Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will now discuss a problem we have relative to the cost of prescription drugs. I am joining several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in offering an amendment that will take a giant step toward providing access to affordable prescription drugs for Vermonters, and all Americans. Our amendment will allow pharmacists and wholesalers to import safe, U.S.-made, FDA-approved lower-cost prescription drugs from other countries. We maintain the gold standard of safety in this country, but hope to rein in the platinum standard we have for prices. Prescription drugs have revolutionized the treatment of certain diseases, but they are only effective if patients have access to the medicines that their doctors prescribe. The best medicines in the world will not help a person who can not afford them. Americans pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and for many the price is just too high. What's worse is that those Americans who can least afford it are the ones paying the highest prices. Americans who don't have health insurance that covers drugs are forced to pay the ``sticker price'' off the pharmacist's shelf. In short, the practice of price discrimination hits the uninsured and low-income Medicare beneficiaries the hardest. It is sad that during a time when the United States is experiencing unprecedented economic growth, it is not uncommon to hear of patients, like we heard in my committee's hearing yesterday, who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer, because they can't afford the refill. The question that we must ask is, can we put politics aside and work in a bipartisan manner to deal with this national crisis? I say we must. And I am hopeful that today we can. This bipartisan amendment I am offering is based on legislation I introduced, S. 2520, the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act, or the MEDS Act. Joining me in introducing that legislation were Senators Wellstone, Snowe, and Collins and joining as cosponsors are Senators Dorgan and Gorton. The hearing I held yesterday allowed all of the parties to fully examine and articulate their views on this legislation. Our bill, which we have revised and are offering as an amendment, gives pharmacists and wholesalers the ability to negotiate more favorable prices with manufacturers. They can do so because they will have the ability to purchase in other countries--this is important-- where exactly the same drugs are sold for far less. These are areas that have been approved by the FDA. There is no question about that aspect. The drug industry has argued that this amendment compromises safety. As chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, safety is my first concern. That is why these imports will be limited to FDA-approved drugs that are made in the United States or FDA inspected facilities. And that is why this amendment reflects weeks of discussions with the people who enforce our drug safety laws. The amendment before us is a revision of the MEDS Act based on input from government experts who raised issues of public health and safety. Specifically, I asked FDA for technical assistance on this bill, and addressed each safety concern that the agency raised. I also point out to my colleagues that this amendment specifically authorizes FDA to incorporate any other safeguard that it believes is necessary to ensure the protection of the public health of patients in the United States. This amendment is about free trade. Why should Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? All this amendment does is allow international competition to bring rational pricing practices to the prescription drug industry. It introduces competition which is the hallmark of our success in this Nation. I point out this bipartisan amendment also drops a provision in our original bill that would have allowed personal imports, which I would have liked to retain because I think it is important. We dropped the personal use provision in order to answer concerns that some raised about safety. I was willing to compromise on that point at this time in order to get a bill that raises no safety concerns at all. I want the record to clearly reflect that I still feel strongly that Vermonters should not be in violation of federal law if they go a few miles across the border into Canada to get deep discounts on prescriptions. We do nothing in here to indicate they should not be allowed to do so. This amendment will provide equitable treatment of Americans, particularly those who do not have insurance, or access to big discounts for large purchases like HMOs. As I said before, this is not the only solution. I strongly believe we need a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare system for those people who are eligible for Medicare. But it is a commonsense measure that we can enact now to ease the burden of expensive prescription drugs on our people, for those on the borders, and all Americans. I ask for the support of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank Senators for their eloquent words about the passing of Paul Coverdell. I see no one else seeking recognition for that purpose, so at this time I move back to the bill. If there is anything Paul Coverdell disliked, it was quorum calls and delaying the process. We worked together on the education bill, and I know he was proud when it moved expeditiously and the debate was lively. In that spirit, I think we must return to the business before the Senate. Therefore, I call up amendment 3925.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with my distinguished chairman and also the ranking member on the amendment they have proposed. This amendment is worded in such a way as to prevent the proposal from ever taking effect because they know it will be impossible, certainly so difficult as to be unworkable, to prove prospectively that all savings will be passed on to the patients. There is no way that can happen. This is just in there to clean this bill up. I strongly oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg be added as cosponsor to amendment No. 3925.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I point out, we held a hearing on this yesterday. I wanted to correct my good chairman on that. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Jeffords amendment, as modified by the Cochran amendment, now states the bill requires the Food and Drug Administration----

