Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, along with Senators Grassley, Brown, and Baucus, I am introducing legislation that will expand opportunities for our next generation of farmers and ranchers. Over the next two decades, an estimated 400 million acres of agricultural land will be transferred to new owners. Today, farmers over the age of 65 outnumber those below the age of 35 by a margin of nearly two to one. The future structure, health and vitality of our Nation's food and agriculture system depend on sound public policies that provide the next generation of farmers and ranchers the help they need to successfully enter farming and ranching.

The next generation of farmers and ranchers need access to training and mentoring which will help them obtain the critical management and marketing skills vital to their success. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Program, created in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, is the first USDA program other than credit financing to focus specifically on beginning farmers and ranchers. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 would reauthorize this program and provide $25 million a year in mandatory funding. We also propose to make beginning farmer issues, such as land transition, farm transfer and succession, and entry into farming priority research areas within the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

Beginning farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain credit from commercial sources are eligible for Farm Service Agency direct farm ownership and operating loans up to an amount of $200,000 for each type of loan. This limit has not been adjusted in nearly

two decades despite the rising cost of land, equipment and energy, and thus it is no longer sufficient. We propose to increase direct farm ownership and operating loan limits from $200,000 to $300,000 to reflect economic realities. The authorization of appropriations for direct loans is adjusted in the bill to reflect the new loan limits. It is important to increase direct loan authorization levels and appropriations, along with adjusting the direct farm ownership and operating loan limits or the net result may well be larger loans to fewer borrowers out of a constant pool of loan funds.

We propose several adjustments to the beginning farmer and rancher down payment loan program. This loan combines the financial resources of the beginning farmer, the Farm Service Agency and commercial or private lenders. Throughout the 1990s this program was very successful, but in recent years it has not been widely used due to low interest rates on traditional direct farm ownership loans. The interest rates on the down payment loan and direct farm ownership loan have been comparable so qualified borrowers have chosen to use the traditional FSA direct farm ownership loan for which no down payment is required.

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 would adjust the current interest rate of 4 percent for beginning farmer and rancher down payment loans to a floating rate of 4 percent below the regular FSA direct farm ownership interest rates, or 1 percent, whichever is greater. It would also reduce the beginning farmer's down payment from 10 percent to 5 percent of the total price of land and increase the FSA portion of the loan to 45 percent from 40 percent. A commercial lender or private seller would still be required to supply the remaining portion of the partnership loan.

These changes, along with a few others, would make the program more attractive for beginning farmers and ranchers. Creating more attractive incentives in this beginning farmer and rancher down payment loan program should result in limited Federal dollars supporting more qualified borrowers since the government's portion of financing a farm purchase is only 45 percent as opposed to the traditional direct farm ownership loan where the government finances 100 percent of the loan.

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 creates a new beginning farmer and rancher individual development account pilot program. This program is designed to help beginning farmers and ranchers with limited resources establish savings. Eligible program participants agree to save money which is matched by federal and local money. The savings may be used by a participant for capital expenditures for farm and ranch operation, including the purchase of land, buildings, equipment and livestock. This program will help participating beginning farmers and ranchers save and invest in assets that will increase their long-term equity and likelihood of success.

The challenges beginning farmers and ranchers face are immense. The cost of land and equipment, obtaining credit, turning a profit and building equity in a highly uncertain business are just a few of the challenges. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 will help address the big challenge facing America's next generation of farmers and ranchers. This bill is a comprehensive initiative which provides farmers and ranchers critical help they need to enter and succeed in farming and ranching, to be good stewards of the land, to be innovative and entrepreneurial and to respond to rapidly changing markets and economic realities. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation and help enact it this year.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, to introduce the Cancer Screening, Treatment an Survivorship Act of 2007.

Last summer, Lance Armstrong came to Iowa to testify at a field hearing on cancer research. He is a national hero for winning the Tour de France 7 years in a row. But he has become a national treasure as America's No. 1 advocate for cancer research, detection, and treatment. I deeply appreciate his advocacy and tireless efforts to fight this disease. Lance is one of the millions of people across America who has been touched by cancer.

The bill I am introducing today is personal with me. I have lost 4 of my 5 siblings to cancer. And, with better detection and screenings, perhaps my siblings would have had a better outcome.

I believe passionately in doing our best to prevent cancer, by encouraging appropriate lifestyle choices. But I am equally passionate about the need to do a better job of detecting cancer as early as possible, so we have a better chance of beating it.

And that is the aim of the Cancer Screening, Treatment, and Survivorship Act of 2007. We have simple goals: To detect cancer earlier. To reduce cancer mortality rates. To improve the quality of life for those diagnosed with cancer. And, yes, to save health care dollars.

As I said, my hope is that the bill we are introducing today will take us to the next level and begin addressing survivorship and people that are living with this chronic disease. Together, we can work to improve the quality of life for those diagnosed with cancer and save lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, I am honored today to introduce the Methamphetamine Abuse Treatment and Prevention Act. Meth is one of the most deadly, addictive, rapidly spreading drugs in history. It is ravaging rural and urban communities alike. And it is leaving a path of destruction, human, financial, and environmental, that is staggering.

We've seen violent crime increase significantly for the first time in more than a decade. This increase was most evident in the meth-plagued Midwest. We must realize meth abuse is not only a State problem, but a national problem that is threatening communities across the country.

Law enforcement efforts to curb the distribution of dangerous meth making chemicals and locking up fertilizers have been successful. In Iowa, we've reduced the number of meth labs by nearly 80 percent. But our effort to fight meth is not over. Unfortunately, many States have seen dramatic increases in the amount of crystal meth or ``ice'' smuggled into the State. Ice is a much purer and more dangerous form of the illegal stimulant. Addicts who no longer have access to meth manufactured through home labs are using this more dangerous form. This drug puts a heavy toll on our communities, our justice and health care system, and tears apart families.

We need to remember that the meth epidemic is a double scourge. It is a public safety crisis. And it is also a public health crisis. Even if we shut down every home-based lab, we would still have a meth problem in this country. It will not go away until we do a better job of preventing people from using meth in the first place and giving addicts the treatment they need to kick the habit for good.

Bear in mind that meth is more addictive than crack cocaine or heroin. More than 50 percent of meth users started when they were under age 18. Law enforcement officers across Iowa tell me that prevention and treatment are the keys to stopping this epidemic.

