Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am going to make a few comments this morning about a hearing we just completed in the Democratic policy committee, but I am waiting for some charts. While I am waiting for those charts, I want to talk a moment about what is happening with respect to the debate here in this Chamber dealing with the war in Iraq. It relates to some things I said on the floor of the Senate yesterday but I think really bear repeating.

We are talking about the war in Iraq, the need to attempt to change course in Iraq, and yesterday I described again what the latest National Intelligence Estimate tells us. Now, all of us have access to this. There is a classified version, a top-secret version, and a nonclassified version, but all of us have access to this information. Here is what it says in the context of protecting this country and providing security and safety for this country. Here is what the National Intelligence Estimate says:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland. We assess the group has protected or

regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability,

including: a safe haven in the Pakistan federally

administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its

top leadership.

Here is what it says. It says the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership, who even now are plotting attacks against our country and who have a safe haven in the Pakistan region. Now, if that is the case, it is quite clear that the central fight on terrorism is not going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war. Yet that is what we are doing.

I have asked this question, and I have repeatedly asked it: Why should there be 1 square inch on the planet Earth that is secure or safe for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida? Yet our National Intelligence Estimate says they are in a safe haven. A ``safe haven.'' These are the people who boasted of killing Americans on 9/11. They boasted about engineering 19 terrorists aboard airplanes full of fuel and passengers, and they ran them into buildings, killing innocent Americans. And 6 years later, our National Intelligence Estimate tells us that those who engineered that attack have regrouped, are developing new training camps for terrorists, and are in a safe haven and developing new plans to attack America. That is unbelievable to me.

We are debating the war in Iraq, which our National Intelligence Estimate also says is largely sectarian violence, or a civil war. Yes, there is some al-Qaida in Iraq, but that is not the central front, and that is not the central war on terrorism. If, in fact, our role as a responsible country is to protect our citizens, then it seems to me we would change course and change strategy so that we are taking the fight to the terrorists and fighting the terrorists first.

We have been bogged down--longer now than in the Second World War--in what has become a civil war in Iraq. Meanwhile, the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is in a safe haven. Osama bin Laden, al- Zawahiri, and others, the leadership of al-Qaida, in a safe haven.

What are the consequences of that safe haven? Let me show a newspaper report from last week. All of us understand this because we heard about it. They picked up terrorists in Denmark, they picked up terrorists in Germany. The terrorists in Germany were plotting attacks against the largest U.S. military base in Europe. Where did those terrorists train? In Pakistan. In terrorist training camps in Pakistan.

We are now seeing the fruit of what has been allowed to happen--the leadership of al-Qaida in a safe or secure place, operating or developing new training camps, training new terrorists to launch attacks against our country. Meanwhile, we are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of sectarian

violence. If ever there is a description of a need for a change of course, that is it. I do not understand why some fail to recognize what has happened.

You can go back to February, you can go to June, you can go to the disclosures and read them. This one is June:

``Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary in Pakistan border.''

While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to

al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting,

regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border

between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military,

intelligence and law enforcement officers said. The threat

from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more

dangerous than from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides

called the central front of the war on terrorism, said some

current and former officials. Bin Laden himself is believed

to be hiding in the region guiding a new generation of

lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist groups in Iraq and

other parts of the world.

I don't, for the life of me, understand the failure to recognize a set of facts. This reminds me of the period prior to the invasion of Iraq--a set of information that on its face later turns out to have been wrong.

We don't need to be told what is right or wrong in terms of the set of facts--read the facts, understand the facts. If the central threat to our country, the greatest threat to our country, according to National Intelligence Estimates, is al-Qaida and its leadership and its reconstruction of its system of terror and the development of new terrorist camps, if that is the case then, that is where America has to be to wage the fight against that kind of terrorist group. Instead, we are in the middle of a civil war. That is why we need a change in course, a change in strategy.

It is not as some of my colleagues talk about, a plan for surrender. It is simply deciding we are going to attack and launch an effort to destroy that which represents the greatest threat to our country. It is surprising to me that 6 years later there is anyplace on the planet Earth that should, by our national intelligence officials, be declared safe or secure for the leadership of al-Qaida. Yet that is exactly what we read and what we hear and what we see in official reports. That is not something we should accept.

I wish briefly today to talk about the results of a hearing that the Democratic Policy Committee held this morning. The hearing was about the subject of contractors in Iraq and also the subject of what are called whistleblowers, those are people who are, in many cases, very courageous people who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of the taxpayers of America; to say this is wrong and it must stop.

We had some very disturbing testimony this morning. We had eight witnesses. Four of them were whistleblowers. They have paid dearly for having the courage to come forward.

Let me read the testimony of a Donald Vance, U.S. Navy veteran; 30- year-old U.S. Navy veteran. When leaving the Navy, he chose to go to Iraq as a civilian to help American efforts to rebuild the country. He worked for a couple of private military contractors in Iraq. Here is what happened to him.

What he saw with respect to the last contractor he worked with was the sale of weapons, the sale of stolen weapons to interests who should not have weapons, insurgents and others. So he began to report it. It was something he believed very seriously. He reported it to his superiors. He reported it to the FBI. He reported it to U.S. military officials.

As a result, this U.S. Navy veteran found himself in big trouble. Here is what he said.

Because of the information I possessed and because of my

unwillingness to condone the corruption in the company that I

saw, I became a target within the company. They took measures

to ensure that I could not leave their compound in the Red

Zone in which [they] were located. When I called the United

States government for help, [the U.S. Government] came to the

compound to rescue me. But what started as a rescue ended up

as a nightmare.

That night I was taken to the United States Embassy and

debriefed. I told the agent that questioned me everything I

had witnessed [about the sale of illegal guns and illegal

activity that had gone on.] I also told him that I was

informing for the FBI. Instead of contacting the FBI to

verify the information I provided, these U.S. government

officials blindfolded me, handcuffed me, and took me into

detention. According to the Department of Defense

spokesperson, they did not bother to contact the FBI until

three weeks into my detention. To this day [he said] even

though the Freedom of Information Act requests [have been

made] no government official has explained what was asked

of the FBI regarding myself and what the FBI said in

response.

I spent 97 days in . . . isolation. I was denied food and

water. I was denied sleep. I was also denied requested, and

much needed, medication. There was intolerably-loud heavy

metal and country music blaring into the cells. The lights in

the cells were always on. The guards would threaten me and

physically assault me. For example, the guards would walk me

into walls while I was blindfolded and handcuffed, ``shake

down'' my cell for contraband, threaten to use excessive

force if I did not obey all of their orders. Finally, for the

first few weeks I was [in this prison] I was denied a phone

call. No one in my family knew where I was, if I was alive or

if I was dead.

During [that] time I was interrogated constantly. Before

each session, I would ask for an attorney. The request was

invariably denied. Instead, I was interrogated by a host of

United States government personnel, including FBI agents,

Navy Criminal Investigative Service officers, as well as

possibly CIA and DIA agents. . . .

According to the government, I was being held as a security

internee because of my affiliation with [the private security

firm], certain members of which the government believed were

selling weapons to insurgents. . . .

Three months after I was detained, and after alleged

subsequent ``re-examination'' of my case, the government

released me. Before I was released, however, I had one final

interrogation. The main focus of that interrogation was what

was I going to do when I got home: Was I going to write a

book? Was I going to tell the press? Was I going to get an

attorney?

When they released me, he said, they ``gave me a $20 bill and dumped me at the Baghdad airport to fend for myself without the documentation I needed to return to the United States.''

A whistleblower who saw illegal activity, saw the selling of improper guns in Iraq, some to insurgents, he felt, went to authorities. His country, the United States of America, held him prisoner for 97 days. No habeas corpus--which is in the Constitution, by the way. No right of habeas corpus for an American citizen here. No right to contact an attorney. If this doesn't disturb the American people, I don't know what will disturb the American people.

We heard today from other witnesses talking about two things. One was the abuse of the taxpayer by contracting firms in Iraq--waste, fraud, and abuse that represents I think some of the worst waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. I have held, I believe, 10 or 12 hearings on this subject as chairman of the Policy Committee over the last 3 years. The evidence is unbelievable: $40, $45 for a case of Coca-Cola. It doesn't matter, the taxpayer is going to pay for that. You order 50,000 pounds, 25 tons of nails, and they deliver the wrong size, it doesn't matter, throw them on the sand of Iraq, the taxpayers will pay for it. Or a $7,000-a-month lease payment for an SUV.

Henry Bunting over in Kuwait, working for Halliburton--KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton--he had a job as a purchaser. He said, as a small example, I was supposed to order hand towels for the American troops so I filled out an order to order white hand towels. My supervisor said: No, we don't want those white hand towels. We want hand towels with KBR, the logo of our company, embroidered on the towels. Henry says: But it will triple the cost. The supervisor says: It doesn't matter, the American taxpayer is paying for this. It is a cost-plus contract; don't worry about it.

These are small items, but there are large items. It is unbelievable the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse we have uncovered. The fact is, there seems to be an attitude in some parts of this Government to sleepwalk through it all. It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Can you imagine a circumstance where a contractor, in this case Halliburton, KBR, is charging us for 42,000 meals a day it is providing American troops, American soldiers--42,000 meals a day, and it turns out they are only giving 14,000 meals a day? They overcharged by 28,000 meals a day, according to Government estimates. How do you miss 28,000 meals a day?

The evidence is unbelievable when you go through this. This morning we had a hearing about contracting abuse. We had testimony. I read some from Donald Vance, who worked for a contractor in Iraq and was imprisoned by

his Government for 97 days, not given the right to an attorney, not given the right to contact anybody on the outside at any time during the early stages of that confinement. That is unbelievable.

Bunnatine Greenhouse testified once again this morning, the highest ranking civilian official in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She said the abuse related to the awarding of contracts--here is what she said exactly. This is the highest ranking civilian official in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to the

contracts awarded to KBR--

that is a subsidiary of Halliburton--

represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I

have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

Do you know what happened to this woman for that? She lost her job. That is unbelievable, when you think about it. I talked to Secretary Rumsfeld about this case. I talked to Secretary Gates about this case. I talked to Deputy Secretary England about this case--nothing. Oh, we are all looking at it, we are all investigating. They have been doing that for 2 years.

I called the commanding officer of the Army Corps of Engineers when Bunnatine Greenhouse was given this job. This is a woman with three master's degrees, judged by everyone from outside the Government who deals with contractors as outstanding, given outstanding references on her performance reviews all along, until somehow she got into a situation where she said: I saw things going on with sole-source contracting, awarding big contracts, billions of dollars of contracts and doing it improperly, abusively. ``I blew the whistle,'' she said, and all of a sudden she got into trouble and they demoted her.

I called her former commanding officer, General Ballard, now retired. I called him at home one night and I said: Tell me about Bunnatine Greenhouse, because she has paid for her courage to speak out with her career. Here is what her boss said: ``She did an outstanding job.'' This is an outstanding employee. But because she had the courage as a whistleblower to stand up and report things that were wrong, abusive behavior, behavior that abuses the American taxpayer, she paid for it with her job.

We can't let that continue to happen. That is why I held this hearing. The best disinfectant for bad behavior is sunlight, and I hope, as we continue to expose more and more of this, I hope we can put an end to it. Those who have the courage to come forward and report wrongdoing, to report waste and fraud and graft and corruption--in my judgment, we ought to thank them. There is a story, I don't have a copy of it here, a story in the USA Today newspaper, written by an investigative reporter, that deals with these issues, the issues of oversight of contractors and the oversight of contracts that are let with respect to the war in Iraq. What we have found--Senator Wyden and I have worked on this in the Senate--the Pentagon wants to hire companies to oversee other companies. You can't do that. You can't delegate that responsibility. Who is looking out for the taxpayer here?

We had testimony today from Robert Isackson. Robert Isackson is a patriotic American. He was someone who saw criminal activity with a company called Custer Battles. He reported it. For that, he and others who were with him were surrounded by people with guns, threatened. He came today and expressed profound disappointment at the way the Federal Government has responded or failed to respond. As a person who had the courage to be a whistleblower, who saw something wrong and decided to try to right it, as a person who stood up for the best interests of this country and its taxpayers, we owe him a debt of gratitude.

