Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005,'' of which I am a cosponsor. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the use of tax avoidance strategies with no economic justification other than to reduce tax liability and shirk responsibility.

Abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country tens of billions of dollars each year and may be the largest single source of the $300 billion tax gap between what is owed and what is collected by the U.S. Treasury. The investigation by my colleagues on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that more than half of all federal contractors may have subsidiaries in tax havens and that almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations in a recent year were in tax havens. My esteemed colleagues also heard testimony that between 1-2 million individual taxpayers may be hiding funds in offshore tax havens. Many of these tax havens refuse to cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement officials.

This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot reasonably expect an American business to subject itself to a competitive disadvantage by following the law while watching its competitors defy the law without repercussion.

This bill cracks down on those individuals and businesses that establish virtual residences in tax havens abroad while taking unfair advantage of the very real advantages of actual residence here in the United States.

This bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability.

This bill increases the penalties for those who profit by manipulating and exploiting our tax laws, resulting in higher rates and greater complexity for the rest of us.

My mother taught me that there is no such thing as a free lunch-- someone always has to pay. And when one of us shirks our duty to pay, the burden gets shifted to others, in this case to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes.

This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. The money saved by this bill, for example, can reduce the burden on American children of unnecessary budget deficits being financed by rising debt to foreign nations.

The money saved by this bill can also be used to protect children in low income families from unfair tax increases caused by inequities in the child tax credit. In fact, this fall, I intend to introduce legislation to ensure that the child tax credit is not reduced solely because a family's income fails to keep pace with inflation. With less than half of the savings generated by this bill, we can shield more than four million children from the annual tax increase their families face as a result of stagnant wages and inflation under current law.

All of us should pay our fair share of American taxes. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions and economic structure of our nation while evading your responsibility to do your part for this country. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that's what this bill seeks to do.

I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 397, the protection of lawful commerce in arms bill, also known as the gun liability immunity bill. Regardless of whether you support this bill or oppose this bill, I can certainly understand that the issue of gun liability is an important one.

But let me ask my colleagues: Is this really more important than all the other important issues before the Senate right now? With only a few days left before the August recess, is giving liability protection to gun manufacturers really more important than passing the Department of Defense authorization bill during a time of war? Even this bill's most vocal supporters could not make this argument with a straight face.

As I travel around my State of Illinois talking to constituents, I hear many concerns from them. They tell me about the lack of affordable health care, the quality of our Nation's schools, the rising cost of gasoline, and the war in Iraq. Parents worry about how the budget deficit will affect their children's future. Veterans complain about the long delays in applying for and receiving disability benefits and about the amount of those benefits.

My constituents have no shortage of suggestions and ideas for what Congress should be doing, but I can honestly say that none of them are saying, ``Senator, please go back to Washington and make sure that gun companies aren't being sued by victims of gun violence.'' I haven't heard that one yet.

And that is why I have chosen to speak on the floor today to-- highlight the misplaced priorities of the Senate's leadership. Even though we have 139,000 troops fighting for our freedom in Iraq and a $440 billion Defense bill that could help these troops, we are here debating gun liability instead of talking about how to strengthen our national defense.

That is regrettable, and that is one of the reasons why so many Americans are disillusioned with their Government. Because we are not focusing on the problems that truly matter to them. Because some are more interested in scoring political points, or catering to a special interest.

I believe--as do my Democratic colleagues--that the first priority of the Senate should be to provide for our men and women who are in harm's way. And that means spending the necessary time to debate the Defense bill. If that takes us the rest of the week--or even next week--then that is what we should do.

How can we go home to our constituents in August and tell them that we left Washington, DC without finishing a bill to help our military because we spent too much time protecting gun manufacturers? That is shameful.

I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and many of them were planning to offer good, commonsense, bipartisan amendments to the DOD bill--amendments that would have helped our military and strengthened our national defense. I also have filed several amendments that I would have offered, and I believe that many of my colleagues would have supported them as well.

One of my amendments would have protected members of the National Guard and Reserve against employment discrimination. This amendment is supported by the Reserve Officers Association and is cosponsored by Senator Salazar.

I have heard that there have been instances where prospective employers are reluctant to hire guard and reservists because of fears that these employees could be called up for extended tours of duty. These citizen-soldiers are getting through initial stages of interviews only to be summarily dropped from the process upon disclosing the fact that they are members of the Guard and Reserve.

My amendment would have gotten to the heart of this problem by preventing employers from forcing members of the Guard and Reserve to disclose their military service during the interview process. However, my amendment would not have prohibited them from disclosing their military status if they thought it would be beneficial during an interview process.

But instead of helping members of the Guard and Reserve, we are talking about gun manufacturer liability. That is wrong.

Another amendment I would have offered relates to the medical records of our servicemembers.

For years, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have attempted to modernize their medical records to create a two-way exchange of patient health data to better care for our Nation's service members. This would decrease costs and improve the flow of information when active members of the military leave the DOD system and move to the VA system. Greater use of technology would also reduce medical errors, which kill up to 98,000 people a year.

Unfortunately, the DOD has not managed to create a fully functional electronic medical records system. Last year, a GAO report found that one of the primary reasons for the delay in developing this system is the lack of congressional oversight.

