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

MEETING PRESIDENT ALVARO URIBE OF COLOMBIA

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on a separate issue, I want to take the
opportunity to mention a meeting I am honored to be hosting later today
with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is visiting our country and
who will be here with us in the U.S. Capitol. He has served as
Colombia's President since his election in 2002 and has done a
remarkable job. I have had the privilege of meeting with President
Uribe during visits, both here in Washington as well as on a trip that
I took to Colombia in January of 2004. Throughout his term, the
President has enjoyed high levels of popular support. He has earned it.
He deserves it. He ran on the platform of public security and he has
delivered.
Since his election, Colombia has seen significant decreases in
homicides, decreases in crime, decreases in acts of terrorism. Coca and
poppy cultivation have decreased by over a third while he served in
office. President Uribe has worked hard to promote greater respect for
the rule of law, institute judicial reform, and improve Colombia's
record on human rights.
Colombia is one of our Nation's strongest allies and our close
partnership is key to advancing U.S. interests in the Western
Hemisphere. Colombia is the third most populous country in Latin
America after Brazil and Mexico. Because of its size and strategic
location, Colombia is a key player in regional issues. In addition, it
has played an active role in multilateral institutions such as the
United Nations and the Organization of American States.
The close bilateral relationship that America enjoys with Colombia
centers on our efforts to counter terrorism and stop illicit drug
traffic. Together, our two countries are working hard to promote
stability and promote security, to promote prosperity in Colombia and
the region. I look forward to discussing all of these issues with the
President this afternoon.
At the top of the list, we will address the President's efforts to
defeat Colombia's insurgent groups. Three main illegal armed groups
operate in Colombia: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC;
the National Liberation Army, or ELN; and the United Self-Defense
Forces of Colombia, known as AUC. All three thrive on the illegal
narcotics trade. The U.S. Secretary of State has designated all three
groups as foreign terrorist organizations. For years, FARC, ELN, and
AUC have terrorized the Colombian people with bombings, murders,
kidnappings, extortion, hijackings, and the list goes on. They have
kidnapped dozens of American citizens, and they have murdered at least
10.
Their drug-sponsored terrorist activity has created destabilizing
effects on Colombia and the region and threatens the United States. The
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that more than 80
percent of the worldwide powder cocaine supply and approximately 90
percent of the powder cocaine smuggled into the United States is
produced in Colombia. Colombian producers also account for 50 percent
of the heroin entering the United States. The United States spends
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in Colombia to train the
counternarcotics forces, shore up their civilian counterdrug efforts,
and help provide crop alternatives for farmers. We are getting results.
Aerial eradication alone has cut coca and poppy cultivation by a
third since 2001.
Human rights is another topic that the President and I and leadership
will be discussing. Members of Congress have repeatedly and rightly
voiced concerns about continuing human rights violations in Colombia.
FARC, ELN, and AUC are notorious culprits. I hope to learn more about
how President Uribe plans to demobilize these troops and address
allegations of human rights abuses within Colombia's Armed Forces.
The United States and Colombia have worked hard to build a solid
foundation for a close, cooperative relationship. I look forward to
hearing the President's ideas on how we can continue to work together
on all of these issues of huge concern. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to continue to support President Uribe in his efforts, his
convictions, his determination to fight the illicit drug trade,
strengthen the rule of law, expand economic opportunity and foster
peace and stability in his country and in the region.When we strengthen
the security of our neighbors, we increase our security at home.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S10059]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 1718.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 1718

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

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me briefly describe what this amendment
does, and then I understand the representative of the minority will
interpose an objection.
This is an amendment that embodies a bill to prohibit Internet
gambling and permit the enforcement of that prohibition. Most States,
if not all States, already have laws on the books that prohibit
Internet gambling. The problem is that those bills are difficult to
enforce by the individual State attorneys general because the Internet
is ubiquitous--it is across the State lines--and the attorney general
in Arizona can't go to Montana and enforce such prohibition in that
State.
About 10 years ago, the State Attorneys General Association came
before our subcommittee and asked for this Federal legislation so that
there could be a national enforcement that would enable them to give
force to all of the different States' laws prohibiting Internet
gambling. We have worked on this now for a decade, and twice the
legislation has passed the Senate. Twice the legislation has passed the
House of Representatives, each time in somewhat different form. But we
have never been able to get the two bodies to pass legislation in the
same year in order to effectuate that.
It is very troublesome because the process by which we have to
consider legislation makes it very difficult for something like this to
get floor time and have a week or several days on the floor to debate
back and forth, get it passed, and do the same thing with the House and
then work out a conference committee and the like. That is why we have
had to resort to attaching amendments such as this to appropriations
bills or other bills that are on the floor already and moving forward
so that we can gain consideration of this issue. It is not particularly
contentious. It is certainly not partisan. The legislation has enjoyed
wide bipartisan support in both bodies.

