Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006--Continued

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. We have been in Iraq for over 3 years. We have been asking for investigations of these no-bid contracts to these large companies. We have to have Congress accept its responsibility with oversight hearings. More oversight hearings have been held by party caucuses in the Senate than by actual committees looking at these same companies we think are profiteering and ripping off taxpayers.

Congress has a responsibility, too, not just the Department of Defense. We have a responsibility in the Senate. We ought to bring this message to both of our caucuses and say, When are we going to have oversight hearings on those contracting with the Pentagon and making millions of dollars and not making us stronger as a nation?

I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a delicate subject. He has the courage to bring it before us.

IRAQ

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about Iraq as well. I come each and every week. The reason I came the first week was that back home in Illinois someone said: I watch a lot of C-SPAN. Why don't you talk about the war in Iraq? Why doesn't anybody come to the floor and talk about the men and women dying over there? Shouldn't that be brought up every day in the Senate--our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, the bravest and best are dying every day in Iraq?

I thought to myself: How can we be in the middle of a war and go about business as usual on Capitol Hill? We should be talking about this every single day because the war goes on every single day.

This morning, the Pentagon released these figures as of 10 o'clock: 1,942 Americans have been killed in Iraq; 14,902 have been wounded. I have been to these hospitals--Walter Reed, the veterans hospitals back in the Midwest--and I have seen these brave men and women who have come home wounded and, trust me, many of those wounds are extremely serious. They have come home with amputations, serious head injuries, and psychological scars.

Since the Iraqi elections last January, which were greeted by all of us with a great deal of praise for the bravery of the Iraqi people, since those elections took place, 507 of these American soldiers have died, 507 funerals in America. The numbers keep climbing. Some days it is one at a time. Other terrible days it is five or six. Mr. President, 1,942 Americans killed in Iraq; almost 15,000 wounded.

So I will keep coming to the floor to address this issue, to make sure we never forget these men and women and the sacrifice that they, their families, and people who love them make every single day.

I don't want to pretend for a moment this was brought up to me over the weekend. I don't want to pretend for a moment this is the only death and suffering in Iraq. There are innocent Iraqi people who die every day as well. We cannot even put a number on it. I said to my staff: Go to the United Nations, go to the Red Cross, go to some group and tell me how many Iraqis have died since our invasion of Iraq.

They cannot come up with a number. Some estimates are very different. The Brookings Institution, which is recognized as a nonpartisan research organization, puts the estimate between 14,000 and 24,000 Iraqis who have been killed since the start of the war. Others have estimates that go much higher. We don't know. We don't know how many innocent people have died as a result of this war or how many died because of criminal violence.

Iraqis still die every day. Just this last week, we had three coordinated car suicide bombs that went off in a single marketplace. You have seen the photos. You have seen the people, crushed with grief--the mothers, the friends, and fathers, standing next to the mutilated corpses of these victims. These bombs that were detonated recently were staggered to explode at different times so they killed as many innocent people as possible. This is a tactic we have seen over and over again in Israel. Now it has come to pass in Iraq on a regular basis. It is despicable, it is depraved conduct. It is an example of inhumane cruelty.

These attacks on American soldiers and on the innocent Iraqis underline the importance of our mission there and the need for us to be prepared to bring this to the right conclusion. We need to have better training and equipment of the Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police. They must not only have the capability to defend themselves, they must have the will to defend themselves.

Last week, General Abizaid, Commander of the Central Command, and General Casey, Commander of United States and coalition forces in Iraq, testified before Congress. They disclosed a piece of information that had been classified for a long period of time, but they finally brought it out to the American people, and we can speak to it on the floor. It is a piece of information we have known from our classified briefings for some time, and it is this: Of over 100 battalions of Iraqi Army forces in existence today in Iraq, exactly 1 battalion is ready to fight independently--1 out of over 100. That is an incredible number. Billions of dollars that we put in there, promises to the American people that Iraqi soldiers will stand and fight so our soldiers can come home, and as of last week, these two generals testified in open session that one battalion is combat ready as an independent force.

President Bush has said over and over: As Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down. There is only one Iraqi battalion. That is about 1,000 soldiers. Only 1 battalion standing up; 146,000 American soldiers standing up. They are trying to bring peace to a country that is obviously not ready to defend itself and may not be for a long time.

