Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona talks about four issues. There are three of them we really ought to be able to reach agreement on reasonably soon, and the other one is a very difficult issue, there is no question about that. That is the definition. But on grandfathering and VOIP, for example, the length of time of a moratorium, frankly, I think we can reach an agreement on those three areas. Frankly, if we are able to reach an agreement on the definition, I do not care much about the grandfathering. I know some of my colleagues do, but that is a lot less important to me. I would also say that the length of a moratorium on Internet taxation is of much less importance to me as well. I would be willing to lengthen it by a substantial number of years provided we have the right definition. So I think the thing that is going to be difficult for us but one that we should attempt to resolve is this definition. I want to just make this point: If the purpose of those who are most insistent on moving this legislation--and there are several in the Chamber who have really worked on this a long time--would be, for example, to create a broad new exemption from taxation for certain services and certain parts of the backbone of the Internet and so on, then that is a problem. I do not support that. I do not think we ought to carve out things that are now being taxed by State and local governments and say, by the way, we are going to federally preempt that. If that is not the purpose, though, then we surely should be able to find common ground on a definition that works. My hope is that as we proceed we will understand that all of us--I think I speak for all of us--believe we ought to have a moratorium on taxing the Internet, that is, the connection to the Internet. I support that. I believe virtually all of us in this Chamber would agree we ought not levy punitive or discriminatory taxes on the Internet. I believe we would all agree on the goal that we would want to encourage through public policy the build out of broadband and the use of the Internet and particularly advanced telecommunications services. All of those represent areas of broad, substantial agreement in the Senate Chamber. As we work through this now, the one area where I think we have substantial difficulties is trying to understand what each side means with respect to the definition of Internet service. How far up the backbone of the Internet does it go? Is it a definition that, in fact, would prevent the taxation of certain services that are now taxed, and on which State and local governments rely for that revenue? If that is the case, we ought to know that and discuss that. If it is not the case, we should be able to reach an agreement on the definition. Senator Allen, for example, and many others who have been at this, Senator Wyden and on the other side Senators Carper and Alexander and many others--we need to once again get our heads together and see if we can find agreement on this definition. But until that happens and unless that happens, it is my guess we are just going to be around here spinning our big old tractor wheels and nothing is going to happen. We are not going to pass legislation. We are not going to agree to amendments. I am guessing the consensus wouldn't exist to do that. I wouldn't object to going to vote on some things, speaking for myself, but we have a lot of work to do to reach some sort of compromise. Let me say to my colleague Senator McCain, I recall being in meetings with him a year ago and beyond that, and the attempt was to try to figure out, how can we find common ground? How can we extend the moratorium that then existed? We never got to the point of reaching any kind of agreement, but it wasn't because of any lack of effort on the part of the chairman of the committee. I am here. I will be here during consideration of this, and I want to work with Senator McCain and others to see if we can find a way to make this work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for someone from our side who will manage the issue dealing with the Internet tax, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, what I want to talk about, in addition to the prescription drug issue, is the notion that--at the end of last week it was addressed--we would probably need more money for the military with respect to the fighting that is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. This Congress passed a supplemental emergency bill that was nearly $87 billion--I believe it was just under $87 billion--some months ago. We were told that would take us through the end of this calendar year and perhaps even a bit more. The President's budget that was sent to us contained zero money requested for the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason the President recommended there would be no funding in the regular budget for Iraq and Afghanistan is because he and the administration said they could not estimate what it would cost; therefore, they recommend zero. We know it is not zero. We know we are spending $5 billion a month-- $4 billion in Iraq and $1 billion in Afghanistan. If we are spending $5 billion a month or $60 billion a year, it is unfathomable to me that we get a budget request from the President that says, ``I recommend nothing at this point because I will later on ask for an emergency appropriations.'' Late last week we heard perhaps more money will be needed than was otherwise expected and that Congress would be asked to appropriate this on an emergency basis. It is clear to me we will do whatever is necessary to protect the safety of the troops we have sent to Iraq. There is no question but that when we ask American men and women in uniform to fight for this country and to defend this country's interest and then to send them overseas, there is no question we have an obligation to protect them and provide for their safety. If they need more equipment, if we need to spend more money to provide for their safety, this Congress, in my judgment, is going to do that. Let me make a point about all of this. In addition to providing the supplemental emergency funding that was necessary for the Pentagon some months ago--almost 6 months ago now--we also were requested by the President to appropriate $20.3 billion for reconstructing Iraq. I offered an amendment in the Senate to strike that spending. It was the largest proposed spending cut for this fiscal year that was offered in the Congress. The single largest spending cut that was offered last year is one I offered on the floor of the Senate to strike the $20.3 billion for reconstructing Iraq. I came up short. I had over 40 votes for the amendment, but, nonetheless, it did not prevail. I want to explain why I did that and why it has relevance today. I proposed striking that funding for a very simple reason: We did not target Iraq's infrastructure. When we decided to displace Saddam Hussein and send American troops to Iraq, we did not target their roads, bridges, dams, or electric grid. That is not what we targeted. We did not try to bomb Iraq in a way that destroyed their infrastructure. It is my judgment the American taxpayers should not be required to rebuild the Iraq infrastructure. Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia. In fact, one of the troops who came back from Iraq with the National Guard unit from North Dakota told me one day he was standing in an area in Iraq, in some sandy area, and the bottom of his boots became black with oil. There is a great deal of oil in the country of Iraq. I believe, based on Ambassador Bremer's testimony of how much oil they would be pumping this year and next year, that when they get to 3 million barrels of oil a day, which is something they will reach very soon, they will have $16 billion of net export value of oil in Iraq--$16 billion a year. That is $160 billion of net export value of oil in 10 years. That is above and beyond that which they need to use in Iraq. It seems to me with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq, it makes a great deal of sense for a country with the second largest reserves of oil in the world to be told the Iraq people ought to use Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq. It is not the job or the burden or the responsibility of the American people to reconstruct Iraq. I lost that debate in the Senate and lost the vote. So now we have just under $20 billion available to reconstruct Iraq. There is a very thick booklet that describes the reconstruction of Iraq. There is a jobs program for Iraq paid for by the American taxpayers. There is a housing program for Iraq paid for by the American taxpayers. There is a highway program for Iraq, a health care program for Iraq, a security program for Iraq, all paid for by American taxpayers. There is marsh restoration and there is the creation of ZIP codes, all paid for by the American taxpayers. Since I lost that vote on the floor of the Senate and since nearly $20 billion was then appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq, paid for by the American taxpayers, I have watched the progress of that reconstruction and I noticed, for example, some of the things that were happening in Iraq with respect to expenditures. I have been bothered about it, but nonetheless I had my vote and I lost that vote. Then last week, I learned we are short of money for the troops in Iraq, and it is very likely an emergency supplemental request will need to be passed by the Congress and, indeed, we will pass it if it is necessary to support the troops in Iraq. I checked and discovered at the last count, somewhere