My amendment would have helped provide some of that oversight. I wanted to get some answers from DOD on why this project is being delayed and how the Department is proceeding with this important project.

But debate over these amendments, and many others, is being silenced in favor of the one we are having now--about helping gun manufacturers.

This is why the American people are tired of what goes on in this town. Because there are real issues they sent us here to debate--real problems they expect us to solve. But even when we have a chance to do this--even when we have a defense bill where we could add amendments that could help our troops and care for our veterans--the Senate passes on that chance and heads directly into another fight singed with more politics and more ideology.

We can do better than that. We owe ourselves better--and we certainly owe the American people better.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from Army Times, criticizing the Senate leadership's decision to stop consideration of the DOD bill, be included in the Record.

Mr. President, on May 3, 2005, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced the selection of 141 outstanding American high school seniors as the 2005 Presidential Scholars. The Presidential Scholars Program serves to honor outstanding students for their accomplishments in academics or the arts, as well as for their leadership, character and civic contributions to their schools and communities.

The United States Presidential Scholars Program was established in 1964 by Executive order of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Presidential Scholars Program annually selects one male and one female student from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American students living abroad, 15 at-large students, and up to 20 students in the arts. The students are selected on the basis of outstanding scholarship, service, leadership, and creativity through a rigorous selection and review process administered by the Department of Education. Over 5,000 of the Nation's top students have been honored as Presidential Scholars since this prestigious program's founding.

Of the 141 exceptional students recognized from across the United States for 2005, I would especially like to recognize three students from the great State of Illinois for their accomplishments.

I send my congratulations to the following students for their accomplishments in academics: Kelly A. Zalocusky from Belleville High School East in Belleville, IL, and her teacher Philip C. Short; and Edgar P. Woznica from Fenwick High School in Oak Park, IL, and his teacher Ramzi Farran. For her accomplishments in the arts, I would like to congratulate Marcella J. Capron from Loyola Academy in Wilmette, IL, and her teacher Leslie Yatabe.

Please join me in congratulating the 2005 Presidential Scholars for their accomplishments in academics and the arts. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate an Illinois resident who has received national recognition for her contributions to the American artistic community. Ms. Albertina Walker of Chicago, the ``Queen of Gospel Music,'' has been selected to receive a National Heritage Fellowship by the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA.

The highest honor in the field of folk and traditional arts, these fellowships are awarded to 12 outstanding artists each year to recognize their contributions to their fields. They are selected based on their artistic excellence and cultural authencity.

National Heritage Fellowships are not open to application but are based on nominations from members of the public. Begun in 1982, these fellowships consist of a $20,000 grant and are part of the NEA's mission of supporting excellence in the arts, both new and traditional. Previous National Heritage Fellowship recipients have included such artists as B.B. King and John Lee Hooker.

The Grammy-award winning Ms. Walker is a native of Chicago and has been involved in gospel music for over 70 years. She has recorded over 60 albums and is an active member of West Point Missionary Baptist Church.

I thank the National Endowment for the Arts for its recognition of Ms. Walker's outstanding work and once again applaud Ms. Walker for her achievement.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations appropriation bill. I would also like to highlight one aspect of the bill.

Since coming to the Senate 6 months ago, one of the foreign policy and health issues I have focused on relates to the avian flu. I am pleased that this bill includes $10 million to combat the spread of this potential pandemic, adding to the $25 million that the Senate provided in the supplemental appropriations bill in April.

I thank the managers of this bill, Senators McConnell and Leahy, and their staffs for working with me on this important issue. I know that Senator McConnell has a longstanding interest in Southeast Asia, and Senator Leahy has always been a champion of international health issues, making the avian flu something I know they both care deeply about.

In the last few weeks, scientists have reported that a deadlier version of the avian flu has now spread to migrant birds that could carry the disease out of Asia and across the world.

While it may not seem that threatening to many Americans at first, this bird flu could easily transform into a human flu. And if it does, it could be one of the deadliest flus mankind has ever known--even worse than the 1918 flu pandemic that killed 675,000 Americans and 50 million worldwide.

Already, there have been 108 human cases of avian flu, resulting in 54 deaths. And while the virus has not yet mutated into a full-blown human flu, recent developments suggest it might be heading in that direction. In recent months, the virus has been detected in mammals that have never previously been infected, including tigers, leopards and cats.

A few weeks ago, the World Health Organization reported that avian flu strains in Vietnam are lasting longer and spreading to more humans. And according to government officials, a few cases of human-to-human spread have already occurred.

Every day, there are new reports about the increasing dangers of the avian flu. Last month, it was revealed that Chinese farmers have tried to suppress outbreaks of the avian flu by using human antiviral drugs on infected animals.

As a result, one strain of the virus has become resistant to these drugs, thus making the drugs ineffective in protecting humans against a possible pandemic. And just this week, researchers found that ducks infected with the virus were contagious for up to 17 days, causing the animals to become--in the researchers' words--``medical Trojan horses'' for transmitting the disease to humans.

Simply put, the world is not ready for a potential outbreak of this deadly flu. In fact, we aren't even close.

There is no known vaccine for the avian flu, and producing one could take months once an outbreak occurs. And while the World Health Organization recommends that every nation stockpiles enough flu treatment to treat a quarter of its population, the United States has only ordered enough to treat less than 1 percent of ours.

