
     or authorized representatives, providers, and other 
     appropriate individuals.
       ``(C) Information.--Information under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     shall be provided through--
       ``(i) toll-free telephone numbers;
       ``(ii) Internet websites;
       ``(iii) mailings; or
       ``(iv) such other means as the Governor may require.
       ``(d) Tools.--
       ``(1) In general.--To promote the use of valid and reliable 
     screening tools for autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities, the Secretary shall develop a 
     curriculum for continuing education to assist individuals in 
     recognizing the need for valid and reliable screening tools 
     and the use of such tools.
       ``(2) Collection, storage, coordination, and 
     availability.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall provide for the collection, 
     storage, coordination, and public availability of tools 
     described in paragraph (1), educational materials and other 
     products that are used by the Federal programs referred to in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), as well as--
       ``(A) programs authorized under the Developmental 
     Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000;

[[Page 22954]]

       ``(B) early intervention programs or interagency 
     coordinating councils authorized under part C of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and
       ``(C) children with special health care needs programs 
     authorized under title V of the Social Security Act.
       ``(3) Required sharing.--In establishing mechanisms and 
     entities under this subsection, the Secretary, and the 
     Secretary of Education, shall ensure the sharing of tools, 
     materials, and products developed under this subsection among 
     entities receiving funding under this section.
       ``(e) Diagnosis.--
       ``(1) Training.--The Secretary, in coordination with 
     activities conducted under title V of the Social Security 
     Act, shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     expand existing interdisciplinary training opportunities or 
     opportunities to increase the number of sites able to 
     diagnose or rule out individuals with autism spectrum 
     disorder or other developmental disabilities and ensure 
     that--
       ``(A) competitive grants or cooperative agreements are 
     awarded to public or nonprofit agencies, including 
     institutions of higher education, to expand existing or 
     develop new maternal and child health interdisciplinary 
     leadership education in neurodevelopmental and related 
     disabilities programs (similar to the programs developed 
     under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act) in States 
     that do not have such a program;
       ``(B) trainees under such training programs--
       ``(i) receive an appropriate balance of academic, clinical, 
     and community opportunities;
       ``(ii) are culturally competent;
       ``(iii) are ethnically diverse;
       ``(iv) demonstrate a capacity to evaluate, diagnose or rule 
     out, develop, and provide evidence-based interventions to 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities; and
       ``(v) demonstrate an ability to use a family-centered 
     approach; and
       ``(C) program sites provide culturally competent services.
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may award one or 
     more grants under this section to provide technical 
     assistance to the network of interdisciplinary training 
     programs.
       ``(3) Best practices.--The Secretary shall promote research 
     into additional valid and reliable tools for shortening the 
     time required to confirm or rule out a diagnosis of autism 
     spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities and 
     detecting individuals with autism spectrum disorder or other 
     developmental disabilities at an earlier age.
       ``(f) Intervention.--The Secretary shall promote research, 
     through grants or contracts, to determine the evidence-based 
     practices for interventions for individuals with autism 
     spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities, 
     develop guidelines for those interventions, and disseminate 
     information related to such research and guidelines.
       ``(g) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after September 
     30, 2011.

     ``SEC. 399CC. INTERAGENCY AUTISM COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     committee, to be known as the `Interagency Autism 
     Coordinating Committee' (in this section referred to as the 
     `Committee'), to coordinate all efforts within the Department 
     of Health and Human Services concerning autism spectrum 
     disorder.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out its duties under 
     this section, the Committee shall--
       ``(1) develop and annually update a summary of advances in 
     autism spectrum disorder research related to causes, 
     prevention, treatment, early screening, diagnosis or rule 
     out, intervention, and access to services and supports for 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder;
       ``(2) monitor Federal activities with respect to autism 
     spectrum disorder;
       ``(3) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding any 
     appropriate changes to such activities, including 
     recommendations to the Director of NIH with respect to the 
     strategic plan developed under paragraph (5);
       ``(4) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding 
     public participation in decisions relating to autism spectrum 
     disorder;
       ``(5) develop and annually update a strategic plan for the 
     conduct of, and support for, autism spectrum disorder 
     research, including proposed budgetary requirements; and
       ``(6) submit to the Congress such strategic plan and any 
     updates to such plan.
       ``(c) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Committee shall be composed of--
       ``(A) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention;
       ``(B) the Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
     and the Directors of such national research institutes of the 
     National Institutes of Health as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate;
       ``(C) the heads of such other agencies as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate;
       ``(D) representatives of other Federal Governmental 
     agencies that serve individuals with autism spectrum disorder 
     such as the Department of Education; and
       ``(E) the additional members appointed under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Additional members.--Not fewer than 6 members of the 
     Committee, or 1/3 of the total membership of the Committee, 
     whichever is greater, shall be composed of non-Federal public 
     members to be appointed by the Secretary, of which--
       ``(A) at least one such member shall be an individual with 
     a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder;
       ``(B) at least one such member shall be a parent or legal 
     guardian of an individual with an autism spectrum disorder; 
     and
       ``(C) at least one such member shall be a representative of 
     leading research, advocacy, and service organizations for 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
       ``(d) Administrative Support; Terms of Service; Other 
     Provisions.--The following provisions shall apply with 
     respect to the Committee:
       ``(1) The Committee shall receive necessary and appropriate 
     administrative support from the Secretary.
       ``(2) Members of the Committee appointed under subsection 
     (c)(2) shall serve for a term of 4 years, and may be 
     reappointed for one or more additional 4 year term. Any 
     member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term 
     shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member 
     may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a 
     successor has taken office.
       ``(3) The Committee shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson or upon the request of the Secretary. The 
     Committee shall meet not fewer than 2 times each year.
       ``(4) All meetings of the Committee shall be public and 
     shall include appropriate time periods for questions and 
     presentations by the public.
       ``(e) Subcommittees; Establishment and Membership.--In 
     carrying out its functions, the Committee may establish 
     subcommittees and convene workshops and conferences. Such 
     subcommittees shall be composed of Committee members and may 
     hold such meetings as are necessary to enable the 
     subcommittees to carry out their duties.
       ``(f) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after September 
     30, 2011, and the Committee shall be terminated on such date.