close to $17 billion--$16-plus billion-- remains unspent with respect to the reconstruction funds that were appropriated by the Congress for Iraq. It seems to me what we ought to do is transfer that unexpended reconstruction funding and use it for the benefit of the support of the American troops in Iraq. If, in fact, we are short of money, if we are going to need to expend additional emergency funds in Iraq, why not use the funds that are unspent at this point for the reconstruction of Iraq and, indeed, use that for the support of the American troops in Iraq, and then engage the Iraqi government--first of all the provisional government and, second, the government that takes effect on July 1--and have that government securitize future production of Iraqi oil and raise their own funds to reconstruct this country. It is their job, not the job of the American taxpayers, to have a program for housing, health care, jobs, and highways in the country of Iraq. That ought not be the burden of the American taxpayer. When we have a fiscal policy that is desperately out of balance and we are borrowing money at a record pace--$530 billion this year alone-- I think it is responsible for us to take a look at how we might ease that burden and at least one small portion of that ought to be to revisit this proposition of a reconstruction fund for Iraq. A substantial amount of that money is as yet unspent. Incidentally, while I am on the subject, let me also say with respect to the military funding, we need to do a much better job with that expenditure. I noticed, for example, the Halliburton Corporation--I held a hearing on this subject in the Democratic Policy Committee a couple of months ago--the Halliburton Corporation has had to now restore funding for kickbacks they made for inappropriate expenditures. Here is a company, for example, that was billing the U.S. Government, the Defense Department--therefore, the U.S. taxpayers--they were billing us for serving 42,000 meals a day. The problem was they were only making 14,000 meals a day for the American troops. Somehow 28,000 meals got lost. They were overbilling by 28,000 meals a day. I come from a small town of about 300 people. I can understand somebody overbilling for 10 meals, maybe 100 meals, but 28,000 meals a day? That is absurd. That is the sort of thing that the American taxpayer reads about and is angry about, and should be because there is a substantial amount of money being wasted, yes, even in these defense contracts. That is something the American taxpayers expect better of with respect to the use of their funds. I want to come back to this central point. I think it is time we revisit this question of reconstruction funds for Iraq. I suggest we do that by deciding that which is yet unspent be used to support the American troops because we are told there is not sufficient money to do that at this point, and I believe, because it is not the American taxpayers' burden to reconstruct Iraq but it is the American taxpayers' burden to support troops who we have asked to go in harm's way on our behalf, that this would represent a positive step and would also help with fiscal policy that now is creating the largest deficits in history. We will be on the subject of the Internet tax issue soon, and I will have more to say on that subject later, but in the meantime I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while this week we will take up the Internet tax issue, which is complicated and, in some ways, controversial--and I expect it will take some time--I wanted to mention something about fiscal policy for a moment and hope that perhaps this week, or in the intervening weeks, we may take up a couple of these issues. As you know, we have a Federal budget deficit that will be in this fiscal year the largest in the history of this country, by far. They say now there will be over a $530 billion Federal budget deficit in this fiscal year. I think everyone understands that saddling our children and their children with debt they must pay because this President and this Congress has decided we will spend money we don't have--we will borrow it and saddle someone else with the responsibility to pay it--is wrongheaded fiscal policy. It is bad for this country; it doesn't represent a value system that we should embrace, and, second, in the long-term it retards economic growth and crushes opportunity in the future for our children and those who follow them. My hope is we will begin to address this issue of fiscal policy. We cannot spend more for defense--nearly $100 billion more for defense and say, by the way, we don't have to pay for it. We cannot spend more for homeland security and say it doesn't count, we don't have to pay for that. We cannot cut taxes as we spend more for defense and homeland security and, as we spend more for health care, which costs more each year, say we will just charge all that. That is not a responsible thing to do. But we have a Federal budget that is sent to us, which comes from the President, and then the Congress works on this budget plan that says a couple of things. We know we are going to have increases in health care spending. We know that because both Medicare and Medicaid represent entitlement programs, we know the cost of health care spending is increasing. We know the President is recommending very substantial increases in costs for defense. We know the President is recommending substantial increases in spending for homeland security. We also know the President is recommending making permanent tax cuts, which at this point are temporary. The point is that this doesn't add up. It is a fiscal policy that doesn't add up. So how could we begin to make some sense of this? There are a couple of things that have happened in recent weeks which I think we need to address. This past weekend there was a story in the Washington Post about the issue of the $145 billion mistake that was made in the estimate of the cost of the prescription drug plan for Medicare. We are told now from press reports that the chief actuary who works on the Medicare Program knew long before the Congress voted on a prescription drug plan in the Medicare Program that this would not cost $400 billion, as was provided for in the budget, but, in fact, would cost over $140 billion more than that during the 10-year period. But he was told he would be fired if he informed Congress of this information. So the Congress acted without having information that was available in the executive branch because the chief actuary, who is not partisan--he is not part of the political system, he has been a career public servant and, by all accounts, an excellent one--was told he would lose his job if he informed the Congress of what this would cost. I think there needs to be an investigation into who threatened this person's job, who had this information and refused to turn it over to Congress, who indicated it was inappropriate for the Congress to know this information before it voted on this legislation. I believe this Congress owes it to the American people to investigate that because how can we legislate in the future on issues of this type without having adequate information or without being able to trust the information that is coming from, in this case it was Health and Human Services and from the chief actuary of the Medicare Program? I believe one way or another in the coming weeks, we ought to find a way to investigate that circumstance. I believe we owe that to the American people.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I was simply going to observe now that we have had the cloture vote on a motion to proceed, there is a 30-hour period postcloture. My expectation is we would go on this bill at some point tomorrow. My hope is it would be at 2:15, for example, following the caucus meetings tomorrow. However, that is a decision those who oppose the cloture motion will want to address. The bill we are going to be considering in the Senate is a piece of legislation that came out of the Commerce Committee. When it came out of the Commerce Committee, it had one area that was not resolved. We understood when we voted it out it was not resolved. It could have some very significant ramifications on State and local revenue base and other issues. We decided to try to resolve it on the way to the floor. It is not yet resolved. As a result, it will require substantial work-- amendments, debate, some compromise here and there--to see if we cannot get a piece of legislation that does what all of us want it to do; that is, to have a moratorium on the taxation of access to the Internet but done in a way with respect to definitions that is not going to have loopholes big enough to drive trucks through. There have been circumstances in which if you have a definition that is not appropriate and not carefully crafted, the moratorium on taxing the Internet itself could be a moratorium on taxing a wide range of products that are already taxed. We are going to have to work through this in the coming days. I would like to see us work in a cooperative way and get on the bill and find a way to find some middle ground that accomplishes the objectives we all have. Speaking for myself, I supported the moratorium previously. I support a moratorium now. But it must be done in a manner that is consistent with definitions we all understand and one that accomplishes the objectives we all set when we wanted to pass this legislation in the first instance. I appreciate very much the Senator from Florida yielding.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield as much time as I may consume to myself.

