Floor Statements

Mr. President, the United States needs an energy plan that balances traditional sources of energy with alternative energy sources and conservation. The energy conference report is not a perfect bill, but it is the result of true bipartisan compromise that managed to put some of the most harmful provisions on the cutting room floor.

On balance, I support this bill because it moves us towards a more stable, reliable electricity grid, protects our consumers, and includes much needed investments in renewable sources of energy.

I am especially pleased that this bill strengthens the reliability of our electricity grid and protects ratepayers from market abuses, particularly in the wake of Enron and the massive blackouts that struck parts of the Midwest and Northeast 2 years ago. I am also pleased that the bill reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program protects our most vulnerable citizens by assisting them with their heating and cooling bills.

I am also pleased that the conference report does not contain many of the most harmful provisions that were included in this legislation in the past. The bill does not allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. The bill also does not include provisions that would shield producers of gasoline additives from lawsuits. I strongly opposed these provisions in the past and am pleased they are not included in this bill.

Unfortunately, the bill does contain some questionable environmental provisions. I am also disappointed that the bill does not include important provisions I supported in the Senate bill, particularly the renewable portfolio standard, steps to deal with global warming, and requirements that would have lessened our dependence on foreign oil.

In the end, this is not the bill that the Democrats would have written. It doesn't address the most pressing issues facing our country today: sky-high gas prices, global warming, and our growing dependence on foreign oil. But the bill does take important steps to strengthen the reliability of our electricity grid, protect consumers from market abuses, and move us towards greater use of renewable sources of energy. This is just the beginning of a serious debate that will continue in the halls of Congress and in communities all across the country in the days to come.

Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of the transportation reauthorization bill. The road to final passage has been long and brutal, but I am pleased that we have finally reached this point. This is a good bill for Maryland and a good bill for our Nation.

The State of Maryland is the fifth most densely populated State in the Nation. Our highways and byways serve almost 54 billion vehicle miles of travel annually. Maryland has the second largest urban interstate traffic density and the sixth largest percentage of roads in urban areas in the United States. As part of the Northeast corridor, Maryland experiences an extremely high volume of through traffic, especially on roadways such as 1-95. Maryland is also one of the few States in the Nation with two major metropolitan areas, Washington, DC, and Baltimore, and two major beltways with some of the highest traffic volumes in the country, within 30 miles of each other. In the Washington metropolitan area, we have the third longest average commute time in the Nation.

This bill will provide much needed relief to the stresses that our commuters experience every day by making critical investments to highway safety and expansion, improvements to our Metro system, and expansion of our transit systems.

Maryland will receive more funding for highways and mass transit under this bill than it does now. For highways, Maryland can expect to receive $140 million more per year in Federal highway formula money, more than $2.9 billion over the life of the bill. This funding will help make our roads safer, improve traffic conditions, and help promote economic development throughout the State. For our transit systems this bill provides more than $900 million. This means critical funding to improve the capacity of the Washington Metro and expand and build capacity for transit systems throughout Maryland.

In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, for all of his hard work on this bill, particularly for his steadfast dedication to the transit needs of Maryland and our Nation. Thanks to his efforts, this bill provides essential support to State and local governments to ensure greater access to safe and reliable transit services.

Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of my constituents to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It should be called the Special Interest Protection Act because it puts one industry's bottomline ahead of the families and victims of gun violence. It also slams closed the courthouse door to those seeking justice for victims of gun violence.

Remember when--not to long ago--the citizens of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia were terrorized by a sniper. Remember when 10 innocent people were killed while they were going about their daily routines, mowing the lawn or getting gas, shopping, and getting ready to drive a bus. Their families have experienced tremendous loss and the Nation mourned with them.

Now, Congress is considering legislation that inflict further pain on families like those of the sniper victims. This legislation will literally slam the courthouse door on the families of gun violence victims and on all Americans who believe they were harmed by negligent actions related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free pass. And it will prevent families and survivors from holding irresponsible gun stores accountable, if they are negligent. It actually would prohibit families from going to court, from letting a jury of their peers decide if the gun store or manufacturer was negligent.

If this legislation passes you could still go to court over a toy gun but not a real gun. That is wrong.