     ``SEC. 399DD. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Combating Autism Act of 2006, the Secretary, 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Education, shall 
     prepare and submit to the Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions Committee of the Senate and the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee of the House of Representatives a progress report 
     on activities related to autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities.
       ``(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall contain--
       ``(1) a description of the progress made in implementing 
     the provisions of the Combating Autism Act of 2006;
       ``(2) a description of the amounts expended on the 
     implementation of the particular provisions of Combating 
     Autism Act of 2006;
       ``(3) information on the incidence of autism spectrum 
     disorder and trend data of such incidence since the date of 
     enactment of the Combating Autism Act of 2006;
       ``(4) information on the average age of diagnosis for 
     children with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     disabilities, including how that age may have changed over 
     the 4-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       ``(5) information on the average age for intervention for 
     individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities, including how that age may have 
     changed over the 4-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       ``(6) information on the average time between initial 
     screening and then diagnosis or rule out for individuals with 
     autism spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities, 
     as well as information on the average time between diagnosis 
     and evidence-based intervention for individuals with autism 
     spectrum disorder or other developmental disabilities;
       ``(7) information on the effectiveness and outcomes of 
     interventions for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum 
     disorder, including by various subtypes, and other 
     developmental disabilities and how the age of the child may 
     affect such effectiveness;
       ``(8) information on the effectiveness and outcomes of 
     innovative and newly developed intervention strategies for 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder or other 
     developmental disabilities; and
       ``(9) information on services and supports provided to 
     individuals with autism spectrum disorder and other 
     developmental disabilities who have reached the age of 
     majority (as defined for purposes of section 615(m) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(m)).''.
       (b) Repeals.--The following sections of the Children's 
     Health Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-310) are repealed:
       (1) Section 102 (42 U.S.C. 247b-4b), relating to the 
     Developmental Disabilities Surveillance and Research Program.
       (2) Section 103 (42 U.S.C. 247b-4c), relating to 
     information and education.
       (3) Section 104 (42 U.S.C. 247b-4d), relating to the Inter-
     Agency Autism Coordinating Committee.
       (4) Section 105 (42 U.S.C. 247b-4e), relating to reports.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Part R of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as added by section 3, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 399EE. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Developmental Disabilities Surveillance and Research 
     Program.--To carry out section 399AA, there are authorized to 
     be appropriated the following:
       ``(1) For fiscal year 2007, $15,000,000.

[[Page 22955]]

       ``(2) For fiscal year 2008, $16,500,000.
       ``(3) For fiscal year 2009, $18,000,000.
       ``(4) or fiscal year 2010, $19,500,000.
       ``(5) For fiscal year 2011, $21,000,000.
       ``(b) Autism Education, Early Detection, and 
     Intervention.--To carry out section 399BB, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated the following:
       ``(1) For fiscal year 2007, $32,000,000.
       ``(2) For fiscal year 2008, $37,000,000.
       ``(3) For fiscal year 2009, $42,000,000.
       ``(4) For fiscal year 2010, $47,000,000.
       ``(5) For fiscal year 2011, $52,000,000.
       ``(c) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; Certain 
     Other Programs.--To carry out section 399CC, 409C, and 
     section 404H, there are authorized to be appropriated the 
     following:
       ``(1) For fiscal year 2007, $100,000,000.
       ``(2) For fiscal year 2008, $114,500,000.
       ``(3) For fiscal year 2009, $129,000,000.
       ``(4) For fiscal year 2010, $143,500,000.
       ``(5) For fiscal year 2011, $158,000,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 409C of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284g) is amended by striking 
     subsection (e) (relating to funding).

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we just passed the combating autism bill 
that we have been working on for 16 months. I thank Senator Dodd for 
his tremendous work on that. I thank all of the autism groups. I thank 
Jennifer Vesey for the tremendous work she did and the hours and hours 
and patience it takes to put together complex and important pieces of 
legislation.
  Later today, or tomorrow, we are going to pass the abandoned mine 
lands bill. I would love to say that was Rick Santorum, but it was 
Ashley Horning; it wasn't Rick Santorum. She did all the work. I pretty 
much knew what was in there, and I would negotiate the parts in 
disagreement. That is what we all do. But on 90 percent of the bills 
that most of us know about, we didn't hammer out the details; it was 
done by folks who have the commitment and vision and effort and work 
the long hours to make the legislation possible. It is important that 
in Pennsylvania now we will get a billion dollars to clean up abandoned 
mines--it is a tremendous contribution to the environment--or miners 
will have health care coverage paid because, in part, I had a terrific 
staff person. I can go down through issue after issue and look at these 
accomplishments that would be great to stand up and say that I did, but 
I had a tremendous amount of help. I had incredibly talented, gifted 
people who worked incredible hours.
  What most people across America don't realize is how hard our people 
around here work. They don't do it for the money. They don't do it 
because they have some agenda to accomplish. They do it because they 
want to improve America, make America a better place. They want to 
leave this place better than how they found it. They want to serve 
because they love this country and they believe in what will make this 
country better. They work long hours. They don't get paid as much as 
they could make if they wandered off the Hill. I will put my folks, 
both in Washington and across the State, up against anybody. They are 
sitting in the gallery and here along the railing. They have given 
their all and I thank them. They served the people of Pennsylvania. 
Looking at Kevin Roy over there, I think of all of the earmarks--that 
is a dirty word--that we were able to get to help the people in 
Pennsylvania in so many ways. I look at work we did for the nonprofit 
community and welfare and families, and Melanie Looney and her team 
worked on that.
  It has been an incredible group. Our Senate conference, the message 
folks--it was awfully hard. Republicans are not good on the old message 
issue. We don't follow our talking points very well. We try. We try. We 
have a lot of independent thinkers on our side. God bless them. They 
always have a better way of saying things than what we suggest or 
actually not even saying things, thinking things than what we suggest. 
That is the beauty of our party. We have a lot of diversity within our 
party.
  We have some very talented people who work very hard, not just a dry 
message to spin, but to try to move the debate, try to get our causes 
articulated in a way that is communicated effectively to people across 
America. They worked hard. They built coalitions. They did their best, 
and I thank them for their effort and the tremendous service they have 
given our conference.
  I thank the folks in my district offices. Most of those folks have 
been with me 16 years. We don't have a lot of turnover in our office. A 
lot of folks in Pittsburgh have been with me 16 and others around the 
State have been with me 12 years. They are dedicated people who go out 
and do those security checks and veterans benefits and medals.
  I will always remember one story that happened this last year. There 
was a man, a World War II vet named Patrick. I was at a ribbon-cutting 
for a VA facility in Oakland in Pittsburgh. While I was there, we 
arranged a little medal presentation to a veteran who had sought a 
medal and was never given that medal. That is all I knew about it. I 
showed up. There was this older gentleman sitting in the front row. His 
name was Patrick.
  Patrick was a World War II veteran who served in Patton's army and 
was sent on a secret mission to try to liberate a POW camp. In that 
mission, he was captured. He was imprisoned for several months, I 
believe, in a German POW camp. When he got out of the Army, he 
requested a POW medal, but the paperwork didn't show he had been 
captured. It was a secret mission, and it never appeared on his 
military record.
  For 60 years, Patrick fought to get his designation as a POW. He 
never married. In fact, later in his life after he retired from work, 
he became somewhat of a recluse because he was kidded by some of his 
buddies about being a POW. It affected him dramatically, so much so 
that one of his friends and relatives contacted us to say: Is there 
anything you can do? Could it possibly be true?
  Ann Blocksidge in my office in Pittsburgh, wizard that she is with 
these issues that she has been working on now for 16 years, knew the 
places to call and put the records together. We found out, yes, he was, 
and that was in one place in one record and not in the same place as 
the other record, and A didn't talk to B. So we were able to get him 
his POW medal.
  I remember pinning it on him. This older man walked to the 
microphone. He said: There is one thing I want to say. He said: I 
finally feel welcomed home.
  It is a great story, but the folks in my office and offices all over 
this Capitol do this every day because they care, because the people 
call with impossible things, and our folks do impossible things to help 
them.
  I thank all of them for all the service they have done, for doing 
what I ask them to do when they come into the office: Treat every 
caller as if it is your grandmother calling. If you treat every caller 
as if it is your grandmother--hopefully they get along with their 
grandmother--then things will be fine.
  I thank my colleagues. This place gets a lot of ridicule. It is very 
easy to criticize people in the fishbowl. It is very easy to take shots 
at people for not living up to expectations, and certainly we all do 
not live up to expectations. But I think I can say without any 
reservation that the men and women in this body are good and decent 
people who are doing what they believe is best for this country.
  I know many people find that hard to believe because they look at 
people and they have beliefs so diametrically opposed to people in this 
Chamber. I certainly have views--and have demonstrated that on many 
occasions on the floor of the Senate--that are diametrically opposed to 
many people in this Chamber. But in my heart, I never questioned the 
integrity and the sincerity of the people who articulated their 
opinions, that they were not sincere. I believed them to be sincere and 
I believed them to believe that it was in the best interest of the 
country. That is what is supposed to happen here. Ideas are to be 
debated, points of

