Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, several years ago I started looking at the financial relationships between physicians and drug companies. I first began these inquiries by examining payments from pharmaceutical companies to physicians serving on Food and Drug Administration advisory boards. More recently, I began looking at professors at medical schools and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. In turn, I scrutinized the grants that these physicians may have received from the National Institutes of Health. I first examined a psychiatrist at the University of Cincinnati. Then I looked at three research psychiatrists who took millions of dollars from the drug companies and failed to fully report their financial relationships to Harvard and Mass General Hospital. I then discovered a doctor at Stanford who founded a company that is seeking the Food and Drug Administration's approval to market a drug for psychotic depression. The National Institutes of Health is funding some of the research on this drug, which is being led by this same Stanford scientist. If his own research finds that the drug is successful, this researcher stands to gain millions. The NIH later removed this researcher from the grant. I would now like to address two doctors with the University of Texas System. Dr. Augustus John Rush is a psychiatrist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. During 2003-2005, Dr. Rush received an NIH grant to conduct a clinical training program. This program helped trainees understand how to conduct proper clinical trials and also dealt with medical ethics. However, just 2 years before getting this Federal grant, Dr. Rush failed to report all of the money that Eli Lilly paid him. Dr. Rush disclosed $3,000 in payments from the company, but Eli Lilly tells me that they paid Dr. Rush $17,802 in 2001. I would also like to discuss Dr. Karen Wagner, a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Dr. Wagner was one of the authors on a Paxil study known as Study 329. This study was published in 2001. Study 329 was cited in a New York case where GlaxoSmithKline was charged with ``repeated and persistent fraud.'' Part of the case against Glaxo was that the drug company promoted positive findings but didn't publicize unfavorable data. In March 2006, Dr. Wagner was being deposed in a case on Paxil. During that deposition, Dr. Wagner was asked how much money she had taken from drug companies over the previous 5 years. Her response? She said: ``I don't know.'' In fact, she testified that she couldn't even estimate how much money she received from the drug companies. According to Glaxo, they paid Dr. Wagner over $53,220 in 2000. In 2001, when study 329 was published the company reported paying her $18,255. During many of these years, Dr. Wagner has led NIH-funded studies on depression. These studies involved Paxil and Prozac; an antidepressant made by Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly reported to me that they paid Dr. Wagner over $11,000 in 2002. However, Dr. Wagner did not disclose this payment to the University of Texas. Apparently, the University of Texas Medical Branch didn't require their physicians to disclose their financial relationships with the drug industry, until around 2002. But federal guidelines from 1995 are clear that researchers need to disclose this money when they take a grant from the NIH. What makes this even more interesting is that from September 2003 through August 2004, Dr. Wagner was a voting member of the Conflict of Interest Committee at her university. That is right, she was one of the university's experts on conflicts of interest during the same time that she was not reporting her outside income. Before closing, I would like to say that the University of Texas System has been very cooperative in this investigation. And I appreciate the continued cooperation of companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly. I ask unanimous consent to have my letter to the University of Texas printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. Bob Fulwider as he nears the end of his term as the 103rd chairman of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Mr. Fulwider was elected to the IIABA's executive committee in 2002, and was installed as the association's chairman last September. Founded in 1896, IIABA, or the Big ``I'' as it is better known, is the Nation's oldest and largest association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers, and their employees. During his term as chairman of the Big ``I'', Bob Fulwider has been a leader on a number of issues for the association including regulatory reform and natural disaster insurance. Perhaps most importantly, during this year's consideration of the farm bill and specifically its impact on crop insurance, Mr. Fulwider was a forceful advocate for his association who led with professionalism and determination. Mr. Fulwider has over his lifetime built two financial and insurance planning service businesses throughout eastern Iowa including West Liberty and West Branch, IA. Mr. Fulwider is also a former national board director and a past president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, IIAI. Mr. Fulwider has been honored with several national and state awards. He has been honored with two IIABA Presidential Citations--in 1987 and 1994. He was named IIAI Agent of the Year in 1993 and received the association's ``Mr. Chairman'' Award in the same year. He also received the Agent of the Year Award in 1990. He is the first honoree in the Iowa association's history to receive the award twice. In 2002, Mr. Fulwider was honored with the Sydney O. Smith Award, IIABA's highest individual government affairs honor. In 2003 he was named to the Iowa Insurance Hall of Fame. In addition, Mr. Fulwider is extremely active in his community. After graduating from Iowa State University, he taught in Iowa public high schools and served on the Iowa State University faculty prior to entering the insurance business. Mr. Fulwider is past president of the Muscatine County Economic Development Council and training director and board member of the Iowa Council--Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Fulwider has served as Scoutmaster of his local troop for 25 years and has received numerous Scouting awards including the Silver Beaver. Additionally, he is active in his church and Masonic Lodge. I want to thank Bob Fulwider for his work with the IIABA over the years and for his commitment to his profession, his community, and our state of Iowa. His efforts are greatly appreciated. I am proud to count Bob as both a constituent