Let me tell you about one of these families who have been victimized by gun violence. Conrad Johnson was the sniper's last victim. Do you remember hearing the news that he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery County? Killed by the sniper getting ready for his route.

He was beloved by his family, friends and community. Two thousand people attended his funeral.

He worked hard as a bus driver. He drove 35 miles before dawn every day for work. He was known for his friendly smile and can-do attitude.

And he loved his family--his Jamaican immigrant parents, his wife Denise--his high school sweetheart, his two sons and his big extended family. Over 30 members gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He was full of life. He was always finding ways to take care of his family and help his community. He was a volunteer coach for the boys and girls clubs of Fort Washington. He loved being a DJ for functions thrown by family and friends, and he was always washing the family car on the weekends.

Conrad Johnson was the snipers last victim. Conrad's family is one of many

Maryland families still grieving because of the snipers' reign of terror. Five Maryland families lost loved ones in the sniper's first 24 hours.

Today, I stand here for the rights of families like those of the sniper victims to have their day in court, the rights of families like James Martin's. James was shot when he stopped to buy groceries for his church program. Or James ``Sonny'' Buchanan's family. Sonny, a landscape architect, who was engaged to be married, was shot with one bullet as he worked early one morning. Or the wife, son, and daughter of Premkumar Walekar. He was a taxicab driver, shot that same morning as he went about his normal fill up routine at a local gas station on Aspen Hill Road. Or the husband and 7 year old son of Sarah Ramos, who was shot just 25 minutes later, as she sat on a bench waiting for a ride to her babysitting job. And the family of Lori Ann Lewis Ramos, shot just a short time later, as she stopped at a gas station to clean her car.

Today, I also stand here to protect all the victims who were and are severely injured by gun violence. They also deserve their day in court. There is the young boy who was a victim of the DC area sniper--Iran Brown, who was shot in the chest as he was dropped off at Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Iran spent over a month in intensive care because of the gunshot to his chest or Rupinder ``Benny'' Oberoi, a young man who was shot in the back as he closed the store he worked at for the night. Benny needed 26 staples in his chest and extensive surgery to repair the damage caused by the bullet that pierced his back.

These families have been through so much. They can never recover that tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make sure families all over American who are like them can have their day in court.

That is why we need to oppose this legislation today.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about language was added to S. 397 to protect this case or that case. The U.S. Congress should not be in the business of deciding which negligence actions should be allowed into a court. That is up to the courts to decide. That is what our civil justice system is all about. It gives these families the right to offer evidence to prove the gun shop was negligent.

We need to reject this legislation and protect that right.

We need to ensure that the families of victims and the victims themselves, who have faced such unprecedented tragedy, are not victimized again by having the courthouse doors slammed on them.

We stood with law enforcement during the dark and dangerous days of the snipe; now today they stand with us. People feared for their lives. Thanks to the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and local law enforcement they found the snipers. Thanks to brilliant forensic work they traced the weapon. This legislation makes a mockery of everything law enforcement tried to do.

If this legislation passes, irresponsible dealers get off scot-free and victims of gun violence are left without the protection of our justice system. I believe families of victims of gun violence deserve their day in court, like the sniper victims' families had--like Conrad Johnson's family, and Sarah Ramos' family, and all the families.

They may not win their case, but they have the right to make their case. The courts should decide based on the facts and the evidence.

Let me be clear, I do not believe Congress should stand in the way by offering special protection, by offering blanket protections for the negligent actions of the gun dealers, sellers and manufacturers. It is my duty to my constituents to fight with them and to fight against passage of this bill. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to allow these victims of terror to seek redress in the courts. Gun violence terrorizes our citizens and we owe them nothing less.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer.

The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion.

These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries.

With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance.

That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls.

Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer.

The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion.

These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries.

With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance.

That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls.

Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the nomination of Lester Crawford as Commissioner of the FDA.

I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home State of Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH, and then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the technologies that we use are safe.

Over the years I have fought for the right facilities, the right resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. But I tell you, today is a very sad day for me because I cannot bring myself to support Lester Crawford as the Commissioner, and it is because I am so enthusiastic about FDA.

While I agree the agency has needed someone in charge, Dr. Crawford has not been in charge. His stewardship of the agency going back to 2002 has been both tepid and passive.