And yet we see today that what has happened, systematically--the Associated Press wrote a big article about this, exposing it. What has happened systematically under this administration to whistleblowers is they are abused, not protected; not thanked, but abused. I would hope whoever in this administration is responsible and listening and understanding might decide that has to stop.

I will speak more at some point soon about the results of this hearing. My colleague Senator Grassley from Iowa I know has spent a lot of time on whistleblower issues, and other colleagues have as well. It is very important for us that when people come forward to report acts of wrongdoing, fraud, waste, abuse, that this country says thank you and follows up and will not allow those people to be abused and penalized. Yet, all too often, that has not been the case. It has to change.

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

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

Madam President, I have watched and listened to the debate today on the floor of the Senate. It is a debate in many ways that is similar to debates we have had on previous occasions, and I know there are people on all sides who feel passionately about these issues. I respect differences of opinion. I respect those who come to the floor and say: Here is how I see it, here is what I believe, and here is what I think we should do.

This is a very important issue. There is so much at stake for our country with respect to this issue of the war in Iraq. It casts a shadow on virtually everything else we consider and do in public policy and our relationships around the world. It is a situation I think that requires us to do the best we can to develop public policy that finds a way to extract ourselves from what has largely become a civil war with sectarian violence in the country of Iraq, and take the fight to the terrorists.

I wish to raise a few points about fighting terrorism, even as I come to the floor to support the amendment offered by Senator Webb. I think it is an amendment that has great merit and an amendment that will be supportive of the best interests of this country in pursuing the war against terror.

Let me say there have been a series of reports--an almost dizzying number of reports and speeches and testimony over the last several weeks--about the status of the war in Iraq and the performance of the Iraqi Government. There are claims and counterclaims; I expect there is spinning on all sides of these issues. Much of it has been about whether the U.S. military surge of 30,000 troops since January 2007 has worked and about the benchmarks--about whether the Iraqi Government has been willing to or has made progress in meeting benchmarks it has promised to meet to do its job, to justify U.S. troops fighting and dying in their country. Through all of that, it seems to me there are three facts that are clear. First, only political reconciliation among the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds will stop the civil war that rages in Iraq. Only political reconciliation will ultimately solve this problem.

Second, the Iraqi Government has made very little progress--perhaps some in several areas but in the main very little progress toward the needed reconciliation.

Third, terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the United States. The July National Intelligence Estimate makes the case. This is not coming from me; this comes from a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. The unclassified portion says:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland. We assess that the group has

protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack

capability, including: A safe haven in the

Pakistan federally administered tribal areas, operational

lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Let me say again that it says that ``al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland.'' We know that as of last week, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, al-Zawahiri, and others who lead al-Qaida are still speaking to us through videos and through voice tapes, giving us their version of the world. These are people who have boasted about murdering innocent Americans on 9/11, and six years later, they remain in what the National Intelligence Estimate says is somewhere on this planet that is secure or safe. It is almost unbelievable to me that there is a ``safe haven'' anyplace on this planet for the people who have boasted of initiating the 9/11 attacks against this country, but that is what our National Intelligence Estimate says--they are in a safe haven.

There ought not be 1 square inch on planet Earth that is safe for the leadership of al-Qaida. How did we come to this point of having a safe haven for those very terrorists who initiated the attacks against this country and who, as our most recent National Intelligence Estimate says, remain the most serious terrorist threat to our country? How have we reached that point? What has been happening while we have surged troops in Iraq? Well, as I indicated, Osama bin Laden released two videos, one on September 7 and one on September 11. He boasted about the 19 hijackers who did the killings on September 11 and rambled on about the coming downfall of America, as is his custom.

Regardless of what Osama bin Laden has said, our National Intelligence Estimate says that al-Qaida is back stronger than ever and terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the U.S. homeland. I think we need a set of policies that focuses on fighting terrorists first. Frankly, what is happening in Iraq is not the central fight on terrorism. It seems to me the central fight on terrorism is to eliminate the leadership that represents the greatest threat to our country, and they are not in Iraq. That leadership, we are told by the National Intelligence Estimate, is in a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas.

I don't mean to say that dealing with that would be easy or without difficulty. I do mean to say that if this represents the judgment of our National Intelligence Estimate, and if we know--and we all do--that those who boasted about initiating the 9/11 attacks are there and are pledging additional attacks against our homeland, it seems to me that should be where we focus our country's priority of action.

We are told, by the way, that the leadership of that terrorist organization that is, again, the most serious threat to this country-- we are told they have regenerated.

Here is a September 11 story quoting our intelligence officials. The headline is ``Al-Qaida's Return: The Terrorists Have a Sanctuary Once Again.'' In the last week or so, we have seen terrorist arrests in Denmark and in Germany, and we see that these arrests, particularly in Germany, are for terrorists plotting attacks against large U.S. military bases. Those attacks against our military base in Europe are being plotted by terrorists who have trained in Pakistan, which is the very area where the Intelligence Community says Osama bin Laden has regenerated his terrorist training camps in the tribal area.

Madam President, this issue of a sanctuary for terrorists to begin planning additional attacks against our country, as they are apparently now doing, it seems to me ought to claim our attention and ought to claim the policy debate about what is the approach this country might best use.

My colleague from Virginia comes to the floor with respect to this issue of the war in Iraq. What are we doing in the war in Iraq? What about the surge and the road ahead? What about the Petraeus report? My colleague has made an important argument on the Senate floor about the strength of the U.S. military if you don't provide ample opportunity for the U.S. military to have sufficient time home from the battlefield to rest and regenerate and also sufficient time for additional training.

Madam President, the point of the amendment offered by Senator Webb is to provide a sufficient opportunity for troops who are on station, on duty in a war zone 24 hours a day, to give them time to retrain, rest, and refresh. You cannot have a fighting force that doesn't have that opportunity. That is what my colleague from Virginia is suggesting in his amendment.

My point about this is that as we discuss how to deal with these issues in Iraq, we are, on a course at the moment that says our mission in Iraq is to go door to door in Baghdad in the middle of sectarian violence or a civil war. My point is, while that is going on, while we are in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad with our soldiers--and, yes, there is some al-Qaida presence there, but that is not the majority of what is happening there; it is largely a civil war. While we are doing that, here is what we are understanding and knowing. This is not a claim, this is what we know: ``Europeans Get Terror Training Inside Pakistan.'' We picked them up in Denmark and Germany. We find out that the terrorists are being trained in Pakistan. We are told that is where the al-Qaida leadership is, reconstituting its base, its strength, building new training camps. We picked up the people who are threatening to attack the largest military installation owned by the United States in Europe.

Should that surprise us? Not if we have been reading the newspaper. We don't have to read the intelligence; we can just read the newspaper.

This is a New York Times newspaper story from February 19 of this year. This is from our intelligence officials talking about what they know:

Senior leaders of al-Qaida, operating from Pakistan over

the past year, have set up a band of training camps in the

tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American

intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American

officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin

Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily

building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistan tribal

area of north Waziristan.

Now we have picked up terrorists who were trained there. We are told by the National Intelligence Estimate that the greatest threat to our country is from the al-Qaida organization and the leadership of al- Qaida, who are now planning terrorist attacks against our homeland. That is the greatest threat to our country. So what are we doing? We are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war while there is a ``safe haven'' on this Earth, apparently, for the leadership of al-Qaida. Is there common sense missing here? Would one not think those who boasted of murdering 3,000-plus Americans on 9/11, 2001, that they would have long ago been apprehended? President Bush was asked about this, and he said, ``I don't think about Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida.'' I really think we ought to take the fight to what the National Intelligence Estimate insists is the greatest threat to our country, and I don't believe that is happening.

I support the effort of my colleague from Virginia. I think that amendment is one which will give our military the opportunity to retrain, rest, and be refreshed and represent the kind of fighting force we want and need. All of us are proud of our American soldiers who walk in harm's way.

There is a verse about those soldiers and patriots:

When the night is full of knives and the drums are heard

and the lightning is seen, it's the patriots that are always

there ready to step forward and fight and die, if necessary,

for their country.

We have a lot of patriots who got up this morning and put on body armor and are walking in harm's way on behalf of this country. What we owe them, it seems to me, as policymakers is our unyielding support for whatever they need to finish their job. In addition, we owe them good policy that focuses on attacking and destroying and eliminating the greatest terrorist threat to this country. And nobody should take it from me; take it from the National Intelligence Estimate of July of this year. The greatest terrorist threat to our country is Al-Qaida.--I will put the chart back up:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

The NIE says that they have a safe haven in Pakistan. So that is the fight--to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland. There ought not to be a square inch of safe haven anywhere on this planet for that group.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Deron Waldron be permitted floor privileges for this debate.

Mr. President, I am here today with my colleagues Senators Reid, Murkowski, Inouye, Johnson, Tester, Domenici and Bingaman to introduce legislation to reauthorize and amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. This bill, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 will not only reauthorize the primary housing programs for Indian Country but it will enhance the crucial services provided under these programs.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act provides formula-based block grant assistance to Indian tribes which allows them the flexibility to design housing programs to address the needs of their communities. Since its adoption in 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act has transformed the way in which Indian housing is provided in the tribal communities. It is clear that the programs have been very successful. For example, in 2006, Tribes have been able to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate more than 1,600 rental units and more than 6,000 homeownership units. Each of these units became a home to an American Indian or Alaska Native family.

Even with these improvements, we are still facing a housing crisis in Indian Country. At the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs March and July hearings on Indian housing, we heard alarming statistics: 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under-housed. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate. Over one-third of Indian homes are overcrowded. More than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed to provide adequate housing in Indian Country.

Tribal elders in the Northern Plains are living in homes without roofs, with only tarps to shield them from the harsh elements including below-zero temperatures. Indian children across the country are forced to live in overcrowded conditions in homes with 23 other people or in trailers in the Northern Plains with wood stoves and no fresh drinking water. This is a national disgrace. How are children supposed to grow and learn in these conditions and how are communities supposed to thrive? This is particularly distressing given the fact that funding for Indian housing has decreased over the last several years, because it has not kept up with inflation and the rising cost of building materials.

The U.S. has a trust responsibility to provide housing for our First Americans. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today will strengthen NAHASDA by providing tribes with increased flexibility, with the goal of producing more homes in Indian country. The amendments are incremental changes to current law. We realize that ``one size does not fit all'' in Indian housing. Housing needs in the Great Plains differ greatly from those in the southwest. This is why we retained the basic structure of the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, because through this block grant program, tribes and tribal housing entities are able to use the funds to serve their unique needs.

NAHASDA works and with the amendments we are proposing, it will continue to improve housing conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please allow me to highlight some of the major amendments we are proposing.

Title I of the bill would reauthorize the Indian housing block grant and amend the program to streamline reporting requirements. Title I will also allow Indian tribes to have increased flexibility in running their housing programs by allowing funds to be utilized for community buildings such as day-care centers, Laundromats, and multi-purpose community centers. Through housing we are not only building homes, but the hope is to also build communities.

Title II of the bill creates a new Self-Determined Housing Activities program under which grant recipients may use a portion of their funding to meet their distinct needs in a self-determined manner. This title also expands the list of activities that grant funds may be used for to include operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of rental and homeownership units, mold remediation and necessary infrastructure.

Title III of the bill authorizes a study to assess the existing data sources for determining the need for housing for funding purposes, while Title VI creates a new demonstration project to allow grant recipients to access vital economic development and infrastructure programs.

I am committed to finding ways to provide more homes in Indian Country. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 is an important and crucial step towards fulfilling this commitment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today with my colleagues Senators Reid, Murkowski, Inouye, Johnson, Tester, Domenici and Bingaman to introduce legislation to reauthorize and amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. This bill, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 will not only reauthorize the primary housing programs for Indian Country but it will enhance the crucial services provided under these programs.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act provides formula-based block grant assistance to Indian tribes which allows them the flexibility to design housing programs to address the needs of their communities. Since its adoption in 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act has transformed the way in which Indian housing is provided in the tribal communities. It is clear that the programs have been very successful. For example, in 2006, Tribes have been able to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate more than 1,600 rental units and more than 6,000 homeownership units. Each of these units became a home to an American Indian or Alaska Native family.