and a friend. I wish him, his wife Jan, and their family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the benefit of leaders' offices, after I am done speaking about the flood situation in Iowa, I have been asked by the leader to make a unanimous consent request in regard to E- Verify. So I want to notice the offices about what I am going to do. It will be down the road, in half an hour or so. Mr. President, last night I came to the floor to ask for unanimous consent on the tax bill we referred to as the Midwest flood disaster tax relief package. I was denied unanimous consent to bring that up. I did not make a long justification for the necessity of doing that, but I wish to speak to that point now. I am not going to further ask unanimous consent the same as I did last night; I am just going to speak about why I did it last night and why it was essential. There is one thing I want to put in the Record at this point, and it is in regard to one of the points that was made by the Senator from Illinois last night, Mr. Durbin, the Democratic whip. He said one of the reasons for denying my request for the tax relief package I am talking about for flood victims in the Midwest is because similar provisions were contained in S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, and that bill did not get 60 votes. Obviously, it didn't get 60 votes for the reason a lot of other bills have not gotten 60 votes on the floor of the Senate: We in the minority want to stay on the No. 1 problem affecting this country; that is, the high cost of gasoline and the energy crisis that is facing the Nation. We want the majority party to give us opportunities to offer amendments to increase the supply of energy in this country as opposed to paying $140 a barrel to buy oil and import it from overseas, giving money to nations that want to train terrorists to kill Americans. That is the reason S. 3335 did not get 60 votes. So we are technically on the Energy bill. But one of the things he said about that bill was to leave the impression that S. 3335 did everything that needs to be done for the disaster relief in the Midwest, and it doesn't, and I made that point last night, so I am not going to repeat that. But even if S. 3335 had passed, we had previously had a Statement of Administration Policy, and I am only going to quote one sentence from a longer Statement of Administration Policy that I am going to put in the Record, and that sentence is this: ``However, due to other objections to the bill, should it be presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.'' So I think that when we are under a situation where we have the trauma of floods and people being homeless because of the flooding situation in the Midwest, it doesn't do much good to pass a piece of legislation that is going to be vetoed by the White House anyway. The point I was trying to make last night is that we shouldn't be adjourning for our summer August break and not taking care of things in the Midwest the very same way we took care of the situation for New Orleans caused by Katrina. Of course, the point is that the legislation we seek for the Midwest is the same as the legislation we sought and we actually accomplished for New Orleans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full Statement of Administration Policy from which I quoted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yes, I will take that opportunity. I hope I get to have an opportunity to offer a unanimous consent request as well for our side of the aisle, if you want to be completely fair. In the last few weeks in this body, we have not necessarily been fair. So let me take advantage of the majority whip's invitation to respond. First of all, he knows, because he is in the leadership, that I gave the majority party information, at least 48 hours ago, and maybe 72 hours ago, that this week I was going to seek a unanimous consent request, and all day yesterday we were denied that opportunity, even at the point before adjournment and my speaking to Leader Reid about when can I do my unanimous consent request. You know what I was told? After the adjournment resolution. So do not say I did not make an attempt to do it and do not say you did not know about it. If you wanted to cooperate with us, we could have had that cooperation. But there does not seem to be that sort of comity in the Senate anymore. Another point you made was that I had a chance to work for a tax relief package for flood victims. The bill you voted for and you asked unanimous consent on did less for your constituents than the legislation we had been working on for 2 weeks. Then, he brings up the point about not working through committee. Well, most of the work on this bill has been so we can get a consensus package, working with even Chairman Rangel's staff, so it is not only bipartisan but bicameral, so we can put together something and get it done very quickly in the same consensus manner that we were able to help the victims of New Orleans. Then, the other reason: Why would the Senator from Illinois cosponsor our bill if it was not the right bill for his State and for the Midwest and for this disaster? We have always tried to do things as quickly as can be done when people hurt. That is why when we got back after Katrina--on Tuesday or Wednesday--we had $10 billion that we were going to give to New Orleans. Before the end of the week was up, it was $60 billion, in 2005. Now, do you think the committee had an opportunity to work its will on that? No. They were responding to need. Don't you think your constituents hurt across from Burlington? They may be still underwater. I do not know. A couple weeks ago, they were when I was talking on the radio station. In Burlington you had constituents who still had just the roofs of houses showing. Don't you think they need help right now? So I think, first of all, procedural-wise, either the majority whip does not know what is going on when I notify his cloakroom that I am going to offer it or else he does not care or he wants to mislead. The second thing is, he is not voting for the bills and pushing the bills that will help his constituents the most, and we still do not have the relief. So that is my response to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak to the point, just so you know, in Iowa the flood situation is very much in the headlines. I think one of the problems we are having in the Midwest, in getting Congress to pay attention to the problems that remain from the flooding of June, is that it is not constantly on television. It is not on television all the time. Of course, for 2 months, 3 months, the situation in New Orleans was constantly on television, and Congress responded. Mr. President, I see the whip here, and maybe I said something to which he wants to react. If he does, I would be happy to yield for that purpose.