Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my understanding was that I would be recognized for 10 minutes following the presentation by Senator Coburn. I don't object to anything someone else wishes to do, provided that following that presentation, I am recognized for 10 minutes. Would that be part of the unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, all of us have great pride in being able to serve in this great body and the purpose of it is, of course, to be engaged in public policy debate, how to advance this country's interests. We come to this debate today on something that is very important, very controversial. This country's search in many areas-- social justice, science, and so many areas of our lives--is a search that never ends. We have split the atom. We have spliced genes. We did the human genome project, developed the owner's manual for the human body. We invented plastics and radar and silicon chips, cured polio, cured smallpox, built airplanes and learned to fly them, and built rockets and walked on the moon; we invented the telephone, the computer, and the television.

It is pretty unbelievable, but this country is hardly out of breath. We continue to inquire, continue to search, and continue to ask questions. Those questions, especially in science, are, in some cases, difficult questions. We will have three pieces of legislation we will vote on tomorrow dealing with stem cell research. One piece of legislation prevents something that is not being done. I will not have any problem supporting that; preventing something

that is not being done is not posing any difficulty for me. The second piece of legislation authorizes that which is already authorized. I have no difficulty with that vote either. I will be happy to support that.

The third piece of legislation is called embryonic stem cell research. That is the basis of the controversy being discussed today. Those in this Chamber and those throughout this country who have lost loved ones to dreaded diseases understand the urgency to unlock the mysteries of these diseases. I lost a beautiful young daughter some years ago to heart disease. I wondered then, and I wonder now, and I will wonder for some long while, if there is anything that we could do to unlock the mystery of that devastating killer. But it is not just heart disease. It is diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer--the list goes on and on.

Every day, people die. Every day, there are scientists who inquire: What can be done? What can we do to unlock the mysteries to find cures for these terrible diseases?

Stem cell research. Mr. President, there are 1 million people walking on this Earth who were conceived outside of the womb in a test tube. There are 1 million living people who were conceived through in vitro fertilization. We had somebody testify before the Senate Commerce Committee a few years ago, and he said none of those people should have been born, it was wrong and in vitro fertilization should not exist. It is wrong, he said. I disagree with him. It is the blessing to provide the opportunity to have a family to so many couples who were childless through in vitro fertilization, using the egg and sperm and uniting them outside of the womb, implanting them, and providing a child for those families.

At in vitro fertilization clinics, many more eggs are fertilized than are used. Some are stored and frozen. Those frozen embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics, when they are not going to be used in the future, are discarded, simply thrown into a wastebasket. They become waste and they are discarded. Some of my colleagues would say each and every one of those represents murder. I don't believe that, but some of my colleagues would insist on that position. That is murdering an embryo. We have 400,000 of those embryos stored, cryogenically frozen, at in vitro fertilization clinics. Around 8,000 to 11,000 of them a year will be simply discarded.

The question is: Should we relax the ban on Federal funding of stem cell research and allow the use of frozen embryos that otherwise are going into a wastebasket, that otherwise are going to be discarded? Should we allow the use of them with ethical boundaries and be concerned about the ethics of its use for scientific research, to try to find the cures to these terrible diseases? Should we allow that? The answer clearly is yes.

Are we comparing someone who is suffering from Parkinson's, someone who has Alzheimer's, someone with heart disease or cancer or diabetes to an embryo that is going to be discarded into a wastebasket--8,000 to 11,000 of them a year? Do we find an equivalency there

Do you believe that all of those unused fertilized eggs that are frozen at an IV clinic, an in vitro fertilization clinic, that are discarded, that each and every one represents a murder? Some believe that. I don't.

What is pro-life, I believe, what is life-giving is to be able to continue in this area of science with ethical guidelines but continue this search to unlock the mysteries of these diseases.

My colleague a moment ago said quite correctly that we don't prevent stem cell research. He is quite right about that. This issue is the restriction of Federal funding, and, of course, a substantial amount of the funding for scientific research, research in health care in this country, comes from the Federal Government.

If we take a look at what has happened with respect to the United States and the rest of the world, we will see, because President Bush has imposed restrictions on stem cell research, we have lost a substantial amount of ground to the rest of the world. We are falling far behind.

This is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is not about conservatives or liberals. Let me quote Nancy Reagan: Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with answers that have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this--there are just so many diseases that can be cured, or at least helped. We have lost so much time already, and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

Nancy Reagan watched the ravages of Alzheimer's disease destroy her husband, our former President, the late Ronald Reagan. I believe she understands the urgency with which we pursue this purpose. I can read the pain in this message, and that pain exists--my guess--with so many in this Chamber and across the country who have watched loved ones die because of dread diseases that have wasted away their lives. The question is: Are we willing to do something about that? Can we do something about that? Will we retard or will we advance science? Will we hold back or will we encourage the scientists to search for these cures?

I hope the Senate will do just as the House has done and indicate that we believe that with proper ethical guidelines, stem cell research should continue with Federal funding. I believe, as I said, this is about saving lives, this is not about taking lives.

I understand that this is a sensitive subject. In fact, in my last campaign for office 2 years ago, my opponent ran television commercials saying that my position was to be supportive of planting embryos into mommies' wombs and growing them for a while and then harvesting them for body parts. That is the Byzantine nonsense which, unfortunately, attends part of this debate. No one here--certainly not me--would ever countenance anything resembling that, and yet much of the political discussion about this issue becomes so bizarre and so Byzantine that it is detached from reality.

The bill that is before the Senate that I just described--I am not talking about the first two bills, the one that prevents something that is not being done. I don't have a problem with that. Or the one that authorizes something that is already authorized, and I have no problem with that.

I am talking about the legislation dealing with stem cell research. The bipartisan coalition that brought it to the Senate includes Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals. My hope is the Senate will act on this legislation with a veto-proof majority and decide whatever the President does that we have made this decision and the decision should stick.

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from West Virginia for reminding us, once again, of an important part of this country's great history. He educates all of us on the floor of the Senate, and I appreciate his comments.

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

Mr. President, I was in a town called Zeeland, ND, because we have a serious drought occurring in ranching country. We had ranchers and farmers--this is a town of about 120 people and 170 ranchers and farmers showed up very concerned about how they are going to feed their cattle.

We talked a lot about the drought and the devastation for ranchers and farmers when it doesn't rain and how they take care of their cattle herd and what might happen to them.

One of the issues raised in that meeting repeatedly was--in addition to the lack of rain--if you are running a farm or ranch, you are a heavy user of energy. What has happened to the price of energy, particularly the price of fuel, has been devastating to those farmers and ranchers.

Our State university pointed out that the average farm and ranch in North Dakota is confronted with about $18,000 a year in higher costs because of what has happened to the price of fuel.

This morning I woke up and listened to the news, just as I did yesterday, and found that the price of oil is over $75 a barrel and continuing to go up. If we take a look at the major integrated oil companies in this country, we will discover the substantial increase in profits--this is 2005 over 2004, last year's numbers: 43-percent increase, 37-percent increase, 31-percent increase in profits.

The Congressional Research Service just did an evaluation for one of our colleagues which says that cash reserves for the major integrated oil companies have grown from over $9 billion in 1999 to nearly $58 billion now. Let me say that again. Cash reserves of the major integrated oil companies now stand at over $58 billion.

It made me think about a story that was in BusinessWeek 2 years ago, ``Why Isn't Big Oil Drilling More?''

Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have

preferred to buy rivals, ``drilling for oil on Wall Street.''

While that makes financial sense, it is no substitute for new

oil.

Oil has been over $20 a barrel continuously since 1999. Far

from raising money to pursue opportunities, oil companies are

paying down debt, buying back shares and hoarding cash.

That was 2 years ago. It is worse now.

Last fall, we offered a windfall profits rebate that would have collected from those companies that were not using their revenues to expand their search for additional oil. For those that were buying back stock or drilling for oil on Wall Street, they would pay a fee, the total proceeds of which would be rebated to consumers. Those who were building additional refineries or investing back into the ground to search for oil would not pay the fee; they would be exempt.

The oil companies were very upset by that proposal, but the fact is, they would decide whether they would pay it. None of it would come to the Government; it would all be rebated to consumers. They would decide whether they pay it based on their decisions. Are they going to buy back stock with their profits? Are they going to hoard cash, drill for oil on Wall Street, or are they going to use those profits to expand the supply of energy?

I believe given what is happening, as we know, there is no free market in oil. I know there is a lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate about free market. We have oil ministers from the OPEC countries sitting around a table behind a closed door talking about how much they are going to produce and what price they aspire to have. We have big oil companies married up through blockbuster mergers, and they have two names--ExxonMobile, PhillipsConoco; they have more raw muscle in the marketplace--and, third, the futures market has become an orgy of speculation, no question about that.

With these three elements, there is no free market in oil. The price of oil is now at $75 a barrel. Almost all consumers in this country-- yes, those who drive up to the gas pumps and pay $50, $60 and more to fill their tanks, and especially farmers and ranchers--are struggling to find out: How do I buy fuel for spring planting? How do I buy fuel for the harvest? How do I put up hay for the cattle? How do I do all of that? They are the ones who bear all the pain, and in the meantime the major integrated oil companies are waltzing to the bank with a treasury that is full of money coming from consumers.

This does not work. In the longer term, aside from the question of how dependent we are on offshore oil, it seems to me Congress has to decide that it is going to intervene if we are going to $58 billion in cash reserves created by the major integrated companies. Those cash reserves are not working. Those cash reserves are not expanding the supply of energy, they are not expanding the supply of oil, and therefore reducing prices. They are being used--as I said, in BusinessWeek there was one example of drilling for oil on Wall Street or buying back stock. That is not a way to bring prices down and provide some relief to consumers.