Yet this is exactly where we are falling short. There are 22 million Americans in need of treatment for substance addiction. Less than 3 million are able to get help. The bill I am introducing today would aggressively step up efforts to prevent meth addiction and provide more treatment options.

Given the highly addictive nature of methamphetamine, prevention is crucial. Over 50 percent of meth users started when they were under age 18. We must target our efforts to ensure that people do not ever start using meth. My bill provides grants to schools and communities for meth prevention programs. It creates a telephone helpline and an online parent resource center. When parents or family members want information on keeping their children safe from drugs, or they fear a young person is experimenting or in trouble with drugs, this telephone helpline and Internet resource will give live, real-time support and information, as well as referrals to community resources.

At the same time, the bill takes a comprehensive approach to treatment. We know that with proper treatment, meth addicts can recover and live productive lives. Every dollar spent on treatment saves taxpayers seven dollars, largely by reducing crime, incarceration, and health care costs. The bill that I am introducing today is designed to realize these savings by promoting a comprehensive approach to meth treatment.

This legislation promotes range of treatment options. First, it includes family-based treatment. Parental substance use is the culprit in at least 70 percent of all child welfare spending, yet only 10 percent of child welfare agencies are able to successfully find substance abuse programs for mothers and children. Comprehensive treatment specifically for parents can assist them in recovering and providing safe and nurturing environments for their children. This legislation provides critical resources for adolescent and family-based treatment services to ensure that young people and parents are able to access the treatment they need.

Second, this legislation includes grants to offer treatment services for nonviolent adults and juveniles as an alternative to jail and detention. Nearly 80 percent of those in jail have been identified as having a substance abuse problem and one-third of inmates reported being under the influence at the time of their offense. We must provide treatment in order to prevent recidivism and cycling through the justice system.

My bill also improves services to help recovering addicts make the transition from treatment to the community, including housing assistance and help finding work, education, and mental health services. These things are critical to long-term abstinence and recovery.

I ask for your help now in joining me to fighting the meth epidemic that is plaguing our country. This drug tears apart families and is a heavy burden on our communities, our justice and health care system. We must dedicate the time and resources to getting this problem under control and we must do it now.

Mr. President, I am honored today to introduce the Methamphetamine Abuse Treatment and Prevention Act. Meth is one of the most deadly, addictive, rapidly spreading drugs in history. It is ravaging rural and urban communities alike. And it is leaving a path of destruction, human, financial, and environmental, that is staggering.

We've seen violent crime increase significantly for the first time in more than a decade. This increase was most evident in the meth-plagued Midwest. We must realize meth abuse is not only a State problem, but a national problem that is threatening communities across the country.

Law enforcement efforts to curb the distribution of dangerous meth making chemicals and locking up fertilizers have been successful. In Iowa, we've reduced the number of meth labs by nearly 80 percent. But our effort to fight meth is not over. Unfortunately, many States have seen dramatic increases in the amount of crystal meth or ``ice'' smuggled into the State. Ice is a much purer and more dangerous form of the illegal stimulant. Addicts who no longer have access to meth manufactured through home labs are using this more dangerous form. This drug puts a heavy toll on our communities, our justice and health care system, and tears apart families.

We need to remember that the meth epidemic is a double scourge. It is a public safety crisis. And it is also a public health crisis. Even if we shut down every home-based lab, we would still have a meth problem in this country. It will not go away until we do a better job of preventing people from using meth in the first place and giving addicts the treatment they need to kick the habit for good.

Bear in mind that meth is more addictive than crack cocaine or heroin. More than 50 percent of meth users started when they were under age 18. Law enforcement officers across Iowa tell me that prevention and treatment are the keys to stopping this epidemic.

Yet this is exactly where we are falling short. There are 22 million Americans in need of treatment for substance addiction. Less than 3 million are able to get help. The bill I am introducing today would aggressively step up efforts to prevent meth addiction and provide more treatment options.

Given the highly addictive nature of methamphetamine, prevention is crucial. Over 50 percent of meth users started when they were under age 18. We must target our efforts to ensure that people do not ever start using meth. My bill provides grants to schools and communities for meth prevention programs. It creates a telephone helpline and an online parent resource center. When parents or family members want information on keeping their children safe from drugs, or they fear a young person is experimenting or in trouble with drugs, this telephone helpline and Internet resource will give live, real-time support and information, as well as referrals to community resources.

At the same time, the bill takes a comprehensive approach to treatment. We know that with proper treatment, meth addicts can recover and live productive lives. Every dollar spent on treatment saves taxpayers seven dollars, largely by reducing crime, incarceration, and health care costs. The bill that I am introducing today is designed to realize these savings by promoting a comprehensive approach to meth treatment.

This legislation promotes range of treatment options. First, it includes family-based treatment. Parental substance use is the culprit in at least 70 percent of all child welfare spending, yet only 10 percent of child welfare agencies are able to successfully find substance abuse programs for mothers and children. Comprehensive treatment specifically for parents can assist them in recovering and providing safe and nurturing environments for their children. This legislation provides critical resources for adolescent and family-based treatment services to ensure that young people and parents are able to access the treatment they need.

Second, this legislation includes grants to offer treatment services for nonviolent adults and juveniles as an alternative to jail and detention. Nearly 80 percent of those in jail have been identified as having a substance abuse problem and one-third of inmates reported being under the influence at the time of their offense. We must provide treatment in order to prevent recidivism and cycling through the justice system.

My bill also improves services to help recovering addicts make the transition from treatment to the community, including housing assistance and help finding work, education, and mental health services. These things are critical to long-term abstinence and recovery.

I ask for your help now in joining me to fighting the meth epidemic that is plaguing our country. This drug tears apart families and is a heavy burden on our communities, our justice and health care system. We must dedicate the time and resources to getting this problem under control and we must do it now.

Madam President, I wish to discuss the amendment Senator Roberts and I have worked on, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, regarding direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. I am concerned about the proliferation of this kind of advertising, its effect on public health and health care spending, how much money we are spending on health care. Senator Roberts and I want to make sure they are done in a responsible way so that consumers have good information and it deals with safety and efficacy. I believe, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, we have crafted an amendment that addresses any first amendment concerns, and I believe we

have also crafted an amendment that will help the FDA get better safety and efficacy information to consumers who see these ads.