[[Page 22956]]

view are to be discussed, and the prevailing thought of the day will 
move the country in that direction.
  There are very good people here. I tell the people of America: There 
are very good people here. There are people here on both sides of the 
aisle who pray every single day for God's guidance. There are people 
here today who, while we fight and argue, do so out of a passion for 
doing what is right.
  I thank my colleagues for the courtesies they have shown me, and 
particularly my Republican colleagues for the honor they have given me 
to serve in the leadership for 6 years. I know that was not an easy 
decision back in 2001 to elect someone who had a reputation of being 
somewhat of a bomb thrower in the House and in my early Senate days to 
a position of leadership in the Senate. They took a risk. I hope they 
feel it has paid off.
  It has certainly been a great blessing to me to have been able to 
serve my colleagues in the capacity of conference chairman.
  It is an incredible group of people. I think of John, who is my 
tennis partner. We played our first match after I was defeated, and he 
beat me 6-love, 6-1. He thinks it is because he played better, but I am 
just preparing for other employment.
  We have prayer groups here. One of the most important things in my 
life over the past 12 years has been the Senate prayer group, the 
Senate Bible study, and the prayer breakfasts, the small prayer group 
with which I have been involved. I don't know how people do it. I don't 
know how people do this business without prayer, without an 
understanding that there is something bigger than us here, something 
that will help us, guide us, lift us up at times when there seems to be 
no other reason to be lifted up.
  I thank all of those who prayed with me and prayed for me. Lloyd 
Ogilvie, a chaplain here for many years, and Barry Black, our Chaplain 
now--they are prayer warriors for all of us. I know they pray for us 
every day. I know Lloyd still prays for us every day, and I know 
millions of Americans pray for us every day. I thank all of them for 
helping me through and helping us and helping our country through these 
difficult times.
  I thank our leader, Bill Frist, my first leader I served under as a 
member of the leadership, Trent Lott, and the leader I served under 
when I came to the Senate, Bob Dole. Each and every one of them in 
their own way led differently. But in the case of Senator Dole, he was 
a larger-than-life figure to me, coming over to the Senate as a 36-
year-old Senator. He was on his way to run for the Presidency. He took 
the time to be concerned about the issues that were important to me. He 
put me on the committees I needed to be on and gave me the opportunity 
that I will never forget and certainly will always be thankful for--to 
manage and work on the welfare reform bill back in 1996.
  Of all the things I accomplished in the Senate, there is nothing I am 
more proud of than what we did in 1996 to reform the welfare system and 
transition it so millions and millions would fall off the rolls, find 
gainful employment, and change their lives and the lives of their 
families. I owe that to Bob Dole. He gave me the opportunity to stand 
at that manager's chair for months in my second year in the Senate and 
taking on what I would argue was the most important piece of 
legislation in that session of the Congress, the Republican revolution.
  I thank Trent Lott not only for his tutelage and mentoring me in the 
time I have been here as a leader, but for helping me in gaining 
leadership and being involved in the leadership in the Senate.
  I thank Bill Frist for his friendship. His coming in as a leader when 
I was already in the leadership was a little different. He didn't come 
in and point the finger and boss around, but he came in to learn. He 
came in to engage, to try to take the knowledge that was in the 
leadership group and use it to build a stronger group. I appreciate 
that.
  There is a humility in Bill Frist. It is a very attractive quality 
and, I might also add, a rather rare quality if one is in the Senate, 
but a very attractive one and a very important one in Senators and 
leaders.
  I thank, I guess finally, the people of Pennsylvania. I was talking 
to Jim Towey. Jim is the new president of Saint Vincent College in 
Latrobe, PA. Jim is the former director of the faith-based office for 
the President. I called him the other day. He said: You know, Rick, I 
have been here--I think he said 6 months. He said: I really like the 
State, like the area, good people. But the more I study the State and 
the more I get the feel of Pennsylvania, I have one question: It is not 
how did you lose the election, but how did you get elected here twice?
  I got elected twice because I had a lot of wonderful people who 
campaigned hard, worked hard, and believed in me and were able to maybe 
see past some of the differences with me to give me an opportunity to 
serve here, and I am eternally grateful.
  It is an incredible State. It is one I got to know very well and, 
obviously, got to know thousands of people. I had the opportunity to 
serve them. I had the opportunity to be scolded by them, reprimanded by 
them. But I always understood they were my employers. I work for them. 
And when you work for somebody, sometimes they are going to tell you 
they don't like the job you are doing. And you better act like someone 
who is an employee instead of an employer or you are not going to find 
yourself as an employee very much longer. Well, I tried to act like an 
employee. But that doesn't mean I always had to agree with my employer, 
and a lot of times I didn't. And maybe I spoke up too often too loudly 
and too boldly on some of the things that my employer didn't agree 
with. I hope they respect the fact that it was a heartfelt disagreement 
and that I did what I did and I said what I said because I believed it 
was in their best interests, even though they may not have thought so.
  I respect the fact that I didn't win this election and that the 
people of Pennsylvania made a different decision. I had an opportunity 
to meet with my successor today in my office and get a chance to talk 
with him about some of the ins and outs of the Senate. He is a good 
man, and he will do a good job. I hope the people of Pennsylvania will 
give him and extend to him the same courtesies and trust and 
cooperation that so many Pennsylvanians who didn't agree with me on a 
lot of things but knew that it was important to work together--such as 
our Governor, Ed Rendell, whom I worked with as mayor and as Governor, 
as well as I did with any Republican that I know--I hope that 
Republican officeholders in Pennsylvania treat my opponent with the 
same kind of respect and the same kind of cooperation that Governor 
Rendell and I have had over the years.
  That brings me to my colleague, Senator Specter. It was very kind of 
Arlen to come and say a few words. He said that we are not only 
colleagues in the Senate and, obviously, colleagues from Pennsylvania, 
but we are friends. I have to tell my colleagues, when I first came to 
the Senate, I thought it was a very long shot that I would be friends 
with Arlen Specter. All I had heard about Arlen Specter was how prickly 
a character he is, how difficult he is, sort of cold and tough. But he 
is a pretty soft guy. He really is. He gets those granddaughters around 
him and he just melts. No, he is a good man. I don't agree with Arlen a 
lot, and of course everybody knows that, but Arlen has been a good 
partner. We have worked on a lot of things together. And even when we 
disagreed, we understood and respected the disagreement and didn't let 
it affect us, or certainly our relationship, or if it was important 
enough to us and important enough to the State and important enough to 
the country, we worked hard to try to bridge those differences. I think 
that is a good model. I recommend it to my successor. I recommend it to 
all my colleagues.
  This place doesn't have to be as personally confrontational as it is. 
I say that as someone who was pretty personally combative when I first 
came here. I know that I have had some pretty strident debates on the 
floor of the

