Floor Statements

Mr. President, Barbara Miles, a specialist in financial institutions retired from the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, at the Library of Congress on May 3, 2007. Including 32 years at CRS and her six years in the executive branch as an economist and econometrician at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, Ms. Miles devoted 38 years of service to the American people. CRS and the Congress lost an exceptionally able and dedicated public servant with her departure.

A native of California, Ms. Miles earned a bachelor's degree in economics from Occidental College in Los Angeles and a master of economics degree from the University of Washington at Seattle. She began her CRS service in July 1975, as an economist. She was successively promoted throughout her career, attaining the position of Specialist in Housing in 1979, and that of Specialist in Financial Institutions in 1995.

Ms. Miles' research was in the general area of housing. She is an expert in a range of housing-related policy issues such as the housing industry and finance, housing supply and prices, housing demand, mortgage interest rates and affordability, and federal policies toward home ownership. Ms. Miles provided close support to numerous members of Congress and their staff, in the form of analysis, confidential memos, and reports during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. She worked closely with Congress as it drafted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 that established the Resolution Trust Corporation, which liquidated the assets of insolvent savings and loans, and reimbursed depositors and other creditors.

As her career developed, Ms. Miles also devoted her talents to the study of and analysis of public policy concerning government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, which are stockholder-owned companies whose Congressional charters call on them to support the secondary mortgage market, especially lower income groups and geographic areas not well served by lenders. She provided ever more insightful and detailed reports on the costs, benefits, and risks of various GSEs, advising Congress on the impact of the GSEs on different sectors of the housing market in particular, as well as on the nation's economy in general. Through regular and ever expanding contacts, she helped to familiarize members and staff with the role of Congress in policy options and oversight of the GSEs. She provided regular analyses of options for legislation and oversight. Her work included in-person briefings, telephone briefings, lectures, seminars, reports, confidential and general distribution memoranda, and CRS reports for Congress. She testified before Congress on

many occasions. All of her work in the area of GSE-related oversight and legislation by Congress demonstrated an extremely detailed understanding of the complex, significant policy issues surrounding these institutions and their operations. Her insights and perspective were plain, and understandable; the clarity and rigor of her analyses won praise from members and commendations at CRS.

In 2000, Ms. Miles assumed the position of Section Head of the Banking, Securities, Insurance, and Macroeconomics Section within the CRS Government and Finance Division. For the next five years she supervised eight to ten economists, ranging from experienced veterans to newly-appointed staff hired from the private sector, other government agencies, and from distinguished graduate programs. She was generous with her time and offered constructive advice working with staff through multiple revisions to produce the most useful products for members and staff. She challenged veteran staff to think and write in new ways to better serve Congress.

She emphasized the need for economists to write clearly and to connect the micro economic foundations of financial markets to macro economic policy to best assist Congress in its duties of scrutiny, oversight, and legislation. Ms. Miles' own broad expertise and depth of experience in her section's wide-ranging policy responsibilities provided her with unique tools during her period as a section manager in CRS. She conducted knowledgeable oversight of section written materials and was regarded by her staff and management as a skilled reviewer whose insistence on the highest standards was matched by her ability as a mentor and educator. She constantly worked with her staff to improve the precision and clarity of their writing and to produce accurate, balanced and insightful analysis of the issues of the day in a timely manner. Ms. Miles led her section to new levels of intellectual excellence and dedicated service to Congress, while gaining the unquestioned respect and genuine affection of her staff.

Ms. Miles was an invaluable resource in many ways that did not always attract notice. Throughout the course of her career, other analysts frequently consulted with her for her subject matter and economic expertise. She tirelessly peer-reviewed papers. Ms. Miles managed a long-running CRS cooperative ``Capstone'' project, initiated with students and faculty of the University of Texas, that examined corporate governance policy issues and questions for Congress. She initiated and nurtured a popular ``Brown Bag Luncheon'' series of lecture-discussions on policy issues. She selected topics and used her wide contacts to arrange for speakers for a program that has covered a very broad range of issues, and continues to draw standing-room-only audiences. Ms. Miles was honored by her colleagues when they elected her president of the Congressional Research Employee Association.

CRS management recognized Ms. Miles for achieving and exceeding the organizational goals established for her section, leading her staff to new levels of excellence that could not have been attained without her steady and inspired guidance. Her mastery of technical skills, her understanding of and commitment to the mission and goals of the Congressional Research Service, coupled with her ability to communicate these to her staff, helped lead her section to significantly improved organizational performance.

After stepping down as section head in 2005, Ms. Miles continued to mentor new staff. In stepping down, she planned to spend more time analyzing and writing about government-sponsored enterprises, housing issues, and financial services. She also took on the role of division reviewer to ensure that all products met the highest CRS standards.

Ms. Miles won numerous awards and praise from members during her 32 years at CRS. In 1995, a Senator praised one of her products for ``explaining that the debate between the direct lending and the guaranteed loan program is fundamentally a debate over political philosophy and not a debate over economics. . . . It is important to keep in mind that these economists at the Congressional Research Service are not individuals who work for the Republican Party, nor are they individuals who have some hidden agenda, who have some connection to the banks or the guaranty agencies. They are simply economists who work for the Congressional Research Service and provide us with objective, nonpartisan analyses of the programs that Congress develops.'' In 1998, two Senators and a Representative praised her work on the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

She wrote numerous concise and complete reports for CRS. She also contributed to the Joint Economic Committee's Demographic Change and the Economy of the Nineties with ``Demography and Housing in the 1990s,'' which turned out to be a classic work on housing.

Ms. Miles also testified before Congressional committees numerous times on housing and mortgage issues. The members of the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on the Budget were the most frequent beneficiaries of her insights and wisdom.

In 1993, she received a CRS special achievement award for ``extraordinary contributions to debate over the student loan program including the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.'' In 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 she received incentive awards for sustained high performance. In 2001 and 2002 she received honorary superior service awards. Upon her retirement, Ms. Miles received a meritorious service award.

Ms. Miles was active in professional associations, conferences and meetings. She participated in conferences sponsored by the Chicago Federal Home Loan Bank, the Chicago Federal Reserve, the American Economics Association, the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, and Women in Housing and Finance. In her private life, Ms. Miles remains an avid bicycle rider who has raced competitively. One of her goals after retirement is to ride a ``century'' or 100 miles. She is also an active member of the Episcopal Church, in which she served with distinction on the Diocesan Council Episcopal of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.

For the 32 years of her career at CRS--and her six years of previous federal service--Ms. Miles won the respect, admiration, and thanks of her colleagues. Her steadfast dedication to service to Congress and the nation and her commitment to the highest standards of unbiased and timely response to Congressional requests for information have made a positive and lasting contribution.

On behalf of the members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Shelby and I express our deep appreciation to Ms. Miles for her many years of dedicated public service and wish her well as she goes on to other endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Reed. The bill is a reauthorization of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, a landmark legislation enacted nearly three years ago that significantly strengthened our commitment as a Nation to reduce the public and mental health tragedy of youth suicide. I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues who joined me in this effort, particularly Senator Smith. We all know the personal tragedy Senator Smith, his wife, Sharon, and their family suffered when their son and brother, Garrett, took his life over 3 years ago. Since that time, Senator Smith and Sharon have become tireless advocates in advancing the cause of youth suicide prevention, and their work should be commended.

Three years after this important legislation became law, suicide among our Nation's young people remains an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Each year, almost 3,000 young people take their lives, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures estimate that almost 3 million high school students, or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. Furthermore, over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide each year. Seventy percent of people who die by suicide tell someone about it in advance. Yet, tragically, few of these young people do not receive appropriate intervention services before it's too late.

When it was enacted into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act became the first legislation specifically designed to prevent youth suicide. The legislation established a new grant initiative for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It additionally authorized a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. It also established a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-aged students. Lastly, it created a new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I am pleased to say that to date, 29 States, 7 tribes, and 55 colleges and universities have benefitted from $63.4 million in resources to increase their services to youth, provided by the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act.

The bill we introduce today seeks to continue the good work started by the initial legislation. First, it authorizes $210 million over 5 years for continued development and expansion of statewide youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies. Second, it authorizes $31 million over 5 years to continue assisting college campuses meet the needs of their students. And third, it authorizes $25 million over 5 years to continue the vital research on suicide prevention for all age groups being conducted by the Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center.

I continue to believe that finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families, who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. Despite the goals we have achieved with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, I believe that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively both to understand better the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country-- compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Reed. The bill is a reauthorization of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, a landmark legislation enacted nearly three years ago that significantly strengthened our commitment as a Nation to reduce the public and mental health tragedy of youth suicide. I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues who joined me in this effort, particularly Senator Smith. We all know the personal tragedy Senator Smith, his wife, Sharon, and their family suffered when their son and brother, Garrett, took his life over 3 years ago. Since that time, Senator Smith and Sharon have become tireless advocates in advancing the cause of youth suicide prevention, and their work should be commended.

Three years after this important legislation became law, suicide among our Nation's young people remains an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Each year, almost 3,000 young people take their lives, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures estimate that almost 3 million high school students, or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. Furthermore, over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide each year. Seventy percent of people who die by suicide tell someone about it in advance. Yet, tragically, few of these young people do not receive appropriate intervention services before it's too late.

When it was enacted into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act became the first legislation specifically designed to prevent youth suicide. The legislation established a new grant initiative for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It additionally authorized a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. It also established a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-aged students. Lastly, it created a new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I am pleased to say that to date, 29 States, 7 tribes, and 55 colleges and universities have benefitted from $63.4 million in resources to increase their services to youth, provided by the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act.

The bill we introduce today seeks to continue the good work started by the initial legislation. First, it authorizes $210 million over 5 years for continued development and expansion of statewide youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies. Second, it authorizes $31 million over 5 years to continue assisting college campuses meet the needs of their students. And third, it authorizes $25 million over 5 years to continue the vital research on suicide prevention for all age groups being conducted by the Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center.