Mr. DORGAN. This morning's news is very sad news for those of us who knew and loved Mary McGrory, one of the wonderful writers of our age, one of the really interesting thinkers and warm and wonderful human beings. According to the news reports, she died last evening at a hospital here in Washington, DC. I wrote her a letter some months ago telling Mary, after she had fallen ill: I have been waiting and hoping that I may again see your byline in the Washington Post. I remain hopeful that we will once again be able to start the day by reading a Mary McGrory column and then shaking our fist in the air, shouting: Yes that is what I should have said. Mary never did get back to work. Her column never again appeared. But this Capitol Building, the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, and political discourse in this country for 50 years have been affected by what Mary thought, what Mary said, and what Mary wrote. She was quite a remarkable person. She won a Pulitzer Prize. She covered the major events for over 50 years, and she wrote columns using words that were extraordinary. She would find ways to say things that most of us are at a loss to explain. Often in the morning I would open the newspaper to see the Mary McGrory column and think how wonderfully she wrote. More than that, she was also a very special friend to many of us, in many ways. She would stand outside this Chamber, sometimes early in the morning, sometimes late at night, and she would get the story. She would do the hard work, ask the questions, follow people until she got answers, and then she would write her column. Her cousin, Brian McGrory, wrote a piece that appeared in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post about Mary. He probably describes her best, and in many ways brings a smile to those of us who knew Mary. He said: While most Washington pundits closet themselves with their own profound thoughts, interrupted only by lunch at the Palm with the Secretary of Something, Mary employs old-fashioned tools: a sensible pair of shoes, a Bic, and a notebook. She haunts congressional hearings. She sits with the unwashed in the back of the White House briefing room. He also said at the end of his article--this is an article that was written last November when Mary was ill: Hers is a world of soft irony. She checks into elaborate spas in Italy every year, but while there, always gains a few pounds. She was audited by the Nixon administration and got a refund. At a stiff Washington party she once whispered to me, ``Always approach the shrimp bowl like you own it.'' Mary McGrory was a wonderful human being with a great sense of humor. But she wrote like the wind. I wish I could again see her byline. David Broder in January wrote a wonderful piece about Mary Mack. He began: I am headed out this week for my 12th presidential campaign, but unlike the first 11, I will not have the company of my favorite traveling companion, Mary McGrory. The great liberal columnist, surely the most elegant newspaper writer Americans have read over the past half-century, has been ill since last March and recently accepted the generous buyout offer given to veteran employees by the Post. Incomprehensible as it seems, she has finished her journalistic career. Then David Broder, in his own inimitable style, describes Mary McGrory. I think of Mary McGrory. I think of not just seeing her here in the Capitol, or having lunch with Mary, I think of the questions she would ask politicians. I was on the receiving end of a number of those questions: Always coming from the oblique, always a bit different, from a slightly different angle, always from a slightly different perspective. Often they were the questions others didn't ask or wouldn't ask. She had a very inquiring mind and she had a wonderful ability to write. So we will no longer be blessed with the presence of Mary McGrory here in this Capitol Building and in this Capitol of the United States, covering the major events, which she started doing 50 years ago in the McCarthy hearings. But she will be in our thoughts forever. My thoughts and prayers go out to Mary's relatives. I attended a service once at which Senator Byrd spoke. He finished with a quote from Thomas Moore. The last two lines were: You can shatter, you can break the vase if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. Although Mary has passed and all of us are saddened by the loss of a friend and America has lost one of the great writers in the last half century, Mary will remain with us forever. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to allow prescription drug importation from Canada, the European Union, and a few other countries. I am very pleased to be joined on this bill by Senators Snowe, Kennedy, McCain, Daschle, Lott, Stabenow, Chafee, Johnson, Pryor, and Feingold. This new bill, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, is an important breakthrough for several reasons. First, it is a bipartisan effort, and as we all know, bipartisanship is the best way to get things done in Congress today or any day. Second, this bill addresses the safety issues that have been raised by some and makes certification by the Health and Human Services Secretary unnecessary. Therefore, it would take effect immediately and provide consumers with the urgent help they need accessing more affordable medicines. It is my hope that the Senate will take up and pass this legislation on an expedited basis because American consumers, especially senior citizens, State and local governments, and businesses large and small are desperate for action by Congress to give them relief from high drug prices. It has been well documented that Americans are charged the highest prices in the world for the exact same medicines that consumers in other major industrialized countries buy at a fraction of the price. For example, Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering medicine that is the top-selling drug in the United States, is made in the same plant and put in the same bottle. One bottle is shipped to American pharmacies, and the other to Canadian Pharmacies. Both are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The only difference? The price. One tablet purchased by a pharmacist in Canada costs $1.01; the same tablet purchased by an American pharmacist costs $1.86, 84 percent more than in Canada. The high prices charged for prescription drugs in the United States are forcing Americans and state and local governments to turn to Canada to buy their medicines. Dozens of State and local governments--from Maine to Massachusetts to North Dakota--are now implementing drug importation programs with Canada to save their citizens and their health care programs millions of dollars. Individual Americans are now importing more than $1.1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada. Unfortunately, they are doing so illegally, according to the FDA. The pharmaceutical industry is the only industry that benefits from a Congressional ban on re-imported products. The time has come to eliminate that barrier so American consumers, too, can benefit from the global marketplace. Big, multi-national drug companies already reap the benefits of the world market. In fact, more than $40 billion of the prescription drugs consumed by Americans in 2002 were made in other countries, such as Ireland, Singapore, and Japan so that the drug companies could take advantage of tax breaks, cheaper labor and other incentives available abroad. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander--American consumers, pharmacists, and drug wholesalers should be equally free to purchase FDA-approved medicines from Canada, Europe and elsewhere. The bill I am introducing today would allow just that. This new bill is similar in many respects to the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, sometimes called the ``Gutknecht bill'', which was passed by the House of Representatives by a wide bipartisan margin last July. For instance: Both bills allow prescription drugs to be imported from Canada, the European Union, and some other major industrialized nations. Both bills require pharmacies and wholesalers to register with the FDA to be able to import prescription drugs. Both bills provide for the importation of FDA-approved medicines. Both bills allow for reliance on anti- counterfeiting technology to ensure drug safety. Both bills allow for drug importation to begin immediately, without first requiring certification by the HHS Secretary. However, my cosponsor and I also believe that our bill makes a number of improvements over the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act both in terms of safety and closing loopholes to ensure that a drug importation program will not be thwarted by the big drug manufacturers. For example, this bill ensures that individual Americans who import their prescription drugs via the Internet or mail-order are doing so from safe, reliable Canadian pharmacies. This bill gives the FDA the ability to inspect Canadian exporters to assure safety. This bill enhances the FDA's ability to stop those drug imports that are unsafe. This bill would give the FDA the resources needed to ensure the safety of imported medicines. In addition, this bill contains several provisions to close loopholes that would allow drug companies to circumvent drug importation. Unfortunately, a number of big drug companies are cutting off medicines to Canadian pharmacies that sell to Americans. This bill would make such tactics an unfair trade practice. We will now work with the Senate leadership to get this bill enacted in the Senate promptly. The Senate has voted on drug importation legislation three times since 2000. There is no need for a protracted debate. In invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and in acting soon to give our constituents relief from high drug prices. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I did not hear all the Senator from Nevada had to say about this subject. I have listened to some of the presentations this afternoon. I want to make a couple of comments about the asbestos issue and then I want to talk about a couple of other unrelated matters. First, on the asbestos issue, I am one of those Senators who has in the past year or year and a half written letters to my colleagues, to Senator Frist and to Senator Daschle, in support of efforts to find a negotiated solution. On July 31 of last year, I sent a letter to our joint leadership urging that we reach a bipartisan compromise on the issue of asbestos. That letter was signed by a number of other colleagues: Senators Miller, Breaux, Ben Nelson, Baucus, Carper, Kohl, Lincoln, Levin, and Stabenow. In late October, I sent another letter to Senators Frist and Daschle urging that we seize the moment and pass an asbestos bill, but recognizing that in order to do that, there needs to be serious negotiation. All of the stakeholders--and there are big stakeholders on this matter--need to come together to resolve the issues in a way that reflects a true compromise. There are a couple of things that are necessary to say at this point. One, I believe there is an urgency to deal with this issue. The failure to deal with it causes great economic uncertainty for companies and for our economy. The failure to deal with it means there are some who are sick as a result of having contact with asbestos during their lifetime and who will not be compensated. There are others who are not sick who will receive compensation. There are lawyers in the middle of some of these suits who will receive a disproportionate percentage of awards. I don't think this system works at all. The system is broken. For that reason, I believe it is in the interest of everyone for us to have legislation in the Senate that can truly reflect a bipartisan compromise. But the bill before us now is not such legislation. I was surprised, frankly, the week before last, just before the Senate took a 1-week break, to read statements made on the floor of the Senate. I shall not ascribe them to any particular colleague, but those who want to know can look in the Record. One of the colleagues who brought this bill to the Senate floor suggested that the asbestos negotiations were being blocked because the personal injury bar would not otherwise put up $50 million for John Kerry in the election. This colleague of mine said that such a suggestion, if true, was ``pathetic.'' Well, these words are an affront to all those colleagues on my side of the aisle who have been working very hard to get a good asbestos bill through the Senate this year. And these words are hardly appropriate from someone bringing a bill to the Senate floor, for which he seeks bipartisan support. This is not a serious proposal. We understand that. Senator Specter, who I think has done much of the serious work in the Senate trying to bring people together and reach a compromise, does not support this proposal. Let me read what Senator Specter said, again a Member of the majority party: I decline to join with Senator Frist and Senator Hatch in their substitute bill because I think it is the better practice to try to work through these problems. I completely agree with Senator Specter. I think the approach to have taken on this would have been for Senator Frist to have engaged with Senator Daschle and have all of the stakeholders work over a period of months to reach a compromise. And it is not too late to do that. In recent months, Senator Daschle has attempted numerous times to meet with Senator Frist to hammer out these issues, but those meetings have not taken place. I don't know all that has happened with respect to that, but I do know this: Putting a bill on the floor of the Senate that is far short of a true compromise with the stakeholders is not going to solve the problem. Yet this is an urgent problem that needs solving. I believe, as some of my colleagues do--Senator Carper, for example, on my side, who has worked very hard on this issue, who believes very strongly, as do I-- that there needs to be a solution. I certainly believe that if we end this session of the Congress without addressing this issue, without passing some legislation, we will have failed. All of us will have failed. It is simple enough to bring legislation that is unacceptable to the Senate floor so you can then have a press conference and say: Well, the other side killed this legislation. That is simple enough, but it does not address any problem or solve any issue. My hope is that in the coming days, the joint leadership--Senator Frist, Senator Daschle--might join with the stakeholders in this issue around a table and have some hardnosed negotiating and hammer out and develop a proposal that represents a true bipartisan proposal that represents a true compromise by all of those engaged in this issue so that we can pass legislation. Bringing what has been brought to the floor of the Senate the week before last and filing cloture on it is not a way to legislate. They know and we know that this means this legislation does not advance. I fail to see how that solves a problem or begins to address an issue that I believe is urgent. Once again, there are some principles involved. One, I don't believe that people who are not sick and have never been sick should be compensated. Two, I believe those who are sick should be compensated and compensated fairly and not have to go through a tort system and spend a lot of money for lawyers to be compensated. Three, I believe that the American business community deserves some certainty and that certainty does not exist at this point. That is why I believe a trust fund of sorts that is set up and established with appropriate medical criteria and other definitions is the best way for us to resolve the issue. I believe we should get to that point--the sooner, the better. But we have wasted a great deal of time. The process that has now been embarked upon by the majority leader will almost certainly guarantee we will not get to that point. I regret that because I hope at the end of this process, this Congress will understand the urgency for workers, for business, for all of the stakeholders to pass asbestos legislation. The Office of Foreign Asset Control