[[Page 22957]]

Senate, but I will tell my colleagues that in my heart, it was never 
personal, it was always about what the issue was about. And it is hard 
for a lot of people in America who look at it in a culture that takes 
everything personally--people have asked me why I have been so 
comfortable and at ease with what has happened, and it is because I 
don't take it personally. People disagree with where I wanted to take 
this country, and that is fine. They will have an opportunity to take 
it someplace else, for now.
  But I don't take it personally. I look at the empty desks of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I look at each and every 
one and I can see them all sitting there, and I can't think of one that 
I would take a disagreement with personally--and I have had 
disagreements with virtually every one but all of them have disagreed, 
hopefully without being personally disagreeable. That is how this place 
works. It is the only way it can work and be successful for America.
  In closing, I want to say that I always come back to the word 
``gratitude.'' To God, to my family, to my colleagues, to the wonderful 
people who have worked for me and with me over the years, to the people 
of the 18th Congressional District, to the people of Pennsylvania: 
Thank you. Thank you. I don't know what I will be doing next, but I 
cannot imagine that anything I do in the future will rival the kind of 
blessings I have felt from all of the folks whom I have mentioned. The 
relationships and the wonderful accomplishments and the great spirit I 
have experienced over these last 16 years is something that I am 
eternally grateful for to all of those involved. It has been a great 
blessing.
  I thank my colleagues, I thank those who came and listened, those who 
might be listening in other ways, but I thank them, personally, for the 
great kindness they have shown me. I leave a very happy and contented 
former Senator from Pennsylvania who feels very blessed.