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have heard long arguments today about the bill. I think there is general agreement, however, that if it is safe and possible, we should allow our people in this country to be able to take advantage of international competition to bring the cost of pharmaceuticals down to a reasonable rate and to that which other people in this world are able to receive. Keep in mind, that is what the goal is. Right now, the bill requires the FDA to ``contain such additional safeguards as the Secretary may specify in order to ensure the protection of the public health of patients in the United States.'' I would like to pose a question to the chairman on his amendment. The amendment requires that the section may not operate unless it poses ``no risk.'' Am I correct in assuming that the author's intent is that there be ``no risk'' above that which prevails today?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I accept the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I have 20 seconds to explain the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Jeffords amendment, as modified by the Cochran amendment----

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues today in introducing the Children's Health Act of 2000. This bill authorizes a variety of programs and initiatives that promise to significantly improve the health of children in this nation. I want to commend Senators Frist, Kennedy, Dodd, Gregg, DeWine, Reed, Bond, Gorton, Abraham, and Durbin for their work and commitment to protecting and improving the health of our children. This bill takes a multifaceted approach in addressing the most pressing healthcare problems facing our children today, such as brain injury, birth defects, asthma, and obesity. The bill authorizes prevention programs, educational programs, clinical research, and direct clinical care services. It also enhances the training and knowledge base of pediatric healthcare researchers through training and loan repayment programs. In the face of so many dangerous diseases and conditions, the holistic approach taken by this bill offers the best hope for protecting and improving our children's health. This bill provides funding for critical research on children's heath. The Pediatric Research Initiative, based in the National Institutes of Health, will lay the foundation for comprehensive, cross cutting pediatric biomedical research. Such a center has the potential to yield valuable new information on child growth and development. The Child Development Study, a long term study of environmental influences on children's health, will also yield important insights into the environmental factors that influence the growth and development of our children. This understanding will play a critical role in shaping future policy and programs for children's health. This research, in addition to other research opportunities provided in this bill promises to significantly improve our ability to protect the health of our children. In addition to research, this bill provides resources for care and prevention programs. For example, this bill authorizes aggressive programs to prevent and treat one of the most challenging childhood health problems, traumatic brain injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is directed to conduct research on prevention and to implement public education and information programs. The Health Research and Services Administration is authorized to fund community support services to develop support or enhance care systems for individuals with brain injuries. These programs, coupled with research at NIH, address both the causes and the consequences of traumatic brain injury. This bill authorizes the creation of a National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities to collect, analyze, and distribute data on birth defects. This provision will allow for important data to be developed to guide the development of programs and policies to assist children and families coping with disabilities. Having worked for many years to improve the quality of life of people living with disabilities, I strongly support this effort to address the challenges of disabilities at the earliest age possible. This center will help to coordinate and focus our approach, and serve as a clearinghouse for information that will improve both healthcare and quality of life for children with disabilities. By targeting asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood, this bill will make a difference in the lives of thousands of children and young people who suffer with this disease across the nation. Asthma jumped by 75 percent in the general population between 1980 and 1994. Among children under four there was a rise of 160 percent. It is estimated that this condition debilitates about 33,000 Vermonters (22,000 adults and 11,000 children). Grant programs authorized under this bill will fund comprehensive asthma services, mobile health care clinics, and patient and family education to reduce the impact of this dangerous disease. As this disease continues to strike more and more of our youth, it is critical that programs to reduce asthma have priority. Oral health is also improved under this legislation, which targets the disparities in access to dental care and preventive therapies among poor children. In addition to direct care services, this provision enhances community based research and training to improve our knowledge of effective clinical and preventive measures. With 20 percent of children experiencing 80 percent of the dental cavities, it is time we focus on this neglected population and make a difference in their health. An investment in the health of the nation's children will undoubtedly have long term rewards, as we move our understanding of and ability to treat childhood diseases far beyond current capabilities. Clearly, the time has come to comprehensively and aggressively tackle the primary causes of poor health for our children. I strongly support this legislation. The health of the nation rests on the health of our children, and we must do all we can to prevent and treat diseases that strike at the most vulnerable members of society.