Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, the other plan comes from our friends at the Tax Policy Center. In a similar plan to the one I just discussed, a 4- percent surtax would be charged to individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $100,000 and couples with incomes above $200,000. The surtax would apply to income above those thresholds, and the thresholds would be indexed for inflation after the year 2007. Under this option, the alternative minimum tax would be completely repealed. To give an idea of how many people would be hit by this surtax, according to IRS statistics of income, in the year 2004--the latest year we have information available for--there were 1,427,197 returns filed by singles reporting adjusted gross incomes of at least $100,000. In the same year, married persons filing jointly numbered 2,569,288 returns reporting adjusted gross incomes above $200,000. Mr. President, 2004 is the most recent year we have for this data. I realize the proposal hits singles with incomes greater then $100,000 and my numbers would include someone with an income exactly at that amount, but we can see the Tax Policy Center's plan would impact roughly 4 million singles and joint filers. It would likely impact more than that, since my numbers do not include heads of households or other categories, but you get the idea, I hope, that a lot of people would still be impacted. Now, as I said before, I am glad people are thinking about the alternative minimum tax and realize it is a very real problem out there and, specifically, this year, for 23 million middle-income-tax people who would not otherwise be hit. But as I have discussed more and more of these proposals with you, I have started to see them--as my chart indicates--as more smoke and mirrors than actual, real legislative proposals. For one thing, legislation is not introduced in a newspaper--even from the prestigious Washington Post. I keep hearing about proposal after proposal, but nothing is actually done. Everyone seems to agree something needs to be done and needs to be done quickly, but the discussion does not go further from that point. I spoke about the alternative minimum tax at the beginning of this Congress, in January and when the first quarterly payment was due. I am here now that the second quarterly payment is due. I bet I will be here when the third quarterly payment comes due, saying largely the same thing I am saying right now. Aside from the fact that Congress does not seem to be under any pressure to actually take action, all of the proposals I have discussed here share the same major flaw in that they seek to offset any revenues not collected through reform or repeal of the alternative minimum tax. Notice I said ``not collected.'' And I did not use the word ``lost.'' This distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues we do not collect as a result of alternative minimum tax relief are not lost because the alternative minimum tax collects revenues that were never supposed to be collected in the first place. Let me emphasize that. We cannot talk about lost revenue because we are talking about 23 million people being hit by the alternative minimum tax who were never supposed to be hit by the tax in the first place. The alternative minimum tax collects revenues it was never supposed to collect in the first place. Originally conceived as a mechanism to ensure high-income taxpayers were not able to completely eliminate their tax liability, the alternative minimum tax has failed. In 2004, IRS Commissioner Everson told the Finance Committee the same percentage of taxpayers continues to pay no Federal income tax. So the alternative minimum tax is not even working for those who were supposed to pay it. This was originally created in that first year with just 155 taxpayers in mind. Of the two plans I discussed earlier, the one that would impact the lower number of filers would still hit about 1 million families. See how 155 has grown to 1 million families? Finally, if we offset revenues not collected as a result of alternative minimum tax repeal or reform, total Federal revenues are projected to push through the 30-year historical average and then keep going. This chart I have in the Chamber, which is reproduced from the nonpartisan--I want to emphasize ``nonpartisan''--Congressional Budget Office's publication called ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook,'' issued in December 2005, illustrates--as you can see by the red mark--the ballooning of Federal revenues. The alternative minimum tax is a completely failed policy that is projected to bring in future revenues it was never designed to collect--and 23 million people being hit this year by it. A large share of that 23 million people being hit by it now in the second quarterly estimate they are filing is absolute proof of people being hurt by a tax that was never supposed to hit them in the first place. Of course, the best solution to this mess would be S. 55, and that is called the Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act of 2007. It is a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and this Senator, along with Senators Crapo, Kyl, and Schumer. Senators Lautenberg, Roberts, and Smith have also later signed on as cosponsors. While permanent repeal without offsetting is the best option, we absolutely must do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if it involves a temporary solution such as an increase in the exemption amount. Of course, if we do not do that, we are going to be in the same fix next year, and I will be making the same points at that particular time. This Friday, taxpayers making quarterly payments are going to once again discover the alternative minimum tax is neither the subject of an academic seminar nor a future problem we can put off dealing with. It is the real world for those taxpayers filing Friday. They are being hit by it. The alternative minimum tax is a real problem right now, and if this Congress is serious about tax fairness, we need to stand up and take action on the alternative minimum tax. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The concept underlying the alternative minimum tax fixes highlighted in this article in the Washington Post is that the alternative minimum tax could be abolished for families and individuals making less than a given amount, and that the resulting revenue loss would then be offset by a surtax--I want to emphasize: creating a new tax, a surtax--on what the article refers to as our ``nation's wealthiest households.'' Now, when they use the term the ``nation's wealthiest households,'' remember that was the whole concept of the alternative minimum tax in the first place, in 1969, to tax a few thousand people with this tax, and now they are not even being hit by it. I will bet you, you could have this surtax, and you are still going to find people who can hire the best lawyers to avoid paying that tax. When I say ``avoid paying that tax,'' I mean avoid paying that tax in a legal way, not in a way that is extralegal. There are two basic proposals that have been laid out in that Washington Post article. One of them, put forward by a member of the Ways and Means Committee of the other body, would use a 4.3 percent surtax on income over $500,000 to offset the elimination of the alternative minimum tax for people earning less than $250,000 a year. Now, it is estimated in the article that the surtax of 4.3 percent would affect about 1 million families. It is also suggested the alternative minimum tax bills would be decreased for families earning between $250,000 and $500,000 yearly as part of this option. Now, I am not sure how individuals would be treated in this plan. Interestingly, immediately after the insistence that this option enjoys a great deal of support, the article notes that details of the plan have yet to be released. In the tax world, the devil, of course, is in the details. So I am curious as to exactly what it is that is enjoying this broad political support. I will note that Ways and Means members have now denounced--now denounced--this label they have applied to this 4.3 percent tax. They have denied the ``surtax'' label. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to prove what I said, that an article from Tax Notes Today be printed in the Record. That is a publication dated June 13, 2007.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to honor two remarkable Iowans. Kay and Mary Kramer of Clive, IA have served their local community, our great State of Iowa, and America well. They have set an example of civic service that all people should be proud to follow. Mary has a distinguished record of service to our country. She was the U.S. Ambassador to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean. Additionally, she served on the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars, honoring outstanding high school seniors each year for both their academic and artistic achievements. Mary has also served her home State of Iowa well. She has done this through her work in the Iowa Senate where she was elected and reelected for more than a decade. While serving in the senate, Mary was chosen by her fellow senators to be President of the senate. Her election to this position of leadership is a testament to the respect Mary has earned from those who know her best. Mary and her husband Kay make a great, civically-minded team. Kay was named as a West Des Moines Citizen of the Year and is an active volunteer in his community. He served on the West Des Moines Board of Human Services and is still active as an officer with the West Des Moines Rotary Club. I am proud to call Kay and Mary Kramer friends, and I am happy to honor both of them here today. I appreciate their tireless efforts to serve Iowa and America. I hope that their good work, and lifetime of service, does not stop any time soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Since nobody is seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that time be charged against all sides.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I wish to speak on the bill for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss amendment No. 1231. I cosponsored this amendment with the senior Senator from Illinois to protect American workers. The amendment would require employers who intend to hire foreign workers to first recruit and find Americans to do the job. The bill before us creates a new guestworker program, known as the ``Y'' visa program. I support this guestworker program. In fact, I voted to keep this program in the bill when the Senator from North Dakota offered an amendment to strike it. I have consistently said that I support new and expanded avenues for willing workers to enter the United States and work for employers who need them. Our country's employers want to hire legal immigrants. They need a better program, and one that allows nonseasonal or nonagricultural workers to come here. We have programs--such as the H-2A and H-2B visas--to bring in willing workers. But, there are some jobs that don't fit these categories. For example, in Iowa, we have meatpacking and egg processing facilities that require low-skilled workers. Yet they do not have a legal channel to bring in workers. Our existing visa categories don't help them. The ``Y'' visa program will. But, the bill is flawed in that it doesn't require these employers to first recruit Americans. Companies who use the ``Y'' visa program should try to find U.S. workers first. How can anyone argue against that? Why not offer the job to U.S. citizens before bringing in more foreign laborers? Under the bill, employers who use the ``Y'' visa program may be required to recruit U.S. workers through their State agencies, job