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Anyway, we have here in the Des Moines Register a headline that says, ``Storm Hit One in Five School Districts,'' and then it has reports on how much it is going to cost to fix the schools. We have another headline here that says, ``At Least $30 Million Needed to Repair Roads,'' as an example. Then we have a statement that was printed in the Davenport newspaper that was written by Charlotte Eby. I am not going to quote the whole thing. I just want to speak to parts of it. While Congress puts off consideration of the flood relief bill, it looks like the Iowa legislature will be rolling up its sleeves to help out Iowa flood victims. It speaks about a growing sense that the Iowa legislature has to step in. The delay of a Federal response by Congress could also push back the State response, a development that left Iowans angry. It quotes the minority leader of the Iowa senate. Ron Wieck, Republican of Sioux City, said action cannot wait, and if that means a special session, he is for it. It doesn't quote him, but it says he is appalled that Congress will go home for the summer recess without passing a Federal flood relief package when floods left people in the Midwest homeless. Then the last paragraph is not anybody's quote except the author's, Charlotte Eby: Maybe the U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to walk the streets of Cedar Rapids. They would think twice about heading home for their August recess without lending a helping hand. Then I have a quote from Congressman King, who went to Cedar Rapids, I think, as recently as Monday of this week. He says: This is Katrina. I have walked into and out of those buildings (in New Orleans) and I tell you, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. He means telling the difference between the destruction that went on in New Orleans in the 2005 hurricane and what happened in Cedar Rapids in June when it was hit by a 500-year flood. I do applaud Senator Obama because he was in Cedar Rapids yesterday campaigning, and he was also very attentive to the problems of Cedar Rapids in his town meeting. He said he came there and wanted to listen. I have not heard reports on what questions he received, what complaints he received. He may have been talking just to a friendly audience--I don't know. But he did say that he was there to listen, and I hope after he has listened to the situation in Cedar Rapids that he will tell friends in the Congress of the United States that we need to act quickly. I hope he would say we should have acted this week--which action now, of course, is impossible because we are breaking for our summer break. I am here once again to discuss the plight of my fellow Iowans and many others throughout the Midwest following a series of deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods. It is a multiple disaster, tornadoes and floods, and not just floods. Iowa has 99 counties. Of those, 80 counties have been designated as a disaster area by FEMA. When looking at a map of Iowa, it is much easier to count the few counties that are not disaster areas than the vast majority that are disaster areas. Every weekend except for this past weekend since we were in session, I have been back in Iowa to meet with people affected by the storm and to see the devastation for myself. As I noted last week, estimates of damage are in the billions of dollars and are climbing every day. I thought nothing could match my frustration at seeing so many Iowans in such great need, but the fact that we have not been able to act upon both the appropriations bill, as well as this tax bill, has frustrated me. It seems because we do not see the storm on television all the time that there is an apparent lack of desire to help the Midwest recover from these deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods, quite contrary to the quick action that Congress took after Katrina. Before I go further, I want to display a few pictures of the flooding. The first will show one of many railroad bridges that was severely damaged. Businesses such as the one in this picture rely on this railroad track, this bridge, to receive their inputs and move their goods. Throughout Iowa there are similar bridges that are damaged. Iowa railroads play a vital part in moving our agricultural products and goods, to do it efficiently, and obviously in a more energy-efficient way. This infrastructure is important for Iowa's interstate commerce and international trade. I have another picture that shows the museum of art at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. This is the museum of art. I believe I have heard from the university officials that this building is going to have to be torn down. The next picture shows flooding along the Iowa River. You can see the tops of buildings. These are homes and businesses of people who just want their lives back. They are not asking for anything extraordinary or excessive, but they are in need of help to recover and rebuild. They are, in a sense, asking for the same help that New Orleans got after Katrina. I would like to use the phrase ``so that they can get things back to normal.'' However, it is very difficult to use that phrase. It will take years before Iowa recovers, and it will not be the same, although we will still be a very strong State. I can share, for example, the story of my hometown of New Hartford, a community of 670 just west of Waterloo, IA. An F5 tornado ripped through this area, destroying a whole section of town. The floods then came and inundated the town. Out of 270 homes in New Hartford, IA, 240 had damage or were destroyed. Businesses were also harshly affected. Many of them are trying to decide if they want to stay in business or if they can afford to stay in business. Several have already decided not to reopen. The town I lived around all my life as a farm boy--and still as a farmer--will never be back to normal. It won't ever be the same. I think we will have a thriving community but, quite frankly, it won't be the same. The next chart shows you a picture of downtown Cedar Rapids. I am talking about a 500-year flood. The previous flood record was about 19 feet. Levees could take up to 22 feet. But I think this flood got as high as 31 feet and has been referred to as a 500-year flood. As you look at this picture, think of all the homes and businesses that are severely damaged and destroyed. Downtown Cedar