Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope I didn't say that this was the last significant amendment because I know many of my colleagues who have amendments to offer certainly view them as significant. I wouldn't want to characterize their amendments as insignificant. If I led the Senator from Kentucky to that conclusion, I want to clarify that was not my intention. But I also reiterate, we have eight or nine amendments pending that would require votes. We are basically in a quorum call with no real expectation of a vote on many of these amendments for the foreseeable future. There are two issues. One is this amendment on loans offered by Senators Bayh and Ensign. The other is clearing the logjam of amendments that have already been offered, including one by this Senator, that awaits a vote. So the sooner we can get on with those votes, the sooner we can get on with the consideration of the Bayh amendment and the sooner we can address the other backlog of amendments that are waiting to be offered. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this and hope we hear from the majority leader sometime soon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10-minute vote. A number of Senators still hope to offer amendments tonight, and that would save us some time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, we were just notified by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, that he would prefer to have his amendment taken out of the stacked list and brought down to the second group in order for additional debate on the amendment. But we expect it is possible that something could be worked out. So I ask that modification be made in the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to clarify, we would like it to follow the Byrd amendment, not precede it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, a letter containing about 1 gram of highly concentrated anthrax was opened in my office in the Hart Senate Office Building. Potentially deadly anthrax letters were also mailed, apparently by the same person or persons, to my dear friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and to several news organizations. Two years later, all of those crimes remain unsolved. The anthrax attack on the Senate remains the largest bioterrorism attack ever on U.S. soil. Here in the Senate my staff and members of Senator Feingold's staff were exposed to up to 3,000 times the lethal dose of anthrax. The entire Hart Senate Office Building was closed for 3 months while scientists searched for a way to do something that had never been done before: To reclaim a building that had been badly contaminated by anthrax. We all remember those times. Coming less than 5 weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks of 2001 sometimes made it seem as if none of us was safe anywhere. As traumatic as the anthrax attacks were for the people of Capitol Hill, we were actually the fortunate ones. Before those deadly letters arrived in the Senate, they traveled through the U.S. mail where they left a deadly trail. Five innocent people died and still more innocent people suffer today from serious health and debilitating problems resulting from their exposure to the anthrax letters. All too often, they are the forgotten victims of the anthrax attacks on America. They are victims of terrorism, just as surely as are all of those who were killed or injured in the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This bill that Senator Leahy are I are introducing today acknowledges that fact by allowing the victims of the anthrax attacks to participate in the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund. The rules for anthrax victims would be the same as the rules for victims of the September 11 attacks: Before they can receive any compensation from the fund, anthrax victims must first waive their right to file or participate in any lawsuit in State or Federal court for damages relating to the anthrax attacks. The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today, and that I am very proud to cosponsor, is narrow and specific: Only persons who were exposed to anthrax during the attacks of 2001 and who have been diagnosed with a ``laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection'' may be compensated from the fund. A ``laboratory-confirmed'' case may include one in which elevated anthrax antibody levels are present, even if the anthrax bacteria cannot be detected. In at least one case, the anthrax diagnosis was made late when, after introduction of antibiotics, the actual bacteria was no longer detectable in the bloodstream. In such cases, the highly elevated anthrax antibody levels confirm both the exposure and the diagnosis. Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen worked for the U.S. Postal Service. They were decent, hard-working men who pushed themselves and continued to go to work and church even as anthrax infections were killing them. They and Robert Stevens, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren all lost their lives in the anthrax attacks. Their families have suffered a devastating blow. This bill would allow them to receive some small compensation for their losses without having to suffer through the additional trauma and long delays associated with a lawsuit. Leroy Richmond, Norma Wallace, and Ernesto Blanco should be spared a long and difficult legal ordeal, too. They and others who suffered laboratory-confirmed anthrax infections as a result of the 2001 attacks deserve justice. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the same compensation fund as the victims of September 11, as long as they are willing to abide by the same rules. This bill gives them that right, that option, if they choose to exercise it. After that letter was opened in my office, the Senate put in place new mail-screening procedures to prevent another similar attack on the Capitol complex. Nearly 2 years later, we no longer have to worry that terrorism can slip in here through the mail. Some days we even forget about the anthrax attacks. But there are victims and victims' families who cannot forget. The anthrax attacks of 2001 still haunt them every day. This bill will not restore their strength or return their loved ones, but it will give them a small measure of compensation and perhaps a small measure of peace. It will say clearly that whether it happens in September, October, or any other month, terrorism is terrorism and here in America its victims will not have to suffer alone. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy, with whom I have been working on this bill now for nearly 2 years, for his remarkable commitment to this cause. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in seeking justice for these forgotten victims of terrorism.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if there are no other Senators seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I renew the request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to agree with the majority leader. I think we did make progress last night. We had good cooperation. A number of amendments were offered. We had votes on them this morning. We want to replicate that tonight. I will be offering an amendment shortly. I know a number of other Senators are planning to offer amendments on our side. Our expectation is we will have those votes, plus I think there are five amendments pending that we would like to be able to dispose of, either with a voice vote or a rollcall vote, tomorrow morning as well. The majority leader noted we made a lot of progress today. We have a finite list. I think it is important for Senators to come and limit the amount of time that some of these votes may otherwise take. We can have a good debate, but I think we have to get through a lot of work tomorrow. The only way we can do it is if Senators will come to the floor tonight. As I say, I will offer an amendment now. Senator Feinstein is ready to go with an amendment after I am finished. I don't know if there are others on the Republican side, but we need to bring up four or five amendments tonight. I think we can give the assurance to the majority leader that we will be prepared to do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I referenced the fact that she was prepared to offer it. I ask consent she be recognized after my amendment has been offered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could just clarify, we are not asking for consent that they be voted on tomorrow. I said it would be helpful if they could be voted on tomorrow morning. I was just indicating the sequence tonight and hoping to expedite the consideration of these amendments--that after I lay my amendment down and make comments relating thereto, that Senator Feinstein be recognized so she could do the same. If the Senator from Alaska chooses not to do that, we can accommodate him with whatever suggestions he may have for how we do this.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have been debating this critical piece of legislation now for over a week. Most of the debate has properly centered on the immediate issues presented by the bill before us: How much of the $20 billion the President is seeking for reconstruction of Iraq should American taxpayers provide, and under what terms and conditions should they provide it? We will have an opportunity tomorrow to talk about a number of specific amendments dealing with loan relationships with Iraq and the probability that the debate centering on whether or not Iraq should be required to take some of the assistance in the form of a loan will be resolved before the end of the week. There are widely divergent and strongly held views within this Chamber about how we should answer the questions involving loans and grants, and what responsibilities Iraq should have. While Senate passage of $87 billion to secure and rebuild Iraq seems certain, each of us knows the amount contained in this bill is not sufficient to complete the task. The administration itself has argued that we may need another $55 billion beyond the request made in this appropriations bill today. We don't know how we will do in the donors' conference. But I am told the best we can expect at this point is about $3 billion from the international community. If it is still accurate that $55 billion may be required, and that $3 billion of that may be provided today at least--and that is over a period of time, and in some cases we are told that it could be 4 or 5 years before some of that $3 billion is actually committed--then obviously rebuilding Iraq would take many more years and many tens of billions of dollars in addition to what is now being considered within this legislation. The amendment I am offering tonight simply requires that the President do what he said he will do--work with the international community to ensure that the American taxpayer does not continue to act alone or largely alone in picking up future reconstruction costs. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the international community is an equal partner in any future reconstruction costs beyond those contained in the bill before us. Basically, what we are saying is we will make our decision about the $87 billion, but we recognize this may not be the last request; that there will be additional needs. This amendment simply says that as we consider those additional needs, we ask the President to certify that other nations are paying their fair share of any future costs beyond the $87 billion for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq before he uses additional American taxpayer dollars to finance these efforts. I want to emphasize that it doesn't touch one dime of the $87 billion request. Other amendments will seek to address those concerns, and obviously I intend to support them. This pending amendment simply says to the President: You must provide some assurance that the international community will support our efforts to expend additional funds beyond the $87 billion for Iraq's reconstruction. This amendment will not affect security-related expenditures. No limitations are placed on the President's ability to expend funds for our troops, Iraqi troops, or for Iraqi public safety programs such as border enforcement, police, fire and customs. And no limitations are placed on the President's ability to commit funds to develop Iraq's justice system. If the President is unable to get the international community to pay its fair share of future Iraqi construction costs, the amendment permits the President to expend still more taxpayer dollars on Iraq's reconstruction with one provision. That provision is that he certify to Congress that additional U.S. expenditures on Iraq's reconstruction are in our national security interests. We don't tie the President's hands. We permit him to get everything he is asking for today--enough to stabilize and rebuild Iraq for a year according to the administration's estimates. It gives him time to round up additional support for our efforts in Iraq should he deem it necessary to ask America's taxpayers to provide additional funds. And we give him a waiver if he fails to secure the additional international support. More than 6 months after the end of the Hussein regime, the cost of rebuilding and securing Iraq, both in the lives lost and in money now expended, appear without end. Now more than ever, we need to engage the support of the international community prior to the donors' conference, and this amendment would allow us to do that. The entire world will benefit from a democratic and prosperous Iraq. The entire world has an obligation to help us build a better future for the Iraqi people. As the President noted just last month in his address about his administration's efforts in Iraq, ``we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq.'' This amendment provides the President the leverage to make that promise a reality. I hope our colleagues will endorse this amendment on a bipartisan basis. This is simply an opportunity for us to say from here on out, regardless of what you may think of the $87 billion, the time has come for the international community to participate, and it is critically important that we send that message to the donors' conference when we have that occasion to do so later on this month. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are back, as all of our colleagues know, on the supplemental appropriations request offered by the administration. There are a number of amendments pending--as I understand it, five--and there will be other amendments offered today. I urge colleagues to come to the floor to offer their amendments and to ensure we have adequate time by the end of the week to dispose of those amendments that have yet to be offered. There is a good deal left to be done on the bill. Our focus will be on four areas. The first will be the need for the President to clarify more effectively what our plan is with regard to the use of the $87 billion, the $22 billion in particular for reconstruction aid. Today we saw yet another indication of the murkiness with regard to the plan. The administration has made a decision to reverse itself with regard to some of the demands it was making upon the United Nations, and, as a result, we are perhaps more hopeful now that the U.N. could be involved. But without a plan, it makes it very difficult for us to commit the resources. Simply asking for a plan is no substitute for the plan that is required. Secondly, we want more transparency. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent. Corporations, such as Halliburton and Bechtel and others, have benefited, but we have no way of knowing how much, what will be the profit. When we passed the Marshall plan 50 years ago, we had an explicit prohibition on profiteering. There is no explicit prohibition today. As a result, there is no transparency as well. I think it is critical for us to have a better understanding for the taxpayers and the Congress to know precisely how this money is going to be spent and who is going to benefit and how, if we can, avoid the wasteful expenditures that some have already reported. The third area we want to concentrate on is the need for a recognition that it ought to be paid for. Whether it is paid for in a way of collateralizing the money requested, if it is asking those at the very top of the income scale to help pay--there has been no request for sacrifice on their part--whether we simply make this a loan, recognizing that somebody is going to have to pay for this, somebody is going to have to be willing to borrow it and give it to Iraq or, the question is, Does it merit at least consideration that we ask Iraq to borrow the money rather than the United States? But somebody will borrow the money. That is the bottom line, and I think we need to recognize that point. Finally, we also need to recognize important domestic priorities. Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, as I understand it, will be offering an amendment to provide the resources necessary to fully fund the Veterans' Administration budget for this year. We are over $1 billion short. Their message is simply that if we are going to support the troops, we ought to support the veterans--the veterans who are coming home needing health care, veterans who are now being asked to wait up to 6 months for health care, in some cases. But there are important domestic priorities that ought to be addressed as well. It is our hope that through this amendment, and other amendments like it, we will be in a better position to say, yes, we want to be supportive of the need to reconstruct, to provide the resources to Iraq, but we also need to recognize the importance of providing those resources as well for important needs here at home, especially those involving veterans. That will be the debate for the week. I am hopeful that many of these amendments will be adopted; that we can improve the legislation as it was offered and proposed, and, at the end of the day, we have the assurance we know where the money is going; that at least in part it will be paid for; that it recognizes domestic priorities; and that there is a plan, a recognition that we are not going to be there interminably; that we need a clear and much more precise way of analyzing our success or our shortcomings as we commit these resources for the course of the next several months.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, can the Chair inform us as to the current circumstances involving morning business?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the information. I will use my leader time rather than using morning business time to talk about three matters.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Finally, I will talk about our grave concern with regard to the ongoing investigation in the Department of Justice with regard to the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame. In a letter to the administration, we have noted they need to address five specific missteps we think directly hinder and perhaps may adversely affect the outcome of this investigation. First, the Department of Justice commenced this investigation on Friday, September 26, but did not ask the White House to preserve all relevant evidence until September 29. No one knows why. For those 4 days, the investigation went on without any formal request of the White House or anybody else to preserve all relevant documents. Second, after the request, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for yet another delay, until the following day, before any of the relevant evidence would have to be provided. This is a significant departure from standard practice and, again, mysteriously inexplicable. Third, no request was made of State and Defense Department agencies until October 1, almost a week following the request made of the White House. Again, that is completely inexplicable. What is even more troubling is that the Wall Street Journal reported that a request would be made to the Department of Defense and the State Department the very day it was done, again tipping off all of those who may have had some reason to destroy evidence. Fourth, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan stated he has already determined that three White House officials--Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams--had not disclosed any information. Now, he is not a member of the investigation. He has no legal expertise. He is the current White House spokesperson, but he said he personally made that determination and could announce with confidence they were not involved. That perhaps is the most troubling of all. How can someone with no legal expertise say with official acclamation that these individuals are not involved? First, he does not have the expertise. Second, if indeed that turns out to be wrong, someone in the Justice Department is going to have to confront the White House and reverse that pronouncement, making it all the more difficult for the investigation to go forward. Finally, the investigation continues to be overseen by Attorney General Ashcroft, someone who has very close personal and political ties with many of those who are at least subject to an investigation. That, too, is extraordinarily troubling. I was concerned last week when the President said it was unlikely that any guilt could be found; that it was unlikely this investigation would prove to be productive. That, too, sent a chilling message to all of those who are investigating. So these are very serious missteps that call into question whether this investigation is going to be carried out in the deliberate, thoughtful, and thorough way it demands. I think we ought to ask, Who is in control here? Why has somebody not been appointed to provide the answers to these questions and to deal with these serious missteps? They get worse. The cloud of doubt hangs over the investigation. Some have suggested there may be a coverup, but I think it is important for us to determine the facts, get the information, deal with the eroding confidence people have in the quality of this investigation, and ultimately bring it to a successful conclusion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Florida for his comments, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada heard me exactly right. I was interested in comments made earlier today that we really do not have to worry that much about the exploding deficit; that it is not that serious. Well, that is not what the CBO said. About a month ago, the Congressional Budget Office noted that at current rates the debt is not sustainable; that we are not going to be in a position to provide the kind of debt service ultimately, within the course of the next 10 years, if nothing changes. The debt we have already authorized is going to expire once again. We are going to have to increase the debt limit within the next several months. We are told by some groups outside the CBO that we could see a total Federal debt within 10 years of anywhere from 8 to 10,000 billion dollars. That is right, 8 to 10,000 billion dollars. That is $8 trillion. That amounts to somewhere in the vicinity of $70,000 to $75,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. That