I wish to take this time to discuss my concerns with direct-to- consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Keep in mind, we are talking about ads you see on television, you hear on the radio, you see in newspapers and magazines for drugs that you cannot buy unless you get a prescription. It raises all kinds of questions. Why would you advertise drugs that you can't buy? I can see advertising Advil or Tylenol or a host of other over-the-counter-type drugs that you can go into a drugstore and buy, such as cold pills and antihistamines. But for prescription drugs, it raises an interesting question: Why would these drug companies be spending so much money advertising directly to you if you can't even buy it unless you get a prescription?

Let's look at the history of what has happened. Information that is conveyed in these ads is supposed to balance risks and benefits of a specific drug and provide information to the public. But what we have seen happening over the last several years is less and less information and more and more promotion--ads that minimize the risks associated with the drugs and maximize the benefits. They are not balanced. As a result, in exchange for an increased market share for a drug company, the consumer is left with an incomplete and even a dangerous understanding of a drug's risks and benefits.

More often than not, these ads do not provide consumers with accurate comparisons between new drugs or even older drugs that are still effective.

For example, in a 2002 FDA survey of physicians, 65 percent of physicians thought patients were confused by the relative risks and benefits of drugs they saw advertised; 75 percent of the doctors believed the ads led patients to overestimate the efficacy of advertised drugs. All of this can only lead to one conclusion, that there is not a fair balance of risks and benefits in these ads.

Worse still, 86 percent of physicians had a patient who asked about a specific drug. They didn't ask about something for their back pain or for allergies, they asked about a specific drug. Eighty-six percent of physicians said the patients asked about specific drugs. As it turns out, the patient usually got that drug.

Seventy-seven percent of primary care physicians prescribed a drug a patient asked for; 74 percent of specialists did.

Let's look at some of these drugs and what happened. We all know what happened when Vioxx, a pain reliever now associated with heart attacks, was pulled from the market after being heavily marketed to consumers. Consumers never had a clear picture of the risks and benefits associated with the drug. Millions of consumers were put at risk.

One wonders how many doctors said to a patient who came in: You know, if Advil works for you now, you probably don't need Vioxx.

Look what happened with Vioxx: 2 million Americans took it. It was marketed in 80 countries. Madam President, $100 million per year was spent on direct-to-consumer advertising of the prescription drug Vioxx over about 5 years. So about a half billion dollars was spent to tell you Vioxx was good for you.

What happened? Because of all this heavy advertising, there was $2.3 billion in sales in 2003. We all know what happened. It was pulled from the market in 2004. Why? Because thousands of people died of heart attacks because they took Vioxx. Yet this product was subject to heavy direct-to-consumer advertising.

We all remember the Vioxx ads, how good it was for you. Then we find out it was causing heart attacks. Again, this is a clear indication of the irresponsibility of these drug companies in direct-to-consumer advertising. It has just gotten out of hand. It has totally gotten out of hand.

I will show on the next chart what I mean by getting out of hand. Here is the spending on direct-to-consumer advertising. Keep in mind, prior to 1996, we didn't have direct-to-consumer advertising very much on TV and radio. Pharmaceutical companies basically marketed to doctors. You went into the doctor's office. You saw things in the doctor's office. But the doctors were the ones who got the advertisements.

In 1997, the FDA promulgated some rules which opened up the system. Then, all of a sudden, the drug companies started marketing to consumers. In the first year, they spent $791 million. Look what has happened every year. More and more and more. In 2003, $3.2 billion was spent on advertising. I made the chart before I got the latest figures, but today I got the 2005 figures. It is now $4.2 billion. Madam President, $4.2 billion was spent in 2005 advertising drugs you can't buy unless you get a prescription. Keep in mind, these are drugs for which you have to have a prescription. So it has gotten out of hand.

To make matters even worse, most of this money that is spent, $4.2 billion in 2005, was for the promotion of only 50 brand-name drugs. As a GAO study found out, these drugs are most often for chronic conditions, not for cancer--not for life-threatening diseases--but for chronic conditions. GAO found the ads tend to be for antihistamines, sleep aids, acid reflux, and--as we all know too well from watching evening television--things like impotence. We all know this is true. We know it. Look at the ads on TV every night.

It is no coincidence these advertisements are for drugs that you must take repeatedly. It is so you will get hooked on a brand and then you have to keep taking it and taking it and taking it.

I will yield.

The GAO did this study which found that 86 percent of physicians responded that patients came in to ask about a specific drug--the purple pill, the green pill. You might say: Why are the doctors doing it? One doctor said to me: You are right. They shouldn't be advertising this. Patients coming in would be just as well served by taking an aspirin or something like that, very cheap and readily available, and I tell them that. The doctor is telling me this. I tell them that, and they

say, no, no, they saw this ad. They want this. I tell them no, but they say: Well, Doctor, if it is all the same with you, I would just as soon have that pill. So he says: Well, if you want it, I will prescribe it.

So there is an undue amount of pressure being put on doctors right now to prescribe these drugs because patients are demanding it.

Well, I thank the Senator for his great leadership in all these areas on drugs, on reimportation, which I was proud to support him on. We have to get a handle on this.

We all have first amendment concerns. People have the right to advertise, but I question whether they can advertise in a way, like with Vioxx, where they tell you all the benefits, but they do not tell you the risks, or they put them in such little fine print that it takes a 50-power magnifying glass to read them.

On television, how many of you have seen the ads where they come on with this wonderful advertisement of a drug, and then in the end it says: Not to be taken by, and it goes so fast you can't understand what they are saying. It is akin to listening to an auctioneer. You can't understand what they are saying. So you see all the benefits of it, but you don't get any of the downsides.

One might ask: Why are companies doing it? Well, simple. They make money. The Kaiser Family Foundation found an additional $4.20 in savings for every dollar spent on advertising. There you go. If you could spend a dollar and make $4.20, who wouldn't?

So we have to ask some questions. What happens when we create an artificial demand? What is the effect on our budget? Some people might say: Well, that is OK, but people are spending their own money or the insurance company is. That is not so. Think of all the money we are spending on Medicare and Medicaid for these drugs that people are being beaten over the head with every day on these ads on television. Think about the baby boomers retiring.

