Floor Statements

Madam President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Nevada allowing me the time. I think it is really important for us to ask ourselves what the test is before us today in the Senate.

As many of you know, I spent the last 2 weeks recuperating from a surgical illness, and I got to see--from a perspective of watching television on all the different channels, reading all the different papers--there was a recurring theme that I noticed that came through from all across this country. It did not matter what part of the country. It did not matter who was saying it, no matter whether they tend to lean liberal or they tend to lean conservative. That theme is this: We have failed to instill the confidence in the American people in the Congress that we are about doing what is in the best long-term interest of our country.

It is not about being against immigration or for immigration. It is not about being against an ethnic group or for an ethnic group. It is not about being liberal. It is not about being conservative. It is about the worry that the American people have for this concept called liberty. They are worried about that concept right now. They are worried about whether we have the mettle to stand up to the test, to put us back on a road that will give them the confidence that what we do will be done in the best interests of them and their children. There is worry that the thing that gives us liberty, which is the rule of law, is somehow now being tinkered with in a way that undermines their confidence and security in what this American dream is all about.

So we have had a very interesting experience today, but it is really not about the immigration bill. It is about something much greater that we should be paying attention to. It is about the right to govern with the confidence the people of this country give us and the responsibility that comes with us to have the integrity to do that in a way which builds that confidence, which rebuilds the strength, rebuilds the positive attitude, rebuilds the ``I can do'' America has been known for.

I asked for this time to speak not as a Republican but as a citizen of this country with children and grandchildren, like everybody else out there who wants the best for our country. We can debate about the details.

I had this wonderful experience about a year ago traveling with members of the opposite party to China. We met with students at Chinese Harvard. What we found was 95 percent of the things we agree on, we were solid in our bond.

The very thing that makes this country great is what Democrats and Republicans agree on: the idea of the rule of law; the idea of freedom; the idea that we have a Constitution that has to be supported, nurtured, and maintained. The only way that happens is if we rebuild the confidence of the American people in our abilities to do that.

We are in the midst of a debate on immigration that is a very wildly moving, emotional issue for all sides. But it should be a signal to us that when it is this wildly emotional and wildly divided, it should temper our thoughts to

say the most important thing is not to finish the bill, the most important thing is to reestablish credibility in what we do for the American people.

I happen to believe if we do the right things that the American people in their gut know are right, ultimately, we will go from the 17- percent approval rating the country has of this body today back to where we should be--a healthy, vibrant confidence that the people who are elected to represent them in the Senate will, in fact, have the confidence of the American people to do and carry out this wonderful, creative experiment our Founders started over 200 years ago.

My question for the body and my challenge to the body is that we have a greater problem than immigration. The problem is the test: Do we meet the test that is before us of regaining the confidence of the American people? I think that is the biggest test we have today. I think all 100 of us need to redouble our efforts to assure that No. 1, we listen; No. 2, the Constitution is our guide; that the oath we took said nothing about Republican, said nothing about Democrat, said nothing about an individual State, but said we have an oath to uphold the Constitution of these United States without regard to party, without regard to locale.

So I would beg my fellow Senators, over the next few weeks, as we go on break in a week and we come back here, that the No. 1 goal that ought to be in front of us is, how do we change that approval rating? How do we restore the fact that we are listening, that we are hearing, that our action is based on what we know to be right, what we know to be good, and what we know is in the best interests long term for our country?

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1865, as follows:

At the end of section 1, insert the following:

(e) Secure Fence Act of 2007.--Notwithstanding subsection

(a) or any other provision of law, this Act and the

amendments made by this Act shall not take effect until the

President certifies to the Congress that the Secretary of

Homeland Security has taken all actions necessary to comply

with the provisions of, and the amendments made by, the

Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367; 120 Stat.

2638), including completing the installation of all fencing

and barriers required by such provisions and amendments.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1886, as follows:

On page 595, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

(s) Definition of Aggravated Felony and Additional Grounds

for Ineligibility for Z Nonimmigrant Status.--

(1) Aggravated felony.--Section 101(a)(43) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is

amended--

(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (T);

(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (U)

and inserting ``; and'' and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

``(V) a second conviction for driving while under the

influence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of the State in

which the conviction occurred or whether the offense is

classified as a misdemeanor or a felony under the law of that

State.''.

(2) Grounds for ineligibility.--In addition to the grounds

of ineligibility described in subsection (d)(1)(F), an alien

shall be ineligible for Z nonimmigrant status if the alien

has been convicted of driving while under the influence of

alcohol or drugs, regardless of the State in which the

conviction occurred or whether the offense is classified as a

misdemeanor or a felony under the law of that State.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1890, as follows:

Strike section 603, and insert the following:

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1891, as follows:

On page 184, line 12, strike ``(b)'' and insert the

following:

(b) Federal Affirmation of Immigration Law Enforcement by

States and Political Subdivisions of States.--

(1) Authority.--Law enforcement personnel of a State, or a

political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority

of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest,

detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the

transportation across State lines to detention centers) an

alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the

immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of

carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel.

This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by

Federal law.

(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be

construed to require law enforcement personnel of a State or

a political subdivision to assist in the enforcement of the

immigration laws of the United States.

(c) Listing of Immigration Violators in the National Crime

Information Center Database.--

(1) Provision of information to the national crime

information center.--

(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (C),

not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of

this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the head of the

National Crime Information Center of the Department of

Justice the information that the Secretary has or maintains

related to any alien--

(i) against whom a final order of removal has been issued;

(ii) who enters into a voluntary departure agreement, or is

granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge, whose

period for departure has expired under subsection (a)(3) of

section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1229c), subsection (b)(2) of such section 240B, or who has

violated a condition of a voluntary departure agreement under

such section 240B;

(iii) whom a Federal immigration officer has confirmed to

be unlawfully present in the United States; and

(iv) whose visa has been revoked.

(B) Removal of information.--The head of the National Crime

Information Center shall promptly remove any information

provided by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) related to

an alien who is lawfully admitted to enter or remain in the

United States.

(C) Procedure for removal of erroneous information.--

(i) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the

head of the National Crime Information Center, shall develop

and implement a procedure by which an alien may petition the

Secretary or head of the National Crime Information Center,

as appropriate, to remove any erroneous information provided

by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) related to such

alien.

(ii) Effect of failure to receive notice.--Under procedures

developed under clause (i), failure by the alien to receive

notice of a violation of the immigration laws shall not

constitute cause for removing information provided by the

Secretary under subparagraph (A) related to such alien,

unless such information is erroneous.

(iii) Interim provision of information.--Notwithstanding

the 180-day period set forth in subparagraph (A), the

Secretary may not provide the information required under

subparagraph (A) until the procedures required under this

paragraph have been developed and implemented.

(2) Inclusion of information in the national crime

information center database.--Section 534(a) of title 28,

United States Code, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;

(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and

(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of

violations of the immigration laws of the United States;

and''.

(d)

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1892, as follows:

On page 559, strike line 17 and all that follows through

``January 1, 2007'' on page 561, line 9, and insert the

following:

``(Z) subject to title VI of the Secure Borders, Economic

Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, an alien

who--

``(i) is physically present in the United States, has

maintained continuous physical presence in the United States

since January 7, 2004, is employed, and seeks to continue

performing labor, services or education;

``(ii) is physically present in the United States, has

maintained continuous physical presence in the United States

since January 7, 2004, and such alien--

``(I) is the spouse or parent (65 years of age or older) of

an alien described in clause (i); or

``(II) was, within 2 years of the date on which the Secure

Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of

2007 was introduced in the Senate, the spouse of an alien who

was subsequently classified as a Z nonimmigrant under this

section, or is eligible for such classification, if--

``(aa) the termination of the relationship with such spouse

was connected to domestic violence; and

``(bb) the spouse has been battered or subjected to extreme

cruelty by the spouse or parent, who is a Z nonimmigrant; or

``(iii) is under 18 years of age at the time of application

for nonimmigrant status under this subparagraph, is

physically present in the United States, has maintained

continuous physical presence in the United States since

January 7, 2004, and was born to or legally adopted by at

least 1 parent who is at the time of application described in

clause (i) or (ii).''.

(c) Presence in the United States.--

(1) In general.--The alien shall establish that the alien

was not lawfully present in the United States on January 7,

2004

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1904, as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1927, as follows:

On page 117, line 4, insert ``, even if the length of the

term of imprisonment for the offense is based on recidivist

or other enhancements,'' after ``15 years''.

On Page 117, line 14, strike lines 14 beginning at and

through page 118, line 8, and insert:

(4) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``section 275(a) or

276 committed by an alien who was previously deported on the

basis of a conviction for an offense described in another

subparagraph of this paragraph'' and inserting ``section 275

or 276 for which the term of imprisonment is at least 1

year'';

(5) by striking the undesignated matter following

subparagraph (U);

(6) in subparagraph (E)--

(A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``,(c),'' after ``924(b)''

and by striking ``or'' at the end, and

(B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:

``(iv) section 2250 of title 18, United States Code

(relating to failure to register as a sex offender); or

``(v) section 521(d) of title 18, United States Code (

relating to penalties for offenses committed by criminal

street gangs);''; and

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1929, as follows:

On page 7, line 21, strike ``(v) Implementation of programs

authorized in titles IV and VI''.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1930, as follows:

On page 1, strike line 3 and all that follows through page

6, line 11 and insert the following:

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII for the purpose of proposing to the bill (S. 1639), Amendment No. 1959, as follows:

On page 5, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

(7) US-VISIT system.--The integrated entry and exit data

system required under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.

1365a), which was required to be implemented not later than

December 21, 2005, has been fully implemented and is

functioning at every land, sea, and air port of entry into

the United States.

Mr. President, on behalf of the minority, I object.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, with all deference to the majority leader, this procedure has excluded many of us from our right to offer amendments on the floor. I think he understands our discomfort with this process. There will not be an amount of time that will pave over the loss of our rights to offer amendments on this very important bill that needs to be dealt with. So it is not in terms of trying to delay what the majority leader is trying to do, but there is not going to be a period of time on this particular set of amendments, unless there is a set of amendments that we will be allowed, as Senators in the United States of America, to offer on behalf of our constituencies.

Yes.

Mr. President, I understand, as agreed upon, I will have 20 minutes to discuss amendment No. 1311, as modified. I call up my amendment, and in that 20 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas be given 1\1/2\ minutes of that time to speak.

