Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from California, it is not just amazing, it is shameful. It is shameful what is happening now with the lack of support for biomedical research, especially embryonic stem cell research. As I said, every Nobel Prize winner in medicine, all the reputable scientists say we should be on it and we should be on it strongly. Yet the President, through this arbitrary cutoff, is denying this for scientists, denying it to people who are suffering. I say to my friend from California, God bless California. They took the lead out there. Her State has taken the lead. They are forging ahead. Other States are following their lead. If only we could get the Federal Government to follow their lead.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are on day 2 of Health Week, and there are still no plans to bring up H.R. 810, the stem cell research bill. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives 351 days ago-- almost a year ago now--with still no action here in the Senate. Yet the majority of Senators are for it. I do not understand how in the world we can have a Health Week in the Senate and not vote on the American public's No. 1 health research priority: lifting the President's restriction on embryonic stem cell research. That seems to be what we are doing. We are wasting our time on bills that everyone knows are not going to pass. We are passing up a golden opportunity to promote one of the most promising areas of research in our lifetimes. Most people by now have heard of the enormous potential of embryonic stem cells. These cells have the remarkable ability to turn into every other type of cell in the human body--brain cells that could replace those lost in Parkinson's disease, islet cells to replace those lost in type 1 diabetes, and on and on. Adult stem cells don't have that power, only embryonic stem cells. That is why the world's best scientists think embryonic stem cell research has so much promise to save lives and ease human suffering. It is also why they are so frustrated by the President's arbitrary restrictions on stem cell research. Under the President's guidelines, Federal funding can be used for research only on those stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Where did that date come from? Out of thin air? If the stem cell lines were created at 8:30 p.m., they are fine, they are moral, they are OK. If they were created at 9:30 p.m., all of a sudden they missed the cutoff. It is totally arbitrary. Shortly after the President announced his policy, he said 78 stem cell lines were eligible under his guidelines. It turns out that only 22 are. In fact, it is even worse. Only a handful of those are even healthy enough and readily available. More importantly, all of the 22 lines that are available have been contaminated by mouse cells. They have been grown in a mouse feeder cell environment. It is unlikely they will ever be used for any kind of human intervention, which is supposed to be the whole point of the research anyway. Dozens more stem cell lines have been created since August 9, 2001. They are healthier. Many have never been contaminated with mouse cells. But thanks to President Bush, they are off limits to our best scientists. Yet opponents of H.R. 810 sometimes argue that embryonic stem cell research has no potential. Last week, Senator Brownback presented a list of diseases that are being treated with adult stem cells and asked why that hasn't happened yet with embryonic stem cells. Let me address that directly. Scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years. There are no arbitrary restrictions on research with adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies don't have to be skittish about doing this research. They don't have to worry that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it. Let's compare that situation with human embryonic stem cells. Scientists didn't even know how to derive them until 1998. The first Federal grant for these stem cells wasn't awarded until 2002. Even now, only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for stem cell research is used for embryonic stem cells. The vast majority goes for adult stem cell research, and every scientist who enters this field is taking a risk that Congress will pass a law to shut down the lab. They also risk that they won't get any 1 of the 22 lines contaminated by mouse feeder cells which they will then not be able to use for human therapy. So it is no wonder that more diseases are being treated today with adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research had a 30-year head start. Meanwhile, scientists have been studying embryonic stem cells for just 5 years with one arm tied behind their back. The fact is, it doesn't matter what I think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter what Senator Brownback thinks either. What matters is what the scientists think. And I defy anyone to find a single reputable biomedical scientist whose doesn't believe we should pursue embryonic stem cell research. I have a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989. He writes: The vast majority of the biomedical research community believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key discoveries related to many debilitating diseases. . . . In fact, some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell research are those scientists who have devoted their careers to the study of adult stem cells. A letter from Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1994: It has become obvious, however, that the number of stem cell lines actually available under current policy is too small and is controlled by a limited monopoly, which has made it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases. I have similar letters from Dr. Ferid Murad, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1998; Dr. Arthur Kornberg, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1959; and dozens more of our Nation's top researchers--all of whom believe in the potential of embryonic stem cell research. I ask my friend from Kansas, in response to his speech of late last week: Are there any Nobel Prize winners in medicine who oppose embryonic stem cell research? Name one. In fact, I challenge him further: Are there any reputable biomedical researchers at all who think we should be studying adult stem cells only and not embryonic stem cells? Name one. I don't think he will find one. Every scientist I have spoken to says stem cell research should not be an either/or endeavor. We should not be talking about stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research. We should study both. We should open all doors in the pursuit of therapies that can save lives and ease human suffering. The breakthroughs are coming, but they take time. To clamp down on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance to start shows a total lack of understanding about how science works. More importantly, it denies hope to millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and dozens of other terrible diseases and conditions. We are rapidly approaching the 1-year anniversary of the vote in the House on H.R. 810. It has been 351 days since the House passed it on a strong bipartisan vote. If the Senate were allowed to vote on H.R. 810, we would win here, too. We have the votes. We would pass this bill and send it on to the President. Regrettably, however, the Republican leadership has not let that happen. So here we are, we are going through this farce--it is farcical--comedy, gimmickry of a so-called Health Week without taking up the American public's No. 1 health research priority. It is Tuesday. Health Week lasts for 3 more days. We could pass H.R. 810 in a matter of hours. I urge the majority leader, take up the bill. Let the Senate have a quantified amount of time to debate it. We will pass it, and we will give millions of Americans who are suffering from diseases the hope they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with great fanfare, the majority leader has announced this is Health Week in the Senate. This is a week he has set to address the Nation's urgent health issues. But there is something very big missing from this agenda. The American people are demanding action on embryonic stem cell research. In poll after poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans favor lifting the President's arbitrary and harsh restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The American people want the Senate to vote on H.R. 810, a bill passed almost a year ago, 350 days ago to be exact, by the House of Representatives. It was offered by a Republican, Congressman Mike Castle from Delaware, and a Democrat, Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado. It was bipartisan. It passed the House. Yet it has been sitting here for nearly a year and we cannot bring it up. How in the world can we have Health Week in the Senate and not bring up H.R. 810 and allow consideration of the public's No. 1 health research priority? Instead we are scheduled to debate three bills that have no chance of passage in the Senate. The majority leader knows it, I know it, and the rest of the Senate knows it. It is a gimmick that we are talking about health care. However, we will have bills that somehow excite the political base, get certain segments moving in this political year. The American people want the Senate to address the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I tried to explain to my nephew, Kelly, who was injured 26 years ago in a tragic accident on an aircraft carrier. He has been a quadriplegic ever since. He finds it incomprehensible and totally unacceptable that we in the Senate cannot bring up this bill and pass it. I tried to explain to him that it is politics. He says this is ridiculous, it shouldn't be Democrat or Republican. This is the most promising revolutionary avenue of biomedical research, and it is being blocked because of politics? Try explaining that to someone with juvenile diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries. I appreciate the fact that some Republican Senators have been outspoken. I see Senator Hatch in the Senate, Senator Specter, and Senator Smith urging the majority leader to bring up the bill. Senator Frist himself gave an eloquent and courageous speech last summer when he endorsed H.R. 810. Why don't we have it in the Senate? This is Health Week. Bring it up. Leader Frist said last summer: Therefore I believe the President's policy should be modified. We should expand Federal funding and current guidelines governing stem cell research carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds. That