Rapids is not going to be the same. Since Cedar Rapids and other places in Iowa are not popular as vacation spots as are other cities, you probably haven't seen or heard much of the devastation except for the week of television when it was actually underwater. I can assure everyone that the people of Iowa and the Midwest deserve the same consideration that was given to the people of New York after 9/11 and the people of the gulf coast after the hurricanes of 2005. Last week I touched on how the response to the Midwest disasters has been different from the response to other disasters. I would like to elaborate on that point. These are some of the same points I made last night, but I only took about 2 minutes to make these points. On August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast, causing widespread devastation. The Congress was in recess at the time; however, the Republican Congress and the Senate Finance Committee sprang into action immediately at the staff level, even before we got back the day after Labor Day. We immediately started working with the Governors of the affected States and set out goals that we hoped to accomplish when we finally came back into session. On September 28, 2005, less than a month----

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to continue my speech for as much time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. About 7 or 8 minutes, I think.

Mr. GRASSLEY. On September 28, less than a month after Hurricane Katrina, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Community Rebuilding Needs and Effectiveness of Past Proposals.'' Governor Blanco of Louisiana, Governor Barbour of Mississippi, and Governor Riley of Alabama all participated. On October 6, 2005, I chaired another hearing titled ``The Future of the Gulf Coast Using Tax Policy to Help Rebuild Businesses and Communities and Support Families.'' Treasury Secretary Snow testified at that hearing. Congress also passed tax legislation very quickly. The Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 was signed by the President on September 23, 2005. This unoffset package cost more than $6 billion. That package was followed up by the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, which was signed by President Bush in December of 2005. This unoffset package was scored to cost around $8.6 billion. Neither of these packages were subject to a rollcall vote in the Senate, but both were passed by unanimous consent. I want to make it clear that we did the right thing by setting aside our planned agenda to help the people affected by hurricanes as quickly as we could. Some of the people still living on the gulf coast still need our help, and we should be helping them, and some of these tax provisions in what we call the extenders package continue some of that help. Passing these bills without offsets was also the right thing to do. As any of my staffers can tell you, I am very careful with the money. However, when people are suffering from a massive natural disaster, it is no time to be a cheapskate. I am also very frustrated by the desire of some House Democrats to offset this tax relief package for Iowans and other Midwesterners because that is a double standard. We did not demand offsets when we were trying to help New Orleans. I am not asking for anything more than the same consideration that was given to the victims of other major disasters. I have learned lessons from previous tax disaster packages. We learned we need to tailor the relief so more is targeted specifically for those who suffered damages and really need the assistance. Therefore, the package I introduced, that I tried to get unanimous consent on last night, called the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provides targeted assistance to families and businesses in 10 States throughout the central United States to help those who suffered damage from these deadly storms and floods, to help them rebuild their lives. The estimated cost of the bill is less than $4 billion. We need to be prudent with our Federal money, and as I stated, my tax package is targeted to those who suffered loss and is a reasonable cost to help these victims of the storms and floods in the 10 States that were affected. From that standpoint, that is something we have learned in the last 3 years from the package that was passed after Katrina. There were people who took advantage of some provisions who were not harmed by the natural disaster, so we have tailored this bill so that only people who were harmed by the flood situation are the ones we will help. We had Senators Harkin, Bond, McCaskill, Coleman, Klobuchar, Durbin, Obama, Roberts, Brownback, Lugar, and Bayh all as original cosponsors of this bill. In the House, the Iowa Congressional Delegation introduced a companion bill, and the list of the original cosponsors to this bill shows this is a very bipartisan package. We all recognize the need for targeted relief for the Midwest. The problem seems to be the ability to get the bill up in a timely fashion like we did in the case of New Orleans. I have been hearing that the Democratic leadership in the House is insisting that the package be offset, which is completely different than how we responded to disasters in the past when we didn't worry about offsets. Normally when we have emergencies, they are emergencies; you get the bill passed to help the people who need it. Just yesterday the Senate voted against cloture on an extenders package put forward by Senate Democrats. It purported to include disaster relief. I am taken aback that the Senate Democrats would politicize the suffering of so many people just to try to get an extenders bill passed. The disaster relief in that bill was watered down. It provided substantially less assistance for Iowa and the other States in the central portion of the United States. The Senator from Illinois is here, and I hope he hears that because I want to emphasize that that bill is quite a bit different and doesn't do as much good. It is not targeted. It is not helping people who need to be helped right now. Its authors were apparently motivated by the twin misconceptions that the Midwestern disasters are not as severe as they really are and that we should undertake generic tax relief at the expense of the Midwest. When I say the proponents of the Democratic extender package think the disaster is not as severe as they are, I say that noting that their package provided less assistance to the Midwest than my bipartisan tax- targeted disaster tax bill did provide. The Democratic disaster package also had a higher revenue score than my package. I told you we tried to scale