The amendment is pending?

Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I was promised 20 minutes last night. I will be happy to try to finish my remarks in less than 20 minutes and give the Senator from Texas the remaining time.

Mr. President, the Coburn-DeMint trigger amendment--that is what this amendment is--is about setting right what has been promised since 1986. It is about requiring that the existing border security and immigration laws we have on the books today be enforced and that the fact they are being enforced be approved by Congress before the amnesty in this bill can be granted.

The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the U.S. borders and enforce U.S. laws. The American people expect that their laws will be upheld. If the U.S. borders are not secure and an estimated 12 million--of which 4.5 million or 5 million have overstayed their visas and make up part of this 12 million illegal immigrants in our country today.

The United States faces a history since the 1986 amnesty bill of being overpromised and undersold on immigration enforcement by their Government. The Federal Government has failed and has rightfully lost the trust of the people. How can the people trust that this time things will be any different than 1986? This is not about having welcoming arms; this is about the security of this country and the rule of law.

This amendment is the first step to help restore some of the trust Congress has lost. It says that before this bill can go forward, the President must demonstrate to Congress, and Congress must agree, that current laws are being enforced--laws that are on the books.

This amendment is common sense. If the agencies can demonstrate that U.S. borders are secure and immigration laws are enforced, then the American people have reason to believe that this time things will be different. They will demonstrate that compassion, once again, so often seen in the past.

What will the trigger do? This trigger is the legislative mechanism for ensuring that the Federal Government meets certain legal obligations before the process for legalizing illegal immigrants can begin. It is very simple. It will add to the current trigger amendment. It takes several provisions of existing law, laws that are on the books, and requires they be fully implemented before we grant amnesty or legal status to illegal aliens.

What are they? The Department must achieve and maintain operational control over the international maritime borders of the United States, as required by a law passed last year by 80 to 19 in this body--the Secure Fence Act.

All databases maintained by the Department with information on aliens shall be fully integrated, as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. That is not accomplished yet.

No. 3. The exit portion of the U.S. visa system is to be fully implemented, as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is not being enforced.

That the provision of law that prohibits States and localities from adopting sanctuary policies is fully enforced by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996; that the Department employ fully operational equipment at each port of entry in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border and Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; aliens with border crossing cards are prevented from entering unless their biometric card is matched to them, as required by section 1101(a)6 of Title VIII of United States Code.

How this trigger works. It requires the agencies that are responsible for

implementing these laws and the various portions of them to report to the President when they have been fully implemented, and that the President review the certifications and either approve or deny them. If the President denies the agency has fulfilled the requirement, according to the law, the President must instruct the agency on what to do and when to bring it up to date. Congress shall then, on an expedited basis, once the President has certified, review the report and pass a resolution affirming the laws have been enforced; that they have been implemented.

We are not ever going to gain back the trust of the American people on immigration until we do what we have already passed. It is not about not welcoming people, it is about the rule of law and understanding that only can they have a future if we maintain the rule of law.

Why is this needed? The Gregg amendment did several good things, but it didn't go far enough. It lacked two key elements. It did not require that existing laws be implemented and enforced. Why is it we are debating that existing laws should be enforced? We are ignoring existing laws. And the Gregg amendment did not require congressional approval.

A recent Rasmussen report found two-thirds of Americans believe it does not make sense to debate new immigration law until we can first enforce and control our border and enforce existing laws.

The bill is flawed because it allows those here illegally to adjust to legal status before any of the new or old enforcement provisions are made. It requires those who are here illegally become legal before we have control of the border. This is not about not wanting and admiring and accepting the work ethic of those who come here, but it says we must secure our border.

Remember Fort Dix, NJ? One out of three of those involved in Fort Dix, NJ, were terrorists who came in through our southern border.

This amendment requires before any illegal alien is allowed to adjust their legal status that Congress certify the Department of Homeland Security has operational control of the border.

The second problem: It creates a new temporary worker problem without first having a mechanism in place to verify that temporary workers and visitors leave when their visas expire. We are going to set up a whole new program and we cannot even tell you now when they have exited under the current U.S. visa law. It has never been implemented, the visa exit system. So we have a system that controls who comes into the country but no control over who goes out. You cannot have a temporary worker program if you don't know when they come in or go out under the existing proposed statute under this bill.

The U.S. visa exit component is key to the successful new temporary program. The system created in the 1996 bill for the U.S. visa program was supposed to be in place September 30, 1998. The deadline was changed to October 15 and then to March 30, 2001, except the exit portion has never been operational. It has never been implemented.

The third problem addressed: The American public does not trust we will enforce the laws we have; namely, they do not trust the enforcement provisions in this bill, such as the employer verification system, will be implemented. Congress continues to pass laws that do not get enforced and then does nothing to ensure they are enforced. Part of the purpose of the last amnesty was to enhance our enforcement so Americans could maintain sovereignty, as President Reagan put it.

Specifically, on November 6, when President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, he stated this legislation would help meet the challenge to our sovereignty caused by illegal immigration. He highlighted three provisions of the 1986 bill, including employer sanctions--nonexistent--to increase enforcement of our immigration laws, and legalization of those here illegally more than 4 years later. The amnesty happened, yet significant portions of employment sanctions and the increased enforcement measures have been delayed or, in some instances, never implemented.

Americans have a right to question whether things will be different this time. What this amendment will do is ensure that a employer verification system, required by the current trigger, is actually implemented and working properly before we grant legal status to those who are here illegally. It is not enough to allow Presidential certification; that will not likely be reviewed. We have that problem now. Congress must review, discuss, have hearings, and then publicly vote to certify that the provisions required in this bill, and by prior laws, are functioning. That is when we will regain the trust of the American people.

This amendment will provide the transparency and accountability to the public Americans want. Not only that, if the public views the enforcement mechanism as inadequate and not in compliance with our laws, they will be able to hold elected officials accountable at the voting booth.

The May 30, 2007 Rasmussen report revealed the public does not support or trust this immigration bill. Seventy-four percent do not believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate passes this bill. Forty-one percent believe illegal immigration will increase, as we heard the group of retired Border Patrol agents state.

Interestingly, if those polled had a chance to improve the legislation, 75 percent would make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration. Sixty-five percent of Americans are willing to accept a compromise on illegal status if you can assure them the rest of the laws are going to be enforced. This bill does not require that, and what they are going to get is the same thing they got in 1986.

What this amendment will do is to help improve enforcement at the borders. It will reduce illegal immigration, it will give the public confidence, and it will give elected officials the opportunity to vote on the status of where we are in terms of enforcing the law.

How did we get here? We got here through well-intentioned mistakes. We got here because we gave amnesty in 1986. We said we were going to have employer verification, and we told the American people the borders would be secure. What this amendment does is, it says: Fool me the first time, shame on you. Fool me the second time, shame on me. What this amendment does is assures the American people that this time, as we grant amnesty to those who came here illegally, it is not going to happen again.

There is no assurance in this bill that this is not a repeat of 1986. It is not about not being compassionate to those who are here and are contributing. It is not about saying no. As a matter of fact, 65 percent of the American people want to say yes, if you can prove to them things are going to be different this time. However, under this bill, there is nothing that will say things will be different.

I praise the people who worked on this bill, who put together this compromise. But I think history points us in a direction that says we have to have proof this time. We have to know if we do this again, with at least 12 million people, if we grant amnesty--and I know the President says it is not amnesty, but if you come here illegally and eventually are legal, that is amnesty--if we are willing to do that, this time the American people ought to have the assurance we are not going to do that again; that we are going to have an immigration enforcement policy, an employer verification system, an entrance and exit system, and border security that is going to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe this bill needs a lot more work. I believe it has a lot of complications that are unforeseen, and complications that we are aware of at this time.

I wish to take a moment to thank the majority leader for allowing me this time, and Senator Kennedy for working with me to allow me this time to talk about this amendment. I believe we have a critical problem in our country. The President's ratings are low, but our ratings are even lower. The trust of the American people in this institution is less than a third of the people in this country.

How do we build it up? We build it up by passing this amendment. We build it up by showing them we understand their concerns, we understand they are

willing to accept and allow people who came here illegally to live here as citizens and get on that pathway to citizenship provided we do the necessary things to not go back to this again. This bill is severely lacking in demonstrating that proof to the American people.

We have to build their confidence. We have to regain the trust of the American people that we will, in fact, this time do what is necessary to secure our borders and control our borders. We are at risk, as the discovery of the Fort Dix belated plan reflects, in terms of our own national security. So it is not all about immigration, it is about national security, and there is nothing in this bill that forces the President of any party who is in charge or forces the Congress to do anything different than we have done in the past.

I believe it is highly important we have this trigger mechanism for the assurance of the American people that we have a secure border; that we have a visa entrance and exit system that works; that we have employer verification that works; that those key things are intact before we grant legal status to those who are here illegally.

I say again I appreciate Senator Kennedy working with me in allowing me the time to do this, and Senator Reid for his graciousness for this time.

I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Would that not negate the direction of the Secure Fence Act of last year?

No, no. I agree. But it would relieve that problem as you saw in the Secure Fence Act of last year, of 2006.

Your underlying language would alleviate that problem in the 2006 Secure Fence Act?

So that would supersede whatever we had in the Secure Fence Act in my amendment?

So therefore your argument, I believe, is moot, because if you have that in the underlying bill, then that problem is solved and you should be able to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to clarify the record of my vote on Bingaman amendment No. 1267. I intended to vote against the amendment. I do not support the amendment and I wish to explain why.

The Bingaman amendment No. 1267 would have allowed certain future legal temporary workers to renew their work visas from the United States, rather than being required to leave the country for a period of time to reapply. In order to have a true temporary worker program, workers must only come to the U.S. for a season and then return to their home country. If workers are instead permitted to stay in the U.S., they will likely establish economic and familial roots, and will not want to leave when their legal visa has expired. People who want to take part in our society should seek legal citizenship, rather than extending upon an agreement that was intended to be temporary. I encourage those who have respected our laws and want to live in our country to apply for a green card and become a U.S. citizen.

Mr. President, I wish to commend those who have worked on the immigration bill. I know their hearts are in the right place and they have attempted to come together to solve a very critical issue for our country and they are to be commended for their efforts.