For example, under Dr. Crawford's leadership, the drug Vioxx was found to have increased risk of heart attacks long before FDA took any action. FDA was slow to reveal the knowledge of increased rates of suicides among teenagers taking antidepressants. There was delay. There is the politicizing of science as exemplified by the endless dispute over emergency contraception. And then there has been a ``just say no'' attitude to imported drugs.

And all of those people looking at homeland security tell us that our food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And what do we get from the FDA? We get passivity.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of drug safety. The FDA has been and must remain the gold standard in maintaining drug safety. Yet today there is a crisis of confidence over drug safety in the public's mind. At Dr. Crawford's nomination hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this year, he suggested that the newly formed Drug Safety Board within the FDA will be a way to guarantee this safety. I asked him how he could guarantee this board--which will exist within the FDA--will be able to provide independent review.

He gave me the bureaucratic answer and bureaucratic structure. I asked if he would be in charge of this important guarantee. He said ``no,'' he was going to delegate that to an Assistant Commissioner. I asked ``Why?'' He said: ``Because I would have to be involved in personnel and budgets.'' Well--that is his job, isn't it? That is exactly the kind of answer we are talking about. You cannot preside over FDA. You have to run FDA.

The nations of the world that cannot afford it look to our FDA to be the gold standard. Physicians and other allied health people who are prescribing drugs or using technologies need to know that they have an FDA that they can count on. And also we, the patients of the United States of America, need to know that we can count on the FDA. And the pharmaceutical industry has to have an FDA that provides evenhanded regulatory authority. That is why I cannot support Lester Crawford as Commissioner.

It is with great reluctance that I have come to this decision, but it is because I love FDA and its mission, and know that the people of America are counting on it. Whether you are a doctor, or whether you are a patient, we need the FDA, and we need strong leadership. Therefore, regretfully, and reluctantly, and sadly, I am going to vote ``nay''.

Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the nomination of Lester Crawford as Commissioner of the FDA.

I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home State of Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH, and then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the technologies that we use are safe.

Over the years I have fought for the right facilities, the right resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. But I tell you, today is a very sad day for me because I cannot bring myself to support Lester Crawford as the Commissioner, and it is because I am so enthusiastic about FDA.

While I agree the agency has needed someone in charge, Dr. Crawford has not been in charge. His stewardship of the agency going back to 2002 has been both tepid and passive.

For example, under Dr. Crawford's leadership, the drug Vioxx was found to have increased risk of heart attacks long before FDA took any action. FDA was slow to reveal the knowledge of increased rates of suicides among teenagers taking antidepressants. There was delay. There is the politicizing of science as exemplified by the endless dispute over emergency contraception. And then there has been a ``just say no'' attitude to imported drugs.

And all of those people looking at homeland security tell us that our food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And what do we get from the FDA? We get passivity.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of drug safety. The FDA has been and must remain the gold standard in maintaining drug safety. Yet today there is a crisis of confidence over drug safety in the public's mind. At Dr. Crawford's nomination hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this year, he suggested that the newly formed Drug Safety Board within the FDA will be a way to guarantee this safety. I asked him how he could guarantee this board--which will exist within the FDA--will be able to provide independent review.

He gave me the bureaucratic answer and bureaucratic structure. I asked if he would be in charge of this important guarantee. He said ``no,'' he was going to delegate that to an Assistant Commissioner. I asked ``Why?'' He said: ``Because I would have to be involved in personnel and budgets.'' Well--that is his job, isn't it? That is exactly the kind of answer we are talking about. You cannot preside over FDA. You have to run FDA.

The nations of the world that cannot afford it look to our FDA to be the gold standard. Physicians and other allied health people who are prescribing drugs or using technologies need to know that they have an FDA that they can count on. And also we, the patients of the United States of America, need to know that we can count on the FDA. And the pharmaceutical industry has to have an FDA that provides evenhanded regulatory authority. That is why I cannot support Lester Crawford as Commissioner.

It is with great reluctance that I have come to this decision, but it is because I love FDA and its mission, and know that the people of America are counting on it. Whether you are a doctor, or whether you are a patient, we need the FDA, and we need strong leadership. Therefore, regretfully, and reluctantly, and sadly, I am going to vote ``nay''.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the birth of one of the greatest democracy movements in the 20th century: the Polish Solidarity movement. I am proud to join my friend Senator Voinovich in submitting a sense of the Senate honoring the people of Poland on this special anniversary.