Even with these improvements, we are still facing a housing crisis in Indian Country. At the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs March and July hearings on Indian housing, we heard alarming statistics: 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under-housed. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate. Over one-third of Indian homes are overcrowded. More than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed to provide adequate housing in Indian Country.

Tribal elders in the Northern Plains are living in homes without roofs, with only tarps to shield them from the harsh elements including below-zero temperatures. Indian children across the country are forced to live in overcrowded conditions in homes with 23 other people or in trailers in the Northern Plains with wood stoves and no fresh drinking water. This is a national disgrace. How are children supposed to grow and learn in these conditions and how are communities supposed to thrive? This is particularly distressing given the fact that funding for Indian housing has decreased over the last several years, because it has not kept up with inflation and the rising cost of building materials.

The U.S. has a trust responsibility to provide housing for our First Americans. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today will strengthen NAHASDA by providing tribes with increased flexibility, with the goal of producing more homes in Indian country. The amendments are incremental changes to current law. We realize that ``one size does not fit all'' in Indian housing. Housing needs in the Great Plains differ greatly from those in the southwest. This is why we retained the basic structure of the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, because through this block grant program, tribes and tribal housing entities are able to use the funds to serve their unique needs.

NAHASDA works and with the amendments we are proposing, it will continue to improve housing conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please allow me to highlight some of the major amendments we are proposing.

Title I of the bill would reauthorize the Indian housing block grant and amend the program to streamline reporting requirements. Title I will also allow Indian tribes to have increased flexibility in running their housing programs by allowing funds to be utilized for community buildings such as day-care centers, Laundromats, and multi-purpose community centers. Through housing we are not only building homes, but the hope is to also build communities.

Title II of the bill creates a new Self-Determined Housing Activities program under which grant recipients may use a portion of their funding to meet their distinct needs in a self-determined manner. This title also expands the list of activities that grant funds may be used for to include operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of rental and homeownership units, mold remediation and necessary infrastructure.

Title III of the bill authorizes a study to assess the existing data sources for determining the need for housing for funding purposes, while Title VI creates a new demonstration project to allow grant recipients to access vital economic development and infrastructure programs.

I am committed to finding ways to provide more homes in Indian Country. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 is an important and crucial step towards fulfilling this commitment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, this is another one of those amendments where the bureaucrats know best--don't ask, don't tell. These three projects are in Louisiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The International

Peace Garden, built 75 years ago, is a national treasure between the United States and Canada. The buildings are in disrepair. The Government of Canada says: We are prepared to make some investments. There is a $450,000 earmark, congressionally directed spending, to make an investment. The Canadians say they will make investments, but we want the Americans to make investments as well. We would not want to invest in this national treasure; is that what we have come to? This makes no sense at all. My hope is that those who believe the bureaucrats will know best about spending will understand this amendment is not worthy. These three projects have great merit. I believe the Congress will want to fund these projects with modest funding. That is what we have done. I hope we will soundly reject the amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, if I could inquire of the Senator from Washington, my understanding is that from 6 to 7, there was to be debate on the two amendments, Senator Cornyn's amendment and my amendment, which will then be voted on as side-by-side amendments at 7 o'clock, and that I would be allotted half the time.

So let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the Coburn amendment that I believe he has spoken about already dealing with the Peace Garden outside of that block of time, and following that 5-minute presentation, the remaining time would be split between myself and Senator Cornyn or his designee. I am not asking that the vote be extended; I am just saying that between now and 7 we are splitting the time with respect to the truck amendments.

If I have 25 minutes, that is fine.

Might I ask with respect to the Peace Garden amendment, will there be 2 minutes on each side prior to the vote on that amendment?

Mr. President, this issue of Mexican long-haul trucking into this country is an important issue, and I have offered an amendment that is very simple. It is an amendment that is supported by a number of groups: The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Public Citizen, the National Farmers Union, the Teamsters, the Transportation Trade Department of the AFL-CIO.

In a newspaper article this morning, the American Trucking Association, which represents the trucking business, and which, by the way, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, said today it has ``grave concerns'' about the Mexican trucking pilot project.

Here is the story: We passed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I didn't vote for it. It was a horrible trade agreement, and it has demonstrated over the years to be a trade agreement that does not represent our country's interests. We turned a very small trade surplus with Mexico into a huge trade deficit. But aside from that, in the passage of NAFTA, it was to harmonize at some point in the future the ability to do long-haul trucking across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but it was never anticipated that it would start in circumstances where there were not equivalent standards and/or enforcement with respect to safety.

So I have very strong concerns because I don't think there is any evidence presented anywhere in this Chamber during this debate that we have equivalent standards and enforcement with respect to safety, and therefore I don't believe we ought to allow, at this point, the pilot project to go forward that will have long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this country now.

Now, let me describe a couple of things. First of all, it is coincidental, perhaps, but yesterday, a great tragedy occurred in Mexico, and I will describe it with this story that I saw yesterday morning. A terrible truck accident occurred where 37 people were killed; 150 people were injured in the blast. It left a crater of up to 65 feet, and that was because one of the trucks was hauling explosives in Mexico. This is a great tragedy, this accident; so many people were killed. Here is the crater in the road in Mexico. One of the trucks was carrying explosives. This was in a mining area.

According to newspaper reports, the driver of the truck that was carrying the dynamite was trying to overtake another truck carrying 25 tons of explosives in a trailer. The chief of police in the State where the accident took place said the truck was not equipped to carry explosives. The driver of the truck that was carrying the explosives fled the scene, and the bishop of the Catholic diocese in the area, the capital of the border State where the crash happened said:

It's not possible to understand how a truck with 25 tons of

explosives could drive on the highway with no type of

protection.

Now, we know what would happen in this country if you were driving a truck with explosives on board. We have safety requirements that are stringently enforced. You have to have vehicles in front and vehicles behind and proper signage. That was not the case yesterday in Mexico. I am not suggesting that is a circumstance which would exist in this country, but I am saying we don't have equivalent standards between this country and Mexico--not yet. Some day, when they exist, I will not complain about a pilot project, but today I will complain about it because those equivalent standards don't exist.

Mr. President, the inspector general's report described the following. I mention that report because last Thursday, at 7:30 in the evening, the IG issued a report. The report was required because of an amendment I offered, and others, that said the Department of Transportation cannot move to begin a pilot project of having long-haul Mexican trucks come into this country until the IG has done a report. The IG did a report, and at 8:30 the Department of Transportation, 1 hour later that evening--apparently they had taken a speed-reading course--decided it was going to implement the pilot project right then.

Here is what the IG report says:

While the DOT officials inspecting Mexican trucking

companies took steps to verify onsite data, we noted that

certain information was not available to them. Specifically,

information pertaining to vehicle inspections, accident

reports, and driver violations maintained by Mexican

authorities . . .

What does that mean? It means the most important information by which you would judge whether we ought to allow long-haul trucks to come into this country from Mexico is not available. They go on to say that they were able to get some if they were able to obtain it from the company's records by the generosity of the company. But no data bank was available. The information wasn't available. They were not able to get information about vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations. I am sorry, that is the ball game, as far as I am concerned.

This is about safety. We developed standards in this country to provide basic safety for the American people. If you want to obliterate those standards, go ahead, but it won't be with my support and vote. The Department of Transportation is making a mistake, in my judgment. I mentioned the three areas that we are taking on faith because we could not get the information, and there is no such data bank. Does that make you feel comfortable? It doesn't me.

There are a whole series of questions and problems raised in the IG's report. Yet we are told that we have enough information, let's just proceed. I don't think it is wise to proceed.

My colleague from Texas is going to offer an amendment that will say: No, no, let's let this proceed and see what happens. My colleague from Arizona said let's go ahead and try this and see what happens. We are going to see what happens? No, no. In my judgment, we ought to certify the ability to have long-haul trucking coming from Mexico into this country when we have decided there is safety for American drivers and safety on American roads and that we have been able to determine that equivalent enforcement and equivalent standards exist. That is not now the case. The IG's report demonstrates that. So I don't understand the rush. What is the requirement for speed and why the urgency? Why not stand up for the standards we have created in this country?

If I might, I believe I have a copy of the IG's report. I will read something else. On page 2, it says that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation, agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. They are saying: No, it is going to be fine; we are going to check every truck coming across the border every time. But they say that as of July 2007, no coordinated, site-specific plans to carry out such checks were in place. They say they would have the plans by August 22, 2007, but we have not received any outlines or any completed plans.

They say this:

In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed

and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project

will increase the risk that project participants will be able

to avoid the required checks.

Once again, they say that we will check every truck every time. The IG says that the way it works is we now have a greater risk and they will be able to avoid the required checks. That is not from me, it is from the IG's report.

So I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Specter an amendment-- bipartisan, with a good many cosponsors--that says let's stop this pilot program. It should not have been initiated last Thursday. The House of Representatives already voted to do so by voice vote. The House has done this already. I hope the Senate will do the same this evening.

My colleague will offer an amendment that sounds as if it is wrapped in a bouquet of flowers. The very last sentence says: Let's fund this project. So we can skip the preamble and say: Do you want to fund this project or not? Do you believe we ought to have long-haul trucks from Mexico under these circumstances at this time or don't you? If you believe we are not ready, that there is not and will not be at this point equivalent standards and enforcement and, therefore, assured safety for the American people, if you believe that--and I think the evidence is clear--then you vote for the amendment I have offered with Senator Specter and others. If you believe we should proceed with this long-haul Mexican trucking coming into our country at this moment, then vote with Senator Cornyn and his amendment.

I hope most Members of the Senate will reject what a colleague of mine said last evening. This amendment is just making Mexico a bogeyman, I think is what he described. This is much more serious than that. There will be people driving up to 4-way stop signs in this country or driving down a 2-lane or 4-lane road in this country next to an 18-wheeler, and the American people want to know whether that has an equivalent inspection to what we have. Do they have logbooks and records, and are they obligating themselves to the same requirements as this country? The answer, quite clearly, in my judgment, looking at what the IG has said, is that there is nobody in this Chamber who can give that assurance, and if that is given, it is given without any documentation at all.

I have other things to say. I want others to proceed to make their case. I hope to be able to close the debate this evening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. President, I intend to close debate, if possible, at some point. Does the Senator from Texas have other speakers?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold his request for a quorum call.

Mr. President, will you notify me when I have 7 minutes remaining?

Mr. President, the amendment that has just been described on page 4 ends with:

Of the amounts appropriated for the Office of the Secretary

under this title, sufficient funds shall be made available .

. . to carry out this section.

This is simply a mechanism to say let's just do this; let's fund it.

The point I have made is very simple. There is no treaty that would require this Senate to decide to have something happen on our highways that we believe not to be safe. There is no treaty that requires us to open our borders to long-haul Mexican trucking at this moment unless we believe there is safety and soundness to that proposal. I do not believe that is the case.

Let me again describe the three conditions that represent the problem. The suggestion that every truck will be inspected every time is simply not the case. On page 2, it says, from the inspector general's report, that it will not be the case:

In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed

and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project

will increase the risk that project participants will be able

to avoid the required checks.

This is not a legal issue; frankly, it is a safety issue. The question of accident reports, vehicle inspections, driver violations, the fact there is no national database--that is not me saying that, that is the inspector general--there is no national database, there is no database they can go to get this information, the fact that this information doesn't exist means that we don't know what the consequences will be.

One of my colleagues earlier said: Let's try it. That is probably fine, if he feels like pulling up to a four-way stop sign next to an 18-wheeler to try it and see whether there were vehicle inspections that were adequate or whether it has a driver who might have had three drunk driving accidents or perhaps 10 speeding violations nobody knows about because there is no database. Let's try it? How about let's not try it with our families or with the families of other Americans.