I understand that if we call up an amendment, it will be objected to, and I think that is unfortunate. As the country sees, if we are going to have an immigration bill, then we need to have a real, full debate on all aspects of that bill and each Senator should have opportunities to offer amendments.

I think the bill has a lot of good in it. I think a lot of positive things have come through. However, there are two or three critical errors I believe that are incorporated in the bill. Quite frankly, one of them is the bill's plan, in terms of guest workers and managing the load of the Z visa holders. There is not the capability out there right now to do that.

I have an amendment which creates a real trigger, and that is what everybody in this country wants.

The reason there is a stir in the country about immigration today comes from the very fact that we have had laws on the books that we haven't enforced. When you have a free society and you have laws on the books that are not enforced, you get all sorts of untoward expectations that come about out of that. The No. 1 expectation that has come out of that is the American people don't trust us when it comes to immigration. I believe we have to earn back that trust. The way we earn back that trust is to secure the border. The way we earn back that trust is to enforce employer verification. The way we earn back that trust is internal enforcement.

The goals, as I said, of those who have worked hard in putting this bill together are admirable. However, the trigger is anything of a trigger, and it is something that would not accomplish its purpose.

I ask unanimous consent at this time that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 1311 be called up.

Amendment No. 1311.

I trust the Senator's integrity. But it is unfortunate for the American people, and also for the Senate, that we use a ruse that we have to have offsetting amendments be heard, when the fact is we are going to bring this amendment up, and we are not going to debate it tonight. The fact is it is going to be objected to being called up and being in the queue.

That overshadows the fact that I know the Senator would like to have a full and fair debate on this bill, but it seems we cannot get together to allow that. I will come back multiple times tomorrow to offer this same amendment and try to get it up. It is unfortunate that the body has to work this way tonight because we don't want to truly, in fact, allow all of the amendments on this bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Sure.

Mr. President, to make sure everybody understands, this is not an amendment that eliminates this project. As I complimented the Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma yesterday, the idea behind this amendment is to make priorities.

What do we know? We know the Corps has a $58 billion backlog right now. That is 27\1/2\ years of work at the way the Corps is funded now. All this amendment says is, if you are in a family and you need a new roof, and you want to build a swimming pool, probably most American families are going to put the roof on before they build the swimming pool.

Sacramento has 1.8 million people. It is the largest city in this country at risk for flood damage. The canals and levees up there need to be reworked. All this amendment says is before we restore beaches-- by the way, let me give a little background. The last time there was any flood damage at Imperial Beach was 1988. The total damage was $500,000 in 1988.

What we do know is, when you restore the sand, one winter storm will wipe it all out. That is why this is a 50-year project. This is planned to restore sand after sand after sand after sand for the next 50 years. It may be the right thing to do, but in terms of making a choice about priorities, wouldn't we think that before we restore sand that is going to be washed away by the next winter storm, maybe we ought to ensure ourselves that the people in Sacramento are safe. So this does not eliminate this project.

I also go back to the history on this project. What is the Corps' No. 1 way of fixing this project? It is not to continue to pump sand onto the beach. It is to have an extended growing out until the beach redevelops and replenishes itself, which was proposed and never finalized before they completed the environmental impact statement on it. That is the way to restore the sand to the beach in a natural way.

So what we have is we are going to take a low-priority item--very high-priority item for some of the people of Imperial Beach, CA, not all of them--we were submitted a letter yesterday by a large group of people who oppose this--and we are going to say that is as important in terms of authorization as fixing the levee system in Sacramento. It is not.

All this amendment says is before you start spending money on restoring sand that is going to be washed away by the next winter storm, you ought to fix the levees where you have 1.8 million people at real risk for flood. It is the largest city in the United States at risk. It has a greater risk of flood than New Orleans. It has an 85- year risk compared to a 250-year risk in New Orleans.

By this amendment, we are not saying do not do this. We are saying, let's add some priorities. Let's fix what is wrong in a major levee system first. Let's have, in this bill, that we are going to choose a priority rather than to send all this to the Corps, which is 27 years behind right now on their projects--will be another 7\1/2\ to 8 years after this bill passes--and say, on the way of priorities, the priority that ought to go first is fixing the levee system in Sacramento. It is not to degrade that this is not needed. I am not saying it is not needed. I am saying, with limited funds, we ought to have a priority.

Many people will argue they will make that decision at the Appropriations Committee. The authorizing bill right now is on the floor. I support many of the projects in this bill. But I think a case can be made, and the American people would demand, we cannot quit ducking priorities. It is easy to say to do everything, as the Senator from California said yesterday. The only problem with that is, we cannot do everything. We cannot do everything, so we have to make a choice. We ought to do those things that will protect the most people, solve the biggest problems first, and then work to the smaller problems.

In 1988 was the last time we ever had any storm damage at Imperial Beach, CA. It was in the midst of storm damage that was less than $500,000. We are going to be talking about in excess of $20 million for this beach at the same time we have levees that need to be reworked and reaffirmed in Sacramento.

This amendment is common sense. Let's do what is most important first, and when we have done that, then go do this. Let's do not do them both at the same time, quite frankly, because it will never happen at the same time, because we only have $2 billion a year for the Corps now and there are hundreds of projects in this country that should be done before this project.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am not going after the project. The project stays. I think the Senator from California misses the point. This beach had restoration done by the city last year. It washed away. The sand they put up there will wash away. It is a temporary fix to a long-term program. That is why they have a 50-year authorization for restoring this beach, because it is going to continue to wash away because they are not fixing it in the way the Corps originally recommended it be fixed.

It is not about picking on this project. It is about, again, shouldn't we have priorities? Isn't it more important to fix Sacramento and the levee system there than this particular project, which has been repaired of late by the city with their own funds? I am not saying we should eliminate it; I am saying we should not do this until we have done the other things that are higher priority on the Corps' list, which No. 1 in my mind, besides what we need to do in Louisiana, is to restore the levee system in Sacramento.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. There are three visitor centers now within 77 miles of the proposed site of this visitors center. Thousands of people, tens of thousands of people in Louisiana still live in trailers. We are going to add a fourth visitors center, and that duplicates exactly the same thing in the area.

It may be a good idea. I am not against it. But how dare we spend money and authorize a project when we haven't taken care of the folks of Louisiana. All this says is, we set priorities. We make sure the people of Louisiana are out of their temporary housing and into permanent housing before we go about spending millions of dollars on a visitor center. It has been stated that there would be no cost, as the center has already been built.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an e-mail I received today from the Corps of Engineers saying this center has not been built and will, in fact, expend a great deal of Federal taxpayer money when it is.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a couple amendments I will be offering in a few minutes. I wanted to spend a moment or two talking about priorities.

The work on the WRDA bill has been very important. I am supportive of us keeping our obligations, especially in Louisiana for the tremendous problems they have encountered. There is a legitimate role for the Federal Government as a partner with the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in terms of restoration and also prevention so that we don't see the same things again. The WRDA bill is an important bill for a lot of States on a lot of projects, many of which have come about because the Federal Government has overreached in some of its authority and demanded things of States they can no longer afford to do. That is where we sit today. That is the consequence sometimes of having a Federal Government that is a little bit bigger than what the Constitution envisioned and what our Forefathers envisioned as appropriate.

Let me talk about the process for a minute. The chairman asked me a moment ago if I was going to offer any other amendments other than amendments on this bill. I told her no, and I will not. But I think it is important for the American people to consider what we are doing here today. It is important work, but it certainly is not as important as funding our troops. We have asked American families and their children who are serving in the armed services to do a very difficult job. It is very controversial at this time. But regardless of where you are on that job, the fact that we continue to produce bills and not address their needs seems somewhat out of context for where we should be. It has been almost 60 days since the President asked for the additional funding. We have passed the COMPETES Act, spending money on the future, but we can't seem to pass the money for our troops in harm's way. We passed an FDA reauthorization with PDUFA for making sure drugs get cleared, but we can't seem to produce a consensus that our troops will be funded with the necessities they require since they are in harm's way. I find it ironic that we would do anything other than that.

When I look at the Constitution, our No. 1 priority is defense. Whether or not we agree with the foreign policy ongoing today, we all agree we don't want our troops to be in any way placed in harm's way because of our lack of action. That is a justified criticism today which may come true, that American troops are hampered because we cannot pass a bill. I won't offer that amendment, although I think that is what we should be discussing, rather than the WRDA bill.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Inhofe and Boxer, for their work on this bill. I know it means a lot to a lot of communities that don't have the resources to accomplish the things they need to. However, one of the things I am concerned about is priorities. Last year, we had a debate on the emergency status of funding the levees in Sacramento. I had offered an amendment. I talked with the Governor of California, with the two Senators from California. Ultimately, I withdrew that because I became convinced that, in fact, it was an emergency. It still is. Sacramento is the largest town in this country that is at major risk for a flood. The Corps of Engineers uses years for an event, and Sacramento sits at 85 years, the likelihood that 1 out of the next 85 years, Sacramento will be flooded, whereas New Orleans today, even post-Katrina, has a 1-in-250-year risk of being flooded again.

As we look at the WRDA bill, one of the things we ought to think about is how do we prioritize to make sure that where there is a legitimate Government role, we actually spend the money on that role. There is a lot of money in this bill. Granted, this is an authorization bill which will put forward a lot of new projects, some of which we know the cost and some we don't.

I remind my colleagues, right now we have enough work for the Corps of Engineers for the next 50 years, if we don't give them another job to do on their budget. In this bill, we are going to give them several more major projects and not the appropriate funding to do them. One of the reasons we will not give them the appropriate funding is because we don't have the money because, No. 1, we have $200 billion a year in waste, fraud, and duplication in the money we appropriate presently, which the Senate and the Congress refuse to look at, and No. 2, because of the limitations we have in terms of the magnitude of the jobs we put before the Corps.

If you look at priorities in terms of what is important, California has several projects in this, as do several other States. You ask: What are the priorities? You say: We as a family have so many things we have to do. Should we do the most important ones first? If families have a roof they need to put on the house, it is highly unlikely they will build a swimming pool. They are going to fix the roof first and then save for the swimming pool. We don't do that in terms of many of the priorities in this bill.

Myself and seven other Members voted against going ahead with this bill for two reasons. No. 1 is the intent, although the details were not followed in terms of the new earmark proposals in the bill. No. 2 is that we think the priorities are out of whack.