On August 31 of this year, Poland will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union, the first independent union established behind the Iron Curtain.

This date has a special meaning for me, and for the thousands of Polish Americans, who danced in the streets when Solidarity won freedom for Poland after decades of war and oppression. The history of Poland has, at times, been a melancholy one. Every king, kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But we know that while Poland was occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation has never been occupied. Poland has always strived to be part of the West in terms of its values and its orientation.

So in 1980, when an obscure electrician named Lech Walesa, working in the Gdansk shipyard, jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement, he took the Polish people and the whole world with him, to bring down the Iron Curtain.

At first, we had reason to hope. The fledgling Solidarity movement won a major victory in August 1980, forcing Poland's communist government to accept a list of demands from the striking workers. The government released political prisoners, promised to permit the broadcast of religious services, and agreed to permit the activities of independent trade unions.

But just before Christmas 1980, our hopes were dashed that Poland would soon be free. The Soviets were worried

that Solidarity's growing popularity threatened their tight grip on the people of eastern Europe. Under pressure from Moscow, Poland's communist government declared martial law. Thousands of Solidarity leaders were arrested and imprisoned, including Lech Walesa. The borders were sealed, airports were closed and a curfew was imposed.

Through the dark days of martial law, Polish Americans stood by our cousins abroad, working to support the Solidarity movement. We found ourselves troubled and fearful for our friends and relatives in Poland, but we never doubted that Poland would one day regain its freedom. Polish peoples everywhere, whether we live here, as fully American citizens, or in Poland, know that the heart and soul of Poland lie with democracy and lie with freedom.

Even though the Solidarity movement was driven underground, it continued to grow. Under Lech Walesa's leadership, and with the support of Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, Solidarity grew from a trade union into a national movement demanding freedom and independence for Poland.

In 1989, Solidarity won the right for the Polish people to hold elections for the National Assembly. They elected a majority in the Assembly supported by Solidarity and Poland's first non-communist Prime Minister in the post-war era.

Poland's peaceful march to freedom offered a beacon of hope to all those in Europe suffering under communist rule. And in December 1989, just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland.

Today, the United States and Poland are close partners and good friends. As Polish troops fight side-by-side with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hope our colleagues will join us in celebrating the birth of the Solidarity movement and honoring the people of Poland, whose heroic and peaceful resistance hastened the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of one Europe, whole and free.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the birth of one of the greatest democracy movements in the 20th century: the Polish Solidarity movement. I am proud to join my friend Senator Voinovich in submitting a sense of the Senate honoring the people of Poland on this special anniversary.

On August 31 of this year, Poland will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union, the first independent union established behind the Iron Curtain.

This date has a special meaning for me, and for the thousands of Polish Americans, who danced in the streets when Solidarity won freedom for Poland after decades of war and oppression. The history of Poland has, at times, been a melancholy one. Every king, kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But we know that while Poland was occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation has never been occupied. Poland has always strived to be part of the West in terms of its values and its orientation.

So in 1980, when an obscure electrician named Lech Walesa, working in the Gdansk shipyard, jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement, he took the Polish people and the whole world with him, to bring down the Iron Curtain.

At first, we had reason to hope. The fledgling Solidarity movement won a major victory in August 1980, forcing Poland's communist government to accept a list of demands from the striking workers. The government released political prisoners, promised to permit the broadcast of religious services, and agreed to permit the activities of independent trade unions.

But just before Christmas 1980, our hopes were dashed that Poland would soon be free. The Soviets were worried

that Solidarity's growing popularity threatened their tight grip on the people of eastern Europe. Under pressure from Moscow, Poland's communist government declared martial law. Thousands of Solidarity leaders were arrested and imprisoned, including Lech Walesa. The borders were sealed, airports were closed and a curfew was imposed.

Through the dark days of martial law, Polish Americans stood by our cousins abroad, working to support the Solidarity movement. We found ourselves troubled and fearful for our friends and relatives in Poland, but we never doubted that Poland would one day regain its freedom. Polish peoples everywhere, whether we live here, as fully American citizens, or in Poland, know that the heart and soul of Poland lie with democracy and lie with freedom.