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about a subject I discussed with the Treasury Secretary this morning when he testified before my Appropriations subcommittee. We are fighting terrorists who want to attack this country. They have killed thousands of innocent Americans. They wish to attack this country and kill innocent Americans once again. It is an enormous challenge to fight and defeat terrorism. It takes all of our energy every day in our law enforcement areas, in the intelligence community. It takes a lot of coordination and good work. It takes getting it right. So we have the homeland security office. We have the CIA. We have the FBI, the Defense Department. We have everybody working on these issues--the U.S. Customs Service, and a little agency in the Treasury Department called OFAC, the Office of Foreign Asset Control. These are the people whose principal responsibility is to try to track the financial transactions happening between terrorists, to shut down the financial connections that finance terrorist activities. But that is not all that is done in the Treasury Department with respect to OFAC. This rather small office is doing other things. Their principal job ought to be to track terrorism and to shut down the financial root that funds terrorist activities. But there are some at the OFAC who are doing other things. Let me describe them. First, from a speech in December by the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, in Miami, a speech by Asa Hutchinson, where he talked about the crackdown on enforcement of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and goes into some detail; and then the Secretary of the Treasury, also in Florida, on February 9 gives a speech. The Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury, he said, is working closely with customs agents inspecting all direct flights to Cuba at Miami, JFK airport, Los Angeles Airport. That is hundreds of aircraft, tens of thousands of passengers, and agents are being meticulous. Well, I wonder if we are checking quite so closely with respect to trying to track terrorists. You know what they are looking for? I will give you an example. They are enforcing the embargo that we have with respect to Cuba, and part of that embargo is to prohibit Americans from traveling in Cuba, so we have all of these resources and personnel at airports tracking every passenger and every plane to see if someone has done something wrong. This is an example of what they discovered. This agency in the Treasury Department that is supposed to track terrorism tracked down Joanie Scott. She went to Cuba 4 years ago to distribute free Bibles. Four years later, the folks who wear suspenders at OFAC at the Treasury Department decide they are going to slap her with a $10,000 fine because 4 years ago she went to Cuba to give away free Bibles. She said she didn't know she needed to get a license. Four years later, they slapped her with a $10,000 fine. That is not all of it. This is a picture of Joan Slote, a 74-year-old grandmother, who is a bicyclist. She is a senior olympian. She rides bicycles all over the world. She happened to ride one in Cuba with a bicycling group from Canada. Guess what happened to Joan Slote? She got fined by OFAC, this little agency in Treasury that is supposed to be tracking terrorists. They are tracking little grandmothers who are riding bicycles in Cuba, in order to punish Castro and enforce the travel ban. They fine American citizens for traveling in Cuba. So she gets fined $7,630 for riding a bicycle in Cuba. These are some folks who are disabled athletes. They got to go to Havana about 2 years ago for the games for disabled athletes, the world games. They applied again this year, but as the Treasury Secretary and Mr. Hutchinson and others have said, including President Bush, we have this crackdown now on travel to Cuba; so these folks were denied a license to compete in the games for disabled athletes in Havana. The result is that they lost the $8,000 they paid to a travel agency for transportation to Havana to participate in world team sports for disabled athletes. Quite the terrorists, aren't they? So we have people down at the Treasury Department tracking these folks, a retired grandmother, a woman who takes free Bibles for distribution in Cuba, to see if we can find them. That is what is going on--levying fines of $5,000, $10,000. There is another man from the State of Washington who decided his father's last wish was to be buried or have his ashes distributed in the church he once ministered at in Cuba. Cevin Allen of Washington State traveled to Cuba to bury his father's ashes on the church grounds where his father once ministered. They decided to fine him $20,000. That is what they are tracking down at OFAC. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Their job is to track terrorists. Let's look at what they have done. They have people stationed at airports. They have trained Homeland Security agents. Hundreds have been trained to do this. Here is what they have nabbed with 45,000 passengers. They have actually worked overtime to thwart terrorists importing cigars from Cuba. On October 10 of last year, they had this directive from the President and, boy, they went at it. Homeland Security and OFAC at Treasury grabbed this issue. They found that 215 of the 45,461 travelers to Cuba were suspected of taking a vacation. Maybe that is a felony. They were suspected of taking a vacation. What an awful thing. And 283 tobacco and alcohol violations were found. The Homeland Security spokesperson, Christine Halsey, said each violation involved a small amount of rum or cigars; 245 are going to take a vacation, and a small number are bringing in rum. There were 42 narcotics seizures, but it involved prescription drugs, not heroin. There was one hazardous material violation. We have this ramp-up and we are supposed to protect America against terrorism, and you have these folks in green eyeshades trying to levy fines on Americans, and you have agents at airports trying to see who comes back from Cuba, and who traveled illegally so we can fine them. One hazardous material violation was discovered. It was apparently a carbon bioxide canister, which was probably used to add fizz to seltzer water. Does this sound stupid? It does to me. That is a harsh word. Sometimes our public policies seem flatout dumb. We are confronted with the specter of terrorists who want to kill Americans, cross our borders and commit acts of terror. Yet we have people at airports, Homeland Security agents, and OFAC trying to track little old ladies that went on bicycle trips in Cuba. What are they thinking at the Department of Treasury? Is that the way they want to use their resources? All of us know that lifting the travel ban to Cuba would happen instantly if we had a vote in the House and Senate. The only way they prevent it is to prevent a vote. But to use assets at the Department of Treasury, agents are supposed to be tracking terrorists, but instead are tracking little grandmothers riding bicycles, or women distributing Bibles, or a son who wants to bury his father's ashes at his home church in Cuba. That defies description to me. So I am going to find a way during the appropriations process to find out how many resources they are using at the Department of Treasury to do this, and if they don't want to use them properly, they should lose them. If they want to keep them, they ought to use them to protect us against terrorists, not to slap a fine on a grandmother who rode a bicycle in Havana. I think that is nuts. As we go into the appropriations process, I want to bring attention to that single issue. That is an important issue, and one that I think ought to be dealt with. I wish to make a comment on an additional issue today. We are heading into an appropriations process. We have a huge budget deficit, significant fiscal policy problems. Three years ago, it looked as if there were going to be surpluses forever. Now we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of this country. There is no prospect in sight of anything resembling a surplus for the next 10 years and beyond. Despite all that, we still have some needs in this country. We need to find a way to meet them. With respect to a number of functions, it is Katie bar the door, whatever they need. We are spending $100 billion more for defense than we used to spend. I understand that. We are spending $130 billion already in Iraq, $5 billion