this back so we did not make the same mistakes we did in the case of Katrina, where a lot of people who did not get hurt by the disaster were able to take advantage of it--not our intention. But because we probably hastened it through to get help to Katrina victims, some people took advantage of it. We tailored this so only people who have a disaster can benefit from it. It had a higher revenue score, as I said, than the Democratic alternative. They included the whole country instead of disasters that have not occurred. I am not arguing that we should look at putting generic assistance into the Tax Code to assist States when Federal disasters are declared the future. It seems to me that is a worthy thing for us to be discussing. However, I do not think it is right to slow down the help for the Midwest because you want a broader national policy. People in the Midwest and Iowa are suffering now and have been for almost 2 months. They have experienced a severe event that was well above the 500-year flood level. This is an extraordinary disaster. We need the help right now. The proper time to make a thorough a review of how we generally respond to disasters should not come at the expense of a specific massive natural disaster that has occurred and the people need immediate assistance. The author of the disaster package put forward in the Democrat's extender bill may have meant well, but I cannot help but feel that Iowa and the Midwest would be getting the short end of the stick. Their disaster package also included a provision that only benefitted New York, at a cost of more than $1 billion. This is the second-largest provision in that disaster relief package, when people are literally trying to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and lives in the Midwest. It is simply insulting and disgraceful to use the misery of others to play politics and gamesmanship at a time when we should be able to put politics aside, as we did in September 2005, to help people going through extraordinarily difficult times. However, there are apparently some who, because we do not see this on television or because they have other agendas, want to take advantage to get more. At the same time, I am trying to get help for my constituents. The correct question to put is simply: How can I help? The best course of action would be for the House and Senate to pass the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 and do it as we did in September 2005; do it by unanimous consent. We can discuss general disaster response as well, but right now the people of Iowa are suffering and the Midwest is suffering as well. We have a moral obligation to help them as we helped the people and citizens of New York after 9/11 and the gulf coast when they needed help. If anyone honestly believes Iowans do not deserve our help, then please come down to the floor, state your views, talk about it. I will encourage anyone who has doubts about the severity of this disaster to do like Senator Obama did yesterday, come to Iowa and I will be glad to take you around when you can come. I am ready to yield the floor, but I had previously made a statement that I was going to make a unanimous consent request on the immigration bill. I am not going to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I want to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill to which he is probably going to object. But I want him to know that people on this side of the aisle want to move things along. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the bill be held at the desk pending further House action.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hubbard Act. This important legislation helps our service men and women in uniform who are the ``sole survivor''--only surviving child in a family in which one of their family members has died or been killed due to their military service. Under the current ``sole survivor'' policy of the Armed Forces, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Forces under this policy. The legislation corrects a flaw, allowing sole survivors to qualify for a standard set of Federal benefits that are generally available to other veterans. I would like to comment on the bill's other provision. Section 9 would repeal the dollar limitations on contributions to funeral trusts. In the Senate, this provision was authored by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch. It has been included to offset the additional spending associated with the bill's sole survivor provisions. As I have consistently said in the past, the Senate Finance Committee is not a piggy bank for the other committees to dip into to pay for their new spending proposals. My preference would have been to have the sole survivor provisions in this legislation funded by spending reductions by the committees of jurisdiction. I have been told that option was not available for this bill. The funeral trust provision under Section 9, is a taxpayer favorable provision. It is a purely voluntary provision. It helps people who want to put more money aside in trust to provide for their funeral. Unlike prior revenue raisers proposed by the majority that would impose tax increases on unsuspecting Americans, this revenue offset is strongly supported by those who would pay the additional tax. As I said previously, my strong preference would be to not use the tax code to pay for higher spending. However, there is strong support for the funeral trust provision and it is favorable to taxpayers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I have been asked to propound a unanimous consent request on speaking orders: 4 minutes for Senator Grassley, 4 minutes for Senator Coburn, and whatever time Senator Harkin would consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of a unanimous consent request for the Midwestern flood tax relief bill sponsored by the Senators of several Midwestern States, including Senator Harkin of my State, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama of Illinois, and other midwestern Senators. I rise to seek fairness and equity for people in the Midwest who have been hurt by floods, and I would say fairness and equity as measured by how Congress responded to the natural disaster of Katrina, New Orleans, et cetera. I remember back in September of 2005, after that terrible catastrophe of August 29, what happened in New Orleans. Within the week after we were in session, after Labor Day, we had appropriated $60 billion. Within 3 weeks after that--I was chairman of the Finance Committee--we voted out of committee a tax equity bill that changed provisions of the Tax Code to encourage employers and businesses and people to stay there and weather it out. What we did, we did without asking any questions. And now we seek the same tax relief for the States of the Midwest that have had the same type of catastrophe happen to them. I would measure catastrophe by a 500-year flood in the city of Cedar Rapids, IA, which won't be the same as it was prior to the flood. So we have entered this legislation for consideration. We have worked it out with a lot of people who were involved in it. We worked closely with Senator Baucus's staff, with the staff of Ways and Means, trying to satisfy everybody. We think we have a consensus. Here it is, 6 weeks after the floods hit, and Congress has not acted. Congress should act. In other words, shouldn't the people hurt by the natural disaster of the Midwest have the same consideration as the people of New Orleans and those with other catastrophes? We are not getting it. It is very clear that when our disaster is not on television for 2 months in a row, like the disaster of New Orleans was on television for 2 months in a row, somehow Congress is absentminded about what happened in the Midwest. So we face things like arguments from staff of some of the people in the other body that, well, this disaster wasn't anything like what happened in Katrina or you hear things like, well, we need to offset this bill. When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the people in New Orleans were hurting, we did not ask for offsets. We did not play political games with the legislation we eventually passed, like some efforts this Midwest Tax Flood Relief Act ought to be connected with extenders or with AMT or something like that. We got the job done. We didn't worry about it. I come before this body tonight to ask for consideration of this legislation. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3322 At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that the bill be held at the desk pending House action on the companion measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I point out that what the Senator from Illinois described is an amendment that would not have responded to the Midwest in exactly the same way as we responded to Katrina. It would not have been as beneficial. It also did not contain the same 25 provisions we did for New Orleans, which were in that tax bill to help them. I think we have a situation where we ought to respond the same way we did for Katrina. We are not doing it because the disaster in the Midwest is as bad. When we thought about Katrina, we didn't argue with other people about going back and taking care of disasters that previously happened. We took care of what was before us. Right now, the flood of the Midwest is before us, and we ought to have the same equity and fairness that, when we had a Republican Congress, we gave to New Orleans. Whether we have a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, that should not make any difference. We are being treated differently when the Democrats control the Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been examining several doctors at universities across the country to see if they are complying with the financial disclosure policies of the National Institutes of Health. I ask unanimous consent to have my latest letters to Stanford University and to the National Institutes of Health printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, intend to object to proceeding to any unanimous consent agreement pertaining to the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams to be the Administrator of the General Services Administration. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted to report the Williams nomination favorably to the full Senate on July 30, 2008. I oppose this nomination because of Mr. Williams's actions in connection with the renegotiation of a contract with Sun Microsystems in August-September 2006. I have outlined my concerns about this matter in detail in a speech on the floor on July 24, 2008. That statement appears on pages S7272-S7274 of the Record. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues that I have requested to be notified of any unanimous consent agreement that would allow for the consideration of the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams to be the Administrator of the General Services Administration, GSA. I intend to reserve my right to object to any such request. I expressed my opposition to this nomination in a floor statement on July 24, 2008, and in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the same date. My letter to Chairman Lieberman appears in the Record on page S7273 at the conclusion of my speech. My opposition to this nomination is based on the results of an in- depth oversight investigation conducted by my staff in 2006-2007. This investigation examined the actions of Mr. Williams, former Administrator Doan, and several other senior agency officials in the contract negotiations with Sun Microsystems, Inc. in May-September 2006. There were: No. 1. allegations of fraud on the Sun contract that was being renegotiated; No. 2. Mr. Williams and Ms. Doan had knowledge of the alleged fraud; and No. 3. allegations that Mr. Williams and Ms. Doan had improperly interfered in the ongoing negotiations and put pressure on the contracting officer to sign what was considered a bad contract. I presented the findings of this investigation in a floor statement on October 17, 2007, which appears on pages S12952-12954 of the Record. At Mr. Williams's hearing on July 25, the committee did ask him some tough questions about his knowledge of the alleged fraud and his role in the Sun contract negotiations. However, Mr. Williams's response was less than complete, and there was little or no followup by the committee. I am preparing followup questions for Mr. Williams, asking him for more details. All the evidence developed in my oversight investigation points to the existence of serious unresolved issues involving Mr. Williams role in this matter. Based on what I know today, I do not believe that Mr. Williams should be promoted to high office. He placed the well-being of the GSA before the interests of all the hard-working American taxpayers, who he was sworn to protect. There needs to be some accountability in the Federal contracting system for blunders and missteps during the Sun contract negotiations. I may have more to say on this subject at a later date.