Many Members on this side of the aisle and the other side are stating very clearly that we need assessments, not platitudes, when it comes to the situation in Iraq. We need to know how many Iraqi forces must be trained so we can start bringing home American troops. We need to know when this administration expects we will reach that number. The fact is over the last 6 months, despite all the promises that have been made, still only one battalion is ready to fight, and the American people need to know the cost, not just in these graphic human terms, but in terms of dollars being spent: $5 billion a month in Iraq. We appropriated $18 billion for the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq, and I remind my colleagues that when we debated that, I don't recall a single Senator coming to the floor and saying: We have to cut spending in some other area before we rebuild Iraq. No, they save that argument for the rebuilding of America after Hurricane Katrina. But we put the $18 billion in place.

Yet when you read the press accounts of the average families in Iraq today, they tell you that life is so much worse than it was a few years ago--no electricity, no sewage, no regular water, no security on the streets, fears that their children will be kidnapped on the way to school. They are trying to leave if they can find a way out. That is the real situation in Iraq on the ground today despite the heroic efforts of our men and women in uniform. Our men and women in uniform have not failed; the political leaders have failed--failed to come up with a plan which said after Saddam Hussein is gone, this is how we will end this war. Sadly, we were not prepared to answer that question, and our soldiers have paid the price.

I am told the President this week will be giving a speech to America about Iraq. It is time for some answers, specific answers, and it is time for accountability. Let's get beyond the generalities. We are talking about real human lives--our sons and daughters--and we need specific answers.

I respectfully suggest the President ought to address four issues: First, how many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating on their own before we can start bringing American soldiers back home, and how soon will we reach those goals?

Second, what specific measures will the Bush administration take before and after the October 15 constitutional referendum to forge the necessary political consensus and reconcile the growing sectarian and religious differences?

Three, what efforts has President Bush made or will he make to bring in broader international support? The coalition of the willing has been shrinking ever since the invasion of Iraq. It is American soldiers and some British soldiers and a few others willing to stand and fight and secure this country. What is this administration doing, if anything, to bring in Muslim forces so we can blunt the criticism that we are somehow a force of occupation, unwelcome in this Muslim country?

Fourth, how should the American people assess the progress in reconstructing Iraq? What are the tangible results of the billions of dollars American taxpayers have provided for Iraq? How is this money being accounted for?

I made the point earlier to the Senator from Oklahoma that we have yet to have a serious oversight hearing about the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Haliburton, all of the names we have heard over and over again, multimillion and billion-dollar contracts, and we won't even ask the hard questions as to whether the money is being well spent. We are shirking our responsibility, our congressional oversight responsibility.

I hope the President goes beyond generalities in his speech. Let's get down to specifics. Let's say to the American people and the soldiers they love: This is our plan for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

I hope this speech is an announcement that we have a new strategy, a strategy for success, a strategy for our soldiers to come home. Staying the course is not a new strategy. I hope on Thursday the President speaks truth to the American people. I hope he offers honest and realistic assessments of what we face.

On October 15, the people of Iraq will vote on a constitution. If it passes, there will be parliamentary elections in December. If it is rejected, the constitutional process will start all over again in December.

There is a lot of speculation about what might happen. A constitution alone is not going to stop the violence, but if the constitution can lead to a unified country or the notion of nationhood making any sense, then that constitution is a step in the right direction.

Sadly, this nation of Iraq is a nation of many different groups who have yet to show us they can come together, and until they do, it is unlikely we can bring our troops home.

There were 23 of us in the Senate who voted against the use-of-force resolution; 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats who had serious questions about this decision by this administration to invade Iraq. Many of us felt we needed a broader alliance. Many of us felt the information given to the American people prior to the invasion was misleading about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear threats, and alliances with al-Qaida.

Sadly, in the 3 years since, we found that information was just plain wrong. Information given to the American people to ask them to give their sons and daughters in combat was just plain wrong. And here we stand today.

Iraq is a diverse place. The war has made the differences among religious and ethnic groups so much more than they were even before our invasion. To add to these internal tensions, I know there are many neighbors of Iraq who don't want to see that nation succeed. It is a mean neighborhood, no question. Syria, Iran, and others clearly are fomenting trouble, making a terrible situation even worse.