a month, $4 billion in Iraq, $1 billion in Afghanistan. Nobody is being asked to pay for it. Increases in homeland security spending, I understand that. Tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts, and a President who says: Let's make all of them permanent. I understand why he is saying that as well. I don't support it. I think someone who makes $1 million a year is fortunate, and good for them. I am all for them, but suggesting they should have a $123,000 tax cut per year on their $1 million salary, at a time when we are up to our neck in deficits, in my judgment, defies description. Let me mention one other issue that I think we need to deal with--the issue of the Indian Health Service. I want to show a picture of a little girl named Avis Littlewind. She died 2 weeks ago. Her aunt said she took her own life around noon in her home. She missed 90 days of school since the start of the school year. She is a 14-year-old girl who apparently felt there was no hope. She lives on an Indian reservation. On the reservations, there are precious few resources to deal with the kinds of problems this young girl obviously confronted-- one psychologist, a social worker, no psychiatrist, no automobile to provide necessary transportation. There is a crisis in resources to deal with these issues. A young girl takes her own life and nobody seems to say much about it. It is just what happens. The fact is, this should not happen. It should not ever happen. I remember speaking one day on the floor of the Senate about another young girl, a Native American, a young Indian girl, age 3, placed in a foster home, but they did not check out the foster home before they placed her there. The caseworker worked 150 separate cases and did not check out the foster home. This young girl had her nose broken, her hair pulled out by its roots, and her arms broken at a drunken party. She will never outlive the scars of that beating she took. Why? Because one person was handling 150 cases involving children. We have a full-blown crisis on Indian reservations in this country dealing with the basic social services that every American family ought to be able to expect to access. When a young girl has serious problems, serious emotional difficulties, and needs help, that young girl ought not to take her own life at age 14 because help is not available. This is a better country than that. When we come to funding the Indian Health Service this year, we can no longer pretend Third World conditions do not exist on some of the Indian reservations in this country when it comes to health care for kids. We just cannot any longer pretend. Lives are being lost, lives are being ruined, and we can do something about it. I am going to have more to say as we get into the appropriations process, but I did want to simply say there is a tragedy that is unfolding every day, every hour in parts of this country that are in America's shadows. Out of mind, out of sight for some, but not for all. We, in this Congress, must shine a light on these problems and begin to solve them. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I follow my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and thank him for his work. He, obviously, once again on this issue, will not let go. He insists we address this issue. I deeply appreciate it. I, like Senator McCain, am a great baseball fan. I grew up in a small town 60 miles from the nearest daily newspaper. When I was a kid, I used to get that newspaper and I would look at this tiny little section, ``Major League Leaders.'' I wanted to see if Willie Mays hit another home run. I loved baseball. Later, I followed the saga of someone from my own State, Roger Maris, who in 1961 was engaged in this home-run derby with Mickey Mantle. We were so proud in North Dakota of having this home State slugger, Roger Maris, setting a new record for Major League Baseball in 1961. Baseball was called our national pastime. In fact, last week the President of the United States traveled halfway across the country to throw out the opening pitch. Why? It is a national pastime. People care about baseball in this country. It is a great sport. But something is happening in this sport that ought to give all of us great concern. Sports Illustrated has a cover story. In the old days when Sports Illustrated had a cover story about baseball, it was about a pitcher, a catcher, a player, or a baseball exploit. Now it is about drugs--Ken Caminiti, Jose Conseco, and others talking about drug use in baseball. Two years ago, I chaired a subcommittee hearing of the Commerce Committee on this subject. We had representatives from Major League baseball, owners and others. We had representatives of the baseball players, and we addressed this issue. Then a month ago, Senator McCain chaired the full committee of the Commerce Committee hearing on the same issue. We had the same people involved in testimony. Do my colleagues want to know something. In 2 years, nothing had changed. There was not even a baby step forward. They say they initiated a testing program, one test a year, and there is prior notice of the test. That is not a testing program. Senator McCain offers a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I know this by itself will not fix the problem, but it will send a message, it seems to me, to all involved that they ought to make progress; they ought to do what is right and do what is necessary. Two years ago when I held these hearings, we also asked a pediatrician to testify, a pediatrician who is involved in sports. Do my colleagues know what he said? He said we have kids in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades who are wanting to take performance- enhancing drugs in order to play better football, basketball, perform better on track. Why do they do that? Because they see their idols do it. They see the professional baseball players on the front cover of Sports Illustrated who are taking performance-enhancing drugs. Ken Caminiti said he thought half the players in the big leagues were using steroids, and that he had used them in 1996 during his Most Valuable Player season. He is out of baseball, says he feels ashamed and embarrassed about his own problems, including a guilty plea for crack cocaine possession in 2002. A Most Valuable Player in baseball says half the players in the big leagues were using steroids. Does this have an impact? You bet your life it does. It has an impact on American kids, kids who aspire to be involved in sports. It sends a message that the way to improve in sports is to take some performance- enhancing drug. That is a dangerous message. It is the wrong message. People will die as a result. That is why Senator McCain says let's stop this.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think what certainly could happen and might happen is the Congress might intervene with legislation that is real legislation, not just a sense of the Senate, because this is a significant public issue. The National Football League has solved this issue. They have rigorous testing for those who play professional football in this country. They testified at the hearing Senator McCain held. Minor League baseball has solved this issue. The commissioner of baseball ordered rigorous, wide testing for drugs in the minor leagues. So it is not as if no one knows how to do this. Mr. Fehr said in his testimony 2 years ago, and now 2 weeks ago, that this is a matter of privacy for baseball players. It seems to me it is not a matter of privacy. If in private people are taking banned drugs in order to enhance their performance in public, which is exactly what happens in professional sports, the taking of drugs in private in order to enhance their public performance, does the public have a right to understand that and know about that? Darn right, the public has a right to know. My point is this: When the Sports Illustrated magazine--a wonderful magazine, one I love to read, that chronicles the great sports achievements in this wonderful country of ours--has a cover story of a magnificent baseball player who says nearly half the players in the major leagues are taking some sort of banned substance, I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but I do know this: it ought to be a wake-up call for baseball. It is in their interest, it is in the players' interest, to solve this issue. There is a great baseball pitcher who used to pitch in the home State of my colleague from Arizona, Kurt Schilling. He is now in Boston. I know 2 years ago, when all of this broke, this wonderful pitcher, perhaps one of the best of all times, what did he say? He thought there ought to be testing. Why? I think the great baseball players understand that this cloud over baseball, as a result of these drug allegations, ought to be removed. It taints the sport. The good players, those who are not on performance-enhancing drugs, understand. They believe there ought to be rigorous testing.