Even though the Solidarity movement was driven underground, it continued to grow. Under Lech Walesa's leadership, and with the support of Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, Solidarity grew from a trade union into a national movement demanding freedom and independence for Poland.

In 1989, Solidarity won the right for the Polish people to hold elections for the National Assembly. They elected a majority in the Assembly supported by Solidarity and Poland's first non-communist Prime Minister in the post-war era.

Poland's peaceful march to freedom offered a beacon of hope to all those in Europe suffering under communist rule. And in December 1989, just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland.

Today, the United States and Poland are close partners and good friends. As Polish troops fight side-by-side with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hope our colleagues will join us in celebrating the birth of the Solidarity movement and honoring the people of Poland, whose heroic and peaceful resistance hastened the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of one Europe, whole and free.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the U.S.-Dominican Republic, Central American-Free Trade

Agreement, CAFTA. I support free trade when it is fair trade. Yet this agreement is not fair for workers in America or in Central America.

The truth is, this agreement will not dramatically change the trade relationship between the United States and our neighbors in Central America.

Thanks to existing agreements, like the Caribbean Basin Initiative, there are relatively few trade restrictions today between the U.S. and the nations of CAFTA.

The small increases in trade of textiles and agriculture products that will result under CAFTA represent a very modest increase in U.S. revenue. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, CAFTA will generate a net increase in U.S. revenues of just 0.01 percent per year.

So this agreement is not going to do much to help the American economy. But it contains provisions on labor, the environment and sugar that could harm America's working men and women and their families.

I think we have widespread agreement that workers in the CAFTA countries face very difficult conditions.

In most countries, workers have a very hard time trying to unionize and bargain collectively. Intimidation of union organizers is not unusual. It often goes unpunished.

There is even a significant amount of child labor in some sectors in these countries.

So CAFTA is a prime example of a trade agreement that must have strong labor provisions if it is to guarantee trade that is not just free, but fair.

But there is only one labor provision in this agreement that is enforceable through the regular dispute settlement procedures, and it is a weak one.

It does nothing more than require a country to enforce its own trade laws, no matter how weak. And if a company is found in violation of its national trade laws, the government pays the fine--not the company.

That is not much incentive to encourage employers to abide by the law and treat their workers with respect and dignity.

Let me be very clear about one thing. I support trade. I encourage trade. Trade is very important to my State. Maryland workers can compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade.

I have supported past trade agreements, like the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, that included strong, enforceable labor provisions. This agreement does not live up to those standards.

CAFTA's weak labor provisions are a raw deal for American workers.

They send a terrible message to the men and women in CAFTA nations who are trying to earn a fair wage to support their families.

Our message to them is, we want to do business with the companies you work for, but we aren't concerned about how they treat you. That's not the message I want to send to our neighbors.

On the environment, we also face some serious challenges in the CAFTA countries.

As with the labor provisions, the environmental provisions in CAFTA are too weak. The one enforceable environmental provision simply requires countries to ``effectively enforce'' their own environmental laws.

Again, I believe in free trade that is fair trade. And fair trade must include environmental protections. We need strong, enforceable environmental provisions to protect American jobs. We also need them to ensure that our neighbors have access to the same clean air and safe drinking water that we enjoy.

Finally, Mr. President, I am very concerned that CAFTA unfairly exposes the American sugar industry without opening other markets for U.S. sugar.

Even the administration recognizes that CAFTA as it was negotiated will unfairly target our sugar industry. That is why they have come up with a complicated scheme to pay CAFTA-nation governments and sugar producers not to export sugar to America.

But this deal is no deal for the men and women of America's sugar industry. And it is no deal for the American taxpayer who, under this plan, would pay between $150 million and $200 million a year to foreign governments and companies.

It makes no sense to negotiate an agreement that opens U.S. markets to foreign sugar and then pay foreign producers not to take advantage of that agreement.

Even this flawed plan would not do enough to protect the U.S. sugar industry from unfair trade. It would expire after just two years, exposing the U.S. market to cheap, low quality imports.

And it does nothing to open large, protected sugar markets in Europe that remain closed to U.S. sugar exports.

