21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act

Mr. President, last week I took the floor of the Senate to note the decision which has been made by National Public Radio concerning the host of Morning Edition with Bob Edwards. It was announced in the Washington Post that National Public Radio management had decided after some 24 years to relieve Mr. Edwards of his responsibility as host of the morning show. There was not much given by way of explanation, and it was clear from comments by Bob Edwards that it wasn't his decision.

It has been interesting since I took the floor and noted my disappointment over that decision the response which I received from my colleagues in Congress. It turns out Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle feel as I do--that this decision by National Public Radio is the wrong decision; that Bob Edwards, who has been not only a host of this program but the most successful morning voice in America, is being moved away from this assignment in a situation and in a circumstance that is almost impossible to understand.

Many of my colleagues have come to me and asked, What can we do? Can we go after the appropriations of NPR? I don't recommend that at all. I think National Public Radio is such an important institution more than any single individual that we should do this in a positive and constructive fashion.

What I encourage my colleagues to do is to remember that National Public Radio is, in fact, public radio; that all of us who enjoy it so much, who rely on it so much, and who contribute to it from our own individual finances, have a responsibility if we disagree with this decision by the management. I have encouraged my friends and those who feel as I do to get onto their Internet and e-mail, and to e-mail NPR.org, to do it immediately and let them know that their decision to remove Bob Edwards at the end of this month of April is the wrong decision. I have done it myself.

I have received a reply from Mr. Kernis which, frankly, I find very troubling. When asked why they think this man who has become such an institution in America should be removed, the response is nothing short of gobbledygook. They talk about bringing someone who has depth and experience. But who else would you turn to rather than Bob Edwards?

I would like to make part of the Record at the end of my statement a series of columns and editorials from across the United States from those who enjoy Bob Edwards in the morning and can't imagine public radio without him. Some of these, starting with the Chicago Tribune, were published recently as the news reached that city of the decision by National Public Radio.

As they said in this editorial in the Chicago Tribune, people do not understand why this decision was made. Here is what they concluded in the Tribune editorial about Bob Edwards:

In contrast to their audience, though, NPR executives seem

to have forgotten about the public part of their title. In

commercial broadcasting, a beloved host who had presided over

huge ratings gains would almost never be nudged aside. Public

broadcasting is valuable precisely because it is relatively

free from such worldly concerns. But it is also, effectively,

a public trust, and for the public to continue to trust it,

this institution needs to do a better job of explaining its

momentous decisions. This is not the only newspaper, by far.

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

But we're not aging the way our parents did. We're

reinventing the process. Besides, there are a lot of us out

here.

The point she made in her article about Bob Edwards is at his advanced age of 56--which I still consider very young--he speaks not only to people of my generation but so many older and younger. If it is the marketing belief of NPR they need to have a new, fresh voice, they are missing the big picture.

For 24 years every morning when my clock radio goes on, I hear Bob Edwards. I know whether times are bad, dangerous, or peaceful. I can count on him. I have done it this morning. I have done it so many mornings. I cannot imagine ``Morning Edition'' without him.

There is also a comment from the Washington Post, Richard Cohen. He tells about the same experience.

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

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

NPR Executive Vice President Ken Stern told the Washington

Post that the firing of Edwards was part of a ``natural

evolution,'' that had ``to do with the changing needs of our

listeners.'' What ``natural evolution''? What does that mean?

And what is ``changing needs''?

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

Listen, Ken, my needs haven't changed. I still want news in

the morning. I still want smart features. I do not want

interviews with airheaded celebrities a la Matt and Katie or,

worse, interviews with the latest humorousless person Donald

Trump has just fired from ``The Apprentice.''

He concludes:

But the firing-cum-transfer of Edwards (he may become a

senior correspondent) is nonetheless disquieting. Maybe my

fear is misplaced and maybe the end of the Edwards era will

turn out not to be a bad thing. Still, it will be jarring to

wake up in the morning with a stranger.

He closes by saying:

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

Mr. Cohen may have given up, but I haven't. I still believe the people across America should be contacting National Public Radio, npr.org. Send them your e-mail that Bob Edwards, ``Morning Edition'' is important to you. As a Senator, as a citizen, he is important to me.

The San Diego Union-Tribune in an editorial entitled ``NPR Show Is a Big Hit, So It Must Need Fixing?'' by Robert Laurence:

This story makes no sense.

As such, it's the kind of story that can only happen in the

topsy-turvy Orwellian world of public broadcasting.

It's this: The host of a hugely successful morning radio

show, a show where ratings have done nothing but climb for

years, a man whose skill as an interviewer is unexcelled

in the world of broadcasting, whose very voice helps

millions of Americans get their day grounded, is being

evicted from a seat in the studio.

Mr. Laurence goes on to say:

That's Bob Edwards, since November 1979 the host of

National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition . . . ''

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

All good things must come to an end.

And so it is with the ouster of Bob Edwards . . .

To say that Edwards is the end of an era is an

understatement.

He continues:

Thanks in large part to ``Morning Edition,'' when I report

to the St. Petersburg Times editorial board each morning at

9:30, I know what's going on in the Nation and the rest of

the world.

Millions of us would say the same thing.

Columbus Dispatch, Tim Feran: ``Shame On NPR For Axing Edwards Before Big Date.''

The big date, of course, is the 25th anniversary on the air. I agree with Mr. Feran.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer: ``Not a Good Way To Start The Day,'' a title from Connie Schultz, a columnist. She writes:

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

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

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

He starts:

Bob Edwards has been canned, and there seem to be two types

of people in the world: The ones saying, ``You've ruined my

life, Bob's life, and the lives of everyone I know,'' and the

ones saying, ``Who is Bob Edwards?'' Those who did not listen

to Bob Edwards may now never know. Those who do, understand

full well.

The Hartford Courant, in Connecticut, by Jim Shea:

It's not often that you can use the words National Public

Radio and stupid in the same sentence but such an occasion

has arisen:

National Public Radio's decision to replace ``Morning

Edition'' host Bob Edwards is just plain stupid. What are you

bozos who run NPR thinking? You know, we've really got to do

something about the fabulous ratings we have.

Bob Edwards is not just the bright, witty, urbane,

insightful and immensely likable host of ``Morning Edition,''

he is for the program's 13 million weekly listeners the voice

of the morning.

There is something soothing, something comforting,

something reassuring about stumbling from slumber into the

gentle embrace of Edwards' mellifluous baritone that makes

morning bearable.

He speaks for many people when he writes that.

Finally, on salon.com, Alexandra Marshall makes many of the same points about the importance of Bob Edwards' ``Morning Edition.''

Those who are following this debate may be puzzled as to why a Senator would stand up in this Chamber to make an issue over the replacement of a man who is, by all measures, just another voice in the morning. But Bob Edwards is not another voice in the morning. He is the voice we have counted on and the voice we rely on.

If he is as important to you as he is to so many of us, please, understand National Public Radio exists because of people like us who listen to it and contribute to it out of our own pockets, love it, and want it to continue to be the great institution which it is today. Those who are shareholders of National Public Radio by virtue of our contributions, if we disagree with this decision, have an obligation to tell the management right now.

