[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6646-6651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

[[Page 6647]]

that will most benefit our economy and our country.
  I am introducing the SKIL bill because I don't believe enough 
attention has been focused on legal immigrants, especially the highly 
skilled workers who contribute to our economy and comply with our laws. 
It is my hope that this legislation will allow U.S. companies to retain 
a highly educated workforce until we can channel more American students 
into the math, science, and engineer pipeline. The SKIL bill is yet 
another important piece of the U.S. competitiveness agenda, and I urge 
my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2693. A bill to prevent congressional reapportionment distortions; 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have discussed 
at length the problem of illegal immigration. What many may not realize 
is that illegal immigration affects our system of representation as 
well.
  After the 1990 Census, my State of Montana lost one of its two seats 
in the House of Representatives. Ten years later, our great State had 
grown to more than 900,000 residents, but still did not gain a seat.
  Meanwhile, we have an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in this 
country today, and all of them will be a factor to determine which 
States gain or lose a seat in the House of Representatives after the 
Census in 2010. This is because current policy tells us to count 
everyone in this country, illegal or not, when determining 
Congressional apportionment.
  If these trends continue, we will have millions more illegal aliens 
counted in the 2010 Census. The result will be more seats lost in 
States that have actually increased in population of law-abiding U.S. 
residents.
  Thankfully, my State of Montana cannot lose any more seats in the 
House of Representatives. We are down to our last one. Other States, 
however, will not be so fortunate.
  Law-abiding citizens should not have to lose representation because 
millions of illegal immigrants ignore our laws. That is why today, I am 
introducing the Fair and Accurate Representation Act. This bill will 
exclude the masses of illegal aliens in this country from being part of 
the Congressional apportionment process.
  If we act now, we can get started on reforming this process in time 
for the 2010 Census. The voting rights of law-abiding citizens should 
not be diluted by those who choose to enter this country illegally. I 
call upon my colleagues in the Senate to join me in correcting this 
process, so that those who lawfully reside in this country receive fair 
and accurate representation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2694. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to remove 
certain limitation on attorney representation of claimants for veterans 
benefits in administrative proceedings before the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment 
on legislation that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, 
Senator Graham, and I are introducing. This bill will provide veterans 
with the right to hire counsel to represent them in proceedings before 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and will help ensure that all 
who represent veterans are held to the highest standards of 
professional and ethical conduct.
  As President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed nearly 150 years 
ago, this Nation has an obligation ``to care for him who shall have 
borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In keeping with 
that charge, the Federal Government provides a wide array of benefits 
to veterans and their dependents, through an administrative system that 
is intended to be informal, claimant-friendly, and non-adversarial.
  During recent years, however, veterans' organizations, VA, and others 
have observed that this system has become increasingly complex. 
Enhanced legal requirements and layers of procedural steps intended to 
protect the rights of veterans have increased both the complexity of 
the system and how long it takes to process a claim. At the same time, 
with the Nation at war and servicemembers deployed around the world, 
the disability claims filed by returning veterans have become more 
complex. Many of these claims are based on disabilities caused by 
environmental exposures, traumatic brain injuries, psychological 
trauma, severe combat wounds, and other highly complex medical 
conditions, which by their nature may entail complex questions of 
causality or intricate factual or legal analyses.
  Despite the increasing complexity of many cases, all 24 million 
living veterans are prohibited from hiring a lawyer to help them 
navigate the VA system. It is only after a veteran has spent months and 
even years exhausting the extensive VA administrative process that the 
veteran then may retain counsel--a process that often takes 3 or more 
years to complete. As the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates 
(NOVA) testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year, 
``[t]his is too late in the process for counsel to be truly effective'' 
because by that time the evidentiary record ``is effectively closed.'' 
On the other hand, NOVA testified that, if attorneys were retained at 
an earlier stage of the process, they could be helpful in obtaining and 
presenting necessary evidence and in ensuring that VA timely and 
accurately processes claims.
  So, with the potential for lawyers to help veterans successfully 
navigate this increasingly complex system, why does the government 
prohibit veterans from retaining counsel? This restriction, which dates 
back to the Civil War, was born out of concern that unscrupulous 
attorneys would improperly take large portions of veterans' disability 
benefits as compensation for their services. And some will argue that 
this concern is equally warranted today.
  Although I understand this longstanding desire to protect veterans' 
disability compensation, I would ask my colleagues to consider a simple 
question posited in a recent editorial: ``If American soldiers are 
mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their 
country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer?'' I 
believe the obvious answer to that question is ``yes.''
  Particularly for veterans of to day's All-Volunteer Force--which has 
been described as the ``best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting 
force in the history of the world''--this paternalistic restriction is 
simply outdated. These highly trained, highly skilled veterans have the 
ability--and should have the right--to decide whether or not to hire a 
lawyer.
  This is a right that is not denied to individuals seeking other 
earned benefits from the government. In fact, if a veteran were to seek 
Social Security benefits for disabilities suffered during military 
service, the veteran would be permitted to hire an attorney--while the 
same veteran seeking benefits from VA for the same disabilities would 
be prohibited from hiring an attorney based on this remnant of an 
ancient policy.
  The paternalistic restriction that prevents veterans from hiring 
counsel may have been advisable 150 years ago, but--as one veterans' 
organization recently testified before the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee--there is now no logic to it ``except history.'' It has 
endured for far too long and it is now time to embrace Justice Oliver 
Wendell Holmes' admonition that it is ``revolting'' for a law to 
persist ``in blind imitation of the past.'' It is time to repeal this 
archaic law and to allow our Nation's veterans the option of hiring 
counsel.
  Having said all that, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting 
that attorneys should be considered necessary in order to obtain VA 
benefits. Above all, we must ensure that the system continues to serve 
veterans in a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial manner--regardless of 
the presence of an attorney or any other representative--and we must 
strive to reduce the complexities of this vast system. I hope that