sites, and trade publications. Some employers will be required to ``first offer the job with, at a minimum, the same wages, benefits and working conditions, to any eligible United States worker who applies, is qualified for the job and is available at the time of need.'' But, as throughout this entire immigration bill, there are waivers, exceptions, and ways of ducking out of such requirements. The authors of this bill make it seem as though Americans will be recruited first. However, these requirements are at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary can decide who has to fulfill these requirements. The Durbin-Grassley amendment will ensure that all employers who use the ``Y'' visa program are looking first at U.S. citizens before looking abroad. I think that is what we all want. We should agree to this amendment for the sake of American workers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill honoring and memorializing a fallen Iowa hero. Scott Nisely had served his country in Iraq just short of a year when, on September 30, 2006, he was killed in combat. Scott Nisely served his country in many capacities during his lifetime. He devoted his life to his family, church, and country and has positively affected numerous lives. Scott Nisely's military service includes about 25 years with the U.S. Marine Corps, starting as an ROTC student, then 12 years on active duty, almost 9 years in the Marine Corps Reserve during which he achieved the rank of major. Most recently, he took a significant decrease in rank to serve his country once again in the Iowa Army National Guard for about 4 years until he was killed in combat. His public service also includes 12 years with the U.S. Postal Service. In addition, Scott served his community by his participation in the First Baptist Church's music ministry as a drummer. He was a devoted father who walked his daughter down the aisle for her wedding right before his deployment to Iraq. The wedding had been moved up because Sarah, his daughter, wanted him in her wedding and was worried he wouldn't return home. In recognition of this devoted family man and public servant, the bill I am introducing with the support of my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, would name the post office located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, IA, the Major Scott Nisely Post Office. The idea came from Scott's coworkers at the Marshalltown Post Office and it is indeed a fitting tribute. Representative Latham is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives today with the support of the other members of Iowa's House delegation. I am pleased to be able to propose this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to his country, and I urge its swift consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill honoring and memorializing a fallen Iowa hero. Scott Nisely had served his country in Iraq just short of a year when, on September 30, 2006, he was killed in combat. Scott Nisely served his country in many capacities during his lifetime. He devoted his life to his family, church, and country and has positively affected numerous lives. Scott Nisely's military service includes about 25 years with the U.S. Marine Corps, starting as an ROTC student, then 12 years on active duty, almost 9 years in the Marine Corps Reserve during which he achieved the rank of major. Most recently, he took a significant decrease in rank to serve his country once again in the Iowa Army National Guard for about 4 years until he was killed in combat. His public service also includes 12 years with the U.S. Postal Service. In addition, Scott served his community by his participation in the First Baptist Church's music ministry as a drummer. He was a devoted father who walked his daughter down the aisle for her wedding right before his deployment to Iraq. The wedding had been moved up because Sarah, his daughter, wanted him in her wedding and was worried he wouldn't return home. In recognition of this devoted family man and public servant, the bill I am introducing with the support of my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, would name the post office located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, IA, the Major Scott Nisely Post Office. The idea came from Scott's coworkers at the Marshalltown Post Office and it is indeed a fitting tribute. Representative Latham is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives today with the support of the other members of Iowa's House delegation. I am pleased to be able to propose this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to his country, and I urge its swift consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus in introducing the Access to Medicare Data Act of 2007. This legislation is based on S. 3897, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act, which Senator Baucus and I introduced in the 109th Congress. The bill we are introducing today establishes a framework under which Federal agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services would have access to Medicare data, including data collected under the Medicare prescription drug benefit, to conduct research consistent with the agencies' missions. The legislation also creates a process through which university-based and other researchers who meet a strict set of requirements would be permitted to use Medicare data for research purposes. As I said last year, Medicare data, particularly prescription drug data, are an immense resource that can support critical health services research, especially research on drug safety. Examining Medicare data could help the FDA identify situations, such as the one involving Vioxx more quickly and to take quick action to protect the public's health and safety. But the FDA isn't the only place that this important research can and should occur. The study issued earlier this week in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the prescription medicine Avandia clearly demonstrates that point. Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that there are serious problems with Avandia a drug that has been on the market for 8 years and is used to treat diabetes. Specifically, the researchers believe that taking Avandia increases the likelihood that a diabetic patient will have a heart attack and maybe even die. The researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing information from 42 clinical trials. Making Medicare data available to researchers like those at the Cleveland Clinic will offer another avenue for them to take in conducting research like this. I want to be clear that, similar to last year's bill, the Access to Medicare Data Act won't permit just anyone to get the Medicare data. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well- documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974. I am hopeful that we can get this bill approved soon. I, for one, don't want to be standing here next year talking about another Vioxx or another Avandia. We need to improve and create more opportunities for the government, as well as other researchers, to spot potential trouble with a drug more quickly and to take swifter steps to protect the public's health and safety. The Access to Medicare Data Act will help us accomplish that critical goal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object. I asked for 20 minutes. How do I fit into that?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The bottom line is, the Republicans now know that the conference process and the committee process will not be respected. We are doing things of a substantive nature. We are doing things for which there is a process to make sure that the term ``technical'' is abided by. That process that worked so perfectly is ignored. So if the committee process will not be respected, we have to do things to make sure that it is. In the future, we will need to protect the committee and the conference process, and we will need to do some preconferencing agreements as we ought to have learned from now what is the majority, the Democrats, when they were in the minority, that they got Republicans to agree to. It seems to me that is legitimate. It may not be exactly the way it ought to work, but it is something we have to do to make sure these things don't happen again. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to talk first about the process and then the substance of this legislation. As everybody knows, we will soon be considering the war supplemental bill entitled ``The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.'' That title is very important. As the title says, the legislation is an appropriations bill. The title refers to troop readiness. There is finally, after several months of legislative wrangling, funding for the troops that the President can sign. The title refers to veterans care. There is funding for that. The title refers to Katrina recovery. There are funds for Hurricane Katrina damage. The title also refers to Iraq accountability. There is language finally in the form acceptable to the President so that he can sign it dealing with benchmarks on our mission in Iraq and the role of the Iraqi Government. The title of the bill, however, does not refer to any matters within the jurisdiction of a committee I am very familiar with, the Finance Committee. But take a look and you will find three categories of Finance Committee matters: One, the small business tax relief package; two, the so-called pension technicals; and, three, Medicaid and SCHIP provisions. Now, why does it matter whether these policy provisions travel in a tax-writing committee bill or an appropriations bill? It matters for several reasons. I had the pleasure of serving on both the Finance Committee, and for a very short period of time during my career in the Senate, on the Appropriations Committee. They are the money committees of the Senate. Appropriations bills, by and large, spend money. That is not entitlements, that is the set-asides in the budget. Finance Committee bills, on the other hand, raise revenue and deal with most of the health and welfare entitlement spending. Both the Appropriations and Finance Committees have very strong constitutional traditions, expertise in the complex subject matter, and seasoned memberships motivated and dedicated to service of the respective committees. All you have to do is look at the careers of Chairman Byrd, the ranking member, or Senator Baucus, to know that they dedicate themselves to these two great money committees of the Senate. So when policy issues are processed outside of the Appropriations or outside the Finance Committee, necessary care, expertise, and experience is lost. When I was chairman, I took great pains to avoid taking on appropriations matters. More often than not, policy made outside of either of these committee jurisdictions will, it seems, somehow need to be corrected. There is another reason it matters; that is, policy made through the committee process is very transparent, and that is what American Government and the Congress is all about, transparency--the public business to be done publicly. The committee's role is to air and carefully consider proposals in the areas of committee jurisdiction. We are really talking about transparency. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. When the committee process is end-run, as I will demonstrate in part of this bill, there is usually no positive reason. Usually the reason is expediency on the part of people, maybe even beyond the control of the committee chairman, and I would suggest legislative leadership. It has happened not just now, it has happened under Republicans and under Democrats. But I am pleased to say it has been effectively very rare over the last few years. Skipping the committee process on new proposals was the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, now, with respect to the critical pieces of Finance Committee jurisdiction, it looks as if leadership prefers to skip the committee, after I have been told privately and publicly so many times all of the work is going to be done through the committee. So I am hoping that what I am going to complain about is pretty much a temporary pattern. To sum it up, the people's business should be done in committees in a transparent way so the people of this country know what is going on. Committee process means sunshine. I think the committee process was abused on this legislation. But the conference process was also abused. We never even went through the trappings of the committee process. We have an amended House bill that because of the imperative of an acceptable war funding package has the force of a conference report. How was the process abused? Just take a look at the bill, and you will find a patchwork of unconnected provisions in the Finance Committee jurisdiction that is not even mentioned in the title. Aside from a small business tax relief provision, no real back-and-forth discussion occurred on these matters, either in the Finance Committee or in conference. With respect to the small business tax relief provisions, the House and Senate Democratic leadership set an arbitrary ceiling that constrained our outstanding chairman, Senator Baucus, from reaching a bipartisan agreement which is so much in the tradition of how Senator Baucus and I work together. The bottom line is, Republicans opened the door to a conference agreement without receiving assurances of a fair deal. I don't think we got a fair deal. Once Republicans opened the door to the conference, the door was effectively shut on full and meaningful participation. Now, in the past, Republican leadership did similar things, and Democrats cried foul. I am proud to say that on most, not all, Finance Committee conferences, the Senate Democrats were represented and present for final conference agreements. After crying foul about some conference processes, the Senate Democratic leadership insisted in previous years on preconference agreements before letting Republicans go to conference. As I feared earlier in the year, the Senate Republican leadership will have to similarly insist on assurances before conferences are convened. This supplemental and its vetoed predecessor made the case that the conference process can't be trusted. Senate Republicans have no recourse other than to insist on preconference agreements, as we can learn from the Democratic minority of the previous 4 years. Now, I want to turn to the substance of three categories of the Finance Committee matters that were inserted in the process, after spending my previous minutes on that process. Now to the substance. The first matter deals with the small business tax relief package that traveled with a minimum wage increase. The deal in the conference is basically the same deal presented by the Democratic negotiators on the last appropriations bill. It favors the House position in number and composition of that package, practically ignoring the great work that Senator Baucus and I did on these provisions. From a small business standpoint, the House bill was a peanut shell. The Senate bill was real peanuts. Real peanuts--still not enough from my perspective but more, much more than what the House has. As you can see here, I have got Mr. Peanut up here to demonstrate the Senate bill, the House bill, and the conference report. From a small business standpoint, then, I want to repeat: The House bill was a peanut shell. The Senate bill was real peanuts. It is a missed opportunity because a conference agreement is a single, shriveled peanut, not helping small business the way small business ought to have been helped to offset the negative impacts on small business of a minimum wage tax increase. We could have, in fact, provided small business with meaningful tax relief that is contemporaneous with the effects of the minimum wage hike that I say, and I think economists agree, are negative toward small business. This chart shows Mr. Peanut. It shows this bill at each of its stages--a peanut, a peanut shell, and shriveled peanut. What we are going to be voting on will be that shriveled peanut. There is another matter that bothers me and this is the so-called pension technical corrections. What is a technical correction, one might ask. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax bills. Last year's landmark bipartisan pension reform bill certainly can be described as a major tax bill. It contained the most significant retirement security policy changes within a generation. There are proposals necessary to ensure that the provisions of the pension reform bill are working consistently within congressional intent and to provide clerical corrections. That is what technical corrections means. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Technical corrections is derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the congressional as well as administration tax staffs, where there is a great deal of expertise. That means the Republican as well as the Democratic staffs, regardless of who is in the majority or minority of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, are involved, as well as Treasury Department personnel, whether we have a Republican or Democratic President. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the nonpartisan professional staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. Any one segment I have listed can veto it. That is why we know it is nonpartisan. That is why we know it is technical. That is why we know it is not a substantive change in law. If it were, it would not be technical. The pension provisions in this bill, the one we will be voting on in a little while, represent then forgetting this process so you know things are done right. It represents a cherry-picking of some, not all, of the technical corrections that these professional people, in a nonpartisan way, are currently trying to put together with a bill that will come up later on. In addition, there are pension provisions included in this bill that are called technical but are of great substance and are not then technical. Some of these proposals are even controversial. I have reviewed legislative history over the last 15-plus years, and that history informs me that this may be an unprecedented treatment of technical corrections. Techincals were processed on a 2000 year bill that was not a tax-writing committee bill, but that package was a consensus package. All the committees and the administration had signed off that year, 7 years ago. In other instances, technicals were processed on tax-writing committee vehicles. In all these instances, the packages represented an agreement between all the tax-writing committees, Republican and Democratic, and the Treasury. In this case, there are four committees involved, the two tax-writing committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, what we call the HELP Committee, and the House Education and Labor Committee. To illustrate the controversy over the pensions technical package, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of a letter from HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi. The letter lays out their objections to the House technical process. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter I wrote regarding the Finance Committee's jurisdiction be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus in introducing the Access to Medicare Data Act of 2007. This legislation is based on S. 3897, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act, which Senator Baucus and I introduced in the 109th Congress. The bill we are introducing today establishes a framework under which Federal agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services would have access to Medicare data, including data collected under the Medicare prescription drug benefit, to conduct research consistent with the agencies' missions. The legislation also creates a process through which university-based and other researchers who meet a strict set of requirements would be permitted to use Medicare data for research purposes. As I said last year, Medicare data, particularly prescription drug data, are an immense resource that can support critical health services research, especially research on drug safety. Examining Medicare data could help the FDA identify situations, such as the one involving Vioxx more quickly and to take quick action to protect the public's health and safety. But the FDA isn't the only place that this important research can and should occur. The study issued earlier this week in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the prescription medicine Avandia clearly demonstrates that point. Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that there are serious problems with Avandia a drug that has been on the market for 8 years and is used to treat diabetes. Specifically, the researchers believe that taking Avandia increases the likelihood that a diabetic patient will have a heart attack and maybe even die. The researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing information from 42 clinical trials. Making Medicare data available to researchers like those at the Cleveland Clinic will offer another avenue for them to take in conducting research like this. I want to be clear that, similar to last year's bill, the Access to Medicare Data Act won't permit just anyone to get the Medicare data. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well- documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974. I am hopeful that we can get this bill approved soon. I, for one, don't want to be standing here next year talking about another Vioxx or another Avandia. We need to improve and create more opportunities for the government, as well as other researchers, to spot potential trouble with a drug more quickly and to take swifter steps to protect the public's health and safety. The Access to Medicare Data Act will help us accomplish that critical goal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the last few days there have been countless articles about the popular diabetes drug Avandia. For me, some of the most important questions that need to be answered here are what did FDA know, when did it know it, and what did it do with the information. Since The New England Journal of Medicine first reported on a new study by Cleveland Clinic Cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen, my investigative staff has continued to gather information about both FDA and the drugmaker. We are hearing a lot about what's called the ``RECORD'' study, which was requested by the Europeans. There was talk at the FDA, before this week's stories started appearing, that the agency wanted to wait for that study to be completed before it made a decision about whether or not to say anything about Avandia and the possible increased risk in heart attacks. Believe it or not, FDA officials have confirmed for my investigators this week that the ``RECORD'' study is not expected to be completed for 2 more years-- until the summer of 2009. That's a long time from now when you have millions of American's taking this drug. Second, there is something I would like to clarify. We have been reading this week that the FDA was not in a position to tell the American people about its concerns with Avandia because it needed ``conclusive'' information. That doesn't make sense to me. The preliminary findings of the FDA's ongoing ``meta-analysis'' of the Avandia clinical trials have been consistent with Dr. Nissen's findings of an