I continue to believe that finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families, who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. Despite the goals we have achieved with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, I believe that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively both to understand better the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country-- compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life.

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

Madam President, I wish to spend, if I can, just a few moments--I see my colleague from New Jersey is still on the floor, and he will be joining me at an appropriate time in offering an amendment dealing with parents of U.S. citizens. The Senator from New Jersey speaks eloquently about this issue on a very personal level. I am proud to be the author of an amendment with him and others to try to improve this legislation.

This amendment would unite parents with their families in the United States by increasing the cap on green cards issued to them, extending the duration of the newly created parent visa, and ensuring that penalties imposed on people overstaying this visa are not unfairly applied to others, as they would be in this legislation.

Under current law, parents of U.S. citizens are defined as immediate relatives, along with spouses and minor children, and are exempt from green card caps. Under the proposed legislation, S. 1348, parents would be removed from this category and subject to an annual cap of 40,000 green cards. This amendment increases the cap on green cards in this bill to 90,000. That is about the average annual number of green cards issued to parents of U.S. citizens.

Second, we are trying to extend the duration of the newly created parent visitor visa to 180 days. Under this bill, the amount of time a parent could stay here under a parent visitor visa is limited to 30 days per year. On the other hand, a tourist visa is valid for 180 days per year. The idea that your parent can only come here for 30 days is something that is offensive to a lot of Americans who believe in the value and importance of children and parents being together.

This amendment would also ensure that penalties imposed on overstays are not unfairly applied to others, as they would be in this legislation. If the number of overstays exceeds 7 percent, individuals from disproportionately high-risk countries could be barred from coming to the United States on this visa program or the entire program could be terminated.

I hardly think it necessary to make the case about the value of parents and children being united for a period of time and what it means, if you are parents yourselves, to be able to have grandparents spend some time with their grandchildren.

We take great pride in that. We extol the value of family. One would be hard pressed to hear a speech given by someone in public office today, regardless of the subject matter, that doesn't at some point or the other talk about how important it is to value families, to do everything we can to keep families together, the importance of inter- generational communication, grandparents and grandchildren, parents and children, the value of that to a nuclear family. Certainly, we all recognize we have serious issues of security that need to be dealt with at our borders, doing what we can to provide for the legal status of those who are seeking to come here through traditional means. It is a major step backwards for a country that prides itself on allowing for families to be together, understanding the importance of it, that we would be talking about legislation that cuts by more than half the average annual number of green cards needed for parents to visit their children, dealing with them in a separate category, and providing actually a longer visa for tourists than for parents.

No one knows who gets excluded when you go from no cap down to 40,000. Obviously, a lot of parents would be excluded in any given year. As evidenced over the years, once parents do come for a limited amount of time, that usually completes the family unit. They are not likely to sponsor other relatives. U.S. citizens with parents abroad should not be treated differently than those with parents here, to provide that opportunity in time for them to be together.

This amendment would increase the green card cap to 90,000 so we are meeting the average annual need and not creating an insurmountable backlog. It would make sure that sufficient numbers of green cards are available to parents who come to the United States. We extend the parent visa to 180 days and make it renewable and valid for 3 years. Those are already accepted time frames for the validity of visas. 180 days is the length of a tourist visa. H-1B visas are valid for 3 years.

This legislation limits parents to an annual stay of 30 days. It does not specify any long-term validity. This is far too short a time allotment, I think most would agree, particularly for parents who come for health reasons or to help their children during and after childbirth.

Lastly, this amendment would make penalties for parent visa overstays applicable only to them. Under the legislation before us, if the overstay rate among visa holders exceeds 7 percent for 2 years, all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred from this program or the program can be terminated. Sponsors of overstays are also barred from sponsoring other aliens on this visa. This amendment strikes that language that unfairly collectively punishes those who have not violated the law, allowing law-abiding parents to continue to unite with their children.

The amendment is comprehensive and touches on all three points of family reunification: parents with their children, grandparents with their grandchildren. Again, it hardly needs a lengthy explanation of the value. I regret deeply that my children don't have the benefit of their grandparents. They passed away too many years ago. How many times on a daily basis I think of what a value it would be to my children to know their grandparents, not to mention what it would have meant to my wife when she gave birth to be able to have her mother around during that period of time or the weeks thereafter to have her come and spend a couple of months. To be with the family as they are getting on their feet, I don't know of a single American who doesn't understand this basic concept.

At the appropriate time, I will offer this amendment. I am pleased my lead cosponsor on this amendment is my colleague and friend from New Jersey. I thank him for his support. He told me the story of his family. I think maybe more than anything else I heard over the last several weeks, thinking about what it would have meant for his family coming from Cuba and not being able to come here moved me to the point where I thought this was something we ought to offer on this legislation.

At the appropriate time I will offer the amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I regret that I could not join last night's debate on amendments to the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Had I been present, I would have supported the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Boxer, which was designed to eliminate the bill's guest worker provision. Though it was not adopted, I salute its principles and hope that they will find their way, once again, into our national debate on immigration.

The immigration bill was set to allow 400,000 foreign guest workers into America each year, eligible for two-year stays, alternating with a year in their home countries. In their eloquent remarks last evening, Senators Dorgan and Boxer rightly identified this provision's shortcomings.

First, as Senator Boxer observed, ``We are setting up a system of exploitation.'' I am concerned that the immigration bill offers insufficient protection to guest workers, leaving them open to victimization by low wages, long hours, and dangerous conditions. It threatens to import into America a permanent underclass, rootless in our communities and ignorant of our language, valued for nothing more than its muscle power. A labor system like that is suited to an empire, not to a republic of opportunity and not to the principles of immigration we have long honored in America.

No one denies that much of America's economy depends on immigrant labor. But if we want to do more than exploit that labor--if we want to sew it into our social contract, if we want to treat immigrants with justice and dignity--a path to citizenship is a necessity. That brings me to the guest worker provision's second shortcoming: It lacks such a path. If we are willing to offer the opportunity of citizenship even to those who entered our country illegally, it is inconsistent to deny it to those who come with our sanction.

Third and finally, the guest worker provision harms American workers. Threatened by outsourcing and globalization, their expenses for healthcare and education skyrocketing even as their incomes fail to keep pace, American workers now face 400,000 competitors, each year, in their own country, willing and able to do their jobs for lower wages. Last night, Senator Dorgan told us a moving story of

furniture-makers in Pennsylvania whose jobs were eliminated and shipped to China. As their plant shut down, each one of those craftsmen signed the bottom of the last piece of furniture their company would make in America. As we import wage pressures onto our own shores, we will be hearing hundreds of similar stories in the years to come. The guest worker provision threatens to eat away at our middle class.

It has the potential to harm guest workers and American workers alike. Who, then, does it benefit? I don't think I need to tell my colleagues the answer. But unless we reform our standards for guest workers, we will be putting the demand for cheap labor above the dignity of immigrants and Americans alike.

I voted to strip the guest worker provision from last year's immigration bill; and I supported stripping it this year. And while the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Boxer did not pass, I am heartened that we adopted Senator Bingaman's amendment to limit the program to 200,000 guest workers per year. And as we move forward in this debate, I hope that we will also have chance to strengthen protections for guest workers and reduce wage pressure on Americans.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in morning business, and each Senator be allowed to speak for no more than 10 minutes each.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 207 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007.

This bill seeks to drastically reduce child and maternal mortality rates abroad. It is a goal entirely within our reach, relying on tools that are already within our grasp. We have the power to save millions of innocent lives; and there is no better measure for the success of our foreign aid.

The legislation would perform three simple yet vital functions. First, it would require the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries.

Second, it would establish a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of the relevant departments and agencies of our Government in meeting by 2015 the U.N. Millennium Development Goals related to reducing mortality rates for mothers and for children under 5.

Third, it would authorize appropriations for programs that improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Specifically, it would increase funding for child survival programs from the current level of around $350 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2008, $900 million in fiscal year 2009, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2010, and up to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012.

I know that some of my colleagues will dispute the wisdom of such a large investment. None of them would deny this issue's importance; but some may question its priority. How can we answer them?

In a world of seemingly intractable problems, we have here an opportunity for quick and uncomplicated success. Each dollar we spend in this cause helps to save a vulnerable life.

And what is more, we have already given our word. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States made an explicit commitment, along with 188 other countries, to reducing child and maternal mortality. But at current funding levels, we are set to renege on that promise by a wide margin.

On September 14, 2005, President Bush stated that the United States is ``committed to the Millennium Development Goals.'' I commend the President for his words, but they have not been matched with action.

As we reach the goals' halfway mark, the world's progress is distressingly slow. The leading medical journal The Lancet reports that, of the 60 countries accounting for 90 percent of child

deaths, ``only 7 are on track to meet the goal for reducing child mortality, 39 are making some progress, and 14 are cause for serious concern.''

Now what does that mean in real, human terms? It means each year over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the developing world, that's approximately 30,000 each day. About 4 million of those children die in their first 4 weeks of life. In many cases, they aren't even provided with a fighting chance. Preventable or treatable diseases such as measles, tetanus, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria are the most common causes of death.

Similarly, more than 525,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, more than 1,400 each day. Some of the most common risk factors for maternal death include early pregnancy and childbirth, closely spaced births, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and complications during childbirth.

Nearly every one of those deaths is entirely preventable. And that fact makes a poor American commitment inexcusable.

That commitment will not require new medicine. It will not require sophisticated technology. The tools we need are already at hand. Even now, simple measures are saving lives in the developing world.

Studies in the Lancet tell us that, for just over $5 billion, the world could prevent two-thirds of under-5 child deaths with proven, low-cost, high-impact interventions. For 6 million lives, that is a bargain.

