Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to commend my long-time friend, Senator McCain, for the initiative he has taken. It has been a privilege for me and many others to join him in this effort. I think what he stated here should be taken into consideration by every Senator tonight as they cast his or her vote.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 2033
Mr. Reed: Mr. President, rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. We are about to see an extraordinary runup in prices that imperil the ability of many families simply to keep their homes warm during this coming winter.In New England, the average cost for a family using heating oil is projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004. That is an extraordinary increase in the cost families have to spend to heat their homes.
For a family using natural gas in the Midwest, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over the price of the 2003-2004 heating season.
The Mortgage Bankers Association, looking at this data, expects steep energy costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes this year. So we have observers who are fearful that this huge energy shock could cause families to, indeed, lose their homes.
In America, no family should be forced to choose between heating their home or putting food on the table for their children. No senior citizen should have to decide to either buy lifesaving pharmaceuticals or pay their electric bill. But, unfortunately, low-income working Americans are facing these decisions this winter.
In some respects, this is a tidal wave, not of rising water but of rising energy prices which is a consequence of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
For this reason, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and I offered an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill to provide $3.1 billion in emergency funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This funding will provide our Nation's most vulnerable--low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals-- with affordable energy this winter. Again, we saw and were shocked as a nation to see rising waters imperil the most vulnerable in our society on the gulf coast. Well, these rising energy prices will do the same thing by threatening the most vulnerable people through the Northeast, through the Midwest, through every area of the country that anticipates cold weather this winter.
I urge my colleagues to join us to secure $3.1 billion in additional LIHEAP funding.
In September, I, along with over 20 of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the President urging that he include additional funding for LIHEAP in a supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. We sensed, as he sensed, that one of the consequences of Katrina was a severe shock to our energy sector with complementary increases in prices. So I believe it is appropriate to deal with this issue now. We are waiting not only for the supplemental for Katrina, but also dealing with it on this particular appropriations bill.
On Monday, I was dismayed to learn that President Bush currently does not have plans to request additional LIHEAP funds this year. States are bracing for a crisis caused by a lack of affordable energy, and this funding will ensure low-income families and seniors will have safe, warm homes this winter.
President Bush, I strongly urge that you reconsider. The warning has been issued. Will you once again ignore a looming crisis facing America?
In addition to LIHEAP funding, there are other steps that Congress and the administration need to take to address our Nation's high energy costs. First, we need to pass Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act to ban price gouging at the gas pump in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
Second, we need to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profits Rebate Act which imposes a temporary windfall profits tax on big oil companies and uses the revenues to provide a rebate to American consumers to help offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products.
Total energy spending for the Nation this year will approach $1 trillion, 24 percent higher than in 2004. Energy will claim the biggest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil and natural gas companies are making record profits, while energy prices are overcoming and overtaking workers' salary increases. This is wrong.
We also must fix those bankrupt energy policies that provide oil and gas companies with billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury for production. These tax breaks should be repealed to pay for LIHEAP and conservation programs that help American energy consumers, not big business.
The Federal Government must lead by example also. The President called on Americans to reduce their energy consumption and conserve oil. I know American families are up to this challenge and will respond. But Americans have the right to expect that their President and their Government will also make sacrifices.
The President should implement a Federal savings target to demonstrate a serious commitment to improving our Nation's energy security. He should set a 40-percent savings target for Federal agencies by 2020. Over the past few years, the Federal Government has reduced its petroleum consumption by less than 1 percent. We can and we must do better.
As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our priorities. Now is not the time to cut funding for social programs such as LIHEAP, Medicaid, and food stamps that support working families and seniors while the President and Members of the Senate continue to push for irresponsible tax breaks. We must prioritize, and the most vulnerable among us must be considered first.
Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. They deserve our support. I hope the President and this Congress will heed this warning and help build an energy safety net for all Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Martinez): The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. Inouye: Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1963
Mr. Inouye: Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from New Jersey,
Mr. Lautenberg, I send to the desk an amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1963.The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a website listing information on Federal contractor misconduct, and to require reports on Federal no-bid contracts related to Iraq reconstruction)
On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
SEC. 8116. ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING.