I said that by 2005 the spending had gone to $4.2 billion. Think of what it is going to be this year. I will bet it will be over $5 billion this year, spent on advertising alone, for drugs you can't buy unless you get a prescription. So it is clear to me it has very little to do with patient care and very much to do with making money. I don't mind drug companies making money. That is fine. They do good things. They invest money in research--not as much as I wish they would--and they come up with good drugs. We all take them when we get sick or when we have a disease. The problem is it has gotten out of hand.

It was OK when they did a little bit of advertising, but now it has gotten out of hand. It has gotten to the point now where an individual from a drug company--I will not mention who--said to me: Well, yes, you want to turn the clock back to 1996, when we didn't advertise much on TV. He said: That would be nice, but you could never get it done because not everyone would agree. Because, you see, the big drug companies, the big ones that have some major portion of these 50 drugs that are basically the ones being advertised, they have got the power. The little drug companies out there, which may have good drugs for you, lifesaving drugs and things such as that, they have to get in the game too. They have to compete. So it keeps ratcheting itself up every year. Every year it ratchets itself up with more and more advertising.

Before I yield the floor, I wish to review a little bit the history, so we are clear on how we got to this point. In 1962, Congress gave the FDA the authority to regulate prescription drug advertising which, at that point, in 1962, consisted of ads in medical journals. Regulations followed from the FDA, after 1962, which required that all drug ads include ``a brief summary statement that discloses all the drug's known risks.'' That was done, and all the medical journals, whenever the drug company would put an ad in a medical journal about the benefits of the drug, they had to include, and they did include--they were very responsible for a long time--all the known risks. After all, they were advertising to doctors, people who were knowledgeable in the field.

Until 1997, there was no real guidance beyond that as to what was required. Today, based on guidance that was finalized in 1999, an ad sponsor is only required to disclose ``the most important risks'' in a ``major statement'' in the audio portion of a TV or radio ad. The FDA does not require that all risks be read in the ad.

Think about that. You can tout all the wonderful benefits, but you don't have to tell what all the risks are. The FDA requires that an ad sponsor provide other places to find the list of all the risks. So you could have an ad on TV tell you Vioxx is great--there may be a problem with irregular heartbeat, maybe--but if you want to know all the known risks, you can call this toll-free number or you can go to a health care provider and ask your doctor or print ads.

As I said earlier, it can be very easy for a statement about risks and benefits to get lost in the creative content of the ads. It is no wonder consumers demand newer drugs from their doctors. They don't have a clear idea of the true safety or the efficacy profile. Over time, it has become clear that sometimes the creative content of the drug ads has the effect of minimizing the safety profile of a drug while artificially spurring the demand.

I have one other chart I wish to show. This ad right here. Here is an ad for Cialis. If you have ever watched television in the evening in the last several months, you have seen this ad. You could have seen it in the last few weeks. It seems like I can't turn on the TV that I don't see this ad, so I put it on a chart in case someone might have missed it. It is talking about Cialis. It has this wonderful scene at the end, with a woman in a bathtub, a man in a bathtub, and a beautiful valley scene--maybe Napa Valley, I don't know where it is--and they say: If a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, will you be ready?

While this is on the screen and you are looking at this beautiful scene and thinking how wonderful it is, they come on and give you a couple of known risks. Are you going to listen to that? Or are you paying attention to how wonderful Cialis is for you?

This is another example of the amount of money being put into advertising. This is not a drug preventing a disease someone might have. It is not for a life-threatening disease or anything like that. Not at all. Yet that is where the money is going. That is what the problem is with a lot of these ads.

What our amendment does is it tries to fix some of these problems and to help the FDA and the companies to provide better information so that consumers can make real choices, not a choice based on a movie endorsement or a slick advertisement. So our amendment does four things:

First, the 2-year moratorium on direct-to-consumer advertisements found in the underlying bill is dropped. While I believe this provision is constitutional, I understand and respect the concerns others have on this point.

Secondly, in the underlying bill, every ad may be prereviewed by the FDA. In this amendment, as part of that process, the FDA may require specific safety information in the content of an advertisement as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. In addition, the company must include any changes the FDA requests about a serious risk in the content of the ad or they are subject to civil penalties.

Third, civil monetary penalties can be assessed against a company for an ad that is false and misleading in the way it presents its safety and efficacy information.

Fourth, the major statement relating to side effects, contraindications, and effectiveness that is included in every TV and radio ad must now be stated--and get this--in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner. A clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.

Hopefully, this will clarify the major statement about risk and benefits, which is paramount, and that the creative wonderful scenery will not distract from it. I think it is a good compromise. It is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, we will get the bill through, this will be a part of it, and we will see if the drug companies want to be responsible.

We don't need to spend $5 billion a year advertising for drugs for which you have to get a prescription. I would rather they put that money into research, research on drugs that really are lifesaving and helpful to more people.

I hope this amendment will be accepted. As I said, it is a compromise, obviously. It is not everything I wanted to do, but I think, again, it is a step in the right direction, and it will give us a yardstick. If, a couple of years from now, we see that the spending has gone from $4.2 billion to $5 billion to $5.5 billion to $6 billion, then we will really have to come back here and tighten down on it even more.

This is a shot across the bow to the drug companies--rein it in, be responsible, or tougher things are coming in the future. So it is really up to the drug companies to now start to be responsible. It is up to FDA to use their authority to make sure the contraindications, the safety measures, the drug interactions--all the things that may happen to people--are presented in a clear, conspicuous, and balanced and fair manner. That is the essence of the amendment. I hope it will be adopted.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I have received a good many calls as well. And, I have to say that I would be very concerned, as I know the Senator from Utah is, if

anything in the bill we are considering, S. 1082, would overturn DSHEA, a law we fought side-by-side to see enacted.

So to make this absolutely clear, what you are saying is that the bill we are debating would in no way interfere with consumers' access to dietary supplements?

This has been a very helpful discussion, because Senator Hatch and I could never support legislation that would interfere with DSHEA and we are glad to receive the assurances of the chairman and the ranking Republican on the committee.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Heroes Helping Heroes Act, to expand the availability of peer support programs for veterans.