Sheryl Jennings McGurk describes her family's experience. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page statement from this woman, Sheryl Jennings McGurk.

Mr. President, she describes an accident south of Los Angeles that took the life of several members of her family, an accident that was totally avoidable, she says. I quote her last paragraph:

The accident was 100 percent avoidable. The truck had

numerous safety issues and should not have been operating in

the United States. For this, our lives are forever changed

and we lost three of the most incredible people [from our

family].

This was a truck from Mexico headed north on I-5, a truck that had mechanical problems, a truck that had numerous safety issues. Three people are dead. This is not a legal issue, not for the Senate; this is a safety issue. And if you believe that you have all of the assurances you need that this will be safe, then I understand your vote. But if you look at what the inspector general report says clearly--the inspector general report says we don't have information on these key issues, the issues we would need to know before we decide to allow long-haul Mexican trucking into our country.

As I indicated earlier, the American Trucking Association is an association that supported the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clayton Boyce, the vice president of public affairs for the American Trucking Association, said today, in fact:

The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project

will be carried out and whether it will be safe.

Even though they supported NAFTA. Let me say that again. The American Trucking Association said:

The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project

will be carried out and whether it will be safe.

I don't believe this is a legal issue.

This Congress has the right to make decisions about safety on our highways. We made those decisions in many ways with respect to our internal regulations, our internal standards, and we enforce those standards, but that equivalent enforcement does not exist in Mexico at this point. If it existed, we would have a database in Mexico that would tell us immediately and quickly accident reports on drivers and vehicles, vehicle inspections, and driver violations. No such database exists, and that is the problem. That is why I think this pilot project is unwise. It is why Senator Specter, I, and others have offered an amendment to stop this pilot project.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown, and as I do that, let me say to Senator Brown, as I have said previously, the Cornyn amendment, in the last sentence, says let us just fund the pilot project. It has a lot of bouquets wrapped around it, but in the end it says, let us just fund this project. That is why I believe we should pass the Dorgan, Specter, et al., amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, in the interest of finishing, I will use my 3 minutes.

Let me say that when I said this is not a legal issue, my point is whether it has been in the courts or not, we make the law. We will determine tonight our destiny. That is our responsibility here in this Chamber. Because we write the law and make the law, we will determine what the safety standards will be for America's roads tonight. My colleague from Ohio says it very well, in my judgment.

There is an old saying: Never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. There is a kind of breathless quality to what the Department of Transportation did last Thursday night. They get the IG report at 7:30; at 8:30 they announced, we made a decision: We got the report, studied it--we have some of the fastest lawyers in the world waiting on this--and away we go. Well, let me talk about what they missed. They missed the three key points with respect to the standards of safety, because the inspector general's report said there is no databank, no massive information with respect to accident reports, vehicle inspections, or driver violations in Mexico with Mexican trucking.

The fact is they do not have equivalent enforcement in Mexico. That is just a fact. If you think there is equivalency between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, you just miss it.

I had a trucker call me yesterday who said, look, I do this for a living, and I pull up at truckstops all over this country. I pull up in the short-haul areas 25 miles from the border, and I have talked to a lot of Mexican truckers and looked at their equipment. He said, if there are people who think there are equivalent standards, they are daydreaming.

Let me say this, finally. Everything about NAFTA has gone haywire, to use a term of art. Everything. They said pass NAFTA, the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and things will be great. Well, we passed it. Guess what. We turned a small surplus into a huge trade deficit. They said what it will mean is low-skilled, low-wage jobs will move to Mexico. Well, guess what. The three biggest exports to Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. All the products of high-skilled labor. Those are the jobs we lost. Huge deficits, and we lost a lot of

important and good jobs. They said, we are going to cut the tariffs for accentuating trade between the two countries. Just months later, Mexico devalued the peso 50 percent, and all the gains in the tariff cut were gone and then some.

So all of it is wrong. All of it has redounded against this country's interest. And now the latest chapter is to say, you know what, we are required to at this moment, notwithstanding what the inspector general says, notwithstanding that there is no databank with respect to vehicle inspections and drivers records, and so on, we are required to allow long-haul Mexican trucks into this country. Well, we are not required to do that.

We are a body of lawmakers in the Senate and we ought to do what the House has already done. I hope by passing my amendment we will say to the Department of Transportation that they may not go forward with this pilot project because this is an issue of safety and we stand for safety in this country.

Mr. President, might I ask, we have a vote ordered by unanimous consent at 7 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. President, I wonder if I might take 2 to 3 minutes to respond to Senator Coburn's amendment, which we will vote on, I believe, during this group of votes.

I ask unanimous consent to use the time between now and 7 p.m. to respond to the amendment offered by Senator Coburn for which I have not had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. President, Senator Coburn has an objection to legislative directed spending for something called the International Peace Garden. He apparently believes that is unwarranted spending. Many of my colleagues perhaps will not know it by the International Peace Garden, but it is an institution that has been around since the 1930s. It has been supported at various times by the Government of Canada and by the Government of the United States. It exists between the United States and Canada and is a wonderful and a remarkable place. I would encourage all of my colleagues to visit the International Peace Garden at some point.

We have a substantial number of buildings at the International Peace Garden that are in some disrepair. The Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba have agreed to participate in some funding. The amount of funding that is in the appropriations bill is $450,000, and it represents the kind of commitment that our Federal Government has made in the past to maintain this wonderful institution called the International Peace Garden.

We are proud of that institution, and sufficiently so that we put it on our license plates in North Dakota--The Peace Garden State. We are enormously proud it exists in our State. But as I have indicated previously, the Congress has, on previous occasions between the 1930s and today, assisted in some funding, very minimal funding, to upgrade some facilities there. The facilities are in substantial disrepair. The Government of Canada has made a commitment for some funds, and we wish to match those funds, so that is the purpose of this rather small earmark, but an earmark or legislative-directed funding, nonetheless.

It is very important and will perform a very important purpose at the International Peace Garden. I hope the citizens of America are as proud of the existence of this peace garden as I am. The peace garden actually reflects the determination and the dedication of two wonderful neighbors, the United States and Canada, and the peaceful co-existence that has existed for some long while.

It has also been a place in which seminars have taken place, a band camp exists there, and so many other things occur that are a wonderful reflection of the best that is in all of us, those of us from the United States and Canada.

My hope is my colleagues would agree with me, the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma is not a worthy amendment. Let us do what the Government of Canada has already done and recognize the worth of the International Peace Gardens and dedicate a very small amount of funding to try to respond to its facilities' needs.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2797

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if you voted to shut down this program of long-haul trucks into the United States from Mexico, Senator Cornyn says: You were wrong. In his amendment, page 4, it says: We shall fund, sufficient funds shall be made available to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out this section.

The reason I believe that is inappropriate is the inspector general last Thursday night said this: They could not get information about Mexican trucks with respect to vehicle inspection, accident reports, and driver violations. Why couldn't they? Because there is no database available. None available.

There will come a time when this is just fine, but it is not now. The first and most important concern at this point is safety on the roads of this country. I hope those who voted for the Dorgan-Specter amendment will decide to vote against the Cornyn amendment, which funds the very program against which the Senate has just voted.

Mr. President, would the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has spoken often about trade issues, and I have as well. We have talked a lot about the issue of workers, the impact of free-trade agreements on workers in this country, and the downward pressure on their income and the outsourcing of American jobs. We have talked a lot about its impact on the environment; being able to produce, for example, in China and pump effluents into the air and chemicals into the water and encouraging corporations to move to produce where they can hire people for 20 cents an hour, 30 cents an hour, and pump their pollutants into the air and the water unimpeded.

We have not talked previously much about this issue of protecting consumers. I would just say to my colleague that I spoke last week about a young boy, a 4-year-old boy, who swallowed a little heart- shaped charm--a little heart-shaped charm--and died. Why? Because that heart-shaped charm was made of 99 percent lead coming from China. Well, we know the impact of lead on human health. Ben Franklin described that. It is not something that is new. Yet we have these products now coming into this country with lead because it is cheap. It is bright. So we have all of this lead coming in.

My colleague describes the circumstance now as a ``race to the bottom'' with respect to consumer standards. We have always known that is what is going on with these free-trade agreements with respect to labor standards and environmental standards. But is it also the case--I would ask the Senator from Ohio is it also the case that this is a race to the bottom with respect to consumer standards, by passing these free-trade agreements and doing nothing to insist that the conditions abroad are the conditions that we require at home with respect to what is used in the production is safe for consumers, and so on?

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for a question, it was, I believe, about a century ago when Upton Sinclair wrote the famous book that launched an effort in this country that decided to protect consumers. He was describing conditions in the slaughterhouses. Once people read what he described, they insisted-- they demanded--protection for consumers. He talked about the rats in the slaughterhouses and how they would take pieces of bread, loaves of bread, slices of bread, and lace them with poison and lay them around so that the rats would eat the poison and die, the bread would poison the rats. It was all shoved down the same hole, and out the other hole came meat to be sold to the American consumer. There was a demand on behalf of the consumer to stand up for the protection of the American consumer.

So over a century, we lifted standards in this country to protect Americans, to protect consumers. Oh, I know some consider it regulation which is, in their minds, something we should never do, but we regulate to protect people. It is the case with the global economy.

I would ask my colleague from Ohio, it is the case, is it not, with the global economy that if you don't have rules that keep pace with the galloping global economy, you see downward pressure on American wages? Because it is unfair to workers--to ask a worker from Ohio or North Dakota to compete with someone who will work in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, or China to work for 20 cents an hour; it is unfair to those of us who care about the environment--and there is only one fishbowl. We all live in the same fishbowl, and we breathe the China haze in the United States--and it is also unfair to consumers who believe that for over a century we raised standards to protect them and now we discover we have been engaged in a race to the bottom to obliterate those standards by those who are able to produce abroad.

Is this not the case?

Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment to the underlying bill. My understanding is there is an amendment pending. I can withhold the amendment. I have not yet filed it. Let me at least describe for this moment the amendment, and then I will file it and offer it with the consent of the chairman and the ranking member.

In this morning's newspaper there is a story of a great tragedy in Mexico. It says: 37 die in Mexico truck blast accident. Monterrey, Mexico. Thirty-seven people killed when a truck loaded with explosives crashed into another truck in northern Mexico, Mexican media reported on Monday. About 150 people were injured by the blast, which left a crater of up to 65 feet in diameter in the road. Most of the dead were bystanders, including three newspaper journalists who had rushed to the scene of the crash and the truck exploded, the paper said. That area is a mining State where explosives are used in the coal industry.

Why is that something I raise today? Well, we also had something that happened last week that was pretty unbelievable. The inspector general issued a report, and the report is titled: ``Issues Pertaining to the Proposed NAFTA Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project.'' What this means is they have issued a report on whether we ought to allow long- haul Mexican trucks to come into this country and begin trucking in our country.

Well, we then have an accident in Mexico of two trucks. Tragically, 37 people are killed, 150 are injured, with a crater in the highway of 65 feet.

And then we have the Bush administration that last week rushed--yes, I say rushed--to approve the pilot project of some 100 trucking firms to do long-haul trucking in our country.

The inspector general's report, which I have, is 40-some pages long. I had previously cosponsored an amendment with some of my colleagues saying that they had to wait to allow long-haul truckers from Mexico to do long-haul trucking in our country until they could have an inspector general's report which analyzed the advisability of this pilot program.

So they could not proceed with the pilot program despite the fact that they were itching to do it. But they were impeded from proceeding until they got the inspector general's report. The inspector general's report came in at 7:30 last Thursday evening.

At 8:30 the same evening--presumably having read 40-some pages--the attorneys and the administrator at the Department of Transportation announced that the pilot program would begin. So in 1 hour, the Department of Transportation evaluated this inspector general's report--or maybe not.

Let me describe some of what this report is about. First, the inspector general's finding--the inspector general's finding, Department of Transportation only looking at records that the Mexican trucking companies make ``available.'' Here is what it says:

While the Department of Transportation officials inspecting

Mexican trucking companies took steps to certify onsite data,

we noted that certain information was not available to them.