[[Page 6648]]

veterans' organizations across the country will join me in pursuing 
those goals.
  I also want to be clear that, although I believe veterans should have 
the option to hire attorneys, they should not be discouraged in any way 
from utilizing the free services now provided by many dedicated 
representatives of veterans' service organizations. Those 
representatives are an important and valuable resource that veterans 
and their families will undoubtedly continue to rely on for many 
generations to come. The availability of this resource, however, is no 
reason to restrict veterans' access to other options. If a veteran 
would rather hire an attorney, we should not stand in the way.
  At the same time, however, we should ensure that anyone who 
represents a veteran is held to the highest standards of professional 
and ethical conduct and that any fee charged to a veteran is patently 
reasonable. To that end, this legislation will allow veterans the right 
to hire an attorney at any time and it will heighten the expectations 
on all individuals who represent veterans.
  Specifically, this legislation will allow VA to ensure that all 
attorneys who practice before VA have adequate training or experience 
in this specialized area of law to competently represent veterans and 
that they conform to specified standards of ethical and professional 
conduct. It would also allow VA to ensure that all veterans' 
representatives are honest, professional, and law abiding; that they 
avoid further delaying or complicating the system by presenting 
frivolous claims or arguments; and that they conduct themselves with 
due regard for the non-adversarial nature of the system.
  For veterans who opt to hire an attorney, this legislation would 
provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with authority to reduce any 
attorney fee if it is excessive or unreasonable and with authority to 
set restrictions on the amount of fees that could be charged in any 
case before VA. Finally, in order to avoid any drain on existing VA 
resources, VA would have authority to impose on attorneys a 
registration fee to defray any costs associated with allowing them to 
practice before VA.
  In sum, this legislation will take measures to ensure that the 
interests of veterans will be protected, while allowing them to decide 
for themselves whether they want to hire a lawyer. I ask my colleagues 
to support this groundbreaking legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2694