Last fall, Senator Dodd and I offered a proposal that would have provided a rebate to consumers from those companies as a result of those companies not using those profits to reinvest in expanding the search for energy. We came up very short in the vote. It is our intention to offer that proposal once again. At $75 a barrel for oil, with increases particularly for farmers and ranchers in an agricultural State, it is reasonable to ask: What is Congress doing? Is it just content to observe, just watching? What is Congress doing?

So if nothing intervenes in the coming days, Senator Dodd and I intend to offer, once again, that proposal. Let me underscore that the point of that proposal is this: That proposal will be the most significant incentive to expand production and expand the search for additional production that we could have. This is not punitive. It is to say: Either you are using it to expand the production of energy supplies and bring down prices or you are going to have to rebate some of it back to the consumers.

In 2004, the oil industry had its highest profits in its history. The average price for a barrel of oil was $40. Now it is $75. Those major integrated companies haven't done anything to increase expenses or any other issues; they are just collecting that additional revenue.

I want the oil industry to find additional oil and to produce in areas that are available to them. The best way, the most significant incentive I can think of is to say to them: If you are thinking about what to do with that cash reserve of $58 billion and deciding between buying back your stock or trying to do additional mergers and acquiring oil through mergers rather than drilling, then you would be a lot smarter to find a way to expand production by investment because that means you will not be impacted at all by the proposal we would offer.

This proposal is about expanding investment in exploration and thereby expanding the supply of energy and bringing down the price of energy. So that is what Senator Dodd and I will, once again, attempt to do.

I hope that in the coming days we will begin to see some lessening of the burden of these energy prices on the American consumer, farmers and ranchers and others. In the meantime, I don't think we ought to take a look at a $58 billion cash reserve by the major integrated companies, most of them--three of them; nearly 90 percent of them are three companies--and say, that is OK, it doesn't matter to us, while everybody else is feeling the pain and bearing the burden of these dramatically increasing prices.

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

Mr. President, I believe my colleague, Senator Dodd, is on his way to the Chamber, but let me ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback proceed, with the understanding that we would reclaim our time on this side when Senator Dodd arrives.

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

Mr. President, this morning in the Washington Post there was an article announcing a decision by the Defense Department that relates to something I have held a good many hearings on through the Democratic Policy Committee in the past several years. We have been holding hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to the very large sole-source contracts that have been given to certain companies to do business in Iraq and provide food and fuel and logistics support for our troops. What we have discovered is very substantial waste, fraud and abuse.

This morning, finally, the Washington Post says: ``The Army to End Expansive, Exclusive Halliburton Deal. Logistics Contract to be Open for Bidding.'' One of the side bars of the story talks about: ``Whistle-blowers told how the company charged $45 per case of soda, double-billed on meals, and allowed troops to bathe in contaminated water.'' All of these were issues given us to us by whistle-blowers who came to our Committee to testify because there was virtually no oversight on these issues by the other Committees.

The decision to terminate these sole-source contracts is long overdue. Sole-source contracts are contracts that are, in my judgment, invitations for abuse. The bill that I introduced some months ago, along with 30 other Senators, called S. 2361, the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006, is a piece of legislation that insists on this exact provision, but goes much, much further--the provision that says we ought to break up these contracts and have them competed for so that the competition for contracts will give the taxpayers some feeling they are not being cheated.

A fellow named Henry Bunting testified at a hearing we held. He was a whistle-blower. He actually worked for Halliburton in Kuwait. His job in Kuwait was to purchase hand towels for American soldiers. So he got a requisition to buy hand towels for American soldiers, and he would order the hand towels. But then he was told: No, we don't want you to order those hand towels; we want you to order new hand towels. He brought a sample of the hand towels with him. The reason they wanted him to order different hand towels is they wanted the company name to be embroidered on the hand towels, which tripled the cost of the towels for the taxpayers.

No one would have believed that soldiers need to have hand towels with the embroidered name of the contractor providing the hand towels. That is exactly what happened. And it is exactly what the whistle- blowers told us was happening with respect to procurement.

This whistle-blower, who worked with the company, said: This is something my supervisor said we are going to do, and we did it. He said: We saw $8,500-a-month SUV rentals. We saw $40, $45 a case for Coca-Cola

It is pretty unbelievable when you hear all of the stories. Those stories come from giving billions of dollars of contracts to one company. That is what has happened on contracts called LOGCAP and RIO, and finally the Pentagon suggests maybe it is going to shut these down and require competition.

Looking forward, I am going to ask the Pentagon to consider all of the information that we have uncovered in these hearings, because provisions in defense contracting require that you hold companies accountable for actions they have taken in the past, when you consider new bids for the future.

It is interesting that this also relates to something that is now happening in the Pentagon. The woman who testified before the committee--there has been a great deal of discussion about her--was Bunny Greenhouse, the top civilian contracting official in the Corps of Engineers at the Pentagon. She rose to the top. Every performance evaluation said she was the best. People outside the Government who had dealt with her said she was the best, professional, knew what she was doing. She said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR--

That is Halliburton--

represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I

have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

This woman was honest and public about what she saw. She was demoted. She lost her job. That job has now been filled by someone else, someone who has 40 years experience with the Government but has no contracting experience. A person with 20 years contracting experience, the highest civilian official in the Corps of Engineers

loses her job to be replaced by someone who is now being sent to school because she doesn't know contracting.

This is happening at a time when we hear these stories of $85,000 trucks left by the side of the road to be burned because of a flat tire--the taxpayer is paying for it; it doesn't matter--25 tons of nails, 50,000 pounds of nails ordered, wrong size, throw them in the sand. Want to find 25 tons of nails? They are in the sand in Iraq, paid for by the American taxpayer.

Where is the accountability? It is unbelievable the amount of waste that has existed. And the one person who had the courage to talk about it publicly lost her job. That is still the subject of a great deal of angst in the Pentagon.

So yesterday the Pentagon announces that they are finally going to end sole-source contracts and require competitive bidding, and finally the taxpayers appear to get a break. But this was several overdue.

There is more that needs to be done. One of the things the Pentagon has apparently also decided to do is to outsource oversight. You can't outsource oversight. It has been tried before. They had companies that were partners in contracts in other countries come into Iraq to provide oversight over each other. You can't do that. You can't delegate oversight, especially not to companies with conflicts of interest. The oversight responsibility for spending the taxpayers' money is with the Government, not someone you hire that will have a patently obvious conflict of interest.

While the Pentagon is taking a step forward today in their announcement about the ending of these sole-source contracts, they are taking another step backward on this issue of deciding they are going to hire other companies to provide oversight to make sure the taxpayers' money is being spent in the way anticipated. That makes no sense.

Here is another whistleblower account. Rory Mayberry worked in Iraq for Halliburton. He worked in food service. He was the manager of a food service that provided food to the troops. He came to us and said: We had food that was date stamped expired. The Halliburton supervisors said: It doesn't matter, just feed to it the troops. And they said: By the way, don't you dare talk to a Government auditor. If a Government auditor comes around and you talk to that person, either you will be fired or you will be sent to an area where there is hostile action. He talked to a Government auditor. He was sent to Fallujah during the height of the action there.

The stories are unbelievable. And finally, the Pentagon is taking a step in the right direction in one area, stepping backward in another. But I hope the Pentagon understands, when they open these contracts called the LOGCAP contract and the RIO contract, when they open these contracts and finally insist that there be competition between companies in order to provide some safety for the American taxpayer and to be sure that we are getting what we are paying for, I hope they will understand that there has to be adequate oversight.

We have introduced legislation, myself and many of my colleagues, called the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting. What the Pentagon is doing today appears to be in line with one piece of it, and it is a step in the right direction. But much more needs to be done.

I ask those in the Pentagon to take a look at what we will send to them as a result of a number of hearings in which whistleblowers who have worked for these contracts, particularly Halliburton that has received very large sole-source contracts worth billions of dollars without bidding, I would hope they would take a look at this and evaluate whether the performance is performance that is worthy of receiving other contracts. The list is endless. I will not go over it again.

This morning's announcement by the Pentagon is finally a recognition that there needs to be competition. It is one step in the piece of legislation I and many of my colleagues offered some months ago. My hope is they will finish the job and do what is necessary to give the taxpayers full value and full measure for the money that is being spent on these contracts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are going to become all too familiar with what is called the ``doughnut hole'' over the next several months. The doughnut hole is a gap in coverage that exists in most Medicare prescription drug plans.

Here is how the doughnut hole works: Under most plans, Medicare will pay for 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 after an initial $250 deductible. But then Medicare pays nothing until drug expenses exceed $5,100. During this gap in coverage, beneficiaries continue to pay monthly premiums but get no drug coverage at all. I think this is unfair.

That is why I am introducing the Prescription for Fairness Act. This legislation is simple. It says seniors should not have to pay monthly premiums during the time when they have

no drug coverage. The legislation would waive the monthly premium for any month that a senior is trapped in the doughnut hole.

The legislation will help people like Mrs. McLain, an 88-year-old woman who lives in a long-term care facility in Bottineau, ND. She enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit earlier this year. Her brother, who helps pay her health care bills, was recently contacted by their local pharmacist. The pharmacist explained that Mrs. McLain no longer has Medicare drug coverage and must pay about $500 every month for her diabetes medications. This is not an expense that they had planned for, nor one they can afford. They did not realize that this coverage gap existed when they enrolled in the plan. This is one of countless stories that we will hear over the next several months as seniors fall into this coverage gap.