I encourage those who feel as I do that the replacement of Bob Edwards is wrong, to do two things: First, go to your Internet, e-mail npr.org and let them know what you think; and second, call your local affiliate of the National Public Radio system and let them know this is a sad and sorry decision.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership on this and so many issues. He expresses the feelings I have heard from soldiers returning from Iraq who are in Walter Reed Hospital recuperating, who are still strong in spirit and still dedicated to our country and hoping that we will help them win this battle and let them come home safely. There is a lot more we can and should do. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership in this area.

Dietary Supplements

Mr. President, there has been an issue I have worked on now for almost 2 years relative to dietary supplements in America. We passed a law called the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act in 1994. In passage of that legislation, we attempted to establish a standard for the legal treatment and regulation of dietary supplements. They are known to many Americans. It is a multibillion-dollar industry.

There are many of us who take vitamins and minerals and believe they are good for our health. I took one this morning. I hope it helps me. I don't think it will hurt me. For a lot of Americans, it is something they rely on.

There is another category that goes beyond ordinary vitamins and minerals, which are products known as dietary supplements. In many respects,

what they consist of are herbal extracts, so-called natural products that are put in combination and sold in stores with many claims about whether they can help you from a health viewpoint.

Most Americans who walk into a drugstore, pharmacy, or nutritional supplement store believe the products on the shelf being sold to them are, in fact, safe. They may believe they have been tested. They may believe the proper clinical evaluation has been done. They may believe the Government is monitoring whether there is something wrong with the drug that causes a bad health event. Those beliefs are right and true and accurate, when it comes to prescription drugs. They have to go through extensive testing before they are ever put on the market. The FDA and many agencies look at them carefully to make certain they are both safe and effective--in other words, that they will not harm you and, in fact, will do what they are supposed to do and help you. That happens for prescription drugs, and it is what happens to the key ingredients in over-the-counter drugs.

When you walk into a dietary supplement store, a health store, that is not the case at all. What you see on the shelves there are products which, by and large, have never, ever been tested. Never tested. The law we passed said the makers of those products, unlike the pharmaceutical companies that make prescription drugs and some over- the-counter drugs, have no responsibility to test their products for safety before they are sold to the public. In fact, the burden is shifted 180 degrees. The Food and Drug Administration of the Government has the burden to prove that what is sold on the shelf is unsafe.

Think about that for a moment. Think of the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or more dietary supplements for sale in the U.S., and you come to the obvious conclusion that there is no Government agency large enough to test every possible combination that can be included in a dietary supplement. So the simple fact is very few are tested.

This week, Consumer Reports magazine reported on the issue of dietary supplements. I think a lot of this magazine. I have subscribed to it over the years. I think what they present is done in a very dispassionate and objective fashion. In this issue, they identify the problem we face in America with dietary supplements. They note the fact that U.S. consumers, since passage of the law I mentioned earlier, have literally spent billions of dollars on dietary supplements. They say it is interesting that for 10 years, although the FDA had the authority to remove an unsafe dietary supplement from the shelf, they never did. I will quote:

Yet, until very recently, the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration had not managed to remove a single dietary

supplement from the market for safety reasons.

After seven years of trying, the agency announced a ban on

the weight-loss aid ephedra in December of 2003. And in March

2004 it warned 23 companies to stop marketing the body-

building supplement androstenedione (andro).

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

The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous

are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case.

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

Consumer Reports goes on to draw this comparison:

To regulate drugs, annual sales of which are 12 times the

amount of supplement sales, the FDA has almost 43 times as

much money and almost 48 times as many people.

So it is very clear this agency is not prepared and staffed and, frankly, doesn't have the authority to protect the American consumer. So what happens? People unsuspectingly go into these health food stores, vitamin stores, and see the dietary supplements with all sorts of claims on them; they buy them, they use them, and the consumers of America become the guinea pigs.

We are the ones who are testing these products to see if they are dangerous. You might say, if they are dangerous, if they hurt someone, clearly then the Government will take them off the shelf, right? No, I am sorry, that is not right because understand that the law we passed at the request of the industry does not require dietary supplement manufacturers to report to the Government when people are literally dying from the products they sell.

I am sure many people listening to this debate say that cannot be true. It is true.

Let me give a specific example. Metabolife International, a leading ephedra manufacturer, did not let the Food and Drug Administration know it had received 14,684 complaints of adverse events associated with ephedra products. But Metabolife 356, which you may remember, in the previous 5 years had received notice of 18 heart attacks, 26 strokes, 43 seizures, and 5 deaths. Under the law of the United States of America, Metabolife had no legal responsibility to tell the Government a product it was selling was killing people.

People listen to that and say that cannot be true, but it is. It is a fact.

When a Harris poll surveyed 1,000 Americans about what they thought the law was, they found 59 percent of them said they believe supplements must be approved by a Government agency before they can be sold. They went on to say 68 percent said the Government requires warning labels on a supplement's potential side effects or dangers, and 55 percent said supplement manufacturers cannot make safety claims without solid scientific support.

Sadly, every single response by the overwhelming majority of Americans was plain wrong. There is no Government regulation of the products, there is no requirement for warning labels, and these companies can make safety claims without solid scientific support. That is a fact.

It seems the Institute of Medicine has decided it is time for a change, a change I believe is long overdue. Today the Institute of Medicine released this report. It is a framework for evaluating the safety of dietary supplements. In the fall of 2000, the Food and Drug Administration contracted with the Institute of Medicine to develop a scientific framework for safety evaluation of dietary supplements within the confines of the law. They also asked them to test their framework on six commonly used dietary supplements. The report took more than a year longer to complete than was expected, but it is comprehensive and thorough. It contains many observations we need to scrutinize closely.

First, their framework depends on the collection of data that is not required to be turned over to the FDA by supplement manufacturers, namely adverse event reports.

The IOM report states that the first step in the process for reviewing safety is to look for signals of safety problems, including adverse events. What do I mean by an ``adverse event''? Does it mean if you have an upset stomach from a vitamin you have to report it to the Food and Drug Administration? Does it mean if you get dizzy from taking any kind of supplement, from garlic to fish oil, you have to call the Food and Drug Administration? No.

What I believe the standard should be is serious adverse health events. If you pass out, have a stroke, or heart attack, or die-- serious things that can occur.

Lest you think this is something that does not happen, let me tell you the story of a young man, 16 years old, who lived a few miles from my home in Springfield, IL. Sean Riggins of Lincoln, IL, a 16-year-old high school student, played on the football team. He had a big game coming up. He went over to the local gas station--gas station, mind you--and saw a product on the shelf called Yellow Jackets. It was an ephedra product. Yellow Jackets were supposed to give him energy. This man thought: I need energy; I am going to play football. He purchased this product over the counter at a gas station in Lincoln, IL, washed it down with a Mountain Dew, which happens

to be loaded with caffeine, and started feeling sick. When he got to the football game, he didn't feel good at all. The next day, his mom and dad took him to the hospital, and later that morning he died from a dietary supplement with ephedra. Under the law as it is written, if the parents of Sean Riggins called the company that made Yellow Jackets and said, ``Your product just killed my son,'' that company would not be required under law to even report that to the Government. That is not right.

The Institute of Medicine report we are looking at today recommends that that change. Metabolife misled the Government. Companies that make products such as Yellow Jacket sadly are not much better.