Let me briefly describe it. All it does is it allows banks and credit
card companies to do what most of them are already doing voluntarily;
that is, simply not honoring a credit card debt for Internet gambling.
When some Internet gambling site in Aruba, for example, submits the
bill to Master Charge or Bank of America and says, Joe Blow here
gambled away $1,000 of his money, put it on the credit card, and you
now owe that to our Internet gambling site in Aruba, the bank or credit
card company says, No. That was against the law. You can't do that. We
are not paying.
It has had some effect on these operations. But to show you why it
hasn't had enough, when we started a decade ago, there were 20-some
sites. Today, there are over 2,000 sites. The amount of money was
relatively insignificant back then. Now it is hundreds of billions of
dollars. It is incredible.
A Harvard law professor described this kind of Internet gambling with
regard to kids doing it on the Internet. He said it is like the crack
cocaine of gambling; it is so addictive; there is no supervision.
We have gambling in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and on Indian
reservations, and it is tightly supervised and regulated. Even our
subcommittee found testimony from the New Jersey Gambling Commission
and said one reason we can do it is we highly regulate it. But there is
no way to regulate these offshore sites. That is why it is against the
law in every State.
We have a Federal act called the Wire Act which prohibits horse
gambling. That is now being done on the Internet. There is a means of
enforcing existing law in a meaningful way and ensuring that all of the
State laws can be enforced as well. I want to indicate who is in favor
of this, and then I will allow the process here to occur.
Obviously, sports groups are very concerned about the adulteration of
sports. We have seen it in college sports. Even one of the universities
in my State was involved in a point-shaving scandal not too long ago.
Why did this young athlete involved have to shave points in the games
in which he played? It was because he got into trouble with gambling
debts.
The NFL, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, National
Baseball Association, National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the
NCAA strongly support this legislation because they understand that if
Internet gambling becomes part of their sports, nobody can count on
those sports being pure. There is always the possibility that they have
been adulterated by gambling.
There are a lot of groups. The National Gambling Commission called
for legislation such as this, and a lot of the groups that testified
before that Commission are also strongly in support. The National
Coalition Against Gambling Expansion and groups such as the Family
Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the
Christian Coalition, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist
Convention, together with their comembers of the National Council of
Churches, and the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion--it
includes a whole host of organizations.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows;

Supporters

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

Mr. KYL. This is a page and a half of religious institutions in
support of this legislation.
Even groups that also are involved in sports that do involve some
form of gambling, such as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association,
understand that for their sport to remain pure--and it is highly
regulated, as well--for them not to have the taint of gambling, they
support this kind of legislation.
It has been very frustrating for me because there is such broad-based
support, it makes such sense. It is so dangerous, especially for the
kids in our

[[Page S10060]]