Some will say that beneficiaries trapped in the doughnut hole should have selected plans that provide better coverage. I think it is unfair to blame beneficiaries for selecting the wrong plan. A new report by the Government Accountability Office found that the call centers operated by the Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors only gave accurate and complete information to callers about one-third of the time. More than one in five callers received completely inaccurate information.

It is worth noting that the Prescription for Fairness Act will have no affect on the bottom lines of the participating Medicare prescription drug plans. Under the legislation, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will simply pay the monthly premium on behalf of the beneficiary. It is offset by reducing the Medicare stabilization fund. This fund is completely unnecessary. It is a $10 billion pot of money that was added to the Medicare Modernization Act to provide bonus payments and incentives to managed care companies to enter the Medicare market. It is time that Congress provides a safety net for seniors, not health plans.

This legislation merely provides seniors some relief in the short term. The legislation would expire after fiscal year 2008. This Congress still needs to close the doughnut hole. In October, I joined Senator Bill Nelson to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act, which would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate fair drug prices and the savings would be used to eliminate the doughnut hole. Believe it or not, the Medicare Modernization Act contained a provision that explicitly prohibits the government from using its market clout to negotiate for fair drug prices for our seniors.

I am hopeful that the Senate will take up the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act. In the meantime, let's make sure seniors are not charged for a benefit that they are not receiving. The Prescription for Fairness Act does just that.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman, Stabenow, Lautenberg, Johnson, Mikulski, Clinton, Menendez and Akaka in introducing this important legislation. I am also pleased that Families USA has endorsed this legislation.

I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are going to become all too familiar with what is called the ``doughnut hole'' over the next several months. The doughnut hole is a gap in coverage that exists in most Medicare prescription drug plans.

Here is how the doughnut hole works: Under most plans, Medicare will pay for 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 after an initial $250 deductible. But then Medicare pays nothing until drug expenses exceed $5,100. During this gap in coverage, beneficiaries continue to pay monthly premiums but get no drug coverage at all. I think this is unfair.

That is why I am introducing the Prescription for Fairness Act. This legislation is simple. It says seniors should not have to pay monthly premiums during the time when they have

no drug coverage. The legislation would waive the monthly premium for any month that a senior is trapped in the doughnut hole.

The legislation will help people like Mrs. McLain, an 88-year-old woman who lives in a long-term care facility in Bottineau, ND. She enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit earlier this year. Her brother, who helps pay her health care bills, was recently contacted by their local pharmacist. The pharmacist explained that Mrs. McLain no longer has Medicare drug coverage and must pay about $500 every month for her diabetes medications. This is not an expense that they had planned for, nor one they can afford. They did not realize that this coverage gap existed when they enrolled in the plan. This is one of countless stories that we will hear over the next several months as seniors fall into this coverage gap.

Some will say that beneficiaries trapped in the doughnut hole should have selected plans that provide better coverage. I think it is unfair to blame beneficiaries for selecting the wrong plan. A new report by the Government Accountability Office found that the call centers operated by the Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors only gave accurate and complete information to callers about one-third of the time. More than one in five callers received completely inaccurate information.

It is worth noting that the Prescription for Fairness Act will have no affect on the bottom lines of the participating Medicare prescription drug plans. Under the legislation, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will simply pay the monthly premium on behalf of the beneficiary. It is offset by reducing the Medicare stabilization fund. This fund is completely unnecessary. It is a $10 billion pot of money that was added to the Medicare Modernization Act to provide bonus payments and incentives to managed care companies to enter the Medicare market. It is time that Congress provides a safety net for seniors, not health plans.

This legislation merely provides seniors some relief in the short term. The legislation would expire after fiscal year 2008. This Congress still needs to close the doughnut hole. In October, I joined Senator Bill Nelson to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act, which would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate fair drug prices and the savings would be used to eliminate the doughnut hole. Believe it or not, the Medicare Modernization Act contained a provision that explicitly prohibits the government from using its market clout to negotiate for fair drug prices for our seniors.

I am hopeful that the Senate will take up the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act. In the meantime, let's make sure seniors are not charged for a benefit that they are not receiving. The Prescription for Fairness Act does just that.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman, Stabenow, Lautenberg, Johnson, Mikulski, Clinton, Menendez and Akaka in introducing this important legislation. I am also pleased that Families USA has endorsed this legislation.

I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to support the amendment, recognizing that it is not perfect, but recognizing that it has been offered only because another piece of legislation, which is more comprehensive, dealing only with FDA-approved drugs, bipartisan, a broader group of Senators supporting it, has been blocked consistently. Senator Vitter offers this because it is the only way to get this subject to the floor of the Senate.

It is pretty unbelievable to hear the spirited defense of the pharmaceutical industry. After we passed a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare bill in the first quarter of this year, the pharmaceutical industry increased the cost of brand-name drugs triple the rate of inflation.

I have been before committees on this subject. Senator Snowe and I appeared before our committee. There was a spirited defense of the pharmaceutical industry there. This is an industry that has some of the highest profits in the world. They produce miracle, lifesaving drugs, yes, but they also produce something else. They produce a pricing pattern that says the American people should pay the highest price in the world for prescription drugs. It is unfair.

The issue is, can American citizens import FDA-approved prescription drugs, some of them made in this country and then sent to Canada or sent to some other country, can U.S. citizens have access to those drugs, drugs that are safe? The only difference between those drugs and the drugs sold here under the same name is those drugs are priced at a much less expensive price.

I ask unanimous consent to show two pill bottles. This is the issue. This is Lipitor.

The same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company. One is marketed in the United States; one is sent to Canada. What is the difference? The difference is, the U.S. consumer is told to pay 65 percent more for the same medicine. The same pill made by the same company, FDA approved, sent two places, to U.S. consumers and to Canadian consumers, and the U.S. consumers are told, you pay 65 percent more. Why? Because the drug industry says so.

Myself, Senator Vitter, and others propose that you ought to be able to access those lower priced, FDA-approved drugs from Canada. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't like that. I understand. I understand why they want to maximize profits. The fact is, they say: If you do that and in any way diminish our profits, we will reduce the amount of research we do on new drugs. Isn't it interesting that they spend more on marketing and promotion than they do on research? Maybe they could cut back a little bit on that advertising on television that says: Ask your doctor whether the purple pill is right for you. I don't have the foggiest idea what the purple pill does, but every time I am shaving in the morning I see the commercial: Ask your doctor whether the purple pill is right for you. Maybe we could cut back the bid on that advertising.

We have had commitments to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate. It was midnight when I believed the majority leader gave me a commitment to bring our comprehensive bill to the Senate. We put a provision in the Senate Record. The majority leader says he didn't make a commitment. That is not what the words say. I went to a small school, a class of nine in a small town. All of us should be able to read words and understand what they mean. I believed the majority leader. In exchange for my releasing a hold on a nominee, the majority leader made a commitment to bring prescription drug reimportation to the floor of the Senate. He says he didn't.

The fact is, the administration and the majority in the Congress have blocked this. When I say we have a bipartisan bill, I come today to support a piece of legislation offered by Senator Vitter. That is bipartisan. But there are people who have determined they will block legislation that deals with the reimportation of prescription drugs. That is why this is offered to an appropriations bill which is a funding limitation. It is perfectly appropriate to offer this to an appropriations bill.

My colleague asked Senator Vitter a wide range of questions. My colleague has been opposed to reimportation of prescription drugs. He gives as spirited a defense of the pharmaceutical industry as anybody I have heard. I believe we ought to give a spirited defense on behalf of the consumers. Why should American consumers pay double, triple, nine times as much for prescription drugs?

I had a guy sitting on a hay bale at a farmstead meeting we had. He was in his 80s. He said: My wife has been fighting breast cancer for 3 years. We have been driving back and forth to Canada to buy Tamoxifen. That is a medicine he could purchase in Canada for 80 percent less than it costs in the United States. He lived in North Dakota, so they could drive to Canada and bring it back because Immigration has traditionally allowed a limited amount for personal use to come back across the border. But now the FDA, and under Dr. McClellan some years ago and under Dr. Crawford and others, has made it their mission to describe that somehow there is a terrorist threat or there is a contamination of prescription drugs. These are FDA-approved drugs, many of them made in this country and then shipped outside. And the American people are told: You can't have access to them because they are cheaper than the drugs you have to purchase in the drugstore in the United States. That makes no sense.

I am wondering when there will be a critical mass in the Senate to stand up and give a spirited defense of the American consumer. When will that happen? Not soon, I am afraid. That is unfortunate. Perhaps we can ask once again whether we will get a commitment to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that is bipartisan, that has broad sponsorship. The legislation that I and many others have introduced is legislation that will allow, under a broader range of circumstances, the reimportation of prescription drugs and do so without any safety issues. Perhaps the amendment offered today will stimulate and require that agreement.

No one wants to, in any way, diminish the safety of our prescription drugs. There is nothing in the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs that would, in any way, cause someone to legitimately claim there is a safety issue. That is a specious issue. There is no safety involved here. This is about pricing. It is about whether the American people will continue to be stuck by being charged the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Miracle drugs offer no miracles to those who cannot afford them. All of us have heard the stories. I have heard plenty of people going to the grocery store who decide that first they have to go to the pharmaceutical counter to figure out what their prescription drugs are going to cost before they can decide how much they can buy in groceries. We have all heard those stories.