increased heart attack risk, as well as the drug maker's findings. It goes like this: the drugmaker sees a 31-percent increased risk of a heart attack; the FDA sees a 40-percent increased risk for heart attacks; and Dr. Nissen sees a 43-percent increased risk for heart attacks. Those numbers seem like a high enough threshold to me for the FDA to warn the American people of the possibility of a problem. Third, several months ago, the Division of Drug Risk Evaluation, which sits within the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, recommended a ``boxed'' warning for Avandia. Why? Because it was believed that Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks. To date, FDA has not acted on upon this recommendation. In a statement I released on Tuesday, I also pointed out that about a year ago some FDA scientists recommended a black box warning for congestive heart failure. There is still no black box warning for congestive heart failure, and I understand that happened because the office that put Avandia on the market in the first place wanted to look into it further. America is still waiting for a decision. It was also reported to me that the incidence of heart attacks with Avandia could be about 60,000 to 100,000 from 1999 to 2006. That is a lot. Just doing the math and using conservative numbers, that means about 20 or more unnecessary heart attacks a day. At a minimum, I think that the office responsible for post marketing safety needs to have the ability to warn Americans when it thinks it needs to do so. If not, we have what we have here today, delays in telling the American people about a possible serious safety problem. It is not right, and I am going to keep working to change things once and for all. The FDA legislation passed by the Senate two weeks ago dropped the ball on this important reform. The Avandia case sets it up for the House of Representatives to give real clout to the FDA office that monitors and assesses drugs after they are on the market and taken by millions of people. If the Office of New Drugs continues to call all the shots, like it does today, then it is more status quo and less public safety from the FDA. Both the evidence and the experts underscore the need for real reform here. One opportunity to improve upon postmarketing drug safety stems from the Access to Medicare Data Act that I filed today with Senator Baucus. This bill is based on S. 3897, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act, which Senator Baucus and I introduced in the 109th Congress. The purpose of the bill is to provide federal health agencies and outside researchers more sources of data for examining adverse events so that serious safety questions are identified promptly and timely action can be taken to protect American consumers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk that I would like to call up.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the amendment I have before you is dealing with an issue I just described in morning business as one of 15 flaws in a very important part of this legislation. This amendment is going to revise current law related to visa revocation for visa holders who are on U.S. soil. Now, we have this situation which does not make sense. My amendment is meant to bring common sense to this. Under current law, visas approved or denied by a consular officer in some of our embassies overseas would be nonreviewable. In other words, what that consular office said would be final. That person being denied a visa to come to this country would not have access to courts because consular officers have the final say when it comes to granting visas and allowing people to enter a country. So if you are a consular officer and you believe somebody is a terrorist or a terrorist threat, you can deny the visa, no review. However, if that person gets a visa and they come to this country and we find out later on that they are a potential terrorist and should not have come here in the first place and you want to get them out of the country as fast as you can--because that is surely what we would have done with the 19 pilots who created the terror we had on September 11-- then that decision made when the person comes to this country, that decision by the consular officer is reviewable in the U.S. courts. Now, everybody is going to say: Well, that just does not make sense. You know, the same person over in some foreign country wants to come here, and the consular officer says: We can't let that person come here because he is a potential terrorist threat. Well, then they do not get to come here and nobody can review that. But if that very same person came here and we decided they shouldn't have been here in the first place, then they have access to our court system before they can be removed. Thanks to a small provision inserted during conference negotiations on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the visa holder at that point has more rights than he or she should have. I think that is very obvious. Now, the ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. This section has made the visa revocation ineffective as an antiterrorism tool. My amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is no longer valid. In other words, if it was not valid for him to come here in the first place and it was not reviewable by the courts, and then they get here and for the same reasons they should not be here--because they are a terrorist threat--they should not have access to our courts. So this exception has made the visa revocation ineffective as an antiterror tool. My amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is no longer valid. If they were originally denied a visa by the consular officer, there would be no right to dispute; they would not be here in the first place. I asked Secretary Chertoff about the problem with our current law on the visa revocation, and