Let me tell you about another company called Rexall Sundown. It marketed an ephedra product called Metab-o-lite described by the Government as having adverse event reports. In other words, people were getting sick who took this product. We heard about it and requested the company provide us with information about the adverse reports, about people getting sick after they took this product.

The response I received was truly astonishing. The company said Rexall Sundown was a new company and had never sold ephedra products. Therefore, it never had any adverse event reports in their possession. They used the oldest trick in the book to shield themselves from liability for the dangerous products they sold. They had dissolved their old company, started a new one with the same name, and tried to escape any liability for the life-threatening products they had been selling. We tried to get more information from them and failed, but we will continue that effort.

Let me also say to people who said, ``Thank goodness, ephedra is off the market, so you can stop worrying,'' that is not the case. The same Consumer Reports magazine that is coming out has a table which I commend to everyone who takes dietary supplements. It is impossible to read this chart, I am sure, on television. I will summarize a few points of it for those who would like to understand what Consumer Reports, an objective magazine, says about 12 supplements. They said you should avoid these supplements.

A supplement that is ``definitely hazardous'' is aristolochic acid. This is something that is sold under a variety of names. They say it is a potent human carcinogen. It can cause cancer potentially, kidney failure, sometimes requiring transplant. The Food and Drug Administration warned consumers and the industry in April 2001. It has been banned in seven European countries and Egypt, Japan, and Venezuela. But it is still being sold in the United States. Aristolochic acid is also known as birthwort, snakeroot, snakeweed, sangree root, and so forth.

Then they list another group of ``very likely hazardous'' products banned in other countries where we have a warning from the FDA: Comfrey, which includes blackwort, bruisewort, and so many other herbal names.

Incidentally, let me say at this moment how difficult it is for consumers to follow this because they change the names on these bottles in the dietary supplement store, and you have no idea what you are buying. The Food and Drug Administration advised the industry take it off the market in July 2001, but it is still being sold. It creates abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible, causing death.

Androstenedione, I mentioned this earlier. The FDA finally banned it in supplements.

Chaparral is another product which is sold under a variety of names. It causes abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible. FDA warned consumers in December 1992.

Germander is another product banned in France and Germany.

Kava is an ingredient in a variety of products. FDA warned consumers in March 2002 to avoid it. It is banned in Canada, Germany, Singapore, South Africa, and Switzerland, but it can still be sold legally in the United States because the Food and Drug Administration does not have the power and the authority to police this kind of dangerous product.

Under ``likely hazardous'' products there is one I would like to speak to, bitter orange, citrus aurantium. You will find this in Metabolife Ultra. When they took ephedra out, they put bitter orange in, and there are a lot of other products, diet products, energy products. It can cause high blood pressure and increased risk of heart arythmia.

We wrote to seven companies that make supplements that contain citrus aurantium and asked them: What kind of tests did you engage in to determine whether citrus aurantium, which is now replacing ephedra, is safe? One of the CEOs wrote back and said: We have a scientific study to prove our product is safe. So we looked at the study. The study did not have anything to do with citrus aurantium or bitter orange. It was about the safety of using orange juice--orange juice--in drug metabolism studies.

We then contacted one of the scientists involved in this study and asked: Do you realize this company that is selling thousands of products worth millions of dollars is claiming your scientific study says citrus aurantium is safe?

This scientist came back to us and said: That is an improper use of that study to justify the sale of that product.

So there is no scientific basis for the safety that CEO asserted. These manufacturers are literally putting together dangerous and sometimes lethal combinations of chemicals and selling them under the banner of dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers.

For some consumers, it is a waste of money. For others, it is much more dangerous.

There are other products that are mentioned here. I am probably going to fail to pronounce many of them properly: organ/glandular extracts, Lobelia, Pennyroyal oil, Scullcap and Yohimbe. When one goes through these, they will find many of these have been banned in other countries.

One of the conclusions from the Institute of Medicine, after looking at dietary supplements, is unreasonable risk does not mean the Food and Drug Administration has to prove the supplement is harmful.

The report concludes, given the limited amount of data available, definitive statements judging safety of these products may be difficult to completely substantiate scientifically.

The committee determined that concluding a supplement presents an unreasonable risk does not require complete evidence a dietary supplement causes a serious adverse event. In other words, the unreasonable risk standard that is written in the DSHEA law is a standard which frankly is going to be a very difficult one for the FDA or others to prove.

So what they are suggesting at the Institute of Medicine is we look to a different and more reasonable standard. They also talk about premarket review of some of these products, which I think is something that needs to be done.

I particularly believe stimulants should be subject to premarket review so we have some testing to make sure they are safe so many of these products here, such as bitter orange, citrus aurantium, which cause an increase in blood pressure--and, frankly, I believe what they are suggesting in the Institute of Medicine report kind of parallels legislation which I have introduced--to try to bring some sanity to this industry.

This has been a battle which I have been engaged in for almost 2 years now. I know what happens when one takes on a giant industry in America, a multibillion-dollar dietary supplement industry. If one walks into most vitamin stores around America, they will find my name, not in a praiseworthy fashion. They are passing out leaflets saying: Write to Durbin and tell him to stop taking away your vitamins and minerals.

It is a scare tactic. It is a scare tactic from an industry that should be running scared. There are good actors in this industry and there are bad actors, but unfortunately the bad actors are being protected by the good ones.

Right now I believe Americans should be able to buy vitamins and minerals which have been tested and proven, make their own choices about their own health, but I also believe this industry has a responsibility when it sells products that can be dangerous to Americans to do two things.

First, if they are selling stimulants they should be tested in advance so we

do not have another ephedra which is going to take the life of an innocent young boy in Lincoln, IL, or a major league baseball player like Steve Bechler of the Baltimore Orioles.

Second, I believe all of these dietary supplement manufacturers should have a legal obligation to report to the Food and Drug Administration when people get seriously ill or die as a result of taking their products. I think that is the least we should demand.

I am happy to see the Institute of Medicine creating momentum for Congress to finally make a decision. I am happy to see the administration, after more than a year of urging, finally banning ephedra, but more has to be done. Today as we speak, innocent children and consumers across America are buying products which they presume to be safe and they are not.

We have an obligation to American consumers to set a standard of care so they know when they make a purchase, whether it is in a drugstore or in a vitamin store, they are buying a product that is more likely to help them than hurt them. Sadly, the DSHEA law which currently exists does not meet that standard.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in the last couple of hours since we had our vote today, I have been asked by a couple of press people who are lingering in the hallways about the issue of obstructionism. Apparently, there are some who suggest there is obstruction going on in the Senate.

It is interesting to me that there are charges of obstructionism to the Senate's business. We are not voting today, really. We voted once on a cloture vote. We did not vote yesterday. Apparently, we are not voting now until next Wednesday.

Why is that the case? Because there was an amendment offered to increase the minimum wage, and the majority party did not want to vote on the amendment.

It seems to me if there is obstruction around here, it is obstructing the ability to have a vote on an amendment to

increase the minimum wage. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder in this country have not had an increase in the minimum wage for years. It is perfectly appropriate for us to consider that in the context of welfare reform.