As our military personnel return from combat, they face daunting challenges in transitioning back to civilian life. They have to deal with family issues arising from their long absence from home. They have to find new employment. They also have to cope with separation from their close friends. After spending many months if not years with the men and women in their unit--sharing intense wartime experiences and looking out for each other--they may not find that same close support when they return.

In addition, many members of our Armed Forces have endured tremendous stress during combat, which can trigger severe mental health issues after they have returned home. Research shows that one in three veterans of the war in Iraq, and one in nine veterans of the war in Afghanistan, are coping with a serious mental health problem, including depression, substance abuse, and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Untreated and under-treated stress exposure for soldiers results in a higher incidence of suicide, higher divorce rates, and higher rates of drug or alcohol abuse. Additionally, there have been almost 25,000 non-fatal American casualties. Such injuries often have serious impacts on the ability of transitioning veterans to reintegrate into their home and community life.

Currently, VA facilities are overwhelmed by the sheer number of veterans who need assistance. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that many VA medical facilities are unprepared to care for the mental health needs of the number of veterans who will need services. Peer support approaches offer a low-cost and effective supplement to traditional services by allowing veterans to help each other. In peer support programs, transitioning veterans can talk to someone who had similar experiences and understands what they are going through. Veteran peer counselors who are trained to provide support and refer for services when necessary can provide outreach to other veterans and assist in a smooth transition back to civilian life.

The Heroes Helping Heroes program will allow veterans' service organizations to develop or expand peer support programs. Veterans' service organizations and other non-profits that serve veterans are well-equipped to provide such peer support programs. Given that the VA is stretched to capacity, these organizations are able to run such programs in addition to mental health services provided by professional counselors.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMSHA) and the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health have recognized peer support approaches as an emerging best practice in helping people to recover from traumatic events. Research has found that peer support programs are effective in alleviating PTSD symptoms and depression, reducing the likelihood of hospitalization, and increasing social support.

When members of our Armed Forces come home from war, this does not necessarily mean that the war is over for them. Many continue to carry physical and psychological wounds and scars. We have a profound moral contract to care for those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. One additional way to make good on that contract in a cost-effective way is to expand the availability peer support programs nationwide. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Smith and me in sponsoring the Heroes Helping Heroes Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Heroes Helping Heroes Act, to expand the availability of peer support programs for veterans.

As our military personnel return from combat, they face daunting challenges in transitioning back to civilian life. They have to deal with family issues arising from their long absence from home. They have to find new employment. They also have to cope with separation from their close friends. After spending many months if not years with the men and women in their unit--sharing intense wartime experiences and looking out for each other--they may not find that same close support when they return.

In addition, many members of our Armed Forces have endured tremendous stress during combat, which can trigger severe mental health issues after they have returned home. Research shows that one in three veterans of the war in Iraq, and one in nine veterans of the war in Afghanistan, are coping with a serious mental health problem, including depression, substance abuse, and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Untreated and under-treated stress exposure for soldiers results in a higher incidence of suicide, higher divorce rates, and higher rates of drug or alcohol abuse. Additionally, there have been almost 25,000 non-fatal American casualties. Such injuries often have serious impacts on the ability of transitioning veterans to reintegrate into their home and community life.

Currently, VA facilities are overwhelmed by the sheer number of veterans who need assistance. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that many VA medical facilities are unprepared to care for the mental health needs of the number of veterans who will need services. Peer support approaches offer a low-cost and effective supplement to traditional services by allowing veterans to help each other. In peer support programs, transitioning veterans can talk to someone who had similar experiences and understands what they are going through. Veteran peer counselors who are trained to provide support and refer for services when necessary can provide outreach to other veterans and assist in a smooth transition back to civilian life.

The Heroes Helping Heroes program will allow veterans' service organizations to develop or expand peer support programs. Veterans' service organizations and other non-profits that serve veterans are well-equipped to provide such peer support programs. Given that the VA is stretched to capacity, these organizations are able to run such programs in addition to mental health services provided by professional counselors.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMSHA) and the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health have recognized peer support approaches as an emerging best practice in helping people to recover from traumatic events. Research has found that peer support programs are effective in alleviating PTSD symptoms and depression, reducing the likelihood of hospitalization, and increasing social support.

When members of our Armed Forces come home from war, this does not necessarily mean that the war is over for them. Many continue to carry physical and psychological wounds and scars. We have a profound moral contract to care for those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. One additional way to make good on that contract in a cost-effective way is to expand the availability peer support programs nationwide. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Smith and me in sponsoring the Heroes Helping Heroes Act.

Mr. President, recently, in a magnificent display of talent, skill, and old-fashioned Iowa grit, Zach Johnson won the Master's Golf Tournament in Augusta, GA.

The new Master's champ had this to say: ``I'm Zach Johnson and I'm from Cedar Rapids, IA. I'm a normal guy.''

Well, Zach Johnson may be a normal guy. But he clearly has an extraordinary ability to play the game of golf.

You might say that Zach Johnson is an overnight success that was a lifetime in the making. His golfing career has progressed steadily from his childhood on courses in Cedar Rapids, to college play at Drake University in Des Moines, followed by professional play in the Prairie Gold Tour, the Nationwide Tour, the PGA Tour, the U.S. Ryder Cup team, and, now, champion of Master's.

Obviously, there are many qualities that go into winning such a challenging tournament against the world's top players. It takes talent and skill. But it also takes intelligence and character. Zach Johnson is abundantly endowed in all of these departments.

Of course, Iowans are ecstatic about Zach's victory. And more than one Iowan has noted that his performance reflected the values we hold dear in the Hawkeye State. He was persistent and relentless. He didn't go for a flashy style of play; it was just steady-as-she-goes, day after day, tee after tee. He refused to yield. He met every challenge. Oh, and his strong putting skills didn't hurt, either.

For the record, I would note that Zach Johnson won not only one of the most difficult golf tournaments in the world, but also quite possibly one of the most difficult of all Master's tournaments in history. He braved gusting winds and bitterly cold weather. His winning score of one-over-par 289 tied the highest winning score in Master's history.

Zach Johnson has done Iowa proud. He is the first Iowan to win a major professional golf tournament since Jack Fleck upset Ben Hogan at the 1955 U.S. Open. I salute his great achievement at Augusta. And I wish him continued success in tournaments, and years, to come.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that will strike the consumptive demand clause from Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307). Section 307 prohibits the importation of any product or good produced with forced or indentured labor including forced or indentured child labor.