We can't just stand by and hope that this virus doesn't reach our shores when it only takes hours to travel from one side of the world to the other. It is time for America to lead the world in taking decisive action to prevent a potential global tragedy.

We should start by doing what we can to fight the virus while it is still mainly in Southeast Asia. That is why I fought for and obtained $25 million for prevention efforts by the CDC, the Agency for International Development, the Health and Human Services Department, and other agencies. And that is why I requested another $10 million in this bill.

In addition, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved language that I offered directing President Bush to form a senior-level task force to devise an international strategy to deal with the avian flu and coordinate policy among our government agencies. I hope that the Bush administration forms this task force immediately without waiting for legislation to be passed.

Yet, these are only modest first steps. International health experts believe that Southeast Asia will be an epicenter of influenza for decades. That is why we need to create a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases--a framework that would increase international disease surveillance, response capacity and public education and coordination, especially in Southeast Asia.

But we must also prepare our own country in the event that a global pandemic reaches America. That is why I recently introduced the AVIAN Act, which helps make sure that Americans are protected from a possible outbreak of the avian flu.

When the threat is this real, we should be increasing research into possible flu vaccines, and we should be ordering enough doses of flu treatment to cover the recommended 25 percent of our population--just like England and other Western countries have done.

We should also ensure that our Health and Human Services Department and State governments put in place a plan as to how they would address a potential flu pandemic, including the purchasing and distributing of vaccines. A year after a draft of a Federal plan was published, a final version has yet to be finalized. We shouldn't have to wait any longer, because the avian flu certainly won't.

We are extremely fortunate that so far, the avian flu has not been found in the United States. But in an age when you can board planes in Bangkok or Hong Kong and arrive in Chicago, Burlington or Louisville in hours, we must face the reality that these exotic killer diseases are not isolated health problems half a world away, but direct and immediate threats to security and prosperity here at home.

Again, I thank Senators McConnell and Leahy for including this important funding in the supplemental appropriations bill and now including additional funding in this bill. And I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, for his leadership on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent that several articles and editorials about the avian flu be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I also want to make a brief statement on amendment No. 1264, which is offered on behalf of Senator Hagel, Senator Gregg, Senator Leahy, and myself.

It is a very simple amendment. It provides $13 million for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to help make up for a shortfall in international contributions to the Court.

While the amendment is simple, it is critically important to promoting the rule of law in Africa; helping advance security and stability in West Africa; and holding accountable some of the worst war criminals of the 20th century.

The Special Court was established by the United Nations Security Council with strong U.S. backing. The Court is working, as we speak, to bring to justice those most responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone during wars there in the 1990s.

The Court, however, currently has one major piece of unfinished business--Charles Taylor.

Although Mr. Taylor has been indicted by the Special Court on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, he continues to live in exile in Nigeria, enjoying the protection of the Nigerian government.

What is worse is there are credible reports that Mr. Taylor has repeatedly broken the terms of his agreement with the Nigerian government, continues to meddle in the affairs of Liberia and other West African nations, is involved in a number of activities that threaten to destabilize the region, and has associations with al-Qaida.

There is no question that the United States and the international community owe the Nigerian government a debt of gratitude for helping to remove Mr. Taylor from power. However, the job of promoting regional peace and security cannot be completed until Mr. Taylor appears before the Special Court to answer to the charges against him.

I would also point out that transferring Charles Taylor to the Court also is widely supported within Nigeria. Prominent members of Nigeria's military and civil society have vigorously opposed the decision to shield Taylor.

This bipartisan amendment makes clear that bringing Mr. Taylor to justice is a top U.S. foreign policy priority. It makes clear that the Court is not going away anytime in the near future. It makes clear that the transfer of Mr. Taylor to the Court will help reduce transnational threats in West Africa, promote peace and security in the region, and enhance respect for the rule of law throughout Africa.

I understand that the managers are in the process of working this amendment out, and I look forward to working with them to get this accepted. I would like to thank the cosponsors who played a leadership role Senators Hagel, Gregg, and Leahy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drinking Water Security Act of 2005.

This bill would reauthorize a portion of the Safe Drinking Water Act, first enacted in 2002, that instructs the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by American drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists. My bill also would require EPA to report on its progress in developing and implementing these detection and response systems since 2002.

Like most Americans, I want to rise in the morning, make some coffee, and take a shower without worrying if that water has somehow been tampered with overnight by terrorists. Safe drinking water is something we traditionally have taken for granted in this country. This bill will continue the good work our scientists have been doing to monitor, detect, and negate any chemical, biological, or radiological agents that terrorists could introduce into our drinking water, should they manage to get past our physical security measures. This bill would also help implement appropriate warning systems in the event of a terrorist attack on our water systems.

I do not want to be an alarmist. But, September 11 changed Americans' views on the possibility of the improbable and turned our focus to preparedness. This bill is all about preparedness. It provides the authorization and oversight needed to continue to develop those tests and responses so we can stay one step ahead of potential terrorists.

I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense bill and ensuring that our drinking water remains safe.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drinking Water Security Act of 2005.

This bill would reauthorize a portion of the Safe Drinking Water Act, first enacted in 2002, that instructs the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by American drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists. My bill also would require EPA to report on its progress in developing and implementing these detection and response systems since 2002.