society. We have a very tight bill. It is quite similar to the bill
that got through the Committee on Banking last year. The various groups
directly involved in this are supportive of the legislation, or at
least are not in opposition.
It is time to get this done before this phenomenon explodes any
further and--and I underline this--before the lobbying money of these
groups defeats it again. I will not name names, but people who are
today in trouble with the law were partially responsible for the defeat
of this legislation previously.
This kind of money should not be brought to bear as a special
interest on our bodies to keep us from adopting important legislation
such as this. That is why I have attempted to use the appropriations
bill that is before the Senate as the vehicle to bring up this matter
again. I understand from a purely technical parliamentary point of view
it is incumbent upon the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee to interpose a rule XVI objection. I understand that. I
appreciate her need to maintain the committee jurisdiction and the
process.
However, I note in conclusion we have legislated on appropriations
bills in the past. So this is not something that has never been done
before. I had hoped we would be permitted to do it in this case because
of the importance of the issue, the fact that there is a very large
consensus to get this done. It is very difficult to do it any other
way. I am disappointed we are not able to do it at this time.
When the objection is interposed, I ask the Presiding Officer's
indulgence to direct a brief inquiry to the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the validity of
the fact that the Senator from Arizona has worked long and hard on this
issue and sees this as a consumer protection issue, and protection-of-
our-sovereignty issue also.
Without taking any prejudice on the merits of the amendment, I have
to make a point of order under rule XVI that the amendment does
constitute general legislation on an appropriations bill and is not in
order.
Mr. KYL. With the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I ask a question,
and I appreciate that the ranking member may not know the answer to
this question.
Can the ranking member advise me who it is that is requiring the
imposition of this so I can speak to that Senator or those Senators to
try to reach some kind of an accommodation so we can take this matter
up in the future?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I say to my friend and member of the
Judiciary Committee, I do not know. I truly do not know. I do know that
these parliamentary mechanisms were worked out at the leadership level.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate that. I appreciate the words of the ranking
member and make this point that this will proceed in some way at some
time when we find out who is making the objections, if anyone. It may
simply be a procedural matter to preserve the committee's jurisdiction.
We will proceed. It will become law at some point at some time. I ask
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have problems with
this legislation, please let me know so we can try to work on those
problems. There should be no reason we cannot move forward. We will be
back. The next time I am back, I hope there is no one who is
interposing an objection.
I appreciate the comments of the ranking member.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I call for the ruling.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
fails.
The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 1706

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

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

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

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

[[Page S10061]]

The officials at the State level, at the local level, and at the
Federal level, are just beginning to assess the magnitude of the
devastation that has been experienced. Unfortunately, we have already
begun to see the extent of the damage to some of the schools on the
gulf coast. I understand the New Orleans School District, in
particular, has been almost completely destroyed. Many schools in the
region are still completely flooded and remain underwater and will have
to be rebuilt completely. Others suffered extensive water and wind
damage and remain unsafe.
Last week the HELP Committee received testimony from Dr. Diane
Roussel, the superintendent of schools in Jefferson Parish, LA, which
has 85 schools, 51,000 students, 3,600 teachers, that lies south of New
Orleans. It was directly in the path of Katrina. Dr. Roussel testified
that in Jefferson Parish, much like the rest of Louisiana, the local
tax base provided for much of the district's resources, and any
surpluses the district had have now been expended. Jefferson Parish and
many other school districts impacted by Hurricane Katrina are totally
out of money, are not able to pay their teachers, are not able to
conduct school in any way.
Dr. Roussel said in her testimony:

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

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

Amendment No. 1665

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

Amendment No. 1713 To Amendment No. 1665

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

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

The amendment reads as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page S10062]]

be taken off the table. In other words, once we go to the table in good
faith to negotiate, and we start saying, ``This is not negotiable, that
is not negotiable,'' then you could understand that trading partners
are all going to have their pet projects off the table. If we want to
negotiate strengthening some remedies, as we did in the case of
Australia, Chile, we could not do that. So I am trying to correct some
of the inadequacies within this amendment.
Of course, when you start getting things taken off the table--the
United States takes something off; the European Union takes something
off; India takes something off--it has to have all items on the table
in order to protect the economic interests of the United States.
Particularly I found that going back to the Uruguay Round of trade
negotiations, you had to have everything on the table to win any
benefit for American agriculture.
The amendment by my friend from North Dakota would only serve to
hamstring our negotiators, particularly if those negotiators want to
strengthen our positions, as we did in Australia and Chile. And this
amendment would be doing it at a time just as we are pushing the
Europeans, we are pushing the Brazilians, we are pushing the G20 group,
the G10 group--and for that matter I think we are pushing every other
G-numbered group you can think of--to get some help for the American
economy, which comes from negotiations to get down trade barriers, to
get all of these groups, Europeans, Brazilians, G20, G10, G-everybody,
serious and start making meaningful concessions in these negotiations,
especially for the benefit of American agriculture.
Today, foreign agricultural markets are among the most protected
sectors in world trade. Global tariffs on agriculture average about 62
percent. The United States, I believe, is about 11 percent. Thus,
America's farmers and ranchers have much to gain if we can deliver a
comprehensive, multilateral trade agreement that lowers tariffs across
the board and forces subsidizing nations to harmonize and reduce their
tariffs.
Let me quantify that: 62-percent worldwide average of tariffs up here
of other countries; the United States at 11 percent down here. We bring
these other countries down to ours, or down part way to ours; or if we
bring ours down lower, as they bring theirs down lower. Common sense
dictates a win-win situation for our farmers.