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

       (a) Qualifications and Standards of Conduct for Individuals 
     Recognized as Agents or Attorneys.--
       (1) Additional qualifications and standards for agents and 
     attorneys generally.--Subsection (a) of section 5904 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) The Secretary may prescribe in regulations 
     qualifications and standards of conduct for individuals 
     recognized under this section, including the following:
       ``(A) A requirement that, before being recognized, an 
     individual--
       ``(i) show that such individual is of good moral character 
     and in good repute, is qualified to render claimants valuable 
     service, and is otherwise competent to assist claimants in 
     presenting claims; and
       ``(ii) has such level of experience and specialized 
     training as the Secretary shall specify.
       ``(B) A requirement that the individual follow such 
     standards of conduct as the Secretary shall specify.
       ``(3) The Secretary may prescribe in regulations 
     restrictions on the amount of fees that an agent or attorney 
     may charge a claimant for services rendered in the 
     preparation, presentation, and prosecution of a claim before 
     the Department.
       ``(4)(A) The Secretary may, on a periodic basis, collect 
     from individuals recognized as agents or attorneys under this 
     section a registration fee.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall prescribe the amount and 
     frequency of collection of such fees. The amount of such fees 
     may include an amount, as specified by the Secretary, 
     necessary to defray the costs of the Department in 
     recognizing individuals under this section, in administering 
     the collection of such fees, in administering the payment of 
     fees under subsection (d), and in conducting oversight of 
     agents or attorneys.
       ``(C) Amounts so collected shall be deposited in the 
     account from which amounts for such costs were derived, 
     merged with amounts in such account, and available for the 
     same purpose, and subject to the same conditions and 
     limitations, as amounts in such account.''.
       (2) Applicability to representatives of veterans service 
     organizations.--Section 5902(b) of such title is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) An individual recognized under this section shall be 
     subject to suspension under section 5904(b) of this title on 
     the same basis as an individual recognized under section 
     5904(a) of this title.''.
       (3) Applicability to individuals recognized for particular 
     claims.--Section 5903 of such title is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Suspension.--An individual recognized under this 
     section shall be subject to suspension under section 5904(b) 
     of this title on the same basis as an individual recognized 
     under section 5904(a) of this title.''.
       (b) Additional Bases for Suspension of Individuals.--
     Subsection (b) of section 5904 of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and sections 5902 and 5903 of this 
     title'' after ``under this section'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) has failed to conduct himself or herself with due 
     regard for the non-adversarial nature of any proceeding 
     before the Department;
       ``(7) has presented frivolous claims, issues, or arguments 
     to the Department; or
       ``(8) has failed to comply with any other condition 
     specified by the Secretary in regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Repeal of Limitation on Hiring Agents or Attorneys.--
     Subsection (c) of section 5904 of such title is amended by 
     striking paragraph (1).
       (d) Modification of Requirements To File Attorney Fee 
     Agreements.--Such subsection is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); and
       (2) in that paragraph, as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``in a case referred to in paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection'';
       (B) by striking ``after the Board first makes a final 
     decision in the case'';
       (C) by striking ``with the Board at such time as may be 
     specified by the Board'' and inserting ``with the Secretary 
     pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary''; and
       (D) by striking the second and third sentences.
       (e) Attorney Fees.--Such subsection is further amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (1), as redesignated by subsection 
     (d)(1) of this section, the following new paragraph (2):
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary, upon the Secretary's own motion or 
     at the request of the claimant, may review a fee agreement 
     filed pursuant to paragraph (1) and may order a reduction in 
     the fee called for in the agreement if the Secretary finds 
     that the fee is excessive or unreasonable.
       ``(B) A finding or order of the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A) may be reviewed by the Board of Veterans' 
     Appeals under section 7104 of this title.''.
       (f) Repeal of Penalty for Certain Acts.--Section 5905 of 
     such title is amended by striking ``(1)'' and all that 
     follows through ``(2)''.
       (g) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect six months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe the 
     regulations, if any, to be prescribed under the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) not later than the date specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Claims.--The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), 
     (d), and (e) shall apply to claims submitted on or after the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):

[[Page 6649]]