Like most Americans, I want to rise in the morning, make some coffee, and take a shower without worrying if that water has somehow been tampered with overnight by terrorists. Safe drinking water is something we traditionally have taken for granted in this country. This bill will continue the good work our scientists have been doing to monitor, detect, and negate any chemical, biological, or radiological agents that terrorists could introduce into our drinking water, should they manage to get past our physical security measures. This bill would also help implement appropriate warning systems in the event of a terrorist attack on our water systems.

I do not want to be an alarmist. But, September 11 changed Americans' views on the possibility of the improbable and turned our focus to preparedness. This bill is all about preparedness. It provides the authorization and oversight needed to continue to develop those tests and responses so we can stay one step ahead of potential terrorists.

I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense bill and ensuring that our drinking water remains safe.

Mr. President, I ask for approximately 10 minutes.

I yield for that purpose.

Mr. President, as the previous speaker, I rise to speak on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

I have thought long and hard about this agreement, and I come to the floor predisposed to support free trade. In the end, I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers.

On the margins, I recognize that CAFTA, although a relatively modest trade agreement by the standards of the U.S. economy, would benefit farmers in Illinois as well as agricultural and manufacturing interests across the country. The language in the agreement is also optimal with respect to intellectual property and telecommunications, issues that are of particular interest when it comes to trade with other countries, such as China. Unfortunately, CAFTA falls short, as a matter of process and substance, in protecting workers' rights and interests. My colleague, Senator Bingaman, mentioned some of those concerns.

I recognize that we should not kid ourselves into believing that voting against free-trade agreements will stop globalization, especially agreements like CAFTA, where the countries involved have combined economies one-sixth the size of the State of Illinois.

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It is not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what can we do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.

That brings me to the problem. So far, America has not effectively answered these questions, and American workers are suffering as a result. I meet these workers all across Illinois--workers whose jobs moved to Mexico or China and are now competing with their own children for jobs that pay $7 an hour and offer no health or pension benefits. In town meetings and union halls, I have tried to tell these workers the truth--that the jobs they have lost are not coming back; that globalization is here to stay; and that they are going to have to train more and learn more to get the new jobs of the future.

I don't mind delivering that message. But when these same workers ask me exactly how are they going to get their training and their education, and when they ask what will they do to pay for their health care bills in the interim, and how will they deal with lower wages and the general sense of financial insecurity that seems to be growing every single day, I cannot look them in the eye and tell them honestly that their Government is doing a single thing about these problems.

Since I have arrived in the Senate, I haven't seen us debate--much less pass--legislation that would address these issues. That is the reason I will be voting against CAFTA when it comes up later today.

There are real problems in the agreement itself. It fails to uphold the principles set out in previous trade agreements that say we must give equal protection to the rights of workers and the rights of commercial interests. But CAFTA, while encouraging the protection of commercial rights, does less to protect labor rights than some of the agreements that we have already passed. So there is a sense that we may be going backward instead of forward. Nor does CAFTA do much in the way of enforcing environmental standards in these countries.

I recognize that no piece of legislation is perfect, and if it were just these provisions, perhaps I could do what my colleague from New Mexico has done and obtain a letter of agreement from the White House, indicating they will try to address some of these problems.

But the real problem is more than CAFTA. It goes beyond the four corners of this piece of legislation. The real problem is what is missing, generally, from our prevailing policy on trade and globalization: meaningful assistance for those who are not reaping the benefits of trade, and a plan to equip American workers with the skills and support they need to succeed in the 21st century.

So far, almost all of our energy and almost all of these trade agreements are about making life easier for the winners of globalization, while we do nothing for those who find their lives getting harder as a consequence of trade liberalization. In 2004, nearly 150,000 workers were certified as having lost their jobs due to trade and were thus eligible for trade adjustment assistance--and that number doesn't count the janitors and cafeteria workers who may have lost their jobs.

Senator Wyden and others have tried to encourage the Administration to

modernize this assistance and expand it to displaced service workers, but the Administration refuses to help on this issue.

But even beyond displaced workers, our failure to respond to globalization is causing a race to the bottom that means lower wages and stingier health and retiree benefits for all Americans. It is causing a squeeze on middle-class families who are working harder but making even less and struggling to stay afloat in this new economy.

I recognize the soundness of the economic argument that free trade reduces overall prices in this country. But as one downstate worker told me during a recent visit back in Illinois: ``It doesn't do me much good if I am paying a dollar less on a t-shirt, but I don't have a job.''

So now we have to choose. It is a choice that is bigger than CAFTA and bigger than our trade agreements. It is one that America has faced time and time again in our history, and we have responded. To ease our transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, we set up the public school system, busted up monopolies, and allowed workers to organize. To help us emerge from the Great Depression, we regulated the market, created unemployment insurance, and provided all workers access to a secure retirement. At the end of World War II, we grew the largest middle class in history by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own homes.

Now we face the same choice. We are at the same juncture today. We have to decide whether we are going to sit idly by and do nothing while American workers continue to lose out in this new world, or if we will act to build a community where--at the very least--everybody has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

If we are to promote free and fair trade--and we should--then we have to make a national commitment to prepare every child in America with the education they need to compete; to make sure college is affordable for everybody who wants to go; to provide meaningful retraining and wage insurance so that even if you lose your job, you can train for another; to make sure worker retraining helps people without getting them caught up in a bureaucracy; that such training helps service workers as well as manufacturing workers; and that it encourages people to reenter the workforce as soon as possible.