I do have a couple of amendments I will offer.

Amendment No. 1089 to Amendment No. 1065

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment 1089 be called up.

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

This is a simple amendment. It says that there are 100,000 people from Louisiana today in temporary housing. We have failed to move them from temporary housing into other housing.

There are, in this bill, plans and studies for a new visitor center to be set up in Morgan City, which will be a great thing for the area of Louisiana. I do not doubt that. The purpose of this amendment is to say we should not spend any money on that until we get the people affected by Katrina back into housing instead of temporary housing.

So it is not necessarily a criticism, although I generally have criticisms of the Federal Government's role in providing visitor centers for tourism, et cetera, in the States. More importantly, it is about priorities, of whether we ought to take care of those people who have been markedly impaired in their housing opportunities, which ultimately affects their ability to earn a living in Louisiana, before we build another visitor center, before we spend any money on it. We attempted to try to find out how much this visitor center would cost, and nobody could tell us. But the point is, we probably should not spend a penny on that until we have taken care of the people in Louisiana.

If you look at the stories that continue to come out--and Senator Landrieu has been a champion in this body of making sure the rest of the Members of this body are aware of the continuing needs of Louisiana for housing--we should not spend any money on anything other than those critical needs for the people of Louisiana. When those are met, then we go and build a visitor center. We do not do it at the same time. To do it at the same time says there is no limit on the amount of funds we have, and we know there are. So we should not put this forward.

This amendment does not take away the visitor center, it does not eliminate the visitor center; it just says you cannot spend any money on it until we have taken care of people in Louisiana and their housing. It is very simple, very straightforward, but puts a priority, much like you and I put a priority on what our needs are. One of our big failures in this body is picking priorities. If we had unlimited funds, we would not need to do that, but we do not have unlimited funds. Our true deficit was far in excess of $300 billion last year, although we claimed it was under $200 billion by Enron-style accounting. But, in fact, we added $300 billion to our children's and grandchildren's debt.

So this is just a little, small amendment that says we should not do this until we have taken care of the obligations that are in front of us in terms of people's lives. When we have done that, then go for it, go do it, but do not do it ahead of those people. When people cannot have services, cannot have what they need, who have been displaced by a natural disaster the likes of which we have never seen before in this country, we should not spend one penny on thing other than taking care of them. Once they are taken care of--a legitimate Federal role, to make sure the environment for housing has been created so Louisiana can get back on its feet--then we ought to do that. So we are not eliminating it. We are just saying, do not spend the money, there is no authorization until you have met and it has been certified that the housing needs of those who are in temporary housing today--trailers, tens and tens of thousands of people are still living in trailers, who still do not have access to housing--do not do that until you have met that need. It is very simple.

Certainly.

Mr. President, I plan on it.

Mr. President, I would be fine with that.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

I would like to make some comments. First of all, we do not take this out. We do not eliminate it. We just say there ought to be a priority on the funds, and the funds for housing ought to come ahead of this. No. 2 is, 3 years ago, a new visitor center was opened for this very purpose for the Atchafalaya Basin, which is the focus of the new visitor center. This just opened 3 years ago.

Again, in a quote from it: Smack dab in the center of the Atchafalaya Basin is a very welcoming site for those traveling on Interstate 10. The Atchafalaya Welcome Center is open seven days a week from 8:30 to 5. The center is located off Interstate 10 at exit 121. It is a first class facility, quite impressive, with historical information within the walls. It is an Acadian-style cottage museum. Outside, wildlife and nature will take you back in time.

It was completed in June 2004. It has many of the same things the Senator wants to support. There are also two other visitor centers in Morgan City, so it is not that there is not some process out there already to do that.

Again, the point is not to eliminate this visitor center. The point is to say, shouldn't we have a priority--before we allow money to go for another visitor center where there is already one that has just opened 3 years ago, shouldn't we have the people who need housing taken care of? So I will stand with that and will not continue the debate on that.

Amendment No. 1090 to Amendment No. 1065

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 1090.

This, again, is for the restoration of beaches. It is a 30- or 40-year project, which I do not object to on its face. I love beaches. I take my family to Florida. I noticed recently they restored beaches down there. Again, the question is priorities. We have a tough time setting priorities. We take authorizations bills, we don't look at them. What we do is we get them authorized and then we fight like heck when the appropriations time comes around to get our projects funded.

The Sacramento levee system, according to the Corps of Engineers, is one of the most important projects they have in terms of reducing risk for people at risk of flood. We had a debate on this floor less than a year ago with the Senators from California. I talked to the Governor of California. I had attempted to strip out some of the funding of an emergency bill for emergency funds for the Corps of Engineers for this basin and for these levees. They convinced me with their argument that was a high priority. I actually withdrew my amendment. I did not ask for a vote on it.

We have a WRDA bill that has this in it, and then we have a beach restoration project, over which there is some significant debate in terms of Imperial Beach in southern California, restoring that beach over the next 40 to 50 years, with intermittent projects every 4 to 5 years, pumping sand to restore the beach. I am not against that, either. But what I think we have to do is set a priority.

Why shouldn't the priority be that we protect the people of Sacramento and finish the levee system? The answer will be: We can do both. Well, we really cannot do both. We will do both probably, but we cannot do both. We cannot do both with the money we have. So then it comes to: Where are the priorities? We will have this debate again when the bills come forward in the appropriations process, of where the priority is. We will probably fund both these projects. But when the American taxpayers ask: Now, which one is most important, which one is a true Federal responsibility, which one is a State responsibility, they are going to want some answers. When asked about protecting a major city such as Sacramento with a levee system that the Corps of Engineers designed, which was substandard to begin with, and redoing that to make sure we protect all these people, or letting the State of California restore its own beaches from sand erosion, I believe the vast majority of Americans will say: As to the beach, probably the local community can afford to do that. They get the benefits off of it. They get the property taxes off of it. They get the tourism off of it. But Sacramento is a different story. It is something the Federal Government started. It is something the Federal Government is responsible for, and something the Federal Government should respond to and finish.

Senator Feinstein, in our debate last year, noted that the bottom line is that human life and property hangs in the balance based on the sustainability of these levees. I think that is right. I do not think human life stands in the balance on restoring the beaches, which is really a State responsibility.

What we are going to do in this bill is we are going to take taxpayer money. We are actually going to borrow the money to do it. We are not going to do it out of the regular budget. We are going to pay for something that is a State responsibility. The other factor that comes into it is that every State in the Union, save one, has a surplus this year. We have a $300 billion deficit, if we are honest. So, again, it comes back: is it great if we have extra money, if we aren't borrowing the money for the future? Should we do this at the same time? I would agree.

The fact is, we don't want to make the hard choices. We don't want to tell anybody no, not now. What we want to do is be able to have both. We can satisfy people today, but the people who will be dissatisfied with the generational collar that we put around them will be our kids and grandkids as they repay the cost of out not prioritizing things, not looking at things that are most important, and otherwise not standing up to the line and doing what we should be doing, which is making the hard choices of priorities.

One of the things I think the American citizenry is upset with, as much as the war or more, is the fact that it seems as if we don't care about the future. We will throw money at anything, money we don't have.

So these two amendments I bring to the floor today are not big. They may not pass, but they are based on a principle. The principle is to be a good steward. We all, in our own personal lives, with our own money, have to make priorities. We have to put that roof on before we do something else to the house. We have to make a choice about where the first dollar should go. Unfortunately, sometimes we do a poor job of that in the Congress.

I believe, from the way this Senator sees it, securing the levees ought to be a much higher priority than restoring beach that can be restored by a local community or the State of California. It is not truly a Federal responsibility.

I have studied a great deal about the beach restoration project. They have a general plan. What has happened to them has been out of their control, the Tijuana River in terms of how it has been blockaded and dammed and the amount of sand that filters in and that is available for the beach. Several attempts at growing structures had been made in 1978. A plan was put forth that would have restored it. It did not meet the environmental impact statement. It was abandoned at that time.

What we know and what is predicted by those who have watched this-- especially Orrin Pikley, the director of the program for the State Developmental Shorelines at Duke University--is that we shouldn't be nourishing the beaches. President Clinton, much to his credit, saw the need for the States to take a greater burden in financing beach nourishment, and he proposed eliminating all funding for nourishment projects and studies, and he reduced the Federal share to 35 percent on any projects that weren't ongoing.

Where is the responsibility? Who is going to pay for it? It is easy to spend your money. It is easy to not tell anybody no. But the fact is, when we get down to the long and the short of it, we can't do everything everybody wants to do. I know a lot of people were told no in this bill about things they want to do, but we do some of it, to be fair. But in the long run, lives, safety, and housing have to take precedence over convenience and recreation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the restoration project in this bill solve the problem of Imperial Beach?

It is a 50-year fix only if they continue to do the work every 5 years, correct?

According to the Corps, every 5 years we will pump the same amount of sand up there, and in 50 years we will be doing the same thing again. This isn't a long-term fix; this is a short-term fix, according to the Corps, not according to anybody else. They have to do the same thing every 5 years to maintain the status quo; is that correct?

Every 10 years, they are going to have to bring back the sand the ocean naturally washes away from the beach because we have not done what needs to be done, which is a long, extended growing, to help the beach replenish itself.

I would not know how to argue with that. Would the Senator yield for a moment, and I will finish up?

The difference between this and a dam is a dam is put there to control water or generate power. They have to be maintained. The way to fix this, according to the people we have talked to, is the original Corps plan is to put the money into an extended growing until the beach redevelops and replenishes itself. We will continue to do this every 10 years. I am not saying that is not a good priority, but it is not a priority like many of the other things.

I have a letter that I received from Dr. Serge Dedina, executive director of WiLDCOAST, supporting our amendment and asking that this money be placed secondary to the efforts in Sacramento because their studies show one winter storm will wash away what this money was spent for. In fact, this isn't the best plan, although it is a plan and-- again, if I was there, I would want this beach maintained and restored. But I understand the desire for it. I understand the priorities for it. I understand the decisions that have been made in terms of lessening priorities that weren't included in that bill.

I appreciate the time the chairman of the committee has given me to offer these amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I appreciate the attention to drug safety on the part of Senators Kennedy and Enzi. The drug safety problems our nation experienced surrounding Vioxx and the SSRIs demanded that we take a serious look at the FDA.