The enemies of Iraqi progress in unity would like to see this division and chaos continue. The Sunnis, the Shi'as, the Kurds, and 24 other recognized groups have the future of Iraq in their hands. The question is whether they believe they have the possibility of becoming a nation and defending themselves.

Many Sunnis did not participate in the last election to choose those who wrote the constitution. We have been told as late as today that they are rewriting the constitution 10 days before the election in the hopes of winning Sunni support.

It is hard to believe this is going to result in what we hope for, but I pray it will. A stable Iraq, moving forward, controlling its own destiny, is the best thing for that country and the best thing for America.

There are a lot of reasons why the Sunnis oppose the constitution. They represent 20 percent of the population, but they represent about 90 percent of these insurgents who are causing these attacks every day, killing innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform. Most Sunnis are not insurgents; they are peace-loving people. But they are being overrun by forces they cannot control.

There is a fight over oil. The oil is primarily in Shi'a and Kurdish territory. The Sunnis resent that fact. They want to make certain the riches of that country are shared.

The constitution postpones a lot of critical decisions to a later date, but this constitution is the fundamental underlying law that could guide Iraq in its future.

I am told that when we take a look at the militias and forces in Iraq, we find they are basically split into different factions. Only one battalion combines Iraqis. The others are Kurdish battalions and Shi'a battalions and Sunni battalions. It does not give a positive feeling about this nation moving forward toward one common country.

I hope we can see the changes that are being proposed in this constitution result in its passage and support by all of the different forces that can make Iraq a nation on its own feet.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told President Bush before the war: You break it, you buy it. That is not entirely true. We may well have broken Iraq from what it once was, but we cannot and do not own it. We are unwelcome tenants at this moment in that country, but we need to start thinking about when we will return, and we need to have the hope and the aspirations of the people of Iraq in our minds and be prepared to accept them.

President Bush has a chance tomorrow to tell us that there is a new course, a course that will stop the killing of innocent American soldiers, a course which will avoid those who are wounded and suffering as a result of this war in Iraq, and a course which will bring to an end quickly the insurgency which kills so many innocent Iraqis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, military personnel are under tremendous pressure to be physically fit. The conditions under which they work and train are often harsh and demanding, making physical strength and endurance essential.

This pressure makes dietary supplements particularly attractive to members of our Armed Services, especially products marketed for weight loss and performance enhancement.

Finding these products on base is easy. A 2004 report on dietary supplements in the journal Military Medicine notes that a newly deployed U.S. Air Force base had eight different dietary supplements stocked on its shelves that were marketed for weightlifting and energy enhancement just 5 months after it opened. Six of these products contained the notorious supplement ephedra.

This article appeared in Exchange and Commissary News last month. It describes a store where the ``supplement category is located on the main aisle at the front of the store, indicative of its importance to our customers.''

Thermogenic's Extreme Thermo Rush is one of the most popular items. Extreme Thermo Rush contains 200 mg of caffeine. That is the equivalent caffeine in five cans of Coca-Cola. In addition, this drink contains 200 mg of Citrus Aurantium, which is an ephedra-substitute that was found by a group of University of California scientists to increase heart rate among healthy people. It is a stimulant. These scientists released a report in April saying that dietary supplements containing Citrus Aurantium could have some of the same adverse health effects associated with ephedra products.

Let's look at just how many service members are taking supplements.

As you can see from this chart, a 1999 study by the U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine found that 85 percent of the 2,200 male soldiers surveyed reported use of dietary supplements.

A similar study conducted by the Department of the Navy found that 89 percent of Marines have used supplements. When broken down by category, the survey showed that 26 percent of Marines took supplements containing stimulants.

Most dietary supplements are safe and provide health benefits to those who take them.

I am not on the warpath against a daily vitamin tablet. I take my vitamins every day. I don't know if it helps to make me healthy, but it makes me feel better to take them and I do, and I think everyone should have the right to make that decision. But we are talking about a different category of dietary supplements. We are not talking about multivitamins or minerals, we are talking about stimulants.