Specifically, information pertaining to vehicle inspections,

accident reports, and driver violations maintained by Mexican

authorities was not available to the Department of

Transportation.

I will say that again. This is very stunning, almost unbelievable. The Department of Transportation says it has now evaluated all of this--the pertinent information--and has decided now to trigger the pilot project by which Mexican long-haul trucks will be moved into this country, but they weren't able to verify the onsite data. What weren't they able to verify? Well, vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.

Why am I concerned about this whole issue? Because I know--and I think most people know--that you don't have the same circumstance in Mexico with respect to truck safety, with respect to requirements, regulations, and inspections; you don't have the same enforcement with respect to driver standards, hours of service, and all of those related issues. The practices are not equivalent. So if we move a trucking fleet into this country from Mexico that doesn't have equivalent safety requirements and standards, and drivers who have not been required to meet the same standards and have enforcement to the same standards, then there is no question but that we put at risk drivers on America's streets, roads, and highways. That is a fact.

Yet this administration is so anxious to move that they took only 1 hour to evaluate the IG report. They tell us: We have all this under control. Don't worry, be happy; it doesn't matter what truck you are driving next to ours or what truck you are going to meet at a four-way stop sign; it is all under control--except they weren't able to get information about vehicle inspections. That means they weren't able to get that information on Mexican trucks. They weren't able to get information about accident reports. They weren't able to get information about driver violations. What were they able to get?

Is this one of those ``trust us'' things? I think we have had enough of these ``trust us'' claims. How about verifying just a bit some of the basic

information we need to know and understand before we decide to allow Mexican long-haul trucks beyond that 25-mile perimeter they have been allowed to drive since NAFTA. Well, as I indicated, it took this administration all of 1 hour to approve this pilot project.

Let me provide the next chart that shows the key issue. The inspector general's report doesn't resolve these issues. You would think the Department of Transportation, having some sort of epiphany at 8:30 in the evening, must have felt everything was resolved. If they read the IG report, here is what it says:

Inconsistent data used to monitor Mexican commercial

driving convictions in the U.S. Lack of coordination with the

Department of Transportation offices to ensure that drug and

alcohol testing issues are addressed. Lack of Federal motor

vehicle policy to check and record vehicle identification

numbers during an inspection. Inadequate Mexican bus

inspection coverage during busy periods.

I went to page 2 of the IG report. Page 2 on the report is a response to what the administration said. They said, if we can allow these long- haul Mexican trucks in, we are going to inspect every one of them under the pilot project. If we get one coming North, we are inspecting it. We are going to put an inspector on the vehicle. We are going to inspect the vehicle. Here is what the IG report says: They agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. But as of July 2007--that is a little less than a month ago--no coordinated site-specific plans to carry out such checks were in place. Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier said it would have plans outlined by August 22, but the IG says we have not received any outlines or completed plans.

In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed

and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project

will increase the risk that project participants will be able

to avoid the required checks.

I will not read that all again. It means this: Despite the promises that they are going to inspect every truck every time, they don't have plans in place to do that. Those are pie-in-the-sky promises. We have had a bellyful of them. Time after time, they say here is what we are going to do and we commit, trust us. On this subject, the fact is we should not trust anybody. We should say show us the plan that is going to guarantee the next time you show up at a four-way stop, or you are driving down a highway in this country, and you are confronted by a truck that came across our border from Mexico, that that truck has met an equivalent safety standard as an American truck, and that that driver and his or her record of service and the conditions of service and the hours of service are equivalent to what you would expect with an American driver. If that is not the case, then there ought not to be a pilot project at this point.

I only referred to page 2 of the report. As I indicated, they took a little less than 1 hour last Thursday evening to decide to approve the pilot project after they were prevented from doing so until this report came out. It is clear to me that they either didn't read the report or didn't understand the report, because this report doesn't suggest at all that what has been put into place represents any kind of safety or security for American drivers when confronting a Mexican long-haul truck coming across the border.

Do I allege that every truck that will come across is unsafe, that every American should shudder at the risk of pulling up to an intersection with them? That is not my point. We have two different standards with respect to the enforcement of safety requirements, with respect to trucks and drivers in Mexico versus the trucks and drivers in the United States. To decide at this moment that we are going to merge these systems without providing the assurance to the American people they are going to do what they say they are going to do--inspect every truck every time--that is a decision by the Department of Transportation to provide extraordinary risks they should not provide for American drivers.

Let me again put up a chart that shows three issues on which you would have to know, it seems to me, at least the body of information if you were serious about saying we are going to implement the NAFTA, which itself--by the way, in my conversation a few moments ago with the Senator from Ohio, we could have described our trade failures, and the hood ornament of that failure is certainly NAFTA, an agreement we reached with Mexico and Canada. At the time, we had a very small trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned that into a very large trade deficit with Mexico now. We had a modest trade deficit with Canada, and we have now turned that into a very large one. By all accounts and standards, NAFTA has been a huge failure for this country. It ought to be, in my judgment, renegotiated, but those who chant ``free trade'' and believe that any trade agreement is better than no trade agreement continue to say NAFTA was a success, despite all of the evidence. It is very hard to describe success as very large and growing trade deficits. NAFTA, apparently, indicated that we should integrate our trucking and, therefore, Mexican trucks should be allowed into this country for long- haul capability. But in order to do that, we would harmonize the safety standards in Mexico and the United States with respect to equipment and drivers.

So the Department of Transportation, anxious as it is to allow long- haul Mexican trucking into this country right now and, again, with a pilot program right now, they have tried to assure us there is no risk, no problem, be happy. The problem is the very IG report they rely on to trigger the pilot project, in my judgment, tells them they should not do it at all; there is substantial risk. You would need to have a body of information about what is happening with respect to Mexican trucking in order to make this judgment. What kind of information did they get? They didn't get accident reports because there wasn't any central repository of information for the reports. They didn't get vehicle inspections. They didn't have that information. They didn't get driver violations--with one exception; that exception was the Mexican companies that decided voluntarily to provide the information. They have that--whatever that is. It is not very much, but they have that. That doesn't represent any information that is validated by anybody.

It is unbelievable to me that they would rush off and--I know this about transportation, but it seems to me if anybody should be arrested for speeding here, it is those who have decided they are going to rush and speed to approve this pilot project less than 1 hour after the IG report comes out, at a time when the IG says clearly they have not been able to get the information you would need.

Again, on page 2 of the IG report, I will say it again because it is central to what I am saying on the floor of the Senate, the Department of Transportation says they will inspect every truck every time with respect to this pilot project. Let me say, again, here are the facts. They agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. But as of July 2007, a month ago, no coordinated site-specific plan to carry out such checks was in place. They stated they would have plans outlined by August 22 at that point. That is about 2 weeks ago.

But the IG says that ``we have not received any outlines or completed plans.'' ``In our opinion,'' they say, ``not having site-specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid the required checks.'' What the IG is saying is if you don't have a plan in place to inspect every truck every time, you increase the risk that these participants will be able to avoid the required checks.

I think this sets us up for failure, but, more importantly, it imposes substantial additional risks, I believe, for American drivers.

First and foremost, with respect to our trade agreements, they ought to be able to protect this country's economic interests and our interests with respect to safety. I don't believe the actions by the Department of Transportation have done that.

I don't believe the inspector general's report suggests that standard has been met. For that reason, I will offer an amendment that is identical to the amendment previously passed by the House that will prohibit the use of funds to continue this pilot project.

Thursday, at 8:30 in the evening, 1 hour after the inspector general's report was published, the administration

announced they were embarking on the pilot project. I don't know exactly where they are at this moment on it, but wherever that happens to be, the House of Representatives has already said no, and I believe the Senate, in support of my amendment, will do exactly the same thing.

There is an amendment pending on the floor of the Senate. I will shortly file my amendment, and I will call it up at an appropriate time. But I wish to make a comment on another matter very briefly, if I may.

Iraq

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are now testifying before the House of Representatives. Most of us know from this morning's news reports and from the expectations last week what the report will be today. The report will be as existed now for a good many years, longer than the Second World War has lasted. That is how long we have been engaged in the war in Iraq. The report will be: Things are getting better; there is marginal improvement; things are uneven; we can't leave; we have to stay. That is going to be the report. We understand.

I wish to raise the question again, however, that I think is being missed with the Petraeus report and the Crocker report, and missed by Congress as well.

Last week, we were told that we received a message from Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden, in a ``safe and secure'' hideaway--and I use the words ``safe and secure'' in quotes because that is what our intelligence officials have indicated to us--in a safe and secure hideaway, we are receiving messages from the leadership of al-Qaida. The last National Intelligence Estimate, just months ago, indicated that the greatest threat to our country and our homeland is the leadership of al-Qaida and that they are ensconced in a safe or secure hideaway.

My question is this: Despite all of the reports we will now hear on the subject of Iraq, does it meet any kind of test of faith or good strategy that we should be going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war at a time when those planning additional attacks against our country are in safe and secure havens in northern Pakistan, at a time when the National Intelligence Estimate says that the greatest threat to our homeland--this is not me making this up--the greatest terrorist threat to this country and our homeland is from the leadership of al-Qaida, and they are planning new attacks, does it make sense there is a spot on Earth that ought to be safe and secure for them? Isn't it the case there ought not be 1 square inch on this planet 6 years after 9/11 that the leadership of al-Qaida can plan and plot attacks against our country?

I guess that is the case because we are in the middle, once again, of civil war in Iraq and have been for a long while, and we will, if we agree there shall not be a change in course, remain in Iraq for some long while.

My own view is we are going to leave Iraq. The question is not whether; the question is how and when. It makes little sense to me not to have as a priority, not to have as the priority in our country to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to our country, and that, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, is the leadership of al-Qaida.

Some will make the point that there is al-Qaida in Iraq, and that is true. That is not the central war on terror, however, and Iraq is not the central war on terror. Iraq is more sectarian violence. The National Intelligence Estimate tells us that as well.

All of us hope for the same thing. We want this country to find its way; we would wish that the leadership of Iraq will be able to provide strong leadership, resolve the questions, and then at some point find a way to provide for its own security. Saddam Hussein has been executed; he is dead. The people of Iraq have a new constitution; they voted for it. The people of Iraq have a new government; they voted for that government. The next question for the people of Iraq is whether they have the capability and the will to provide for their own security because this country cannot do that for many more years, and we do that at the expense of not eliminating the most significant threat to our country, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, and that threat is the leadership of al-Qaida that sits now in a safe haven, a safe and secure place.

I say again, as I conclude, that even as we have testimony today before the House and tomorrow before the Senate, our goal ought to be to fight the terrorists first, and those terrorists, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, plan additional attacks against our homeland even now from safe and secure places. There ought not be 1 square inch on this planet that should be safe and secure for the leadership of the terrorist organizations plotting attacks against our country. That ought to be our priority.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me take 2 minutes. My colleague is a distinguished member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but I want to observe this point because it is important. We will certainly have an Iraq discussion late this week or next week. It will be, I hope, a discussion that represents the best of what both sides have to offer rather than the worst of each. When we get the best of both, the country has benefited. I hope and expect that will be the case. But I do wish to make this point: The training camps have already been reconstituted. Last week, I was on the floor of the Senate describing in three different pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al- Zawahiri, and others have already reconstituted training camps, which represents a problem. Last week in Denmark, they picked up terrorists. Guess where they were trained. Partly in Afghanistan but mostly in Pakistan. And the expectation is they were trained in those training camps which have been reconstituted because the leadership of al-Qaida does, in fact, have a safe haven.

I have great respect for my colleague, and I do not want to pursue a lengthy debate, but I want to say that the leadership of al-Qaida has largely been given safe haven. We took our eye off the ball. There was a period of time when it didn't matter where they were. They have reconstituted their training bases, and we are starting to see the bitter fruits of that effort, and we will see more. It is why I say I believe it is very important, as a matter of national strategy, to fight the terrorists first.