I appreciate the hundreds and hundreds of staff hours that have gone into working on this legislation both before and after the HELP Committee markup.

When the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee marked up this legislation, I strongly opposed it. I appreciate the willingness of Senators Kennedy and Enzi to listen to my concerns and take action to address them. Many of the changes I requested are included in the final product that we vote on today.

This bill has come a very long ways since its consideration in the HELP Committee. Instead of requiring a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, REMS, for every drug, a REMS may

only be requested when there is a scientific reason for one. In giving new regulatory authority to the FDA, we must be extremely cautious that we do not hurt access to new and innovative prescription drugs.

I appreciate that the concept, introduced by Senators Gregg, Burr, and myself, to establish a surveillance system for adverse prescription drug events has been included in this legislation. This will now allow cooperation with academic institutions that have the expertise to evaluate the signals from that surveillance system and ensure that both patients and doctors have the information they need to make decisions about the risks and benefits of medical drugs.

As a practicing physician, I know that it is impossible to ever completely eliminate drug risks. The right approach is to provide accurate risk information and preserve the doctor-patient relationship. I appreciate the progress made in the bill towards this end.

I appreciate the willingness of Senators Kennedy and Enzi to work with me on preserving the doctor-patient relationship. The FDA's job is to approve drugs as safe and effective--not to dictate which doctors can prescribe which drugs to which patients. Medicine is not just a science; it is also an art.

This legislation will ensure that patients have access to potentially lifesaving drugs that might not otherwise be approved because of known adverse events caused by the drug. This legislation establishes that the agency will not limit or restrict distribution or use unless a drug has been shown to actually cause an adverse event.

I also appreciate the efforts of my colleague Senator Roberts in preserving the right to commercial free speech, as intended by the Constitution, in direct-to-consumer, DTC, advertising. While I am not a big fan of DTC, I am a big fan of the Constitution. I am pleased that a compromise was reached to remove the ban on DTC from this bill and instead ensure that drug companies are held accountable if their advertisements are false or misleading.

I appreciate the willingness of Senators Kennedy and Enzi to accept an amendment that will provide a date certain for a safety evaluation of the drug RU-486.

The two user fee agreements for prescription drugs and medical devices, PDUFA and MDUFMA, have been negotiated between industry representatives and the FDA. The industry indicates what it will pay for faster drug approvals and the FDA commits to achievable performance goals.

I appreciate the work of FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach in crafting fair and reasonable proposals for both prescription drug and medical device companies. It is critical that we focus on public health and safety, and also hold the FDA accountable for improved agency performance goals. Maintaining timely and efficient patient access to lifesaving and life-enhancing medical drugs and devices is a win for the industry, doctors, and patients. I look forward to seeing how the new performance goals in both the PDUFA and MDUFMA agreements will both help keep the pipeline of innovation moving forward and improve communication and understanding between agency staff and manufacturers.

I can vote in favor of this legislation today because of the enormous progress made. However, there are some workability issues with both the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Improvement Act. These issues need to be resolved so that the FDA has the authority to do its job quickly and effectively.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, has generated more clinical information for the pediatric population than any other legislative or regulatory effort to date. I am concerned about this reauthorization of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act because chips away at incentives that have been getting real results for kids.

I am also concerned that part of the bill, pediatric medical devices, would authorize $30 million in demonstration grants for improving the availability of pediatric devices. While this has a worthy goal, more accountability is needed for this program to ensure that such grants are used for helping save the lives of children. Additionally, the bill's sponsors failed to do their homework in examining existing Federal programs. The fact is, the National Institutes of Health already has a program for this purpose. In order to preserve a heritage for our grandchildren, Congress needs to do the hard work of taking an inventory of existing programs before we authorize new ones.

Again, I appreciate the enormous amount of work that has gone into improving this legislation. It is critical that in addressing drug safety that we do not harm access to new and lifesaving medical technologies.

Madam President, as we debate the important issue of drug safety, I want to address the safety of one drug in particular: RU-486 or mifepristone. This drug was approved in 2000 under a special pathway, subpart H drug approval that is reserved for drugs that treat severe or life-threatening illnesses. Subpart H approvals generally require a special ``restricted distribution'' approval process. Unfortunately some drugs, RU-486 for example, approved under subpart H have caused serious adverse health events in women.

Every drug approved under Subpart H is listed on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site. The vast majority of drugs listed combat HIV or specific types of cancer. One governs the use of thalidomide in treating leprosy. These drugs are supposed to relate to the treatment of life-threatening illnesses.

One example of a subpart H approval makes a mockery of the regulatory process by an expedited approval of two extremely risky drugs for abortions. Pregnancy is not an illness and certainly not one that is life-threatening in the first 7 weeks, unless it is a tubal or ectopic pregnancy in which case RU-486 abortions are absolutely contraindicated.

RU-486 was inappropriately approved in 2000. RU-486 was approved using special ``subpart H'' regulations to address problems for ``certain new drug products that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses . . .'' and under restricted distribution conditions due to serious hazards presented by the drug; for example, severe hemorrhage and ectopic pregnancies. This was an inappropriate approval of RU-486 as pregnancy is not normally a life-threatening condition. Today many health care providers do not follow the limited distribution requirements of RU- 486's approval.

RU-486 has put women's lives at risk. To date there have been six North American deaths related to the use of the RU-486 abortion regimen: five Americans and one Canadian have died from septic shock stemming from infection by the anaerobic bacteria Clostridium sordellii. Five other international deaths have been related to RU-486.

RU-486 causes serious safety issues. More than 1,000 adverse event reports--232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection--have been submitted regarding RU-486 and are significant because they confirm that large numbers of mifepristone patients require surgical intervention for infection, hemorrhage, complications from ectopic pregnancy, and incomplete abortions. While lives have been lost from the use of RU-486, not a single case has been documented where RU-486 has been used to save a woman's life.

RU-486 is not always effective and when it is not the consequences are dire. I recently learned of a woman who was given RU-486 after she had a seizure. Her physicians assumed that the seizure was life- threatening to the baby she was carrying and gave her RU-486 for a therapeutic abortion.

RU-486 was not effective in her case and the woman carried the baby to term. When the baby was born at a low birth weight, it also suffered from failure to thrive. That baby has had three subsequent brain surgeries due to hydrocephalus. The baby also suffers from idiopathic lymphocytocholitis--an inflammatory disease of the colon, which is extremely rare in children. It is clear that RU-486 not only is unsafe in women, but it is also not completely effective. And when it is not effective, the results are devastating.

I appreciate the desire to effect safer drugs through this bill. Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have done a great deal of work in designing the REMS scheme for certain drugs to ensure that they can be safely and effectively used.

Under the risk evaluation and mitigation system, REMS, provisions of this drug safety bill, a drug that has previously been approved under subpart H is deemed to have a REMS. Every REMS is subject to a periodic review. Therefore, RU-486 is deemed to have a REMS and is subject to periodic review.

I am pleased that the amendment offered by Senator DeMint was accepted by the full Senate. Senator DeMint's amendment sets a ``date certain'' REMS assessment for RU-486 to properly evaluate its drug safety risks in women. Women in this country deserve to know the safety risks associated with RU-486.

Mr. President, I rise to speak for a minute in support of Senator Allard's amendment. I also want to recognize Senator Dodd's work, and I believe he truly cares about us getting pharmaceuticals to children. But I think the bill as written today has some very great risks for our children.

I practice medicine. I can remember 25 years ago, for so many of the drugs, we did not know what we were doing as they related to children. We had sometimes great outcomes and sometimes poor outcomes as to the availability and knowledge of pharmaceuticals for children.

We have a system that started 10 years ago that has been highly successful. Mr. President, 144 drugs have now been studied in kids. We know what we are doing with 144 drugs. With 25 of those drugs, we now know not to use them for children.

How did we get there? We created an incentive that said: We will give you a 6-month patent extension if you will study pediatric indications and do a study on pediatric patients for this drug. It worked. As a matter of fact, it worked great.

Now, I am having trouble understanding, as a physician, the therapy Senator Dodd wants to put on this. He is back to practicing medicine the way we did pediatrics 25 years ago with his amendment. I certainly hope he is right if he wins because there are going to be a lot of children in trouble if he is not.

What his amendment actually says is, if you made $1 billion off a drug, you only get a 3-month extension. I can see how we could look and say they are making too much money. But only 1 out of every 10 drugs we studied in pediatrics was a blockbuster drug. So what is happening with these high-profile drugs they are making a lot of money off of is they are the things that are funding the other 130 studies of drugs that are not blockbusters, that are not profitable.

So what Senator Dodd has put in this bill--and I know it is well- meaning--is to limit that profitability, hoping drugs will become more reasonable, and gambling--a very risky gamble--that the research on pediatric drugs will continue with that 3-month extension.

He may be right. But as someone who cares for kids in my own practice, I am not willing to take that gamble. I am not willing to say: What if he is wrong? What if the studies go from 144 to 15?

Now that we are seeing all these new drugs coming out, we are not going to have a study for kids? We are going to take away opportunities for young children to have the benefits of a new drug because they are not studied? Or we are going to use the drugs anyhow, even though they are not indicated and we do not know what we are doing, in a hope--not in a knowledgeable, scientific way but in a hope we are doing some good?

We have a system that has worked very well. Senator Dodd was supportive of that system. I do not know that he is right. He could be right. But the question will be: What if he is wrong? What if the next 100 drugs that come out for maladies that could have an application for children--especially some very small used drugs, specialty drugs for chemotherapy, and have a very low incidence of usage in kids--what if they are not available? What if they are not made available? How many children are not going to get that drug? Now the system is paying for 90 percent of the studies on drugs that aren't the blockbusters, and we are going to cut the incentive in half. It may work. I don't know where the knowledge is, the scientific inquiry, or the study that says that going from 6 months to 3 months is the right amount. What about 2 months? What about 1 month? What about 5 months? We don't know. So what are we going to do? We are now going to go back and practice on pediatric drug studies the way we used to practice on children. We are going to guess.