The consumptive demand clause creates an exception to this prohibition. Under the exception, if a product is not made in the United States, and there is a demand for it, then a product made with forced or indentured child labor may be imported into this country.

Let us be clear: forced or indentured labor means work which is extracted from any person under the menace of penalty for nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily. Let us be really clear: this means slave labor. In the case of children, it means child slavery.

Some examples of goods that are made with child slave labor include cocoa beans, hand-knotted carpets, beedis, which are small Indian cigarettes, and cotton.

Throughout my Senate career, I have worked to reduce the use of forced child labor worldwide. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States.

Over the years we have been making some progress. I was heartened last year when the International Labor Organization's (ILO) global report, The End of Child Labor Within Reach, detailed the progress being made on reducing the worst forms of child labor. The ILO projects that if the current pace of decline in child labor were to be maintained, child labor could be eliminated, in most of its worst forms, in 10 years--by 2016. Although there has been a tremendous amount of progress in ending child labor, there are still

some obstacles to ending these abusive practices. One of those impediments is the consumptive demand clause.

Today, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay, making goods that enter our country everyday. For this reason, the consumptive demand clause is outdated. Since this exception was enacted in the 1930s, the U.S. has taken numerous steps to stop the scourge of child slave labor. Most notably, the United States has ratified International Labor Organization's Convention 182 to Prohibit the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Currently, 162 other countries have also ratified this ILO Convention.

Additionally, in 2003, my staff was invited by Customs to meet with field agents on Section 307 to discuss what appropriations were needed to enforce the statute. At the meeting, the field agents reported that the consumptive demand clause was an obstacle to their ability to enforce the law that is supposed to prevent goods made with slave labor from being imported into the United States. Yet there has been no action from the Bush Administration to support efforts to remove the clause.

Retaining the consumptive demand clause contradicts our moral beliefs and our international commitments to eliminate abusive child labor. Maintaining the consumptive demand clause says to the world that the United States justifies the use of slave labor, if U.S. consumers need an item not produced in this country. Last year, Harvard University conducted a pilot study on the effects on sales of labeling towels, candles, and dolls as made under ``fair labor conditions.'' The study found that labeling the products and raising their prices slightly to cover the costs of ensuring fair labor conditions resulted in an increased demand for these products among certain consumers in New York City.

There should be no exception to a fundamental stand against the use of slave labor. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that commitment. In fact, today, we are not even halfway there.

As we introduce this bill, we want to pay tribute to our former colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who, in 2001, joined with me to introduce the first amendment to make full funding of IDEA mandatory. In 1975, as ranking member of the House subcommittee on special education, Jim Jeffords co-authored what would later be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requiring equal access to public education for millions of students with disabilities. It was a matter of profound disappointment to Jim that, year after year, the Federal Government failed to make good on its funding promises under that law.

We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We have hurt school children all across America. We have pitted children with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay higher property taxes and other local taxes

in order to pay for IDEA services because the Federal Government has reneged on its commitment.

I was pleased that, at the outset of this new Congress, we were able to increase funding for the IDEA grants to states program as part of the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution to $10.8 billion. But even that level of funding is woefully inadequate. That represents only 17.2 percent of the additional funding needed to support special education. So we have a long way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do so. It is time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise to students with disabilities in this country.

The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straight forward. It authorizes increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 8-year increments that, in addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's commitment to educating children with special needs.

This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these services without cutting into their general education budgets. And local property tax payers will get relief.

Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.

So I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Hagel and me in sponsoring this bill. In the 30-plus years since we passed IDEA, and in the 6 years since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, the expectations for students with disabilities have grown immensely. Likewise, we are holding local school systems accountable in unprecedented ways. It is high time for us in Congress to also be held accountable. It is time for us to make good on our promise to fully fund IDEA.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Legal Aid Attorney Loan Repayment Act. This important legislation is critical to ensuring that basic civil liberties are protected for all of our citizens. Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. Legal Aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or, all too often, when a woman

seeks protection from abuse, Legal Aid is there to help them. Legal Aid attorneys are critical to ensuring that poverty is not a barrier to accessing the justice system.

Despite the importance of the services they provide, almost half of the eligible people seeking assistance from Legal Aid are being turned away because of a lack of funding. Additional qualified and experienced attorneys would alleviate some of the shortages facing Legal Aid.

I started my legal career as a legal service lawyer, and it is an experience that I will never forget. It helped shape many of my views about how government can most effectively help those in need. Working as a Legal Aid attorney is one of the most rewarding career choices a young lawyer can make.

Unfortunately, these days, it's harder and harder for newly minted lawyers to make the choice that I made to work for Legal Aid. The average starting salary for a Legal Aid lawyer is now $35,000. But the average annual loan repayment burden for a new law school graduate is $12,000! Many law graduates who are able to take positions with Legal Aid end up leaving after two or three years because their debt is too burdensome. They leave at a time when they have gained the necessary experience to provide valuable services to low-income clients, creating a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers within Legal Aid services.

That is why I am introducing this bill to provide a loan-repayment program for new law graduates who chose to work for Legal Aid. Such programs are available for Federal prosecutors and other Federal employees. But, for Legal Aid attorneys--who have the lowest incomes-- there is not adequate access to loan-repayment programs. Estimates suggest that there are fewer than 2,000 attorneys who would need the assistance of such a program. This bill builds on existing loan- repayment and retention programs for lawyers in other fields by providing partial loan-repayment assistance to full time civil legal assistance lawyers. Recipients who receive the loan-repayment assistance must commit to a minimum of three years of service. And the bill prioritizes awards for those who have practiced public service law with less than five years of experience. This program is critical to ensure that lawyers who want to commit to public service are able to do so.

We have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have appropriate protection under the law. By establishing a loan-repayment program, Legal Aid programs are better able to attract and retain qualified personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to reduce the barriers to public service and protect access to legal representation for all of our citizens.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that will strike the consumptive demand clause from Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307). Section 307 prohibits the importation of any product or good produced with forced or indentured labor including forced or indentured child labor.

The consumptive demand clause creates an exception to this prohibition. Under the exception, if a product is not made in the United States, and there is a demand for it, then a product made with forced or indentured child labor may be imported into this country.