                               Exhibit 1

                    Senate Personal Office Employees

       Aho, Robert W; Anderson, Thomas S; Armata, Andrew M T; 
     Baldwin, Todd A; Barbera, Vincent M; Barron, Bruce A; 
     Bashore, Keith E; Beresnyak, Allison M; Beresnyak, Thomas E 
     Jr.; Bernier, George M III; Bernstein, Luke M; Berry, Donna 
     A; Bertuola, Lawrence J; Beynon, Matthew E; Bickhart, Robert 
     G; Blocksidge, Anne M; Bonesso, Rozzanna J; Bowman, Patricia 
     Dianne; Bowser, Julia E; Boyd, Allison J.
       Bozzuto, Robert F; Bragg, Heather N; Broughton, Aaron 
     Michael; Brown, Brian T; Burkhalter, Colin J; Butler, Timothy 
     R; Caldwell, Stanley D; Calka, Courtney JO; Carlson, Michael 
     R; Carter, Andrew C; Castillo, Michael J; Chapman, Elizabeth 
     R; Christman, David R; Clater, Michael D; Cognato, 
     Christopher; Cognato, Michael H; Coleman, Samuel E; Collins, 
     Leah R; Conklin, Jennifer M; Coppolo, Stephen D.
       Corman, Jacob D III; Coulter, Kathryn A; Covel, Michelle F; 
     Crane, Rebecca H; Curry, Margaret K; Daniel, Kelly L; 
     Davidek, Jason E; Davis, Mary Elizabeth A; Davis, Virginia L; 
     Dermody, Brandon D; Devito, William J; Dick, John T; Diehl, 
     Samuel W; Dougherty, Kara A; Doyle, Lyda A; Dutkowski, 
     Margaret C; Ely, Ramona J; Ensslin, Mary T; Evans, Andrea L; 
     Faulk, Page C.
       Faustino, Mary A; Feenstra, Paul A; Feller, Meredith L; 
     Fergusen, Sarah E; Ferrara, Lorenzo L; Finney, Thomas S; 
     Fischer, Karen E; Fratto, Salvatore A; French, David G; 
     French, John M III; Galko, Vincent A; Garver, Nancy L; 
     Gaston, Shivellia T; Gemma, Peter B Jr.; Genesio, Christine 
     J; Gerry, Keith M; Gorman, Victoria Lynn; Greco, Michael P; 
     Greene, Charles M; Gresov, Winston G.
       Gutierrez, Jennifer C; Haberkern, Jeffery J; Hall, David M; 
     Harbula, David Scott; Harvey, Marcus W; Hershey, Jill E; 
     Hershey, Michael S; Hoadley, Cassandra; Holcombe, Sara K; 
     Hornbake, Lawrence E; Horne, Wesley O; Horning, Ashley E; 
     Howard, Jaime L; Hybels, Amy R; Irvine, Walter G Jr.; Irwin, 
     Christine E; Ivanov, Florina D; Johnson, Thomas O II; 
     Kauffman, Alexander J; Kelly, Caitlin B.
       Kennedy, Brian D; Kinsman, Chelsea M; Kitchen, Michelle L; 
     Kocan, Sheila T; Koutsiouroumbas, Athan; Kuklis, Joseph V; 
     Laager, Maryanne R; Ladd, Abigail A; Larcinese, Mary E; 
     Laurenson, Craig A; Lebaudy, Laura A; Leidner, Kristina S; 
     Leinbach, Christian Y; Lewandowski, Leslie L; Lindenberer, 
     Stephanie Ann; Lofton, Marian Victoria; Looney, Melanie L; 
     Lyle, Stephen T; Lynch, Stephanie F; Maclean, Heather Marie.
       Maddox, Audrey C; Maguire, Erin K; Mahon, Emmet M; Maines, 
     Laura A; Martin, David; Martin, John E Jr.; Mattei, Thomas J 
     Jr.; Matthews, Shawnna Lee; Mcclard, Melissa J; Mccoy, Ida M; 
     Mccracken, David E; Mccree, Michael R; Mcdonald, Robin V; 
     Mcelwee, George S; Mcginley, Christopher P; Mckeon, Meredith; 
     Mcnamara, Kevin M; Medina, Wanda I; Meyer, Christine M; 
     Mihalke, Michael H.
       Miller, Eric R; Miller, Jennifer L; Miller, Manda B; 
     Miller, Nicole M; Miller, William A; Mitchell, Anna K; 
     Mitchell, Marcus P; Mizer, Erica L; Molineaux, Peter J; 
     Moore, Thomas; Moore, Zachery P; Morinigo, Nicholas; Morton, 
     Bylly Jo; Mullen, James G; Narcavage, Michael III; Navin, 
     Lawrence M; Ohara, Gerald J; Oshea, Joseph J; Pallotto, Adam 
     R; Palmer, Wayne D.
       Park, Victoria P; Parrick-Cox, Susan; Patel, Kajal A; 
     Pavlik, Bonnie M; Peacock, Deborah A; Pearson, Tim; Perez, 
     Janet M; Petraglia, Amy W; Poteet, Paul W; Preate, Alexandra 
     V; Pugh, Jennifer S; Quinn, Christine Marie; Rajsic, 
     Michelle; Ramos, Josephina; Reilly, Sean M; Reyes, Jeremy; 
     Rhodes, Allison L; Riegel, Ellen J; Rockwell, Russel A; Rode, 
     Katherine R.
       Rodgers, Lincoln R C; Roman, Lisa M; Romaniello, Catherine 
     M; Roscoe, Abigail; Rossi, Connie J; Rossman, Eleanor T; Roy, 
     Kevin F; Ryan, Maureen; Sailhamer, Brent A; Salvesen, Erling 
     R III; Sanborn, Alden R; Sanders, Joseph E Jr.; Sarmir, 
     Danielle; Scanlan, Tricia L; Scaringi, M Anthony; Schmidt, 
     Keith A; Schmidt, Michele E; Sears, William P; Sechler, 
     Michael W; Shaner, Mathias R.
       Sharp, Crystal N; Sharp, Trudy R; Shelby, Melissa B; 
     Sheriff, Marie A; Shirk, Jamie E; Shott, Christine M; 
     Simodejka, Jill L; Sinha, Sushant K; Smith, Brian A; Smith, 
     Jacob W; Solfanelli, Matthew; Soroka, Suzanne M; Sosar, 
     Edward D; Spangler, Courtney Leigh; Sparvero, Emily S; 
     Stawasz, Karen L; Stein, Peter J; Stephans, Elizabeth L; 
     Stolnacher, Patricia L; Stoltzfoos, Gerald D.
       Stoltzfoos, Jeffery L; Strickland, Carolyn; Strothman, 
     Alexis A; Stuart, Robert R; Swain, Tooshar K; Swartz, Barbara 
     K; Sweeny, Jennifer Mahurin; Sybyl, Julie M; Szy, Daniel J; 
     Taylor, David N; Tekel, Adam R; Thompson, Holly; Titus-Young, 
     Joy J; Traynham, Robert L; Trego, Joshua S; Tulyasathein, 
     Charnsin; Turner, Michelle D; Urguhart, E Randy; Valdes, 
     Stephen G; Vanderpool, Kristen R.
       Vesey, Jennifer L; Voinski, John A; Vulakovich, Randolph P; 
     Walker, Patricia B; Wall, Toni B; Walters, Christopher F; 
     Watson, D Dexter; Weaver, Chad A; Weber, David; Weiss, Todd 
     M; White, Jennifer S; Wiesenfeld, Michael A; Williamson, N 
     Kathy; Willis, Jessica R; Wittman, Anne E; Wright, Erica 
     Clayton; Wusinich, Maria T; Yanoshak, Erica M; Younger, 
     Anita.