This country has a lot of senior citizens. We are a country of people living longer. That is wonderful. In one sense, we have increased the lifespan by 30 years. Life expectancy has increased by 30 years this century. That means we have more older people. Senior citizens are roughly 12 percent of the population and consume one-third of all the prescription drugs, and they are the least likely to be able to afford them. We have them walking into pharmacies now paying the highest prices in the world. It is not the fault of the local pharmacist. This is the pricing practice of the pharmaceutical industry.

They get all upset when people would tarnish their industry. I am not doing that. Good for them. They produce lifesaving drugs, a fair amount of it with research paid for by the American taxpayer at the National Institutes of Health. We have every right to be tarnishing the pricing policy of an industry that says they are going to charge the highest prices in the world to the American consumer.

My colleague from Louisiana talks about reimportation with his amendment. Let me talk about what they do in Europe. In Europe they have something called parallel trading. We have actually Europeans testify on that. If you are in France and want to buy a prescription drug from Spain, that is not a problem. They have parallel trading. If you are in Germany and want to buy a prescription drug from Italy, that is not a problem. They have run that for a couple of decades, and there are not any safety issues involved. This spirited defense of the pharmaceutical industry, by raising this specious, nonsense issue of safety, is almost unbelievable. It is a Trojan horse for those who want to keep prices high for the American consumer.

Let's have a real debate on the floor, not with a funding limitation. I will support this because it is probably the only way to pry the lid off this issue. But let's have a real debate with the larger bill that we thought had been promised to be debated. Let's decide to stop blocking the ability of the American people to access FDA-approved drugs at lower prices. Let's have the market system work. If the market system works for the big interests, what about the little interests? What about the little guy?

Bob Wills of the Texas Playboys back in the 1930s had a line that applies to

much of what goes on around here: The little bee sucks the blossom and the big bee gets the honey. The little guy plucks the cotton and the big guy gets the money. Isn't that always the way it goes? And doesn't that apply to this issue of charging the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs to the American people?

It is wrong. Everybody in here ought to understand it is wrong. We ought to begin to pry the lid off this issue and fix it. My colleague from Louisiana has offered an amendment. It would not be my first choice, but I will support it. He has offered it, I assume, because it is the only way to get into this issue--this issue being reimportation of prescription drugs--by using a funding limitation to get there. He can do that without requiring 60 votes on this bill.

That is the purpose, I assume, of my colleagues from Louisiana and Florida offering this amendment. I think they, too, would probably prefer that we would get an agreement from the majority leader to schedule a time for debate on a larger bill, but that has not been the case. As a result, we will consider this issue and debate this issue now for some while.

I will at some point during the deliberations on this appropriations bill ask by unanimous consent that we bring up S. 334 before the August recess and debate that bill. In the meantime, I will be here to offer support to those who are trying to pry the lid off this issue by offering a funding limitation bill, and between coming over to the floor of the Senate, I will watch the proceedings of the Senate on a television set and be entertained by the spirited defense of the pharmaceutical industry by some of my colleagues offering excuses for supporting the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs being charged to the American people, a position that is highly unsupportable, in my judgment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I come from a landlocked State. We don't have a seaport in North Dakota. But I have taken the time to review some of the activities of seaports and learned a bit about seaports and related that to the issue of security in this new age of terrorism.

I come today to support the amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia. He has been relentless over some long period of time, being very concerned about seaport security. Let me also commend Senator Gregg as well for his work on the underlying legislation and also for his support of the amendment of Senator Byrd.

I recall going to a seaport and being shown containers that come in, I believe between 5.5 and 6 million containers, stacked on ships that arrive at the shores of the United States. Then they are put on wheels and they are trucked around the country. I asked the question, How many of these containers are inspected? The answer at that point was around 3 percent. I believe now it is something just over 5 percent.

They were showing me, at this particular seaport, a container they had opened. It turned out to be a refrigerated container with frozen broccoli from Poland, and it had in it giant bags of frozen broccoli from Poland. I said, ``What is in the middle of the container? I see you opened the back end and ripped open some bags, and there is frozen broccoli in this container. Is there anything in the middle of these bags?''

``That we don't know. We haven't unloaded it. We don't unload most of these. We don't inspect most of these.''

Then they showed me the technology that exists by which they could inspect, effectively x-raying these containers. So there are ways to enhance greater inspection of these containers at seaports.

Even though my State doesn't have a seaport, we in the Senate debate and provide funding now of about $10 billion a year for the antiballistic missile system so we can create a catcher's mitt in case some rogue nation or some terrorist group would fire an intercontinental ballistic missile at us that is tipped with a nuclear bomb. The likelihood of that is very unlikely. It is one of the least likely things on the threat meter against our country, that a rogue nation or terrorist group would acquire a nuclear weapon, put it on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, and have the means to launch it at our country, but we spent about $10 billion to try to find a way to provide a catcher's mitt and intercept a bullet, with a bullet traveling at 18,000 miles an hour.

A much more likely scenario to threaten this country will be a ship pulling up to the dock of a major American city at 3 miles an hour with a load of containers on board, one of which may contain a weapon of mass destruction. That has been my concern.

I think we have done a lot of work to try to extend the envelope and extend the line of protection, going actually to other countries. That is included, in addition, in this amendment--to have inspectors overseas at the point of departure for some of these container ships and so on. But there is so much more we must do if we really are going to assure ourselves we are not going to allow, coming in at 2 or 3 miles an hour, some large ship carrying containers, one of which--out of some 6 million--one of which could threaten to blow up a major American city. That is the reason for being concerned about port security. It has the purpose of going the extra mile and making the extra investment to make sure that we can feel as if we have done everything possible to provide security at America's seaports.

Let me again thank my colleague from West Virginia. As I said, he has been relentless. He has been on the Senate floor many times. I have tried to come and be supportive when he has offered these amendments because I feel so strongly about it. And let me again compliment Senator Gregg, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his work and also for accepting this amendment

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4560

Mr. President, I listened to my colleague from West Virginia in his description of amendments he intends to offer. It is a description of the legislation. This Appropriations subcommittee is a very important subcommittee and raises a good many issues dealing with the security of our country. I want to talk about them briefly, and then I want to talk about something that occurred last week.

First, with respect to homeland security, a book was written a while back about October 11, 2001. We talk about September 11, 2001. On 9/11/ 2001, a tragedy was visited on this country when airplanes loaded with fuel crashed into the Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, and thousands died. It was a devastating terrorist attack against our country. That was on 9/11/2001.

According to information in a book printed some while ago, on October 11 of that same year, a CIA agent with a code name Dragonfire reported, and apparently through the Presidential daily briefings, the head of the CIA, Mr. Tenet, reported to the President, that they had picked up a rumor or intelligence had gathered information that a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from the Soviet arsenal, or the Russian arsenal, and had been taken to New York City and was to be detonated in a major American city by a terrorist organization.

Graham Allison, who wrote the book ``Nuclear Terrorism,'' described the

plot that was told to the CIA by an agent called Dragonfire. As a result of that description 1 month after 9/11 that there might be a 10- kiloton Russian nuclear weapon in this country already set to be detonated in an American major city, there was great concern, obviously. Many people were apoplectic about what was happening. This did not become the product of news stories, for obvious reasons. But the administration and others responded to it with some concern.

About a month later, it was apparently discerned that this was not a credible threat, or at least the circumstances that brought that threat were not credible. But as they post-mortemed that period, they discovered it was probably perfectly credible: We know the Russians had 10-kiloton nuclear weapons; they had built them. They don't have the best command and control of their nuclear weapons. It is perfectly plausible that someone might have stolen or purchased a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and it was not outside the scope of probability that someone might have brought a nuclear weapon into this country and a terrorist organization could well have detonated a nuclear weapon, all of which caused great concern.

We have roughly 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in this world. The disappearance of one to a terrorist organization, in the hands of a terrorist organization will cause a terrorist act in a major city unlike any we have ever seen.

It is interesting that when the Defense authorization bill comes to the floor of the Senate, we spend billions and billions of dollars defending against a rogue nation or a terrorist acquiring a nuclear weapon, putting it on the tip of an intercontinental ballistic missile and shooting it at our country at 18,000 miles an hour. So we are spending billions on an antiballistic missile system to try to hit a bullet with a bullet. It is my judgment--and I think the judgment of most people who evaluate what is the most likely threat against our country--that the most likely threat is a container ship pulling up to a dock at a seaport in this country at about 3 miles with a container on board, with a weapon of mass destruction inside that container that has not been inspected. That is a far more likely threat to this country than a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile acquired by a rogue nation or a terrorist organization. Yet we are spending thousands of times more money on the antiballistic missile program than we are on port security.

It is why port security is of such great importance to this country. We have a large border, and we had some discussion with respect to the immigration bill about border security--border security with respect to immigration, yes, but also with respect to keeping terrorists out. But our borders not only include the landmass between Mexico and the U.S. and Canada and the U.S, our borders include port facilities and a substantial number--I believe the number is close to 6 million containers on ships each year come into this country, with a very small percentage of them actually investigated or inspected. That is why port security is so very important.

It is also the case, as my colleague from West Virginia has described, that first responders in this country will almost inevitably be first to respond to not only a terrorist act should one occur in the future, but first responders will likely be first in contact with the terrorists. It is a fact that one of the terrorists who flew an airplane into a building in this country on 9/11/2001 was apprehended for speeding in the State of Maryland but apparently was not on a watchlist and so was given a speeding ticket and then drove off.

It is likely that the first acquaintance with a terrorist or a terrorist act will be someone in local government--local police, county sheriff, a local emergency crew, an ambulance. That is the first responder.