How cheap are these lifesaving measures? Oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea costs 6 cents per treatment. Antibiotics to treat respiratory infections cost a quarter per treatment. Encouraging breastfeeding, providing vitamin supplements and immunizations, and expanding basic clinical care are just as cost effective.

This bill incrementally scales up U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs up to $1.6 billion by 2011. That is a third of the money the world needs to save those 6 million children's lives, and it is proportionate to our efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. And it is less money than we spend in Iraq in just 1 week. Yes, 1 week.

To be clear, America is not new to this battle. We've had some significant successes: Between 1960 and 1990, U.S. investment in reducing child mortality in the developing world contributed to a 50 percent reduction in under-5 deaths. Over the past 20 years, we have devoted over $6 billion to child survival programs.

But as I have noted, at current funding levels in the U.S. and abroad, the world will not meet the Millennium Development Goals. Certainly, America cannot meet them alone. But with a strong effort, we can galvanize other nations to do their part and come forward with the funds we need to save lives.

So I am proud to offer the Global Child Survival Act of 2007, a bill with widespread, bipartisan, bicameral support. It has been endorsed by Save the Children, the US Fund for UNICEF, and the One Campaign; is being jointly introduced with my good friend Senator Gordon Smith from across the aisle; and was introduced last week in the House in a bipartisan manner by Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Chris Shays.

For me it's simple. As the world's only superpower and largest economy, the United States is in a unique position to tackle the toughest challenges of our times. Where we can make a concrete difference, we must not fail to act. Where we have the tools to alleviate death and suffering, we must deliver them.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Millions of lives are in the balance.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007.

This bill seeks to drastically reduce child and maternal mortality rates abroad. It is a goal entirely within our reach, relying on tools that are already within our grasp. We have the power to save millions of innocent lives; and there is no better measure for the success of our foreign aid.

The legislation would perform three simple yet vital functions. First, it would require the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries.

Second, it would establish a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of the relevant departments and agencies of our Government in meeting by 2015 the U.N. Millennium Development Goals related to reducing mortality rates for mothers and for children under 5.

Third, it would authorize appropriations for programs that improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Specifically, it would increase funding for child survival programs from the current level of around $350 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2008, $900 million in fiscal year 2009, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2010, and up to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012.

I know that some of my colleagues will dispute the wisdom of such a large investment. None of them would deny this issue's importance; but some may question its priority. How can we answer them?

In a world of seemingly intractable problems, we have here an opportunity for quick and uncomplicated success. Each dollar we spend in this cause helps to save a vulnerable life.

And what is more, we have already given our word. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States made an explicit commitment, along with 188 other countries, to reducing child and maternal mortality. But at current funding levels, we are set to renege on that promise by a wide margin.

On September 14, 2005, President Bush stated that the United States is ``committed to the Millennium Development Goals.'' I commend the President for his words, but they have not been matched with action.

As we reach the goals' halfway mark, the world's progress is distressingly slow. The leading medical journal The Lancet reports that, of the 60 countries accounting for 90 percent of child

deaths, ``only 7 are on track to meet the goal for reducing child mortality, 39 are making some progress, and 14 are cause for serious concern.''

Now what does that mean in real, human terms? It means each year over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the developing world, that's approximately 30,000 each day. About 4 million of those children die in their first 4 weeks of life. In many cases, they aren't even provided with a fighting chance. Preventable or treatable diseases such as measles, tetanus, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria are the most common causes of death.

Similarly, more than 525,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, more than 1,400 each day. Some of the most common risk factors for maternal death include early pregnancy and childbirth, closely spaced births, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and complications during childbirth.

Nearly every one of those deaths is entirely preventable. And that fact makes a poor American commitment inexcusable.

That commitment will not require new medicine. It will not require sophisticated technology. The tools we need are already at hand. Even now, simple measures are saving lives in the developing world.

Studies in the Lancet tell us that, for just over $5 billion, the world could prevent two-thirds of under-5 child deaths with proven, low-cost, high-impact interventions. For 6 million lives, that is a bargain.

How cheap are these lifesaving measures? Oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea costs 6 cents per treatment. Antibiotics to treat respiratory infections cost a quarter per treatment. Encouraging breastfeeding, providing vitamin supplements and immunizations, and expanding basic clinical care are just as cost effective.

This bill incrementally scales up U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs up to $1.6 billion by 2011. That is a third of the money the world needs to save those 6 million children's lives, and it is proportionate to our efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. And it is less money than we spend in Iraq in just 1 week. Yes, 1 week.

To be clear, America is not new to this battle. We've had some significant successes: Between 1960 and 1990, U.S. investment in reducing child mortality in the developing world contributed to a 50 percent reduction in under-5 deaths. Over the past 20 years, we have devoted over $6 billion to child survival programs.

But as I have noted, at current funding levels in the U.S. and abroad, the world will not meet the Millennium Development Goals. Certainly, America cannot meet them alone. But with a strong effort, we can galvanize other nations to do their part and come forward with the funds we need to save lives.

So I am proud to offer the Global Child Survival Act of 2007, a bill with widespread, bipartisan, bicameral support. It has been endorsed by Save the Children, the US Fund for UNICEF, and the One Campaign; is being jointly introduced with my good friend Senator Gordon Smith from across the aisle; and was introduced last week in the House in a bipartisan manner by Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Chris Shays.

For me it's simple. As the world's only superpower and largest economy, the United States is in a unique position to tackle the toughest challenges of our times. Where we can make a concrete difference, we must not fail to act. Where we have the tools to alleviate death and suffering, we must deliver them.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Millions of lives are in the balance.

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

Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk, which next week I will ask my colleagues to consider. I do so with some reluctance, but we have reached a point where the concerns revolving around the Attorney General's Office as well as the head of the World Bank have come to a point where I think this body ought to express itself, given the concerns that are mounting about these individuals' ability to perform their functions.

Washington, DC, has always been home to controversies. We know that. But the ones currently swirling around the Department of Justice and the World Bank are simply unacceptable and I think must come to an end. The President, in my view, must assume the responsibility here.

We are focused on calling for resignations, but the Commander in Chief, the President, is where the buck stops. He bears the responsibility to replace these individuals if they have reached a point where they no longer have the ability to run these institutions, instilling the kind of confidence and global support the American public would expect.

I do not say this with any sense of glee at all, but I think we have arrived at a moment where a change of leadership in these two offices is essential.

Let me begin with Mr. Gonzales, if I may, whose saga continues to unfold, with each revelation more disturbing than the last.

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He must be above politics, and put administration of justice above partisan gain. Clearly, that is not the case here. It is now abundantly clear the Attorney General has placed his friendship and allegiance to the President above the sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution. These are not allegations I have made alone; others have also made these points.

We heard Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the shocking testimony of the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States

about Mr. Gonzales' role while White House Counsel, attempting to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to authorize domestic surveillance despite the fact that the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, determined that would be illegal. He went to Attorney General Ashcroft's bedside when he was in critical condition to try to secure his signature to allow those practices to go forward. This is not healthy. It is hurting our country, hurting the morale of the Justice Department, and it is time for the President to step forward and appoint a new Attorney General.

Let me, if I quickly can, turn to the President of the World Bank, Mr. Wolfowitz. The World Bank, as we all know, plays a vital role in global efforts to reduce poverty, aid development, and promote good governance in all nations in which it operates. Mr. Wolfowitz in particular made fighting corruption his signature issue at the bank; yet we know of the allegations here. I don't need to go into detail about them. My colleagues know what they are; they have been widely reported. A World Bank ethics committee investigating this incident reported to the World Bank's Board of Directors:

Mr. Wolfowitz's contract requiring that he adhere to the

Code of Conduct for board officials and that he avoid any

conflict of interest, real or apparent, was violated.

That is their conclusion. In short, I believe Mr. Wolfowitz broke the World Bank's ethical and governance rules, and instead of combating corruption abroad, as he pledged to do, his actions brought it to the heart of the World Bank.

I point out that 40 members of the Bank's anti-corruption unit issued a statement saying this:

The credibility of our front-line staff is eroding in the

face of legitimate questions from our clients about the

bank's ability to practice what it preaches on governance.

These are not my words; again, these are the words of the World Bank staff. Their work is being compromised by the actions of their President.

Moreover, several of the World Bank's largest donors, including European nations who supply a major portion of the World Bank's operating revenue, have warned they might withhold these funds for the World Bank so long as Mr. Wolfowitz remains in office.

I don't take any pleasure in suggesting this. But when the Justice Department and the World Bank are under assault because of the actions of their two leaders, it is time for the American President, who has the authority to replace these individuals, to do so. I know there is reluctance on the part of my colleagues to involve themselves in some of these matters, but when institutions as important as the Justice Department and the World Bank are suffering from loss of credibility, I think it is incumbent on this body to express itself.

At an appropriate time next week I will ask for this resolution to be considered by this body. I know we have the important matter of immigration to consider, but this matter is also important.

Of course, should the President move forward and call for the resignations and replace these individuals, then this resolution would be moot. In the meantime, I intend to press forward with this idea. I urge my colleagues in both parties to support this resolution, regardless of their feelings about these individuals or their personal relationships with them--we bear a responsibility that goes beyond personalities here.

The Justice Department deserves better. The World Bank deserves better. I hope my colleagues will join in a bipartisan way to express the sense of the Senate that the President ought to replace these individuals and restore the confidence and the good feelings we all ought to have about both of these institutions.

Mr. President. I want to take a few brief moments to explain why I supported the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment this morning, and why I opposed the other two amendments offered before this body.

While I would have preferred a stand-alone vote on the Feingold-Reid- Dodd bill, as I think we owe the American people and our brave men and women in uniform unequivocal support for changing our mission in Iraq, I am nonetheless still pleased that we at least had a cloture vote on this amendment.