So an amendment is offered; but because the majority does not want it to be voted on, business essentially is stopped dead on the floor, and there are no votes, and we are at parade rest for 4 or 5 days. If anybody is obstructing, I would say it is those who brought the welfare reform bill to the floor and then decided they did not want to vote on anything, and we go, day after day, with no votes. And those who create that situation now accuse others of obstructing.

I think it is a curious thing to do, but maybe there is a language here I have not yet learned and do not yet understand. But there is certainly no obstruction on the part of those of us who want to have a vote on the amendments we offered.

Outsourcing of American Jobs

Mr. President, we are going to be turning, we think, in the next week or two back to a piece of legislation that was on the floor of the Senate that was also pulled from consideration because they did not want a vote on an amendment that was pending. When that bill comes back that deals with the issue of tax incentives for foreign sales--when that bill comes back to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment dealing with an issue that has been discussed recently, and that is the movement of jobs from this country to overseas.

We talk a lot about the concern of the outsourcing of jobs. This country, as you know, has lost over 3 million jobs in recent years, the last 3 years or so, 3\1/2\ years, and we are now down a net roughly 2.5 million jobs. We gained a few jobs back, but we are about 2.5 million jobs less than we were 3\1/2\ years ago.

So the question is, will this economy create new jobs? We need them desperately. The other question is, why are we having policies in place that remain in place that actually incentivize the movement of jobs overseas?

Let me describe one of them I intend to fix with an amendment as soon as I have the ability to offer the amendment on the floor of the Senate.

Assume, for a moment, there are two businesses. Both produce garage door openers. They are both located in the United States. They both manufacture garage door openers, and they sell them in the United States. One of them decides they will move to China, so they move their plant to China. They fire their American workers. They hire workers in China. They make the same garage door opener in China and ship it back to our country.

There is one substantial difference now between those two firms, and that is the taxes they will pay on the profits they earn. The company that has moved to China to produce the product to ship back into this country will pay a lower U.S. income tax. In fact, they will largely pay no U.S. income tax.

We have a tax incentive in our law books that says: If you move your plant overseas and produce there for the purpose of shipping back into our country, we will give you a tax cut.

You talk about perversity, this is it. Our country says: We will reward you if you shut down your American company, your American business, move it to China, move it to another country, and ship the product back into our country.

Well, at a time when we are losing jobs and desperately need jobs in our country, the very least we should do--at least the baby step we ought to take--is to shut down the perverse incentive in our Tax Code that says: Ship your jobs overseas and we will give you a big break.

We will have an opportunity to vote on that. The Senate voted on that, actually, in an amendment I offered some years ago, and my amendment came up short. Perhaps having lost now 2.5 million net jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years, the Senate will come to a different conclusion. I hope that is the case because this issue of jobs is critically important.

Trade Agreements

Mr. President, I have spoken often on the floor of the Senate about the subject of international trade. I will do so again briefly, just to say we have recently negotiated two free trade agreements, negotiated by the trade ambassador. I do not expect either, frankly, to come to the floor of the Senate this year. Why? Because I do not expect the administration, which negotiated these trade agreements, will want to have a debate on them: the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Australian Free Trade Agreement. Why don't they want to have a debate on them? Because, like most recent trade agreements, they are not mutually beneficial; that is, beneficial to us and those with whom we negotiated the treaty. In most cases, they will end up costing this country lost jobs and large trade deficits.

I will not go into great discussion about the so-called CAFTA, Central American Free Trade Agreement, or to go back and talk about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, both of which are terrible agreements, or the recent bilateral agreement we did with China, which is an awful agreement, or the agreement with Australia that really shortchanges us in terms of what we should have required to have happen with state trading enterprises. I will not do that. But suffice it to say, I do not expect there to be brought to this floor a debate on this trade agreement by the administration because that is the last thing they want between now and this election, because it will be a significant debate about jobs and whether these trade agreements cost us jobs or gain jobs. The record is quite clear, we are losing jobs as a result of these many trade agreements.

We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country, by far: a $470 billion trade deficit. Every single day--every single day-- almost $1.5 billion in trade deficit; that is, goods we are importing in excess of goods we are exporting. Someday, someone has to pay the cost of that trade deficit.

Now let me describe my concern about this trade. I am not concerned about expanding trade. I happen to believe it is largely beneficial to expand trade. I think countries that engage in activities because of natural resources, and other things, where they have a natural advantage, that it makes sense for us to trade with them, and for those countries to trade with us in circumstances that are the reverse.

But that is not the case with most trade agreements today. In fact, the case is we have not a doctrine of comparative advantage, as Ricardo used to talk about nearly 200 years ago. The doctrine of comparative advantage is irrelevant. It is a natural advantage that becomes a political advantage by countries that create circumstances of production that are fundamentally unfair with respect to free trade.

An example: A country says: We will not allow workers to organize. If they try to organize, we will fire them. And, oh, by the way, we will not require the payment of any kind of a minimum wage. You can hire workers for 16 cents an hour, if you wish. And, by the way, there is no age issue with respect to child labor, so if you want to pay 16 cents an hour, and hire a 12-year-old kid to do it, that is fine as well. And, also, we will not require the workplace be safe. If you want to hire 12-year-olds, pay them 12 cents an hour, and put them in an unsafe workplace, that is all right, too. By the way, when you do it, and you have a 12-year-old working in an unsafe plant, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, you can dump the chemicals into the air and the water from that plant, and that is just fine as well.

Now if countries decide that is the condition of production in their country, and plants move to those countries to hire those workers so they can produce a product to ship back into our country, is that what we should aspire to have American workers compete with? The answer is, no, of course not. Yet that is exactly what is happening today. You think I am wrong? Check the facts. I am not saying in every factory they are hiring 12-year-olds, but I am saying it is happening in many parts of the world. I will give you one example I have used on the floor of the Senate previously to describe in more specific terms the way this works.

This is a picture of a Huffy bicycle. Most people know about Huffy bicycles--20 percent of the American marketplace. You can buy them at K-Mart, you can buy them at Wal-Mart, and you can buy them at Sears. Huffy bicycles used to be made in Ohio. They

were made by workers who made $11 an hour. They would get up and go to their jobs. I am sure they were proud of their jobs. They worked $11- an-hour jobs in Ohio to make Huffy bicycles. Right between the handlebars and the front fender they had a little insignia, a little metal insignia of the American flag.

Well, Huffy bicycles are no longer made in America. They are now made in China. The workers who made Huffy bicycles in Ohio were fired because $11 an hour was too much to pay someone to make a bicycle. Huffy bicycles are now made in China by workers who work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day, and are paid 33 cents an hour. In fact, Huffy bicycles no longer have the decal of the American flag between the handlebar and the front fender. They have a decal of the globe, descriptive, it seems to me, of what is happening to the elements of production and the manufacturing base in this country.

The question is this: Is it fair competition to ask workers in Ohio, making $11 an hour, to compete with workers in China who work 7 days a week, and make 33 cents an hour? Does that represent fair competition? Is that what we aspire to do? Or is this driving to the bottom the wages of American workers? And is it exporting the manufacturing expertise and base of the U.S. economy?

Globalization has happened quickly. The rules of globalization have not kept pace. We know that we don't want the product of Chinese prison labor to come in and hang on a store shelf in an American store and represent that as fair competition. Most all in the Chamber would probably agree the product of Chinese prison labor ought not be sold in this country because it is not fair competition. But then what about someone in Indonesia who works for 16 cents an hour? Is that fair competition for an American worker? Should we aspire to have an American worker compete in a circumstance where someone works 12 hours a day, sleeps in a bunker, 12 to a room, works 7 days a week in a plant that is unsafe?