Because of some of these concerns as to the Dorgan amendment that I
have raised about maybe the inability to even strengthen some of our
trade remedies, as we did in Australia and Chile, many groups have been
concerned. This amendment by my distinguished friend from North Dakota
has been before the Senate now for about 4 days, so a lot of other
groups have written to me about their opposition because they are
concerned about it: the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable,
Coalition of Service Industries, the Comprehensive Market Access
Coalition, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business,
and, lastly--and one that is very important to the upper Midwest--the
Corn Refiners Association.
All of these groups I have listed have expressed their strong
opposition to the Dorgan amendment and I would hope would be satisfied
with the amendment I have put before the Senate.
Even more important than those who want this bill to become law, the
administration has weighed in strongly against the Dorgan amendment. I
would like to quote from a letter I received from our Commerce
Secretary, Mr. Gutierrez, and our U.S. Trade Representative, former
Congressman and now Ambassador Rob Portman:

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

Then they go on to say:

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

In fact, the Secretary and the Ambassador feel so strongly about the
damages this amendment could do, they sent a letter saying they would
recommend that the President veto the Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations bill if the Dorgan amendment is included.
So the bottom line: the choice is pretty simple. If Senators want to
take away an opportunity to strengthen trade remedy laws, in effect,
hamper our negotiators, and at the same time ensure a veto of this
bill, a veto of a bill that is very important, then support the Dorgan
amendment. But if Senators want to preserve strong trade remedy laws,
and even opportunities to make them stronger, and avoid a veto, then
please support my second-degree amendment.
I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the stakes in this vote. I
think the stakes are high. There is a way to both preserve and improve
our trade remedy laws, also a way of avoiding a Presidential veto, and
that would be voting for my amendment No. 1713, which is a second-
degree amendment to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665.
I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota intended to not
give our negotiators an opportunity to strengthen our trade remedy
laws, as we did in Australia and Chile, but my amendment will take care
of that oversight.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague from Iowa, Senator
Grassley, has offered a second-degree amendment to the amendment I have
pending dealing with our trade laws. This amendment is just fine, as
far as I am concerned. I hope everyone will support it. It restates
what is already in the underlying bill. It reminds me of those days
when, as a young boy, I used to buy magic kits and they would have
vanishing ink. You would write it and then you wouldn't see it. There
was nothing there. So we have these vanishing ink amendments that mean
nothing, say nothing, do nothing. I am for it. We apparently will have
an opportunity to vote on the Grassley amendment. I hope we will have
side-by-side opportunities to vote on the Grassley amendment that does
nothing, and then an amendment that does something, something that
stands up for the economic interests of the American people.
This is probably one of the only institutions in the entire world in
which failure is deemed a success, and the more failure, the more we
ought to do of it, according to the philosophy of some here in the
Senate.
This chart shows our trade deficits, the red ink. This is the record
trade deficit of last year, and it is going to be higher now. This is a
description of how much we are buying from abroad more than we are
selling abroad and, therefore, a description of how many American jobs
are being sent abroad. That is what it means. Every single day--today
is Thursday--we buy $2 billion more from other countries in goods and
services than we sell to other countries. That means every single day
someone outside of this country ends up with a $2 billion claim against
America, American assets, American securities, American property.
Does it matter? To some it doesn't. Some think this is wonderful.
They are like hogs in a corncrib; they can't get enough of this. Why?
Because as we move American jobs overseas and fire American workers and
then hire workers in Bangladesh or Indonesia or China, and pay them 33
cents an hour to make bicycles and trinkets and trousers and shirts and
shoes, and send them to the big box retailers in America in Toledo and
Los Angeles and Chicago and Fargo, the consumer gets to go in and buy
an Etch A Sketch for $9.99 or a shirt for $9.99.
What a wonderful thing that is that the consumers get to buy a cheap
shirt