As my colleagues know, the language in this amendment was almost identical to the language in the stand-alone Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill, which I strongly endorsed. This amendment would have mandated that the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq begin within 120 days, and set a deadline of March 31, 2008 for the completion of that redeployment. It allowed for continued counter-terrorism operations, force protection, and training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Reid-Feingold represented the only responsible way to force the President to change his flawed policy in Iraq.

I deeply respect Senator Warner and the leadership that he has demonstrated for many decades in the Senate, but I could not in good conscience vote for his amendment. The Warner amendment would have done nothing to force a change in mission, it would not have held the Bush administration or the Iraqi Government accountable, and it would not have started the process of redeploying our forces from Iraq. Instead, it would have allowed the President to waive any restrictions, just as he has waived the advice from the Baker-Hamilton Commission, and just as he has ignored the will of the American and Iraqi people.

I had absolutely no objection to the resolved clauses of Senator Cochran's amendment, which stated that ``It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should send legislation to the President providing appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.'' In fact, Congress already sent President Bush a robust supplemental funding bill and the President chose to veto it. Moreover, the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment provided funding for these critical missions and was wholly ``in a manner that the President can sign it into law by not later than May 28, 2007.''

But, in Senator Cochran's amendment, this language was preceded by inaccurate statements. These statements claim that ``funds previously appropriated to continue military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are depleted.'' This is simply not true. The Congressional Budget Office estimates, and the Pentagon confirms, that there is enough funding to last through mid-summer.

It is my hope that in the coming days, the Senate will continue to seek meaningful ways to bring about a responsible and urgent change in the President's failed policy in Iraq. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am speaking today, as I have for the past 26 years, at the desk my father used during his 12 years as a Member of the Senate, from 1959 to 1971. I would like to think that this surface still bears some of the marks he might have made in an idle moment. As he did almost 50 years ago, I too have etched my name in this desk drawer.

Today I rise to speak of my father, for it was on this day, May 15, 1907, 100 years ago, that my father was born. I have two young daughters, Grace and Christina. They never knew their grandfather. For my girls, he is a painting that hangs in my office, photos in our home, or stories over dinner.

I try to explain, as parents and grandparents do, what their grandfather meant to me, who he was, what he did. I must say, it is hard to find the words. Some of my father's 12 grandchildren were lucky enough to know him. Even so, memory fades; but on this day, his 100th birthday, I wish to call up his memory as a gift to you, his grandchildren, and 17 great-grandchildren.

Like so many of his generation, born in the early years of the last century, my father, Thomas Dodd, had to overcome hardships--the death of his mother at an early age, the collapse of his father's business, the Depression years. Yet so much like his generation, hard jolts and trying experiences transformed and molded a man who would make a significant contribution to his country and our world.

As the Connecticut State director of the National Youth Administration in the early days of the New Deal at the height of the Great Depression, he helped young men and women find work--any work. As an FBI agent and then lawyer in the Justice Department, your grandfather and great-grandfather pursued notorious gangsters and prosecuted those who denied others their civil rights. He helped create the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and brought to justice those who committed fraud and espionage. All those experiences were valuable contributions to helping those in need and bringing to justice those who did harm.

But none of those experiences compared to what he called the most important work of his life: his role as executive counsel under Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. By his own admission, this was the most important work of his career. It also was his most important, most life-changing event.

For almost 18 months, from the summer of 1945 to the fall of 1946, he confronted those who were the authors of the worst evil of the 20th century, maybe ever. As one of the leading prosecutors in the most important trial of the 20th century, your grandfather and great- grandfather demonstrated the supremacy of the rule of law over vengeance. Or, as Justice Robert Jackson said at the opening of those trials:

That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung

with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily

submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law is one of

the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to

reason.

From the Nuremberg years, your grandfather and great-grandfather emerged as one of the sharpest defenders of human rights in his day and an outspoken crusader against tyranny in all its forms. To those who suffered under the domination of the Soviet Union, there was no more valiant voice. To this day, he is remembered warmly by those who suffered under dictatorial regimes.

During his 16 years in Congress, first in the House of Representatives and 12 years in the Senate at this very desk, Thomas Dodd worked hard to make a difference in the lives of people everywhere who needed a champion.

Your grandfather's and great-grandfather's career did not end as he wanted it. He did not leave this desk as he would have liked. In 1970, he ran for another term and lost. ``Those who fight the times,'' it was said of him, ``do not always have an easy end.''

He returned to his home in Connecticut, and shortly after he died, 30 years before you were born, Grace and Christina. At the end of his life, his obituary was headlined ``A Lonely Fighter.'' It struck me as such an odd word for my father, who was such a wonderful storyteller, surrounded cradle to grave by a great big Irish Catholic family. I don't recall my father being alone a day of his life. And yet in his public life he had the politician's rarest virtue: he wasn't afraid to be alone.

However important and interesting your grandfather and great grandfather's life was, it is a terrible injustice to merely recite the chronology of his experiences. Even more important than what he did was the kind of person he was. Thomas Dodd was principled and courageous, fearless in the face of injustice, and outspoken in his defense of those in need. He was ahead of his time in so many ways--as an advocate for national health care, a proponent of sensible gun safety laws, an early voice warning of the effect of violence on television and the dangers of drug addiction, and a defender of those whose human rights were being denied.

Your grandfather and great-grandfather loved your grandmother and great-grandmother so much. He loved his children very much, as well. But the deep love for my mother was special to behold.

He was loyal to his hometown of Norwich, CT, and he cared deeply about the people of our home State. Thomas Dodd was a person of deep faith and a lifelong friend to many. He was proud of his family, and how proud he would be of his grandchildren and what they have accomplished and of the contribution you and his great grandchildren will make to your world.

Sixty-one years ago next month my father wrote the following words to my mother about his experience at Nuremberg. He was proud of what he had done at Nuremberg. While the words were addressed to his children, they also speak to his grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I feel badly about you being alone with the children, but

I'm doing the right thing and I feel sure we will not regret

it. I will never do anything as worthwhile. Some day the boys

will point to it, I hope, and be proud and inspired by it.

Only a few weeks before his death, in May of 1971, my father did an interview with a local Connecticut reporter. I was sitting in the room that day when the reporter asked if my father had known at the outset of his public life, when it began in 1932, how it would end, would he do it over again? I shall never forget his unhesitating answer:

I would do it again in a minute, for there is no other

calling where you can do as much for as many people as you

can in a public life.

My father's answer has been the source of inspiration for me over these past 32 years in public service. So on this, your 100th birthday, from all of us--your six children, your son and daughters-in-law, your 12 grandchildren and 17 great grandchildren--we say thank you, we love you, and happy birthday.

Right.

I thank the Senator very much.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend my colleague from Nebraska. He and I have worked on a number of issues over the years. In fact, in my remarks--and I had no knowledge when I prepared these remarks that I would be following my colleague from Nebraska--I quote some of the statements he has made about the situation in Iraq.

I commend him for his candor and his directness. He brings a lot of experience and knowledge to these issues, and is as deeply committed as anyone here to the well-being of our men and women in uniform, regardless of where they serve. He has clearly pointed out what is necessary here, not only the resolution of our military presence in Iraq but, just as importantly, what comes afterward: How do we then move beyond the military question to the political, diplomatic, and economic issues that offer some hope to the Iraqi people and ourselves for reemerging in peace and stability in that part of the world. I commend him for his comments.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment, which will come up at some point on this water bill under arrangements that the leader has provided, along with others. I would have preferred a freestanding proposal by my colleague from Wisconsin, whom I am pleased to join today, but under the circumstances, I recognize this may be the best opportunity we will have to actually debate his amendment, and I urge my colleagues to be supportive of his proposal. I realize it is a proposal that has some critics, but I believe it is the most honest, straightforward answer to the present situation in Iraq, one that is deteriorating by the hour, I would point out.

We need to reverse 4 years of a failed policy by safely redeploying our troops out of harm's way, out of the middle of Iraq's civil war. Despite our best wishes, and our military's best efforts, we are unable to solve Iraq's problems and their civil war. That has become clear. We cannot do that with military force. That was the conclusion of our military leaders 4 years ago, and they have never wavered in that conclusion. There is not a military solution to Iraq's civil war.

After invading over 4 years ago, we still lack a coherent strategy, and our

military presence has not improved the security situation in Iraq. The valor, the determination, the courage of our service men and women has been remarkable, and all of us in this Chamber, I believe, share that view. Yet the situation in Iraq grows worse, literally by the hour. This is simply unacceptable.

The President of our country contends now, as he contended for the last 4 years, and I quote him:

Absolutely we're winning. Things are getting better. We do

have a strategy, but it just needs more time.

Those statements are false, unfortunately. We have no strategy in Iraq, in my view, just a surge tactic in search of a strategy. We had a surge in late 2005, and the result was the worst year of violence in Iraq since the war began. We also had two additional surges in Operation Together Forward I and II, and both of those surges failed as well.

My colleague, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, recently argued, and I quote him here:

The President's strategy is taking America deeper and

deeper into quagmire, with no exit strategy. The strategy to

deepen America's military involvement in Iraq will not bring

about a resolution in Iraq.

I wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion. As the Baker-Hamilton report rightly concluded, there will be no military victory in Iraq. Iraq's civil war cannot be solved with military force alone. Only Iraqis can solve the quagmire now facing their country. Only Iraqis can chose to reconcile, to reach power-sharing agreements, to govern and police collectively, and to share the country's oil wealth.

But despite our best hopes that is not happening, and our military is unable to make that happen. This is why the surge tactic is fundamentally flawed. We cannot implement a military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict in that country.

I believe we have a moral obligation to protect Iraqis and to help them reach these compromises, but we are not succeeding in doing that. In fact, for 4 years now we have not succeeded in doing that as well. An objective look at key indicators since our invasion will demonstrate that the situation has steadily deteriorated each year under the Bush administration. Whether you examine the number of civilian deaths, the number of internally displaced refugees, the number of Iraqis who fled their country, now in excess of 2 million, or in the amount of power and water flowing into Iraqi homes, all of these indicators demonstrate the overall situation in Iraq has not improved. In fact, it has deteriorated during the last 4 years. That is why I believe we must begin redeploying our forces out of Iraq within the next 120 days and complete the redeployment within the next year.