What the Allard amendment says is: We are not real happy there is this amount of tremendous profit, but we do understand that the profit off the blockbuster drugs is actually paying for 90 percent of the studies on nonblockbuster drugs for kids, that we are going to take away that incentive. It is really comforting as a physician to know now what I didn't know before in terms of giving a kid a medicine and knowing how it is going to be metabolized, knowing its half-life, knowing it is different in a child and being able to dose it correctly, and confidently saying to a parent: I have given you something that is going to fix your child, that is going to cure this illness, and I know you are not going to have a side effect from it.

What we have done has worked. Why would we mess with it unless we know? I have listened to this debate. I don't see anybody telling me how we know we are not going to disincentivize further drug studies. If somebody can show me that, then I will be happy to vote against the Allard amendment. But there is not anybody who can show me scientifically that we are going to have another 144 drugs studied if we cut this in half. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I can't see into the future, but I am cautious enough to know I love the progress we have made.

If we change this, if we change it--and it sounds as if, from the debate here, the Allard amendment isn't going to be approved--we better darn sure know what we are doing, and we better darn sure say that taking money away from drug companies in terms of extending patents is not going to have a negative impact in terms of positive benefits.

I am not the greatest defender of the drug companies. I authored the first bill that was signed by President Clinton which allowed reimportation of drugs into this country. Why did I do it? I think we need to have a worldwide market on pharmaceuticals. We don't. We have a controlled market everywhere except in this country. The American taxpayers end up subsidizing the research and subsidizing the profits. But I also recognize that some of these drugs' profits are the very things that allow me to now give comfort to a mother and a father when they have a very sick child.

I hope Senator Dodd has the wisdom to know that he has done it just right and that there is not going to be one cancer chemotherapeutic agent that wasn't studied in children because it is not a blockbuster drug, and now that we are going to cut it to 3 months, that there will still be an incentive to make sure that the next child with a sarcoma or the next child with an aplastic anemia or the next child with a leukemia that is resistant to bone marrow transplant or anything else is going to be able to have the medicine.

We are going to go back to the way we practiced medicine 10 or 12 years ago. We are not going to know, and we are going to shoot from the hip and pray and hope. What we have today is we don't have to pray and hope anymore. We now have the studies.

I don't know the answer to it, and I am not saying Senator Dodd is wrong, but I think a legitimate question to ask is, What if he is wrong? What if he is wrong? How many children aren't going to have drugs? How many children are going to have a drug complication? How many children are going to have a drug interaction? How many children's lives aren't going to be saved because we decided the drug companies are making too much money and we are going to tell them how much they should make?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I want to chime in for a minute on this amendment, and I want to set a little background. Why do we want to import prescription drugs? What is the reason behind it? The reason is that there is not a true international market in pharmaceuticals. Senator Stabenow quoted a figure of $29 billion worth of Government research. That is not quite accurate. There is $29 billion that goes to NIH, but that is not all related to drug development. Probably half of that is. So we do have a great investment in drugs. There is no question

that the American consumer subsidizes the pharmaceuticals of almost every other nation in this world. So the purpose behind this amendment is a good one.

I would draw attention to the fact that Senator Brown and I passed a drug reimportation bill in the late 1990s that became law, and President Clinton signed it. Donna Shalala, however, under the same guidelines, refused to carry out that mandate--that bill is still on the books, by the way--claiming there was nothing they could do that would make them safe and that they could assure they were safe.

I am going to vote for this amendment, and I think it is right that we should develop a worldwide market on pharmaceuticals, but I am not sure we are going to accomplish this. Having authored the first bill on drug reimportation when I was a Member in the House, what I have seen is that the problem is much bigger than what we are attacking. I find it kind of peculiar and strange that we haven't gone a little further. What really needs to happen is we need to tell all our friends around the world that tell the pharmaceutical companies what price they will pay for drugs, we need to tell them what price we will pay for their products. As soon as we did that, guess what. There would be a worldwide market on pharmaceuticals. We may get there through reimportation, but I don't think so. I think it is going to get squeezed down. I think greed conquers technological difficulty almost every time.

So I think this is a good step, but if we really want to solve this problem, let us put an amendment on the floor which says that any country that essentially fixes the price on pharmaceuticals, their products coming into our country will have their prices fixed. Can you imagine if we were to tell BMW what they are going to get for a BMW 531, or Volkswagen what they are going to get for one of their vehicles, or Toyota what they are going to sell a car for? That is essentially what they are doing to the pharmaceutical industry in this country.

I believe this is a good amendment, and I am supportive of reimportation, but I don't believe it solves the problem. I don't want the American people to think that if we pass this, all of a sudden the price of drugs is going to come down. It will not. It is great that we are doing it, but we are not going far enough. We need to ask the administration to carry out the strength of their ability through Executive orders to create true competition throughout the country and throughout the world on pharmaceutical prices.

Regardless of all the precautions and the well-thought-out plans of Senator Dorgan--and I know Senator Brown has worked on this for years, as has Senator Stabenow and Senator Vitter and several others--I believe they will get around it. I believe they will sign contracts for fixed quantities of drugs, and then the countries that have the potential to take a drug that was produced here or produced by a manufacturer that is based out of this country, they will limit the amount of drugs that are available to them based on the contract they sign for the number of drugs. So we will have made everybody feel better, but we will not really have created a worldwide market for pharmaceuticals. That is what I think we have to do.

I would like to put out to the author of this amendment, as well as the sponsors, that we ought to think bigger on how to handle this because what we really have is one industry where there is not true free trading. We are not ever going to get the benefits, we are not ever going to relieve the burden of the American consumer, who is paying to subsidize drugs in Germany, in England, in France, and in Japan, we are not ever going to take that burden off until we really create a true worldwide market in pharmaceuticals. I am just hesitant to believe this is going to accomplish it.

Like I said, I am going to vote for it. I believe it is a step in the right direction, but I think we need to be more bold. If we really believe in the benefits of international free trade, then we should do whatever is in our power to insist it become an international market for pharmaceuticals. That way, the pharmaceutical companies won't have to use the only market there is in our country to subsidize the variable costs and the research that they contribute to a lot of the drugs that come today.

So I am supportive, I think it will pass, but I would reach out to the other Members who are interested and say: Let's do something bigger. Let's do something that will really fix it and do it fairly quickly. We will have a thriving pharmaceutical industry that way. It truly will be based on competition. Intellectual properties that are truly researched and supported by the country--we as Americans, if we have done that, we will get the better benefit from it if we have a true international market. I think the drug companies would like to see that as well.

I understand they are trying to get return on invested assets. I believe it is important that everyone has a fair price for a pharmaceutical and that people make money when they sell a pharmaceutical. But we have to have an international market, and we have to solve it that way.

I thank Senator Brown for allowing me the time, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 985

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

Mr. President, in consultation with the managers of the bill, they have granted me some time to bring up three additional amendments that I believe are important as we look at the bill.

Amendment No. 918

First, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 918 be called up.

Mr. President, this is a sunset amendment. It is very plain, very straightforward. It says, can we be assured that we have, with absolute certainty, all the wisdom, facts, and knowledge we will need 4 years from now as to the viability of the programs expressed in this bill?

It is one thing the American people would like to see us do--relook at, on a regular basis, what we authorize to make sure what we are doing still has application. As a matter of fact, the biggest problem I have noticed in our Government is that we don't do oversight, we don't review and reassess, except in very rare instances.

This amendment is very simple. It just says that in 4 years, we are going to look at it again. We are going to sunset the bill, and probably a year before that Senator Alexander and his companions will come back, relook at it, tweak this, make the changes they need to make, and then have the America COMPETES Act again 4 years from now. The key component of what it does is it forces us to look at it because it is going to expire, it is going to run out of gas.

What happens now is that we pass things and don't ever look at them again. I believe the Senator from Tennessee, as well as the Senator from New Mexico, would agree that we fail to do proper oversight in this body. That is one of the very lacking components of the job. It is hard work, oftentimes not fun, but it is very important to the future of this country.

Some people will say that we should not sunset this, that the implication is that we know now what we are going to need to know 4 years from now. But, in fact, we sunset a lot of things, from the PATRIOT Act, to the tax bills, to the Ryan White health care bill, to Defense bills, to veterans bills. I put forward that we need more sunsets because of the discipline it will force on us as representatives of the American people to do what is in their best interest, with the knowledge we have on hand at that time.

I don't know whether this amendment will pass, but it is a great judgment for the American people to look at us and say are we serious about doing the business or are we so arrogant or elitist that we think we know now absolutely what we need to know 4 years from now.

I had a good debate with Senator Durbin on the previous bill the body considered. One of his suggestions was that I should have offered a sunset to that legislation. I think that is a great suggestion. I think it is equally apropos that we do it on this legislation. It gives us the benefit of our experience over the next 3 years, it allows us to have the hearings in the committee and the committee work we need to do--as a parenthesis, this bill didn't go through any committees, didn't have the pleasure of the Commerce or HELP Committee--and allows us to look at and see what we have been doing and whether it is effective, whether or not the American people actually get good value for the money over what we intend them to do. That is our real obligation. It is not to create an America COMPETES Act, it is not to pass a piece of legislation, but, in fact, it is to make sure that whatever we do, the American taxpayer dollar gets a great accomplishment for that.

I reserve the remainder of my time and will listen to the opposing points of view on this amendment.

Mr. President, the claim of Senator Bingaman that a point of order will lie against this is wrong. Paragraph 7, rule XVI only requires the Appropriations Committee to list the unauthorized programs. He made my point: 20 percent of our appropriations are unauthorized from expired or sunsetted programs. It won't stop anything if it is a good program.

I contend with Senator Domenici that he thinks this is a great bill, but the only way we are going to know is the results of the bill. So based on what we think, not on what we know, is the reason this bill should be sunsetted so that it forces us to go back and look at what we might think we know today but didn't know and change it.

It is about putting discipline into our body. It is about forcing us to do the work the people told us they wanted done when we came here. It requires us to not be fortune tellers, to not be seance dwellers, but to, in fact, look at the facts after 3 years, see what it has accomplished, and forces us to make the changes.

The Senator knows quite well that on most of the programs we haven't done that. That is one of the reasons we had a $350 billion deficit. That is one of the reasons we had $200 billion that we spent on wasteful, duplicated, or fraudulent programs last year out of the $1 trillion we spent in the discretionary budget.

What I am trying to do is force us to do the hard work of relooking. I agree, does that make it hard? Yes. Nobody said it was going to be easy. But I would want any Senator in this body who says they know the outcome of this bill to put something behind that and say we don't need to relook at it. That is the question. This is a disciplinary force that says we have to come back and look at it.