[[Page S10063]]

made in Indonesia or China, a shirt that used to be made by an American
worker who got fired. Because we buy all of that merchandise, goods and
services from abroad every day, and because China ships $170 billion
more of it to our country in 1 year than it buys from our country, it
means American jobs are leaving in wholesale numbers.
So this is what results, massive trade deficits, getting worse and
worse, and nobody seems to care. This body, the White House, the entire
Congress seems to sleep through it all. It is kind of a ``Rip Van
Winkle'' public policy strategy. Why? Because there is not one person
here who is going to lose their job over it. There is not one person
wearing suspenders, not one person wearing a blue suit or smoking a
cigar who is going to lose their job because jobs are outsourced to
Indonesia or China. It is working folks. Bob Wills of the Texas
Playboys--I have quoted him often in a song from 1941 which says: The
little bee sucks the blossom, the big bee gets the honey. The little
guy picks the cotton, the big guy gets the money.
So it is all of this red ink for America and jobs moving overseas
which is represented as a foundation of injury to American workers and
profits to those who can pole-vault over all of those nuances in public
policy, such as child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental laws,
the right to organize.
Well, the small trade amendment I have offered to this bill that
caused such an apoplectic seizure yesterday so that we could not
continue to vote, that small trade amendment I offered, does the
following: It says there is a trade negotiation going on in a place
called Doha. Not many have been to Doha. It is not a secret why trade
negotiations are held behind closed doors in Doha because if they held
them in any major city in the world there would be traffic jams with
protesters, people concerned about what this is doing to their jobs.
There is a negotiation going on in Doha, and in that negotiation
other countries have objected to something we have done in this
country. We have something called antidumping laws to try to protect
American businesses, American farmers, American workers. If other
countries decide, look, we are going to target the American
marketplace, there is only one American marketplace on this Earth of
ours, we are going to target it because we want to go in and dump
products at below cost, destroy the domestic industry, and then we will
have the entire market to ourselves in the United States. If they try
to do that, it is unfair trade. That is unfair trade.
So we have something called antidumping laws that would take action
against those countries that try to engage in unfair trade. We also
have laws that deal with countervailing duties if a country is deeply
subsidizing its product in order to dump it into the U.S. marketplace.
So we have protections for American businesses, American workers,
American farmers, American ranchers.
At the trade negotiation in Doha, other countries are demanding that
we get rid of the protections that exist that would prohibit dumping of
products into our marketplace. They demand that we get rid of these
protections. Our trade negotiators have said, all right, everything is
on the table to be negotiated. It should not be, and I do not agree
that it should be, and so I have introduced an amendment that says
nothing in this act that funds our U.S. trade ambassador's office or
the Commerce Department should allow them or can allow them to engage
in negotiations that will weaken the basic protections that exist in
this country that require trade fairness.
The White House has issued a veto notice if my amendment should pass.
Curious and strange that a provision that stands up for the economic
interests of our country would engender a threatened veto from the
White House.
The Cato Institute has sent around the following, and they can be
counted on, by the way, to provide aggressive support. They have
everything except the pompoms to be bona fide cheerleaders. As we get
in deeper and deeper trouble, these folks think moral failure
represents success. Here is what the Cato Institute says: This
amendment--speaking of my amendment--is highly irresponsible,
shortsighted, opportunistic, and severely detrimental to the U.S.
economic interests and the conduct of U.S. trade and foreign policy.
I do not know, but as I read that work, it seems they do not support
my amendment.
The United States hopes to open foreign agricultural,
nonagricultural, and service markets. To achieve those goals, it must
be willing to reform its agricultural and antidumping policies. What
does that mean? The United States must be willing to reform its
policies on antidumping and agricultural policies? Interesting, is it
not?
This is what the Cato Institute is really saying: We have to get rid
of these protections that exist in current law in this country to
protect American workers and American business. We have to get rid of
that because others do not like it, so let us negotiate it away. If it
hurts farmers, so what. I mean, that is the attitude. Talk about
elitists. A lot of people throw around the term ``elitists.''