That is why I also believe that simultaneous to redeployment, and after the redeployment has been completed, we must conduct targeted counterterrorism activities to protect the Iraqi population from terrorists, to expunge al-Qaida from Iraq, and help ensure Iraq does not become a terrorist safe haven. I note that while I agree with Senator Levin that military readiness is currently lacking, I am concerned by the waiver provisions included in the amendment of my colleague from Michigan. It is true that due to the administration's defense policies many U.S. combat forces are not mission ready, are not adequately trained, and have not been given appropriate resting periods between deployments.

I recently visited some soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital who had been injured in Iraq. I asked them how much cooperation they were getting from the Iraqi people and what their observations were.

Without quoting them directly, let me paraphrase their comments. They said while the Iraqi people seem to be pleasant people and many seem to be interested in doing what they could to be helpful, in too many instances they pointed out that the civilian population knew where these IEDs were, these roadside devices. They knew where the ``ammo dumps,'' or the ammunition stockpiles were. Yet they never ever shared this information with our military in the communities where we were trying to provide security.

One soldier pointed out that we would spend a month and a half cleaning out an area with problems, and an hour and a half after they had left, things were right back where they were a month and a half before. Those are their words, not mine.

We know hear that these missions, despite the Herculean efforts of our military, are not getting this job done because of the raging civil war in that country. But providing a waiver to the President under the Levin amendment is tantamount, in my view, to re-authorizing the war. It doesn't hold the administration or the Iraqi Government accountable. It doesn't force a change in mission, and it doesn't begin to redeploy our forces. Instead it allows the administration to stay the course, full speed ahead, to use the words of Vice President Richard Cheney. The Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment provides the best means, in my view, for changing our mission in Iraq.

As much as I wish we were able to secure Iraq ourselves, that the surge would work, or that our military presence in Iraq would bring about the compromises necessary, I think the evidence is clear it is not happening, and it will not happen. The American people know this, our troops who have served and sacrificed in Iraq know it, and I believe the Iraqi people know it as well. Only when Iraqis themselves decide they will no longer tolerate violence and destruction, only when their leaders come together will this violence be reduced. That is what needs to happen across that plagued country. The United States should help where it can, by training and equipping reliable and accountable Iraqi security forces that will serve the greater Iraqi nation, not their own tribe or their own sect.

According to a recent CBS poll, 70 percent of Shiites and nearly all of the Sunnis think the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making security worse. The vast majority of Iraqis, regardless of their sect, believe American troop presence in Iraq is making Iraq less safe.

Madam President, 78 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, and 51 percent of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. Slightly more than half of the population we are trying to protect approve of the attacks on U.S. soldiers. That is just not acceptable.

But it is not just the Iraqi public who want American forces out of their nation. The Iraqi Government does as well. A majority of the Iraqi Parliament recently signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American forces, and in a recent high-level meeting, Iraq and its neighbors signed what they called the Marmara Declaration, reaffirming this sentiment. They declared in this declaration that ``a timetable should be established for the Government of Iraq to take full authority and responsibility, including for security throughout the country.''

The declaration went on to say:

The United States should commit to a comprehensive strategy

for responsible withdrawal, consistent with Iraq's security

and stability based on milestones and a general time horizon.

It also says:

Iraq's Armed Forces need to be nationally representative,

Iraq's police should be credible to its citizens, and

representative to the communities they serve.

The Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment does just that. It does what the Iraqi people and the American people want, and it does it in a responsible way. This legislation mandates that the redeployment of U.S. forces should begin, as I mentioned, within a 120-day period and be completed within a year. Simultaneous to this redeployment, the legislation calls for continued counterterrorism operations, and the training and equipping of reliable and accountable Iraqi security forces to take over the responsibility of safeguarding the Iraqi population.

It is up to us to change the President's failed course in Iraq and to hold our President and the Iraqi Government accountable. It is up to us to mandate a change in direction, to begin to responsibly bring our troops home, to continue to help the Iraqis battle terrorists, and to train and equip reliable Iraqi security forces ,so Iraqis can police their own country and decide their own future.

We cannot afford another day of escalation, $2 billion a week, $8 billion a month, lives lost, lives completely ruined in many cases. But also what is happening in Iraq itself, with the dislocation of the Iraqi people, the 60,000

who have lost their lives--the situation is not improving. A true change in direction is needed. The price our Nation is paying, the price our men and women in uniform are paying, is too high for a failed policy, a policy that has not succeeded because it cannot succeed.

I urge my colleagues at an appropriate time when Senator Feingold will offer his amendment to support this amendment. None of us can guarantee it is going to produce the desired result of convincing the Iraqi people what they should have been doing all along, instead of proposing a 2-month vacation, but rather sitting down and trying to come up with the political reconciliation for their country.

Our hope is by beginning a clear redeployment and setting a termination date--this must or this may convince the Iraqi people and their leaders that they should come to terms with their own political future. For those reasons I urge the adoption of the Feingold amendment.

I urge, as well, consideration of what Senator Hagel has suggested: talking about moving beyond the military issue, to utilize the tools available to us, the political, economic, diplomatic tools that are the means by which we should try to achieve reconciliation. But a continuation of our military presence under its present structure is not working. It should come to an end. This is the best effort to achieve that goal.

Again, I urge the adoption of the Feingold amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to support passage of the committee substitute to S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act, FDARA. This legislation contains tremendous advances for children and their families through the reauthorization of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, which I authored, as well as the reauthorization of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA, which was introduced by my colleague, Senator Clinton.

I congratulate Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi for their efforts in putting this complex bill together and thank them both for working with me to ensure these vital programs for children can thrive well into the future.

We have had good debate on this legislation. I want to thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard, for the floor debate we had on BPCA. I want to assure him and those that voted for his amendment that this bill is about increasing pediatric clinical trials and improving our knowledge about products being used in children where previously we have had no information. BPCA is and has always been about striking an appropriate balance between the cost to consumers and benefits to children.

Ten years ago when Senator Mike DeWine and I undertook this effort, only 11 drugs on the market that were being used in children had actually been tested and studied for their use. Prior to the enactment of BPCA 10 years ago, pediatricians were essentially flying blind because they lacked information regarding the safety and effectiveness of drugs they were prescribing for children. But it was children who suffered the most from taking drugs where so little was known about their effects.

What we have learned over the past 10 years of experience is that children have been exposed to ineffective drugs, ineffective dosing, overdosing, or side effects from drugs that were previously unknown. In 10 years, nearly 800 studies involving more than 45,000 children in clinical trials have been completed. Useful new pediatric information is now part of product labeling for more than 119 drugs. In sum, there has been a twentyfold increase in the number of drugs studied in infants, children, and adolescents as a result of BPCA since its enactment.

Children with a wide range of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, allergies, asthma, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and obesity can now lead healthier, more productive lives as a result of new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs they use to treat and manage their diseases where previously there was none.

This successful program for children will expire on September 30 unless we act to reauthorize it.

The reauthorization of BPCA contained within S. 1082, makes several important improvements to this program which I have spent many months developing. It is my belief that these improvements will help ensure that this program continues to thrive well into the future. I strongly support the 5-year authorization of this program so that we can closely monitor how the program is working and make improvements as they are needed in the future.

S. 1082 will increase the amount and quality of pediatric information by streamlining BPCA and PREA at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and ensuring that labeling changes as a result of BPCA are communicated to physicians. S. 1082 will improve transparency and accountability by making market exclusivity determinations and written requests for pediatric studies public within 30 days of exclusivity being awarded. It also will improve the accuracy and speed of labeling changes

by requiring such changes to be made within the FDA's timeline and ensuring that labeling reflects the results of the BPCA study that was conducted.

S. 1082 will ensure that BPCA continues to yield more and better drug studies in children, while addressing the minority of cases where the incentive of 6 months additional market exclusivity has far exceeded the ``carrot'' it was intended to provide to drug sponsors. It improves market certainty by not allowing pediatric exclusivity to be granted within nine months of the end of the drug's patent and increases data about the use and applicability of BPCA through reports conducted by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, and the Government Accountability Office to review the program and assess the impact of the changes made within the legislation.

BPCA has shown us that it is unsafe to simply treat children as smaller versions of adults. Children face a similar inequity with respect to medical devices. Far too few medical devices are specifically designed for children's small and growing bodies. Experts say that the development of children's medical devices lags 5 to 10 years behind that of adults. That is largely due to the limited size of the market for pediatric devices.

When a medical device suitable for a child is needed to save that child's life but it does not exist, doctors are often forced to ``jury- rig'' adult versions of the device or, in some cases, perform a riskier surgery on the child. Ventilator masks, for instance, are far too large to fit over a baby's mouth. Often, the only alternative is to run an invasive tube down the baby's throat.

Because of what we witnessed over the past ten years with the market incentives provided under BPCA, I introduced an initiative called the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act to create similar incentives for device manufacturers. This legislation also streamlines the approval process for cutting-edge technology and establishes grants for matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and the Federal Government.

Balancing incentives with safety, the legislation closely mirrors recommendations made by the IOM in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety to improve the serious flaws in the current postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. Specifically, the IOM called for and the legislation allows the FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance or approval for certain categories of devices and it gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than 3 years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development.

Some in the medical device industry continue to offer proposals to chip away at the authorities in the legislation intended to ensure the FDA can request manufacturers to conduct postmarket safety surveillances and ensure devices used in children are safe. I am disheartened by anyone who would attempt to deprive children and physicians of information that pertains to device safety and I will strongly oppose attempts to weaken the postmarket safety standards contained within the legislation as the bill heads to conference.