Let me remind my colleagues again. There are great ideas in this legislation. I don't doubt that for a minute. This didn't go through the committee process. This wasn't made available for amendments. On an $80 billion authorization--which is what it is going to be if we guess at the sums that are authorized for this bill--to not have it go through either committees of jurisdiction and come to the floor, and we are going to spend this kind of money and we are going to think rather than know it is going to work, and to say we should not look at it I find really ironic, and I feel pretty sure most of the American people would think we can't know for sure.

It is a commonsense amendment and will cause us to do what is necessary.

Amendment No. 922

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

I call up amendment No. 922.

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

Mr. President, we passed the Fisheries Act, the Magnuson- Stevens Act, which was reauthorized this year in which Senator Stevens undertook, correctly, the responsibility of eliminating conflicts of interest and created oversight on the fisheries boards.

We have recently had notification and seen some pretty significant abuse within NOAA of some of their grant processes. All this amendment says is, we are going to add some accountability and transparency to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants program.

I refer my colleagues to a Baltimore Sun article which has been prominent in that newspaper over the last couple of weeks where over $10 million in a grant has failed to demonstrate results. It is riddled with conflicts of interest, and it has had little to no oversight from

Mr. President, it has come to mind that NOAA, when they do the grants, lets the grantee set the terms of oversight. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from NOAA's official Web site their financial assistance application for their grants where they ask the grantee what kind of oversight they want rather than setting it up themselves.

Mr. President, let me describe what has happened. There was an earmark which NOAA believed they did not have the responsibility to oversee, since it was an earmark, in terms of rehabitating oyster beds. We have seen from the investigations so far that it has been highly ineffective. But more importantly, what we have seen is conflicts of interest in terms of the board that manages the program and the ownership of the companies that are given the grant money.

I won't go into the details. Senator Mikulski is in agreement that they should be oversighted and looked at and conflict of interest should be eliminated. This amendment is very simple. It just says that ought to happen and there ought to be a review, there ought to be a prohibition of use of NOAA funds for meetings. There is $46,000 yearly going out for a meeting out of this grant money with no real concern. There is no conflict of interest requirement in the grant authority- making process at NOAA. So this amendment simply sets out that we ought to have basic conflict of interest rules of engagement in the grant- making process with NOAA.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, what you just heard was a denial that we need oversight and that people shouldn't be accountable for how they spend Federal dollars. The fact is, this is one program and one meeting. This doesn't stop meetings. This doesn't stop any legitimate function. This was a golf tournament and a meeting for 2 days that cost $46,000 of Federal funds. I will tell you, NOAA does not have any conflict of interest rules presently in their guidelines.

So what the Senator is saying is, leave it the way it is today. Let's don't change it. That is exactly the problem, because this didn't come through the Commerce Committee. They would have fixed it, as Senator Stevens fixed the fishery boards. Instead, what we are trying to do with this is to fix the same thing Senator Stevens did with the fishery boards. Because it didn't come through committee, that didn't get attached. Now that we want to attach it on the floor, we don't want to have that done.

The fact is, there is no oversight catalyst with these grant programs. By defeating this amendment, we are going to continue saying there is none. If you don't like this amendment, then fix it in conference. There is no reason why we shouldn't hold these grants to the light of day. There is no reason why they shouldn't be transparent. Everything in this Government should be transparent.

There is nothing in these grants that is fiduciary or private that shouldn't be exposed. The fact is, if you are going to take money from the Federal Government, the American people ought to know what you do with it. What we are saying is, we don't want that to happen. That is what defeating this amendment means. It means more secrecy, less transparency. It means, by the way, if there is a financial conflict of interest, don't worry about it, we don't want to hold them accountable.

I understand the resistance, but the American people won't understand the resistance. The real problem we are faced with is our Government is so big and into so many things that we don't know where it is being handled right or wrong. This is one small step to say there shouldn't be a conflict of interest. There ought to be reporting, there ought to be oversight, which there is not. We ought to be asking the GAO to oversee it and to look at it. That is all it does.

Mr. President, I will rest with the will of the body on that amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and that amendment No. 921 be called up.

Mr. President, this is an amendment to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program. I see the Senator from Michigan is here, and I am sure she will mount a rigorous defense in regard to it.

There are some things people should be aware of. We had an oversight hearing on this program in my Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. We showed it to be ineffective. Between 1990 and 2004, 35 percent of the $2 billion of this program went to Fortune 500 companies--Fortune 500 companies--with 65 percent of the grants under this program never being asked to be funded outside of the program. In other words, they never went to the private sector. Almost two-thirds never attempted to get funding in the private sector.

This was a program that was designed to help with technology. It wasn't designed to be a corporate welfare program. In fact, what has happened is that five companies since 1990 have consumed $376 million of this money. Let me tell you who the companies were. They were: General Motors, hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; IBM, hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; General Electric, hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; Minnesota Mining, 3M; and Motorola. Their combined revenues yearly are in excess of $50 billion.

We are going to see a large defense of this program, because there have been some instances where it has done some good. I don't deny that. But for the $2 billion we have spent on it, what have we gotten? The House has eliminated this program, by the way. We decreased it over the last 2 years. This is a program that is not working efficiently, is not working effectively, and we are not getting great return for our money.

Mr. President, with that, I will withhold the rest of my comments and retain the balance of my time.

I believe you all still have time.

I thank the Senator for his comments. I would note that the House didn't find it hard to eliminate ATP on their component piece of legislation that will be matched up with

this and, in fact, last year we eliminated ATP in the funding cycle on the appropriations side.

I know there are some positive things about the program, but overall it is a poor investment for the Federal taxpayer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor at the present time, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am somewhat perplexed. We had a debate on Medicare Part D. The debate was about corporate welfare. I find it hard to believe that we want to continue to fund General Electric and IBM and Intel and all these other companies with taxpayer money after we have claimed we do not want to do corporate welfare.

Tell me where in that process--if the Senator from New Mexico would care to put his sign back up--this money is? Tell me why an IBM needs money at that stage. Tell me why a General Electric needs taxpayer money at that stage, money that is going to go to them. They have all the resources. IBM just announced they are buying back 10 percent of their stock. They have plenty of cash. They are buying back their stock. Tell me why, in a time when we have a $300 billion deficit, $300 billion we borrowed from two generations from now, that we should give a penny to IBM, corporate welfare to enhance anything. They have all the resources they need. Tell me why we should give a penny to General Electric or Intel or any of those large companies that consume 30 percent of this money.

If we want to have an Advanced Technology Program, why wouldn't we say, yes, we will do it, but you have to be at a certain size. You have to truly not be able to access the capital markets. They have no problems accessing the capital markets for research. So what we are doing is taking from two generations from now and giving it to the richest corporations in this country and making ourselves feel good because it wouldn't happen otherwise. It will happen otherwise. That is what markets are all about.

I will be happy to have the Senator respond to my question.

Let me reclaim my time. I thank the Senator for answering my question. I guess the difference is, in the long run, where is the benefit? If any of those industries are going to survive, they are going to be putting research dollars into those areas already. That is my contention. We know from the studies that, of all the Fortune 500 companies, the money that has been given to them they would have spent anyway. This is just money that they don't have to spend because we are going to spend American taxpayer dollars on it. The fact is, anybody in any of those areas, especially major companies that have all the capital resources they need--they have an inherent self-interest to fund that research. Why? Because their livelihood and their existence depends on it.

What we are doing is we are saying, for the big companies, the Fortune 500 companies, we are going to take away their risk. The market has already created the risk. Their risk is to develop the program. So I would disagree. I think it is corporate welfare, especially with regard to the Fortune 500 companies that have significant assets.

All you have to do is look at what is out there today, look at the share buy-backs. They have more than enough money with which to fund all these things.

I can give you specific examples from GE, IBM, and Intel. All of those projects were going to be funded anyway. We just gave them a gift. We just simply gave them a gift.

I am happy to yield for a question.

That is inaccurate; 21 percent of the ATP grants over the last 14 years went to Fortune 500 companies.

Yes.

Let me just summarize, and then I will yield back the remainder of my time. How much time do I have?

I will be happy to yield after I finish this last statement, and I appreciate the managers of this bill for the time they have given me on these amendments, and their courtesy.

There is no question, there are positive aspects of this program. I said that before. The question comes--and it really comes from what Senator Stabenow said. We already give them an R&D tax credit. They already get a direct writeoff for doing this research anyway. So the American taxpayers are already paying for it. Now we come along and give them more.

The point is, we do not need both. We do not need both. IBM gets an R&D tax credit, and then they get money from us under ATP for things they were going to do anyway. General Electric gets an R&D tax credit, then they get money from us in the ATP program for these things they are going to do anyway.

I believe there has to come a time when we start thinking about how we spend our money and whether we are getting a good return. The fact is, with ATP, overall, all the money we have spent, we have not gotten back a return.

The other point I would make is, only four States have received about 60 percent of the money on this ATP program. Ironic, isn't it? Four States. So

there is great consensus among those people on a parochial basis to support this program because it is a big program for those individual States.

Mr. President, I will finish by saying that all three amendments I have offered today are designed to increase transparency, increase accountability, eliminate conflicts of interests, and eliminate wasteful Government spending. That is what we have to be about if we, in fact, want to leave the heritage to our children and grandchildren that we will receive by such great sacrifice of those people who came before us. That is the real deal. The way you leave a heritage is to sacrifice today. We cannot have everything we want today if we want our kids and grandkids to have what we have experienced.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, there is no question the ATP program has had some successes. The fact is that over $2.5 billion has gone to Fortune 500 companies over the last 14 years for research they would have done otherwise. This is a program which is outmoded. We have a way to help businesses do research and development. It is called the R&D tax credit. This is not effective. It is a poor way to spend our money.

I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back my time.

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

Madam President, the bill we have before us today is a well-intentioned, thoughtful exercise to try to change the future for our country. The Commission this bill is based on, the work and experience of those who have helped coauthor the bill, is rightly so in their concern for the future of our competitiveness. There is one problem, however. The biggest dole on our competitiveness today has to be the largesse of the Federal Government. Let me give a few examples.