We also have to figure out a way to tell workers that no matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you can take your health care and your pension with you always, so you have the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business.

All of this is possible. It is not going to be easy, and it is not going to be quick. I don't expect the Administration to try to shoehorn all the solutions to the displacements caused by globalization into a single trade agreement. But what I do expect--and I said this directly to the President when I met with him in the White House on this matter--is that we at least have, on a parallel track, an effort to deal with the losers in globalization, our displaced communities and displaced workers. We must not only look after profits and shareholders, but also those folks who are adversely affected by trade. Lower prices are good and important, but we also have to make sure that jobs exist that provide people the opportunity to raise a family.

Mr. President, in order to compete, every single one of us is going to have to work more, think more, train more. I am not afraid of global competition, and I don't think a single American worker is afraid of it. We cannot insulate ourselves from all of the dislocations brought about by free trade, and most of the workers don't expect Washington to do so. On my side of the aisle, we cannot resort to protectionist language over the long term if we are, in fact, going to be looking toward the future of America. We have the talent and the brain power to continue to lead the world in this challenging new century, but now we need the political will. Now we need a national commitment. And that, so far, is what appears to be lacking on Capitol Hill.

In America, we have always furthered the idea that everybody has a stake in this country, that we are all in it together, and that everybody deserves a shot at opportunity. The imbalance in this Administration's policies, as reflected in the CAFTA debate, fails to provide American workers with their shot at opportunity. It is time we gave them that shot.

I yield back my time.

(Applause in the Gallery.)

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Boxer regarding the testing of pesticides on humans. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

Unbeknownst to most of us, the Bush administration has quietly rescinded a ban on the human testing of pesticides even though the EPA is still developing guidelines for such testing. Instead of needlessly exposing people to dangerous pesticides, the 1-year moratorium proposed in this amendment is a reasonable solution until these guidelines are completed.

Let us be clear. We are not talking about the testing of life-saving medications. By definition, pesticides are designed to kill. They are potential carcinogens and neurotoxins. We need guidelines to ensure that human testing of these dangerous chemicals is limited and monitored and that the subjects fully understand the risks they are taking.

Who are the people being exposed to these chemicals? Typically they are young, poor and minorities. Let me give you two examples:

In Florida, an EPA study offered low-income families $970 over 2 years if they let their babies be tested after their homes were sprayed with pesticides. One can easily imagine a young mother trying to make ends meet, trying to pay the rent and put food on the table, reading that she can collect almost $1,000 if she allows her child to be tested.

In another study last year, 127 young adults, mostly Asian and Latino college students, agreed to be exposed to a suspected neurotoxicant for $15 an hour. Some were exposed in a chamber for 1 hour for 4 consecutive days, while others had the chemical shot into their eyes and nostrils at amounts 12 times the OSHA recommended levels. This chemical, chloropicrin, has a history: It was used as a chemical warfare agent in World War I. Yet the consent form for the 2004 study did not disclose that fact; it simply said, ``We expect the discomfort to be short-lived.''

All across America, there are college students working long hours so they can stay in school and get a shot at the American dream. How tempting it must be to pick up a handful of cash for letting a scientist expose you to some chemical. You are healthy, you need the cash, and you are probably not as wise as your parents would like you to be, so you borrow a chance against your future health and sign up for exposure. That is not the kind of government policy we want to be encouraging.

All told, the EPA is considering data from 24 studies that tested pesticides

on humans. Many of these studies are flawed, so the risks these people undertook did not even contribute to a scientifically valid experiment. Many of these studies failed to take the health complaints of the subjects seriously, many failed to disclose the risk to the subjects, and many failed to conduct long-term monitoring of the health effects of the pesticides. All of these deficiencies should be addressed and prevented from occurring again.

Sadly, we do not need to do this human testing. For years, the EPA has worked with pesticide manufacturers and members of the science community without relying on human testing. For years, the agency has accomplished its goals through animal testing.

No one doubts that actual human health data, if properly collected from a sufficient sample size, would be advantageous to know. But sensible guidelines are needed to ensure that the benefits of any study far outweigh the potential risks to the study participants.

The commonsense approach is to temporarily stop this testing, wait for EPA to issue its guidelines, and safeguard the health of the human subjects.

I thank the Senator from California for her commitment to this issue, and I yield the floor.

I reserve the balance of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak about the plight of children afflicted by elevated levels of lead in their blood. Although it has been three decades since lead was a component of paint, the effects of lead paint continue to linger in homes across the country. As the lead paint flakes off, the dust is inhaled, and some kids eat the chips.

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children, including damage to the kidneys, the brain, and bone marrow. Even low levels of lead in pregnant women, infants, and children can affect cognitive abilities and fetal organ development and lead to behavioral problems.

Over 430,000 children in America have dangerously high blood lead levels. This is a particularly serious problem for Illinois, which has the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the nation. In Chicago alone, 6,000 children have elevated blood lead levels.