The faster we can get new, safe pediatric devices to market, the fewer parents have to stake their children's lives on improvisation and guesswork.

I have previously mentioned the broad-ranging support for these important initiatives for children but it is worth restating that the level of support from pediatricians, patient advocacy organizations, drug and device companies, and many others indicates that this important legislation will greatly benefit children and their families.

I want to thank the tremendous work of the staff on this bill. They have devoted countless hours and many weekends to working on this legislation. Specifically, I want to thank David Bowen and David Dorsey with Senator Kennedy and Shana Christrup, Keith Flanagan and Amy Muhlberg with Senator Enzi who worked so closely with my office on the pediatrics initiatives in title IV of this legislation. I also want to thank Kate Leone with Senator Harry Reid whose terrific leadership helped guide this legislation to passage.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation whose staff, Mark Del Monte, Jeanne Ireland and Elaine Vining, have provided tremendous technical assistance on the pediatrics initiatives in S. 1082.

Before I close I want to address the other provision in this legislation which reauthorizes vital user fee programs at the FDA for drugs and devices and addresses the important issue of drug safety at the FDA, an agency that regulates 25 percent of the products consumed by Americans. In recent years, we have witnessed a public crisis of confidence in the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs taken by millions of Americans are safe and effective once they are on the market. My colleagues and I on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee heard testimony about the internal crisis within the scientific community at the FDA about inappropriate influences on decisionmaking.

I was deeply troubled by the recent Union of Concerned Scientists study showing that of nearly 1,000 FDA scientists questioned, 420 reported that they knew of cases in which the Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions. The same study also found that 378 FDA scientists disagreed or strongly disagreed that the FDA is acting effectively to protect public health. With Vioxx, antidepressants in children, and now Ketek, the FDA has repeatedly been accused of suppressing internal safety concerns and ignoring repeated warnings of safety concerns from the FDA's own scientists.

We need to restore the public trust in this vital agency, rid it of undue influences that benefit a political, rather than a public health, agenda, and, above all, we need to adequately fund the FDA through the appropriations process so that the agency is less reliant on user fees collected from private industry. Congress must act swiftly to give the FDA more resources. That, I believe, is how we maintain the FDA as the world's gold standard in drug and device safety.

Senator Grassley and I authored one of the first drug safety and clinical trials bills in the Senate in the wake of the Vioxx scandal that would have given FDA's office of postmarket drug surveillance the independence, stature and funding to take action when a safety problem arises. We reintroduced the bill this congress with several colleagues on the HELP Committee including Senators Mikulski and Bingaman and I thank them for their support. While I do not agree with some of my colleagues who have argued that this authority would create a bigger bureaucracy at the FDA, our experience showed us that the support to move such a proposal simply wasn't there.

However, I believe that my colleagues and I were able to make significant improvements to S. 1082 with respect to drug safety. I believe those improvements will strengthen science at the FDA, improve transparency of decisionmaking so that dissenting views can be heard, and improve safety of drugs once they are on the market.

The drug safety and clinical trials components of S. 1082 are by no means perfect. In fact, I have serious concerns about what I view as inadequate enforcement authority in the bill and am particularly concerned about whether the bill will prevent companies from withholding information about clinical trials which were negative or were trials that companies abandoned because initial results were negative. As demonstrated by Ketek, I am also concerned about whether this bill does enough to capture clinical trials conducted overseas. I hope we can improve on these provisions when this bill goes to conference with the House.

Today the Senate voted on an important issue dealing with conflicts of interest on FDA advisory committees. As demonstrated by the FDA advisory committee considering Vioxx, it is clear that the FDA's policy with respect to financial conflicts of interest wasn't working. The FDA has made modifications to its policy and the underlying legislation makes several additional improvements. I believe the

amendment offered by Senators Durbin and Bingaman would have made great improvements to the recruitment of qualified advisory committee members. The amendment would have required the FDA to conduct aggressive outreach to professional medical and scientific societies to help with recruitment for advisory committees, especially ones with the greatest number of vacancies. Those are important policy goals and ones that I fully support.

However, I voted against the amendment because I was concerned about the impact a hard and fast limit of one waiver per committee meeting would have on timely access to drugs and new drug information. Specifically, the Pediatric Advisory Committee, a standing FDA advisory committee which relies on experts with specific expertise in pediatric issues, is an important component of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act program. I was concerned that setting an arbitrary limit on the number of waivers per committee meeting would further complicate an already small pool of qualified individuals in fields such as pediatrics.

I am disappointed that an agreement on the amendment was not reached between the bill managers and sponsors of the amendment so that the Senate bill could contain the important provisions dealing with recruitment and outreach. It is my hope that we can find a way to address these issues in the conference with the House.

Taken as a whole, the underlying legislation is vital to our nation's children as well as consumers needing timely access to safe and effective drugs. Therefore, it is essential that the House act quickly so that we can send a conference report to the President in the coming months. I urge the House to pass all of the major provisions contained in S. 1082. I support this legislation and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers so that we can send this legislation to the President for his signature.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore the rights of veterans and their families to receive an official grave marker from the Department of Veterans' Affairs in acknowledgement of their service to this Nation. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kerry, Voinovich, Conrad, Byrd, and Brown as original cosponsors. This legislation addresses a serious, and easily remedied, inequity that exists for veterans who passed away during the period between November 1, 1990, and September 11, 2001.

There is an inscription in Colleville-sur-Mer, France, at Omaha Beach, commemorating those Americans who perished in the World War II battle there, that reads:

This embattled shore, this portal of freedom, is forever

hallowed by the ideas, the valor and sacrifice of our fellow

countrymen.

Their graves are the permanent and visible symbols of their

heroic devotion and their sacrifice in the common cause of

humanity.

These endured all and gave all that justice among nations

might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and

inherit peace.

Monuments like this, or like the many spectacular memorials right here in Washington, DC, serve as a reminder of the service, dedication, and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. They are a tribute not to the suffering and darkness of war, but to the tremendous courage of those who served so that, as the inscription says, ``mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace.'' And in a small way, the markers placed at veterans' gravesites serve as a similar reminder for the friends and family members who visit a loved one's grave.

Until 1990, the family of a deceased American veteran could receive reimbursement for a VA headstone, a VA marker, or a private headstone. However, I regret to say, in the name of cutting costs, measures were taken to prevent the VA from providing markers to those families that had purchased gravestones out of their own pockets.

In my view, this constitutes a serious injustice; one that we must correct. It is shocking to me that veterans who passed during those 11 years are denied an official grave marker, and yet that is the effect of current law.

We owe it to these brave men and women to honor their service to this country. We have seen too many instances in which our veterans have not been accorded the respect they deserve. The accounts that have surfaced about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the consistent underfunding of the Veterans Health Administration shine an unpleasant spotlight on the ways in which we have fallen far short of our obligations to our Nation's veterans. And now, how can we deny veterans the simple honor of recognizing their service with a graveside marker?

This body first endorsed a provision restoring the right of every veteran to receive a grave marker as early as June 7, 2000, as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization bill. This body approved this language again on December 8, 2001. But it was not until December 6, 2002, that legislation was

signed into law as part of the Veterans Improvement Act, allowing VA markers to be provided to deceased veterans retroactively. Unfortunately, however, when the bill went to a conference with the House of Representatives, this benefit was inexplicably applied retroactively only to September 11, 2001, rather than to November 1, 1990, the date at which the new VA regulation came into effect.

In my view, to arbitrarily deny veterans who passed away during that 11-year period is unconscionable. Their service to our Nation was no less dedicated than the service of those who passed away before and after that period. It is an insult to their memories and to the families and friends who loved them.

This legislation is quite simple. It merely allows all veterans who have passed away since 1990 to be provided with official VA grave markers and it repeals the expiration of the VA's authority to provide these grave markers. The VA is supportive of this legislation, which I believe will ensure that all of our Nation's veterans are accorded the respect they are due for their sacrifices. In a report submitted to Congress on February 10, 2006, the VA endorsed both provisions of this legislation, recommending that the grave marker authority be made permanent and retroactive to 1990.

Moreover, this bill is inexpensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of this bill to be just $1 million over 5 years and $2 million over 10 years. Who can argue that this is too high a price to pay to honor our fallen heroes?

We are approaching the 9th anniversary of the passing of Mr. Agostino Guzzo, a Connecticut resident who bravely served in the U.S. Armed Forces in the Philippines during World War II. His family interred his body in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, CT. The family was not aware of the VA's restrictions on grave markers at the time, and was told by the VA that there was no way to receive official recognition.

Agostino's son, Mr. Thomas Guzzo, brought the matter to my attention, and we were able to pass legislation granting Agostino the memorial he deserves. But too many families are still denied such markers. This legislation honors the memory of Agostino Guzzo and all of the veterans who have served their country in war and in peace. Thomas Guzzo's commitment to this issue has not ended. The commitment of this Congress should continue, as well.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore the rights of veterans and their families to receive an official grave marker from the Department of Veterans' Affairs in acknowledgement of their service to this Nation. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kerry, Voinovich, Conrad, Byrd, and Brown as original cosponsors. This legislation addresses a serious, and easily remedied, inequity that exists for veterans who passed away during the period between November 1, 1990, and September 11, 2001.

There is an inscription in Colleville-sur-Mer, France, at Omaha Beach, commemorating those Americans who perished in the World War II battle there, that reads:

This embattled shore, this portal of freedom, is forever

hallowed by the ideas, the valor and sacrifice of our fellow

countrymen.

Their graves are the permanent and visible symbols of their

heroic devotion and their sacrifice in the common cause of

humanity.

These endured all and gave all that justice among nations

might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and

inherit peace.