Let us be clear: forced or indentured labor means work which is extracted from any person under the menace of penalty for nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily. Let us be really clear: this means slave labor. In the case of children, it means child slavery.

Some examples of goods that are made with child slave labor include cocoa beans, hand-knotted carpets, beedis, which are small Indian cigarettes, and cotton.

Throughout my Senate career, I have worked to reduce the use of forced child labor worldwide. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States.

Over the years we have been making some progress. I was heartened last year when the International Labor Organization's (ILO) global report, The End of Child Labor Within Reach, detailed the progress being made on reducing the worst forms of child labor. The ILO projects that if the current pace of decline in child labor were to be maintained, child labor could be eliminated, in most of its worst forms, in 10 years--by 2016. Although there has been a tremendous amount of progress in ending child labor, there are still

some obstacles to ending these abusive practices. One of those impediments is the consumptive demand clause.

Today, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay, making goods that enter our country everyday. For this reason, the consumptive demand clause is outdated. Since this exception was enacted in the 1930s, the U.S. has taken numerous steps to stop the scourge of child slave labor. Most notably, the United States has ratified International Labor Organization's Convention 182 to Prohibit the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Currently, 162 other countries have also ratified this ILO Convention.

Additionally, in 2003, my staff was invited by Customs to meet with field agents on Section 307 to discuss what appropriations were needed to enforce the statute. At the meeting, the field agents reported that the consumptive demand clause was an obstacle to their ability to enforce the law that is supposed to prevent goods made with slave labor from being imported into the United States. Yet there has been no action from the Bush Administration to support efforts to remove the clause.

Retaining the consumptive demand clause contradicts our moral beliefs and our international commitments to eliminate abusive child labor. Maintaining the consumptive demand clause says to the world that the United States justifies the use of slave labor, if U.S. consumers need an item not produced in this country. Last year, Harvard University conducted a pilot study on the effects on sales of labeling towels, candles, and dolls as made under ``fair labor conditions.'' The study found that labeling the products and raising their prices slightly to cover the costs of ensuring fair labor conditions resulted in an increased demand for these products among certain consumers in New York City.

There should be no exception to a fundamental stand against the use of slave labor. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that commitment. In fact, today, we are not even halfway there.

As we introduce this bill, we want to pay tribute to our former colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who, in 2001, joined with me to introduce the first amendment to make full funding of IDEA mandatory. In 1975, as ranking member of the House subcommittee on special education, Jim Jeffords co-authored what would later be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requiring equal access to public education for millions of students with disabilities. It was a matter of profound disappointment to Jim that, year after year, the Federal Government failed to make good on its funding promises under that law.

We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We have hurt school children all across America. We have pitted children with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay higher property taxes and other local taxes

in order to pay for IDEA services because the Federal Government has reneged on its commitment.

I was pleased that, at the outset of this new Congress, we were able to increase funding for the IDEA grants to states program as part of the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution to $10.8 billion. But even that level of funding is woefully inadequate. That represents only 17.2 percent of the additional funding needed to support special education. So we have a long way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do so. It is time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise to students with disabilities in this country.

The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straight forward. It authorizes increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 8-year increments that, in addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's commitment to educating children with special needs.

This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these services without cutting into their general education budgets. And local property tax payers will get relief.

Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.

So I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Hagel and me in sponsoring this bill. In the 30-plus years since we passed IDEA, and in the 6 years since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, the expectations for students with disabilities have grown immensely. Likewise, we are holding local school systems accountable in unprecedented ways. It is high time for us in Congress to also be held accountable. It is time for us to make good on our promise to fully fund IDEA.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Legal Aid Attorney Loan Repayment Act. This important legislation is critical to ensuring that basic civil liberties are protected for all of our citizens. Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. Legal Aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or, all too often, when a woman

seeks protection from abuse, Legal Aid is there to help them. Legal Aid attorneys are critical to ensuring that poverty is not a barrier to accessing the justice system.

Despite the importance of the services they provide, almost half of the eligible people seeking assistance from Legal Aid are being turned away because of a lack of funding. Additional qualified and experienced attorneys would alleviate some of the shortages facing Legal Aid.

I started my legal career as a legal service lawyer, and it is an experience that I will never forget. It helped shape many of my views about how government can most effectively help those in need. Working as a Legal Aid attorney is one of the most rewarding career choices a young lawyer can make.

Unfortunately, these days, it's harder and harder for newly minted lawyers to make the choice that I made to work for Legal Aid. The average starting salary for a Legal Aid lawyer is now $35,000. But the average annual loan repayment burden for a new law school graduate is $12,000! Many law graduates who are able to take positions with Legal Aid end up leaving after two or three years because their debt is too burdensome. They leave at a time when they have gained the necessary experience to provide valuable services to low-income clients, creating a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers within Legal Aid services.

That is why I am introducing this bill to provide a loan-repayment program for new law graduates who chose to work for Legal Aid. Such programs are available for Federal prosecutors and other Federal employees. But, for Legal Aid attorneys--who have the lowest incomes-- there is not adequate access to loan-repayment programs. Estimates suggest that there are fewer than 2,000 attorneys who would need the assistance of such a program. This bill builds on existing loan- repayment and retention programs for lawyers in other fields by providing partial loan-repayment assistance to full time civil legal assistance lawyers. Recipients who receive the loan-repayment assistance must commit to a minimum of three years of service. And the bill prioritizes awards for those who have practiced public service law with less than five years of experience. This program is critical to ensure that lawyers who want to commit to public service are able to do so.

We have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have appropriate protection under the law. By establishing a loan-repayment program, Legal Aid programs are better able to attract and retain qualified personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to reduce the barriers to public service and protect access to legal representation for all of our citizens.

Mr. President, on April 21, some 360 young Iowa inventors will gather at Hilton Coliseum on the campus of Iowa State University for the Invent Iowa 2007 State Invention Convention. This gathering will mark the 20th year for Invent Iowa.

Over the last two decades, thousands of Iowa students have participated in this important statewide event. The annual Invention Convention has showcased the skill, imagination and creativity of some of our best and brightest--and most creative--youngsters.

From the Motorized Guinea Pig Walker invented by Nicholas Schrunk of Spirit Lake to the Oops! Proof No-spill Feeding Bowl invented by Alexis Abernathy of Cedar Rapids, students have created innovative solutions to everyday problems.