I support the idea of developing stronger ties between the U.S. and our neighbors in Central America.

These nations have made great strides toward democracy and openness. We should work more closely with them to support their recent gains in the rule of law and efforts to fight terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking.

But this trade agreement is seriously flawed. It does not do much to increase free trade, and it certainly does nothing to support fair trade. It is not fair to American workers and their families, and it is not fair to workers in Central America. I will vote no, against CAFTA.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2005. This bill would increase funding for research on uterine fibroids as well as create an education awareness campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Sarbanes for joining me as original cosponsors.

Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. It is estimated that three in every four women have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is projected that one in every four women seeks medical care for the heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause.

Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids. Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids.

This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids from $15 million to $30 million. This funding will provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research, and lay the groundwork to find a cure. This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what steps women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what the best ways to treat them are.

Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through

the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the federal government is doing to combat uterine fibroids.

Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. A recent survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, cited as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women.

The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Women's Health Research, and the Black Women's Health Imparitive. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2005. This bill would increase funding for research on uterine fibroids as well as create an education awareness campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Sarbanes for joining me as original cosponsors.

Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. It is estimated that three in every four women have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is projected that one in every four women seeks medical care for the heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause.

Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids. Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids.

This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids from $15 million to $30 million. This funding will provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research, and lay the groundwork to find a cure. This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what steps women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what the best ways to treat them are.

Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through

the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the federal government is doing to combat uterine fibroids.

Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. A recent survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, cited as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women.

The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Women's Health Research, and the Black Women's Health Imparitive. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, today the Senate acknowledges the dark side of our history. We apologize for a terrible wrong--the Senate's repeated failure to adopt anti-lynching legislation. This legislation is long, long overdue. I join my colleagues in offering this resolution as a way of saying how profoundly sorry we are that the Senate did not act decades earlier--when action might have saved lives. We also recommit ourselves to ensuring that this will never happen again.

The horrific practice of lynching is a stain on our Nation--and on our souls. There were over 4,700 documented lynchings in the United States. There were 29 documented lynchings in Maryland. These lynchings were public events, with members of the community colluding--either directly or indirectly--in this horrifying practice. It was no accident that they made them public--they were sending a message to other African Americans in the community. These crimes left thousands of people dead and families and communities scarred. Yet 99 percent of these murderers were never arrested or tried for their crimes.

For many in Maryland, the history of lynchings is not an abstraction--it is the history of their family or their community. The Washington Post reported about a 1906 lynching in Annapolis, where Henry Davis was lynched on a bluff near College Creek just days before Christmas. There was George Armwood, who was lynched and burned by a mob in Princess Anne's County, and King Davis--who was lynched in Brooklyn, MD on Christmas Day in 1911. Many institutions throughout the Nation have tried to document the extent of this racial violence--but so many incidents went unreported that we will never have a true account of how many African Americans were murdered.

Billie Holiday, a Baltimore native, tried to capture the despicable practice of lynching in her 1939 song ``Strange Fruit.'' Her career suffered because of the painful honesty of this song. Her record label refused to record it, and some of her concerts were cancelled. Yet Holiday's perseverance turned ``Strange Fruit'' into one of the ``most influential protest songs ever written'' and an inspiration for those fighting for racial justice.

The Senate tried several times to put an end to this monstrous practice by outlawing it, but each time the measure died. This is a horrific failure that cost American lives. This failure will always be a scar on the record of the United States Senate.

Today we apologize for this tragedy, though no action now can right this wrong. Although we acknowledge this dark side of our history, we cannot and should not want to erase it. We must ensure that it serves as a lesson about a time when we failed to protect individual rights and preserve freedom.

This legislation is important to recognizing the evil of lynching and the failure of government to protect its citizens. It also stands as a symbol of our commitment to move our Nation

forward so we can truly be a symbol of democracy.

Next week in Baltimore, we will open the Reginald Lewis Museum of African American History and Culture. It will be a proud day--the celebration of a strong and proud history that has made our Nation great. This museum documents the courageous journeys toward freedom and self-determination for African Americans in Maryland and in America. Yet history must also acknowledge this dark side of our history. We must educate the next generations about the proud history, and mighty struggle that African Americans have endured in the United States.