Some of these supplements, these stimulants, can cause serious harm. Of greatest concern are those containing stimulants such as ephedra and citrus aurantium, which are often marketed for energy promotion, performance-enhancement, and weight loss. The Navy released a list of serious problems they had encountered among sailors and officers related to dietary supplements recently. The list includes health events such as death, rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, severe chest pain, and becoming increasingly delusional. These are over-the-counter products sold nominally to make you more energetic or to lose weight which when taken result in these conditions: shortness of breath, rapid heart rate, severe chest pain, and becoming delusional, and in one or two cases, probably more, actual death. Unfortunately, most of the time adverse events such as these are never known to the Food and Drug Administration or to the public because not only is there no premarket safety review of these products, there is not even a mandatory adverse-events reporting to the FDA.

Consider this: If you walk into a drugstore to fill a prescription the doctor has given you, the prescription is filled, you go home, you have a bad reaction to that drug, and you go back to the hospital or doctor because of that reaction. That is reported to the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA can then look across America and say: Wait a minute, we are finding people who have adverse reactions to this drug over and over again. We better take a closer look at it or take it off the shelf because it could be dangerous. So the prescription drugs you buy have an adverse-event report requirement. In other words, if you sell the product in America and somebody gets sick or dies, you have to tell somebody. You have to report it to the Government.
So if, in fact, it is a dangerous product, it is removed from the shelf.

Then let's go back to the beginning. In order to put a product on the shelf like a prescription drug, they have to be tested in advance by the Food and Drug Administration for two things: safety and efficacy. In other words, if you take the normal dosage, would the normal person be safe in taking it? I think we want to know that. And second, is that drug which you just took for arthritis really helpful when it comes to the condition of arthritis? Efficacy.

But the dietary supplements we are talking about are never tested in advance. They are not tested as to whether they are safe. There is no FDA review of clinical data. There is no requirement manufacturers produce it. And when it comes to efficacy, we find time and again that these companies, many of them fly-by-night operations by people with limited resumes and limited talent selling so-called supplements with all sorts of health claims, turn out be not even close to effective for what they charge or what they say they can achieve. Here you have a whole category of dietary supplements without testing as to their safety, without testing to make sure they actually do what they say they are going to do, for sale. Where? All over America, in every drugstore you walk into, and some gas stations. If you go into a convenience store or gas station, don't be surprised to see dietary supplements on the counter. I bet you think as a consumer they couldn't sell those in America if they were not safe. Yes, they could. There is no requirement they be safe. There is no requirement they be tested.

So you think, I guess if somebody ever got sick, they would be reported to the Government, and the Government would take them off the shelf. There is no requirement in the law to report, even if a person drops dead from taking a dietary supplement. It is, in fact, the biggest gamble a consumer can take for many of these dietary supplements. There has been no testing. There are very few, if any, quality standards to certify what they say on the label happens to be what is inside the bottle. There is no testing to determine if it is effective. There is no report if it turns out it is harmful.

I referred several times in this statement to ephedra, supplements containing ephedra. The military across the United States took ephedra off its shelf at the end of 2002 because between 1997 and 2001 at least 30 Active-Duty personnel died after taking it. Ephedra is something most people are aware of. Ephedra was this dietary supplement, this naturally occurring substance similar to the drug ephedrine, which people took and which was a stimulant. Over the years, we found out it was dangerous to a lot of people. Thirty Active-Duty military personnel died. Many others did as well. It turns out that ephedra was then banned in Canada. You cannot buy it in Canada.

The American Medical Association suggested we ban it here in the United States, too, because it is too dangerous to be sold as a dietary supplement. But the industry that makes these products is extremely powerful. As I recount to you what happened with ephedrine, you will find out why.

After 7 years of effort, the FDA finally banned ephedra in 2004. At that time, 150 deaths were linked to that product. But one Federal court in Utah this past April called into question the FDA procedure, and marketers of these products have hit the street with advertising: Ephedra Is Back. Look at this. Natural Life Nutrition Center in Cincinnati, OH, days after this court decision in Utah: ``Ephedra Is Back.'' You can buy your ephedra products again. They put up the sign to try to lure customers back. The court in Utah said the FDA had failed to justify its rule banning ephedra, particularly at lower doses, particularly 10 milligrams or less per day.