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues today in introducing the Children's Health Act of 2000. This bill authorizes a variety of programs and initiatives that promise to significantly improve the health of children in this nation. I want to commend Senators Frist, Kennedy, Dodd, Gregg, DeWine, Reed, Bond, Gorton, Abraham, and Durbin for their work and commitment to protecting and improving the health of our children. This bill takes a multifaceted approach in addressing the most pressing healthcare problems facing our children today, such as brain injury, birth defects, asthma, and obesity. The bill authorizes prevention programs, educational programs, clinical research, and direct clinical care services. It also enhances the training and knowledge base of pediatric healthcare researchers through training and loan repayment programs. In the face of so many dangerous diseases and conditions, the holistic approach taken by this bill offers the best hope for protecting and improving our children's health. This bill provides funding for critical research on children's heath. The Pediatric Research Initiative, based in the National Institutes of Health, will lay the foundation for comprehensive, cross cutting pediatric biomedical research. Such a center has the potential to yield valuable new information on child growth and development. The Child Development Study, a long term study of environmental influences on children's health, will also yield important insights into the environmental factors that influence the growth and development of our children. This understanding will play a critical role in shaping future policy and programs for children's health. This research, in addition to other research opportunities provided in this bill promises to significantly improve our ability to protect the health of our children. In addition to research, this bill provides resources for care and prevention programs. For example, this bill authorizes aggressive programs to prevent and treat one of the most challenging childhood health problems, traumatic brain injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is directed to conduct research on prevention and to implement public education and information programs. The Health Research and Services Administration is authorized to fund community support services to develop support or enhance care systems for individuals with brain injuries. These programs, coupled with research at NIH, address both the causes and the consequences of traumatic brain injury. This bill authorizes the creation of a National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities to collect, analyze, and distribute data on birth defects. This provision will allow for important data to be developed to guide the development of programs and policies to assist children and families coping with disabilities. Having worked for many years to improve the quality of life of people living with disabilities, I strongly support this effort to address the challenges of disabilities at the earliest age possible. This center will help to coordinate and focus our approach, and serve as a clearinghouse for information that will improve both healthcare and quality of life for children with disabilities. By targeting asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood, this bill will make a difference in the lives of thousands of children and young people who suffer with this disease across the nation. Asthma jumped by 75 percent in the general population between 1980 and 1994. Among children under four there was a rise of 160 percent. It is estimated that this condition debilitates about 33,000 Vermonters (22,000 adults and 11,000 children). Grant programs authorized under this bill will fund comprehensive asthma services, mobile health care clinics, and patient and family education to reduce the impact of this dangerous disease. As this disease continues to strike more and more of our youth, it is critical that programs to reduce asthma have priority. Oral health is also improved under this legislation, which targets the disparities in access to dental care and preventive therapies among poor children. In addition to direct care services, this provision enhances community based research and training to improve our knowledge of effective clinical and preventive measures. With 20 percent of children experiencing 80 percent of the dental cavities, it is time we focus on this neglected population and make a difference in their health. An investment in the health of the nation's children will undoubtedly have long term rewards, as we move our understanding of and ability to treat childhood diseases far beyond current capabilities. Clearly, the time has come to comprehensively and aggressively tackle the primary causes of poor health for our children. I strongly support this legislation. The health of the nation rests on the health of our children, and we must do all we can to prevent and treat diseases that strike at the most vulnerable members of society.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the introduction of the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000''. We first brought this legislation to the floor of the Senate as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fact, it is the pending amendment when we return to consideration of S.2. Simply stated, this bill is designed to help parents and others who care for young children acquire the resources and tools that they need to do their most important job---nurturing and teaching our children. There is broad, bi-partisan support for this legislation because many of my colleagues recognize the importance of learning in the first few years of life. Science has taught us that the most explosive time of learning for humans is during the first few years of life. Parents and others who provide care for our children need some help and support to make the most of these early years. Changes in family structures, the weakening of the role of the extended family, and the rise in the number of working mothers have increased the need for communities to provide additional support for parents. The Early Learning Opportunities Act builds on existing state and federal efforts by expanding the range of programs, the types of activities, and the populations served by other early learning initiatives. Current federal efforts focused on early childhood learning promote programs that provide full- or part-day out of home care and education. Rather than duplicate these programs, the Early Learning Opportunities Act places its emphasis on helping parents and other caretakers increase their abilities to support positive child development. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will provide funding for parent support programs. Parents are their child's most important teachers. Before anyone thinks about kindergarten, teaching the alphabet, or counting the number of blocks in a tower, children are learning from their parents. When a parent talks and sings to an infant, the baby is learning about sounds and words as a method of communication. When children are fed and then rocked to sleep, they learn about security and love, which will contribute to their sense of self and autonomy. Long before they walk through the schoolhouse door, children have learned important lessons from their parents and others who have taken care of them during the first few years of life. Funding for the Early Learning Opportunities Act can be used to promote effective parenting and family literacy through a variety of community-based programs, services and activities. If parents are actively engaged in their child's early learning, their children will see greater cognitive and non-cognitive benefits. While all parents want their children to grow up happy and healthy, few are fully prepared for the demands of parenthood. Many parents have difficulty finding the information and support they seek to help their children grow to their full potential. Making that information and support available and accessible to parents is a key component of the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Early Learning Opportunities Act funds can be used to provide training for child care providers on early childhood development, child safety, and other skills that improve the quality of child care. For many families it is not possible for a parent to remain home to care for their children. Their employment is not a choice, but an essential part of their family's economic survival. And for most of these families, child care is not an option, but a requirement, as parents struggle to meet the competing demands of work and family. Just as it is essential that we provide parents with the tools they need to help their children grow and develop, we also must help the people who care for our nation's children while parents are at work. States can use a portion of the funds made available for the Early Learning Opportunities Act for statewide initiatives, such as wage and benefit subsidies which encourage child care staff recruitment and incentives to increase staff retention Today, more than 13 million young children--including half of all infants--spend at least part of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. In Vermont alone, there are about 22,000 children, under the age of six, in state-regulated child care. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will improve local collaboration and coordination among child care providers, parents, libraries, community centers, schools, and other community service providers. By assessing existing resources and identifying local needs, the community organizations receiving funds will serve as a catalyst for the more effective use of early learning dollars and the removal of barriers that prevent more children, parents and caretakers from participating in good programs. Parents and child care providers will be able to access more services, activities and programs that help them care for children. An investment in early learning today will save money tomorrow. Many of America's children enter school without the necessary abilities and maturity. Without successful remediation efforts, these children continue to lag behind for their entire academic career. We spend billions of dollars on efforts to help these children catch up. Research has demonstrated that for each dollar invested in quality early learning programs, the federal government can save over five dollars. These savings result from future reductions in the number of children and families who participate in federal government programs like Title I, special education, and welfare. The Early Learning Opportunities Act is designed to be locally controlled and driven by the unique needs of each community. The legislation authorizes $3.25 billion in discretionary funding over three years for early learning block grants to states. The bill ensures that the majority of the funds will channeled through the states to local councils. The councils are charged with assessing the early learning needs of the community, and distributing the funds to a broad variety of local resources to meet those needs. In Vermont, the Success by Six initiative has demonstrated the importance of placing the resources and responsibilities at the local community level. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will serve as a catalyst to engage diverse sectors of the community in increasing programs, services, and activities that promote the healthy development of our youngest citizens. Funds may be used by the local councils in a variety of ways: to support reading readiness programs in libraries, parenting classes at the local health center, parent-child recreation programs in the park, and child development classes at the school. Access to existing early learning programs can be increased by expanding the days or times that young children are served, by increasing the number of children served, or by improving the affordability of programs for low- income children. Transportation can be provided to increase participation in early learning programs, activities and services. By keeping the use of the funds flexible, local councils can work with parents, health care professionals, educators, child care providers, recreation specialists, and other groups and individuals in the community to create an affordable, accessible network of early learning activities. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will help parents and care givers who are looking for better ways to integrate positive learning experiences into the daily lives of our youngest children. When children enter school ready to learn, all of the advantages of their school experiences are opened to them--their opportunities are unlimited. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000''. I urge you to give our nation's children every opportunity to succeed in school and in life.