In 1992 Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The law required the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to promulgate regulations by October 1996 regarding contractors engaged in home renovation and remodeling activities that create lead- based paint hazards. Renovation and repair of older residences is the principal source of lead-paint exposure to U.S. children. According to Federal studies, a large majority of the approximately 20 to 30 million renovations done on older homes each year are done without lead-safe cleanup and contamination practices.

The EPA analysis has found that a lead paint regulation would protect 1.4 million children and prevent 28,000 lead-related illnesses every year. Such a regulation would also lead to a net economic benefit of between $2.7 billion and $4.2 billion each year.

Despite the clear health and economic benefits, these regulations are now 9 years overdue, and there is no sign that EPA is moving any closer to issuing the required rules. Last month, I joined with Senator Boxer and Representatives Waxman, Lynch, and Towns to express our concern about EPA's complete disregard of the statutory mandate to issue lead paint regulations.

To address the problem, I have introduced an amendment that would stop EPA from spending money on any actions that are contrary to Congress' 1992 mandate to issue lead paint regulations, including any delaying of the regulations. I thank the managers of this bill, Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, for their support of this amendment and for including it in the bill.

I hope EPA will read this amendment and understand that the time for these common-sense lead regulations is long overdue.

Mr. President, during the 2 weeks or so that we have been debating this Energy bill in the Senate, the price of crude oil has climbed to a record high of $60 a barrel. Gas is now up to $2.24 per gallon. The Saudis are pumping at near-full capacity, and their own oil minister says that the price of crude will probably stay at this level for the rest of the year.

At this price, the United States is sending $650 million overseas every single day. That is $237 billion a year--much of it to the Middle East, a region we have seen torn by war and terror. It doesn't matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes with nuclear intentions, or havens for the madrasas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds, they get our money because we need their oil.

As demand continues to skyrocket around the world, other countries have started to realize that guzzling oil is not a sustainable future. What's more, these countries have realized that by investing early in the energy-efficient technology that exists today, they can create millions of tomorrow's jobs and build their economies to rival ours.

China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and it has got 200,000 hybrids on its roads. Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius in order to sell 100,000 in the U.S. next year, and it is getting ready to open a brand new plant in China. Meanwhile, we are importing hydrogen fuel cells from Canada.

These companies are running circles around their American counterparts. Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and GM's brand won't be on the market until 2007. As falling demand for gas-hungry SUVs has contributed to Standard and Poor reducing the bond rating of these companies to junk status, these giants of the car industry now find themselves in the shadow of companies and countries that realize the time has come to move away from an oil economy.

So here we are. We have people paying record prices at the pump and America sending billions overseas to the world's most volatile region. We have countries such as China and India using energy technology to create jobs and wealth while our own businesses and workers fall further and further behind.

And we have the Energy bill that is before us today.

Now, this bill takes some small steps in the right direction. It will require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. It will help us realize the promise of ethanol as a fuel alternative by requiring 8 billion gallons to be mixed with gasoline over the next few years, and by providing a tax credit for the construction of E85 stations all over America. It will provide funding for the clean coal technologies that will move America to use its most abundant fossil fuel in a cleaner, healthier way, including for low- emission transportation fuels. It will support the development of 500 mile-per-gallon automobile technology. And it will provide a good mix of tax incentives to move America towards more energy efficiency instead of simply rewarding the oil and gas industries, as the House bill does. The good that these proposals will do is reason enough to vote for this bill, and I will do so.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves today. This isn't time to pat ourselves on the back and think we have put America on the path to energy independence. Experts say that this bill will reduce our foreign oil consumption by 3 percent. Three percent. Our own Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. So 3 percent doesn't amount to much--and it certainly won't make a difference at the pump. Even President Bush admits this. We tried to pass an amendment that would have reduced our foreign oil dependence by 40 percent in 2025, but too many Senators said no.

And so when you look at this energy crisis and realize that it is about so much more than energy, when you realize that our national security is at stake and that the global standing of our economy hangs in the balance, when you see prices continue to rise and other countries continue to innovate, you can't help but ask yourself, ``Is this the best America can do?'' The country that went to the Moon and conquered polio? The country that led the technological revolution of the 1990s?

It would be one thing if the solutions to our dependence on foreign oil were pie-in-the-sky ideas that are years

away. But the technology is right at our fingertips. Today, we could have told American car companies, we will help you produce more hybrid cars. We could have made sure there were more flexible fuel tanks in our cars. We could have addressed the big reason why car companies are hurting in this country--legacy health care costs. Had we taken all of these actions, we could have put America on the path to energy independence once and for all.

We also could have addressed the fact that global warming is threatening us with higher temperatures, more drought, more wildfire, more flooding, and more erosion of our coastal communities. People who don't believe this can yell about it as loudly as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence proves this over and over again. We could have taken care of this problem now and left a better world to our children.

With each passing day, the world is moving towards new technology and new sources of energy that will one day replace our current dependence on fossil fuels.

And so America has a choice.

We can continue to hang on to oil as our solution. We can keep passing Energy bills that nibble around the edges of the problem. We can hope that the Saudis will pump faster and that our drills will find more. And we can just sit on our hands and say that it is too hard to change the way things are and so we might as well not even try.

Or we could realize that this issue of energy--this issue that at first glance seems like it is just about drilling or caribou or weird- looking cars--actually affects so many aspects of our lives that finding a solution could be the great project of our time.