The question of outsourcing of American jobs and the question of what is fair trade are questions that this Congress ultimately will have to answer because, if not, we will see a continued exodus from this country of jobs.

The economists, the so-called big thinkers who wear small glasses, tell us we are only talking about the outsourcing of low-tech, low- skill, low-wage jobs. That is absolutely untrue, flat out false. If those economists are still giving opinions and still making money, they should not be. I won't name the economists, but the economists who told us what would happen with the United States-Mexico trade agreement who were dead, flat out wrong. They said with that agreement we will import from Mexico the product of low-skilled, low-wage labor, and we will, therefore, benefit from that. It won't cost us high-skill, high-wage labor in the United States.

That is not true. The three largest exports from Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics--the product of high- skilled labor. It has cost dearly American jobs.

There are so many elements to this that almost defy description. Part of it is the start of this process, when we negotiate the trade agreement. Let me give you one of the most idiotic provisions in an agreement I have ever seen. It was done a couple years ago. I have no idea which unnamed and unseen negotiator negotiated this, but we negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with China. And we have with China a very large trade deficit, now nearly $130 billion a year. So this is what our side agreed to: we will put a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese automobiles shipped to the United States, and the Chinese will impose a tariff 10 times higher on any U.S. cars that we aspire to sell in China.

How would one come to that agreement with a country with whom we have such a large trade deficit? I have no idea. It is fundamentally incompetent to negotiate treaties that so undermine the basic manufacturing interests of our country.

Another example of automobiles--I don't come from a State that produces automobiles--is the country of Korea. I have a chart that shows what is happening with Korea. We import a substantial number of cars from Korea. Most people know the names of those cars. They buy those cars. We have ships coming across the ocean loaded with Korean cars. In fact, in a recent year, we had 618,000 Korean cars shipped in the U.S. marketplace for sale. Do you know how many cars we sold in Korea? Two thousand eight hundred. So there were 618,000 cars coming from Korea to the United States and 2,800 cars from the United States to Korea.

Why is that the case? Is it because Korean consumers don't want to buy American cars? No. It is because the Korean government has put up barrier after barrier to try to stop such sales. That is why you have a ratio of 217 to 1 Korean cars sold in the United States to U.S. cars sold in Korea. Why do we put up with it? It is because this country lacks the backbone and the spine and the will to demand fair trade and stand up for our products. If our producers can't compete, shame on us. Then we lose. But requiring our producers to compete when the game is rigged, saying our producers ought to compete, when foreign markets are closed to us, is fundamentally wrong. Yet that is what is happening. Japan, Europe, Korea, China--you can go right down the list.

I have mentioned a number of times that we have a trade regime in this country and people who work in that area seem to lack the stiff backbone that is necessary to stand up for our own economic interests. There is no evidence that we ever get tough with anybody, no matter the circumstances, because most of our trade policy is mushy-headed, foreign policy rather than sound, sensible economic policy.

We had a dispute with Europe on about beef trade, because Europe will not allow U.S. beef into its market. The WTO, for a change, ruled that the United States was right, and that we could retaliate on Europe for blocking our exports. And what do we do? We put tariffs on Roquefort cheese, goose liver, and truffles. That is going to scare the devil out of somebody, scare them with tariffs on Roquefort cheese, goose liver, and truffles, won't it?

Our country's trade officials don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with trade problems, whether it is standing up for beef interests in this country or standing up for manufacturers or the interests of workers. Our trade officials simply have been AWOL.

There is much to talk about with respect to international trade and jobs. The discussion about all of this relates to whether we have a job base to allow those who aspire to go to work to find a job. We have seen 2.5 million fewer jobs now than 3\1/2\ years ago, and at least a part of that is because we are outsourcing and seeing jobs move from this country to other countries.

At least two of the reasons for that are, one, we have a perverse Tax Code that actually rewards companies that move their jobs out of this country, and we ought to do something about that. And, second, we have basically incompetent trade agreements that fail to stand up for this country's economic interests.

My hope is that we could have a debate on trade in the Senate this year. It appears to me we are going to have a debate on virtually nothing. The minute someone offers an amendment, the others pack up their duffel bags and leave town. I don't understand it. Day after day we have no votes. Why? Because someone dared come to the floor to say, after 6 or 8 years, maybe we should have an increase in the minimum wage.

What does that do? It fills up airplanes leaving Washington, DC, because nobody wants to vote. And while they are out of town, they tell the press that those who offered the amendment are obstructionists, forgetting, of course, that the obstruction is really the refusal to give a vote to those who offered a very sensible amendment to the bill.

Most of us came here because we want to do serious things about serious issues. It would be good if, in the interest of this country, we could, in a spirit of some cooperation, decide here is the legislation we want on the floor, offer your amendments, have reasonable time agreements, have votes, and move on. Whatever the will of the Senate is, that is what we ought to do.

But instead, especially recently, we have seen a regrettable situation of the Senate deciding, if there is a controversial amendment that is offered, the majority doesn't like it, we will just stop working.

There is a lot to do. This country has an economy that regrettably at this point, while producing some growth, is not producing jobs. I just finished reading an article by an economist from the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the architects of the economic strategy back in the 1980s. Paul Craig Roberts has it about right. He said this may well be an economic recovery without new jobs--a jobless recovery. And if that is the case, we are in trouble.

We need to search for ways to begin to create these jobs. If we have a recovery and no new jobs being created, we face some pretty difficult times. The American people want to go to work. These kids coming out of college want jobs. They want opportunity and hope. They want a good future. You do that by having an economy that produces jobs. There is no social program we discuss in the Congress that is as important or as productive as a good job that pays well.

That is what allows people to have a good life, provide for their family, and do the things they want to do. So the question for us is, what happened here? Why the disconnect? Why is an economy that is growing not producing jobs?

One answer is that we are seeing jobs moving to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Mexico--you name it. They are leaving. As they leave, a part of that departure is to be rewarded with a reverse tax cut, a tax incentive that says we will reward you while you leave.

We ought to close that now. We ought to go back and look at some of these trade agreements and decide whether it is in this country's interests not to be protectionist but to demand that the rules of trade be fair. If we are unwilling to do that, we are not going to see the creation of the kind of jobs that are necessary to restore the 2\1/2\ millions jobs that were lost and provide the additional jobs an increase in population requires year by year.

Mr. President, there are no votes today, tomorrow, Monday, or Tuesday. I guess the Senate comes back with perhaps a vote on Wednesday. I hope that perhaps we can start over and decide to treat seriously those things that are serious. There is such a tendency here to treat lightly those things that are serious and treat seriously those things that should be treated lightly. We never get to where we should be with respect to the interests of this country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, less than 1 year ago, we wrapped up work on the port security bill that was signed into law as the Maritime Security Act of 2002, MTSA. That act mandated and outlined changes that are needed to shore up security in our ports, and established for the first time a system to coordinate, plan and implement port security at U.S. seaports. While this was landmark legislation, much still needs to be done with respect to the implementation of the requirements mandated by this law.