  S. 2695. A bill to provide for Federal agencies to develop public 
access policies relating to research conducted by employees of that 
agency or from funds administered by that agency; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend Senator 
Lieberman in introducing legislation that will ensure U.S. taxpayer 
dollars are spent wisely, and will help enhance America's ability to 
compete in the global economy.
  Each year, our Federal Government invests more than $55 billion on 
basic and applied research. That s roughly 40 percent of the current 
two-year budget for my home State of Texas.
  The bulk of this money is spent by approximately 10 agencies, 
including: the National Institutes of Health, National Science 
Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of 
Agriculture. These agencies use the money to fund research which is 
usually conducted by outside researchers working for universities, 
healthcare systems, and other groups.
  Most of the time, researchers will publish the results of their work 
in an academic journal. The NIH, for example, estimates that roughly 
65,000 articles are published each year that report on research either 
partially or entirely funded by NIH.
  Unfortunately, as it stands now, most Americans have little--to no--
timely access to this wealth of information, despite the fact that 
their tax dollars paid for the research. Some Federal agencies, with 
the NIH chief amongst them, have taken some very positive steps in the 
right direction to require that these articles reporting on government-
funded research be freely available to the public in a timely manner.
  In fact, today marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation 
of a ground breaking public access policy at NIH developed by Director 
Elias Zerhouni. I thank Dr. Zerhouni and his colleagues for their 
leadership on this important issue and for energizing this debate.
  While Dr. Zerhouni and NIH have made strong progress, Senator 
Lieberman and I believe more must be done, not only at NIH and in 
medical research, but throughout the Federal Government and the 
sciences in general.
  That is why today we are introducing the Federal Research Public 
Access Act of 2006, legislation that will refine the work done by NIH 
and require that the Federal Government's leading underwriters of 
research adopt meaningful public access policies.
  Our legislation is a simple, common sense approach that will advance 
the public's access to the research it funds. We hope this access will 
help accelerate science, innovation, and discovery.
  Under our bill, all Federal departments and agencies that invest $100 
million or more annually in research will be asked to develop a public 
access policy. Each policy will require that all articles that result 
from federal funding be deposited in a publicly accessible archive no 
later than six months after publication.
  Our bill simply says to all researchers who seek government funding 
that we want the results of your work to be seen by the largest 
possible audience. It will ensure that U.S. taxpayers do not have to 
pay twice for the same research--once to conduct it, and a second time 
to read it.
  This legislation is an opportunity for our government to better 
leverage our investment in research, and to ensure a greater return on 
that investment, which is all the more important given the current 
budget situation. By sharing this information quickly and broadly with 
all potential users, we can advance science, accelerate the pace of new 
discoveries and innovations, and improve the lives and welfare of 
people at home and abroad.
  All Americans will be positively affected as a result of this bill: 
patients diagnosed with a disease or condition will be able to use the 
Internet to access the full text of articles containing the latest 
information on ent and prognosis; students at small institutions will 
have equal access to research articles they need to complete 
assignments and further their studies; researches will have their 
findings more broadly and more quickly disseminated, possibly sparking 
further discovery and innovation
  The Internet has dramatically altered how the world gathers and 
shares information. The Internet gives the homemaker in Houston the 
ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical diagnosis 
given to a family member. It allows a young community college student 
in rural West Texas--a great distance from the nearest research 
library--to learn the latest in scientific discovery and hopefully spur 
him to continue his studies.
  While a comprehensive competitiveness agenda is still in the works, 
ensuring greater access to scientific information is one way we can 
help bolster interest in these important fields and move this issue 
forward while at the same time helping accelerate the pace of discovery 
and innovation. Through this legislation, I hope to ensure that 
students, researchers, and every American has access to the published 
results of federally funded research, and I ask for my colleagues' 
support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Coleman, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 2696. A bill to extend all of the authorizations of appropriations 
and direct spending programs under the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 until after implementing legislation for the 
Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization negotiations is 
enacted into law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, America has the safest, most abundant, 
best tasting, and least expensive food supply not only in the world, 
but in the history of the world. There are a lot of good people in the 
food and fiber production industry who deserve credit for that. But the 
heart of food production in the United States and the world and the 
center of the rural communities that produce our food and fiber, is 
none other than the American family farmer and rancher.
  I want to assure everyone here of this. There are a lot of us in 
Congress and in the country that believe in agriculture; we intend to 
continue supporting policies that help farmers; and we're not going to 
apologize to anyone for doing it, especially foreign countries that are 
not negotiating in good faith with the United States through the WTO.
  When I am in Missouri, I hear strong support for the current farm 
bill. Producers all over the State tell me that they like the programs 
created in the farm bill and they want to see it extended, especially 
when we have the uncertainty of the current WTO negotiations hanging 
over the head of our domestic agriculture industry.
  It would be unfair to our nation's agriculture producers to write a 
new farm bill in the midst of ongoing international trade negotiations. 
Today, Senator Lincoln, and I, with a number of other members, filed 
legislation to extend the current farm bill until the Doha round of 
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations is complete.
  Our Nation's farmers and their lenders should not be asked to operate 
under rules that keep changing. We must have fair global trading rules 
in place before we write the next farm bill. A farm bill extension is a 
reasonable and sound approach.
  Everyone knows that safe food is abundant in the United States. 
Farmers and farm workers constitute 2 percent of the total workforce in 
the United States, yet they help feed the entire world. Unfortunately, 
some people in Washington believe that we spend too much in securing 
that safe and abundant food supply.
  What does this safe and inexpensive food supply cost the Federal 
taxpayer? In the United States, domestic support programs amount to \3/
4\ of one per cent of the total Federal budget. For \3/4\ of one per 
cent our farmers are able to sustain an agriculture industry that 
produces 25 million jobs and 3.5 trillion dollars in economic activity.
  For three quarters of one per cent of the Federal budget, Americans 
have a