Today, this resolution stands as a painful reminder of that history. Yet it should also stand as a guiding principle--that we must always fight to protect the rights of all Americans. This resolution acknowledges that the Senate was wrong when it failed to enact anti- lynching laws. But it also empowers us to move forward to do all that we can to strengthen opportunity for all Americans, to fight discrimination in every form and to ensure that we vigorously protect the rights of all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United Nations.

I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity, and commitment to the core mission of the department.

Mr. Bolton has had wide-ranging experience and is competent.

I do not agree with many of Mr. Bolton's past statements about the U.N. However, his statements during the confirmation process indicate he is now committed to the mission of the U.N. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But I cannot be so flexible when it comes to the very serious questions about Mr. Bolton's integrity.

I rise today as the Senator from Maryland and as a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have been working on reforming our intelligence community since I first became a member of the Intelligence Committee before the tragedy of September 11. I served on the 2002 joint inquiry about what happened on that terrible day. I served on the Intelligence Committee's 2003 review of Iraq intelligence.

I worked on the 2004 reform legislation that built on the work of the 9/11 Commission and that we passed last year. We looked for ways to prevent what happened on September 11 from ever happening again. We looked for ways to make sure that what happened with Iraq--where we thought there were weapons that weren't there--will never happen again. We looked for ways to get the right information to policy makers.

Throughout all that work over the years, I have kept the many talented, hard working, dedicated, and patriotic Americans working throughout the world for our intelligence agencies foremost in my mind. One of my central concerns has been to try to ensure that they have the right and ability to do their jobs: to get the facts and speak truth to power.

Speaking truth to power means telling the boss what he or she should hear rather than just what they want to hear. This is absolutely critical to the security of our Nation. That is why I am opposing John Bolton's nomination to be America's Representative to the United Nations. It is clear to me that he does not respect the truth or the hard working experts that labor day in and day out to provide policy makers with the best information and their best judgments.

I have carefully reviewed the report prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee. It is evident to me, from reading the minority views of the committee's report, that Mr. Bolton is a bully, but not just any bully. He is a bully with a purpose: to browbeat intelligence professionals to disregard the facts, and to send a message to all the other intelligence professionals that they speak the truth at their peril. His purpose seems clear: to intimidate. His actions seem clear: to retaliate.

Mr. Bolton retaliated against those who disagreed with him. He claims not to have sought to have anyone fired. He said he merely ``lost confidence'' in them. But, that's just a polite way to say a person is unqualified and should be fired. It's a distinction without a difference. When a senior policy maker has lost confidence in you, I think we can all agree that your career is effectively over.

Playing with words cannot obscure the fact that Mr. Bolton went after intelligence professionals for doing their jobs, for telling the truth, for speaking truth to power. He was the power, the boss, the senior official and he had no use for truth.

According to the investigation by the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton tried to fire an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The intelligence professional disagreed about language regarding biological weapons that Mr. Bolton wanted to include in a speech. Mr. Bolton also asked that the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America be reassigned, because he told Mr. Bolton that the language on biological weapons did not reflect the intelligence community's assessment.

Mr. Bolton also appears to have abused his access to intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee recently investigated charges that Mr. Bolton shared classified information that he received from the NSA. The minority view of that investigation concluded that Mr. Bolton did share classified information, after being specifically instructed by NSA not to do so. Even more troubling, it appears that the reason Mr. Bolton gave the NSA to justify his ``need to know'' was not the real reason he sought out the information.

This is yet another example of John Bolton using and misusing intelligence to suit his own purposes. It is also clear that Mr. Bolton bullied a number of others who dared to disagree with him, including others in the intelligence community. My colleagues--Senator Biden, Senator Voinovich and others--have detailed these charges well, and I will not repeat that here.

Mr. Bolton's intolerant attitude and conduct must not be rewarded. It inevitably results in chilling truth and facts. It is an attitude hostile to the very concept of speaking truth to power.

We need the world to understand that the United States getting Iraq wrong was an aberration, a one-time, never-to-be-repeated mistake. The world must believe, and it must be true, that facts and truth are what inform our policies and actions at home and abroad.