I am very dissatisfied with the current Administration's disinterest in paying for port security, and would point out that we are approaching a crisis, as Federal mandates are being rolled out for security without Federal support. I have tried over and over to focus the attention of the Administration on this crucial need and pushed to no avail in the Senate to get the resources necessary to address this problem. But to date, I have gotten little support. In addition to appropriating much needed funds for port security, it has become apparent that keeping up with security needs at our ports is an ever evolving task, and that we may have to refocus our efforts and push harder to ensure that we coordinate our policies and maximize the limited resources that we have in this area.

Today, in order to keep up with these needs, I am introducing the ``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004'', along with Senator McCain, and Senator Breaux. I am pleased to have worked on this with Senator McCain, the Chairman of our Committee, as I often remark, while he has no coastline, he has worked with those of us who do have ports to work on these crucial port security issues. I am also pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Breaux, for he has truly been one of the leading advocates of the importance of maritime shipping and the merchant marine in the U.S. Senate. He has done invaluable work for us on the Commerce Committee, and is a true expert in the field. He will be sorely missed for his expertise on all maritime issues, although I am sure, that in the future, he will still be the Captain of some small boat, yacht, or maybe even a ship.

Even though the Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies charged with the implementation of these measures have aggressively taken initial steps necessary to set up our future structure for seaport security there is still much to do, and effective action needs to occur to help coordinate and crystallize security policies and objectives. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 would attempt to mandate a coordinated Federal approach to several areas of concern in port security. It would also attempt to set performance standards for certain areas in port security and add a few enhancements to last year's legislation. Most importantly the bill would require a user fee to be established to help pay for the port security mandates.

Specifically, this bill would impose in rem liability to secure payment of penalties and fines under the Act and to help ensure compliance with the security requirements imposed by the MTSA. The bill would also include provisions to increase security in waterside cargo areas, and ensure that cargo contents of imported marine cargo containers would be required to be cleared within 5 days of entering a U.S. port, or alternatively removed after 5 days without being cleared, to a regulated warehouse where it would be opened and reviewed to verify its contents. This would in no way change any claim to possession of the goods. Importantly, the bill would require DHS to evaluate the policies and practices of sealing empty containers. According to the Federal Maritime Commission, over 4 million containers were imported into the United States empty. At a recent hearing, a representative from the ILWU longshoremen's union pointed out that treatment of empties and the sealing practices of these containers varied from locale to locale. This bill would require an analysis of current practices at U.S. ports in order to determine what steps need to occur in order to make sure that the transport of empty containers does not present a threat of terrorism, and whether a Federal policy is justified in this area.

The bill would require the Administration to produce a coordinated plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating maritime intelligence information collected by Federal agencies on ships, cargo, crew members and passengers. This intelligence is used to determine which ships, cargo, or crew warrant further inspection. This section of the bill requires further development of a maritime intelligence system to collect and analyze information concerning the crew, passengers and cargoes carried on vessels operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. This mandate essentially restates existing law since it appears that the agencies have actually grown further apart since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The provision in this bill would require a plan on how the Administration will coordinate collection and analysis of maritime information, and how agency personnel might be co-located to maximize resources and coordinate analysis. This plan must also indicate when long range vessel tracking will be integrated into this intelligence information. Additionally, the plan would require the government to analyze private sector resources to evaluate how they could be used to help monitor and differentiate legitimate moves of trade from those actions and players that are more suppositious. The Federal Government does not have a lot of experience monitoring commercial maritime activity, and I believe they will have to employ private sector expertise to assist in this endeavor.

The report shall also consider the abilities of the Department of Navy to collect and analyze commercial maritime information. The U.S. Navy probably has the most resources dedicated to the evaluation of commercial shipping activities, but are precluded from sharing this information. In light of our need for better information on commercial shipping, this policy has to be reevaluated. A maritime intelligence system needs to be set up to work together so that Federal agencies, State, local and the private sector can coordinate their law enforcement activities. Maritime intelligence on commercial ocean shipping is currently gathered by the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and other agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission under separate systems. Only the Coast Guard and the Navy currently work together. We lag far behind in this area, and each agency is operating independent of others. We are not getting the full picture of what is happening out there. It is crucial that we have the best information available so that we can target our relatively limited resources with maximum efficiency. Further, the information has to be disseminated in a fashion to maximize its utility, while still protecting that information which needs to be kept confidential. Collection and analysis of commercial maritime information is a key element of our port security that needs more focus and has to be addressed if we are to adequately protect our Nation.

Importantly, the bill will require the Administration to come up with cargo security plans to evaluate targeting systems to determine whether they are effective in deterring and protecting against potential acts of terrorism from cargo. In the event that targeting is inadequate protection, DHS would be required to increase the amount of cargo being non-intrusively inspected or x-rayed by two over the next year. The bill would also require the consolidation of intermodal cargo security programs that have the same security goals while establishing criteria and

performance goals for these security programs, which are currently operating completely independent of each other, and require certain other cargo security program enhancements. Voluntary cargo security programs are not the answer to the important problem of securing our Nation from terrorist attacks. Firm standards and goals must be in place to ensure that items that we know we don't want in marine containers are not actually in marine containers. The legislation will also require a report on the amount of actual inspections that are being done at foreign seaports.

While the Container Security Initiative was rolled out with great fanfare to work with foreign ports to inspect cargo before they get to U.S. ports, the question remains whether we are actually getting much bang for the buck. The fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether foreign nations have been willing to use their security screening equipment for our benefit, and to what degree have they been willing to screen cargo for the benefit of our Nation. The legislation will require a report to determine whether this program needs adjustment, or is a cost-effective measure to ensure safe cargo movements into the U.S., and to update us on the progress in the installation of a system of radiation detection at U.S. ports.

Additionally, this legislation will redirect our efforts to help ensure that we can verify that security is in place to prevent an act of terrorism, and not place us in a position of having to rely on documentation and the attestations or documentation of third parties in order to determine whether we need to take actions to protect the public. The Administration has not even started to implement the certification program required to certify ``secure systems of transportation,'' 46 U.S.C. 70116, and they must get going on this vital initiative. Otherwise, it would only take one good liar to breach our system of defense. Although I understand we cannot inspect every piece of cargo, we have a credible system in place to actively increase cargo inspections, and implement a system that would ultimately allow us to reopen U.S. ports to commerce, in the event of an attack.

Additionally, the bill also would require a report from the Coast Guard on the benefits of utilizing joint operational centers at United States seaports to implement area security plans. This report should incorporate lessons learned from the three centers that have already been established, such as ``Operation SeaHawk'' in Charleston, SC, and consider which security programs could be effectively fused into these joint operational centers. The Commandant of the Coast Guard would be required by this bill to report on the effectiveness of these centers for port security and determine if it would be beneficial and cost effective to establish centers in additional areas that pose a significant security risk, and to utilize them to implement area security plans.