If it hurts farmers and ranchers, so what; just negotiate away the
protections that currently exist for farmers and ranchers in
international trade, protections incidentally that are seldom
implemented because we have trade officials who do not have a will, a
backbone, or a nerve. Aside from those anatomical deficiencies, they
exist in law. Now we have people who want to negotiate away the basic
protections.
My colleague has come to the floor to offer a second-degree
amendment, the purpose of which is to kill the basic premise of what I
am trying to do. The second-degree amendment is interesting, and I was
at first thinking curious, but it is not curious because it is simple.
It simply restates that which is in current law. It will do nothing to
prevent our negotiators from doing what they say they are able to do in
the current Doha negotiations, which is to negotiate away the basic
protections that exist for our farmers, our ranchers, our businesses,
and our workers.
The Cato Institute further says: If Senator Dorgan is unhappy with
the final text of the Doha agreement, should it come to fruition, he
can vote against its passage.
Well, one can do that for sure. The only thing one cannot do is they
cannot amend it. Why? Because this Congress, with the support of Cato
and the President, decided what would be smart for all of us to do is
put all of us in a straitjacket and decide beforehand that we will give
fast-track trade authority for people to negotiate--in this case in
Doha--behind closed doors, in secret, and the product they bring back
to this institution will not be able to be amended. We are able to
amend almost anything else, including nuclear arms agreements, but
trade agreements, no; no, because those are negotiated in secret. And
when they come back, they come back under something called fast track.
So there are no amendments, even to correct the obvious deficiencies.
We have had almost this exact scenario previously. It occurred in
2002, May 14, my birthday, incidentally. We had an amendment on the
floor of the Senate by Senator Dayton and Senator Craig, a bipartisan
amendment, that would have done essentially the same thing. It said
there is no fast-track authority for any trade agreement that comes
back in which our negotiators have negotiated away the basic
protections, the antidumping laws and so on, that exist for our
farmers, ranchers, and businesses. That passed with 61 votes. It was
true then that I believe either Senator Grassley or Senator Baucus
offered another amendment that was kind of a cover amendment, and that
passed 98 to 0 because it did not particularly mean much. It set up
objectives but objectives that are similar to a strainer, enough holes
so that whatever one wants to put through it goes through it.
So Senator Grassley now has a second-degree amendment that says: Let
us all agree to that which we previously agreed to that does not do
anything.
So sign me up. If there is a list, let me be signed up real quick to
say: Let me agree to that which was previously agreed to that does
nothing. And then we will have a vote on my amendment that says: Let us
stand up for the economic interests of this country; let us stand up
for the economic interests of businesses and workers and insist to

[[Page S10064]]

other countries that the right way to do trade is fair trade. If it is
not fair, then every country has a right to use its remedies to address
and take action against unfair trade.
I mentioned yesterday we very seldom take any kind of action under
any circumstances. We do not ever take trade action. We did once
against Europe recently. We slapped the Europeans with tariffs on
truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. That scared the devil out
of the Europeans. This big old strong country decided to take action
against Europe. We are going to single out truffles, Roquefort cheese,
and goose liver.
That is hardly the ``John Wayne'' approach to dealing with what we
understand and know to be unfair trade.
This represents a crisis. This represents a real problem, and nobody
seems to care very much. My amendment is an attempt to prevent further
damage in the new negotiations. It is not, as the Cato Institute
insists, that I do not believe in trade. I believe in expanded trade. I
believe it makes sense to have expanded trade, provided it is fair. I
believe trade ought to try to lift other countries up, not press
American workers and firms down.
Perhaps there will come a time when we will look back and say: Why
did we not understand what this meant to our country? Why did we not
understand the danger that buying $2 billion a day from abroad more
than we send abroad in exports, the danger that portrayed to our
economy? Why did we not understand that? Why did we not catch it? Why
did somebody not blow the whistle on it?
My hometown is 400 people, and we had a whistle similar  to a lot of
hometowns. We have a fire whistle, but it is also used for other
purposes. Every noon, the whistle blew in my hometown. Every day at 6
the fire whistle blew in my hometown. Every day at 10 the whistle blew.
We had the fire whistle blowing three times in a town of 400 people.
Small towns did that to signal that it is 12. Everybody in town should
know it is 12, the fire whistle is blowing. We do not have any signals
around here.