It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice. Government can't make it happen on its own, but it does have a role in supporting the initiative that is already out there. Together, we can help make real the ideas and initiatives that are coming from scientists and students and farmers all across America.

Abraham Lincoln, who first opened our National Academy of Sciences, once said that part of Government's mission is to add ``the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery of new and useful things.''

Today, when it comes to discovering new and useful solutions to our energy crisis, the fire of genius burns strong in so many American innovators and optimists. But they're looking for leadership to provide the fuel that will light their way. This bill is a reasonable first step, but I know that we can do much, much better.

Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to the managers of the energy bill, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, for their support of two amendments that I offered. I am proud that these amendments have been included in the legislation that the Senate will vote on today, and I believe that their enactment will help America increase its energy independence and transition our energy industry to full usage of 21st century technologies.

The first adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Lugar, provides $85 million to three universities for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels, including Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel, a type of low-emissions diesel that can be used in jets and diesel. The funds provided in this amendment will assist Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky in upgrading existing facilities and constructing new facilities to conduct research and testing on this technology. It is critical that our Government invests in domestic fossil fuel supplies in an innovative manner, and this is a commonsense way to expand our coal industry in an environmentally friendly manner.

The second adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Bayh, provides $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles. Today, we have the technology to produce both plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run partly on electricity rather than fuel, and flexible fuel vehicles, which run on a blend of 85 percent renewable fuel and 15 percent petroleum. But we don't yet have the technology to combine both technologies into the same car. If we could do this, there is the potential for developing a car that could get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. At a time when our country spends billions of dollars a year on importing foreign oil, it is imperative that we take meaningful, proactive steps that not only stem our future oil dependence but also reduce our reliance on overseas sources. My amendment would do just that by stimulating the commercialization of this technology at a cost of only 6 percent of our Nation's daily spending on foreign oil.

Again, I thank the bill managers for their assistance with these amendments.

I ask unanimous consent to have the following two articles on the potential of combined plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, from June 12-16, 2005, students from the great State of Illinois were invited to Washington, DC, by the National History Day Program to present original history projects. This scholarly group of students used their critical thinking and research skills to create exhibits, documentaries, and performances on the theme, ``Communication in History: The Key to Understanding.''

Congratulations to the national qualifiers and finalists from Illinois: Audrey Auyeung, Zoe Netter, Charlotte Cook, Eric Jacobson, David Gainski, Lucy Honold, Chelsea Farmer, Brandon Jakub, Kyle Schoenfelt, Dakota Smith, Erich Grundman, Charlie Curran, Jonathan Taub, Alicia Patten, Peter Contos, Honghe Li, Sebastian Prokuski, Laura Muller-Soppart, Tomas Manghi, Elizabeth May, Aruj Chaudhry, Kyle Johnson, Kathryn Evans, Laura Guzman, Rebecca Strauss, Andriy Matyukha, Sean Gallagher, Brendon Gallagher, Dan Burasinsanga, Gian Santos, Mary Kowalkowski, Ellie Terrell, Lauren Brown, Nadine Ibrahim, Annika Kolasa, Courtney Kolbe, Marissa Suchyta, David Bailey, Joseph Tepper, Tamara Vaughn, Stephanie Ebbs, Lena Walker, Maria Carvell, Robby Krajewski, Allyson Schroeder, Elizabeth Hamman, Emily Dennis, Lisa Furby, Katie Damron, Andrea Martinelli, Cristen Sawicki, Kelsey McMahon, Amelia Wallace, Allison Nichols, Sarah Siegel, Eliseo Martinez, and Jessica Drachenberg.

Special congratulations to Marrissa Suchyta, the second place winner in the junior individual documentary category, and Aruj Chaudhry, the third place winner in the senior individual paper category.

Finally, dedicated Illinois teachers worked throughout the academic year with these students so that they could be successful in competing with over 500,000 students nationwide.

Congratulations to their teachers: Angie Carr, Balazs Dibuz, Mario Garcia, Melissa Craig, Ron Solberg, Carlton Oquendo, Betsy Brown, Patricia Grunde, Ann Patricia Duffy, Leslie Contos, David Barber, Sherri Massa, Chris Salituro, Aggie Nowak, Cathy Bednar, Peggy Hall- Heineman, Patricia Grimmer, Sandra Koehler, Janet Kelsey, Chris DeMato, Barry Bradford, Claire Finn, Therese Hawkins, Sandra Koehler, and Claire Finn.

I commend these students on their achievements and encourage them to continue their pursuit of academic excellence.

Mr. President, in every generation, there are several defining moments when we have the chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better world. Addressing the threat of global climate change is one such moment.

Climate change is not just about a particularly hot summer or cold winter. It is not just about a few species of plants and animals. And it is not some far-off threat we don't have to worry about for hundreds of years.

While there are some who still argue with the overwhelming scientific evidence that details the full magnitude of the problem, the evidence is now all around us. The problem is here. And the solution needs to come now.

Since 1980, the Earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record, with the last three 5-year periods being the three warmest ever. This is the fastest rise in temperature for the whole hemisphere in a thousand years.

Here in America, we have seen global warming contribute to the worst drought in 40 years, the worst wildfire season in the Western States ever, and floods that have caused millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana, and North Dakota. Sea levels are already rising, and as they continue to do so, they will threaten coastal communities.