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I view my role as working to ensure the safety and well- being of the more than 80 million Americans who are beneficiaries of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs spend a lot of taxpayers' money on prescription drugs and medical devices, and that money should be spent on drugs and devices that are safe and effective. Over the last four years I have conducted extensive oversight of the Food and Drug Administration. I have reviewed and questioned how the FDA handles the pre-market review and post-market surveillance of drugs, biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether or not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the public health. As a result of my oversight activities, I identified serious problems at the FDA that included the quashing of scientific opinion within the agency, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, too cozy a relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate, and a failure to be adequately transparent and accountable to the public. Last year, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on FDA legislation, I encouraged them to take that opportunity to reform, improve, and re-establish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety. I believed the FDA needed additional tools, resources, and authorities to do its work. The Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act last September. While we did not fix a fundamental problem at the FDA that's been shown through my investigations over the last few years, the new legislation did provide additional tools in FDA's toolbox to better protect the American people. It was a positive step toward restoring the public's trust in the FDA. Today, I am here to talk about another FDA bill. Last summer, I started examining FDA's program for inspection of foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I expressed concerns to the FDA regarding, among other things, inspection funding, emerging exporters, and weaknesses in the inspection process. An increasing amount of the drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) Americans use are being manufactured in foreign countries. Yet, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in November 2007, the Food and Drug Administration does not know how many foreign establishments are subject to inspection and the agency conducts relatively few inspections each year. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the FDA conducted fewer than 1,400 inspections of foreign pharmaceutical facilities, often focused in countries with few reported quality concerns. In China, the world's largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients, and where export safety appears to be a growing problem, only 11 inspections were conducted during FY 2007, compared to 14 in Switzerland, 18 in Germany, and 24 in France, all countries with advanced regulatory infrastructures. I was troubled by these numbers. Then came the wake-up call in January of this year. FDA announced that Baxter International Inc. temporarily suspended production of its blood thinner heparin because of an increase in the reports of adverse events that may be associated with its drug. It was discovered that the active ingredient in heparin was contaminated and that the ingredient was produced at a facility in the People's Republic of China. Soon more recalls were announced. After several months, the FDA established a link between the contaminant found in heparin and the serious adverse events seen in patients that were given heparin. FDA's investigation of the source of the contamination highlighted significant weaknesses in oversight of the production and supply chain. With limited inspection resources, the FDA is charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients produced in nearly every corner of the globe. To make matters worse, as the FDA's challenges multiply, its resources for foreign inspections are shrinking. It is troubling that the FDA is grossly under-resourced at a time when foreign production of drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients is growing at record rates. Adding to the difficulty of this task, it appears that many foreign pharmaceutical plants register with the FDA as a means to bolster their own standing and with no intention of exporting products to the United States market. That is why I am introducing the Drug and Device Accountability Act today with Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. This legislation would augment FDA's resources through the collection of registration and inspection fees. The bill also expands the agency's authority for ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices, including foreign manufactured drugs and devices, by expanding FDA's authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers, allowing the FDA to issue subpoenas, and allowing the FDA to detain a device or drug when its inspectors have reason to believe the product is adulterated or misbranded. In addition, the bill includes a provision that expands on an amendment I filed last spring to the Senate bill, S. 1082 Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. That amendment provided for a certification by drug manufacturers that the information submitted as part of a new drug or supplemental application is accurate. Under the Drug and Device Accountability Act, individuals responsible for the submission of a drug or device application or a report related to safety or effectiveness would have to certify that the application or report is compliant with applicable regulations and not false or misleading. Civil as well as criminal penalties could be imposed for false or misleading certifications. I believe this is an important provision, especially in light of the troubling findings presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. Based on a review of documents from recent litigation involving the pain medication Vioxx, the authors of those articles concluded that the maker of Vioxx was not forthcoming in its communication with the Food and Drug Administration about the mortality risks seen in clinical trials of Vioxx conducted in patients with Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment. Last year, Congress passed legislation that would strengthen FDA's ability to act on emerging safety problems. Now we need legislation that will enhance FDA's oversight of drugs and devices if the Agency is to ensure that America's increasingly foreign-produced drug and device supply is both safe and effective.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I view my role as working to ensure the safety and well- being of the more than 80 million Americans who are beneficiaries of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs spend a lot of taxpayers' money on prescription drugs and medical devices, and that money should be spent on drugs and devices that are safe and effective. Over the last four years I have conducted extensive oversight of the Food and Drug Administration. I have reviewed and questioned how the FDA handles the pre-market review and post-market surveillance of drugs, biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether or not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the public health. As a result of my oversight activities, I identified serious problems at the FDA that included the quashing of scientific opinion within the agency, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, too cozy a relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate, and a failure to be adequately transparent and accountable to the public. Last year, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on FDA legislation, I encouraged them to take that opportunity to reform, improve, and re-establish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety. I believed the FDA needed additional tools, resources, and authorities to do its work. The Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act last September. While we did not fix a fundamental problem at the FDA that's been shown through my investigations over the last few years, the new legislation did provide additional tools in FDA's toolbox to better protect the American people. It was a positive step toward restoring the public's trust in the FDA. Today, I am here to talk about another FDA bill. Last summer, I started examining FDA's program for inspection of foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I expressed concerns to the FDA regarding, among other things, inspection funding, emerging exporters, and weaknesses in the inspection process. An increasing amount of the drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) Americans use are being manufactured in foreign countries. Yet, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in November 2007, the Food and Drug Administration does not know how many foreign establishments are subject to inspection and the agency conducts relatively few inspections each year. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the FDA conducted fewer than 1,400 inspections of foreign pharmaceutical facilities, often focused in countries with few reported quality concerns. In China, the world's largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients, and where export safety appears to be a growing problem, only 11 inspections were conducted during FY 2007, compared to 14 in Switzerland, 18 in Germany, and 24 in France, all countries with advanced regulatory infrastructures. I was troubled by these numbers. Then came the wake-up call in January of this year. FDA announced that Baxter International Inc. temporarily suspended production of its blood thinner heparin because of an increase in the reports of adverse events that may be associated with its drug. It was discovered that the active ingredient in heparin was contaminated and that the ingredient was produced at a facility in the People's Republic of China. Soon more recalls were announced. After several months, the FDA established a link between the contaminant found in heparin and the serious adverse events seen in patients that were given heparin. FDA's investigation of the source of the contamination highlighted significant weaknesses in oversight of the production and supply chain. With limited inspection resources, the FDA is charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients produced in nearly every corner of the globe. To make matters worse, as the FDA's challenges multiply, its resources for foreign inspections are shrinking. It is troubling that the FDA is grossly under-resourced at a time when foreign production of drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients is growing at record rates. Adding to the difficulty of this task, it appears that many foreign pharmaceutical plants register with the FDA as a means to bolster their own standing and with no intention of exporting products to the United States market. That is why I am introducing the Drug and Device Accountability Act today with Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. This legislation would augment FDA's resources through the collection of registration and inspection fees. The bill also expands the agency's authority for ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices, including foreign manufactured drugs and devices, by expanding FDA's authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers, allowing the FDA to issue subpoenas, and allowing the FDA to detain a device or drug when its inspectors have reason to believe the product is adulterated or misbranded. In addition, the bill includes a provision that expands on an amendment I filed last spring to the Senate bill, S. 1082 Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. That amendment provided for a certification by drug manufacturers that the information submitted as part of a new drug or supplemental application is accurate. Under the Drug and Device Accountability Act, individuals responsible for the submission of a drug or device application or a report related to safety or effectiveness would have to certify that the application or report is compliant with applicable regulations and not false or misleading. Civil as well as criminal penalties could be imposed for false or misleading certifications. I believe this is an important provision, especially in light of the troubling findings presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. Based on a review of documents from recent litigation involving the pain medication Vioxx, the authors of those articles concluded that the maker of Vioxx was not forthcoming in its communication with the Food and Drug Administration about the mortality risks seen in clinical trials of Vioxx conducted in patients with Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment. Last year, Congress passed legislation that would strengthen FDA's ability to act on emerging safety problems. Now we need legislation that will enhance FDA's oversight of drugs and devices if the Agency is to ensure that America's increasingly foreign-produced drug and device supply is both safe and effective.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes 10 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If my colleague wants to figure that all the $350 billion is going to go to the National Institutes of Health, he is right. But all $350 billion, obviously, is not going to go to the National Institutes of Health. I yield the floor.