is what we are facing right now. For us to say we are going to exacerbate that by borrowing even more to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq is deeply troubling. They sit on perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world. It seems to me those oil reserves ought to at least be considered. Even though they are not available today, at some point that oil can be tapped. If it can be tapped, it seems to me it would make a lot more sense for us to collateralize that oil than to borrow even more money, adding even greater debt to every man, woman, and child in this country. I appreciate very much the question of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have not had any specific report to that regard. But the Senator from Florida has read many of the same news reports I have read, which indicate that CIA personnel take this very seriously, and that to make light of it, to minimize it, to ignore it, to do whatever may be now underway with regard to a questionable investigative effort, is a huge mistake and sets a dangerous and very troubling precedent as we consider situations similar to this in the future.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Florida is absolutely right. We are being told we cannot fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, which would require about $6.5 billion, most of which goes to those who are special needs children. Over $6 billion of it goes to special needs children. We cannot afford that, we are told, because the money just is not there. We are told we cannot afford the close to $1.9 billion our veterans need to fully fund the Veterans' Administration, for the health needs of the veterans, the very people returning from Iraq today. We are told the money is not available. We are told the money is not available to fully fund a highway bill this year. I am told we would need somewhere in the vicinity of $30 to $40 billion to fully fund the highway fund. We may not be able to do that because I am told the money isn't there, so I am very troubled. We are told we don't have the resources for funding of highways and housing and health care in America, but we have the money to fund housing and highways and health care in Iraq. That is something we have to confront a lot more effectively as we consider this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there is another issue I wish to mention. It has to do with a requirement by law that the administration issue a report on currency manipulation by October 15. That is the law. There is a requirement passed by the Congress, signed by the President, that the administration needs to provide a clear understanding of the circumstances, especially involving China and Japan. We have good reason to believe there is dramatic currency manipulation underway in those two countries; perhaps as much as 40 percent of the current strength of the Chinese yuan can be directly attributed to currency manipulation. When we passed the law, we said the Congress needed, first, to receive the report from the administration and, second, that the administration needed to lay out its specific plan for dealing, confronting, and effecting ultimately this manipulation so that the extraordinary impact it is having on our trade balances and, therefore, on our economy could be dealt with. We currently have a $103 billion trade deficit with China and a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. We have lost over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs just in 3 years. A lot of those jobs are going directly to China and Japan, to places in Asia. The hardest hit industries in the last 2\1/2\ years include 67,000 jobs lost in the plastics industry, 15,000 jobs lost in machine tool manufacturing, 21,000 jobs lost in tool and die manufacturing, 100,000 jobs lost in furniture manufacturing, and 139,000 jobs lost in the textile manufacturing industries. What we are suggesting is that, first, the administration do what the law requires. I come to the floor this morning very concerned with the reports I have heard that the administration has no intention of releasing its report on time; that there will not be the report required by law that they will provide us with as clear an understanding of the circumstances involving currency manipulation as they can. We also ask, not only do they offer the report, do they present the report to the Congress, but that they do what the law also requires, which is to enter into formal negotiations with all of those countries for which we are concerned as it relates to currency manipulation. Finally, we also propose that they pursue a section 301 trade law investigation to set the stage for WTO and further action by the WTO in these cases, unless first we report and, secondly, provide specific and direct bilateral action and then pursue the laws as they are affected in this 301 matter. There is no way we can begin addressing the very serious problems we have with regard to the manufacturing and service industry job loss we have experienced now in the last 2\1/2\ years. October 15 is upon us. The report needs to be provided, and I hope the administration will follow the law and do what the law requires and give us the report and allow us to work with them to enter into formal investigations at the earliest possible date.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a half-century ago, Drs. Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the structure of DNA--a revolutionary breakthrough that enabled scientists to begin unraveling the mysteries of human life and diseases. Earlier this year, scientists at the National Human Genome Research Institute celebrated the completion of a massive undertaking begun 10 years earlier to map the entire human genetic code. Our new knowledge about our genetic blueprint has the potential to dramatically improve our health and the quality of our lives. It also has the potential to destroy lives. Which of those two potentials becomes reality depends on whether and how well our laws keep pace with changes in technology. We know from hearings we held in the Senate that current laws are inadequate to protect Americans from genetic discrimination. We also know that today Americans are not being tested, not taking advantage of medical advances, and not participating in genetic research because of their fear of discrimination. Their fears, unfortunately, are not unfounded. Almost 2 years ago, I met a man named Dave Escher. Mr. Escher had worked for the same company for more than 25 years and was a good employee. One day, Mr. Escher was told by his employer that he needed to see a company doctor; if he refused, he was told he could lose his job. So Dave Escher saw the doctor. However, it wasn't until after the doctor's appointment--and only by accident--that Mr. Escher learned that the company's doctors had used his blood to conduct genetic tests for more than 20 medical conditions. Stories like Mr. Escher's may be relatively rare today, but experts tell us that is largely because genetic testing itself is still relatively rare, and because many people are choosing not to take genetic tests. As testing becomes more affordable and more common, experts say, the incidence of discrimination is likely to increase dramatically unless we act to prevent such discrimination. Almost two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson, one of this country's foremost scientists and original thinkers, wrote that ``laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As . . . new discoveries are made [and] new truths disclosed . . . institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.'' In this age of genetic breakthroughs, it is essential that our laws catch up with the science. We can't afford to take one step forward in science but two steps backward in civil rights. Our laws must specify, clearly and unambiguously, how genetic information may be used and how it may not be used. Today, after years of discussion and negotiation, the Senate is finally poised to pass bipartisan legislation to protect all Americans against the misuse and abuse of genetic information. Our bill does three things: No. 1, it forbids health insurers from discriminating against individuals--denying them coverage, for instance, based on genetic text results. No. 2, it forbids employers from using genetic information to discriminate in hiring, or in the terms and conditions of employment. No. 3, it sets privacy standards for access and disclosure of genetic information. Genetic information should be a private matter--period. It should not be shared with employers or insurance companies without an individual's consent. For years, experts have urged Congress to pass comprehensive national standards to protect all Americans from genetic discrimination. If we fail to do so, the experts warn, we will almost certainly squander many of the enormous potential benefits of the genetic revolution. We have been trying to heed that warning for years. I first introduced legislation prohibiting genetic discrimination 6 years ago. Senator Snowe and many other Senators on both sides of the aisle have been working on this important issue for just as long. After countless hours of tough negotiations, we have finally arrived at a fair resolution that provides important protections for individuals in both employment and health insurance. Passage of this bill represents a victory for bipartisanship. But more importantly, it is a victory for the American people. Discrimination based on genetic information is just as arbitrary, just as unacceptable, and just as un-American as discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or disability. Like those other forms of discrimination, it should not be allowed in this country. Again, I thank our colleagues who have enabled us to reach this compromise and I urge all of our colleagues to support it. There are a few people who deserve special recognition. I particularly want to thank those Senators who have been working on this issue from the beginning and whose contributions were invaluable in reaching this compromise, especially Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Harkin, Dodd, Jeffords, Frist, Gregg, and Enzi. I also want to thank Dr. Francis Collins and the staff at NIH, as well as Kathy Hudson, who heads up the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. Without their technical expertise and their determinations to help our laws keep pace with science, we would not be here today. One other person who must be recognized is our good friend in the other body, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. Her determined leadership helped move us forward at every step of the way, and her tenacity and expertise will be essential to passage of this legislation in the House. Nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, in one of his weekly radio addresses, President Bush joined in the call for comprehensive protection of genetic information. I urge all of our colleagues in the Senate to support this well-crafted, bipartisan solution. I also hope that our friends in the House will heed the President's words, follow this Senate's actions, and pass this bill quickly so we can get it to the President for his signature this year. We cannot allow the gap between science and the law to continue to widen. We all have genetic markers. We are all potentially at risk of genetic discrimination. This is not a partisan issue. This is an urgent civil rights issue. There is no reason to wait any longer. We have a solution. We ought to pass it this year.