The bill will also make sure that port security grants are reviewed and approved, as was mandated under the terms of the MTSA, and all grants are subject to the review of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, the regional Maritime Administration representative, and other Transportation Security Administration security officials as well as other DHS security experts, before the grants are approved. This grant program is not open-ended, it is intended to help the private sector and State and municipal governments achieve compliance with Federally approved facility plans and area maritime security plans, and the changes to the statute will ensure that the grant program operates the way we intended it to operate.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration and the State Department to evaluate existing foreign assistance programs to determine whether the existing aid programs can be utilized to help foreign nations achieve compliance with the international standard set for port security. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to set up a mechanism to review the practices of foreign ports to ensure that they have implemented adequate security measures, and ultimately, they can take steps that would result in the closure of commerce from ports in non-compliance with international security standards. It is in the best interests of everyone potentially impacted by such a policy implication, if we review our foreign aid programs to determine whether aid can be used to implement the necessary security measures.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration to work with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and other DHS port security agencies such as TSA, Coast Guard and Customs to determine how to supplement their training programs to include a greater familiarization with commercial maritime practices. Port security law enforcement is much different in the aftermath of September 11, and officials involved in regulation and policing shipping will now have to approach it from a different perspective, and to be able to identify anomalies and irregularities, in order to best focus our limited police resources over an immense volume of trade. It is my understanding that the Maritime Administration has been utilizing resources at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and working with FLETC to formalize port security training. I think that this change will help our Federal agencies bolster their existing training programs, and achieve a greater understanding of potential security issues that could arise, and will be a healthy addition to work already done by the Maritime Administration and FLETC.

The bill rewrites the DHS mandate to conduct research and development, and would require the Science Directorate within DHS to be more accountable to Congress for those actions they are taking to develop the types of technology necessary to address security at our seaports. Importantly, the bill also requires the Coast Guard to evaluate the security risks and policies very carefully of nuclear facilities on or adjacent to navigable waterways to ensure that we have security policies in place to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring from on or under navigable waterways. Most nuclear facilities are on or adjacent to navigable waterways, and I want the Coast Guard to exercise the highest degree of security in their treatment of these facilities and the threat posed as a result of maritime commerce or the proximity to navigable waterways.

Most importantly, this bill attempts to address the fundamental issue that will face the nation as we implement the MTSA--will sufficient funding be in place to assure that our ports and agencies will robustly pursue security, or we will have to rely on sham security programs, or efforts severely restricted by funding that result in de minimus or desultory security efforts. When the Senate and House conferenced on the port security bill in the fall of 2002, the Senate conferees insisted on establishing direct funding for port security programs through a user fee, identical to the airline security fee, which would help defray the significant costs for the new port security mandates. The Administration declined to dedicate any resources for port security, and they declined to support the Senate's user fee. Unable to reach agreement with the House conferees and the Administration, I agreed to authorize just the necessary funds, but the President was required by law to report to Congress within 6 months on a funding proposal to assist States and their ports in complying with security mandates for Federal security plans. That report has never been prepared and is 9 months overdue.

When the President's budget for FY 2004 came out, after the U.S. Coast Guard had estimated that it would take $7.4 billion of funding in order to comply with the port security requirements, there was no funding for port authority compliance in that year's budget resolution. I offered an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution which was unanimously accepted to add $1 billion to help defray the first year costs of port security--ultimately it was dropped from Conference. Two weeks later, the President was presented with a direct opportunity to fund port security programs: Congressional consideration of his emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the war in Iraq and bolster homeland security. Again, the Administration funding request included no funding for port authorities to help them comply with the Federal mandate, so I offered an amendment to add $1 billion to the supplemental specifically to help ports meet the new security mandates. Despite unanimous approval in

the Senate 3 weeks earlier, the amendment was opposed by the Administration and defeated on the Senate floor on a straight party line vote.

Last year, I made another effort to address the port security funding inadequacies during consideration of the FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Again, the Administration proposed no funding for port security grants in their 2004 request, so I offered an amendment to the bill to direct $300 million specifically to port security grants without increasing the overall cost of the bill. The Administration opposed the funding increase, and the amendment was defeated largely along party lines with only three Republicans supporting the amendment.

Until this year's budget the President has not requested one dime specifically for port security. He has opposed efforts to mandate the funds be raised from the users of the system, and this year's budget request is for only $46 million. Despite opposition from the White House, Congress has directed appropriations that have resulted in grants of $450 million to ports to help ensure compliance with the Federal security mandates, and so I know that this issue is an area of major concern. Ultimately, the funding issues must be addressed, and this bill proposes a user fee to pay for the costs of compliance of port security. I had considered the possibility of authorizing the Administration to either generate funds for port security via a user fee, or alternatively mandate that funds be directly transferred from funds collected by Customs duties, but because of jurisdictional issues determined not to do so. The maritime industry supports this approach, and I am not opposed to this approach, but want only to ensure, that one way or another, we have the necessary funding in place to set up the system of port security that this nation deserves. Simply put, there is just too much at stake to hope that security emerges.

This bill seeks to continue the work to correct the security and terrorism prevention needs at our maritime borders. There is much to be done and there is a continued need for government and industry cooperation. This bill works on some of that need, yet the major need is funding for port security, which I hope that we will be able to address in the Senate very soon.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself.

I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline.

This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components.

If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves.

Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized.

To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths.

Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the

troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us.

In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up.

We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before.

Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort.

The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making.

I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler.

They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s.

In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway.

Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again.

We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history.

The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.

According to this reporter:

The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the

205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis

in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are

being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred

from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in

Iraq.

He goes on to say:

Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was

``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and

finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's

about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your

conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I

told them, I want this stuff fixed.''

Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease.

Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us.

The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis.

As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation.

I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act.

We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve.

We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways.

First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation.

The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground.

No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way.

Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits.

The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service.

But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous.

The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield.

Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy.

I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate

and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated.

Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

It starts:

Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't

exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's

military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to

serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the

home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the

bill collector.

And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest.

I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny.

This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill.

One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed.

As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits,

upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror.

I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing.

I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the Presiding Officer and I are new Members of the Senate, but we learn our lessons pretty quickly. One of the things you learn here is if you want to have an impact in the Senate, you have to put a focus on something you care about and then keep after it.

The Senator from Louisiana has done that. In her first term here she focused on the great American outdoors. Working with others, she came pretty close to passing an important piece of legislation 3 years ago.

There were some problems in it for Members of the Senate. It is my goal, working with her this year, and we hope with many others of our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and others of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to solve those problems and come up with legislation that represents the conservation majority, the huge conservation majority that exists in the United States of America.

The conservation majority of this country does not have a line down the middle with chairs on each side. It exists on both sides of every aisle and has broad support. We are good legislators, and if we are as good as we hope we are, we will be able to work and represent what our constituents would like us to do. So it is a privilege for me to work with Senator Landrieu. We both serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are fortunate under Chairman Pete Domenici and ranking member Jeff Bingaman that we, most of the time, are able to work in a bipartisan way. So we are off to a good start in terms of fashioning a piece of legislation that will gain the support of our colleagues.

We are deliberately today not offering legislation. We want to discuss it first with members of our committee. We want to discuss it next with others, such as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, who has a long interest in conservation matters. We want her ideas and those of others. Then, perhaps in 3 weeks, after the recess, we will be able to come forward with a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support.

As the Senator from Louisiana said, this morning Congressman Young of Alaska and George Miller of California introduced the GO Act, the Get Outdoors Act of 2004. I believe they used it to emphasize we might do some work on this obesity problem that is really worrying us, in terms of health, if more of us spend a little more time walking outdoors, playing outdoors, and taking advantage of our country.