                 Senate Republican Conference Employees

       Amy Marie Adams; Jeff Hunt; Garrett Fahy; Joel Digrado; 
     Kate Harris; Shonda Werry; Cris Clapp; Melissa Seckora 
     Anderson; Elizabeth Keys; Barbara Ledeen; Chrissy Shott; 
     Sarah Berk; Mark Rodgers; Randy Brandt; Katherine Gonzalez; 
     Carlos Gonzalez; Lane Marshall; Cyrus Pearson; Robert 
     Traynham; Henry Peterson; Chris Angrisani; Laura Gill.
       Nick Schweich; Aaron Broughton; Tim Petty; Curtis Swager; 
     Nate Green; David Song; Michael Bleicher; Jen Sweeney; Joy 
     Schmidt; Eden Gordon; Susana Levenson; Eric Miller; Chris 
     Myers; Rebecca Cotton; Drew Cantor; Alex Kaufman; John 
     Rankin; Dan Ronayne; Eric Ruiz; Loredana Vouto; Deidre 
     Woodbyrne.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to say to my good friend from 
Pennsylvania, before he leaves the floor, what an extraordinary 16 
years he has had representing the people of his State and what a truly 
outstanding Member of the Senate he has been and what a moving farewell 
address I had an opportunity to witness. Good luck, good friend, and 
Godspeed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending 
nomination occur at 5:45 today and that prior to the vote, Senator 
Grassley be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, Senator Enzi for 
up to 5 minutes, and Senator Kennedy for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Food and Drug 
Administration will finally have a confirmed Commissioner. And I am 
glad that the President's nominee, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, has acted 
to address concerns that have been raised about his nomination. He 
addressed conflict-of-interest concerns by resigning his position as 
head of the National Cancer Institute. The FDA also approved access to 
emergency contraception without a prescription. This decision should 
have been made when the FDA's expert panel recommended it, and I was 
disappointed at the shameless politicizing of science over emergency 
contraception. With those issues now resolved, I will vote for his 
nomination.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination 
of Dr.

[[Page 22958]]

Andrew von Eschenbach to be Commissioner Food and Drugs.
  I am pleased that the Senate is considering Dr. von Eschenbach's 
nomination and I strongly urge my colleagues to support him because the 
FDA needs a permanent Commissioner to lead the agency. The FDA has been 
criticized time and time again over this. To me, the first step toward 
promoting stability in the agency is for the Senate to confirm an FDA 
Commissioner. Dr. von Eschenbach is a capable administrator, extremely 
knowledgeable about health care and food and drug policy, and we can 
count on him to do the right thing. It is past the time that he be 
confirmed.
  I had the opportunity to work with Dr. von Eschenbach when he was the 
Director of the National Cancer Institute and found him to be 
personable and engaging. I also had a long meeting with Dr. von 
Eschenbach before his Senate confirmation hearing and was very 
impressed with his in depth knowledge on matters before the Food and 
Drug Administration. But even more impressive, Dr. von Eschenbach truly 
listened to my ideas regarding the FDA, and I greatly appreciated it. 
It is clear that he intends to work closely with the Congress.
  The bottom line is that I am convinced Dr. von Eschenbach is the best 
person for the job, and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about FDA-related issues facing 
my home State of Utah and where Dr. von Eschenbach's strong involvement 
will be crucial.
  As my colleagues are aware, Utah is home to the largest concentration 
of dietary supplement companies in our Nation, so ensuring that the 
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, law is strongly and 
appropriately enforced is a high priority of mine.
  I have been told by every FDA Commissioner since Dr. Kessler that the 
FDA has adequate authority under DSHEA to make certain the supplement 
marketplace is safe, so it is my hope that Dr. von Eschenbach will make 
this a priority during his tenure as FDA Commissioner.
  In addition, as I have told him on more than one occasion, it is 
essential for Dr. von Eschenbach to work to finalize and implement good 
manufacturing practices--GMPs--for supplements as authorized by DSHEA. 
It is 12 years since they were authorized. And, despite the repeated 
contacts Senator Harkin and I have made, the reportedly drafted 
regulations have still not been issued. I want to encourage strongly 
Dr. von Eschenbach to address this matter once and for all.
  We will also be counting on the good doctor to implement the new 
system of mandatory reporting of serious adverse events--AERs--for 
nonprescription drugs and dietary supplements that is contained in S. 
3546, the Hatch-Durbin bill we passed last night. It is my hope the 
House will pass the bill today--and it can be sent to the President for 
signature. When enacted, the Hatch-Durbin-Harkin-Enzi-Kennedy bill will 
require manufacturers of supplements and over-the-counter drugs to 
report to FDA any reports of serious problems associated with the use 
of the products. This is an important consumer protection bill, and it 
is important that FDA seek the funding to implement the program as 
Congress intends. I stand ready to work with the agency on this.
  Another concern I have expressed to Dr. von Eschenbach and his agency 
is the need to look out for the ``little guy'' once he becomes 
Commissioner. Utah is the home to more than 100 medical device 
companies, many of them small, and I want Dr. von Eschenbach and his 
staff to treat these companies fairly, especially when the FDA 
officials conduct inspections. There have been several complaints from 
manufacturers about the tactics that the FDA inspectors have taken. I 
think these complaints have merit. All I ask of Dr. von Eschenbach is 
that Utah companies be treated fairly by the FDA.
  I also am deeply concerned about the agency's lack of funding. This 
has been a growing concern, especially as it affects implementation of 
DSHEA, the new AEER system, and also the review of generic drug 
applications. While I realize that FDA has a lot of responsibilities, 
ranging from ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices to 
protecting our country's food supply, it simply isn't fair to continue 
to pile on these responsibilities without providing the FDA with 
adequate funding. I assure Dr. von Eschenbach that I will work with him 
and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate 
HELP Committee to ensure that the agency is provided with sufficient 
funding.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. von Eschenbach today so 
that the agency will finally have a permanent leader who will look out 
for the best interests of both the American people and an important 
Federal agency--the FDA.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the 
nomination of Andrew Von Eschenbach as Commissioner of the FDA.
  I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home state of 
Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down 
the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH and 
then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the 
American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the 
technologies that we use are safe.
  Over the years, I have fought for the right facilities, the right 
resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. Dr. Von Eschenbach 
is an experienced clinician and researcher and as the former Director 
of National Cancer Institute, NCI, I presume he is committed to the 
mission of FDA. However, I have concerns. I have yellow flashing light 
about his commitment to reform over drug safety, to not politicize 
science, and to establish a channel where employees can speak truth to 
power.
  This is important. As we consider the nomination of Dr. Von 
Eschenbach, we must address one of the most important issues facing our 
Nation: the loss of confidence in our Government's ability to ensure 
the safety of our food, our drugs, and our medical devices. The FDA has 
always been the gold standard in maintaining the safety and efficacy of 
our drugs and medical devices.
  Yet today the Agency is being politicized and degraded. The current 
administration has shown a persistent pattern of placing politics 
before science; making appointments based on ideology instead of 
competency; stifling scientists whose findings do not meet political 
objectives; making decisions based on politics, rather than sound 
science.
  Nowhere is this more evident than at the FDA. Today, FDA is facing a 
crisis: There is a crisis of morale. There is a crisis of confidence in 
the reliability of FDA decisions. There is a crisis about whether there 
are scientists operating under a gag rule, putting politics above 
science. There is a crisis ensuring the reliability and safety of our 
drugs.
  This summer, Union of Concerned Scientists released its survey of the 
scientists at the FDA. These scientists are my constituents. They found 
the morale of trusted and respected employees has been battered by 
years of weak leadership. This survey is important because it gives a 
public voice to scientists who aren't in a position to place their jobs 
on the line to suffer retaliation for speaking the truth and to 
potentially jeopardize their families.
  The FDA needs a major overhaul and a culture change at the highest 
levels in order to continue to meet its mission. The FDA needs to 
reestablish its relationship with its own scientists. The FDA's focus 
should be only on science and the public good. And I am hoping that Dr. 
Von Eschenbach will be the strong leader the FDA needs to accomplish 
this overhaul.
  My criterion for looking at every nomination are competence, 
integrity, commitment to the mission of the Agency.
  Competence: Management expertise is essential to effectively run FDA 
without redtape and bureaucracy. The FDA has over 10,000 dedicated 
employees and has a budget of nearly $2 billion. Strong management 
skills and leadership are essential to ensure that FDA can efficiently 
and effectively carry out its many responsibilities.