(a) Publication of Information on Federal Contractor Misconduct.--The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a publicly-available website that provides information on instances of improper conduct by contractors entering into or carrying out Federal contracts, including instances in which contractors have been fined, paid penalties or restitution, settled, plead guilty to, or had judgments entered against them in connection with allegations of improper conduct.
(b) Reports on Federal No-Bid Contracts Related to Iraq Reconstruction.--
(1) Reports required.--Not later than 7 days after entering into a no-bid contract to procure property or services in connection with Iraq reconstruction, the head of an executive agency shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the contract.
(2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include the following information:
(A) The date the contract was awarded.
(B) The contract number.
(C) The name of the contractor.
(D) The amounts awarded and obligated under the contract.
(E) The scope of work under the contract.
(3) Publication.--The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a publicly-available website that lists the information provided in reports submitted under paragraph (1).
(4) Executive agency defined.--In this subsection, the term "executive agency" has the meaning given such term in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
Mr. Inouye: I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 2016
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of Senator Shelby.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 2016.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the transfer from the Army of authority relating to the tactical unmanned aerial vehicles)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Transfer of Authority On Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to transfer research and development, acquisition, or other program authority relating to current tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army.
(b) Extended Range Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.--The Army shall retain responsibility for and operational control of the Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in matters relating to the employment of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, regarding the two amendments that were sent to the desk, I ask that they be considered en bloc.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc.
The question is on agreeing to amendments Nos. 1963 and 2016.
The amendments (Nos. 1963 and 2016) were agreed to.
Mr. Stevens: I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. Inouye: I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. Landrieu: I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. Stevens: Has the Senator called up an amendment?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is about to identify the amendment she wishes to call up.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1942
Ms. Landrieu: I call up amendment No. 1942.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an amendment numbered 1942.
Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $20,000,000 for Other Procurement, Air Force, for the implementation of IMT-2000 3G Standards Based Communications information Extension capability for the Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Implementation of IMT-2000 3G Communications Capabilities.--Of the amount appropriated by title II under the heading "Operation and Maintenance, Air Force", up to $10,000,000 may be used by the United States Northern Command for the purposes of implementing IMT-2000 3G Standards Based Communications Information Extension capabilities for the Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility (AOR).
(b) Implementation of IMT-2000 3G Communications Capabilities.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title III under the heading "Other Procurement, Air Force", up to $20,000,000 may be used by the United States Northern Command for the purposes of implementing IMT-2000 3G Standards Based Communications Information Extension capabilities for the Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility (AOR).
Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, as we consider many important amendments to this underlying bill, I will take just a moment to speak about this amendment which I offer that will call the attention of my colleagues to the important investments that we should be making in interoperability and communications.
As my colleagues know, we have had a very recent disaster along the gulf coast that has made quite apparent the lack of a communications system that is adequate to handle natural disasters of this magnitude and even manmade disasters that we could contemplate. So this is quite serious. I know there are many committees of the Senate and the House that are working very hard on this issue right now.
Since Katrina and Rita and even before these terrible hurricanes and the subsequent flooding of this region, which has been devastating, we have known for some time that we have to get a better system of communication. Our military has some interesting and very promising initiatives underway that could truly help us at this time. That is basically what this $30 million amendment will do, is dedicate or allocate $30 million to U.S. Northern Command for the purposes of implementing IMT-2000 3G Communications Capabilities. The IMT-2000 3G Standards will be used for the Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility, AOR.
We have many needs that have shown themselves out of this storm and out of the subsequent disaster. It would be hard even for the Senator from the State that was most directly hit to have to list them in an order of priority because they are overwhelming and they are so great: water, food, electricity, housing, direct help to our local governments. We will debate that as these days unfold, and we will debate that as these weeks and months unfold.
One thing I am positively sure of is that the communications system we had in this country did not work well in 9/11. It did not work well for the hurricanes that hit the Presiding Officer's State in such a devastating way only a year or two ago, and it did not work well for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which experienced one of the worst natural disasters in the history of the country.