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield for another question.

Mr. DORGAN. I fully agree. In rodeo sports, something I care a lot about because I grew up with horses and my father was an excellent horseman, they say somebody has a lot of try. It is an interesting way of describing it, saying he had a lot of try. Well, I hope when we look back in the rearview mirror and get the testing that is necessary in baseball, the achievements of a baseball player in this country will be the result of both skill and try--I mean somebody who had the determination to do well, had the skill, who put in the time, and did well. But when we read the front cover of Sports Illustrated, and they have some magnificent baseball player saying, I had an MVP season, but I was on drugs, in my judgment it colors and taints the exploits and achievements of others. I hope Mr. Fehr and all of those involved will have a vote of the baseball players or do what is necessary to get a consensus. I am certain a consensus of professional baseball players must surely want to remove this cloud. Again, this is not some mysterious issue for which we do not have a solution. The National Football League has solved it. The minor leagues have solved it. So, too, should Major League baseball. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide a financial safety net for the families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's military Reserve and National Guard. Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in supplementing the activities of our traditional armed forces than at any other time in our recent history. In response to the Iraq War and homeland security needs, the country has called up hundreds of thousands of our Reserve and National Guard members for extended tours of duty of up to 18 months. Today, roughly 175,000 members of the reserve components are on active duty. About 40 percent of the troops now going into Iraq are reservists. Reserve component leaders expect the total number of guardsmen and reservists on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above 100,000 for the next two years. Since September 11, 2001, more than 60 percent of North Dakota's guardsmen and reservists have been called to duty. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet on their military incomes. When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family may experience a significant loss of income. This is because active duty military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in civilian income. These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the cost of long distance phone calls and the need for extra day care. Clearly this is a major financial problem for many reservists and their families. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says that a significant number of mobilized Reserve component members earn less than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty. The most recent information provided on mobilization income loss comes from a Pentagon survey in the year 2000. Some 41 percent of guardsmen and reservists who were mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 per month to more than $3,000 per month. Self- employed reservists reported an average income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000 per month. Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000, reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today mobilizations of 14 to 18 months are common. So the annual losses in wages are much, much bigger. The loss of income that reservists and guardsmen incur when they are ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden. This further disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a beloved spouse, or parent who has been ordered to active duty. In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to address this problem by offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy insurance to protect against income loss upon mobilization. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector has shown little interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program. We need to find another way to deal with the issue. I believe that the federal government should try to help alleviate the financial havoc created for activated reservists, guardsmen, and their families. The bill I am introducing today will help in this endeavor. Specifically, my legislation provides a fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a military reservist on active duty based upon the difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days. The benefit of this activated military reservist tax credit is available for tax years beginning after December 31, 2003. We owe a great deal to those Americans who put on their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many National Guard and Reserve families experience when a family member is ordered to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as soon as possible.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide a financial safety net for the families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's military Reserve and National Guard. Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in supplementing the activities of our traditional armed forces than at any other time in our recent history. In response to the Iraq War and homeland security needs, the country has called up hundreds of thousands of our Reserve and National Guard members for extended tours of duty of up to 18 months. Today, roughly 175,000 members of the reserve components are on active duty. About 40 percent of the troops now going into Iraq are reservists. Reserve component leaders expect the total number of guardsmen and reservists on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above 100,000 for the next two years. Since September 11, 2001, more than 60 percent of North Dakota's guardsmen and reservists have been called to duty. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet on their military incomes. When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family may experience a significant loss of income. This is because active duty military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in civilian income. These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the cost of long distance phone calls and the need for extra day care. Clearly this is a major financial problem for many reservists and their families. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says that a significant number of mobilized Reserve component members earn less than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty. The most recent information provided on mobilization income loss comes from a Pentagon survey in the year 2000. Some 41 percent of guardsmen and reservists who were mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 per month to more than $3,000 per month. Self- employed reservists reported an average income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000 per month. Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000, reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today mobilizations of 14 to 18 months are common. So the annual losses in wages are much, much bigger. The loss of income that reservists and guardsmen incur when they are ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden. This further disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a beloved spouse, or parent who has been ordered to active duty. In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to address this problem by offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy insurance to protect against income loss upon mobilization. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector has shown little interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program. We need to find another way to deal with the issue. I believe that the federal government should try to help alleviate the financial havoc created for activated reservists, guardsmen, and their families. The bill I am introducing today will help in this endeavor. Specifically, my legislation provides a fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a military reservist on active duty based upon the difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days. The benefit of this activated military reservist tax credit is available for tax years beginning after December 31, 2003. We owe a great deal to those Americans who put on their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many National Guard and Reserve families experience when a family member is ordered to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as soon as possible.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to me personally, but one that is also quickly becoming a concern across the globe: traffic crashes and the resulting fatalities and injuries. Today is World Health Day. World Health Day is celebrated every year on April 7, focusing each year on a different public health problem. For the first time ever, in response to the growing number of traffic deaths worldwide, the World Health Organization chose the theme of ``Road Safety'' for World Health Day 2004. The goal is to raise awareness of traffic safety in hopes of reducing the staggering number of traffic related fatalities and injuries that occur worldwide each year. Efforts are being launched today in the U.S. and worldwide to encourage action in policy, programs, funding and research on traffic safety. Consider these statistics: Every year, nearly 1.2 million people die worldwide in motor vehicle crashes and an estimated 10 to 15 million people are injured. In the U.S. alone, almost 43,000 people are killed each year and nearly 3 million are injured. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 1-34 and are one of the top ten causes of death for all ages. In North Dakota, it is estimated that motor vehicle crashes cost our citizens $290 million in 2000, or $452 per person. Sadly, experts predict that road traffic fatalities will double by the year 2020. Today in Washington, the Pan-American Health Organization, PAHO, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, AAA, and many other organizations are emphasizing the importance of safety belt use as part of the efforts for World Health Day. Seat belts are the single most effective means of reducing the risk of death in a crash and have saved approximately 135,000 lives and prevented 3.8 million injuries in the last 26 years in the U.S. If everyone consistently wore a seat belt, more than 7,000 American deaths could be prevented each year. This initiative coincides with our efforts in Congress to reauthorize the transportation bill. I supported passage of the Senate bill, which would provide a needed boost in funding and policy support for important safety initiatives, and offered an amendment to crack down on an important traffic safety issue, states that allow driving with an open container of alcohol. I applaud the World Health Organization, PAHO, AAA and all the individuals and organizations that are working today and throughout the year to draw attention to the growing problem of traffic crashes. We need to sound the alarm--43,000 deaths in the U.S. and 1.2 million worldwide are too many.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to comments of some of my colleagues, especially on this issue of obstructionism as it relates to jobs. It is true there is a JOBS bill, as it is called, on the floor of the Senate that has been delayed. This JOBS bill is a bill that gives tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers, and it has, in fact, been delayed. Let me explain why it has been delayed and why the obstructionism on the part of the majority party in Congress exists. When that bill came to the floor of the Senate, someone on this side of the aisle offered a very important amendment. It also had to do with jobs, so it had to do with the subject of the bill. Because the majority party did not want to vote on the amendment, they took all their marbles, walked off the floor, and went home and accused our side of being obstructionist. Let me describe the circumstances. Senator Harkin offered an amendment on overtime pay. Why did he do that? Because the Department of Labor is about to produce new regulations that, for the first time in 60 years, will obliterate the 40-hour workweek and tell workers, Oh, by the way, if your employer decides to work you more than 40 hours, anywhere from 6 to 8 million Americans who now receive overtime will not be able to receive overtime pay. The employer will be able to say: You work overtime, you work 50 hours; if you don't like it, tough luck, and I am not going to pay you overtime. For the first time in 60 years, the 40-hour workweek will be gone for about 6 to 8 million people. These new rules are touted as worker-friendly rules, but, of course, we know that is not the case at all because there are consulting companies--and the Department of Labor itself--putting out information to businesses to say: Here is the way you structure your company to avoid paying your workers overtime under these new rules. Senator Harkin offered an amendment on this important JOBS bill. Why is it germane to this JOBS bill? Because if employers are able to say to workers, You work overtime for no extra pay, instead of creating new jobs which ought to be created, they will say to existing workers: You work overtime; we are not going to pay you extra. This new rule from the Department of Labor is an approach that will diminish jobs, that will retard the creation of new jobs. Yet, when Senator Harkin offered that amendment, the majority party had some kind of an apoplectic seizure. According to the majority party, Senator Harkin is apparently obstructing things because he offers an amendment dealing directly with jobs. No, it is not Senator Harkin who is obstructing. What is obstructing the business of this Chamber is the majority party. Senator Harkin offered an amendment that deals directly with jobs and they refused to have a vote on it, and they are going to take their marbles and just go home. They are going to go home and accuse someone else of obstructing. The obstruction in this Chamber is by the majority party that refuses to allow votes on issues that are important and that are relevant to the matters at hand. That is the obstruction. It is a curious strategy to know the majority party would obstruct its own agenda, but obstruct they do. Then they rush out to the microphones to accuse others of obstructing. There is a very simple way to remove all of these issues. We do not have to have any obstruction by anybody. Bring the bills to the floor and let us try to deal with them in a thoughtful way. When someone offers an amendment, like Senator Harkin, give us an opportunity to have a vote on it. Let's move ahead. That is not the case these days. It is just a little bizarre to hear these charges of obstructionism. I would also say to those who came to the floor this morning to say what they really want to see is a positive campaign for the Presidency, I say amen to that. But there is a large, well-oiled attack machine in this town. In fact, I watched the television commercials last evening by the administration, which represent Senator Kerry's position on taxation. It is a wholly negative television commercial. I agree with my colleague who said, let's be positive. How about maybe we see the other side, maybe see the White House take some of those commercials off the air and then let us talk about being positive.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I ask--reserving the right to object, may I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be given 15 minutes in morning business?