The FDA has said it will continue to enforce its ban except for doses 10 milligrams or lower, but less than 2 weeks after the ruling, just to show you how toothless the Food and Drug Administration is when it comes to dietary supplements, I had one of my staffers get on the Internet and see if we could buy some ephedra in larger doses. This staffer bought 30 pills containing 200 milligrams each from a company with a post office box in Boonville, MO.

The Federal Drug Administration, after this Utah court decision, said: OK, we will let you sell ephedra, but it can't be in doses in excess of 10 milligrams. It turns out that there is no enforcement whatsoever. You can continue to buy this ephedra over the Internet in 200-milligram doses, which could be very dangerous, if not lethal.

The FDA has announced it is appealing this ruling on ephedra, but clearly its hands are tied as it waits for a decision. That is why we need to step in. Congress needs to address this problem. We may not solve it with this bill, but we can do something to protect our men and women in uniform. We should be protecting everyone in America, but this bill addresses our men and women in uniform, and that is what my amendment addresses.

The intent of my amendment is to protect American soldiers from dietary supplements containing stimulants that have unknown adverse effects. This amendment will disallow funds from being used by military stores to sell dietary supplements containing stimulants in cases where it is made known to the Department of Defense that the manufacturer does not have a policy of reporting their serious adverse events to the FDA's Special Nutritional Adverse Event Monitoring System.

We know this happens. Manufacturers collect information, and we know it because of this infamous Metabolife case. You maybe remember the Metabolife brand. It was all over television, magazines, newspapers, selling Metabolife. It was something that was going to make you healthier and thinner and give you more energy.

About 5 years ago, Metabolife, a dietary supplement company specializing in diet products containing ephedra, told Congress it had received no reports of people taking their products who experienced serious injury or death. Guess what. They lied. After the company was sued, it was revealed that Metabolife had actually received over 16,500 adverse events of Metabolife with ephedra. Many reports were serious. They knew that more than 100 people had died from their product. They misled Congress. They told us they had not received any information of people taking their product and experiencing serious injury or death. Finally, when they were sued, the information came out.

The FDA collects that kind of information on prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. If they learned that something was being sold in America that killed 100 people or injured 16,000 people, they clearly would take action. But this industry is so powerful here in Washington that they conceal this information. They will not share it unless they are forced in a lawsuit.

You think to yourself, Why hasn't Congress risen to its responsibility of protecting consumers? Why don't we at a minimum require these companies to report it when these dietary supplements harm people seriously or kill them?

Frankly, this Congress is in the thrall of this industry, and it has shown for so many years. I went to the floor, this floor, last year to address the same issue. Some of my colleagues came to the floor and said: Oh, we can't wait to join you. This is a great idea, adverse-event reporting. Here we are again a year later and nothing has happened. The same Senators who said, ``We can't wait to work with you'' can't return phone calls when it comes to this issue.

My challenge to them is this: If you truly want to keep dangerous products off the market, if you happen to believe they are healthy products and don't hurt anybody, why are you afraid of adverse-event reporting? If it is good enough for the major pharmaceutical companies, why isn't it good for the nutritional supplement industry?

I hope my colleagues will come to the Chamber and understand that we are putting our men and women in uniform at risk by selling these dietary supplements which are being used by so many men and women in uniform and are dangerous. They are dangerous to their health.

The Institute of Medicine issued a report last year recommending that adverse-event reporting become mandatory for dietary supplement manufacturers--the Institute of Medicine. Here is what they said:

[W]hile spontaneous adverse event reports have recognized limitations, they have considerable strength as potential warning signals of problems requiring attention, making monitoring by the FDA worthwhile.

The Institute of Medicine recommended that Congress amend the 1994 supplement act, DSHEA, to require manufacturers of supplements to report to the FDA in a timely manner any serious adverse event associated with the use of their products.

The supporters of the amendment which I offer include the American Dietetic Association, the American Osteopathic Association, Consumers Union, Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

It wasn't that long ago that a starting pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles dropped dead. He was a man trying to lose some weight taking the ephedra stimulant, and obviously it cost him his life.

The same thing happened in my part of the world in central Illinois, where a 16-year-old boy getting ready for a football game wanted to have performance enhancement and goes down to the local gas station and buys over the counter an ephedra product, takes it and washes it down with a Mountain Dew and ends up dying from a heart attack--a healthy 16-year-old boy.