[[Page 6650]]

hedge against ever being held hostage to food imports the way we are 
now held hostage to energy imports. Where would our security be without 
the American family farm? What would it mean for the United States if 
our family farmers went out of business, and foreign powers could 
threaten our food as they now threaten our energy? Do we want to rely 
on Brazil for food the way we rely on Venezuela for oil?
  I believe the best way to continue support for this strong sector of 
our economy is to extend the farm bill until we have a WTO agreement 
that is good for American agriculture. I do not believe that we should 
negotiate with our trading partners and against ourselves.
  As George Washington wrote in 1796, ``Agriculture is of primary 
importance. In proportion as nations advance in population and other 
circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent, and 
renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public 
patronage.''
  America will be more than ever what George Washington predicted in 
1788 it would be: the ``storehouse and granary for the whole world.''
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would extend the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill until our 
trading partners in the WTO have at least matched our commitment to 
level disparities in global agriculture trade. I would like to thank 
Senator Talent for working with me on this important piece of 
legislation to farm families in my State of Arkansas and across the 
Nation.
  This legislation would extend our current farm bill until one year 
after implementing legislation for a WTO Doha agreement is enacted. 
Then . . . and only then . . . will Congress know what to expect of our 
trading partners and what our trading partners expect from us.
  Four years ago, President Bush, after some noted reluctance, signed 
into law the 2002 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee and a farmer's daughter, I played an active role in that 
debate and was pleased with the outcome, which I view as a compromise 
between many different interests. Most importantly, I view it as a 
contract between the farmers in my State of Arkansas and their 
government. It is meant to offer what little certainty can exist for 
those who choose to make a living providing the safe and affordable 
food supply which we as Americans depend on. Unfortunately, certainty 
is something that's hard to come by in farm country these days.
  This Administration has repeatedly asked Congress to cut funding or 
make structural changes to the 2002 Farm Bill, regardless of the fact 
that CBO estimates it has come in approximately $13 billion cheaper 
than anticipated.
  This Administration has also refused to provide emergency assistance 
to agriculture producers, despite the fact that farmers across the 
Nation faced weather-related disasters of all kinds and record high 
fuel and fertilizer costs in 2005. A wet spring, followed by extreme 
drought and rising fuel prices, cost farmers in my State $923 million 
last year. In Arkansas, where one in five jobs is tied to agriculture, 
this impacts the entire State economy.
  All the while, producers wait and watch as U.S. negotiators offer 
proposals in the WTO that would require drastic reductions and changes 
in our farm support, while our trading partners continue to protect 
their markets with tariffs and subsidies far higher than we have in the 
U.S.
  I am tired of waiting, and so are my farmers. Very little was 
accomplished at the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong, and trade officials 
recently announced that the April 30th deadline for reaching a 
negotiating framework would pass without progress. The 2002 Farm Bill 
is set to expire in September of next year, and we are no closer to an 
agreement in the WTO than we were one year ago.
  No doubt our trading partners are quite content to take the wait and 
see approach. This Administration has made it quite clear that it 
supports drastic changes to our farm policy, with or without an 
agreement in the WTO. Our trading partners are demanding that we 
dismantle our farm program . . . meanwhile they do little to nothing to 
show that they are willing to do the same. Why would they?
  This Administration is sending them the very clear message that they 
agree with them . . .  and envision 2007 as the year to make those 
changes. If that is the case, what incentive then do our trading 
partners have to come to the negotiating table at all? More 
importantly, what does it say about our negotiating priorities if we 
are simply negotiating with ourselves?
  Some may argue that we must change our agriculture policy to avoid 
further litigation against our farm programs by WTO countries. But 
without a completed WTO agreement, like the one negotiated in the 
Uruguay Round, how are we expected to write new farm policy that is 
compliant? Compliant with what?
  In my view, and I think many of my colleagues agree, the best course 
of action is to extend the current farm bill until we know the rules of 
the road. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, with 
jurisdiction over international trade . . . and as a farmer's daughter 
who understands full well the importance of international markets to 
the U.S. agriculture industry . . . I am introducing this legislation 
to send a message to our friends in the WTO. We will not negotiate by 
ourselves . . . we will not make wholesale changes to our domestic 
policies until we know that you are willing to do the same.
  So long as we maintain the status quo in our international trade 
agreements, then we should maintain the status quo with regard to our 
domestic farm policy as well. That is the type of message that I wish 
our trade negotiators were sending to our trading partners. And that is 
the message that I hope our trading partners receive today. That is the 
type of certainty that America's farmers need and deserve.
  The legislation Senator Talent and I introduce today will provide 
this certainty to our farming communities and send a strong signal to 
our trading partners. Congress will not make drastic changes to our 
farm policy without a meaningful agreement in the WTO.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 2697. A bill to establish the position of the United States 
Ambassador for ASEAN; to the committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce ``The U.S. 
Ambassador for ASEAN Act'', which signals the importance of bolstering 
the U.S.-ASEAN relationship for our mutual benefit.
  ASEAN was originally established in 1967. The founding Members, 
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, remain as 
anchor participants of ASEAN today. Overall membership has expanded, 
with ten countries now comprising ASEAN.
  Over the years, ASEAN has contributed to regional stability in East 
Asia and has partnered with the United States to combat global terror. 
In addition to promoting regional peace and stability, ASEAN is 
committed to accelerating economic growth, social progress, and 
cultural development.
  ASEAN is the third largest export market for United States products, 
and has received approximately $90 billion in direct investment from 
U.S. sources. Nearly 40,000 ASEAN students are studying in the United 
States.
  The United States maintains bilateral relationships with the ASEAN 
Member countries. However, as ASEAN develops an integrated free trade 
area and addresses matters of common concern with the United States--
ranging from environmental and financial challenges to avian influenza 
and terrorism--it is appropriate for the United States to enhance its 
overall relationship with ASEAN.
  With this in mind, my legislation establishes the position of U.S. 
Ambassador for ASEAN, subject to advice and consent of the Senate. I 
believe this initiative will be an important step in advancing an 
already positive relationship. In addition, I am hopeful that once the 
position is established, the