I will speak later about the question of what was in Iraq when we went there. At this point, I think all of us as a country believe that if that is the greatest terrorist threat to our country, the leadership of al-Qaida, the elimination of that leadership and the elimination of any safe and secure haven must be the most important goal for this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have previously described an amendment I wish to offer. I believe I have filed the amendment. It is an amendment that deals with Mexican trucks. I wish to offer it at this point on behalf of myself and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania and other cosponsors. It is amendment No. 2797.

I ask that we consider that amendment. I believe there is no amendment pending at the moment, so I do not need consent to set an amendment aside. I ask for the immediate consideration of the amendment I just described.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as I indicated, I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and others. I believe my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, is working with the ranking member of the subcommittee for a time agreement. I don't believe a time agreement exists at this point.

With consent, I ask that Senator Specter from Pennsylvania be recognized. He has a time commitment. He was asking to be recognized now. I previously said a few words about this amendment. I will speak about it in greater detail in a bit. I ask unanimous consent for Senator Specter to be recognized for as much time as he may consume. If he is not ready, Mr. President, I will continue for just a moment to describe the amendment.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague from the State of Washington.

Mr. President, I am going to recognize my colleague from Pennsylvania in a moment, but let me describe very briefly what this amendment is.

Over this past weekend, a pilot project was initiated by the Department of Transportation dealing with long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this country. My contention is, and I think it is buttressed by the inspector general's report that was issued on this subject, that they are nowhere near having the information that would give them the opportunity to initiate long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this country. We have, since the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement, allowed Mexican trucks to come in within a 25-mile radius of the Mexican border.

I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, again, this is an amendment that deals with the issue of a pilot project on long-haul trucking into this country. The House of Representatives has already passed a piece of legislation that would prohibit that pilot project, and this amendment would do the same for the Senate.

I will describe in some detail the reasons for the amendment, but I am pleased a cosponsor, Senator Specter, wishes to make a statement. I know he has a time constraint, so I will relinquish the floor so Senator Specter can make a statement.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. The statements he made represent the crux of the matter, the issue of: Are there equivalent standards and is there equivalent enforcement with respect to trucking in Mexico, and would that then allow us to feel assured that long-haul Mexican trucks entering this country all across the United States would give us the same notion of safety we have with respect to the kinds of restrictions, the kinds of regulations we have in the United States?

Mr. President, I am going to get some charts I will make a presentation with in a couple of moments. It will take me a minute to get the charts I want to show my colleagues.

Let me, for the moment, suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, my colleague from Pennsylvania said it well, I believe. Look, Mexico is a neighbor of ours to the South. We don't come to the floor, none of us would come to the floor of the Senate, under any condition, whether it is a trade debate or a debate about Mexican trucking, in a way that is pejorative with respect to our neighbor. But it is important to understand that we are two different countries and, in many ways, have very different approaches to some of these issues.

With respect to trucking, we have not previously allowed long-haul Mexican trucking into this country. We have allowed a 25-mile periphery, or 25-mile diameter from the border, but we have not allowed long-haul trucking in this country from Mexico. The reason: There has not been a demonstration that there are equivalent standards and equivalent enforcement with respect to Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks.

Now, we have built, over a long period of time, very significant and stiff requirements for long-haul trucks in this country. We require certain things of drivers. There are hours of service they can't go beyond, there are logbook requirements that are significant, there is equipment inspection that is very significant, there is reporting of accidents, and a whole series of things we have done in this country to try to understand and make certain the trucking is safe. Are there accidents from time to time? Sure. But it is not because we don't have in place significant regulatory capability, and it is not because we don't enforce it. We have regulations and we have enforcement.

Now, I want to show my colleagues what happened last Thursday night. Last Thursday night, at 7:30 in the evening, the Department of Transportation received what is called the Office of Inspector General's Report. They have always wanted down at DOT to do a pilot program for long-haul Mexican trucks, but they have been prevented from doing that because I and others put a provision in law that says you can't proceed with this pilot project until you get the inspector general's report and see what the situation is.

Well, they got it Thursday night. It is 42 pages. I have a copy of it, or we are getting a copy of it--42 pages. At 7:30 at night they received the inspector general's report, and at 8:30 at night they triggered the pilot project.

I tell you what, I took Evelyn Woods' speed reading course in college. I remember taking that, and all of a sudden I was galloping along. I started at about 300 words a minute and pretty soon I was reading at about 1,200 words per minute. It was remarkable. But that is nothing compared to what they do at the Department of Transportation, apparently. This is speed reading par excellence. In 1 hour, they digested the inspector general's conclusions in the inspector general's report. Or maybe there is another answer. Maybe they had already decided what they were going to do, and it didn't matter very much.

Let me tell you what the inspector general's report says. It says:

While Department of Transportation officials inspecting

Mexican truck companies took steps to verify the on-site

data, we noted that certain information was not available to

them.

What kind of information wasn't available? Well, little things, apparently. They say:

Specifically, information pertaining to vehicle

inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.

Excuse me, I am sorry, that represents the entire guts of what you need to know if you are going to assure the safety of the American driver as we begin to see long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this country--vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.

Now, this morning I showed a news report of a tragic accident, an almost unbelievable accident that happened in Mexico. It is heartbreaking to understand the consequences of this. Two trucks collided. This is in today's paper. Two trucks collided. Thirty-seven died and 150 were injured. There was a blast, because one of the trucks was carrying explosives. This was in a mining area. One truck loaded with explosives crashed into another. It caused a crater of 65 feet, with 150 people injured and 37 people killed.

Now, I don't know the specifics of this. I am only saying that at a time when we are speaking of safety issues, this was in the paper this morning. My guess is when you move explosives around in this country, particularly on our roads, we have very specific standards--vehicles in front with warning signs, vehicles behind. My guess is--and I don't know what those standards are--that we have very specific standards about the conditions under which you would do that.

I don't know whether those standards exist in Mexico. I suspect we will learn about that. But I think the questions of the maintenance of the vehicles, these heavy, 18-wheel vehicles that come moving down our highways, are very important questions. They are not resolved.

Let me go to page 2 of the inspector general's report. You don't have to go further than page 2. It says the following, that the Federal Motor Vehicle Group down at DOT ``agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time.''

So they are going to check every truck every time in this pilot program, and they have certified 100 trucking companies to be able to come in, but the inspector general says, ``as of July, 2007,'' a month and a half ago, ``no coordinated site-specific plans to carry out such checks were in place'' and they stated they would have the plans then outlined by August 22, but we have not received any outlines or completed plans. ``In our opinion,'' they say, ``not having site specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating this project will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid the required checks.''

All of us have heard these things from the Federal agencies: Trust us; we are going to do it; we promise; we pledge. Somehow it does not get done.

We have an inspector general's report that came out on Thursday evening at 7:30, and on Thursday evening at 8:30 the Department of Transportation wanted to trigger this report.

I have found some things in this report that would give the Department some comfort. They are there. But you cannot avoid page 2. That provides no comfort at all. They say they are going to inspect every truck every time. They are not and cannot. You cannot avoid this: that the only information they have is information that comes from the trucking companies that wish to give it to them. Otherwise no information was available. No database was made available to them, and no information on these three critical issues: vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.

That is the ball game. So the U.S. House of Representatives has already passed by voice vote a provision that says ``no money in this appropriations bill shall or can be used to continue this pilot project.'' With my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and others, I propose we do exactly the same thing. This amendment is identical to that which the House has

passed. It makes sense to me. Will there be, at some point, because we have a trade agreement called NAFTA with Mexico, homogenization of rules and standards and so forth with respect to trucking? Maybe. Will at that point there be long-term trucking in this hemisphere from Canada to the United States to Mexico? Maybe. But there will not be, in my judgment, until we are satisfied as a country that the standards and enforcement of those standards, which is the most important issue--the enforcement of those standards with respect to Mexican long-haul trucking are at least equivalent to that which we have in this country.

When an American citizen pulls up at a four-way stop sign or drives down a road, a two-lane or a four-lane road, it doesn't matter, and comes next to an 18-wheel truck, I believe most of them want to be assured that the inspections on that vehicle, the requirements on that driver, are the equivalent--if they are not from this country--are the equivalent to the standards we have already imposed.

When that is the case, I think the consumers, the drivers, the American people will not have additional risk. Until that is the case they most certainly will have additional risk.

Again, one can argue, I suppose--one can debate at great length this issue and talk about what has been done--the improvements, the progress. But one cannot ignore the fact that what we know about Mexican trucking with respect to vehicle inspections, with respect to drivers' records and accident reports, we are getting only from voluntary compliance from those companies that wish to provide it. That is the case.

My amendment is very simple. I have more to say, but I think there are others who wish to speak. I will defer to them and then speak following that.

I yield the floor.

First of all, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I think it is the case that the Department of Transportation--and I think this is true under most administrations--that whatever they want to do they will give you words of assurance that whatever they want to do they will do it right and make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, but it is the case that the inspector general describes for us what the Department of Transportation says it will do, it is not doing.

We do not have to debate that. It is a circumstance--let me go back to this chart, if I might, to describe what the inspector general says.

It seems to me the key issue, as my colleague from Oklahoma suggests, if we have long-haul Mexican trucks on the roads in this country, the question is, when you are driving beside one or coming to a four-way stop and meeting one, does that 18-wheel truck have the same vehicle inspection, the same level of safety? Does the driver have the same hours of service, the same requirements that our drivers do? Do we have the same accident record and reports on that driver?

The answer is no. So that in itself obliterates the question of are we ready to integrate that Mexican long-haul trucking experience into this country.

It is true the Canadians are here. We have similar, nearly equivalent standards and enforcement with respect to

Canada. Of course, an added issue with respect to Mexico is the language issue, and there is an English requirement. But the Department of Transportation folks, who really do this sort of thing, kind of roll their eyes, saying: That is fairly hard to enforce.

But I do want to make this point. What the inspector general's report says, on two pieces--No. 1, on page 2, again, he said ``DOT said they will check every truck every time.'' That is part of the assurance.

[B]ut in July 2007, no coordinated site-specific plans to

carry out such checks were in place.

FMCSA stated that it would have plans outlined by August

22, 2007, but [the inspector general said] we have not

received any outlines or completed plans. In our opinion, not

having site-specific plans developed and in place prior to

initiating the demonstration project will increase the risk

that project participants will be able to avoid the required

checks.

That is the dilemma.

Also, in addition to that, the inspector general says:

The DOT officials inspecting Mexican truck companies took

steps to verify the on-site data. We noted that certain

information was not available to them. Specifically,

information pertaining to vehicle inspections, accident

reports, and driver violations--

That is the ball game. If you do not have those, you don't have a base of information on which to make a judgment that this is going to be safe for the American people.

My point is we have developed certain standards in this country. I know in some cases we have developed those standards after great debate. They represent regulations, and no one likes regulations. But in many cases these regulations are necessary in order to assure us of the kind of safety we would expect on the roads. We license drivers, we inspect trucks, and require certain things of trucks. We have certain standards which you are required to meet when you haul certain kinds of products. We do all those things.

Is it perfect? No, not at all. But are they standards we understand, and are they standards we try to enforce in every case in every State? They are. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes the enforcement fails a bit, but that is a very different set of circumstances than trying to integrate that system with a country that while it has standards, does not have the same kind of enforcement.

You do not have to take it from me, there are volumes of testimony in the Congress from previous hearings about the circumstances of the lack of enforcement of these standards in Mexico.

Now, when these issues are resolved, you will not have amendments such as this on the floor of the Senate. But I do not see them resolved any time soon. I think the inspector general's report itself says they are not resolved. When you say, as they have said in the report released last Thursday night, the only information available was in the company records when the records were volunteered to them, otherwise there is no base of information.

There is no base of data with which to judge these central questions: Are the trucks safe? Is the inspection standard rigorous? Does it meet anything near our standard? Do we have drivers who are going to enter this country with the same rigorous requirement with respect to hours of service, recordkeeping, logbooks, accident reports, all of those issues? The answer to that is no. It is clearly no.