We have just had testimony from sheriffs and local police officers about the issue of critical interoperability of communications. Is the local police organization able to communicate with the highway patrol? Can the highway patrol communicate with the fire department? Can the police communicate with the fire department? All of that is very important. Yet at the same time we ask these questions, the President is recommending very substantial cuts in these programs--Byrne grants, law enforcement block grants, COPS Program, and others. It is exactly the wrong time, in my judgment, to retreat. At the same time violent crime is increasing, by the way, the President is recommending those same cuts.

With respect to this issue of the Department of Homeland Security, it is very important we get it right. My colleague, Senator Judd Gregg, I know works hard on these issues, as does my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I hope this week, as we work our way through this legislation, we can thoughtfully consider amendments and evaluate those that will strengthen this bill and perhaps discard those that will not we will come out of it with legislation that will give us the feeling that we have improved substantially homeland security in our country.

Homeland security is also about hometown security because that is where homeland security starts--with first responders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. I would like to speak for a few minutes about a drought tour I took last week.

Mr. President, we have a portion of North Dakota, and it extends down into South Dakota, parts of Missouri, Illinois, all the way down to Texas, where a very severe drought is occurring. I want to talk about meetings in Flasher, ND, Moffit, ND, and Zeeland, ND. Zeeland is a town of 118 people. I drove up to Zeeland the other day and 170 farmers and ranchers were there, in a town of 118 people. As we drove into that town and looked off to the left, we saw what looks like the gravel infield or sand infield of a baseball diamond, a field that is supposed to have grass where cows can graze. There is no grass. It looks like a bowling ball. That is because there is a devastating drought occurring in that region.

We have a lot of folks who have cattle, and you either feed cattle or you have to sell them. It is just that simple. People are very concerned.

No. 1, we need hay and grazing opened on CRP land so farmers can get at forage to feed these cows. I had people stand up at meetings and say: I have 200 to 300 cows, and I have nothing to feed them. The pasture is bare.

Those cows are either going to be fed or put on a truck and sent to market immediately.

There was a man, Wes Mastel, a 24-year-old rancher who just started 2 years ago. He had to sell his herd of 114 cows. He had nothing to feed them. The stories are pretty devastating.

The thermometer on the MacIntosh County Bank the other day read 100, 101 degrees with wind just drying out the soil, sucking out the moisture--what little moisture that does exist in the soil.

We have this developing, abiding drought that is devastating to ranchers. I raise the question because I have offered three times now disaster relief for 2006 when we had torrential rains and 2 million acres couldn't be planted or were planted and washed away completely.

We had a disaster in the gulf region. That was called Katrina. The torrential rains in North Dakota didn't have a name, but they were torrential rains. They destroyed crops. The drought doesn't have a name. It destroys crops.

The question is: What can we do about it? We have always, prior to this, reached out to family farmers and said: We want to help you; in times of trouble, we want to help.

Last December, the Senate passed a disaster relief bill. The House would not accept it. The President, in fact, very frontally said: If it comes to me, I will veto it. Usually it is a Presidential adviser who recommends a veto. That wasn't the case. The President said: I will veto it, so it didn't go anywhere.

A couple of months ago on the emergency supplemental, I attached, once again, a disaster relief bill. It got to conference with the House, and it was again jettisoned. The President again said he opposed it.

So I attached a disaster relief bill to the Agriculture appropriations bill that was marked up in the full committee just recently. We are going to

see again. Times change, things change. My hope is the President will understand this is a very serious problem and will relent and decide he wants to help.

I am informing the chairman and ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee today that it is my intention to modify the amendment I added to the Agriculture appropriations bill to include the 2006 drought because we must, it seems to me, respond to this disaster. The failure to respond to it means that fewer and fewer people will be living out on the land in this country, and that takes something significant away from the character of this country. This is not new. We have always reached out in times of trouble.

I would ask anybody who thinks there is not trouble out there to just take a drive--take a drive in the drought area and then ask yourself, if you had 300 cows that were your responsibility on your ranch, what on Earth would you feed them? And if there is nothing to feed them, you are going to market and you are out of business. It is that simple.

So, first and foremost, my colleague, Senator Conrad, and I, and others, have asked the Secretary of Agriculture to release haying and grazing opportunities on CRP lands. That is very important. It is important that it be done now, not later. The Department of Agriculture always drags its feet and always opens CRP land for haying and grazing too late, after the major 4-H opportunities are gone or after the 4-H capability is dramatically diminished. So my hope is that the Secretary of Agriculture will heed the call this time and open that land for haying and grazing immediately to give some relief to those ranchers.

As I said, this is not just about North Dakota. My colleague, Senator Bond from Missouri, and our colleagues from Illinois and others-- Illinois, last year, had the third driest year since 1895. There are other areas of this country that are suffering the ravages of drought. Again, my hope is that this Congress will understand the urgency.

I was at this meeting in Zealand, ND, of 170 ranchers. They talked about the drought. Even without the drought, what is happening to them, the average farmer and rancher in North Dakota is spending $18,000 a year in additional energy costs. The big, major integrated oil companies are walking to the bank with bundles of money sucked right out of the pocketbooks of working Americans, ranchers, and farmers, especially because they are heavy users of energy. It is unbelievable the toll it is imposing all across this country. But when you add a drought, which has destroyed pastures and destroyed the ability to feed your cattle, and then continue to impose this additional burden of energy costs, in my judgment, it is a recipe for destruction all across rural America.

Some people may think it doesn't matter. I have spoken before to my colleagues about a fellow named Rodney Nelson in North Dakota who is a cowboy poet and who wrote a long question for this country: Does part of this country's character depend on having folks on the farm and on the ranch as well? Farmers and ranchers, small towns and big towns, isn't all of that together part of the character of this country? He asked the question: What is it worth? What is it worth for a kid to know how to weld a seam? What is it worth for a kid to know how to overhaul a tractor, how to plow a straight furrow, how to teach a calf to suck from a pail? What is it worth for a kid to know all of these things? What is it worth for a kid to know how to grease a combine, how to hang a door, how to build a lean-to? What is it worth?

There is only one university in this country where that is taught and that is on the family farm. Those kids who come off our farms and go to small towns and big cities, who bring with them that nourishment of family values from America's farms and ranches to small towns and big cities is what renews our country. If this Congress ever decides that farms don't matter, those Americans who live out under a yard light trying to raise a family and raise a crop and raise some livestock, if this Congress ever decides they don't matter, we will have lost something very substantial for this country.

So for now, we need the Secretary of Agriculture immediately to release CRP land for haying and grazing so we can get some feed to those cattle in drought areas, No. 1. No. 2, we need this President to back away from his threat to veto disaster aid, and we need to amend the provision that I put in the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to extend it to 2006, which I intend to do.

Mr. President, we have a lot of choices to make in this country. Our country has a responsibility in this world to respond to all kinds of things. We are a world leader. I think that it is important for us to respond around the world. But first and foremost, it is important for us to respond here at home and take care of things here at home.

I am just telling you when the sign at the bank and the sign downtown in your town shows 105 degrees or 102 degrees and the wind is blowing 30 miles an hour and the pasture looks like a bowling ball and there is nothing for the cattle to eat and you are suffering through a drought, this Congress has a responsibility to act--and sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

My understanding is that perhaps next week the Senate will take up something called stem cell research, several pieces of legislation dealing with stem cell research. I want to talk for a few moments about that issue.

It has been just over 1 year now since the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a piece of legislation called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, with very broad bipartisan support.

Those of us in the Senate and those across this country who have lost loved ones, and most of us have, to some dread disease--Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes--the list is endless--cancer-- understand that the urgency to do the research to find the cures for these diseases really must be preeminent.

I am not suggesting that urgency should suggest to us there are no ethical boundaries to research. There are ethical boundaries. But I also want to make certain that this Senate moves in a way that is expeditious and does the right thing.

I want to show a picture. This is a picture of a young girl I have met a good number of times. She is in the middle. Her name is Camille. Camille is 13. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 4 years old. I have met with Camille's mother and Camille a good number of times. I have told her story once before on the Senate floor, but it is worth retelling because Camille and her parents and so many others across this country are very concerned that we move forward on stem cell research and try to find ways to unlock the mysteries of this disease called juvenile diabetes. But not just diabetes; ALS and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and so many more.

Type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes, occurs when a body's immune system attacks and destroys certain cells in the pancreas called beta cells. As a result, those beta cells that normally would produce insulin are not producing insulin. So when the beta cells are destroyed and no insulin is produced, the glucose stays in the blood and can cause serious damage to the organs of the body. So Camille, like many who have juvenile diabetes, will have to take insulin to stay alive. She has to maintain a carefully calculated diet. She checks her blood glucose level several times a day and takes insulin injections, as many as six a day, just to say alive.

Her parents have told me about Camille and her schedule. They live by the clock. They wake up in the middle of the night every night to check on her, make sure her insulin levels are normal.

Every hour of every day in this country someone is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. With Camille, she has had some very close calls. She has been in the hospital a great deal. Her diabetes has been pretty devastating, and she has had a lot of close calls.

This young girl and her parents really want Congress to move forward on stem cell research. There is so much promise in stem cell research. I want to describe why this is necessary. We are talking about human embryonic stem cell lines available for use in Federal research. In August of 2001 when the President said he will make lines available, he made 78 lines available. Now there are only 22 of those lines available and all of these approved lines are contaminated in certain ways. That means that all of these stem cell lines will actually never be able to be used for human clinical trials.