To address the devastating problems caused by the lack of communication, $30 million is a small investment. I offer this amendment and ask, as we move through the next few days of consideration of this Defense bill, if we would please take a very careful look at the importance of this amendment.
I submit the amendment for the Senate's consideration.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I have an amendment pending which I would like to speak to. I will not call up this amendment at this time.
Mr. Inhofe: Reserving the right to object.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. Inhofe: The unanimous consent agreement was to set aside the quorum call. I wanted to find out if the Senator is going to be offering it now. I wanted to get the floor if he is. If not, I will not object.
Mr. Durbin: I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I am only going to speak to my amendment and will offer it at a later time, and I will probably take in the range of 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. Inhofe: I will not object.
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.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. Enzi: Mr. President, I rise today with mixed feelings on what I heard because this was brought up under the Defense authorization bill. I talked to the Senator from Illinois, and we agreed that we would work on something--that would actually do something. We have been doing that, but with a slight interruption from Katrina. Now it is being offered again. And in the same way, I have mixed emotions because I probably ought to suggest to the Senator from Alaska to take this amendment because it will not achieve anything. We have an opportunity to do something and to achieve something. But this amendment will not do that.
Of course, it brings some attention to the fact that there may be some adverse reaction to dietary supplements. That is important. The discussion is important. If we had more time for discussion, we ought to have a lot of discussion on it, but we don't have a lot of time. I will try to keep my remarks brief on this.
This amendment would withhold funding from any store on a military installation or a commissary store--most of those are on military installations as well--that sells any dietary supplement containing a stimulant unless the manufacturers of the supplement submits reports on serious adverse events associated with the supplement. If they don't, we shut down the action on the base. But that is definitely not the only place you can buy dietary supplements. What we merely do is invite military people to go off base to get their dietary supplements--and they will.
It is important that we get reporting done so people will know if something is having an adverse effect on their health.
I recognize the Senator from Illinois has strong concerns about adverse reporting for dietary supplements, and so do several other Senators. Senator Hatch and Senator Harkin have been working diligently on this. Both of them are on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and that is the committee of jurisdiction on this particular issue.
We have been working on it. I share his interest on the issue. It is important that we maintain the safety of dietary supplements that benefit so many Americans. I mention that this isn't the first time this has been offered.
I hope he will withdraw his amendment, and we may move on without having to go through the difficulty of a vote.
As I said, I question the effectiveness of achieving such reporting by withholding legal products only from men and women in uniform and their families while the same products are available to the civilian population. That is unfair to our soldiers and we should not support it. Punishing our soldiers is not the way to ensure the safety of dietary supplements. A piecemeal approach does nothing to protect the civilian population from products that are being withheld from the military population.
This amendment places the regulation of dietary supplements in the hands of the Secretary of Defense and cuts the Food and Drug Administration out of the loop.
I would like to point out that the FDA is already taking aggressive steps to regulate stimulants that are dietary supplements, including the banning of ephedra.
We should be sure that requiring additional reporting does not inadvertently derail those enforcement efforts.
Finally, the Appropriations Committee has included for fiscal year 2006 funding of approximately $5.5 million for the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Adverse Events Reporting System. That includes approximately $1.7 million for dietary supplements. That is over $1 million more than the amount in the budget request. The Senate is already moving in the right direction on this issue.
I wish to point out that the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act is squarely within the HELP Committee's jurisdiction.
I know that Senator Durbin has worked with Senators Hatch and Harkin and myself to develop a proposal on mandatory adverse events reporting for dietary supplements. I wish to work with the Senator from Illinois and my fellow committee members, especially Senators Hatch and Harkin, to see how we might address the issue in my committee through regular order.
I respectfully ask the Senator from Illinois to withdraw his amendment and work with the HELP Committee on this issue. If not, I will have to oppose the amendment. I think it will take up unnecessary time when we can do it considerably more effectively and without punishing in a big way the servicemembers in uniform while we allow the civilian population to do whatever they want.
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.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.