The answer to that is embedded in the inspector general's report. I, for the life of me, do not understand why, before the ink was dry Thursday night, 1 hour later the Department of Transportation decided we have to now have assimilated, apparently through some kind of speed reading of this IG's report, we now have to implemented this program which the House of Representatives, by voice vote, said: No funds should be allowed to be used for the program for the reasons I have described. I believe the Senate should take similar action.

Finally, let me say this, I tried to say it earlier: Mexico is a neighbor of ours. Always we should treat neighbors with respect. We have a lot of things we do with Mexico. There are many areas in which we cooperate and agree. We have a trade agreement. I happen to agree with my colleague from Oklahoma. I did not vote for the trade agreement either. I think the trade agreement has been a horrible mistake.

I am talking about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. We turned a very small surplus with Mexico into a very large trade deficit with Mexico. We turned a moderate trade deficit with Canada into a very large trade deficit. So by any standard I think this has been a failure.

But aside from the fact it is a failure, it does have a requirement to homogenize the standards and the ability to allow long-haul trucking into this country; but it does not do so in a way that allows us or requires us to obliterate our determination for what is safe for American drivers. That is why I am on the floor of the Senate hoping we will do what the House of Representatives has already done by voice vote and pass this amendment.

It will come back. There will be another day. There will be a time, my guess is, when there will not be objection to this because the standards are homogeneous, the standards Americans have are the same and the enforcement is reasonable. We believe the enforcement to be significant enough to provide significant safety without additional risks to American drivers. That is not the case today.

I would be happy to yield.

Well, it is interesting to me in trade discussions. For example, Mexico has pretty decent environmental standards. Someone said: Well, you have big environmental standards in Mexico. Yes, the problem is they are not enforced at all.

So it doesn't matter to me what the standards required are, that is why I have emphasized enforcement. What are the standards and are the standards enforced? In most cases the answer is, with respect to Mexico, they are not enforced to the same degree we enforce the standards in this country.

I do not believe you can make the case that there is similarity between the Canadian enforcement of good standards with respect to truck safety and the Mexican lack--I don't think you can make the same case it exists in identical fashion with Canada or Mexico. I think the evidence is quite clear the standards, with respect to Mexico, are lower, especially with respect to its enforcement.

The reason I say that is this: If you had standards in Mexico that were enforced, and therefore you had knowledge of the issue of vehicle inspections, you had knowledge of accident reports and driver violations, there would be a database in Mexico by which you could access the data and make an evaluation of the data.

Our inspector general has already determined no such database exists.

I would be happy to respond.

Well, it is interesting. We have some experience in that as well. Let me use the experience of meat; meat from Canada and meat from Mexico. We allow, because they have equivalent standards and equivalent inspections, we believe, for meat to leave a Canadian plant and to come into this country uninspected at our border.

We allow that because we believe there are standards and enforcement that are equivalent to the standards of this country. I have spoken on the floor, and my colleague, I think, was not here at the time, but I held up a, I think a 2-pound piece of T-bone steak one day and said: Can anybody tell me where this came from? Because meat is not labeled, it should be, but it is not. I said: Can you tell me if it came from the processing plant, the slaughter plant in Hermosillo, Mexico. Because if it did, I wish to read to you the one time an inspector went there. It was a plant that was allowed to slaughter cattle and produce meat shipped into our country. One inspector showed up one time. I read the report of the inspector on the floor of the Senate. Sufficient to say, no one would want to purchase meat from that plant.

It was promptly closed down, the ownership changed, the plant is now sending meat back into this country. I do not believe it has been inspected again. My point is the requirement to inspect, with respect to slaughterhouses in Mexico, is one example. My colleague says: Well, if we would send people down to inspect in Mexico, would that give you comfort?

Well, we are told by the Department of Transportation what will give us comfort is this, that they will check every truck every time. The problem is, we are told this by the inspector general: They are not going to inspect every truck every time. Yes, they tell you that. That is what they claim. But here is the reality. They have no plans, no outlines to inspect every truck every time. They have no site-specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating this project. The risk is, the project participants will be able to avoid the required checks.

So you know, once again, there is a great variation between what the Federal agency says and what it is willing to do. So my colleague and others might be comforted by the fact that say: We will go there, we will do those rigorously. I am not so comforted because we have had plenty of experience with that.

Mr. President, my colleague is not accurate. They, in fact, did say they were going to inspect every time. Let me read the inspector general's report. After our visit to Federal--it is the FMCSA, one of these other acronyms in Government again. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. It is in DOT.

So the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. So that is exactly what they said. But the inspector general says: They are not going to do that. He says, as of July, there is no coordinated site-specific plan to carry out such checks. Then they said: Well, we will have it done by August 22. They said: We have not received any outlines or completed plans. In our opinion, not having site-specific plans in place prior to initiating the project will increase the risk project participants will be able to avoid the required checks.

I would say to my colleague, I do not always dismiss this issue of inspections because I think sufficient inspections can be very helpful. But having been on the floor of the Senate now speaking about the issue of tainted products coming into this country, understanding whether it is trinkets or toys or shrimp or catfish or tires, car tires, or any number of pet foods, having spoken about them at some length and understanding that we inspect 1 percent of them.

We inspect 1 percent, 99 percent of the vegetables and the trinkets and toys come in here without any inspection. Now we are told, if we would allow the Department of Transportation to proceed with this project, which they announced late at night with 1 hour of review of the inspector general's report, if we would only allow them to proceed, boy, they guarantee they will inspect.

I am sorry. I think the evidence, with respect to the Federal Government, would suggest a different conclusion and a different result. I hope at some point we do not have these issues. You know, I mean I can give you lots of examples of what has promised to have been homogenized between the United States, Canada, and Mexico because of the trade agreement. But promises are cheap.

I mean, there are lots of promises, and very few are kept with respect to these trade agreements. The trade agreements are similar to Swiss cheese, riddled with holes.

This, in my judgment, is a circumstance where, if we decide to proceed to say: Under these conditions, we will allow immediately the Department of Transportation to move to this pilot project, I think we will make a mistake. We will make a mistake on behalf of those who are traveling on America's roads, who at some point, coming up to a four- way stop or a stoplight or meeting on a four-way highway, some vehicle that was not subject to the same rigor and the same inspections that exist in this country because they did not have the same enforcement, I think someone will be injured. That risk ought not be borne by the American consumer or the American driver.

We ought to decide what is fair. You know, we have spent a century lifting this country's standards and demanding in this country. Upton Sinclair wrote that book and described at the start of the century, start of the last century, in Chicago, IL, at the big packing houses, how when they were slaughtering cattle and trying to control the rat population in the slaughterhouses, they put poison on bread loaves and things.

They would kill the rats, and they would shove the dead rats and the bread loaves and the meat down the same chute, and out the other side of the chute would come some sausage and some steak and some meat, and off to the consumer. Well a tremendous public outcry resulted from that, and we developed regulations.

So we have standards and regulations in a number of areas. This is but one area in which we have standards and regulations. They can be standards and regulations that are the difference between life or death. Because, when you are on America's roads and highways, safety is very important.

My own view is, I think the Department of Transportation is making a mistake. I think all the promises and all the assurances will fall far short of what the American consumer and the American driver should expect to minimize risk and to maximize safety on America's roads.

I yield the floor.

Am I recognized for 20 minutes under morning business?

Mr. President, let me talk for a moment about the issue of what is our national security. This morning, as I was getting ready for work, I saw another television advertisement put together by people who have accumulated some money and put ads on television. The advertisement is one that says: We have to stay in Iraq. We can't surrender in Iraq. We have to finish the job in Iraq. It says they attacked us on 9/11. The whole implication of the ad is, we are in Iraq because we are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. It is the same dishonesty we have heard for a long time.

Let me describe again our national security interests and who attacked us on 9/11. We know who did because they bragged about it. They boasted about attacking America. It was Osama bin Laden, al- Zawahiri, and others, the leadership of al-Qaida. And where are they? Are they in Iraq? No, they are in Pakistan, we believe, somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let me describe the connection of all of this and our national security interests.

This morning in the newspaper we see that in Copenhagen, Denmark, the police have arrested some terrorists engaged in a terrorist plot with links to al-Qaida. They say these terrorists had traveled to Pakistan for training, and the case against them involves links to militants in Pakistan. Separately, last night a German Federal prosecutor had three suspects picked up and arrested late Tuesday. The suspects were members of a terrorist organization, presumably with connections to al-Qaida. There is evidence the men had trained in camps in Pakistan.

So let's understand, whether this is a surprise to any of us. Here is what we learned in February of this year. Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal region near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. There was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden, and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of northern Waziristan. That is from the New York Times, quoting top intelligence sources.

In June: Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary on Pakistan border. While the U.S. presses its war against an insurgency linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping, and rebuilding in a sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to senior U.S. military and intelligence officials. The threat from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more dangerous than from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides call the ``central front'' of the war on terrorism, according to some current and former U.S. officials and experts.

The National Intelligence Estimate from July of this year says: Al- Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to our homeland. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in Pakistan's federally administrated tribal areas.

Is it a surprise that we pick up the newspaper this morning and see terrorists picked up in Germany, threatening to launch attacks against the largest U.S. base in Europe, and that we read that they trained in Pakistan, likely at an al-Qaida reconstituted training camp? Is that a surprise to us?

We are engaged in a war in Iraq. The television commercial this morning, my colleague this morning, and others, continue to say that is the central fight of the war against terrorism. It is not. It is a civil war. There is widespread sectarian violence. Yes, there are some terrorists there. Yes, al-Qaida is there. But that is not the central part of what al-Qaida has been about.

Al-Qaida did not have a presence in Iraq prior to 9/11. The television commercial this morning says they attacked us on 9/11. Implying that this is why we are in Iraq fighting that war ignores a whole body of truth, the body of truth I have just described. Those who attacked us and boasted of killing innocent Americans on 9/11 are now in a secure hideaway or a safe haven somewhere in Pakistan, not in Iraq.

I ask this question of the President and the Congress: Why should there be any square inch on the face of this planet that is safe or secure for the leaders of the organization that boasted about attacking America? Why should there be any place on this Earth that is safe or secure for those who the intelligence estimate now tells us are plotting new attacks against our country? Why are they safe and secure? Because this country is engaging door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war. That is a fact.

We have people say: You can't surrender. If you try to redeploy, you are surrendering. I say this: What we ought to do is redeploy and understand that our policy is to fight the terrorists first. When we talk about redeploying, we are not talking about not being able to fight terrorists, even in Iraq, to the extent they exist there. We are talking about leaving enough troops for training of Iraqi forces, about fighting terrorists who exist in Iraq, and about force protection. But you redeploy the troops to fight the terrorists first. Why on Earth should we be debating in the Senate, and the President be in Australia today talking to his counterpart in that country about continuing the fight in Iraq, when Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others are planning additional attacks against this country? While, at the same time, bin Laden and his henchmen are ``safe'' and ``secure'' in or near Pakistan? That is unbelievable.

We need to change tactics. We need a change in course. When we pick up the paper this morning and read about terrorists being picked up in Germany, plotting attacks against the largest American military base in Europe, and they are trained in Pakistan, likely at an al-Qaida training camp, we are experiencing the fruits of bad policy and dishonest representation about where the fight exists. The central fight against terrorism, it seems to me, is to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida, the very leadership who boasted about killing innocent Americans on 9/11 and the very leadership who our National Intelligence Estimate now tells us are planning additional attacks against our homeland.

We need a change in course. If we stand here and debate this question

about, well, if you redeploy, change course here or there, you are surrendering, that is not looking truth in the eye at all. The television commercial I saw this morning--put together, I am sure, by some big money interests that are suggesting somehow we are in Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11--is the perpetration of the same dishonesty we have seen for years.

We have had soldiers in Iraq longer than we were fighting in the Second World War. I want Iraqis to be free. Saddam Hussein is gone. He is dead. He was executed. They now have a new Constitution and a new Government. Now the question is, Will the Iraqi people have the will to provide for their own security?