[[Page 22959]]

  Integrity: The individual must be well-respected by patient/consumer 
groups and the industry so that FDA commands the respect of the public 
and the industry it regulates. The FDA Commissioner must also be an 
honest broker and listener who can make tough calls on contentious 
issues.
  Commitment to the mission of the Agency: Decisions must be made based 
on sound science and public health, not ideology. The nominee must 
maintain the FDA gold standard of safety and efficacy, ensuring timely 
approval of new therapies to save lives, help patients live longer and 
improve their quality of life and ensuring safety of our food supply.
  The FDA needs strong leadership. Dr. Von Eschenbach is an experienced 
and respected scientist. We need his leadership to help Congress 
establish the legislative framework needed to reform FDA: We need to 
restore the morale at FDA; we need to restore confidence in the FDA for 
all Americans; and we need to restore FDA to the world's premier food 
and safety regulatory agency.
  We need his commitment to ensure that the best possible science 
informs the decisions the FDA makes every day. We need him to ensure a 
culture of openness so that management listens to and addresses the 
concerns of your employees. We need him to make significant changes to 
transform the Agency to the gold standard it once was.
  FDA sets the gold standard. Yet today we have ideology over science, 
ideology over competence. I strongly believe the FDA needs a strong 
permanent Director. I will therefore vote for Andrew Von Eschenbach in 
the hopes that he can become that strong leader FDA needs and the 
American public deserves.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at 5:45, in just 15 minutes, we will have 
an opportunity to vote on the nominee to head the Food and Drug 
Administration. I want to first of all commend my friend, the chairman 
of our human resource committee, Senator Enzi, for his leadership over 
this period of time in giving the assurance to the agency, and much 
more importantly to the American people, that we are going to have 
someone in charge of this agency able to exercise executive decisions, 
to make sure the agency itself is going to fulfill its role in 
protecting the health of the American people. So first of all, I thank 
my colleague and friend, Senator Enzi, for making sure we are going to 
get an opportunity to vote.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator Frist, for making sure that we 
were not going to leave this session without having a final vote on the 
nominee.
  In the last 5 years, only in one of those years did we have a head of 
the FDA. The rest of the time, they were ``acting.'' A good deal of the 
time, there was virtually no presence. This is the most important 
health agency that guides and guards American's health, the health of 
our children, the health of the elderly, and the health of families in 
our Nation. So this is a very important point, and I welcome the 
opportunity to urge the Senate to approve Andrew von Eschenbach for 
this position.
  As I mentioned, the Food and Drug Administration oversees the 
products that account for fully a quarter of the entire U.S. economy. 
Every day, the agency makes decisions that mean the difference between 
life and death for countless patients. Millions of Americans rely on 
drugs the FDA approves to protect them from sickness, and every family 
in America counts on the FDA to see that the food they eat is free from 
contamination.
  Now we are in the life science century, and the opportunities for 
breakthroughs with new drugs is unlimited. With the progress we have 
made in the Human Genome Project and the sequencing of the genes, the 
research that is being done across this Nation, the possibilities are 
virtually unlimited. But it is all new science. We have to make sure 
that this agency which is going to make the judgments and decisions 
about approval or disapproval is going to have the best in terms of 
scientists, the best in terms of leadership. That is at issue here if 
we do not have someone who is going to be the head of the FDA to make 
sure the agency that has responsibility for the safety of prescription 
drugs is going to work in ways to protect the American consumer; that 
the agency that is in charge of the food safety in this country is 
going to work to ensure that it is going to be effective for the 
American people.
  Now the agency itself, the FDA, urgently needs treatment. For too 
long, it has been without a confirmed leader. It has become a ship 
without a captain, lacking the initiative and confidence that only a 
confirmed commissioner can bring. Year after year, under this 
administration, the FDA has been allowed to drift, and year after year 
the challenges that face the agency have grown.
  Think of the controversies--about antidepressants, about the 
withdrawal of Vioxx, about the sale of Plan B over the counter, about 
adequate review of drugs on the market. The agency has had to struggle 
unfairly with difficult scientific questions, inadequate resources and 
authority, and political pressures to ignore the science that must be--
good science has to be at the heart of its mission.
  Finally, the day is here when the Senate can act to confirm a 
commissioner whose job No. 1 will be to restore the leadership to this 
essential agency and begin the process of addressing the many major 
concerns that have gone unmet for so long.
  Dr. von Eschenbach is a good choice to lead the FDA. At the National 
Cancer Institute, he led bold initiatives on the human genome and 
nanotechnology. As a physician for patients with cancer and a survivor 
of cancer himself, he brought an indispensable patient-centered 
perspective to the Cancer Institute, and he will bring that to the Food 
and Drug Administration as well.
  Dr. von Eschenbach was able to find a solution to the controversy 
about allowing the over-the-counter sales of Plan B. We may never know 
the battles he had to fight and win to achieve that solution, but his 
integrity and tenacity in achieving a solution speak volumes for his 
character and his commitment to public health.
  FDA has long been regarded as the gold standard in regulatory work. 
That will continue to be true only if it makes independent, science-
based decisions, in both fact and appearance, and under Dr. von 
Eschenbach's leadership, we expect FDA to make those discussions solely 
on the basis of science and in the best interests of public health. To 
do the job we expect----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask, if there is no objection, that I be able to 
proceed for another 4 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have to make sure the agency itself is 
going to have the adequate resources that are going to be necessary to 
protect the public interest. What we are talking about here is making 
sure they have the best, in terms of science--in terms of prescription 
drugs and the new breakthroughs. We have the whole range of new medical 
devices which are out there. The United States is leading the way. We 
want to make sure they are safe and effective. The agency has important 
responsibilities in terms of the safety of our food supply. We have 
given it additional kinds of responsibilities to deal with the 
challenges of the war on terror.
  This agency has enormous responsibilities in terms of the consumers 
and the families of this Nation. It needs the strong leadership which I 
think the nominee can bring, and it needs the kind of support from the 
Congress that will permit it to be the true gold standard for safety 
and for improving the health of the American people.