[[Page 6651]]

U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN will help facilitate ongoing implementation of 
the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership, announced last November by ASEAN 
leaders and President Bush.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Salazar):
  S. 2698. A bill to establish the Granada Relocation Center National 
Historic Site as an affiliated unit of the National Park System; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to 
designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a 
National Historic Site in Colorado.
  The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado 
between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an 
important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the 
1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used 
it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the 
``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was 
settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado 
and endured a move further west for expansion.
  The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp 
Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as 
important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten 
interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the 
United States government during World War II as a place to house the 
Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp 
Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John 
Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became 
its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess 
tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and 
hospital.
  While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an 
important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our 
own history.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2699. A bill to promote the research and development of drugs 
related to neglected and tropical diseases, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduced with my colleague, 
Senator Lieberman, the Elimination of Neglected Diseases Act of 2006. 
This legislation is designed to confront and combat a group of 
dangerous parasitic diseases that together claim more than 500,000 
lives each year and adversely affect millions more. These 13-15 
neglected tropical diseases, NTD, as they are called, are the most 
common infections in the developing world, and include such 
debilitating diseases as leprosy, guinea worm, and trachoma. Many are 
described in the Bible, exposing the sad fact that humans have been 
suffering from these diseases for millennia. Moreover, research has 
shown alarming rates of comorbidity of NTD's with HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria, resulting in severe complications with these 
already devastating diseases.
  The biggest challenge to finding cures for these diseases is the lack 
of a market. Pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop, and since 
neglected diseases disproportionately affect poor and marginalized 
populations in the developing world, there are fewer incentives for 
conducting research and development for new treatments. The purpose of 
this act is to encourage drug development by creating market incentives 
for investment in new research. Specifically, the bill awards a limited 
patent-term extension or patent-term restoration for certain lifestyle 
and tropical disease drugs provided the company successfully develops a 
new FDA-approved drug for an NTD. In this way, a drug company can 
recoup costs for the large investment in NTD research and development.
  With the exception of market incentives, we have all the right 
ingredients to develop new drugs that would dramatically reduce the 
number of NTD cases and improve the quality of human life worldwide. I 
strongly believe that this legislation will add the last remaining step 
to jumpstart competitive research and development for combating NTD's. 
I urge my colleagues to join in this effort by supporting this bill.

                          ____________________