Now we have our men and women in uniform all across the United States walking into these base exchanges wanting to make sure they are at peak physical condition to serve this country and buying these dietary supplements which claim to enhance performance and give them new energy or perhaps lose some weight not realizing they are risking their lives every time because the shoddy manufacturers who sell these products do not report to the Government when people get sick and die because of these dietary supplements.

How long is it going to take us? How many Americans have to die before we accept responsibility for the consumers of this country? They trust us. They expect the Food and Drug Administration to be there, when it is needed, to report on these dangerous supplements. But we have let them down for more than 10 years since it was passed. We should not let them down when it comes to this bill. Let us start by protecting our men and women in uniform. Let us start by not letting them be in danger by buying the products on the shelves in these PXs or commissaries that are not good for them. That is, I think, the least we can do, and then let us not stop there. Let us move across America to say we are going to stand behind consumers; that we are going to stand behind children and families so that when they buy something in a drugstore in America that is supposed to be good for their health, they know their Government has at least the interest and has taken the time to make sure it is safe.

This is not some wild, crazy idea I have. It is an idea backed up by the leading medical organizations in America, and it is one that reflects the reality of the danger of these products.

I invite my colleagues to support amendment No. 2035, which I have introduced, when it comes up for consideration at a latter point in this bill.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Last year when I offered this amendment, Senator Hatch came to the floor. Senator Harkin joined afterwards. They conceded that they thought it was not a bad idea, if you sell dietary supplements in America, and somebody is harmed, seriously injured or dies as a result, that the manufacturer of that dietary supplement should report that event to the FDA so that they can see if there is a pattern, if it is something that might lead to a decision to take something off the market.

I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming: Does he agree with that? Does he think that is a reasonable standard to ask the dietary supplement manufacturers to report truly adverse events such as is required of the pharmaceutical companies today?

Mr. ENZI. I said before that I think it is very important for us to come up with a piece of legislation that does that on and off military bases, so there is a reporting of adverse events so that FDA can take action when it is affecting people, and have enough information to be able to tell whether they are acting properly or not. We do have an agency that is designed to do that. It is not the Department of Defense.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, I agree with the Senator. This is not the way to address it. I thought it was the only way to bring the subject up before the Senate. I wish to ask the Senator from Wyoming, whom I respect and I have worked with and we have been able to work out some very serious difficulties in the past and I know he genuinely wants to reach solutions, can the Senator from Wyoming give me his assurance that he will try to schedule hearings in the consideration of this issue on a timely basis before his committee so that we can raise this issue in a thoughtful way and address it beyond the Department of Defense?

Mr. ENZI. I can give the Senator assurances that we will deal with this issue. If you check with members of my committee, you will find that because of Katrina and pensions and all of the health issues that we have now, and all of the education, higher education and Head Start we are trying to work our way through, that we have gone to a system of roundtables instead that allows us to bring in more people with more information so we can learn more from them in order to be able to deal with these issues in a knowledgeable way.

It has been working. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Kennedy, who is ranking member on my committee, for this approach of being able to gather information so that we can do effective legislation quicker. As the Senator probably noticed, we have a lot of bills which we are working on, and it is because we have gone through a mechanism where we are working in a very bipartisan way to gather information. This is a bill of some priority for us.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, I salute the Senator. What he says is true. He has done an excellent job in joining both sides of the aisle with bipartisanship in finding solutions and getting things done. I am sorry we can't say that for all of us in the Senate. We could probably learn a lot the way the Senator from Wyoming approaches it. I don't want to suggest that the Senator change his approach. If the Senator from Wyoming will give me his assurance that this is a priority, that he will try to bring it up before his committee in a timely way when appropriate, I understand he has other priorities, if he will give me that assurance, I will withdraw this amendment. I hope we can work together from this point forward.

Mr. ENZI. I assure the Senator that we can work together, and it will be put into the prioritization. It is already in the prioritization of the committee. We are handling the emergencies first.

I apologize for the 2-week delay we had while we are working on Katrina. Staff is working on this one, along with the staff of the Senator from Illinois. We will do it.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment No. 2035.

http://thomas.loc.gov/