This August 9, 2001 deadline that the President had on research using these 78 lines is simply an arbitrary deadline. Let me describe that these cells, these stem cell lines come from discarded embryos, fertilized eggs that have been cryogenically frozen at an in vitro fertilization clinic. We had a person testify before the Senate Commerce Committee some years ago who believed that it was just wrong that there should be eggs that are fertilized in a test tube or in a Petri dish and then implanted in the mother, something called in vitro fertilization. That is just wrong, he said. That should never ever have happened. It should never have been done.

There are now 1 million people living among us who were born as a result of in vitro fertilization, giving couples the ability to have children. Couples who previously have not been able to have children now are able to have children through in vitro fertilization.

At these in vitro clinics, more eggs are fertilized than are actually implanted and used. There are roughly 400,000 of embryos that are now cryogenically frozen at these clinics. Somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 each year are simply discarded. They become waste. They are thrown away.

Those who say that the use of those embryos is the equivalent of murder, then, I believe, also probably say that the discarding of embryos that are not going to be used any longer, that have been cryogenically frozen--my guess is they believe those represent 8,000 or 10,000 murders a year.

I don't believe that. Those embryos can never and will never become a human being unless implanted into a uterus. The question is: Can we use these embryos to create stem cell lines to try to find cures to dread diseases? Here is what has happened in stem cell research since the President announced the limitation.

Here is what President Bush said in 2004:

Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of

life. I'm the first President ever to allow Federal funding

for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too,

hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells. But we've

got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the

science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any

more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in

action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is

balancing life.

But these lines themselves were from in vitro fertilization clinics and would have been discarded and are being discarded routinely in this country, 8,000 to 11,000 a year. This is just an arbitrary decision.

So let me just make a couple of additional points. This is my former colleague, Senator Jack Danforth, a former Republican colleague, as a matter of fact, and ordained Episcopal priest. He wrote this in the New York Times:

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a Petri dish

are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible

disease. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only

explanation for legislators comparing cells in a Petri dish

to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine

into statutory law.

This from an Episcopal priest, a former Republican Senator.

Finally, this from Nancy Reagan:

Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell

research, which may provide our scientists with answers that

have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we

can turn our backs on this--there are just so many diseases

that can be cured or at least helped. We have lost so much

time already, and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

I believe that we ought to proceed with thoughtful, ethical guidelines on stem cell research. I understand that is a controversial position for some. In fact, in the last campaign for office for me, my opponent ran a television advertisement that was novel and fairly disgusting. In it was a fellow who was sitting around a campfire with some little children. One of the little children said to the camp fire leader: Tell us a scary story.

And the camp fire leader said: Well, there is this man named Dorgan and he has a plan to put embryos inside the womb of a mother and grow them for body parts to be harvested later.

An unbelievable television commercial, bearing no relationship to what has been discussed under any set of circumstances. But the controversy that exists these days with stem cell research, I understand; I am respectful to those who disagree with me on this subject.

I am mindful that there should be solid ethical guidelines in terms of how it is dealt with. But I don't believe this is about harvesting body parts. This is about giving life. This is about giving hope. This is about unlocking the mysteries of dread diseases--to tell those who live with Alzheimer's or heart disease or cancer or juvenile diabetes or ALS or Parkinson's that we are doing everything we can to find ways to cure these diseases. That is what this research is about. I really believe it is about giving life--providing opportunity for those who are suffering from these dread diseases.

That is why I am a cosponsor of the Senate companion bill to the House bill called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has 41 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan group of Senators who has cosponsored this legislation.

I take some hope with the statement of the majority leader that it appears we will begin debating this issue within the next week or two.

It is important to be clear that this bill only deals with stem cells--embryos that were created for fertility purposes by in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be thrown away. That is all that is being discussed. As I indicated, there are about 400,000 of those embryos that are now frozen at in vitro fertilization clinics.

I know there will be great controversy when we discuss this. However, I am comforted, as well, that there is a bipartisan group of Senators who believes this ought to be done and supports the legislation. It is a fact that sometimes those of us who serve here lament that we are taking lightly things that should be taken seriously, or taking seriously things that are light. This is a serious issue. And bringing this to the floor of the Senate means that we are sinking our teeth into a piece of public policy that is very important and that we recognize is controversial but nonetheless very important for us to make decisions about.

I look forward to being a part of that discussion and that debate when it comes to the floor of the Senate, hopefully, next week if the information I have is correct, if not within a week or so following.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at such time the Senator completes his statement.

Mr. President, I regret I do not agree with my colleague on the merits of this issue. But I do not regret coming to the Chamber to speak on behalf of American workers, on behalf of our country's interests. I come, once again, to talk about a trade agreement that I believe is not consistent with what our country should be doing.

Let me talk about priorities. We have so many issues in front of us.

The other day, I read that the price of prescription drugs has risen triple the rate of inflation in the first 3 months of this year with the advent of this new Government prescription drug program for Medicare recipients. Is there any action on that? No. That provokes a very big yawn here in the Senate.

We have the highest budget deficits in history. We are going to add about $1.4 trillion in debt to this country's shoulders this year-- $700-plus billion of trade deficits this year. We are going to borrow, increasing the Federal debt $600-plus billion this year.

We have significant challenges in education and health care.

We have enormous challenges abroad. Obviously we are involved with respect to the war on terrorism. There is a war in Iraq. There is no proposition that anybody should pay for that war. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been brought to the floor of the Senate to pay for it, with the entire cost being added to the Federal debt. We send men and women to risk their lives in Iraq. Some make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their country and lose their lives. But there is no discussion here about whether anyone else should probably sacrifice some and be paying for the cost of this. In fact, the administration does not even put money in their budget, when they send their budget to us, for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do not put the money in because they know then they can ask for emergency funding and just add it to the top of the debt.

We have a lot of challenges. We cannot get action on the floor by this Congress on the subject of stem cell research which will begin, I hope, to unlock the mysteries of dreaded diseases--Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and more. Unlocking the mysteries of those diseases is saving lives. It is pro-life. We can't get a bill on the floor of the Senate to deal with that because we are blocked from considering stem cell research on the floor of the Senate.

We need reimportation of prescription drugs so we can put pressure on the drug companies to lower the price of prescription drugs for the American people. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and it is unfair. The U.S. consumer pays double, triple, in some cases 10 times the price of prescription drugs that is charged to virtually every other consumer in the world, and we can't get a piece of legislation on the floor of this Senate to consider allowing the reimportation of the identical drug, often a drug that was made in this country and then shipped to Canada.

We can't do those things. Those are not priorities for those who schedule the floor of the Senate. But we can bring to the floor of the Senate today a trade agreement, a free-trade agreement with the country of Oman. Here we have another chapter in a book of failures--a free- trade agreement with Oman.

Oman is a country with 3 million people run by a Sultan. I don't come to the floor to in any way cast aspersions or to denigrate the country of Oman. I have not been to Oman. But I do know a lot about trade agreements. I have studied them. And this is what they are ultimately about: the exporting of American jobs to countries where people work for 30 cents an hour and you can work them for 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. This has caused at least 3 to 4 million jobs to be eliminated from this country.

These free-trade agreements--and this Oman deal is yet another--these free-trade agreements have given the green light to say: Yes, let's ship American jobs overseas; and by the way, even as you ship American jobs overseas, you can bring in low-wage labor from our southern border; and by the way, you can run your income through the Cayman Islands so you don't have to pay taxes.

My colleagues are tired of hearing about the Ugland House, but I am reluctant to mention it again. There is one little house on Church Street in the Cayman islands. It is, I believe, four stories. It is called the Ugland House. It is home to 12,748 corporations. They are not there, of course. That is their official address in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

At any rate, these trade agreements, the so-called free-trade agreements, are agreements that in most cases are reached in secret negotiations, are then brought to the Congress under a procedure called fast track. The Congress has actually voted on it. I voted against it. It is absolutely preposterous that Congress decided to say, let's wake up in the morning and put ourselves in a straitjacket and pass legislation that makes sure we can't offer amendments to a trade agreement. That is unbelievable, that Congress has done that, but it has. So we now bring this to the floor under something called fast track.

Fast track means this: Take it or leave it. Here is the agreement. You didn't have any participation in drafting this trade agreement, you have no ability to alter this trade agreement, but take it or leave it, vote up or down, yes or no. That is the process.

With respect to this trade agreement, they actually have begun to do a procedure called a mock markup. In my hometown, you would know what a mock markup is: it is not a markup, it is just a mockery. So they had a mock markup here in the Senate Finance Committee.

My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I believe Senator Bingaman, offered an amendment to the mock markup of a free-trade agreement that is going to be brought to the floor under fast track. That doesn't even sound like English, does it--a mock markup brought to the floor under fast track? So the mock markup is held, and my colleagues offer an amendment that would ban products coming into this country that is produced from sweatshops or slave labor. It passed unanimously in the Finance Committee, in the so-called mock markup.

It turns out that the markup was a mock, or a mockery, because even though that provision passed unanimously, it is not in the trade agreement that emerged on the floor of the Senate. The question is, What has happened to that amendment which was offered in the Senate Finance Committee? Where in the world is Carmen San Diego? Where is this amendment? Maybe we ought to send teams out to look for this amendment. The amendment passed. It was unanimous. But it has just disappeared. Another famous disappearing act.

This trade agreement with Oman is not the largest trade agreement. This is not CAFTA, this is not NAFTA, this is not the free-trade agreement of the Americas. Oman is a relatively small country, and in saying that I do not mean to offend Oman. This is not about whether I think Oman is a wonderful country or not a wonderful country. I want to talk about the ingredients of this trade agreement.