Last year, the American people spent $224 billion paying interest on the national debt. Last year, the American people, through our actions, spent $350 billion more than we had, which further increased that debt. In the last 6 years, the individual debt owned by American citizens-- what they are required to pay--has risen from $21,000 to almost $30,000. At the same time, the average wage in those same 6 years increased by less than $5,000. So when we think about competitiveness, we ought to pay close attention to the drags on what will be our competitive situation.

The No. 1 drag today is the Federal Government. That is not to demean this bill. I would have loved to have seen a different bill, a bill that says: Here is what we are doing right. Here is what we are doing wrong. Here are some new ideas on how to fix what we are doing wrong and, by the way, here are some things we need to do to keep us competitive. We didn't do that.

The Department of Education right now has 10 percent of its programs that are totally ineffective. The Department of Energy, with its $5 billion budget, has 10 percent of its programs that are highly ineffective. In other words, they are not accomplishing anything. None of that was looked at, deauthorized, or eliminated in this bill. Consequently, according to OMB, we have approximately $80 billion that is going to be authorized to be spent--some of that is reauthorization, I understand--over the next 4 years that is going to be added to the debt.

People will say: This is an authorization. That doesn't mean we are going to spend the money.

Why are we passing the bill if we don't intend to spend the money? We are going to spend the money. The problem with the way we spend money is we don't make the same choices the average American makes. We just chalk it up to our kids and grandkids. So I don't know where the money is going to come from.

This bill is obviously going to pass. It is going to be conferenced, and it is probably going to be signed. But we will have missed a great opportunity to fix many major programs that are not working well today. This bill creates 20 new Federal programs. It doesn't eliminate one Federal program that isn't working well today. It doesn't modify, to a significant extent, those programs which are deemed ineffective and not working.

What we have is great intention and great legislation, save for the fact that we are not looking at the whole story. We are not looking at the whole picture. Should Congress have to do what every family in this country does every month--make a choice? Where do we prioritize our spending for this month? Where do we spend more? What are the things on which we can't afford to spend because we don't have the money? We don't do that. We authorize programs. Then we appropriate funds.

By the way, the discretionary portion of the Federal Government has grown about $600 billion in the last 7 years. Senator Carper and myself held 48 hearings in the last Congress in the

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. What we found was an astounding $200 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication. There was great opportunity to take that information and do something about it. We have not done it.

The Department of Education is not compliant in terms of improper payments. They don't know where they are paying things wrong or paying things right. The Department of Energy is noncompliant in terms of improper payments. They don't know where they are paying things right and paying things wrong. We have at least 20 percent of the Department of Energy's budget that is earmarks. They don't get to decide where they spend the money; the Members of Congress tell them where they have to spend the money. There is not a sense of prioritizing what our energy needs are, what our education needs are within the Department of Energy. There is no commonsense approach to what we are doing. Consequently, the biggest problem we have in terms of competitiveness, which this bill won't solve, is more government. It creates more government rather than less government or the same amount of government that is more efficient and more effective.

I don't intend to impugn the desires or the sincerity of the Members of this body who helped put this bill together. There is no question we need to address the issues that are encompassed in the legislation. That is not my criticism. My criticism is that when we have an opportunity to fix things with a bill such as this which cuts across multiple agencies, we don't do it. What we do is set up a system where more programs will be created without eliminating the ones that are not working.

As a matter of fact, in this bill, in the National Science Foundation, we have a setaside. Where before the National Science Foundation did everything on peer review--everything on peer review, there was no politics saying what you have to do--we are taking $1 billion and setting it aside and we are going to tell them what to do. We know better than the scientists where we ought to be spending our money? I seriously doubt that.

We claim that what we want to do is reestablish the competitiveness of the United States. I have no doubt that certain segments of this bill will go a long way in doing that. I am not critical of the intent of the bill. But I believe--and I raised this on the last bill we considered--we continue to authorize new spending. We continue to put at risk, in the name of competitiveness, the future.

The No. 1 risk for competitiveness is our debt. The fact is, we are sucking capital out of the capital markets like crazy, making it very difficult for small businesses that compete in the capital markets on ideas, innovation, and sole-proprietorships and people who want to take a risk on their own.

The other thing we didn't do is fix IDEA. One of our problems with education is, we passed a law that said school districts will do this for individuals with disabilities. What we promised when we passed that law--much as we will hear in 2 or 3 years as to what we promise with this law--was that we would fund 40 percent of the costs in education for IDEA. That would be the Federal load. This last year, we funded 18 percent. So we wonder why the schools can't compete, why they can't put the money into math and science, the money into competitiveness, when $16 billion a year is being absorbed by the school districts to do something we mandated them to do, which means $16 billion isn't available for them to teach and mentor math and science, for them to create greater opportunities to raise interest in the sciences.

So I think if our past actions speak at all about what the future will bring, you will see we will not keep our word with this bill either. We will say things, we will do things, we will put at risk the next two generations, and we will have felt good because we did something, but we did less than what we could do.

That is what we are doing with this bill. We are doing less than what we could do. We could, in fact, fix what is wrong in many of those programs in the Department of Education and in the Department of Energy today with this bill. It could have been done. It could have been done, but it was not. So, consequently, we are going to fund ineffective programs as we authorize and create and fund new programs, many of which are designed to do the exact same things, but we are not going to eliminate the programs that are not working.

And lest you think I am an alarmist and known as ``Dr. No,'' think about what the obligations are of every child who is born in this country today--just today. What is it? April 24, 2007. When that baby is delivered and placed in its mother's arms, you are going to see smiles of joy and tears--none of them with a realization the child who just came into this world is faced with $453,000 in unfunded liabilities the moment they take their first breath.

The contrast should be, we are talking about competitiveness. How do we create a future? What kind of future is it when we create a bill but do not address the underlying problems that are limiting our competitiveness in the first place? No. 2, even if we are trained in math and science, we are going to be so debt ridden we won't have the money to put into it.

According to the Government Accounting Office, that 8 percent in interest, that $224 billion we spend now, in the year 2025--a mere 18 years from now--will be 25 percent of the budget and close to $1 trillion. Now, think about that. Should we do the hard work of eliminating the wasteful and duplicative programs before we create another?

It is easy to pass legislation that does something good. It is very hard to get rid of programs that are ineffective and highly inefficient. The reason is because everybody has an interest group that supports that program, and we find ourselves adverse to challenging that group.

But the real choice is between our grandchildren and today's present inefficiencies. The real choice is whether we are truly going to be competitive and create an opportunity for the next two generations to experience the same kind of blessings we have been fortunate enough to experience as a nation.

The real question is, will we leave a heritage that is similar to the heritage that was left with us? I tell you, my feelings and my thoughts are I do not see movement in this body or in the Congress as a whole to start addressing the underlying problems that are facing us. It is not a question of partisanship, Democrats or Republicans. It is a question of expediency. It is hard to tell people no when something is not working well. It is easy to ignore it.

Amendment No. 917

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 917.

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

Madam President, it is a simple amendment. We are going to find out what your Senator believes with this amendment. We offered this amendment on the last bill. We had some inside baseball excuses why they would not vote for it. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It does not carry any force of law or anything. All it says is the Senate agrees that before we spend new money, we ought to get rid of the wasteful programs, we ought to get rid of the ones that are not working well, or we ought to make them better before we spend another $60 billion to $80 billion on another set of programs.

That last amendment got 59 votes against it. Only 38 people in the Senate thought we ought to do that. I will tell you, I think the vast majority--greater than 95 percent--of the American public thinks we ought to do that.

So this is a simple amendment. The catch with the amendment is, if you vote for the amendment and then do not change this bill to do what needs to be done to eliminate the other programs, you are going to have a tough time explaining that you agreed to this and then did something else when you voted for the passage of this bill.

There is a day coming when we will not have the luxury to wait around. The financial markets will tell us what we will do. We will not have the freedom within the Senate to make those choices. We will do it under the duress of extreme financial conditions that will affect our country.

So this is a simple amendment, very similar to the last one. I took the authorizing language out of it that some of the appropriators objected to, so it is very simple.

The final statement in the amendment is:

Sense Of The Senate.--

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral

obligation to offset the cost of new Government programs and

initiatives.

Now, with a budget deficit last year that was claimed to be $160 billion, under Enron accounting--which was truly $350 billion, if you looked at what happened to the addition to our debt, what our kids are going to pay--it is going to be pretty hard to say we should not add more to the debt. We have a lot of people who will say the debt does not matter; whatever the debt is, is a percentage of GDP. That is fine if the underlying assumption is we have great economics, and we are not going to have contractions of the economy, we are always going to be able to compete, we are always going to be able to finance our debt. The fact is, as the Government Accounting Office says, we cannot, and the interest costs associated with that will be massive.

Why would I come out here and fight friends and foes alike all the time to do this? Because I think the one shortfall of our body is that overall we are not looking at the big picture and the long run. This looks at the long run, but it does not look at the big picture.

Unless we do that, we are going to find ourselves very apologetic to the next two generations because what, in essence, we will have said is we cared more about us, we cared more about our comfort, we cared more about our next election than we did any of the next two generations.

So I put it to my colleagues: Vote against this and vote for the bill and be honest. But if you think if we create new programs we ought to eliminate other programs so we do not continue to expand the Federal Government running a deficit, then you ought to vote for this amendment and not vote for this bill, until it is made right, until it has captured the opportunities that are inherent within it to fix what is wrong in the Department of Energy, to fix what is wrong in the Department of Education, to fix what is wrong with all these grant programs that need to be fixed today.

Let's hold us accountable. That is what the American people are expecting from us. I want to leave the Senate not being known for anything other than knowing what I did was to try to create and make sure we maintain the heritage this country has given to us.

With that, Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with deference to the Senator from Tennessee, that prior to the vote on my amendment I be given 2 or 3 minutes to speak on it.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, the reason you ought to vote for this sense of the Senate--it doesn't say anything about authorizing. What it says is, and the American people expect, if we are going to create new programs, we ought to get rid of the programs that are not working. We spend $84,000 a second. We spent $350 billion we didn't have last year, and we charged it to the next generation. We have 10 percent of the Department of Energy that is ineffective, we have 10 percent of the Department of Education that is ineffective, and you offset none of the programs as you reauthorize this bill. We doubled up. This says, sense of the Senate, if we are going to spend more money and create new programs, we ought to go after the ones that do not work.

Vote against it at your own peril.