We are going to leave Iraq. The question is not whether; it is when. We cannot keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq for any lengthy period of time, especially while Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are in the mountains training additional terrorists whom they then send to Germany and perhaps to our country. We have to change course. That is a fact. I am not giving you my opinion. I am telling you what the National Intelligence Estimate tells us about the greatest threat to our country.

The greatest threat to our homeland, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, is the leadership of al-Qaida, and they are in a safe and secure haven, and they are planning additional attacks against our country. If one does not understand that by reading that which we should read, go back to just prior to 2001 and take a look at the headline on the PDF briefing given to the President in August 2001: ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.'' It is time we read and it is time we understand. Regrettably, that has not been the case recently. I hope it will as we turn to this debate in a serious way.

The change in course has to be, in my judgment: Fight the terrorists first. That ought to be this country's policy.

That was not why I came to the floor of the Senate today, but I was inspired to remember the television commercial I saw the first thing this morning and then inspired by my colleague's statement about Iraq, once again.

If I might, in a separate part of the Record, I wish to talk about something that showed up in the newspapers this morning as well. I wish to tell you first--this was not in the papers this morning--about something that was a while back. I wish to tell you about a 4-year-old boy named Jarnell Brown. Jarnell Brown was from Minnesota. Jarnell is now dead. Jarnell is dead because he was visiting a friend's house, and he swallowed a small heart-shaped charm that came on a bracelet that came with a pair of Reebok tennis shoes. It turns out that little charm, that little jewelry charm contained 99 percent lead, and it killed Jarnell Brown. It was 99 percent lead.

It came from China, which probably should not surprise us. It suggests, once again, in this global economy--in which we decide we are going to produce elsewhere and ship here, after we spent a century developing standards to protect workers, protect consumers, the kinds of things Americans basically expect to be protected for and from--we decide we are going to outsource all that so we will have all these products made elsewhere and shipped into our country.

So we get tennis shoes, and we get a charm bracelet, and we get a heart attached to the end of the bracelet that is 99 percent lead, and the young boy accidentally swallows that little heart and dies from lead poisoning.

Now, let me talk a bit about this morning's news. Mattel is announcing this morning a product recall. They are recalling 848,000 Chinese-made Barbie and Fisher-Price toys that have excessive amounts of lead. Toys are being pulled from store shelves, including Barbie kitchen and furniture items, Fisher-Price train toys, and Bongo Band drums.

These are innocent enough looking products. But the surface paint on these products contains excessive levels of lead, prohibited under our Federal laws because of the serious threat they pose to human health, particularly the health of young children.

I do not suggest that Mattel has any response this morning other than being heartsick and heartbroken over this situation. Mattel is a good company. But what has happened to Mattel has happened to many other companies. They outsource production and then ship the product into this country, and there is no determination of whether those products are produced under the same conditions we would require in this country.

We only inspect 1 percent of the products that come into this country. So whether it is food or toys or jewelry or other things we require certain kinds of standards with respect to its production here, yet there are no such standards required with respect to production elsewhere. Oh, I know the people who outsource these contracts will say: Well, we require this and that of them. But there is no enforcement, and everyone knows that.

Let me describe a few of the circumstances. I talk about the lead paint. As we know, lead paint is used because it is bright, durable, flexible, fast drying, and, above all, it is cheap. So the Chinese, we now know from products that are being pulled from the shelves, have used lead paint. They mass produce lead paint and coloring agents such as lead chromate that are generally cheaper than other pigments, so we are now seeing the effect of that on store shelves.

This poor 4-year-old boy felt the effect in the most extreme way. He died.

It is not just China, and it is not just toys. FDA inspectors recently intercepted shipments of black pepper with salmonella from India, intercepted crab meat from Mexico too filthy to eat, and produce from the Dominican Republic was stopped 813 times last year for containing traces of illegal pesticides--this is a country with whom we just signed a trade agreement.

Now let me describe--even as we have galloped globally to outsource production but not to develop and maintain the protections for the American consumers on the products coming in--the Food and Drug Administration. Under the Bush administration, the FDA's safety mission I think has been substantially reduced. In fact, the FDA is planning to close 7 of its 13 drug safety labs, and it would close or consolidate a number of its 20 regional offices.

The trend has been to inspect fewer, not more, imports into this country under the administration. The FDA tests, we are told, about 1 percent of imported food. Last year, the FDA took 50 percent fewer samples for testing from imported seafood than it did in the year previous.

The issue is not just China, but China has been in the news more than any other country. Let me describe the circumstance of China because that has become the most notorious offshore platform. Toys, dolls, games, for all of these products China ranks as our No. 1 source of imports; fish, seafood, China is No. 1. Tires, China is No. 1; also for pet food, and toothpaste; and the list goes on. In fact, we have such a giant trade deficit with China--this chart shows what is happening with our trade relationship with China, which I think demonstrates an incompetence that is almost breathtaking for this country, an incompetence with respect to the negotiating of trade agreements and an incompetence with respect to enforcing trade agreements. But aside from that, I describe a circumstance here, and we are seeing it now every day in the newspapers, of the danger to U.S. consumers.

Well, pet food--how many Americans had their pets die as a result of contaminated pet food coming into this country? It was discovered that animal food, pet food from China contained substances that are dangerous to pets. Sixty million packages of pet food under 150 brands were recalled after it was found that ingredients in pet food could be dangerous to pets.

Seafood--the U.S. FDA banned the import of five types of farm-raised fish and shrimp from China after they were found to contain unsafe drugs, some of which cause cancer.

Now, I am telling you what they have found and banned, and I am telling you they have only inspected 1 percent.

Toothpaste, Chinese-made toothpaste sold in dollar stores--the FDA has warned consumers to throw out any toothpaste made in China. In fact, they not only found some of the toothpaste was contaminated with a dangerous ingredient, they found other toothpaste

that was contaminated with the ingredient and did not list the ingredient on the toothpaste box.

Toys and jewelry--I mentioned Mattel. There are others. Mattel has had three very substantial recalls of Chinese-made toys in the last 5 months. Again, my guess is the executives of that company are heartsick about what is happening. But it is a result of exporting manufacturing and not having the protections with respect to the conditions under which that product is manufactured--the protections for American consumers that we have always come to expect.

I did not mention with respect to toys, the RC2 Corporation recalled 1.5 million of these little toys, Thomas & Friends from its Wooden Railway product line, made by Hansheng Wood Products Factory in China using lead paint.

According to a spot check recently, it was announced 20 percent of Chinese-made jewelry contains potentially poisonous chemicals, including lead.

Automobile tires--a tire importer called Foreign Tire Sales recalled 255,000 Chinese-made tires in August because they lacked a safety feature that prevents tread separation.

I do not need to go through much more but only to say this: These are real serious issues. I started by talking about a young 4-year-old boy named Jarnell Brown. He died. There are real consequences to these issues. We spent a century developing standards in this country to protect workers, to protect consumers, and we built something very special and very important in this country.

Now, under a galloping global economy, in which the rules have not kept pace, we are told: Well--do you know what?--we are going to outsource manufacturing because we can pay people 30 cents an hour in sweatshops somewhere around the world, and we can have it manufactured for less money.

Well, if that cheap product is unsafe for your health, if that product--whether it is food or vegetables or toys or jewelry--if that product is harmful to your health, we need to rethink the standards by which we engage in this global economy. Yes, it is a global economy, and I do not suggest we are going to retreat from the global economy. I do suggest this: We should participate in the global economy on our terms. We should describe what kind of participation we will have with respect to this economy in a way that is fair to our workers, that earns a decent wage in this country, and in a way that protects our consumers for whom we have established certain consumer protections.

I know someone will say that is regulation. Yes, it is regulation. I spoke on the floor of the Senate one day, when I held up a package of beef. I asked consent to do that. You have to have consent to hold up a package of beef on the floor of the Senate because it is an object to show. I said: I do not think anybody can tell me where this beef came from. I know they could not because it is not labeled.

So then I read the description of what the investigator found, the inspector found when he went to a plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, and inspected a plant that was processing beef, slaughtering cattle, processing beef and shipping it to the United States. He found carcasses hanging under a hot roof, with flies and feces all over the carcasses. He described horrendous things that I read on the floor of the Senate and led me to ask: Does anybody want to buy beef from that circumstance?

Well, guess what. It was the only time that plant had ever been inspected--the only time. As a result, the plant lost its license. It then was sold, then changed its name, and was relicensed. It is now selling beef to the United States and has never again been inspected.

I use that only to say it is exactly the same coin--the flip side of the same coin, of lead paint coming in a heart-shaped toy from China that a young child swallows and, as a result, dies.

I have introduced legislation dealing with the other side of this as well with respect to workers' rights, dealing with sweatshop labor and conditions under which people are working in sweatshops in other parts of the world; working in sweatshops and, in some cases, producing these kinds of products. Why? Because it is cheap. Cheap labor, cheap products. Use lead; it is cheap. The problem is it is harmful to your health and especially harmful to children. The legislation I have introduced dealing with the issue of sweatshops and being fair to American workers would ban the product of sweatshop labor coming into this country. That bill, which is S. 367, has 12 bipartisan cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Clinton today as a cosponsor to that piece of legislation.

Mr. President, if we look at these issues in the context not of trying to destroy the advantages of a global economy but in the context of trying to make certain the protections we have developed for our country--protections that have allowed us to create a wonderful place in which to work and consume--if we can, with respect to our participation in the global economy, raise standards rather than lower ours--if we can do that, then we will have done something significant. But that is not what has been happening. What has been happening in this country is a race to the bottom, and a rush to embrace the refrain by some who want to produce where it is cheap and sell here and run their income through the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, and they say, You know, we don't want any more regulations. I understand that. They want to avoid regulations. They want to avoid paying a decent wage. They want to go to offshore manufacturing platforms some place and produce little bracelets with little hearts that are made with 99 percent lead to ship into this country. That doesn't work. It won't work anymore. Somehow, as a country, we have to find a way to stop it.

My colleague Senator Durbin has a piece of legislation on the safety of food imports, which I am working on with him. I have also described the sweatshop labor bill I have introduced, and it is a bipartisan bill, and my hope is we can move and begin to address these issues.

I know there are others who are going to want to speak in morning business, and as soon as they come I will discontinue mine, but I do want to make a couple of other points about this country's economy.

When one looks at the last century or so, we created a place that is pretty unusual on this Earth and we did that because we cared about American workers, and we created a manufacturing base that was the strongest in the world. You cannot long remain a world economic power without a first-rate manufacturing base, and we are now seeing that some don't care about a manufacturing base. Let's outsource to wherever we can find the cheapest labor. Let's outsource to not only where we can find the cheapest labor, but also where we can combine that with the lack of regulations. We can allow that to exist in circumstances where those who produce and pump chemicals into the air, chemicals into the water. Well, the problem with that is you are not only confronted with what is called ``the China price,'' the China price with respect to goods--you have to compete with the China price--you also now understand the term ``the China haze,'' because we are breathing pollutants that come from China. We all live in the same fishbowl. Things we long ago abandoned in this country because we understand it causes cancer, causes terrible danger to human health, we are now breathing again in this country because of a phenomenon called the China haze.

I know I have described China at some length today. It is not only China we need to be concerned about with respect to what are fair rules and fair requirements with respect to our participation in the global economy. But I don't think we should any longer ignore the consequences about what we read in the paper this morning: the recall of hundreds of thousands of additional toys that are shipped into this country to be sold on store shelves and to be played with by American children when, in fact, they contain amounts of lead that are harmful or dangerous to our children. We can't ignore that.

I congratulate the companies that are recalling those products, but we shouldn't have had a reason to recall them in the first place. They should have been produced under conditions that we would have known in this country to be safe, that represent the

standards we long ago have required in this country. That has not been the case, and I think that because it is not the case, it raises a great many questions. I also, as I indicated earlier, believe at the very time we are seeing all of these products coming into this country that can cause serious problems for human health, at the very time we see that, to see this administration decide to retract on those issues and begin to actually inspect fewer rather than more products, at a time when we are inspecting only 1 percent of all of that which comes in, I think that is a serious step in exactly the wrong direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.