Let me talk a bit about the major concerns I have with this particular trade agreement with Oman. First of all, let me talk about the organizations that oppose this trade agreement. The AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, Teamsters, League of Rural Voters, National Farmers Union, Presbyterian Church USA Washington Office, Sierra Club, United Methodist Church, United Steel Workers, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and many more.

Like NAFTA and CAFTA and all the other acronyms that describe recent failures, this agreement fails to put any meaningful protections or any meaningful labor or environmental provisions in the labor agreement. So the lack of any effective provisions dealing with labor or the conditions under which goods will be produced to be sent to America means that it is just ``Katey, bar the door''; whatever happens, happens; we are not going to care much about that.

But particularly recent revelations of massive labor abuses in Jordan should give everyone some pause. The agreement with Jordan was supposed to represent the gold standard with respect to labor standards. Now we have seen recent examples of what has happened in parts of Jordan; that is, human trafficking, 20-hour workdays, widespread failure to pay wages.

Let me talk about last month's New York Times story, which described how a free-trade agreement with the country of Jordan was used to produce sweatshops all over Jordan. It turned out when the agreement was signed in 1999, companies began to fly in so-called guest workers to Jordan from countries such as Bangladesh and China to make products in Jordan to sell at stores in this country--Wal-Mart, Target, and so on. The conditions of these so-called guest workers can only be described as slave-like. Let me read from the New York Times piece:

Propelled by a free trade agreement with the United States,

apparel manufacturing is booming in Jordan, its exports to

America soaring twentyfold in the last five years. But some

foreign workers in Jordanian factories that produce garments

for Target, Wal-Mart, and other retailers are complaining of

dismal conditions--of 20-hour days, of not being paid for

months, and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they

complain.

Those are the conditions of sweatshop labor that manufacture products in Jordan--by the way, products that used to be produced in this country when we had a textile industry providing jobs to Americans, but that has all migrated.

The question is, Should this sort of thing exist in sweatshops--not only in Jordan but in other parts of the world--to allow products to be produced under these conditions and sold in the United States? The answer to that is clearly no.

Now, consider this: this agreement with Oman provides weaker labor provisions than existed with respect to Jordan.

So with the supposedly good agreement in Jordan, we ended up seeing workers from countries like Bangladesh being flown to Jordan, and forced to work not a 40-hour workweek, but a 40-hour shift, $50 for 5 months of work for one worker, and frequent beatings of workers who complain.

Let me show you some pictures--pretty ugly pictures--from Bangladesh. I will show them for a reason, because it relates to trade agreements that don't have labor protections, and it shows you the face of this global economy. These pictures were taken by a journalist who witnessed firsthand the beating of workers in Bangladesh. Here is an example of a picture taken by a journalist of the beating. This, tragically, is a man shot through the head--a worker subjected to violence and killing. This is another picture of the beatings. Let me show a picture of four young women, if I might, very young girls. You will notice that they are tied together--working in factories, tied together to prevent them from escaping.

Should there be labor standards in trade agreements? Do we give a damn about this? Does this country care about this? I hope it does. But there is no evidence of it because we are going to pass another trade agreement today with no labor standards at all.

So all of the folks in this country who lost their jobs because they wouldn't work for 30 cents an hour, all the folks in this country who saw their jobs moved to Bangladesh, Indonesia, to Sri Lanka, to China, and elsewhere because those who want to produce can find a way to produce it there for 30 cents an hour, not pay health care benefits, work people in unsafe factories, and work them in conditions of sweatshop labor, to all of those people, I ask

this question on their behalf: Is this what competition is about? Is this what this country should allow--allow the import of jobs in these circumstances? The answer is clearly no. Yet this Congress will not put labor standards in a trade agreement. It will not require an administration to put labor standards in a labor agreement. The only one which included labor standards was Jordan.

I just described to you the sweatshops in Jordan by which Bangladeshis and others were flown by the planeload into Jordan to work in sweatshops that produce products to be sent to American shelves. I believe it is an outrage. It ought to be corrected. But it is not going to be corrected with this kind of trade agreement.

I recall the movie ``Casablanca.'' I guess everybody understands the famous words in ``Casablanca'' when the French police chief said he was ``shocked.'' He said: I am just shocked to find gambling in Rick's Cafe. Of course, he wasn't shocked. Everybody knew there was gambling in Rick's Cafe in ``Casablanca.''

These pictures ought to shock the sensibilities of everybody. But on some level, we all understand this is going on. It's just a question of whether we are willing to do something about it. Is this country willing to do something about it? And if so, when? If not now, when? Yet this trade agreement does not do a thing about it.

The country of Oman has 3 million people, and half a million people in Oman are so-called guest workers. In fact, the majority of Oman's workers involved in manufacturing and construction are not from Oman at all. The majority of the workers in Oman are brought in from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other poor countries under labor contracts to work in construction and factories.

The State Department's 2004 Report on Human Rights cited Oman for cases of forced labor. And I quote:

The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor, including

children. However, there were reports that such practices

occurred. The government did not investigate or enforce the

law effectively. Foreign workers at times were placed in

situations amounting to forced labor.

They have changed the report just a little bit in anticipation of having an Oman free-trade agreement brought to the floor, but the fact is that this happens in Oman, and we know it happens in Oman.

There are no labor unions in Oman. In 2003, the Sultan of Oman issued a Sultanic decree which categorically denies workers the right to organize and join unions of their choosing. Under some circumstances, I am told that workers in Oman can join ``representative committees,'' but they are not independent of employers. The Sultan of Oman has written to the USTR, our trade ambassador, and promised that he will improve Oman's labor laws by October of this year; that is, after the Senate has voted to approve a free-trade deal with Oman.

The labor provisions in the Oman Free Trade Agreement are much weaker than the labor provisions in the Jordan trade agreement, as I indicated. They simply ask Oman to follow its own laws and its own self-policing. If the supposedly model agreement on labor with Jordan was such a disaster, think of what it will be with respect to the country of Oman. But under fast-track rules, no one has an opportunity to offer any amendment under any of these provisions.

Now, let me describe another point with respect to Oman. After going through a heated debate some months ago over whether Dubai Ports World should be able to manage a half dozen of America's major seaports, we now find that there is a provision buried in annex II of this trade agreement with Oman, which says that Oman has the right to acquire companies that operate U.S. ports, and there is not a thing we can do about it. This provision in the agreement was added to a list of U.S. infrastructure functions that Oman can't be precluded from acquiring: It is as follows:

[L]andside aspects of port activities, including operation

and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels

directly to or from land, marine cargo handling, operations

and maintenance of piers, ship cleaning . . .

There was a great deal of controversy about whether the United Arab Emirates and a company owned by that government called Dubai Ports World should be able to take over the management of a half dozen of America's seaports. The answer from this Congress was absolutely not; this country ought to have the capability to manage, for national security purposes and other purposes, its own seaports.

Well, guess what. We have a trade agreement that comes to the floor of the Senate which says, it is going to be all right if Oman takes over our ports. Or for that matter, if a company from the United Arab Emirates that has a subsidiary in Oman takes over our ports.

The folks at USTR say: Don't worry, be happy. There is an exception in the Oman trade agreement that allows us to block acquisitions for national security reasons.

Well, sure, that national security provision is in the agreement. But it means nothing if the President is determined to let the deal go through.

Here is what the President said about the managing of U.S. ports by the United Arab Emirates. He said this on February 2, 2006:

Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats

alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping

operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned

business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any

bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The President quite clearly has told the American people that he thinks it is fine to have the United Arab Emirates run America's seaports. Do you think he would think it was not fine for a company owned by the Government of Oman to run America's seaports? It doesn't seem to me he would have great objection to that. What do the supporters of this agreement have to say to this point?

So this is where we are. They have a mock markup and then create a mock trade agreement and have a mock disappearance of a provision dealing with sweat labor, sweatshop labor, and then you bring it to the floor, and we have a mock debate. Everybody is very quiet about it. Then we have a vote on the floor of the Senate, and then it passes. It always passes because there are not enough Senators here who care about this question.

We import $2 billion a day from around the world above that which we export. Each and every day, we are going $2 billion more into debt to the rest of the world. Said another way, each and every day, we sell $2 billion worth of America to foreigners. Each and every day. And $700- plus billion a year in trade deficits. We shuffle around here like there is no hurry, no rush, no worry, be happy. It is unbelievable to me. This is a very serious, unsustainable problem. We cannot sustain this. It will cause a collapse of the dollar, and it will cause economic difficulties you can't imagine unless this Congress gets serious and this administration and this President get serious and decide this is a serious issue which must be solved.

I have spoken often on the issue of trade, and I know there are disagreements about these things. Let me describe the other side of it because I can describe it easily.

They say that all who raise these questions are a bunch of xenophobic, isolationist stooges; you do not have the foggiest idea what is going on. You can't see over the horizon. This is a globalized economy. The world is flat. Are you crazy? You want to build walls around our country? What are you thinking about? That is the other side. Therefore, they say, let's have free trade agreement after free trade agreement because it is a global economy and it will all turn out just fine. Of course, after each and every agreement we have reached, we have had bigger and bigger problems.

We had a small trade surplus with the country of Mexico. We have a trade agreement with Mexico, and it turns into a huge deficit. So we are able to turn a small surplus into a huge deficit.

By the way, those hotshot economists who gave us all that advice--I didn't take that advice, but the majority of my colleagues did--all that advice saying this is going to be just fine; you should understand this is a division of labor. What is going to happen in Mexico under NAFTA is the low-skilled jobs are going to migrate to Mexico and then we will get high-skilled, high-wage jobs back here as a

result. Guess what our three largest imports are from Mexico: automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics--all products of high- skilled, high-wage labor. That is what migrated out of this country. We turned a small surplus with Mexico into a huge deficit.