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the introduction of the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000''. We first brought this legislation to the floor of the Senate as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fact, it is the pending amendment when we return to consideration of S.2. Simply stated, this bill is designed to help parents and others who care for young children acquire the resources and tools that they need to do their most important job---nurturing and teaching our children. There is broad, bi-partisan support for this legislation because many of my colleagues recognize the importance of learning in the first few years of life. Science has taught us that the most explosive time of learning for humans is during the first few years of life. Parents and others who provide care for our children need some help and support to make the most of these early years. Changes in family structures, the weakening of the role of the extended family, and the rise in the number of working mothers have increased the need for communities to provide additional support for parents. The Early Learning Opportunities Act builds on existing state and federal efforts by expanding the range of programs, the types of activities, and the populations served by other early learning initiatives. Current federal efforts focused on early childhood learning promote programs that provide full- or part-day out of home care and education. Rather than duplicate these programs, the Early Learning Opportunities Act places its emphasis on helping parents and other caretakers increase their abilities to support positive child development. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will provide funding for parent support programs. Parents are their child's most important teachers. Before anyone thinks about kindergarten, teaching the alphabet, or counting the number of blocks in a tower, children are learning from their parents. When a parent talks and sings to an infant, the baby is learning about sounds and words as a method of communication. When children are fed and then rocked to sleep, they learn about security and love, which will contribute to their sense of self and autonomy. Long before they walk through the schoolhouse door, children have learned important lessons from their parents and others who have taken care of them during the first few years of life. Funding for the Early Learning Opportunities Act can be used to promote effective parenting and family literacy through a variety of community-based programs, services and activities. If parents are actively engaged in their child's early learning, their children will see greater cognitive and non-cognitive benefits. While all parents want their children to grow up happy and healthy, few are fully prepared for the demands of parenthood. Many parents have difficulty finding the information and support they seek to help their children grow to their full potential. Making that information and support available and accessible to parents is a key component of the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Early Learning Opportunities Act funds can be used to provide training for child care providers on early childhood development, child safety, and other skills that improve the quality of child care. For many families it is not possible for a parent to remain home to care for their children. Their employment is not a choice, but an essential part of their family's economic survival. And for most of these families, child care is not an option, but a requirement, as parents struggle to meet the competing demands of work and family. Just as it is essential that we provide parents with the tools they need to help their children grow and develop, we also must help the people who care for our nation's children while parents are at work. States can use a portion of the funds made available for the Early Learning Opportunities Act for statewide initiatives, such as wage and benefit subsidies which encourage child care staff recruitment and incentives to increase staff retention Today, more than 13 million young children--including half of all infants--spend at least part of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. In Vermont alone, there are about 22,000 children, under the age of six, in state-regulated child care. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will improve local collaboration and coordination among child care providers, parents, libraries, community centers, schools, and other community service providers. By assessing existing resources and identifying local needs, the community organizations receiving funds will serve as a catalyst for the more effective use of early learning dollars and the removal of barriers that prevent more children, parents and caretakers from participating in good programs. Parents and child care providers will be able to access more services, activities and programs that help them care for children. An investment in early learning today will save money tomorrow. Many of America's children enter school without the necessary abilities and maturity. Without successful remediation efforts, these children continue to lag behind for their entire academic career. We spend billions of dollars on efforts to help these children catch up. Research has demonstrated that for each dollar invested in quality early learning programs, the federal government can save over five dollars. These savings result from future reductions in the number of children and families who participate in federal government programs like Title I, special education, and welfare. The Early Learning Opportunities Act is designed to be locally controlled and driven by the unique needs of each community. The legislation authorizes $3.25 billion in discretionary funding over three years for early learning block grants to states. The bill ensures that the majority of the funds will channeled through the states to local councils. The councils are charged with assessing the early learning needs of the community, and distributing the funds to a broad variety of local resources to meet those needs. In Vermont, the Success by Six initiative has demonstrated the importance of placing the resources and responsibilities at the local community level. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will serve as a catalyst to engage diverse sectors of the community in increasing programs, services, and activities that promote the healthy development of our youngest citizens. Funds may be used by the local councils in a variety of ways: to support reading readiness programs in libraries, parenting classes at the local health center, parent-child recreation programs in the park, and child development classes at the school. Access to existing early learning programs can be increased by expanding the days or times that young children are served, by increasing the number of children served, or by improving the affordability of programs for low- income children. Transportation can be provided to increase participation in early learning programs, activities and services. By keeping the use of the funds flexible, local councils can work with parents, health care professionals, educators, child care providers, recreation specialists, and other groups and individuals in the community to create an affordable, accessible network of early learning activities. The Early Learning Opportunities Act will help parents and care givers who are looking for better ways to integrate positive learning experiences into the daily lives of our youngest children. When children enter school ready to learn, all of the advantages of their school experiences are opened to them--their opportunities are unlimited. I urge my colleagues to support and co-sponsor the ``Early Learning Opportunities Act of 2000''. I urge you to give our nation's children every opportunity to succeed in school and in life.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this discussion of a national missile defense system comes at a timely moment. As we struggle to complete action on our thirteen appropriations bills that fund the Federal Government, we are confronted with many unmet needs and the desire to reduce the amount the Federal Government takes from the American taxpayers' hard earned income. The budget agreement locks in spending limits and requires a balanced budget, thereby preventing us from increasing spending on missile defense without cutting other programs. The debate over how much to spend in research on a national missile defense (NMD) system and whether it is time to make a decision on deployment strongly effects both the government's ability to meet the needs of Americans and the likelihood that we will be able to return money to the taxpayers of this country. The costs of such a system and the choices it would force us to make must be carefully weighed against the benefit of an NMD system, the chances that it would work, and the effect that deployment would have on the arms control agenda of the United States. The decision on how much to spend on an NMD research program cannot be made without considering these questions. We must ask how much we can afford to spend on defense. I argue that national security also has a social component: affordable health care for all Americans, better job opportunities, a strong education system and economic security for America's seniors are all facets of a strong America. Without these things, military technology cannot protect America from the real threats against us. I have long supported a reasonable program of research and testing of anti-ballistic missile technologies, while opposing efforts to throw huge increases at the program. I hope that thoughtful research will lead to some technological breakthroughs on ways to counter ballistic missiles. Their proliferation, especially in the hands of irresponsible leaders such as North Korea's Kim Jong Il, requires that we actively investigate possible defenses. We cannot ignore the emergence of new nuclear threats to the United States. A premature decision to deploy an inadequately tested national missile defense system would also be a risk to national security. We cannot afford to spend huge amounts of money on a system we are not certain would work, or on a system that might provoke the very reaction from rogue states that we are ultimately trying to prevent. I am a strong believer in strengthening international non-proliferation regimes such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which I am very disappointed the Senate has failed to ratify. Successful non-proliferation efforts are worth every penny! The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has also served us well for many years, and we must be careful to not throw out a valuable asset in our rush to jump on the newest technology. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's amendment to add some important requirements to any national missile defense testing regime. This amendment would require realistic testing of an NMD system against the countermeasures that might be deployed against it. Senator Durbin's amendment would help ensure that if we move to consider deployment of an NMD system, we would have a realistic assessment of that system's expected performance. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of an NMD system must consider not only the capabilities of the system itself, but its ability to survive what we expect might be thrown up to defeat it. Without this information, it would be hard to judge the true utility of such a system, and easy to overestimate its performance. This past Friday's failed test of a space intercept brings into sharper focus the issue of claims and performance of an NMD system. Without realistic tests proving the expectations of researchers, we can never be sure that laboratory results can be duplicated in practice. It might be tempting to rush to deploy a system that appeared to provide significant protection for the American people. Passage of this amendment would help ensure that any system have a reasonable chance of working before it is considered for deployment. I continue to believe that our greatest vulnerability to nuclear attack is not from a nuclear bomb delivered by an intercontinental ballistic missile, but rather from a nuclear devise slipped into the country in some much less visible way, like hidden in some cargo coming into a major U.S. seaport. Committing many billions of dollars to deploy the proposed defense systems would do nothing to protect us against this very real threat. At this time, it would be much more productive to invest these funds in stopping the spread of nuclear technologies and in using other means to counter terrorist organizations and other rogue elements. Personally, I believe that the politics of missile defense have gotten way out ahead of the science of missile defense. This amendment would help restore the proper order of these concepts. I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment.