to win prizes. they seek the accolades. but i think that most people who go under reporting and who are capable of winning the prizes are people who are driven and passionate about what they do. >> but -- but they don't do it alone. >> the institutions, i mean, i don't think a pu prize can do much for you economically. obviously some of the more traditional legacy institutions are facing real financial pressures these days. they think harder about how they spend their money. the big institutions like the "new york times," "wall street journal" and "washington post" continue to invest heavily in forbe news. we built up the foreign news last year. we added one back. it's a critical dimension for the readers. our readerrership surveys show that internationalism is one of

the things they most desire from us. so i think continuing to cover china is important for audience. in addition to that, there's the pressure to cover china from these new -- upstarts is the wrong word. new media some which are giant. bloomberg, reuters is not new. large organizations that coffer the world for at audience that cares deeply about the details how the world works. they be investors, may be economically motivatedded. i think there's more granule coverage of china than there's ever been. ii don't think you can make the case, there's not great foreign correspondent. i think there is great foreign spons across the board all over the world. there are more people doing journalism.

i think it's generally the pretty good picture. if you know how to navigate and find it. >> i must say the pea boyds that -- pe abc ody which i -- i had to beg the general manager of my tv station for the time to devote to this. and now he'll feel it was justified. so i do think those prizes matter to people and and i hope they matter to you. >> yeah. it makes a huge difference. i mean, part of what journalists are paid is in bylines, and it's -- it's not only curiosity, so people knowing people are reading it. and recognizing it that keeps us determined. >> so what are you all aware of on the chinese side that

impresses you as very hopeful in the media doing really good work, and that it's new? amy, let's start with you. >> okay. on the chinese side. >> yeah. >> this might be sort of an odd. the story might be sort of an odd news source, or information source to mention, but when i was asking people from all walks of life in beijing what they thought of chen guangcheng, the activist. most of them had not heard of him incoming the students at beijing university. one guy who responded to the question, is the -- he's a baker at just a dumpling shop. he said he gets his news from a

variety of sources. chen guangcheng had actually read about it on this political forrum on his favorite porn site. and apparently the site has just learned some really great techniques of getting around the fire wall of china. as well as -- they used it to create a vibrant forrum. a lot of the people around the e-mail lists are spending out notices about the new web address. >> new idea for the human rights website. that's awesome! that has to be the overwhelming good news is the internet, social media, all the ways of getting over the great fire wall of china is transformative. it's huge. hopeful. >> the other thing is, you know, i have a very these are shadows

on the cave wall. chinese journalists come by washington and come by to visit. if you ask the kinds of questions you get asked. when i moved back to the u.s. in the end of '99. the groups that came through are mostly wanting the tours and the shops. they tweet what we say, which they are probably not tweet worthy, but it never stops. they ask questions about the business moll and model and how do we manage people. what do we see our role as. lots of questions about the pentagon papers when they don't "washington post." what was the relationship between the government and news media at that point. i take all of that as hugely positive. journalists are asking the right

questions in china. >> i was visited by journalists. they don't come with the regularity as the hule rights. they're scared in come in the building sometimes. i was visited by the evening paper. and i had no idea why he was there to see me. i said so, how is it being an evening paper. how's your competition with the morning paper. he said i come out in the morning too. and i said, but you're a -- but it means you're not controlled by the party. you're an evening paper, it means you're under less communism party control. >> as you mentioned, pr, of course the pr in the minds of many chinese i think is soft power. how do you get soft power where as, i think, in the society such

as our own, it's somewhat more of a something that either generates or doesn't again rate. it isn't something that you can ma nip late. -- ma lip manipulate. i wonder how they see it playing out. >> how they gain soft power in the world. >> do you think there's a confusion in china between what good journalism is, propaganda, public releases on power. >> again, i feel a little bit too removed to be commenting on this. i'm sure there are a range of different types of institutions. it's clear, i was there last october, and saw some people some editors with different news organizations. some people do really understand what the role of media is and understand what the responsibilities are. they know what the risks as well. it's like when the high speed

rail crash occurred last year, there was a report are, i think in the "wall street journal," that some newspapers not only did they get the instruction, not only did the report they got the instruction from the propaganda people not to discontinue reporting about this thing. then they caused one problem by allowing that to get out the fact they received the instruction not to report about it. someone reported about it anyway. and again, i think that's the sign you have serious journalist thinking hard what is the role of journalist in society. it's by no mean website universal and the state controls media and can excert influence. it's vast country and there's a lot of people. are doing interesting journalism. >> i think serious journalists have a strict restrictions as ever. but i think they're getting --

in some cases, the government's techniques for censorship are a little more sophisticated. but the journalists are still able to expect themselves outside of these constraints for instance on law -- on the chinese knockoff of twitter. a couple weeks ago the mainstream news paper were forced to run scathing attacks on chunk chon. chen guangcheng he was kidnapped by the embassy. it was ridiculous statements like these. one of the editors, no one knows who, who wrote this. it was the a concession, an apology on someone on beijing site posted this really tragic

photograph of a clown after the backstage after of the circus was over. smoking a cigarette, and the caption was we take off our mask after the day is done and apologize to our true selfs. it was indistrict but point i poignant about how jirnlisms feel about the con straints. >> i think one example came from ann andy hikingens. african union and meeting and u saddam sudan are fights over oil. they are in the in the middle of the negotiations and they are talking to a chinese diplomat on the cell phone. that is the kind of american diplomat would have done.

they do still do at the african union. that's the kind of role that china is poised to play in the world. and should play in the world given the oil interest in sudan and given the role in africa. and they were as bested in repairing the piece between those two countries on any of us on the outside. that's a good thing. >> how do you think china is doing on the soft power front? they putting an enormous amount of energy and expanding global media reach. is it success? >> lots of people are going to work from ccp because they got fired from cnn n. you can't -- it is what it is. i mean, nobody made up the chen guangcheng incident. and no amount of pr can back pedal out of that. china can sell itself as the

benign soft power. the idea of self-power is american is a democracy and we have a good story to tell. china does -- china has a bad story to dell. you can't make up what is happening there. i think they made up a huge -- >> the question i'd like to know the answer to is, what is it light in asia right now. you know, how is china perceived as whether in immediately countries or further afield. the south china disputes must rankle the philippines, ma malaysia. i don't know how you get around that in terms of earning soft power. lots of people reading the papers you're basically insisting that an island that is 100 kilometers off existing

philippine island it's actually chinese. i don't know how any other argument can work with the filipino. >> and really there's no sign of soft power in china. in the past couple of works the cctv has been beating the drum beats to war with the philippines. and and, you know, people i talk to like the guy who had had a lot of -- the dumpling shop baker who had a lot of sympathy for chen guangcheng and watched porn. said we have to go to war, we have to defend our sovereign territory. it doesn't look like soft power when you're in a china watching. >> do you think in china that the media had has a effect on the way people view the world, or are things up and down and

just unpredictable? are we making progress in the sense of the great problem with media to inform? >> within china? >> yeah. >> i mean, we get asked -- we can ask the question about america as well. i hate to think of the answer. [laughter] >> i don't think i know the answer to the question about china. [inaudible] >> the answer about china? >> you mean is the foreign media making a big impact. >> no, is the evolution that the media to be more open providing more information, has it actually had a good effect in sort of enlighting society, helping society. >> definitely. i would say what's gone for a, and beyond the newspapers and magazines in china is the

internet though. it's a platform for a civil society that hasn't existed ever before. so and it's still very much controlled. there are a lot of levers that the government can pull to diminish and conversations in ways that are almost undetectable to the average reader or microblogger. but still just the active conversation, i think, is -- so it's a very individual media. it's changing people's attitudes. >> marcus, how do you think we're doing here in the country in many ways we have fancy ourself as the model of, you know, in dept, thoughtful coverage. when you look around the american landscape. how do you recess our state of

grace? >> i don't know there's a really simple answer to that question. i think the, you know, i think people want -- there's an narrative line that journalism is reaching people anymore. that everybody is focused on the in politics else especially the partisan debate, and it's all rhetoric from this side and that. we see plenty of that. we get plenty of e-mails who feel strongly about things we write on politics. but one of the questions you have to ask, what people -- reading habits have changed. people used to be able to -- people used to have only a setter certain diet of information available to them. what you had available to you information wise was was what your local newspaper. most local newspaper didn't provide great depth on very much. they might get the "washington

post," "l.a. times." they couldn't get and they didn't have great substance. today, if you live in any town in america, within an internet connection. you can as deep as you want to go on any subject. people's habits change. nay no longer start their day by reading a newspaper which is begin,ing to ending the briefing you need for that day. in fact, they may want to go deep on the area that interests them and they may not care that much about the other things that pass them by that they once might have read. i'm not sure that's not necessarily a bad thing. there's a line out there that somehow what's going on and the way young people is consuming information is bad for the democracy. i don't buy that. people will seek out the information they need to make good economic decisions. the motivation they have are powerful. if you do that today, if you ask the average person today in the early 20s how much he knew in

obama or how much he knew about the platforms or ideas. i expect that person knows vastly before in 1968 who supported some candidate of hope and promise. the information is out there. it's conveyed much more effectively. we never knew what people were reading when we published the newspapers ten or fifteen years ago. write a story about general motors coming into -- i came back and i got the readership report that ed story of the wall "wall street journal" shows page by page, where we looked through with 100 people and you ask them what they read. when you get to page three, 2% of your people are reading the article. we like to think that's what everybody was reading. i'm not sure that was true and

valid. people seek out information to manage them and they go really deep now in the subjects that matter most to them. it's a different way of consuming information, but i guess i think rather than being bemoaning what was lost. we should look hard what exists. how do you channel more information into the polices people are consuming it. and make sure you news, if you do robust credible journalism. that's should are appear with the audience is. you can no longer expect the audience to come to you. >> i think this is days for journalism and media. it is super exciting time. it is a complicated time. people like marcus, or human rights, how important is the ipad. should the website bont platform? there are diss we used to doctor to make. the change in our people has met more pressure on media executives and lost jobs. i don't mean to sound terrible hard times for a lot of the hard

times. at the same time huge opportunity. >> the chinese often say that people would only learn to speak chinese and become more familiar with china and they understand it better and calm down and have more understanding. i'm wondering in your experience with writers, yourselves, friends, colleagues, who have done a lot of anytime china. do people come out of that experience feeling -- what do they come out of it feeling, that's the question i want. what does the experience leave people who spend a lot of time covering china with about the country? >> i think it makes, i think people come out, a lot of people go to china fresh and, i mean, they are excited by china. but they become pretty inbittered by the way they're

streeted as foreign spons. it's very difficult. not they were necessarily to the chinese government what they came. i think they become pretty clear aid about the deficiencies. that's hard to jen rise. >> i think a lot of people who go to china are passionate about china. it's a as if nateing, excelling important story. for most of us, the best story, best journalism we ever did. if you look around the media today, there are a lot of people who did china. robert thompson is a china guy. the i did china harvard business reviews china. there's a lot people who are in china in the '70s and '90s who are pushing for more sophistication and deeper

understanding of china and i you see in the quality of congress if -- in the quality of coverage the way they have covered the story, and going putting big teams of people and going really deep and reuters had some it too. getting leeks from various investigations they practice real journalism. part of that pressure comes from people who are at the top who care about china and understand how important china is why it matters. i think if you come out caring about china and wanting to get better congress of china. there are all the frustrations that may resonate from having been there. the inability of legitimate big organization to be able to get a visa for a serious correspondent when china says we want greater understanding. we thing it's important for americans to cover it and bring americans understands. we want to send someone who can speak the lane wanl.

language. we're met with a stone wall. that i think, you know, may create some frustration. we'll persevere and climb over the stone wall. >> before we get the questions before you, april. let me ask you, people that you -- your friends who are in the media. do you notice any difference in attitude amongst your generation compared to the one above you? >> well, i would say that having -- in so i ways that -- in some ways i would say there's an opposite problem to what we're marcus and carol talking about before and that the -- those who have -- those chinese people who have access to foreigners, and the people who have foreign journalists have the most access to and are taking interviews

with are the most privileged upper crust, whether the wealthiest or the powerful party numbers. there's almost -- so it's, i mean, privileged information come froms privileged sources. they tend to be the ben niche -- beneficiaries of the currency. there is sometimes the opposite tendency to sort of being a little more pollyanaish about the current direction in society. >> it's hard to generally lose. when i think about people that i loved. i loved my time in china. i loved many chinese people. i wanted to strangle some people in the government. you know, there's a great variety to say what do you think of china. it is saying like saying what do you think of the universe.

>> history moves forward and there are trends. it -- >> fair enough. >> okay. let's have some questions from you all. there will be microphones and web casts. wait for a microphone right here in the front row. that's you. but, let's see, i think the microphone is -- [inaudible] >> hi. i'm linda elliot. i wanted to have you all talk about how lie incident is going to affect the chinese press. marcus, you talked about the chinese journalist coming in taking careful notes of everything you're doing and the chinese press has become increasingly sophisticated. chinese tv is extremely slick. they learned all the methods and

technologies the use and don't report in the same way that we do. the incident has since blown the cover if the chinese party. everybody in china is talking about it and everybody knows that the incredible corporation under way. i wonder if that will actually have some influence on press as we move forward. >> who wants to try that one? >> i don't have any idea. [laughter] but i would surmise that, you know, the way the chinese press has been allowed to work in the last couple of decades is the issues that the government is concerned about, the press is allowed to write about. the press can cover environmental problems. press has been allowed to cover corruption to be the extent that corporation doesn't get too close to real centers of power. even some human rights issues the press is allowed to cover if

they are the right ones a the the right time. it is an interesting moment. here is the corporation case, and it's juicy, obviously gets gets close to the center of power. on the other hand, you could argue that the power is served by the particular abundance of the case. how right bay beijing was to arrest his wife. if you pulling the threat it unravels more than you hope. maybe you -- so i don't know. [laughter] >> okay. next question. >> we don't know -- it's a really good question. >> down here. someone back there, next one. in the back. hi. i have a question about the concern of [inaudible] about the news media to inform

the public. the chen guangcheng with the -- , i mean, making headlines and everything and the u.s. newspapers. at the same time something really important -- [inaudible] what's going on with hillary geithner and the 100 other officials. talking about keet key issues the largest economy in the world. is that decision made -- because you really don't see much coverage on this and those thins. is that decision made at the "washington post" we should focus on fun chen guangcheng it's more exciting than -- >> for us we sent a reporter with hillary clinton and the team from washington so we were able to cover that. we -- it's a relative news value issue. one story was for a more interesting and compelling story than the other as important as the strategic dialogue talks may

have been [laughter] we went with the one that was the human -- and we played that everybody else. you know, great powers walk and chew gum at the same time. and so we in the news media try to do that too. i felt like the choice we made and the choice other newspapers made in the country was probably the right choice. which was to focus on the story that was surprising, dramatic, challenge the u.s., challenge china and the outcome was june known as opposed strategic democratic dialogue. >> i was in beijing as part of the strategic and economic dialogue. the thing that impressed me was the fact that there was a sort of parallel universe. the incredible drama happening in the embassy. but the rest of the negotiations went -- what that suggested to me was that both sides --

we'll leave the program at this point. you can see it on the entirety on the website go to c-span.org. look for the c-span video library. the senate is about to gavel in. they'll be spending much the day on a food and drug administration user fee. creates a user fee for generic drugs and a national system to track prescription drug. live coverage of the c-span two. in: let us pray. eternal god, you have made all things well. thank you for the light of day and the dark of night. thank you for the glory of the sunlight, for the silver splendor of the moon

and for the star-scattered sky. thank you for the hills and the sea, for productive city streets, for the open road and the wind in our faces. thank you for hands to work, eyes to see, ears to hear, minds to think, memories to remember, and hearts to love. thank you also for our senators and their families who strive to serve you and country. bless them today with a special measure of your wisdom, knowledge and discernment. we pray in your sacred name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 23, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 400, s. 3187, a bill to amend the federal food,

drug and cosmetic act, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: we are now on the motion to proceed to the f.d.a. user fees bill. the republicans will control the first half-hour, the majority the second half-hour. we're working on an agreement to consider amendments to the f.d.a. bill. we're close to being able to finalize that. we hope to get on an agreement and avoid filing cloture on the bill. madam president, there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 3220, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938, and so forth and for other purposes. s. 3221, a bill to amend the national labor relations act, and so forth. mr. reid: madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the chair read a couple of bills. i would object to both of them. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar under rule 15. mr. reid: madam president, when 67-year-old pamela gunter started treatment for breast cancer, her doctor knew it would be a grueling fight. he also knew it was a fight she could win. her doctor put her on taxol, a common chemotherapy drug. the results were excellent. her tumor shrank. her prognosis was good. then one day last spring, no more taxol. the doctor couldn't get it. it's one of the most popular and effective treatments for breast,

lung and ovarian cancer. it suddenly disappeared from the markets in nevada. doctors couldn't get it, drug suppliers couldn't say why. so pamela's doctor was forced to use a much more expensive and much less effective course of treatment. the cancer spread. by the time taxol was available again, pamela was dead. she left behind a loving husband, two grown sons and a grandchild. but with the right treatment, she would still be alive today. her las vegas doctor says a shortage of this common generic medicine directly contributed to her health and to her death. had this product been available, she would have been fine. she, of course, would have suffered. that's what patients on chemo do, but their suffering is worth it because they know it's life saving. pamela isn't the only american

affected by shortage of taxol and other life-saving drugs. every day in hospitals across the country, americans already dealing with devastating illnesses must also face shortages of f.d.a.-approved medications that could keep them alive. today, taxol is still scarce. chemotherapy drugs aren't the only ones in short supply. supplies of nausea medication. madam president, the capitol physician is a, among other things, an oncologist, dr. monahan. i have talked to him a lot about cancer in the last year. he and other doctors -- my wife would go to this -- every week to this place where everybody was hooked up to chemo. most of them were men -- most of them were women but there were a few men. just a few years ago, that place

would have been a place where these women were retching by virtue of their vomiting. sometimes, in fact a lot of the time, they had to hospitalize these women to stop the vomiting from these medicines, but now we have nausea medication that these patients are given to stop their suffering. at least they are not -- they may be going through a lot of nausea, but they are not throwing up most of the time. but supplies of nausea medications and other drugs that reduce the side effects of cancer treatment are limited. on monday, one las vegas oncologist said he ordered ten drugs from his supplier, he could get eight. he said that's typical. doctors never know which drugs will be accessible and which won't. last year, f.d.a. reported shortages of 231 drugs, including a number of chemotherapy medicines.

in the last six years, drug shortages have quadrupled. gone up 400%. now, congress can't solve every problem in this country, we know that but this is one problem we can solve with cooperation from the drug manufacturers and it will come about much more clearly if we pass the bill that's before the senate now. the food and drug administration safety innovation act, the one i've talked about several times already today, will help establish effective lines of communication between drugmakers, the food and drug administration, and doctors. when the f.d.a. gets early warning from manufacturers, that shortages are coming, it can act quickly to find alternative sources of medication and ease supply problems by taking, for example, one place where they have a lot of medicine and move it someplace to where they don't. drugmakers averted 200 shortages last year by voluntarily notifying the f.d.a. of trouble on the horizon. but many shortages, perhaps all

231 last year could have been prevented if drugmakers had shared information with the f.d.a. our bill will make that necessary and allow it -- force it to take place. that's why congress must act quickly to pass the legislation now before the senate. which will ensure the f.d.a. has the resources to approve new drugs and medical devices quickly and efficiently. passing this legislation won't bring pamela back. it won't give her another day to spend with her husband, a week to say goodbye to her sons or another year to get to know her grand child but it will prevent drug shortages like the one that took pamela away from her family far too soon. so, madam president, as i indicated when when i opened the senate today we're very close to being able to have an agreement, a path forward on this bill. that would be a -- really a good thing for the country. i hope we can arrive at that by 11:00 today.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yet morning i came to the floor to call attention to a quiet and costly p.r. campaign that president obama is mounting on the taxpayers' dime. while the president and his surrogates spend most of their time deflecting attention from his record he has washington bureaucrats working overtime to put -- actually try to put a good face on it. i mentioned yesterday the administration is spending yet another $20 million in taxpayer money to promote a health care bill that most americans would like to see repealed. $20 million to promote a health care bill that most americans would like to see repealed. but there's more. there's a pattern here that i, and i'm sure many other americans, find pretty outrageous, at a time of trillion-dollar deficits and a nearly $16 trillion debt.

the administration also spent more than $25 million in stimulus funds, stimulus funds, on grants to public relations firms, p.r. firms, ostensibly mr. to do -- to do public relations relating to the stimulus. it spent $20 million on mailers to seniors about obamacare, which overstated the law's benefits. millions more in taxpayer funds were spent on postcards, postcards, that promoted obamacare's small business tax credit. a credit that the g.a.o. said was ineffective and infrequently used. these are just a few of the ways the administration is quietly promoting its own failed policies. how is it trying to change people's minds about the president's policies with their

own money, using our tax money to try to promote the president's policies. you know, campaign is one thing, but using our tax money to promote the president's policies is really outrageous. but there's a larger issue here than the fact that the president is quietly marketing policies with taxpayer dollars that he's truly afraid to talk about in public. that's bad enough, but the larger point is the fact that we've got a nearly $16 trillion debt, the largest tax hike in history right around the corner, chronic unemployment, and sky-high gas prices, and the president thinks it's a good idea to spend $20 million to promote obamacare. we don't have the money to begin with. and he's spending it to market his policies. the president needs to face the

facts. americans do not want him spending their hard-earned money trying to spin policies this they don't like. how about setting some priorities first? how about working with us to lower the deficit and the debt? how about working with us to fund things that we actually need? we're more than ready to work with the president as i've said time and time again over the past few years, but he needs to set some priorities, and he needs to lead. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you. i'd like to speak this morning

following up on the wonderful comments made by the minority leader, specifically about the health care law and the ways that taxpayer dollars are now being wasted and spent in what appears to be to me at least a propaganda campaign by this administration to promote a health care law that the american people have at least a majority of them when asked about it think should be found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, and so many, many americans want to resea repealed and replaced. madam president, over two years ago president obama and democrats in this very body and across the hall, the leaders in congress jammed, jammed a health care law through congress and it was drafted completely behind closed doors. we all recall nancy pelosi famously saying at the time that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. and i've come to the floor week after week after that with a

doctor's second opinion about the health care law to make sure the american people know what's in it and week after week there have been more things found out about the health care law that has made it even more unpopular today than it was at the time it was passed and signed into law by president obama. americans knew what they wanted. they did want health care reform. they wanted to be able to get the care they need from the doctor that they want at a price they can afford. and yet when i go to town hall meetings all across my home state of wyoming and meetings in other communities, and scu the question do you think under the president's health care law you'll be paying more or less for your health care? the hands go up, they're going to be paying more. and then scu them do you think the quality and availability of your care is going to go down under the health care law? and again the hands go up. and that's not what americans want. not to pay more and get less, but yet that is what the

american people are receiving under this health care law. so i'll continue to deliver this second opinion on the senate floor so we can continue to talk about what's going to be the impact on americans' lives as a result of the health care law. now, for over two years the news about the law has not been good for those who support it, and the country has had opposition to the law continue to increase. today 56% of americans oppose the president's health care law. say why is that, well, there are a number of reasons. one is the health care law is adding to the national debt. we just heard the republican leader talk about the incredible national debt that the american people are facing. the health care law has increased premiums that people have to pay for their own insurance as a result, directly as a result of the health care law being passed. the president promised if you like what you have, you can keep it but actually the health care law has made it harder for

workers to keep their employer-sponsored health care coverage. people want to have choices. they want to have patient-centered care yet this health care law established an unprecedented board, unelected bureaucrats, who will by their decisions have a direct impact on whether patients can get to see a doctor, whether they can receive care. when you look at the incentives that are part of this health care law, the incentives actually to me appear to encourage employers to either fire workers or stop providing health care coverage. to me this health care law is discouraging to students who otherwise might pursue a career in the medical field to provide care for americans, and in my opinion this is a law that is actually weakened, not strengthened medicare and it has done that by lowering -- by

taking $500 billion away from our seniors on medicare, not to help strengthen medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else. and the medicare actuary came out with a report just last friday to say when you actually get into a realistic assessment, a realistic assessment of the impact of this health care law, on medicare, it weakens it, it shows that medicare going broke sooner than initially thought, and this report on an actual realistic look, a realistic look of the impact of the health care law on medicare is it's going to make it that much harder for our seniors on medicare to get the treatment that they need, to actually even get to see a doctor, to find someone to care for them because of the implementation of this law which takes $500 billion away from medicare, not to strength

notten or save medicare but to start a whole new government program for someone else. so i could go on and on with the legitimate complaints about the law. we've made it clear for over two years that the law is bad for patients, it's bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients and it's terrible for taxpayers. well, this week we get a response to our long list of serious issues, and the response is from the obama administration and members of the administration, and what they are doing is essentially doubling down on the president's failed law. instead of addressing the serious concerns that the american people have about the law and about their own health care, the white house has come to a conclusion that they've actually done a bad job of educating the american people about the law, so now just months before the presidential

election, the 2012 election, the administration has just signed a $20 million contract, $20 million contract for a private p.r. firm to educate the american people about the law. now, of course this is taxpayer funded. let me repeat. the obama administration is not going to acknowledge any of the real problems with the law. instead it's going to spend $20 million of taxpayer dollars on press releases and more government propaganda. -- propaganda. it's important to remember this isn't the first time the white house has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to spin this law. they realize it's unpopular but are they addressing the fundamental flaws? no. they want to do more public relations. in fact, this administration spent $700 billion on an -- 7 hooptsz -- $700,000 with, and

the internal revenue service spent nearly a million dollars in taxpayer funds to pay for four million postcards promoting tax credits within the law to small businesses. and of course what we've seen is fewer and fewer small businesses than anticipated actually chose to take advantage, the president would say, i would say found that they weren't able to qualify for the so-called benefits of the health care law. so what we've seen is the president's law continues to be unpopular and now the administration chooses to spend taxpayer dollars to try a public relations campaign to make it more popular instead of dealing with the fundamental problems. so here we are millions of dollars later and it is clear that the white house still hasn't learned what most americans understand. good policy is good communication. when a law is good, it sells itself. americans immediately reap the

rewards and appreciate what has been done. but when a law like this health care law is a bad one, there is no way that another slick p.r. campaign paid for with taxpayer dollars can make it look any better. the american people deserve real solutions to their health care problems, not more washington spin. yesterday i called on the president to cancel this program immediately. to retain the taxpayer dollars, use it to pay off the debt, use it as part of the lowering the deficit. don't send it to a p.r. firm to try to spin this law. we need to repeal this law, we need to repeal this health care law, replace it with a better plan. instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on this p.r. campaign, we need to go back to the drawing board. americans deserve to be able to get the care they need from the doctor that they want at a tries pryce they can afford. that's what i'll continue to

talk about on the senate floor as i offer a doctor's second opinion about the significant failure of the law that passed the senate, was crammed through the house and signed by president obama two years ago. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you, madam president. yesterday, a group of four of us senators introduced legislation that i want to highlight today in this brief opportunity on the senate floor. we introduced senate bill 3217. this legislation called start-up 2.0 was introduced by senator warner, senator coons, senator rubio and me to begin the process of trying to create a better entrepreneurial environment in the united states, to create opportunities

for entrepreneurs for innovation, to grow the economy and create jobs, and i want to personally thank those three senators, two of us republicans, two democrats, who decided that this common phrase that we hear around washington, d.c., we can't do anything this year because it's an election year is nothing that we're willing to tolerate. we didn't get the marching orders, the instructions that say you can't work and accomplish good things for america just because there is a november election. and so i want to highlight to my colleagues, in fact ask them to join us in this effort to grow the number of senators who find this kind of legislation valuable and appealing and to commit myself to work with senator warner, senator rubio, senator coons to see that we are successful in 2012. this legislation i have talked about before, in fact senator warner and i introduced the start-up act months ago. we then joined with senator coons and rubio who had introduced legislation called the agree act.

we took the best components of our two pieces of legislation, and yesterday as i say introduced s. 3217, the start-up 2.0 act. this legislation has about five components. in just broad terms, it is based upon the kaufman foundation center for entrepreneurship based in kansas city that is the most world-renowned organization that studies and promotes entrepreneurship, and their proposals that were based upon the research are included in many aspects in this legislation. part of it is dealing with the regulatory environment that a start-up company faces and to require that the benefits of that regulation exceed the costs. that kind of requirement has been in the law before but only for the departments, not for the independent agencies. and so we know the independent agencies create lots of hurdles and handicaps in regard to the ability for particularly a young

company, a beginning company, a start-up company to succeed. in fact, our legislation, in my view, is based upon something i was told once by an engineer, that for an airplane to fly, there is two forces at work. one is thrust, and the other is drag. the thrust has to be sufficient to overcome the drag or you could reduce the drag so the thrust is not so necessary. and that's what i like about start-up -- this start-up legislation, is that it is so focused on reducing the drag, getting the things out of the way, it's not a thrust program, meaning more government programs, more government spending, more government. this is actually things that in this legislation that are designed to get government out of the way and to reduce the drag so that the airplane can launch and can fly and can succeed. one of those, of course, is the regulatory environment. another is the tax environment. start-up companies face significant challenges in accessing enough capital to get

off the ground. we were successful in passing the jobs act signed by the president a few weeks ago. this legislation picks up where that legislation left off. incidentally, i read this morning that already crowd funding is beginning to develop a piece of -- a development that occurs as a result of the passage of the jobs act, so once washington, d.c., creates the -- i will say that differently. once washington, d.c., gets out of the way so that the private sector can pursue opportunities, those opportunities are pursued, and we see that already happening with the passage of the jobs act in regard to crowd source funding in which we're gathering capital investments from people across the country to help new businesses commence. this legislation, the start-up act makes permanent 100% exemption on capital gains taxes for investments held at least five years in a qualified small business so investors can provide financial stability at this critical point in their -- in their growth.

the legislation also includes a limited targeted research and development, r&d tax credit for start-ups less than five years old. so we alter r&d, we alter income taxes, we alter capital gains in a way that is designed to create better opportunities for access to credit. we attempt in this legislation to accelerate the commercialization of research. billions of dollars are being spent, taxpayer dollars at universities, colleges across the nation, and we want to insent that research to be devoted toward things that can be commercialized, that bring new products, new businesses to market. and so we take existing resources and utilize those dollars to reward those universities that take their research dollars and use them in ways that are more likely to be commercialized. in other words, create products, pursue dreams and ultimately create jobs. in addition to that, we create competition, at least knowledge

of -- information, knowledge that allows somebody who is thinking about start ago business to decide which states are the most pro-growth oriented and make decisions about their location, where they should locate based upon information. that then would also encourage states to be very entrepreneurial and pro growth, pro-innovation in their state policies. and perhaps the most significant portion of this legislation creates two new visas. an entrepreneur's visa to help foreign-born entrepreneurs currently in the united states, currently legally in the united states to register their business and to employ americans. in many instances, entrepreneurs, foreign born, here legally, have an idea and want to begin a company that will employ americans but are told that their visa does not allow them to remain in the united states. the second visa that's created in this legislation is related to stem. that's a topic of conversation that i think is so important to keep our -- keep important students who are studying the

united states who have a ph.d. or master's degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. it's silly, it is wrong-headed for us to educate these individuals and tell them that we no longer want them in the united states once they receive their degree. and so the start-up act 2.0 makes two important modifications to that current system of visas. and in addition to that, we adopted from the legislation introduced by senators rubio and coons the -- we eliminated the country numerical limit for employment-based immigration visas, another handicap in our system that prevents those who have the greatest skills and talents and intellect from being eligible for a legal visa to remain in the united states. in a story that i heard from an entrepreneur in california, they were ready to hire foreign-born

but u.s.-educated individuals, ph.d.'s and computer education, computer science, for example, and yet the h-1b visa program failed them, there were no slots available. so yes, the company hired these 68 ph.d.'s, technicians, highly skilled and educated individuals, but they hired them in canada and not the united states. so not only is that a loss of the 68 jobs, but in my view, many of those people who are now working in canada will be the next set of entrepreneurs, and they will start their businesses, their start-up companies and grow their companies in canada, not in the united states. so we lose in both employment today and in opportunity for american jobs in the future because we have a visa system that is so -- that so handicaps our ability to get the highly educated, trained and technically skilled individuals in the united states. just today in the local paper, i read that these kind of statistics that i think are important for us to remember and

to know. research by the partnership for new american economy and partnership for new york city shows a widening gap between the supply and demand of american graduates educated in so-called stem fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. the number of job openings requiring such degrees is increasing three times the rate of the rest of the job market. however, college students majoring in non-stem fields still outnumber math and science-minded counterparts 5-1, according to the national science foundation. so five times -- five people are majoring in something other than science or mathematics for every one that majors in math or science in the united states. if this trend continues, american businesses will be looking for an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced stem degrees in 2018, just six years away, but will only find 555,000 american graduates with that type of training. not only do we need to fill that

gap with those who are available to us today, but we need to encourage education in the united states, educate american students in the stem field as well. with these -- without easing these restrictions, we will have a 60% foreign graduate students in the united states who were enrolled in science and engineering today. so 60% of foreign students are majoring in science and mathematics. not true of american students. we need to reverse that course. a study earlier this year showed that half of the nation's top venture-backed companies had at least one immigrant founder. three out of four claim that at least one foreign-born executive. the point being here that we want the economy to grow, we want to create jobs, and we need to do the commonsense things that get government out of the way to allow the private sector to be entrepreneurial, to be innovative and to create great opportunities for americans today and equally important americans tomorrow. we want our kids and grandkids to have the opportunity to live

and work in a growing, exciting economy that requires the congress to take actions today to create that environment for the private sector to succeed in creating entrepreneurship in the united states. if you look at the last few years, the net jobs filled in the united states have been filled by entrepreneurs, by new start-up companies, not by existing companies. in fact, the trend is that big companies are often laying off workers while start-up companies are the ones obviously hiring individuals. i would ask my colleagues to take a look at the legislation that my colleagues, senators warner, rubio and coons and i introduced, and look forward to working with the leadership of the senate to see that it receives appropriate consideration. we ought to do all the things that we can do. we ought not ever use the excuse that we can't do everything, therefore we can do nothing. these are all commonsense ideas that in my view would be supported by at least 80% of my colleagues here in the senate, and we ought not use the idea that it's an election year, we

can't accomplish anything. the country cannot afford to wait. they need our action now. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, madam president. last september, i had the honor to come to the floor to give my maiden speech to my fellow nevadans and to the american people. in that speech, i quoted a great nevadan, mark twain, who wrote "you are a coward when you even seem to back down from a thing you openly set out to do." i have always said that i ran for office to make a difference, and since my first day here, i have set out to provide solutions to fix our current housing problems.

nevada is the epicenter of our nation's housing crash. home prices continue to decline in nevada. in february of 2006, the average home value was $309,000. today that has dropped to $120,000. let me give you another fact. five years. five years. that's how long nevada has led the country in foreclosures. the people of nevada have suffered far too long because of the recklessness of wall street that caused this crash. a million nevadans are struggling to pay their mortgage or have their homes in foreclosure as a result of poor job market and the economic downturn. because of the high rates of foreclosure devastating nevadans , many are being forced to move or to live in a new place. washington must provide solutions that help those who have been hit the hardest by this tough economy. i have worked on several

solutions that i believe that will provide some relief for many of those that are struggling. in february, i introduced the keep families in their home act, or just the home act. this legislation would allow banks, fannie mae, freddie mac to offer long-term leases for foreclosed homes. by doing so, it gives families the opportunity to stay in their homes while also easing the pressure that foreclosures put on home values. the next month, i joined senator stabenow to introduce the bipartisan mortgage forgiveness tax relief act which would ensure that homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth would not be hit with an additional income tax if a part of their mortgage loan is forgiven. the current mortgage relief act expires at the end of this year, and this bill extends this critical safety net for underwater homeowners through 2015. today, i'm proud to announce

the introduction of the sold act, homebuyers, sellers and real estate agents have long observed the banks have been slow to approve home short sales. delays in approving short sales are a challenge to consumers and to realtors. these delays can cause canceled contracts and homeowners forced into foreclosure. though short sales are seen as far better outcome than foreclosure, finding a way to improve and make this process more efficient has been very, very difficult. my legislation, the sold act, would require that mortgage servicers respond to a short sale request within 30 days and make a final decision within 60 days of receiving the purchase offer. by placing a shot clock on these decisions it will reduce the amount of time it takes to sell property, improve the likelihood that the transaction will close, and reduce the number of foreclosures in nevada

and across this country. stability in the housing market is critical for long-term economic growth. as nevada continues to lead the nation in unemployment, it is more important now than ever for washington to provide solutions and address our nation's biggest problems. getting americans back to work and helping families who find themselves in tough economic times should be a priority of every member of congress. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the sold act and help those who have fallen in tough times. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call at this time? the presiding officer: it is. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that execution of the previous order with respect to s. 1387 be delayed until 12:30 p.m. today, that at 12:30 i be recognized prior to execution of the order, that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect at that

time. the last couple days i've been focused on 1387. it's really 3187. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: those are the only two mistakes that i ever made on the senate floor. i ask consent we now initiate a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

officer ththe presiding officere senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: madam president, i ask that further calling of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: madam president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the snavment they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. lautenberg: madam president, i come to the floor today because we dare not stand here while a menace threatens children across our country. with too many untested toxic chemicals present in everyday consumer products, products intended for children's use, like baby bottles and nursery furniture, contain -- many of them contain toxic chemicals that have never been tested for human safety. these chemicals should be tested in industry laboratories, not in our children's bodies. and it's time to update law to protect them.

this chart shows some of the moms, many who travel long distances with signs that are demanding safer chemicals now. many of the moms had little children with them, and we heard a story from one mother who lost a child, and the only reason that they could find is that there were toxic chemicals in the environment in which this child lived. and so they're pleading with us. they're saying, senators, understand what's taking place here. threats to our children should not be tolerated. -- should not be cou tolerated n america. these moms are right to be concerned that their families aren't being protected from

dangerous chemicals. it's our responsibility, the responsibility of those in the senate and the house, to join with american parents, to fix our broken toxic chemical laws. but until these laws are fixed, toxic chemicals -- toxic -- the word "toxic" is a replacement word for poisonous chemicals, toxic will continue to gnaw away at our children's bodies, their health and well-being. studies by c.d.c. scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including six carcinogens coursing through american children's bodies. toxic chemicals pose significant

health risks. chemical exposure accounts -- and this chart tells a very bad, very sad story. 5% of pediatric cancers -- 5% of children cancers, 10% of diabetes, 10% of parkinson's disease, 30% of childhood asthma are significant health threats to children. and instead of protecting us from these harmful chemicals, our current law falls short. a law called tosca, it was designed to eliminate these threats to children's health. it passed in the 1970's. it's so severely flawed that nonpartisan government accountability office testified,

and it's -- quote -- "a high-risk area of the law." imagine the law called -- so severely flawed that it's a high risk of the law. nearly 35 years tosca has allowed e.p.a. to test only 200 chemicals of more than 80,000 chemicals. thousands of chemicals, new chemicals are introduced every year in industrial and research facilities, but only 200 over that time. what does that say when you think about the number of children that we have trying to protect 80,000 chemicals and only 200 of them were tested, and four were banned? sadly, however, it's hard to

believe the chemical industry is fighting to keep the status quo alive at the expense of our lives, our children's lives, our children's health. just recently "the chicago tribune" exposed how the industry uses dirty tricks and junk science to drive their public misinformation campaign. they want to mislead the public about what's going on. in their series, detailed how the industry repeatedly bullied and lied to state legislatures to prevent commonsense reforms. they bankrolled phony experts -- a doctor in one instance, prom prom -- prominently stood up and protected chemical material, fire retardant. they're brought in there to

convince stories that spout the company line all in the service of protecting not the health of children, but protecting their profits. it's a terrible exchange, all at the skpepbgs -- expense of safety and health. it's clear that chemical manufacturers purposefully hid the dangers of toxic flame retardants. we have a chart here that shows the average couch, for instance -- and here's what we see on this chart -- has over two pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in its foam cushions, chemicals that have been linked to developmental problems and other health risks so, that when one of the -- the president of the senate now has cautioned us

about this as well, that there are discharges when these are compressed that release the toxic chemicals into the air. scientists have warned us about these chemicals since the 1970's, and yet they show up in household furniture, including baby crib mattresses, high chair cushions. "the chicago tribune" report said that a typical american baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world. but we're not here just to attack chemicals. we're saying get those out that are necessary and good for our sustainability. but there are hidden in there products that are dangerous,

that are contaminants that can bring terrible things to children, terrible health threats. and those materials are used in household cleaners to kill germs, used in medical equipment that saves lives. hundreds of useful, everyday products contain chemicals. but it's our responsibility to make sure that they're all safe. and today we just don't know what is in the air, the atmosphere, poisonous. here, an example, everybody recognizes what this is: a baby bottle. we've all bought them and seen them used for our kids. but chemicals in some baby bottles have been linked to serious health threats. imagine as a child takes nourishment, they're taking in substances that are dangerous to

their health, make them sick or worse. when we use these products, the chemical in them can end up in our bodies. in essence, the american public has become a living, breathing repository for chemical substances, and no one should accept this standoff, and most do not. those who are aware of what's taking place don't want to hear any excuses. they say get rid of these things. let us know what's there so we can protect our children. shield them from the, these threats to their health and their well-being. everyone from some chemical manufacturers to businesses that use chemicals in their products to environmental, labor and health groups has called for reforming our chemical laws, and we will not wait. i ask my colleagues not to wait here. join us in this quest to save our children's health, to make

sure that they grow up as healthy as we can enable them to do. we will not wait any longer, and we cannot let lobbyists run out -- lobbyists, those are people who for a fee will represent almost anybody. but in this case we're looking at those who bring in good information, good product, but those who are defending companies that are producing products that are dangerous for all the children who are exposed. my bill, the safe chemicals act, lays out a vision for strong, effective and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. the bill simply requires the chemical makers to prove that their products, their chemical is safe before they end up in

children's bodies by being put into a product that children use. most of the thousand chemicals that we use every day are safe, but this bill will separate the safe chemicals from the ones that are not, the ones that threaten our children and our families. it will ensure that chemicals are tested and that e.p.a. can take unsafe uses of chemicals off the market. madam president, this bill is common sense. and i'm sure for those who might be listening or those who might read the story in "the chicago tribune," the research that they did will find it very difficult to understand why it is we can't take the steps in here, in the united states congress to make the children safe. we do it in all kinds of ways to

protect our kids. we want them to be able to grow and develop as children should, healthy, healthy kids. some chemical industry lobbyists say this: the cost of testing all these chemicals will be too high. talk to a parent. talk to a parent whose children carried lots of toxic -- toxins in their body already. talk to the mothers who carried these toxins in their bodies and can transmit them very easily to their children, particularly in pregnancy. so too high? too high has to be judged not by the chemical company making a profit and wanting to make more. we cannot violate our

responsibility to the parents and the mothers and fathers and the relatives and the families where little kids live and enjoy life. what about that cost to damage the health there? how high is that cost? i would like one of these chemical manufacturer executives stand up to parents who are worried about the health and the well-being of their children and say that they're not making enough money. they're going to have to pump more of these threatening materials into the atmosphere. what about the cost to the parents who have to pay for the care? the bottom line is this. f. -- is this: if we don't act to protect americans from thousands of toxic democrat -- toxic chemicals in everyday

products, who's going to do it? we've invited input from all sides of this issue, including the chemical industry, and i extend an open invitation to my republican colleagues. think about it. look at it through the eyes of your children, of your families he. think about it. or would you rather go to the bank with a larger deposit because you're doing something that is a threat to children of any age and any stage? so i ask colleagues from the republican side to work with us, work with knee fix -- work with me to fix this broken law. the one thing we will not do --

and i know i speak for many others who are cosponsoring this legislation -- we will not accept inaction. it's time to act. we want to mark up legislation to reform tsca and move this legislation to the senate floor where decisions can be made and opinions of individuals here who may say no, no, we'd rather go ahead and enlarge our bank accounts, our cash reserves. let them say it in front of the public. that's when we'll be conducting the kind of a test that we should be doing here. so we want to move the legislation, move the legislation to the senate floor, have a vote on it and hopefully good judgment and good sense will prevail, and this will get through and get to the president's desk so he can sign it and start the process of protecting our kids at no cost.

it's time to come together to finally fix this law, protect our family from toxic chemicals. and with that, i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i want to thank senator lautenberg for his leadership and dedication to protecting our families. and i know why he's concerned. i know because i think about these issues every single day. i washed my son's hair last night in his bath. i want to make sure the chemicals in that baby shampoo are safe. i put sun block on him this morning. i want to know what the level of that sun block actually is. when my other son was sick last week, he had three different medications. i need to know what those medications will do for him, if they'll have side effects, what the impact is. this is exactly the question that every parent asks every single day in their normal daily

lives. are the products, are the chemicals, are the things surrounding my family safe? will they cause harm? will they cause disease? these are real questions that we have to have answered. so i want to thank senator lautenberg for his leadership on the safe chemicals act. yesterday hundreds of mothers gathered here in the capitol, right in front of the capitol building with their kids and with advocates from all across the united states to tell congress one simple thing: it's time to stop playing politics with the health of our families. they remind us that the effectiveness of our nation's chemical regulations is an issue that matters to all of us, every single american and every single parent who has children. our families are exposed to a variety of chemicals in every aspect of their daily lives, whether it's the soap we wash our hands with, whether it's the shampoo we wash 0 our children's hair with, whether it's the detergent we put in our clothes washer when we're doing laundry

at night, every day we are bombarded with chemicals in our liv -- in our lives. understand anding how these chemicals impact our health the health of our families is a growing concern not just for me but for constituents all across new york. but because of a very broken and infectsive -- ineffective system, our regulatory agencies aren't able to provide us with enough information. the challenge to our regulatory agencies are facing is a substantial one. since the toxic control substances act that was enacted in 1976, the e.p.a. has faced the daunting challenge to investigate more than 84,000 chemicals in commerce and their track record for success has been poor. of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market place, only 200 have been identified for further investigations and only five have been regulated. weekly, there are news reports highlighting a new study of chemical concern found in everyday products in our homes, in our schools, in our places of work. these reports have caused

growing concern amongst consumers because we've seen links, links have been -- there's been studies that have linked these chemicals to rising causing of cancer, autism, learning disability, diabetes, asthma, obesity, disorders and others. these are disorders families are going to face, anyone of these. so this is what we need to know, are these affecting outcomes. is there a relationship? as a mother of young children who are most vulnerable to chemical exposure, i'm kick particularly concerned about what chemicals affect them, their well-being and their development. one story, a young girl from ithaca died at the age of four because of the complications of her brain cancer treatment. faced with the loss of her daughter, her mother, christina, founded mira's movement, to make sure that she could raise awareness about pediatric cancers and to serve as a

resource for families facing their own battles with these diseases. and after exhaustive study of review that identified potential links between chemicals and our environment and cancers, like the one young mira had, i believe it's time for congress to take action. we have a number of amendments today that will, again, enhance the work we're doing. two amendments that i care a lot about, one is very simple, just making sure that parents have as much information as possible when there are disclosures that accompany medicines so you know what all of the impacts could be of that medication. i know that most of my colleagues and certainly most consumers didn't realize that the leaflets that come with our prescriptions isn't regulated by anyone and it's usually just written by a contractor. in 1995, the f.d.a. recommended standards to improve the information provided to patients, but by 2008, only about 75% of information -- information patients were

receiving met the standards for usefulness. and i -- i just have to say, i -- i met with one mother named kate and her personal story about what happened to her son, who was just suffering from allergies and asthma and when he took a different medication, she saw him go into a depression, she didn't know there could be a relationship. that information was never provided to her. but the pain and loss that she goes through every single day remembering her son has really encouraged her to be an advocate, an advocate for reform, to make sure that every parent has basic information that has some level of accountability so that they know what the implications of all medicines can be. now, the aarp and "consumer reports" have spent years trying to ensure their patients -- aensure their patients that when they receive f.d.a. approval, standardized and up-to-date information about their medications will be provided and they support this amendment that will do -- make that requirement consumers basically have a

fundamental right to know the risks associated with their prescription medications and my amendment would give them this knowledge. and then last and quite simply, we use sunscreen everyday. my family, my kids, they have very fair skin. i want to know that the label on that sunscreen is accurate. i just want to know if it has the protection it says it does. and this is an area that desperately needs regulation. i support senator reed of rhode island's bill to finally give consumers the information they need with regard to sunscreen. so thank you, mr. president, for this opportunity. all america's families basically just have a right to know, are these things safe? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspend. about ten days ago, the "chicago tribune" had a sunday exclusive investigative report on fire retardant chemicals. and the report went on for several days and i called the writers and commended them on the wonderful job that they did on this report. it was as good as any investigation i've ever seen by a committee of congress. it raised some serious issues i'd never thought about. we probably have all heard from time to time there are certain chemicals which, when put on fabric, for example, will reduce the likelihood that it will flame and injure someone. well, i accepted that as truth and i guess most people would. because there was testimony that was given, even by medical

doctors and so-called experts, that said that's a fact. the "tribune" series took a look at the so-called experts and you know what they found? they were on the payroll of the chemical companies that made the fire retardant chemicals and the doctors were actually kind of manufacturing cases of burns to make the case that states should apply these new standards. well, over the years, this testimony by these people who had a built-in conflict of interest ended up being persuasive at many levels in many states. and as a result, there were requirements to add fire retardant chemicals to fabrics, in clothing, pajamas, furniture and the like. and then a closer look was taken. the underwriters laboratory took a look at these chemical and said, you know what? they really don't stop a fire from flaming up. the tests that they're using are totally unadequate. these chemicals don't achieve what they're supposed to achieve, but there's another side of the story. the chemical themselves can be

dangerous. these are chemicals that haven't been tested in terms of their exposure to human beings. and the average couch, the "chicago tribune" article said, had two pounds -- two pounds -- of fire retardant chemicals built into it. they put it particularly in those foam cushions. i'm going to get back to that in a second. remember that. the foam cushions. well, last november, madam president, in your wonderful state, my daughter gave birth to twins. november the 15th. it was a source of great celebration. still is. my wife and i were there with our son-in-law and daughter to welcome this little boy and little girl into the world. and after a couple days, to bring them home from the hospital to the condo where my my -- my son-in-law and daughter live. and we were so careful. i think about it now. hand sanitizers -- we never had that when we were raising our kids, but we were careful to make sure we washed our hands. every single thing that these

kids would come in contact with, the little onesies or the blankets had to not only be cleaned but cleaned with the right detergent. we wanted to get the right detergent so it wouldn't cause any problems with these children. of course, when we're giving them formula, we're sterilizing everything in sight to make sure that it's perfectly clean. and then i recall that moment when i had that tiny little baby and i was going to give this baby a bottle -- still see if i remembered thousand do it -- and they said well, get a comfortable place, why don't you go and sit down on the couch. i sit down on the couch. i'd never crossed my mind that as i sat down on the couch and depressed that cushion on the couch, i was releasing a spray of toxic dust from fire retardant chemicals. never crossed my mind at one moment. and when we went to buy a -- a little kind of cradle with a cushion for each of the kids. we went over to babies r us in columbus circle, took the subway over there. i never even thought to think about whether or not the cushion

on that baby's cradle or crib had fire retardant chemicals in it that might, in fact, be sprayed every time someone sat on it or the baby was put on it. never crossed my mind. well, i can tell you as a result of the "chicago tribune" article s, i think about it all the time now. and i think about this. how many american families can make that judgment? when they buy a couch or a chair when they buy children's furniture? you can't. you cannot physically do it. we're not -- i'm not a scientists -- i'm a political scientists, that doesn't counted. i'm not a real scientist, you know, and i can't judge what's safe and what isn't. whom can i trust? can i trust the company making the product? well, you like to think so but sometimes not. can you trust the spokespeople for the chemical industry? unfortunately they come into this with a conflict of interest. so senator frank lautenberg of new jersey has created legislation that really calls on

the chemical industry to take care with the chemicals that they put into everything we use every single day. to make sure that americans and families have peace of mind when they buy products that the environmental protection agency is at least reviewing the chemicals that are being put in those products to decide if they're safe. if the environmental protection agency doesn't do this, who will do it? do we trust the chemical industry to do it? i don't think so. can we trust the furniture industry? i'm not sure. but we know if the e.p.a. does it, it can make a difference. 80,000 different chemicals out there now, many of them critically important for our safety and health. safe chemicals that we can be exposed to every single day without concern. but there are others that aren't the flame retardant chemicals are a good example of that. and, as the presiding officer said when she was speaking on the floor, over the years, they

have reviewed 200 of these chemicals out of 80,000. 200. and at the end of the day, they've banned five. five. what about the rest of them? have they taken a look? where does the first level of responsibility start? senator lautenberg's bill says it starts with those who would put the chemicals in the marketplace, that there be a certain level of safety established before they can be sold across the board. i think that's essential. madam president, we're on a bill that will not bring up the toxic chemical issue. i happy to will come up in and of itself soon. but we're on a bill dealing with the food and drug administration and i heard about your amendment and i support it. i think it's a good one. let me tell you something else that we should know. the food and drug administration , a small agency, has a big responsibility. literally before any drug can be told as a prescription drug in america, the first -- sold as a prescription drug in america, the food and drug administration has to establish, number one, that it's safe, and number two,

that it's effective. if it says it's going to do certain things, it has to accomplish those things. so there's lengthy testing in terms of these drugs before they're actually licensed, allowed legal in america. the drugs that make it through all these tests can generate millions, even billions of dollars in profits for the pharmaceutical companies, but many don't make it through the testing process. but the f.d.a. is there to establish that those drugs are safe and effective. and, of course, the consumers rely on it. when the doctor writers a prescription, you feel pretty certain that this is going to be something the doctor knows is good for you and it's already been tested through the f.d.a. there's a whole other category of things, though, that we buy every single day that are treated differently. they are called dietary supplements. they include things like vitamin as that you take in the morning, minerals -- i take a multivitamin every day for -- i don't know what reason but

die -- and dietary supplements also include things like energy drinks. heard about any energy drinks lately? you can hardly escape them. the 5-hour energy drink, the monster drink, all these different drinks that you can buy turn out not to be the same as soda or soda pop but they are dietary supplements, in small print on the back of the label. well, what's the difference? the difference is this. if you wanted to sell a bottle of cola, for example -- i won't give any proprietary names here -- a bottle of cola, there's a limitation by the f.d.a. about how much caffeine can be put in each bottle of colavment but if you decide i'm not going to sell cola, which is classified as a beverage or food , i'm going to -- i instead sell monster energy drink and i'm going to call it a dietary supplement, there is no regulation on the amount of caffeine that can be included. yesterday, i met a woman who came here with her parents and her daughter to be in the gallery, as i talkebo