In Nicholas' case, he needed to figure out a way for his guinea pig, Freckles, to get some exercise without running around the house and annoying his mother. Alexis got the idea for her invention by watching a 2-year-old child spill his cereal again and again. These two inventions were creative solutions that earned recognition for the young inventors. In the last 20 years, there have been thousands of other inventions.

Each year, approximately 30,000 Iowa students begin the journey to the State Convention by participating in local and regional competitions. The staffs from Iowa's Area Education Agencies do a tremendous job working with educators on curriculum ideas and setting up the regional events. Since the inception of the program in 1987, more than half a million students have participated in Invent Iowa.

The seed for Invent Iowa was planted at a statewide conference I sponsored in conjunction with Iowa State University in 1986 on the future of Iowa communities. In his keynote address, David Morris from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance focused on the need to rekindle the spirit of innovation in the United States, and he also spoke of his experience as a judge for the Minnesota Metropolitan Young Inventor's Fair. Following that event, my office, led by Dianne Liepa, began working with Carol McDanolds Bradley at the Iowa Department of Education, statewide education groups, nonprofit organizations and businesses to form a steering committee to establish a statewide invention program for students. Invent Iowa was born.

In 1989, the Invent Iowa Board of Directors contracted with the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at the University of Iowa to serve as the home for the organization's State coordinator. Eleven years later, Invent Iowa would become a program under the full direction of Belin-Blank. Under the leadership of the dedicated staff at Belin-Blank, Invent Iowa has grown and flourished.

In particular, I would like to salute the excellent work of Dr. Nicholas Colangelo, director of the Belin-Blank Center, and Dr. Clar Baldus, who serves a dual role as administrator of Rural Schools Programs and Inventiveness Programs at Belin-Blank as well as State coordinator for Invent Iowa. They have been tireless advocates for the program and are dedicated to its success far into the future.

Invent Iowa is a great program, and I am very proud to recognize all of the

people and organizations that continue to carry on Iowa's tradition for innovation and invention. Congratulations on reaching this important milestone to the advisory board for Invent Iowa and to the sponsors including the Belin-Blank Center, Iowa Area Education Agencies, Iowa Intellectual Property Law Association, Rockwell Collins Corporation, McKee, Voorhees and Sease patent attorneys Larry Engman and David Belin, Dean P. Barry Butler and the College of Engineering at the University of Iowa, and Dean Mark J. Kushner and the College of Engineering at Iowa State University.

The most important partners in the success of Invent Iowa have been classroom teachers across Iowa. They help guide students through all phases of the invention process from the documentation of need, to the inception of the idea, creation of the prototype, research to ensure the innovativeness of the invention, and the final presentation to a panel of evaluators. Without these dedicated teachers working with the young inventors, there would be no Invent Iowa.

On the 20th anniversary, I congratulate all the Iowans who have worked so hard to make Invent Iowa such a success. I wish them even greater success in their next 20 years. Also, good luck to the students who will be participating in the 2007 Invention Convention this weekend.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts, I just want to again bring people up to speed as to where we are in this debate. We will debate the two bills again today, S. 5 and S. 30, all day. We will have two votes later today at a time to be determined by the leaders but I think right prior to 6 p.m, the first vote occurring on S. 5, an up-or-down vote without amendments, and after that would be an up-or-down vote on S. 30, without amendments.

I intend to take some time this morning, after the Senator from Massachusetts speaks, again to outline the differences in the two bills, why S. 5 is a preferable bill and why that should be the bill we pass and send to the President for his signature and to point out that S. 5 is truly the compromise bill.

I want everyone to know that. There was some talk that S. 30 should be the compromise. Let me point out for clarity that last year we passed the stem cell research bill. There was another bill offered on the floor at the same time called the Specter-Santorum bill. That bill was supported by the Bush administration. Both bills passed, but the Specter-Santorum bill never made it through the House, and therefore the President was given the stem cell research bill. He vetoed it. He exercised the only veto of his administration to veto the stem cell bill.

In order to reach out a hand of compromise to the White House, we then incorporated in our bill, S. 5, today, the Specter-Santorum bill of last year, which is part of S. 5. So it seems to me we have gone halfway at least in reaching out to the White House to provide a compromise situation. Now the White House says they want to compromise further. They want something else. You can keep this up until there is nothing left of the stem cell bill.

I wish to make it very clear that we have compromised. We have come halfway. We incorporated the bill the President supported last year, so S. 5 really is the compromise measure we are sending to the President.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes or whatever time he requires to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for a very eloquent statement about what this is all about. I thank him for that. I thank him for his strong support of S. 5, our legislation to basically do what he encapsulated by saying this is about saving lives. That is what it is all about.

I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be modified to provide that the vote on passage of S. 5 occur at 5:55 p.m., that the Republican leader be recognized at 5:25 p.m., with the other provisions remaining in order; provided further, that the additional 10 minutes be equally divided between Senators Harkin and Coleman, Isakson, and Senator Brownback, or their designees.

Mr. President, I concur with my friend from Georgia in that if people want to speak, they should come over now. We have a list of speakers, and I think Senator Isakson does, too, for later on in the day. I can only say to Senators, as the clock ticks, your time is going to get squeezed more and more. So that if you are scheduled to speak for, say, 10 minutes this afternoon, you may get squeezed to 3 minutes or 2 minutes or 1 minute. So if you would like to have your say about this embryonic stem cell bill, I would say now would be the time to come over. I say to all the Senators who may be in their offices right now, call the cloakrooms, and we will make the time available right now.

Mr. President, what is the situation, might I ask, right now with the time existing?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, first, I say to my friend from Tennessee, there is not one dime in S. 5 that would be permitted to be used for the destruction of embryos--not one dime. That is prohibited by the Dickey-Wicker amendment. This bill does not override that amendment. Not one dime in this bill can ever be used for the destruction of any embryos. I just want to make that very clear.

Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to my colleague, someone with whom I have worked on health issues now going back--let me think about this--almost 13 years, I guess, back to 1993, someone with whom I have worked very closely on a number of health issues and for whom I have a great deal of respect for his approach on this issue and so many others. I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I yield 13 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.

Yes. We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

That sounds good to me.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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