Monuments like this, or like the many spectacular memorials right here in Washington, DC, serve as a reminder of the service, dedication, and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. They are a tribute not to the suffering and darkness of war, but to the tremendous courage of those who served so that, as the inscription says, ``mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace.'' And in a small way, the markers placed at veterans' gravesites serve as a similar reminder for the friends and family members who visit a loved one's grave.

Until 1990, the family of a deceased American veteran could receive reimbursement for a VA headstone, a VA marker, or a private headstone. However, I regret to say, in the name of cutting costs, measures were taken to prevent the VA from providing markers to those families that had purchased gravestones out of their own pockets.

In my view, this constitutes a serious injustice; one that we must correct. It is shocking to me that veterans who passed during those 11 years are denied an official grave marker, and yet that is the effect of current law.

We owe it to these brave men and women to honor their service to this country. We have seen too many instances in which our veterans have not been accorded the respect they deserve. The accounts that have surfaced about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the consistent underfunding of the Veterans Health Administration shine an unpleasant spotlight on the ways in which we have fallen far short of our obligations to our Nation's veterans. And now, how can we deny veterans the simple honor of recognizing their service with a graveside marker?

This body first endorsed a provision restoring the right of every veteran to receive a grave marker as early as June 7, 2000, as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization bill. This body approved this language again on December 8, 2001. But it was not until December 6, 2002, that legislation was

signed into law as part of the Veterans Improvement Act, allowing VA markers to be provided to deceased veterans retroactively. Unfortunately, however, when the bill went to a conference with the House of Representatives, this benefit was inexplicably applied retroactively only to September 11, 2001, rather than to November 1, 1990, the date at which the new VA regulation came into effect.

In my view, to arbitrarily deny veterans who passed away during that 11-year period is unconscionable. Their service to our Nation was no less dedicated than the service of those who passed away before and after that period. It is an insult to their memories and to the families and friends who loved them.

This legislation is quite simple. It merely allows all veterans who have passed away since 1990 to be provided with official VA grave markers and it repeals the expiration of the VA's authority to provide these grave markers. The VA is supportive of this legislation, which I believe will ensure that all of our Nation's veterans are accorded the respect they are due for their sacrifices. In a report submitted to Congress on February 10, 2006, the VA endorsed both provisions of this legislation, recommending that the grave marker authority be made permanent and retroactive to 1990.

Moreover, this bill is inexpensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of this bill to be just $1 million over 5 years and $2 million over 10 years. Who can argue that this is too high a price to pay to honor our fallen heroes?

We are approaching the 9th anniversary of the passing of Mr. Agostino Guzzo, a Connecticut resident who bravely served in the U.S. Armed Forces in the Philippines during World War II. His family interred his body in a mausoleum at the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, CT. The family was not aware of the VA's restrictions on grave markers at the time, and was told by the VA that there was no way to receive official recognition.

Agostino's son, Mr. Thomas Guzzo, brought the matter to my attention, and we were able to pass legislation granting Agostino the memorial he deserves. But too many families are still denied such markers. This legislation honors the memory of Agostino Guzzo and all of the veterans who have served their country in war and in peace. Thomas Guzzo's commitment to this issue has not ended. The commitment of this Congress should continue, as well.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, let me first begin by thanking Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for including the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act in the bill before us. I congratulate them, particularly Senator Kennedy for his efforts of putting all this together, this major legislation which is going to be so important for the health and well- being of all our citizenry. I am very grateful to him, and to Senator Enzi as well, for leading the minority on this issue and making it possible for us to be here today to discuss these issues.

My friend from Colorado and I worked together on this issue. I appreciate the comments about the effort we made over the past decade or more to try to do what this bill was designed to do and has done, and that is to increase the clinical trials and testing of products used in our younger Americans--children.

In too many cases, prescription drugs were being tested for adults, and there was an assumption that a smaller dosage of that product would be all that was necessary to take care of children. Obviously, that was not the case, as we heard in significant testimony over the years.

Countless hours have gone into the work on this legislation. The Presiding Officer has been a tremendous help. I thank him for his efforts, along with others on this committee helping us put this together.

It must be an Ohio tradition. As he has heard me say on occasion, Senator Brown has been tremendously supportive, working on this issue. He was active on the issue when he served in the other body, and he brought his talents and knowledge to the issue when he arrived here recently. His predecessor, Senator DeWine, was my cosponsor on this bill for a decade, on a bipartisan basis putting the legislation together that has produced the results which have been identified by Senator Allard and Senator Enzi already this morning.

We find ourselves here having worked very carefully together on a bipartisan basis for more than a decade to craft legislation. None of us are claiming perfection here. The idea was to try to induce the industry to step forward and do something they had not done before--to test their products in children. We were not certain when we started out how this would actually work. Ten years ago, we saw a situation where the majority of drugs being used in children were not being tested for their use.

Children are not simply little adults. The results of drug studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act have shown they should not be treated as such. The initiative contained in the bill before us on pediatric medical devices is a similar effort to ensure children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance.

Senator DeWine, as I mentioned, and I authored this bill more than a decade ago, at a time when only 11 drugs on the market that were being used for children had actually been tested and studied for that use. Prior to the enactment of this legislation a decade ago, pediatricians were essentially flying blind because they lacked information regarding the safety and effectiveness of drugs they were prescribing. It was often the children who suffered the most.

What we have learned over this past decade after 10 years of experience is that children have been exposed to ineffective drugs, ineffective dosing, overdosing, or drug side effects that were previously unknown. In 10 years, nearly 800 studies involving more than 45,000 children in clinical trials have been completed as a result of this legislation. Useful new pediatric information is now part of product labeling for more than 119 drugs.

In sum, there has been a 20-fold increase in drugs studied in infants, children, and adolescents as a result of the legislation I authored 10 years ago. Children with a wide range of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, allergies, asthma, neurological and psychological disorders, and obesity can now lead healthier and more productive lives as a result of new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs they use to treat and manage their diseases when previously there was none. This successful program for children will expire on the 30th of September unless we reauthorize it.

I have spent months crafting a proposal to reauthorize this legislation, which is now reflected in the underlying bill. It had been my hope that this initiative would continue in that bipartisan tradition that began more than a decade ago. Fashioning legislation when there are 100 of us here, trying to come up with ideas, and yet balance disparate views and opinions. There are some, frankly, who would have no periods of exclusivity and believe the industry ought to be doing this as a matter of obligation to one out of four Americans. You have heard from others who think we ought to provide extended periods of exclusivity, longer than 6 months. It is not easy to fashion these compromises here, where you can put something together that does what we want to do, all the while ensuring that the program can continue to generate more benefits than were originally contemplated. There has to be some limitation in terms of how we deal with all this.

I thank Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Clinton, and Brown, who all cosponsored the legislation I introduced which, as I previously mentioned, has been incorporated on this bill.

Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record so my colleagues will know the bill we are considering is not something we threw together haphazardly. This was major, extensive work with major organizations in this country

that spend every waking hour working on children's diseases and issues that affect their health. I am grateful to the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families; the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; American Academy of Pediatrics; the American Brain Coalition; American Pediatric Society; the American Psychiatric Association; the American Thoracic Society; the Arthritis Foundation; the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; Children's Cause for Cancer Advocacy; Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; National Association of Children's Hospitals; National Organization for Rare Disorders; Society for Pediatric Research--the list goes on.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters from this myriad of organizations which every day are involved with children's health and are strong advocates of what we are doing here and respectfully disagree with the amendment offered by Senator Allard today.

To anyone offering to flyspeck this proposal and offer variations to it, I would say that months and months have gone into this legislation which we think has had the dual effect of ensuring that the ramifications of expanding the length of exclusivity, as some have proposed, have been carefully considered along with proposals to limit the length of exclusivity to 3 months for all drugs, as others have proposed. The bill before us balances many viewpoints on this program and is a proposal that 15 major organizations involved with the effort strongly support.

Throughout the 10-year history of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, Congress has recognized the need to ensure it strikes the appropriate balance between the cost to consumers and benefits to children. By instituting a 5-year sunset in both the original legislation in 1997 and the first reauthorization in 2002, Congress was acknowledging the ongoing need to evaluate the cost of the incentive under this act to consumers in relation to the benefit of having medications properly studied and labeled for children.

The 6-month incentive of exclusivity has been very successful in generating pediatric studies. Yet after 10 years,

experience and data have shown us that for a small number of drugs, pediatric exclusivity has far exceeded the carrot that was designed to encourage people to move forward.

In February of this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of the profits drug manufacturers received from the additional 6 months of pediatric exclusivity.

The study found that most of the drugs studied under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act in recent years received relatively modest returns. In fact, data shows that many drugs came close to breaking even with respect to financial returns on investment for conducting pediatric trials. In one place they may have had a negative return.

However, the study also found, and I quote them here, that ``the pediatric exclusivity program overcompensates blockbuster products from performing clinical trials in children.''

S. 1082 contains a very reasonable, workable mechanism to address cost concerns. By adjusting exclusivity from 6 months to 3 months only for those products with U.S. sales over $1 billion, I think S. 1082 can address consumer concerns about excessive profits without jeopardizing the extraordinary benefits of this legislation.

I don't think it is too much to ask. That is why we have the sunset provisions in this program, to be able to go back and analyze how this is working every 5 years. So for those products in excess of a $1 billion, we shorten exclusivity. I am satisfied.

Pfizer, a leading drug company in this country, supports this proposal. The producer of the largest blockbuster drug in the world says this is a good compromise. Why are my colleagues having a hard time? If a major drug company who has benefitted under this exclusivity and manufactured blockbuster drugs says this bill is a sound compromise, what is the problem my colleagues have with this proposal?

If Pfizer, a company that has benefitted from this program says this balance is a healthy one, why can't my colleagues be happy with it?