If we do nothing, these problems will already get more severe. Warmer winters may sound good to us, but they also mean longer freeze-free periods and shifts in rainfall that create more favorable conditions for pests and disease and less favorable conditions for crops such as corn and soybeans.

As more forests and farms are affected, millions of jobs and crops we depend on could be jeopardized.

There are also health consequences to climate change. Rising temperatures mean that insects carrying diseases like malaria are already spreading to more regions throughout the world. And the reduction in ozone layer protections means that more children are likely to develop skin cancer.

Even if we stopped harmful emissions today, we are headed for a one degree increase in temperature by the year 2010.

And since we won't stop emissions today, the temperature outside may increase up to 10 degrees by 2100.

To Illinoisans watching this debate, that means your grandchildren-- when they become grandparents--may see Illinois summers as hot as those in Texas, if we don't act now. And those summers in Texas will be more unbearable.

So what can we do now to protect our planet and our people from the effects of global warming? The first step is to adopt the McCain- Lieberman amendment. This bipartisan approach to addressing climate change is not only good environmental policy, it is good economic policy.

This amendment allows the market to determine the best approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and rewards those with the most cost- effective approach by enacting a cap-and-trade allowance system. The revenues generated from this program will go directly to training workers, helping the industries most affected by the reductions cap, and providing the necessary funds to ensure that the United States, not China or India, is the leader in energy innovations such as coal gasification, smaller and safer nuclear plants, and renewable technologies.

Since so many people in Illinois depend on coal for jobs and for energy, and since America is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal, I am also pleased that this amendment will specifically fund clean coal technology and allow extra allowances for coal companies that use carbon sequestration methods.

The underlying bill will provide $200 million for clean coal technology, $500 million for coal pollution technologies, and $2.5 billion for clean coal based power generation technologies.

This two-track approach--a strong investment in clean coal, coupled with providing certainty to industry so they may prepare for investment in these technologies today--is the right approach to both strengthen our economy and lead us toward the 21st century energy policy.

The United States should be leading the world in investing in existing technologies that harness coal's power while reducing its pollutants.

We now have applications to construct 100 new coal plants. Plants all over the world will get built no matter what, but if we do not make sure each one is equipped with the right technology, future generations will be forced to live with the consequences--dirtier air and dangerous climate change.

We know this country's scientific minds already have the ideas to lead the United States into the future. In this increasingly competitive global marketplace, government needs to do its part to make sure these ideas are developed, demonstrated, and implemented here in the United States, and the McCain-Lieberman amendment can do just that.

Let me make two final points. This administration repeatedly says it will base its policies on sound science.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.

I thank the Chair.

The science is overwhelming that climate change is occurring. There is no doubt this is taking place. The only question is what are we going to do about it.

The previous speaker, the fine Senator from Idaho, indicated that our economic growth might be hampered by dealing with this problem now. The fact is, when we look at similar strategies that were developed in passage of the Clean Air Act in the 1990s, it turned out that the costs were lower and the benefits higher than had been anticipated. Economic growth was not hampered; rather, innovation was encouraged and spurred in each of these industries.

The last point I wish to address is the point that was made that other countries may be polluting a lot more than we are. I think that is a legitimate concern, but it is impossible for us to encourage countries such as China and India to do the right thing if we, with a much higher standard of living and having already developed ourselves so we are the energy glutton of the world, are unwilling to make these modest steps to decrease the amount of emissions that affects the atmosphere overall.

If we the wealthy nations cannot do it, we cannot expect developing nations to do the same. That is why taking this important step with McCain-Feingold--is so important. That is why I

congratulate both Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for taking this important step.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

That passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pat Haman on my staff, detailed from EPA, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Reid, and Senator Domenici for allowing me this time.

I know Dick Durbin. I serve with him in Illinois. We have traveled together through the byways and highways of our great State. I have rarely met someone with greater dedication to ordinary Americans, a stronger belief in the greatness of this Nation, or a more longstanding commitment to public service as an expression of that patriotism than Dick Durbin.

This recent episode obviously has pained him a great deal because although I am new in the Senate, one of the things I am discovering is that we have a tendency, perhaps because we don't share as much time on the floor as we should, perhaps because our politics seem to be ginned up by interest groups and blogs and the Internet, we have a tendency to demonize and jump on and make mockery of each other across the aisle. That is particularly pronounced when we make mistakes. Each and every one of us is going to make a mistake once in a while. We are going to say something unartful; we are going to say something that doesn't appropriately describe our intentions. And what we hope is that our track record of service, the scope of how we have operated and interacted with people, will override whatever particular mistake we make.

Senator Durbin has established himself as one of the people in this Chamber who cares deeply about our veterans and our troops. He hasn't just talked the talk, he has walked the walk. I have been distressed to see my partner from Illinois placed in the situation in which he has been placed. I am grateful he had the courage to stand up and acknowledge that he should have said what he said somewhat differently. But I am also grateful that people, such as the distinguished Senator from Arizona and others, recognize this for what it was--a simple misstatement--and that now we can move on to talk about the substance of the issues that are of legitimate concern to this body, including making certain that when we operate institutions such as those at Guantanamo, we hold the United States to that high standard that all of us expect.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 826