is what the majority leader said last summer. I could not agree more. In December, they asked unanimous consent to pass the cord blood bill. I spoke on it at that time. We wanted the two to go together. We let the cord blood bill pass--fine, I am all for that--with a promise that we would somehow get a vote on H.R. 810 sometime in this session. This session is almost half over. We have Health Week. Stem cell research is not on the agenda. That is a shame. Why don't we bring up H.R. 810 and debate it? We could have a time limit. The votes are here to pass it. We know that. We know the votes are here to pass it. Why don't we bring it up? On the President's arbitrary date of August 9, 2001, he said there were 78 stem cell lines. We now know there are only 22. Of those 22, all are contaminated with mouse cells. They will never be used for any kind of human interventions. The President's policy of August 9, 2001, is a dead end. It offers false hope to millions of people across America and around the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated throughout embryonic stem cell research. Scientists have made great advances in deriving the stem cell lines since August of 2001. They have been grown without mouse cells. Shouldn't our top scientists be studying those lines instead of being limited to the 22 that will never be used in humans? In closing, we do not expect our astronomers to study the heavens with Galileo's telescope. We do not expect geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. It is time we move to the next level of research to help people who are suffering from ALS, Parkinson's disease, and juvenile diabetes. We should bring up embryonic stem cell research and pass it in the Senate during Health Week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate approved my language to provide up to $8.5 million to the U.S. Institute of Peace in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This funding would allow USIP to continue critical democracy-building programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This $8.5 million will continue funding vital programs that are already in place on the ground in Iraq but that are in danger of running out of money before the end of the summer. And I would like to assure my colleagues that USIP has a plan on how to use every dollar of this funding. BG Donald Alston, our chief military spokesman in Iraq, has acknowledged, and I quote, ``[The insurgency in Iraq] is not going to be settled, the terrorists and terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations. It is going to be settled in the political process.'' Right now, a critical player in advancing that political process in Iraq is the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan organization created by Congress in 1984 to, among other duties, facilitate the resolution of international disputes, train international affairs professionals in conflict prevention, management, and resolution techniques, and strengthen the education of emerging generations of young people in the United States and in foreign zones of conflict. USIP has embraced that mission in Iraq. U.S. Institute of Peace personnel are doing a magnificent job of facilitating interethnic and interreligious dialogue and conflict resolution. They are training Iraqi leaders at the national and local levels in democratic processes and rule-of-law programs. They bring unique experience and expertise in building a democratic government and a robust civil society. And, obviously, this is all the more critical today, as we acknowledge that Iraq's future will be decided in the political arena, not on the field of battle. But there is a problem. The U.S. Institute of Peace is on the verge of running out of funds for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all of its ongoing programs in those countries will be halted in the coming months if we do not provide a necessary infusion of funds in this emergency supplemental. Some other amendments to this bill have been criticized because they do not pertain to Iraq or Afghanistan and because they are not emergencies. That is definitely not the case in this situation. The U.S. Institute of Peace is at the heart of our efforts to achieve a political success in Iraq. And we are truly at an emergency juncture where the institute will have to cease operations if it does not receive supplemental funding. For fiscal year 2004, USIP received $10 million in funding for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those funds will be exhausted in a matter of months. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a small increase for next fiscal year. But meanwhile, we face a crisis, here and now, that will require a shutdown in USIP operations at exactly the time when they are most urgently needed. The $8.5 million infusion provided in the bill will allow those operations to continue and, in some cases, to expand. According to the Congressional Research Service, we are now spending almost $6.4 billion a month in Iraq, overwhelmingly on combat operations. It would be penny wise and pound foolish to refuse to allow this modest $8.5 million infusion to allow USIP's all-important democracy-building programs to go forward in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Institute of Peace is active in Iraq and Afghanistan on multiple fronts. It has created networks of organizations and individuals committed to a peaceful, democratic outcome in Iraq. It has engaged in successful outreach to the Sunni community and supported participation of marginalized groups in the political process, including minorities, women and the disabled. In addition, the institute has trained hundreds of Iraqi officials in conflict resolution and negotiation strategies, as well as provincial- level government and civil society officials in conducting interethnic dialogue. It has supported Iraqi civil society projects that promoted intercommunal and interreligious tolerance, including a project with the Iraqi Handicapped Association that brought together Iraqis of all faiths and ethnicities to promote participation of Iraq's disabled in the constitution process. In my limited time, let me cite just three examples of the good work that the institute is doing in Iraq: Increasing regional stability. Iraq's neighbors have done little to help stabilize the country. So the Institute of Peace facilitated a series of groundbreaking informal dialogues among leading foreign policy and national security figures from Iraq and each of its six neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait. At this meeting, participants identified and began to work on how to address a number of challenges, including developing a regional reconciliation process to overcome deepseated cultural and political misconceptions and prejudices creating a broad-based effort to improve security promoting effective government inside Iraq, and building stronger economic ties. Promoting Sunni engagement. Obviously, reaching out to Sunnis is vital to dealing with the insurgency. In March 2006, the institute convened a meeting of Sunni political leaders and legal scholars to discuss the current constitution. Participants included Sunnis who rejected the approved constitution but who nevertheless joined in designing a strategy forward. Creating a new generation of leaders. Almost half of the Iraqi population is under the age of 21. Long-term peace and development depends on this generation developing democratic values. To this end, the institute supported the establishment of a student society at the University of Babylon-Hilla. This society is designed to foster freedom of expression and promote a culture of tolerance and respect for citizens' rights among Iraqi youth. In 12 months, it disseminated thousands of copies of student-produced newsletters--al-Iraqi--and held a total of 21 debates on controversial and timely issues, such as the role of Islam, federalism, unemployment and terrorism. The student society has grown into the largest student organization on campus-- larger even than the Sadrist Islamic Student Union. The project is galvanizing moderates and helping marginalize militants, providing an essential counterbalance to radicalization on campus. Let me emphasize that this funding would also be used for programs in Afghanistan. In that country, the institute has been hard at work building programs that promote the rule of law. As I am sure that my colleagues are aware, while much progress has been made in Afghanistan, there is a very real danger that the drug lords and warlords have ruled for decades will gain traction and undo U.S. success in installing a democratic government. One way to combat that is through the traditional mechanisms--councils of male village elders--that handle over 90 percent of legal disputes. The Institute of Peace has partnered with the Afghan Ministry of Justice in developing a strategy that will enable the formal and informal legal systems to work together and ensure that Afghans, in particular women and minorities, enjoy protection of their rights. One tribal leader at an Institute of Peace meeting said that his people want effective central government, but that they have never had a government they can trust. The institute aims to create the kind of legal system all Afghans can look to for justice with confidence. The bottom line is that all of this good work being carried out by the U.S. Institute of Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan will come to a crashing halt in the months immediately ahead if we do not provide this infusion of $8.5 million on an emergency basis. The institute's democracy-building efforts would end at exactly the time when they are most urgently needed. That would be unconscionable. Millions of Iraqis are putting their lives on the line because of their commitment to building democracy. We need to keep faith with those courageous Iraqis and their dream of a democratic Iraq. Further, I would like to inform my colleagues that our U.S. Ambassador, Zalamay Khalilzad, who is currently serving in Iraq, was a member of the USIP board of directors from November 1999 to May 2001, at which time he joined the National Security Council and had to leave the board. Ambassador Negroponte who served in Iraq prior to Ambassador Khalilzad called on USIP to assist him in calling together Iraqi religious leaders, and they would all meet in USIP's Iraq office. I am sure they would both join me in commending the work of the U.S. Institute of Peace. But before I finish my remarks I would like to take a few moments to speak about the history of the U.S. Institute of Peace. The