They must also believe our leaders and policy makers when they speak. When we speak about intelligence, people cannot be wondering, is that American lying to me, misleading me, telling me half the truth.

The stakes are too high: war and peace; life and death; weapons of mass destruction; Iran; North Korea; terrorism. These are the stakes we are talking about.

America cannot afford to send someone to the U.N. that many people already believe does not respect the truth. We already have a huge credibility gap at the U.N. and in the world.

The U.N. was where our respected Secretary of State laid out our case for going to war with Iraq. We disclosed extensive intelligence information to demonstrate that Iraq had WMD, that it was a threat to the region, our country and the world. We now know, through no fault of our Secretary of State, that much of that information was wrong.

Many of us have worked tirelessly to make sure that something like that never happens again. Building on the work of the 9/11 Commission, we worked for much of last year to pass dramatic and broad based reform of our intelligence community. We fought hard to make sure that a single person would be in charge of the entire intelligence community, to mandate alternative or red team analysis to always make sure that we policymakers have the best information available.

We are now working to make that reform a reality. Just last month, I voted with 97 of my colleagues to confirm the

country's first Director of National Intelligence and his deputy. We have done much, but there is much to do.

We are building a new foundation for our entire intelligence community. It is a work in progress. Every step is important.

But one of the most important steps is ensuring that our intelligence professionals understand and believe that their work is valued. That truth and facts are important. That they can and must speak truth to power. That we are on their side. That the Senate of the United States takes these matters seriously.

That is why at the confirmation hearing of our nation's first nominee for Director of National Intelligence, I asked Mr. Negroponte if he agreed that the professionals in the intelligence community must be free to ``speak truth to power.'' He said, ``Truth to power is crucial. And we've got to assure the objectivity and integrity of our intelligence analysts.''

I also asked him if he will create a tone where there will be no retaliation for people who attempt to speak the truth. Mr. Negroponte said, ``Yes. I think the short answer to you is a categorical yes.''

I asked those questions of the nominee, who was under oath and at an open hearing, for two very important reasons.

First, I wanted the world to hear what he had to say.

Second, I wanted all of our intelligence professionals throughout the World to hear what he had to say.

I wanted our intelligence professionals to know that they were authorized, indeed, obligated to seek the truth and speak the truth. And, I wanted them to know that our most senior intelligence professional, the Director of National Intelligence, would not tolerate retaliation for speaking truth to power. Mr. Negroponte's statements stand on their own.

I believe it would be wrong to confirm Mr. Bolton as the United States representative to the United Nations. He has disregarded the truth. He has sought to punish intelligence professionals for speaking the truth. He has tried to intimidate intelligence professionals into agreeing with him regardless of the facts.

To confirm Mr. Bolton would send a terrible message to our intelligence professionals. It would be a terrible signal for our intelligence reform efforts. It would undermine our efforts to restore our credibility in the world and to do the hard work of reforming the United Nations.

Mr. President, in honor of Older Americans' Mental Health Week, I rise today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursements for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Under the current system, social workers may not be paid for services they provide. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, are able to separately bill Medicare for their services. Congressmen Stark and Leach are introducing a companion bill today in the House of Representatives.

Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety of our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they urgently need. Nearly 6 million seniors are affected by depression, but only one-tenth ever gets treated. According to the American Psychiatric Association, up to 25 percent of the elderly population in the United States suffers from significant symptoms of mental illness and among nursing home residents the prevalence is as high as 80 percent. These mental disorders, which include severe depression and debilitating anxiety, interfere with the person's ability to carryout activities of daily living and adversely affect their quality of life. Furthermore, older people have a 20 percent suicide rate, the highest of any age group. Every year nearly 6,000 older Americans kill themselves. This is unacceptable and must be addressed.

As a former social worker, I understand the role that social workers play in the overall care of patients and seniors. This bill protects patients across the country and ensures that seniors living in underserved urban and rural areas, where clinical social workers are often the only available option for mental health care, continue to receive the treatment they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents and also seniors residing in rural environments. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need and deserve. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve.

Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the prospective payment system, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care they provide.

This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This billis about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is about making sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. The overarching goal we should be striving to achieve for our seniors is an overall improved quality of life. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our Nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do.

The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. I also want to thank Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Murray, Corzine, Johnson, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.