As the Senator from Louisiana said, the bill therefore will provide, I believe, about $3 billion in guaranteed annual funding for outdoor recreation purposes. It would be paid for, as she described, by what I think of as a conservation royalty. This is the way I think of it. It is a royalty on the revenues from oil and gas drilling on offshore Federal lands. After the royalties are paid to the landowner and after the royalties are paid to the State, this conservation royalty would be paid to a trust fund which would then spend the money for the benefit of conservation. Then, after that, the rest of the Federal revenues would go into the regular Federal appropriations process.

That is the way I like to think about it and I hope that is the way a majority of the Members of the Senate will want to think about it as well.

As the Senator said, we will be discussing these concepts that she so well outlined with our colleagues. And we hope they will join us as cosponsors. As she said, our bill will be similar to that which was introduced this morning in the House of Representatives, but it will not be the same.

In addition, it will be similar to the so-called CARA legislation that Senator Landrieu and many others worked hard on 3 years ago, but it will not be the same. There are some lessons that we need to learn from what happened 3 years ago.

For example, the cost of the Senate legislation may not be as much as the cost of the legislation offered in the House. That is yet to be determined.

In addition, as the Senator said, we intend to discuss with our colleagues whether States should have the option, for example, of spending the Federal share of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for maintenance of Federal lands rather than for acquisition.

I have learned over the years that there is a big difference of opinion between Senators from the West and Senators from the East about the acquisition of Federal lands. In North Carolina and Tennessee, we don't have much Federal land. So a lot of us--even many of us conservative Republicans--would be glad to have a little more. Out West there are a lot of people who think the Federal Government not only has enough but it has too much, and they don't want to see legislation that would acquire more.

We need to take that into account as we develop a piece of legislation that will represent the conservation majority but do it with respect for those States that are already largely owned by the Federal Government.

Our legislation, like that proposed in the House, will ensure that State and Federal parts of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will fulfill the intention that Congress originally envisioned. It will provide for wildlife conservation. That will benefit hunters and fishermen. There are more hunters and fish people with hunting and fishing licenses in Tennessee than there are people who vote. I am not sure that is a statistic to admire, but it is a fact, and it is one to which I pay attention. Bird watchers and all Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation will benefit from this legislation. It will provide funds to establish city parks so the children in and around our metropolitan areas can have decent, clean places to play; so families can have decent places to go; and so senior Americans can have decent, safe places to walk.

Someone once said Italy has its art, England has its history, and the United States has the Great American Outdoors. Walt Whitman wrote, ``If you would understand me, go to the heights or watershores.''

Our magnificent land, as much as our love for liberty, is at the core of the American character. It has inspired our pioneer spirit, our resourcefulness, and our generosity. Its greatness has fueled our individualism and optimism and has made us believe that anything is possible. It has influenced our music, literature, science, and language. It has served as the training ground of athletes and philosophers, of poets and defenders of American ideals.

That is why there is a conservation majority--a large conservation majority--in the United States of America.

That is why so many of us, as the Senator from Louisiana said, feel a responsibility in our generation to ensure to the next generation the inspiration of the dignity of the outdoors, its power, its elemental freedom; the opportunity to participate in the challenges of its discovery and personal involvement; and the fulfillment that is to be found in the endless opportunities for physical release and spiritual release.

Some of the words I just used came from the preamble of President Ronald Reagan's Commission on American Outdoors, which I chaired in 1985 and 1986.

In 1985, President Reagan asked a group of us--I was then the Governor of Tennessee--to look ahead for a generation and see what needed to be done for Americans to have appropriate places to go and what they wanted to do outdoors.

Our report, issued in 1987--very nearly a generation ago--recommended

that we light a prairie fire of action to protect what was important to us in the American outdoors and to build for the future. We focused on the importance of a higher outdoors ethic, suggested an ``outdoor corps'' to improve recreational facilities. We examined the role of voluntarism. We pointed out that the park most people like is the park closest to where they live and how important it is, therefore, to have urban parks as well as great national parks. We warned of how the liability crisis and runaway lawsuits threatened our outdoor activities and called for a new institution or set of institutions to train leadership for outdoor recreation.

We formed State commissions, such as Tennesseans Outdoors, which went to work with the same objectives in our own State that we had in our national Commission.

We envisioned a network of greenways, scenic byways, and shorelines. Most of the action we suggested was not from Washington, DC, but was community by community by community.

But we also acknowledged the important role the Federal Government has to play in providing outdoor recreation opportunities. Of course, we must have clean air and clean water, and we must protect and enhance recreation opportunities on Federal lands and waters.

Almost all of us on the Commission called for the creation of a $1 billion fund to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund--both the State share and the Federal share. This is a way of balancing our need for more oil and gas with our need for recreational opportunities in the outdoors.

As I mentioned earlier, I think of these annual payments from the revenues derived from offshore drilling for oil and gas on Federal land as a royalty payment. Pay the owner a royalty, pay the State its royalty, then pay a conservation royalty for the use of that resource. Then the rest of those revenues go into the Federal Treasury to be appropriated. Pay a $3 billion annual conservation royalty--that is the number that the House bill uses--before it ever gets to the Federal appropriations process. Then appropriate the rest.

I believe this legislation will have broad bipartisan support in the Senate.

I look forward to working with Senator Landrieu, Chairman Domenici, with our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and with all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fashion legislation that is good legislation, that represents the overwhelming conservation majority in the United States of America, and which can pass the Senate and the House of Representatives this year.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana.

Her comments make me think of this report. Let me hold this up. So staff will not worry, I will not ask to put this in the Congressional Record. There is a summary I will bring to the Senate when we introduce the bill. This is the report of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors, published in 1987. It is a very good resource and backup for many of the ideas we envision being part of this legislation.

I learned very quickly as Chairman of this Commission that most of the decisions we have to deal with in environmental and conservation matters involve balance. Senator Landrieu and I know, because of our service on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as we work hard to try to develop a national energy policy, that we are having a difficult time as a country compromising, creating balance between our need to produce and our need to conserve.

I certainly do not want to draw into this discussion all of those arguments. I will say very little more about it except it would be nice to find in this contentious Presidential year, in this time when we have so much disagreement about energy production and conservation, one area where we could show we are skilled enough as legislators to properly represent the huge conservation majority in the United States.

Most Americans, as President Reagan's Commission thought and almost all Members thought, of course, we have to drill for oil and gas; otherwise our natural gas prices are going through the roof; our jobs will be in Mexico; our lights will be out. Of course we have to do that.

Is that an insult to the environment? Yes, it is. What do we do about it? Shut down the wells? No, one thing we can do is take some of that money--actually a lot of this money--and pay a conservation royalty, compensate for that by creating a conservation benefit on the other side. This idea of the land and water conservation fund has been endorsed by politicians of both parties for a long time. What we are trying to do today is assure a steady stream of revenue to the State and Federal side of the conservation fund, plus a number of other conservation areas, in a way that respects each of our States. We can do it. There is enough of a majority; we can do that.

President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors from 1985, 1986, and 1987, and the work that Senator Landrieu and the majority in both Houses did, form a wonderful beginning. We will see in the next few weeks if we are wise enough to take that to a successful conclusion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.