U.S. Institute of Peace is a unique organization. Throughout our long history, America has been proud of its strong, well-led military. And this outstanding military leadership is no accident. It is possible because we maintain prestigious, world-class military academies which train some of the best and brightest minds in America in the art and science of war. But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time and again, we have brokered peace between warring nations, and we have intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace draws on this proud tradition and today makes a vital intellectual investment in the art and science of peacemaking. Today's Institute of Peace is the fruit of a dream and vision that goes back to our Nation's Founders. Benjamin Banneker, often called ``the first black American man of science,'' and physician Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted and lamented the Constitution's failure to establish a Department of Peace to balance the Department of War. In their correspondence with Thomas Jefferson in 1792, Banneker and Rush envisioned a ``Peace Office'' which would be on an equal footing with the Department of War and would be charged with promoting and preserving perpetual peace in the United States. George Washington also supported the establishment of a Peace Office. And his support was not just casual. He believed that such an office should be an essential pillar of the new Nation. When he died in 1799, Washington's last will and testament bequeathed in perpetuity 50 acres in Potomac County to be used ``toward the endowment of a university-- under the auspices of the general Government.'' This bequest was intended to make possible the proper ``Peace Establishment'' that President Washington had written about as early as 1783. In a 1980 report, the Matsunaga Commission strongly recommended the establishment of the United States Academy of Peace. In the course of more than 70 meetings and hearings all across the United States, Senator Matsunaga of Hawaii and other Senators surveyed the full range of threats to world peace and explored ways to counter those threats. After much thoughtful debate, a compromise was reached, and the United States Institute of Peace Act was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A board was installed, and the institute's first meeting was held in February 1986. Since that time, the institute has done remarkable work in such disparate nations as Afghanistan and Korea, Bosnia and the Philippines. Today, at the direction of Congress, the Institute actively pursues six interrelated activities: expanding society's knowledge about the changing nature and conduct of international relations and the management of international conflict; supporting policymakers in the legislative and executive branches; facilitating the resolution of international disputes; training international affairs professionals from the United States and abroad in conflict prevention, management, and resolution techniques; strengthening the education of emerging generations of young people in the United States and in foreign zones of conflict; and increasing public understanding about the nature of international conflicts, as well as approaches to their prevention, management, and resolution. Mr. President, the USIP deserves our support.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Monday, May 1, marked the 3rd anniversary of President Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. On that occasion, with a giant banner behind him proclaiming ``Mission Accomplished,'' the President said triumphantly that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'' But, 3 years later, 133,000 troops remain on the ground, and' the President has signaled that the U.S. military occupation in Iraq is open-ended and of indefinite duration. This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long- term designs on Iraq and its oil. And it has deprived the Iraqi government of incentive to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet. With the war in Iraq now in its 4th year, it is clear that the President's course is not a strategy for success; it is a strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation. It is time to chart new course. To that end, today, I am offering a concurrent resolution that does three things: 1. It states that ``the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq. 2. It states that ``the United States should not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil. And 3. It states that the ``United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making process or December 31, 2006, whichever comes first.'' A companion to this concurrent resolution has been offered in the other body by Representative Mike Thompson of California. The capable and courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have completed the tasks they were sent to Iraq to accomplish: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed; we are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction; and the Iraqi people have a constitution and a democratically elected government. To our troops' great credit, they have achieved these things despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington. Today, the question is: Why are U.S. forces still in Iraq? Our commanders have acknowledged that Iraq's remaining challenges cannot be resolved by the U.S. military, as they are mostly political. As GEN John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said recently, the situation in Iraq is ``changing in its nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence''--I would. add, with U.S. troops caught in the crossfire. Given these realities, President Bush's call to ``stay the course'' is a slogan, not a strategy. for success. Indeed, I fear that ``stay the course'' really means ``stay forever,'' and this sends exactly the wrong message. It stokes the insurgents, who believe that the U.S. wants a permanent military presence in Iraq. And it takes away any incentive for the Iraqi government to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet. As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate last September, ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.'' BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it this way: ``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled . . . through military options or military operations. It's going to be settled in the political process.'' I would add that the Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of U.S. forces would give a boost to political progress. According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, more than 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. When asked what the impact of a withdrawal of U.S. troops would be, large majorities of Iraqis believe that insurgent attacks will decrease, sectarian violence will decline, and the sectarian factions in parliament will be more willing to cooperate. We all hope that the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders are sincere in their stated desire to avoid an all-out civil war. Last week, they agreed on a new prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. And Mr. al-Maliki has pledged to announce a national-unity cabinet as quickly as possible. As President Bush said on Monday, the creation of a new Iraqi government is ``a turning point.'' We hope that is the case. But whether or not Mr. al-Maliki makes good on his pledges, it is certainly time for a turning point in U.S. policy in Iraq. The remainder of the year 2006 must be a period of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the goal of deploying U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of this calendar year. It is time to hand off security responsibilities to the Iraqi army and police, and to redeploy our U.S. armed forces from Iraq by Dec. 31. This strategic redeployment must involve converting our vast military presence on the ground in Iraq to a quick-reaction force staged in countries bordering Iraq--countries that share our interest in a stable Iraq and view our military presence in the region as a stabilizing force. This force could be used to respond to threats to our national security in Iraq or elsewhere. I believe the vast number of National Guard units should be redeployed to their states to shore up gaps and vulnerabilities in our own homeland security. I would expect that, as our troops withdraw from Iraq, this would free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to help respond to emerging terrorist threats in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, which threaten to become major breeding grounds for terrorists. At the same time that we are redeploying our Armed Forces, we need to foster sustained diplomatic engagement--working with Middle Eastern nations--to facilitate rival Iraqi factions in reaching a political settlement. Iraq's neighbors have a profound stake in its stability, but they currently have no incentive to get involved. Once it is clear that the U.S. is leaving, those nations will be highly motivated to broker a deal within Iraq. Some say that the U.S. forces in Iraq are the only thing that stands between the Sunnis and Shiites, and all-out civil war. I disagree. It is the ongoing presence of U.S. forces--and the prospect that we will be in Iraq as a babysitter for years to come--that has delayed progress on the political front. It allowed Iraqi leaders to quarrel and dither for more than four months before finally choosing an acceptable prime minister. In addition, our continuing presence--in fact, our apparently growing presence in Iraq--is a propaganda victory and recruiting tool for the insurgency in Iraq, and for Islamic extremists around the world. The insurgents and jihadists are strengthened by the overwhelming perception among Iraqis that the United States military is an occupying force, that we are building what appear to be permanent bases, and that our continuing presence in Iraq is all about oil. Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service reports that we are now spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq--up sharply from last year. Including funds committed by the emergency supplemental bill currently being debated in the Senate, we have spent a grand total of $320 billion in Iraq. More than 2,400 American troops have been killed, and nearly 18,000 have been wounded. We are in the process of building a gigantic new U.S. embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80 football fields. This does not look like a U.S. mission that plans on winding down or relinquishing its grip on Iraq. To the contrary, it is easy to see how ordinary Iraqis view this as the behavior of a conquering power that has no intention of leaving. And this perception continues to give powerful fuel to the insurgency. There is another important reason for redeploying our forces from Iraq. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, nor did Saddam Hussein's government have any operational links to al Qaeda. By preemptively attacking Iraq, we committed a major strategic error in the larger war on terror. Simply put: We took our eyes off the ball. We diverted our military and intelligence resources away from Afghanistan, away from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. And the consequences are plain to see. It is no coincidence that, today, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Nor is it a coincidence that Bin Laden is still at large, still directing al Qaeda operations, still threatening us. Indeed, by invading Iraq and getting bogged down in a guerilla war, there, the United States has given a huge gift to Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Not only has it taken the heat off of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, it has given them a propaganda victory and, as I said, a major recruiting tool. The sooner we acknowledge this strategic blunder and take steps to reverse it, the sooner we redeploy our military and strategic assets to confront our real enemies, the better off we will be. This resolution is not only about the future of Iraq as a sovereign, independent nation; it is also about the unity and security of the American people. This misbegotten, misguided, mismanaged war is dividing our nation and distracting our government from urgent priorities, including health care, education, law enforcement, and, yes, a smarter approach to the very real terrorist threats of today and tomorrow. The men and women of our Armed Forces have sacrificed greatly. It is time to allow the political process to go forward, and to demand that Iraq's new leaders take responsibility for their country's future. And it is time to bring home as many troops as possible, consistent with force-protection requirements, and to redeploy as many as necessary to successfully pursue Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to protect our vital interests around the world. President Bush tells us to be patient. He says we will succeed in Iraq. He says Iraq will become a flourishing democracy that will spread the flame of freedom across the entire Middle East. But, with due respect to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they have been consistently wrong--disastrously wrong--in their predictions with regard to Iraq. Before the invasion, Vice President Cheney said that Iraq had ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where Saddam was storing his weapons of mass destruction. As I noted, 3 long years ago, President Bush said that major combat operations were over, mission accomplished. They assured us that the war would be self-financed thanks to Iraq's oil (in fact, Iraqi oil production has declined by 700,000 barrels a day since the invasion). They said, a year ago, that the insurgency was ``in its last throes.'' I could go on and on with this litany of false assertions--some would call them lies--and predictions that turned out to be 100 percent wrong. So, at this point, President Bush has not only spent his political capital, he has squandered the last shred of his credibility when it comes to Iraq. Specifically with regard to America's departure from Iraq, President Bush has it backwards. He says that our army will stand down only as the Iraqi army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi army--and government--will stand up only when it is clear that the American military is committed to standing down by the end of this year. We can send that message loudly and clearly by passing this- concurrent resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, more than 3 years into the Iraq war, we have had report after report documenting rampant corruption and profiteering on the part of defense contractors, as well as lax oversight by government officials. A major reason why this is continuing largely unchecked is that the Department of Justice has been systematically delaying whistleblower law suits brought under the False Claims Act. Earlier today, I filed an amendment designed to break this logjam by requiring the Department of Justice to allow these cases to go forward after a maximum 1-year review period. I am pleased that Senator Johnson is co-sponsoring this amendment. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has risen dramatically in each of the last 3 years. The Congressional Research Service reports that we are now spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, alone. One reason for these runaway costs is the widespread corruption in the contracting process: shoddy work, nonwork, stealing, fraud, kick-backs, bribes, insider dealings, inflated billings, and on and on. The waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is bad enough. But this widespread corruption is also impeding our war effort, slowing reconstruction efforts, and denying our troops in the field the quality support and equipment that they deserve. The single most important tool that American taxpayers can use to recover funds stolen through fraud by U.S. contractors is the False Claims Act. Indeed, thanks to this law, more than $17 billion has been recovered on behalf of the American taxpayer. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers are given a powerful incentive to come forward and expose instances of fraud. The statute allows them to sue contractors suspected of defrauding the government, and then to keep a portion of the recovered funds as a reward. But there is a problem--a big problem. Scores of lawsuits have been brought against contractors suspected of fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. But the Department of Justice has allowed only one of those suits to go forward in the courts; that lawsuit resulted in a major recovery of fraudulently collected payments. For reasons that I cannot fathom, the Department of Justice is systematically delaying these law suits and preventing the recovery of perhaps billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Cases filed under the False Claims Act are automatically sealed. They cannot go to trial--in fact, they cannot even be publicly disclosed-- until the Department of Justice makes a decision about whether to join them. Under the statute, these decisions are supposed to be made within 60 days. But, with just one exception, the Department of Justice has refused to take a position on any of the suits related to Iraq and Afghanistan, some of which were filed more than 3 years ago. Instead, the Department has repeatedly filed for and received indefinite extensions of seal. As a result, with one exception, every single whistleblower lawsuit has been effectively blocked by the Department of Justice. Fraud has gone unpunished. Billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be squandered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. And courageous whistleblowers, who have come forward often at great personal risk, have been left in a legal limbo. As one attorney put it: ``The Bush administration has made a conscious decision to sweep the cases under the rug for as long as possible. And the more bad news that comes out of Iraq, the more motivation they have to do so.'' This situation is unacceptable. My amendment would prevent the Department of Justice from imposing undue secrecy on false claim civil actions related to government spending on Iraq and Afghanistan by simply requiring the Department of Justice to make a decision about joining such cases within 1 year, or 4 months in the case of cases that have already been filed. There will be protections against the release of information that could be detrimental to national security. But, after the 1-year period, the allegations will become public and the case will proceed. A 1-year time period will provide the Department of Justice ample opportunity to conduct a full investigation into the underlying allegations of fraud, and to decide whether to join the suit. In addition, my amendment allows the administration to seek additional extensions to keep a case sealed upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. And nothing prevents the Department of Justice from joining a case at a later date. As a matter of good faith to our troops and to the American taxpayer, we need to move aggressively against corruption and war profiteering in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has issued a number of reports on waste and fraud in Iraq. He reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority failed to account for the expenditure of nearly $9 billion in taxpayer funds. The money simply disappeared into a black hole. More recently, he reported on a case of fraud uncovered in the Iraqi city of Hillah. Here's how the Special Inspector General described it to the Wall Street Journal: ``There was no oversight anywhere near the [perpetrators] at any time, and they did not believe they would be caught. They considered it a free-fraud zone.'' The Hillah fraud, alone, cost taxpayers nearly $100 million. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as reports of fraud continue to pour in. The inspector general's own Hotline, which has been in operation a little more than 2 years, had received 449 cases of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and reprisal in Iraq as of January 30. Instead of delaying the prosecution of fraud under the False Claims Act, the Department of Justice should be leading the charge to criminals and war profiteers to justice. I commend our colleague, the junior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for chairing a Democratic Policy Committee hearing in February 2005 on the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq. He heard testimony from Alan Grayson, an attorney who represented whistleblowers in the one and only case allowed by the Department of Justice to go forward under the False Claims Act. Mr. Grayson described what happened to one of those whistleblowers, a former FBI agent, who refused to go along with the fraud. Said Mr. Grayson: ``He was held at gunpoint, stripped of his weapons and security identification, and then he was released defenseless on the streets of Baghdad.'' Waste, fraud, and abuse are a fact of life in any war. But in past wars, we have had aggressive oversight by congressional investigative committees. During World War II, the Truman Commission worked relentlessly to root out corruption and war profiteering--a Democratic Senator investigating a Democratic administration. Senator Truman denounced war profiteering as ``treason''--and he was exactly right; it is treason and a betrayal of the troops in the field. Unfortunately, in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been only negligible congressional oversight and investigation of war profiteering. That leaves the False Claims Act as the last best hope for taxpayers to recover, yet the Department of Justice has systematically delayed lawsuits brought under the act. My amendment will directly address this latter problem. By all means, the Department of Justice should have ample time to review cases brought under the False Claims Act. But after a maximum of 1 year, those cases should be allowed to go forward in the courts so that justice is served. This is a strictly nonpartisan amendment. It is all about protecting taxpayer dollars and ensuring that our troops in the field are not put at risk because of corrupt contractors. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as we celebrate National Volunteer Week, I would like to take a moment to recognize four individuals for their extraordinary service to the Everybody Wins! program in Iowa. As many of my colleagues know, Everybody Wins! is a literacy and mentoring program for elementary school students. The program gives adults the opportunity to spend one lunch hour a week reading with a child in a public school. It is the ultimate power lunch. Eight years ago, Senator Jim Jeffords recruited me to join him as a volunteer for the Everybody Wins! program in Washington, DC. The time I spend at Brent Elementary is the most important and rewarding hour of my workweek. My experience also convinced me of the need to expand this program to Iowa. In 2002, Everybody Wins! Iowa was launched. The program began as a small pilot program in 3 public schools with 15 volunteers. From this modest beginning, the program has grown, and now serves more than 260 students in 11 central Iowa schools. The success of the Iowa program is due to the dedicated services of many individuals. Today, I would like to recognize the service of four people who served as founding members of the board of directors and who have played a critical role in the development of Everybody Wins! Iowa. Ray Walton was the initial spark to get the program started in Iowa. Ray recruited the organization's first executive director and served as one of the first volunteers in the program. He also served as vice president and later as president of the board of directors. His leadership and dedication guided Everybody Wins! Iowa in those important early days. Wilma Gajdel served on the board of directors for 3 years. She is also the principal at Monroe Elementary, one of the three original Everybody Wins! schools. The input of educators is critical to the success of Everybody Wins!, and Wilma's guidance has been invaluable. The Everybody Wins! Iowa model was developed at Monroe under her careful eye and has been adapted successfully by other schools in central Iowa. Drew Gentsch served as the organization's first treasurer. In addition, he is a volunteer reader at Monroe Elementary, the father of two young children, and a busy attorney. Drew has also served as the chair of the board's finance committee, and he contributed many hours as he led the hiring committee for the board's first executive director. His professionalism and attention to detail have helped the organization flourish and grow. B. MacPaul Stanfield is another busy attorney and father of two. He has served as secretary of Everybody Wins! Iowa and is a volunteer reader at Monroe. He previously served as chair of the organization's personnel committee. Mac held one of the most important positions on the board as the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meetings and attending to the myriad of other details that go into the successful operation of a small nonprofit organization. Service on a volunteer board of directors is not easy and requires hours of dedicated service. These four individuals gave generously of their time and talents to Everybody Wins! Iowa during its infancy. That service provided a strong foundation for the organization. As they leave the board, I wish to express my sincere gratitude for their dedicated and selfless service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand we are on the Gregg amendment now, and that will proceed under some fashion or form. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about an amendment I will offer when this amendment is dispensed with one way or the other. I wish to announce my intention to offer an amendment to this supplemental bill to ensure that Federal funding appropriated for workforce investment is used to help people in genuine need and not to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses to program executives. The amendment I will be offering would address a gross abuse of Federal funds that was exposed recently in a State audit of the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium, or CIETC. The audit showed that three executives of this program were paid nearly $1.8 million over the past 2\1/2\ years. The chief executive officer alone received almost $800,000 in salary and bonuses over that period of time, which is nearly 8 times the salary paid to the Governor of Iowa. Obviously, these levels of compensation are exorbitant and outrageous. What happened at CIETC is a scandalous abuse of the public funds and of the public trust. It is also scandalous that these inflated salaries, technically speaking, may not be illegal under current law. The law states that executives in workforce enactment programs will be paid a ``reasonable'' salary. Unfortunately, that is a very elastic definition. There will always be a few bad apples, people who will stretch that definition in ways that are clearly unethical and wrong, even if not technically illegal. On that score, CIETC is the only abuse that has come to light so far, to my knowledge. It is sort of the one bad apple in a program with an otherwise outstanding track record. Even one case of abuse is one too many. My amendment will ensure that there is no repetition of this very unfortunate incident. To that end, my amendment encourages States to set maximum compensation levels for individuals employed by programs funded under the Workforce Investment Act, taking into account factors such as the State's cost of living, compensation levels for comparable State or local government employees, and the size of a State's job training program. In cases where a State fails to set a maximum salary, my amendment would impose a nationwide maximum equal to the Federal executive level of salary. After the State audit of the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium was released on March 31, I urged the U.S. Department of Labor inspector general to launch a thorough investigation, and that investigation is now in progress. In addition, Iowa's State government is conducting a parallel investigation. I asked both the Federal and State investigators to report back to me with recommendations for preventing a repeat of the abuse that has occurred at CIETC. However, we can and should act now to fix the glaring problem here, which is the absence of any fixed ceiling on executive compensation in Workforce Investment Act programs. Again, my preference, and the way the amendment is structured, would be for each State to set their compensation level. In cases where States fail to act, my amendment would set a maximum executive salary level across the Nation at executive level 2, which would be $165,000 a year maximum; that is salary and bonuses, total compensation. As I said, that is equivalent to the Federal level 2 compensation. Now, why did we pick that? Because that is the same maximum level that was set a few years ago for salaries in the Head Start Program when we uncovered a similar kind of abuse that was going on in the Head Start Program. So that is the level there. There had been several isolated incidents of exorbitant salaries in the Head Start Program and they have stopped, thanks to that salary cap. Clearly, $165,000 a year is a very substantial salary, but it might be appropriate in certain circumstances; for example, in the case of an executive who is administering a very large Workforce Investment Act program, or one that is located in a high-cost city or State. We need to establish executive compensation caps in the WIA-funded programs. As a ranking member of the Senate subcommittee that funds job training, I find it hard to get that funding. I fight hard because I know that quality job training provides a ladder or ramp of opportunity to many thousands of hard-pressed Americans, including individuals with disabilities and people who are laid off due to plant closings. Workforce Investment Act programs have proved themselves to be enormously effective. They have earned broad bipartisan support. There are four core programs under title I of the act: No. 1, assistance to disadvantaged adults, including people with disabilities, to assist them in entering the workforce; No. 2, assistance to dislocated workers; No. 3, training and placement services for job seekers; and No. 4, assistance to low-income youths under the age of 21, including tutoring, dropout prevention, job training, and adult mentoring. Funding for Workforce Investment Act programs is chronically scarce and inadequate. On the one hand, we want the discretion to pay salaries that will attract talented administrators, and we need to keep in mind local cost of living considerations. But it is unacceptable--it is a betrayal of the public trust--when unethical individuals use scarce WIA funds to pay themselves inflated and totally unjustified salaries and bonuses. Current law creates an opening that makes this kind of abuse possible. But by setting a nationwide compensation cap that would include not only salaries but bonuses, we can prevent future abuse. That is the purpose of my amendment. I think it is urgently needed. I had a conversation a little bit ago with Senator Ensign, who has been working on the Workforce Investment Act reauthorization bill. My staff is working together with his at this time to make sure that what we are trying to do corresponds. Now, you might say maybe we should wait until WIA is reauthorized. I hope it is, but the year is clicking by and we have a lot on our plate. It is a short work year. I am not sure if we are going to get it done. I might add that in the Job Corps Program there is also a compensation cap, and that is a level 1. Head Start was level 2. So we thought for Workforce Investment Act job training programs it ought to be probably at about level 2, maximum. Keep in mind, States can set it lower than that. It is based upon the size of the job and the cost of living factors and other factors. But they cannot go over that. That is what happened in Iowa. Unethical people were paying themselves, in one case, up to $800,000 per annum in salaries and bonuses, which is 8 times what the Governor makes. So I intend to offer this amendment at some point later on when the Gregg amendment is disposed of in some fashion or another. I hope I can have the support of my colleagues in adopting this salary cap on Workforce Investment Act programs. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the concurrence and approval of my chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the amendment about which I spoke a little while ago on the Senate floor regarding setting a maximum national cap on salaries and bonuses for people employed in the Workforce Investment Act programs across the United States. As I said earlier, States can set lower, but this would at least set a maximum which anyone could be paid in salaries and bonuses in any of those programs. I thank the chairman of the committee for being willing to let me set aside the amendment and offer this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley today to introduce the Access to Medical Treatment Act. The idea behind this legislation is to allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual patients and their properly licensed health care providers to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that may be approved elsewhere. As more Americans seek out alternative and complimentary treatments for their health care, we need to be responsive. We need to see what works and what does not, but we also need to make sure that patients are protected, and are not misled about the potential benefits and risks of alternative treatments. The Access to Medical Treatment Act presents one option to help Americans make better choices, and it is my hope that this legislation can help spur a dialogue about the best way to promote access to safe and effective alternative medical treatments. Importantly, the bill contains an informed consent protection for patients, modeled after the National Institutes of Health's, NIH, human subject protection regulations. Under the protections provided for in the legislation, a patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of the following: the nature, content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits and risks of the treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the results of past applications of the treatment by the health care provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; and any financial interest the provider has in the product. The consent documents will then become part of the patient's medical record. Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, any adverse effects from alternative treatments, and must immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger. Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH, which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an annual report. The bill also stipulates that the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of therapy, and grants FDA the authority to guarantee that the labeling of the treatment is not false or misleading. Mr. President, the goal of this legislation is to preserve the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies. I hope that we have struck the appropriate balance, and I welcome feedback from interested parties. It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be considered an alternative medical practice and widely rejected by the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical profession came around on that one. The underlying point is this: today's consumers want alternatives in many medical situations for them and their families. They want less invasive, less expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President, Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies. That is one of the reasons we established the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, NCCAM, at NIH in 1998. As more Americans look for alternative courses of treatment, we needed to provide a way to see what works and what does not. This bill is another step in that direction. This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and cure disease. And it provides a means to see what works and what does not. I thank Senator Grassley for his continued leadership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to consider this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley today to introduce the Access to Medical Treatment Act. The idea behind this legislation is to allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual patients and their properly licensed health care providers to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that may be approved elsewhere. As more Americans seek out alternative and complimentary treatments for their health care, we need to be responsive. We need to see what works and what does not, but we also need to make sure that patients are protected, and are not misled about the potential benefits and risks of alternative treatments. The Access to Medical Treatment Act presents one option to help Americans make better choices, and it is my hope that this legislation can help spur a dialogue about the best way to promote access to safe and effective alternative medical treatments. Importantly, the bill contains an informed consent protection for patients, modeled after the National Institutes of Health's, NIH, human subject protection regulations. Under the protections provided for in the legislation, a patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of the following: the nature, content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits and risks of the treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the results of past applications of the treatment by the health care provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; and any financial interest the provider has in the product. The consent documents will then become part of the patient's medical record. Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, any adverse effects from alternative treatments, and must immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger. Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH, which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an annual report. The bill also stipulates that the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of therapy, and grants FDA the authority to guarantee that the labeling of the treatment is not false or misleading. Mr. President, the goal of this legislation is to preserve the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies. I hope that we have struck the appropriate balance, and I welcome feedback from interested parties. It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be considered an alternative medical practice and widely rejected by the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical profession came around on that one. The underlying point is this: today's consumers want alternatives in many medical situations for them and their families. They want less invasive, less expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President, Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies. That is one of the reasons we established the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, NCCAM, at NIH in 1998. As more Americans look for alternative courses of treatment, we needed to provide a way to see what works and what does not. This bill is another step in that direction. This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and cure disease. And it provides a means to see what works and what does not. I thank Senator Grassley for his continued leadership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to consider this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At the same time, rates of overweight among children are skyrocketing: tripling among children ages 6-11, and doubling among children ages 2 to 5 and ages 12-19 over the past three decades. Indeed, just this week the Journal of the American Medical Association released a new study that found that, in just the past 5 years, rates of childhood overweight and obesity rose very significantly. There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually detrimental to them. Not only does the over consumption of these foods take a toll on the health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it undermines the nearly $10 billion in Federal reimbursements that we spend on nutritionally balanced school meals. Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and development. What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch program? Today, for the first time ever, bipartisan legislation is being introduced in both Chambers of Congress to address this problem--and to do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill is supported by key health and education groups, and I would like to thank the National PTA, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, and others for their strong support. The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006 does two very simple but important things: First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up with the science. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a ``lunch'' consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck through--literally. It is time to close it. The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts all lines and shows that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our children. This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. If this isn't a wakeup call, I don't know what is. Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At the same time, rates of overweight among children are skyrocketing: tripling among children ages 6-11, and doubling among children ages 2 to 5 and ages 12-19 over the past three decades. Indeed, just this week the Journal of the American Medical Association released a new study that found that, in just the past 5 years, rates of childhood overweight and obesity rose very significantly. There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually detrimental to them. Not only does the over consumption of these foods take a toll on the health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it undermines the nearly $10 billion in Federal reimbursements that we spend on nutritionally balanced school meals. Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and development. What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch program? Today, for the first time ever, bipartisan legislation is being introduced in both Chambers of Congress to address this problem--and to do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill is supported by key health and education groups, and I would like to thank the National PTA, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, and others for their strong support. The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006 does two very simple but important things: First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up with the science. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a ``lunch'' consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck through--literally. It is time to close it. The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts all lines and shows that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our differences in the interest of our children. This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. If this isn't a wakeup call, I don't know what is. Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first let me commend Senator Durbin for his leadership on the Dream Act and making sure that it is now a part of the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. I was a cosponsor of that Dream Act, and I support it being a part of the bill. For me, the current debate on immigration strikes very close to home. Those words at the base of the Statue of Liberty, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,'' have a profound personal meaning to me. On my wall in my office, I have a picture of the house in which my mother was born and raised until she was 20 years of age in the small town of Suha, Slovenia. It is a small house with a dirt floor. Yes, my mother was born and raised in a house with a dirt floor until she was aged 20. Then she got steerage on the SS Argentina and came to America. She was going to land at Ellis Island, but landed in Boston because of bad weather. I have a copy of the documentation from when my mother landed here in America, it had her name and where she was from, and what she owned. She had one suitcase, a train ticket to Des Moines, IA, and $7. That is how my mother came to America. When she came, though, she was welcomed into the American community. She got married, obviously raised a family. She has since obviously passed away, but she became a productive citizen, a loyal American who gave a lot back to her adopted homeland. I know the current debate has stirred up a lot of passions, but this is nothing new. Across the centuries, successive waves of immigrants-- Germans, Irish, and again on my father's side my great-grandfather, who was an immigrant from the northern part of Ireland; Chinese, Italians, Greeks, others--every time they have come here they have aroused strong emotions. But in every case, Americans eventually rose above their economic fears and ethnic prejudices. We were true to those Statue of Liberty words and, as a result, America has become stronger and richer and fairer. We are indeed the envy of the world. Today, once again, we are in the midst of a difficult and often emotional national debate about immigration. I am optimistic that we can arrive at a bill that addresses legitimate national security and law enforcement concerns, while also being faithful to our tradition and history as a nation of immigrants. I commend the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, for his skill and leadership in reporting a bipartisan bill from the Judiciary Committee that takes us in the right direction. I want to commend his ranking member, Senator Leahy, and Senator Kennedy for his strong work on getting this bill through and making it a decent, fair, but yet strong bill to protect our national security and to protect our law enforcement in this country. My State of Iowa, I am proud to say, has a long history of welcoming new immigrants. We have a growing immigrant Muslim population from Asia and the Middle East. In fact, Cedar Rapids, IA, is home to the oldest mosque in America, and we are proud of that. A quarter of a century ago, responding to the plight of Vietnamese and Laotian boat people, former Governor Robert Ray introduced programs to bring more than 30,000 of these refugees to our State. Because of his courageous humanitarian leadership, thousands of Iowans opened their homes and their hearts to these new immigrants. More recently, tens of thousands of immigrants have come to Iowa from Latin America and elsewhere. They have come here in search of two things: work and freedom. Work, in order to feed and clothe their families; and freedom, to learn and to develop their talents, and to grow. In most cases, they have found work. The Iowa economy is hungry for immigrants who are willing to do jobs that basically are physically demanding, oftentimes dangerous, one example, of course, being the meat packing industry. But not all of these new immigrants have found freedom--the freedom to learn and to grow and to develop their talents. Earlier this month, at United Trinity Methodist Church in Des Moines, I met with a group of new immigrants, an undocumented family. They told me about the hardships they face. They live in constant fear. They live in the shadows. What do they want? They want to become loyal, contributing Americans, to pursue the American dream, to contribute as my mother did, as my great-grandfather and his descendants did, to building this country we call America. But, instead, they are living an American nightmare of anxiety, exclusion, and exploitation. So it is time for us to find a constructive and positive way to bring these people out of the shadows and into the sunlight. One thing we all agree on is that the current immigration system is broken and needs reform. It is totally out of sync with today's social and economic realities. It is time to come up with a just and fair immigration system, one true to our values and our tradition. I know we can come up with a bill that is a win-win for all of us. To that end, we need at least three things: One, we need tough, consistent, effective enforcement of reformed immigration laws. Two, we need to enforce sanctions against employers who hire immigrants unauthorized to work. Three, we need a temporary worker program with documentation that gives immigrants a reasonable path to earning full American citizenship. As Senator Kennedy said earlier, we are not talking about amnesty. That would be wrong. We are talking about a process of earned legalization, giving people who are here a practical way to earn citizenship by working, paying taxes, paying a fine, learning English. We need to deal with the reality before us. We have 11 million to 12 million undocumented people in this country, many of whom--as we listened to Senator Durbin talk about--have lived here for many years, and many who came here as young children, as babies. Many of them who are here have children. They have other family members who are U.S. citizens. They are contributing to our prosperity. They are making a big contribution to our society. They may be undocumented; they may be living in the shadows; but make no mistake: They are de facto members of our American community. They are integrated into the fabric of our national life. They are filling jobs that, in most cases, go unfilled, and they are not going away. Frankly, we would face huge problems if they did. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said recently: ``If you kick out 11 and-a-half to 12 million people, it will bring our economy to a screeching halt.'' So let us acknowledge the reality. Let's establish a legal framework within which these immigrants can work and learn English and pass security background checks, pay a fine, the penalties that are necessary, and then earn the right to eventually become a U.S. citizen. At the same time, let's not delude ourselves with so-called simple solutions that are unworkable, unaffordable, or just plain mean- spirited. For example, the House has passed a bill that calls for criminalizing undocumented immigrants, rounding them up and deporting them, and charging with crimes anyone who might help, including clergy and church members. Does anyone seriously believe we can round up 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants? Who is going to do it? Are we going to spend the $140 billion it would take to hire a vast army of agents to do this? And even if it were physically possible to round up 12 million people, how do you do it humanely? For example, would we be willing to break up families? Would we deport mothers and fathers but allow their U.S. citizen children to remain here? Would we deport an undocumented immigrant who is here, married, has children? Would she or he take the children with them, or leave them here? What is going to happen to all these people? How do you deal with this humanely? Others advocate we spend tens of millions of dollars to build a 700- mile wall, a fence, across our southern border. That is nonsense. Did the Great Wall of China work? Maybe for a month or two. Think of the Berlin Wall. Just remember the Berlin Wall. And think about a wall between the United States and Mexico. Now we are going to build a wall across the Canadian border, too? Let's get serious. This is nonsense, absolutely nonsense. And does anyone want to talk about those who come to the U.S. and overstay their visas? There are an estimated 4 million people in the United States who have overstayed their visas. They get visas, they are here, they are working. They overstay their visa and do not go back to their home countries; they decide to stay here illegally. It is time to acknowledge why immigrants continue to come across our border, making enormous sacrifices, risking their lives. They are coming for economic opportunity to better themselves and to reunite, a lot of times, with their families. In other words, they are coming for exactly the same reasons that my mother came to America--to get reunited with family members who were here, to work, to raise a family, to better her life and to better the lives of her children. The difference is they are coming now as undocumented because we failed to create a documented, legal avenue for our economy to get the workers we need. It is not their fault, it is our fault--because we have not designed a good immigration system. We have heard it said that undocumented immigrants drive down wages for American citizens at the low end of the economic scale. According to this argument, undocumented immigrants are so desperate to work for the minimum wage or less, they will tolerate harsh, unsafe working conditions. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to that argument. So what is the answer, kick them out? No. The answer is to bring them out of the shadows. If they are given documentation and legal status, then employers will have to pay them a decent wage and treat them fairly. This will raise the floor. It will raise wages at the bottom rungs of the ladder, and this will benefit all American workers. There is another huge cost and danger to allowing the status quo to continue. The current system has driven undocumented workers deep underground. We are not able to document, track, or control who is within our borders. This is the ideal environment for al-Qaida and others who aim to penetrate our society. Because of our preoccupation with chasing down undocumented immigrants, we are diverting scarce resources from addressing the real threats to our national security, and this needs to change. Instead, we are tracking down gardeners and dishwashers, let's focus on those who really want to do us harm. Throughout America's history, the subject of immigration has lent itself to fearmongering, demagoguery, and simplistic so-called solutions. But to our credit--and to America's great social and economic benefit--we have listened to the better angels of our nature. We have refused to slam the door. We have been true to our tradition as a nation of immigrants. Today, once again, we are challenged to rise above fear and prejudice and to do the right thing. Legally or illegally, immigrants will continue to come to America as they have for four centuries. We need smart immigration reform, reform that will protect our borders, crack down on employers who hire those who are unauthorized to work, while creating a guest worker program that gives immigrants the opportunity to earn legalization and to have family reunification. In closing, I commend the Judiciary Committee for sending to the floor a bipartisan bill that would accomplish these important things. It would bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows so we know who they are, where they live, where they are from, and so we can identify any who could be a threat to our homeland security. It would allow earned legalization for those who pass security background checks. It is going to take more than 10 years for an undocumented immigrant to demonstrate that he or she is a person of good moral standing, is paying taxes, learning English, and has paid the necessary fines. These people will not jump ahead of anyone who is already in line for citizenship. I want to stress that point. There is a thought: Oh, they will get in front of everybody. That is not true, not under the bill from the Judiciary Committee. They would work 6 years before they could apply for legal permanent residency or green card status, and after that they would work for another 5 years before they could apply for citizenship. During this process, they would have to pay a fine, and with those fines would help pay for this system. Last, we don't need a wall around our borders. We can use unmanned aerial vehicles, sensors, guard posts. We can do this without building a wall, and we can protect our borders much better than we are doing now. That is what is in the Judiciary bill. It is an excellent starting point. Again, I commend Senator Specter and the committee. They have done a great service to the Senate and to our country. I hope this Senate will do the right thing in passing that bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Liddell-Westefeld of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. We have 30 seconds?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his great leadership in the areas of health and education, especially medical research. This amendment only takes us back to 2005. That is all it does. It sets the level back to where it was in 2005. It is a very modest proposal. I hope we can have a strong vote on this amendment to get the money we need for Pell grants, for NIH, for the Centers for Disease Control-- all the programs that are so necessary to our country.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Specter-Harkin amendment would add back $7 billion to the President's proposed budget, allowing us to fund the 2007 Labor, HHS appropriations bill at the level of 2005. I am proud to join my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania in offering this amendment. I thank Senator Specter for his great leadership in all the areas of health, education, human services, medical research. He has been a tireless leader in all these areas. Once again, he has stepped to the forefront to basically say that we are not going to keep cutting back to the bone and the marrow, which he said earlier today. This is not a radical proposal. In fact, it is almost an embarrassingly modest proposal. But it is important. It is an important first step. At least we are saying it is enough, no more; it is time to reorder our priorities. Year after year we have been cutting the programs that support working families, people with disabilities, students struggling to afford college, elderly trying to heat their homes, put food on the table, people with cancer and other diseases desperate for a cure. As my friend, Senator Specter, said this morning we are beyond cutting the fat and beyond cutting bone. We are now into the marrow. I add, when you start cutting into the marrow, you are endangering the very lifeblood of an organism--in this case, our American society. Something is seriously wrong in terms of our priorities and our values when we are presented with a budget that slashes funding for the National Cancer Institute, jeopardizing critical lifesaving research. That is just one of the many critical program areas threatened by the proposed budget. President Bush, in his budget, proposed to slash the Labor-Health-Education budget by $4.2 billion for this year. Meanwhile, in Iraq, he is spending nearly $5 billion a month. These are not the priorities of the American people. I believe this amendment is the single most important amendment that we will consider on this budget resolution. I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is very likely our last, best chance to restore funding for critical health, education, and social services programs. Last year, we saw what happens when Congress passes a bad budget resolution. The reason why we had a bad Labor-HHS bill last year and could not get it done is because we were boxed in by the budget resolution. Exactly the same thing will happen this year. It will be worse. It will be worse since it is an election year, unless we pass the Specter amendment, which he just offered, putting back this $7 billion. So I say to my colleagues, this is the decisive vote. This is sort of the showdown. This is our best, maybe last real opportunity to change our budget priorities. If we fail to act, then we will indeed be cutting into the bone and marrow of our most important programs. Let me be somewhat specific. This budget would cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control, despite the fact we are facing the twin threats of bioterrorism and a possible avian flu pandemic. This budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes at NIH. It would cut the Social Services block grant by $500 million, completely eliminate the Community Services block grant--two of the biggest discretionary programs for the poor. The number of children served by Head Start would be reduced. Even Meals on Wheels would be cut. At the Labor Department, the Disability Employment Office would be cut by 26 percent, on top of a 41-percent cut last year. Funding for the Workforce Investment Act would be cut. Even the program we have had for several years now to combat child labor and child slavery would be cut. In education, the President's budget proposes the largest cut to Federal education funding in the 26-year history of the Department of Education. And I speak to the occupant of the Chair, who is a distinguished former Secretary of Education, and who has a deep and abiding interest and support for education. The No Child Left Behind Act would be underfunded by a whopping $15.4 billion from what we were planning to spend when we passed it. Title I would be frozen. Twenty-nine States would get less title I funding next year. How are we ever going to expect poor kids to meet the demands of No Child Left Behind if we are cutting title I funding, which President Bush himself said was the cornerstone of No Child Left Behind? In special education--this is something the chairman of the Budget Committee has talked about and has been supportive of for a long time-- we are going backwards. We promised years ago--30 years ago--that the Federal Government would pick up 40 percent of the additional costs of funding for special education. Two years ago, which was a high watermark, we were at 19 percent. Last year, we went to 18 percent. This budget will take us to 17 percent. We are supposed to be at 40 percent. So we are going in the wrong direction. What that translates into is more property taxes for our beleaguered property tax owners in our school districts. And need I talk about Pell grants? They are frozen at $4,050 for the fifth year in a row. I asked Secretary Spellings, when she was before our committee, name me one college in the country where tuition is the same today as it was 5 years ago. Meanwhile, the Perkins Loan Program would be completely eliminated. And the two TRIO programs--Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search--were eliminated in the President's budget. So again, I think these are misplaced priorities. That is why we are offering this amendment. That is why Senator Specter and I have worked together to try to get us at least back on the road. As I said, this is a modest proposal. It only takes us back to 2005. The amendment offered, I repeat, by the Senator from Pennsylvania simply takes us back to where we were before all of the cuts and the across-the-board cut of 2006. It puts us right back where we were in 2005. I do not think that is radical. I think it is very modest. Again, I say to my friends, fellow Senators, I believe this is the decisive vote on priorities on this budget, and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Specter's amendment. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for giving me the time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Matt Duffy of my staff be granted floor privileges.