We turned a modest deficit with Canada into a large deficit. We turned almost a balanced trade deficit with China a couple of decades ago into the largest deficit in humankind. It is unbelievable what we have done. Europe, very large deficit; Japan, an $80 billion-a-year deficit; every single year with Japan, we have a large, recurring deficit. This country had better understand the consequences of this.

This chart represents the trade deficit, and one would have to be colorblind to not understand the consequence of this. You would have to be in a situation where you can't see red. This is red, red, red, growing in a dangerous way, giant trade deficits It is not getting better, it is getting worse. This is simply one more chapter of a book of failures.

What we have been doing is sinking this country into a sea of debt. All of this debt reflects, by the way, the shipment of American jobs elsewhere. We have nearly decimated our textile industry. We are taking apart our manufacturing industry. And it doesn't end there.

I have told the story of Natasha Humphreys who was a software engineer, Stanford graduate. Her last job for her company was to train her replacement in India because an Indian engineer worked for about one-fifth of the price of a U.S. engineer. So she lost her job.

This is not just textiles and manufacturing. Half of the Fortune 500 companies have been outsourcing software development.

That is what the lines on the chart mean. It started with textiles. Everyone knows Fruit of the Loom underwear: T-shirts, shorts, underwear. They would advertise with green grapes, red grapes, dancing down the street. Everyone was happy. Underwear was made here. People had jobs here. The grapes got jobs dancing on television.

Now, however, we do not see dancing grapes talking about American jobs because there is no Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America. That is all gone. There is not one pair of Levis made in America. Huffy bicycles. That is all gone.

I could go on forever, and I have gone on forever, as a matter of fact, in previous discussions about all of the brands. You may be wearing Tony Lama boots, but if so you may be wearing boots made in China. The list is endless.

We built in 100 years in this country something very unusual, and we did it through pain and suffering and through agonizing and debate in the Congress. Part of it was to decide: What kind of country are we? How do we improve the standard of living? How do we build something here that is unique? It was encouraging entrepreneurs, helping people who had a vision to start a business, to take risks, to say go for it, absolutely, to create a hospitable environment where people started businesses and created jobs, and to say on behalf of workers: You have a right, too, a right to organize unions, a right to have a safe workplace, child labor laws. You cannot dump chemicals into the air or water as you produce those things.

James Fyler was shot 56 times--56 times this man was shot. Do you know why? Because in 1917 he believed the people ought to be free to form a labor union to protest the conditions of coal miners deep in the coal mines of Colorado. For that he was shot and killed; 56 times that man was shot.

This history of our country is replete with the people who have decided to exercise the bravery to help build this country and create the standards, the work rules, and the opportunities that we enjoy. Men and women who start businesses, men and women of the labor movement, and Members of Congress decided what the rules are.

Now, in one swoop we can decide a company can move those jobs to China, just like that, shut their American plant, move the job to China--and, by the way, this Congress gives them a tax break for doing so--ship the product back to be sold in this country, run the income through the Ugland House on Church Street, and not pay taxes to the United States.

None of that adds up. So today we have a trade agreement from Oman which persuades me to show, once again, a chart with dancing grapes. Does it relate? Yes, it does, because this is one more chapter in a book of failures.

The question is, Will this country stand up for its economic interests?

I say to Japan--we have had robust trade with the country of Japan for decades. Yet every single year we have these large deficits with Japan and the growing deficits with China which even dwarf the Japanese deficits, yet our country does not seem to care.

All these deficits translate to lost jobs, they threaten this country's economic future and whether we progress and improve the standard of living and expand the middle class. Our government says, you know something, this is a global economy. Whatever happens, happens, and we do not want to offend anyone. We do not want to tell China: Look, the way we will trade with you is this: our trade must be fair trade; you open your markets to us, we open our markets to you; but the methods of production must be fair.

We do not do that. We do not do any of that because we do not have the nerve and the backbone or will to stand up for this country's economic interests. Frankly, it baffles me that this will be passed this afternoon. There is no question about it. This Congress will, once again, snore through this discussion, and we will pass a trade agreement with the country of Oman.

At the end of this year, we will see another record, the highest trade deficit in history.

Alan Blinder is the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He is not some nut way off on the edge of the political debate. This is a guy who is a mainstream economist. He has written in the Foreign Affairs Journal that there are 42 to 56 million American jobs that are subject to outsourcing.

Let me say that again: 42 to 56 million American jobs in manufacturing, and especially the service sector, that are tradeable jobs, subject to outsourcing. Not all of them will be outsourced, for sure, but even those that remain here will be subject to competing with those in other parts of the world who can do the job for less.

Does that matter to anyone? Doesn't that say to all of us what this is really about? This is about reducing the standard of living in this country. It is not about raising other countries up, it is about pushing us down. That is why this trade strategy is wrong. I don't believe in building walls. I don't believe we ought to decide we should withdraw from the global economy. I just believe there ought to be rules with respect to the global economy that stand up for this country's interests.

For the first 25 years after the Second World War, we were the biggest, the strongest, the toughest. We could beat anybody at almost anything, and we knew it. With one hand tied behind our backs we could trade with anybody and give concessional circumstances and win. It was not a problem.

Then we saw the emergence of shrewd international competitors--yes, Europe, Japan, and others--things changed. But our notions did not change. Our trade policy is still a heavy dose of foreign policy that is, in my judgment, soft headed. We still are concessional. We still do not have the willingness to stand up for this country's economic interests. And we now are seeing the results of that with the highest trade deficit in history.

If I might show that chart one more time, the trade deficits on this chart are the result of these trade agreements. Republicans and Democrats, together--administrations run by both political parties-- have failed to do what they should do.

We have a trade deficit with almost every country. And those with whom we do not have a deficit, if we can just get an agreement with them, we will have a deficit. Every single agreement we have made produces a deficit.

We have a huge trade deficit with Korea, which is another country with which we are negotiating a free trade deal.

Here are the cars in Korea: 99 percent of the cars on the road in Korea are Korean-made cars. Why? The Korean government doesn't want other cars in Korea; 99 percent of the cars on the streets in Korea are Korean made.

In Korea, they exported 730,000 Korean cars to the United States last year; 730,000 Korean vehicles were put on ships and sent to America. We were able to export 4,251 into Korea. We almost had a success with the Dodge Durango pickup, but they shut that down. And 95 percent of the cars on the road in Japan are Japanese-made cars in that country. Why? That is the way they want it.

Our country says: That is fine. It does not matter to us. I suppose it is fine because nobody wearing a blue suit and suspenders is losing their jobs. I don't see any CEOs losing their jobs. I don't see any Members of the Senate losing their jobs. The folks making cars are losing their jobs. The textile workers are losing their jobs. Family farmers are having the rug pulled out from under them with bad trade agreements, but folks here are safe. And this administration is, I guess, probably the worst we have had for some while on trade.

But having said that, the Democratic administration that preceded it was not particularly good on trade issues, and no one is very interested in doing anything to address a serious and growing trade problem, which if not addressed will cause havoc with this country's economy and will affect every American worker in a very serious way.

It is probably clear to at least those hearing me that I will vote against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I think it is a serious mistake. While I think it will pass today, we will await the next bad trade agreement and continue this fight. At some point there will be a tipping point on this issue. The American people will demand the Congress to finally start doing the right thing. No, not building walls, but demanding trade be fair, fair trade on behalf of this country.

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

Mr. President, 17 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, struck down a Texas flag protection statute. The Supreme Court ruled that burning an American flag was a form of ``speech,'' and therefore protected under the first amendment of the Constitution.

I disagreed with the Court's decision then and I still do. I don't believe that the act of desecrating a flag is an act of speech. And I believe that our flag, as our national symbol, can and should be protected by law.

In the intervening years since the Supreme Court decision, I have supported Federal legislation that would make flag desecration illegal. Yet on several occasions, I have also voted against amendments to the Constitution to do the same.

I voted that way because, while I believe that flag desecration is despicable conduct that should be prohibited by law, I also believe that amending our Constitution is a step that should be taken only rarely, and then only as a last resort.

In the past year I have once again reviewed in detail nearly all of the legal opinions and written materials published by constitutional scholars and courts on all sides of this issue.

After that review, I have concluded that there remains a way to protect our flag without having to alter the Constitution of the United States. That is why I have cosponsored S. 1370, a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Senator Bennett of Utah.

S. 1370 protects the flag by criminalizing flag desecration when its intended purpose is to incite violence. This is the same standard which makes it illegal to falsely cry ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Reckless speech that is likely to cause violence is not protected under the ``fighting words'' standard, long recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Congressional Research Service believes that this type of statute will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last night, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Durbin, which incorporates many of the provisions of S. 1370, the bipartisan bill of which I am a cosponsor. The Durbin amendment would also prohibit the disruption of military funerals by demonstrators. This amendment would protect the flag, but do so without altering the Constitution.

I know that supporters of a constitutional amendment will be disappointed by my decision to support this statutory remedy to protect the flag, rather than support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I know they are impatient to correct a decision by the Supreme Court that they and I believe was wrong.

I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, and I respect those who passionately believe that we must amend the Constitution to protect the flag.

More than 11,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed since our Constitution was ratified. However, since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, only 17 amendments have been enacted.

Protecting the American flag can be accomplished without amending the Constitution, and that is a critically important point. I believe that future generations, and our founding fathers, would agree that it is worthwhile for us to find a way to protect our flag without altering the Constitution.