I would like to see somebody blow a whistle around here at some
point. When do you blow the whistle--at a $700 billion, $800 billion,
$1 trillion trade deficit in 1 year? We had people doing gymnastic
exercises earlier this week because the trade deficit in the past
month, I think it was announced last Friday, was only 57-plus-billion
dollars in 1 single month, the fifth worst trade deficit in history,
and people said: What a great thing that is. It actually improved a
little from the month before momentarily.
My only point is, I think that those who are content to sleep through
what is a growing American crisis do no favors to American workers and
American business and certainly do no favors to future economic
opportunity in this great country of ours. This country is measured in
terms of its wealth, not by what it consumes but rather by what it
produces, and if we do not stand up for producers to insist and demand
fair trade, yes, ranchers and farmers, manufacturers and businesses, we
do not have the strength and backbone to do that, if we are content to
let people with tiny, little glasses and big degrees go halfway around
the world, behind closed doors, and negotiate in secret trade
agreements that continue to give us this kind of performance and move
American jobs overseas and undermine American business and undermine
American farmers and ranchers, then this Senate and this Congress ought
to hang its head.
We can do a lot better, and should, and the place to start the first
baby step, in my judgment, is to start with two things: Vote for the
Grassley second-degree amendment that says we agree with which we have
previously agreed and want to vote yes for something that does nothing,
but it does not harm anything, so we will all vote yes and then vote
for the amendment that I have offered--it has been now pending for
almost a week--that does stand up for this country's economic
interests. It does not impede fair trade or free trade. It demands and
insists that we have the right to protect ourselves when others will
use trade practices to injure our country, our workers, our
manufacturers, our farmers, our ranchers. So we will vote at some point
and my hope is that those who feel as I do will support the amendment I
have offered for the reasons I have described.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1713, as Modified

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

AMENDMENT 1713, AS MODIFIED

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

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent

[[Page S10065]]

Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

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

Amendment No. 1665

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

YEAS--39

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

NAYS--60

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

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

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

Amendments Nos. 1719 through 1721, En Bloc

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

Amendment No. 1719

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

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

Amendment No. 1720

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

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

Amendment No. 1721

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an eligible health professional may provide health-
related services under the medicare, medicaid, or SCHIP
program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq., 1396 et seq., and 1397 et seq.)
and under Indian Health Service programs, regardless of the
licensing or certification laws of the State in which such
services are being provided, during the 90-day period that
begins on the date on which eligibility is determined by the
State licensing board of the State in which such professional
will provide health-related services under this subsection.
(b) Eligible Health Professional.--To be eligible to
provide health-related services in a State during the period
referred to in subsection (a) without State licensure or
certification, a health professional shall--
(1) be a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, mental
health professional, or allied health profession, or any
other professional determined appropriate by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services;
(2) have a valid license from, or be certified in, at least
one of the States affected by Hurricane Katrina, as described
in subsection (d), and not be affirmatively barred from
practicing in that State;
(3) have been evacuated from Louisiana or Mississippi as a
result of Hurricane Katrina; and

[[Page S10066]]

(4) have applied, prior to March 31, 2006, for a license or
certification in the State in which such professional will
provide the health-related services under subsection (a)
without State licensure or certification.
(c) Evidence of Licensure.--
(1) In general.--A State may develop a process to verify
the licensing credentials of a health professional to which
this section applies if the professional has no official
evidence of licensure in his or her possession.
(2) Fraud.--An individual who wilfully provides any false
or misleading information to a Federal, State, or local
official for purposes of being covered under the provisions
of this section shall, in addition to any State penalties
that may apply, be subject to a fine, as determined
appropriate by the Attorney General in accordance with title
18, United States Code.
(d) States Described.--The States described in this
subsection are Louisiana and Mississippi.
(e) Limitation.--A health professional may only elect to
utilize the provisions of this section for a single 90-day
period.
(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as altering or affecting any procedures adopted by
State health professional licensing or certification boards
relating to waivers of licensing and certification
requirements for health professionals affected by Hurricane
Katrina.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``health-related
services'', as such term is applied to health professional
under this section, means services provided by a health
professional that are consistent with the scope of practice
of the professional in the State in which such professional
is seeking licensure or certification.

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

____________________