[[Page 22960]]

  As other agencies are set up around the world--in Western Europe and 
now even in Asia--the place they look is at the FDA, and for very good 
reason. We want this agency to be the best. It can be the best. With a 
new leader and hopefully with the new Congress giving the agency the 
kind of support it should have, we can make sure the health of the 
American people in these important areas is going to be secure for the 
future.
  Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming for his 
persistence and tenacity in making sure where we are this evening. We 
would not be here if it had not been for his good work on this issue, 
as in so many others. I thank him, and the American people ought to 
know that this is an enormously important vote to protect their 
interests. I hope this nominee is approved overwhelmingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy, for his tremendous effort over the last 2 years as we have 
worked on health issues but particularly as we have worked on the FDA. 
The Food and Drug Administration is critical to the people of this 
country, and Senator Kennedy and I have been asking to have a fully 
confirmed person heading that up every opportunity we have had. We have 
been reminding people they did not want to be the one objecting if 
there happened to be a national safety crisis in food or health. It is 
just so critical.
  People say he is ``acting.'' When you are the acting person in a 
position, you really do not have the authority. It means people are 
looking over your shoulder, seeing what you are doing, making sure you 
are dotting every ``i'' and crossing every ``t'' and following every 
rule and listening to every agency that has any control over you. 
Someone who is fully confirmed can be the boss.
  A lot of people would say: Why would this highly qualified doctor 
take this job?
  I am sure now that he has been through the confirmation process, he 
is probably thinking: Why I would take that job? I am hoping he is not. 
In fact, earlier today I called him to let him know that the delay in 
getting a final vote on his confirmation had nothing to do with him, 
that we had some other logistical process things we were going through, 
that there would be a final vote today, and that I suspected, in light 
of the cloture vote, there would not be any problem. I am pleased that 
it still looks that way. I am anxious to call him and let him know he 
is fully confirmed as a commissioner and he can start to work on some 
of the morale problems that he talked about, can start to work on some 
of the other vision things he has in mind, and people will know he has 
the full authority to do that.
  I do want to remind people that the FDA's mission is broad. It 
regulates food, it regulates drugs, it regulates biologics--and I wish 
I had time to explain all of what that is--medical devices. You 
probably didn't know that he handles animal feed, and that is because 
animals are ingested and could cause a problem, too. He is also in 
charge of cosmetics. For every dollar Americans spend, this agency 
regulates 25 cents of that dollar in products.
  As science progresses, the challenges to regulation will grow. The 
FDA regulates a host of new products that blur the FDA's traditional 
boundaries, and that is one of the reasons the Senator from 
Massachusetts and I have been working on a FDA reform bill for a year 
and a half. We have now held hearings on that.
  It is a very bipartisan bill. We have had some outstanding comments. 
There is a possibility to make the agency better, and we are going to 
continue to work on that so that all the new innovations that require a 
nimble and responsive agency to regulate them, and resources to match, 
will be in place so that he can do the kind of job he needs to do.
  This is such a critical role in our Nation's public health, it is 
such an important agency, I do ask for people to give him a resounding 
vote in this confirmation.
  Again, I thank Senator Kennedy, who is the ranking member on the 
committee and soon to be the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee, for his hard work and support during the 
process. I think it is time to bring this process to a close so we can 
get him confirmed as quickly as possible and have a true, fully 
confirmed Commissioner of Food and Drug.
  I thank Dr. von Eschenbach for his patience with our process and for 
the work he has done in spite of the process. I look forward to getting 
to see the kind of job he will do as a fully confirmed physician. I ask 
for your vote in support of him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes we are going to turn 
to a very important vote, a vote that to me is significant because it 
touches every single American in some shape or form. Much has been said 
over the course of today about the scope of the FDA, the importance of 
having an FDA Commissioner, a permanent FDA Commissioner, and we will 
realize that shortly.
  Earlier this year we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Food and 
Drug Administration, which is an administration that I have used 
professionally in my previous profession in everything from the 
thousands of prescriptions I have written, to investigational drugs, to 
left ventricular devices, to lasers and artificial hearts. I have seen 
first hand how important it is to have an appropriate regulatory agency 
there. The Food and Drug Administration, as we all know, as we have 
said this afternoon, is America's first scientific regulation body. 
While the agency has adapted and changed with the times, it has 
remained true to its purpose of protecting interests of everyone who is 
listening to me, the American consumer.
  In a few minutes we will vote on the nomination of a very good 
friend, Dr. Eschenbach, to the position of Commissioner of the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  I have known Dr. Eschenbach, again professionally, and I have had 
mutual patients with him. And he has assisted in many ways as we have 
looked at appropriate therapy for individuals from across the country. 
He is currently serving as Acting Commissioner. I have interacted with 
him in that regard. He has demonstrated a capacity to lead and to 
administer in an exceptional way the Food and Drug Administration with 
sensitive issues on a daily basis. It is important that we have a 
permanent person in that position, and he is the ideal person, the 
ideal candidate to do just that.
  In both his professional and personal life, Dr. Eschenbach has 
experience: as a cancer survivor, as Director of the National Cancer 
Institute, literally a nationally renowned urologic surgeon and 
oncologist, which all attest to the superlative qualifications to 
handle that challenging job, as we all know, as FDA Commissioner.
  I hope colleagues will join me in supporting Dr. Eschenbach's 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Andrew von Eschenbach, of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and 
Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services?
  Mr. ENZI. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),

[[Page 22961]]

the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Ex.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Baucus
     Brownback
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Santorum
     Snowe
     Talent
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Burns
     Dodd
     Graham
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Reid
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and that the Senate return to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________