This bill is a good bill. It has done a good job for people. But let's remind ourselves that we also have a responsibility to consumers. And when consumers find themselves in a situation where they can't afford lifesaving medicines, then it is time for us to strike a balance. This bill has a sunset provision in it. I am for the sunset provision. I am for it because we need to come back again in 5 years and assess where we are on this issue rather than make a determination that in perpetuity this is a program and a balance that makes sense forever.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, eliminating the exclusivity adjustment, as the amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado would do, would increase the cost of exclusivity to the Federal Government by $50 million over 10 years. So in addition to the consumers, taxpayers are going to be asked to pay an additional $50 million under the Allard amendment.

Again, if we have drug companies saying they think this proposal is a good balance, why are we adding a $50 million pricetag to the taxpayers with the Allard amendment, not to mention the cost of these drugs increasing as a result of extending exclusivity from 3 months to 6 months for products with sales in excess of $1 billion?

As I said, this is something I have worked on for a long time in a bipartisan fashion: to strike a balance as we've tried to do for 10 years between benefits to children and cost to consumers. To now say all of us who have worked on this program are wrong, all of the organizations involved with children's health are wrong, and drug companies that have benefitted from this program are wrong--but we know best. We know best. We think those billion-dollar products deserve to be protected. We think the taxpayers should foot the $50 million bill and the cost of these drugs are irrelevant in this debate. Well, they are not irrelevant.

We may do great damage to something we are trying to achieve after a decade of hard work on a bipartisan basis to put this together. I say respectfully to my friend from Colorado and the Senator from Wyoming, we have worked hard to strike these balances. It is not easy. These are complicated issues. It requires cooperation on both sides of the aisle to get the job done. That is what I have done for a decade with Members of that side of the aisle to see to it that we have a good, strong bill. The result is a program which has gone far beyond what we anticipated might happen.

The slight adjustment we have made after analyzing this bill after 10 years is little to ask. If one of the largest beneficiaries of the program is satisfied, and if the organizations who support this program believe it is all right, why are we adding a $50 million pricetag and asking consumers to pay more?

I urge my colleagues to reject the Allard amendment when the vote occurs. I thank Senator Kennedy and others who have worked so hard to make this possible. This is a very important piece of legislation, and one that can do an awful lot of good. The amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado puts that at risk. Our children in this country deserve better than what he is offering, which is to try to break up the delicate balance I have tried to put together for a decade.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may, I would like to divide my 10 minutes, and I would like to spend a few minutes on another part of the bill, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act.

I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for including this bill which I authored in the underlying legislation.

The pediatric medical devices provision of the underlying bill is not subject to an amendment, but I want my colleagues to know what we have done with this provision, which is a complementary piece of legislation dealing with a similar set of issues as under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. That is, ensuring that medical devices used in children are safe and designed specifically for children. One of the fundamental hurdles with respect to children is that the market for products designed for them is relatively small. However, I believe the proposals in the underlying bill will make a huge difference in the lives of children.

This initiative provides a very comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance.

Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and were just given reduced dosages, many essential medical devices used by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children, and that has been the case for many years. Pediatric providers have had to resort to jury-rigging or fashioning makeshift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatments or less effective therapies. This legislation addresses the need to promote pediatric device development by providing incentives to manufacturers while at the same time equipping the Food and Drug Administration with appropriate authority to monitor and ensure the postmarket safety of medical devices used significantly in children.

One such example which highlights the need for this legislation is a device known as the Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib, a device invented, developed, and brought to market by Dr. Robert Campbell, Professor of Orthopaedics at the University of Texas Health Science Center. Dr. Campbell appeared before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in late March and testified about the arduous 14 years it took to bring the titanium rib to market. Dr. Robert Campbell made remarkable breakthroughs with this technology but the hurdles he faced were, at times, seemingly insurmountable.

I want to put up a photograph of a boy named Devin Alvarez, of Hialeah Gardens, Florida, which shows the remarkable difference this device has made for him. Devin was born with six ribs missing and a very small left lung and kidney. At birth, the doctors did not believe he was going to survive his first night. In May 2002, Devin underwent titanium rib implant surgery and the curve of his spine was reduced to 45 degrees. Devin stood straight for the first time in his life and, at present, Devin is a very typical 9-year-old boy who enjoys playing sports such as golf and baseball.

Again, remarkable ideas for pediatric medical devices happen regularly, but the incentives to transform ideas into new FDA-approved devices simply don't exist. So the motivation for the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act legislation 10 years ago dealing with pharmaceutical products for children is the same motivation behind this legislation--to encourage the medical device industry to develop and to engage in the kind of research to allow these technologies to emerge.

In describing the pediatric medical devices bill which is now included in this legislation, Dr. Campbell, who has been so instrumental in all of this, said:

This bill represents an historic step forward for

children's medical and surgical devices similar to those

steps taken on drugs. It will help future medical inventors

of pediatric devices to avoid my mistakes and my frustrations

so that they can get their devices ``off the napkin,'' if you

will, and into the pediatric patients who need them, in a

safe and timely fashion.

I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts and Wyoming for working hard to make sure this will be a part of the underlying bill. I am grateful to them. It is my understanding that concerns have been raised by some in the medical device industry regarding a particular provision of the bill related to equipping the Food and Drug Administration with authority to ensure the safety of medical devices in children once they are already on the market.

The provisions in the bill mirror the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety. The Institute of Medicine found serious flaws in the current postmarket safety surveillance of these devices and the provisions in my bill correct those serious flaws. I am disheartened by those who would attempt to deprive children and physicians with information that pertains to device safety.

I think we have made some tremendous advances for children and their families in this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant material relating to the medical device provision of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me go back, if I can, to my proposal on the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the objections raised by my colleague from Colorado to it. Just for the record and so we understand what we are talking about, according to a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at the costs and benefits of these pediatric trials. It showed that the overwhelming majority of drugs studied under this incentive program are not blockbusters.

In fact, the study found that less than 20 percent were. That leaves 80 percent of drugs completely unaffected by the underlying bill which the Allard amendment seeks to amend. To be clear, the proposal in the underlying bill that would adjust exclusivity from 6 months to 3 months affects less than about 20 percent of drugs studied under this program. Using data from this recent study, 80 percent of drugs studied under BPCA--those which do not fall into the blockbuster category--the 6 months' exclusivity would remain unchanged. It doesn't change that at all; only in cases where there has been over $1 billion in prior year drug sales will the underlying bill change the exclusivity to 3 months.

This is to strike a balance. Obviously, I feel very strongly, having authored this legislation, about ensuring that appropriate clinical trials occur to protect children's health. Our notion was, when we wrote the legislation 10 years ago, that the 6 months of exclusivity would be the carrot that would incentivize the industry to go forward. There were some concerns expressed at the time that 6 months wasn't going to be anywhere near enough and that we would need more exclusivity. Some in the industry suggested a year or even 3 years of exclusivity. We settled on 6 months as the appropriate balance at the time.

What happened, of course, is we had this wonderful explosion of work that occurred. It resulted in nearly 800 clinical trials involving more than 45,000 children, with new pediatric labeling information on more than 119 drugs where previously there was none. I recall the debate on this program ten years ago very well, the industry said: Six months is never going to be enough; none of us will step up to the plate on this. And they really argued very strenuously for something longer than the 6 months. In fact, the 6 months has worked well, and almost all requests issued to drug companies to conduct pediatric trials under this program have been accepted.

What I have had growing concern about is the 20 percent of drugs receiving exclusivity where the profit realized as far exceeded the carrot intended to provide to drug companies. So to strike that balance between the cost to taxpayers and the benefits to children, we are saying that where sales of a drug being studied under this program exceed $1 billion in prior years, the company can get 3 months' exclusivity.

I don't know what the right answer will be on this issue. Neither me nor my colleague from Oklahoma can say with absolute certainty. But I recall the debate 10 years ago when many said 6 months will never be enough. Six months has done very well by the industry, as it turned out.

So by striking this balance and having the sunset provision which I strongly support in this legislation--and I have from the beginning--it will allow us to review periodically how we are doing with all of this.

There is an increase in Federal spending of $50 million over 10 years as a result of the Allard amendment. I can't invoke a point of order because the impact on federal spending is outside our current budget window, but the Allard amendment comes with a $50 million pricetag to taxpayers.

I believe this program is working well. We think by adjusting the length of exclusivity from 6 months to 3 months for a limited number of drugs, we are striking the right balance. The 5-year sunset will give us a chance to assess the program again and make a judgment: How are we doing here? Are we getting more or less of what we thought we would in the process? At that time, we will make a judgment again as to how we ought to go forward.

It is not easy to strike these balances. I know my colleagues who have engaged in these debates, try to come up with answers that will satisfy the various elements and concerns various Members have. That is what Mike DeWine and I did 10 years ago and why I had such a good partner in this where we struck that balance. Mike was under a lot of pressure to have a lot more than 6 months of exclusivity. I was under pressure in saying: Why do we give them any exclusivity? So we compromised on 6 months to see what happened. We got great results.

I would love to predict with absolute certainty that what we craft here will produce those same results. I can't say that absolutely. But based on the analyses of others who have looked at this, their conclusion is this is a pretty healthy balance between consumer interests, taxpayer interests, and the needs of children. We will see what happens over the next 4 or 5 years as to whether this is continuing to produce the desired results. I believe it will. I think we will get that.

Here again, based on recent data, under my proposal, 80 percent of drugs studied under this program will see no change in the exclusivity award of 6 months. Again, for the 20 percent of drugs in the blockbuster category, they can receive 3 months of exclusivity. I still believe many will go forward, given that incentive.

So respectfully I say to my friend from Colorado--we serve on two committees together and we work well together on a lot of issues here. I respect him immensely. I do not question at all his motivations in offering this amendment. This disagreement is over the impact of his language versus the language I have crafted in this legislation as part of the committee print.

So I urge my colleagues to reject the Allard amendment and to stick what with what we put together in the underlying bill. It is a good balance between taxpayer interests, consumer interests, and the interests of children and their families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.