I want to quote from what he told the Judiciary Committee in March because I have been working on this problem for a while. To quote Secretary Chertoff: The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as a guest. We can say ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are admitted as guests, like guests in my house, if the guest misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go to court over it. We can equate the role of homeowner to that of a consular officer. Currently and historically, all decisions by consular officers with regard to the granting, the initial granting of visas are final and not subject to review. Revocations shouldn't be treated differently in the case of terrorists. Why is this important to do? Consider visa revocations related to terrorism. Consider the 2003 Government Accountability Office report revealing that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on the grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the Government Accountability Office found that individuals were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations. The FBI and the intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism in hundreds of applications. The FBI did not share this information with our consular officers in time, so the consular officers granted the visas. So I suppose at that point you cannot blame the consular officers when they did not have the information the FBI should have given to them. So then when they got the derogatory information about these individuals from the FBI, then it was too late. They had already been granted visas. They were already here. The consular officers then had to go through the process of revoking the visas. What the Government Accountability Office found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials could not do a thing about it. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. I wish to give you an example of how this hurts us today. A consular officer grants a visa to a person, and that person makes his or her way where they were intended to come, to this great country of the United States. After arriving in the United States, a consular office finds out that the foreign individual has ties to terrorism. Maybe the consular officer found out that visa holder attended a terrorist training camp or maybe the intelligence community just informed the consular officer that the visa holder was linked to the Taliban or maybe our Government just learned that visa holder gave millions of dollars to a terrorist organization before they applied for a visa. These are all very good reasons for revocation of a visa. If a person should not have received a visa in the first place, then the consular officer has to revoke it. Well, I mean if they had the visa then, you have to go to the trouble of getting it revoked. Three key points to consider: First, the decisions to revoke a visa are not taken lightly. If a consular officer needs to revoke a visa, the case is thoroughly vetted. In fact, the case is decided back here in Washington, DC, at the highest levels. Second, consular officers do not have the authority to revoke a visa based on suspicion. A revocation must be based on actual finding that an alien is ineligible for the visa. Third, consular officers give the visa holder an opportunity to explain their case. They may ask them to come to the embassy and defend themselves. So when a visa is revoked, it is very serious business. But the current law handicaps law enforcement and makes it nearly impossible to deport the alien if they already made it to the United States. Current law allows aliens to run to the steps of our country's courthouses and take advantage of our system. Allowing review of a revoked visa, especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and the CIA to be hesitant to share any information. Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing, the very major thing we did to make sure September 11 didn't happen again. Prior to September 11, the FBI and the CIA could not share information. Now they can, in hopes that we will stop September 11 from happening again. But if all this information is going to get out through the court system, one of two things will occur: It isn't going to be given to the State Department in the first place, or, secondly, if it is given and it gets into the court system and gets out, we are going to have a damper put on the sharing of information. We ought to be able to make sure a terrorist doesn't get into this country without exposing the source of our information and, once here, get them out. We need to secure this country, and we need the ability to revoke visas without terrorists or criminals seeking relief from deportation. I remind my colleagues of our poor visa policy contributing to the attacks on September 11. Nineteen hijackers used 364 aliases. Those people who killed 3,000 people in New York and 300 people here at the Pentagon knew how to play the system. They had 364 aliases. Two of the hijackers may have obtained passports from family members working in the Saudi passport ministry. Nineteen hijackers applied for 23 visas and obtained 22. The hijackers lied on the visa application in detectable ways. The hijackers violated the terms of their visas. They came and went at their convenience. The 9/11 Commission pointed out the obvious by stating: Terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in this country if they are unable to enter the country. In the Midwest we call that common sense. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we intercept terrorists and constrain their mobility. This amendment would do that. Allowing aliens to remain on U.S. soil with a revoked visa or petition is a national security concern and something the 9/11 Commission would suggest is needed. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and get the protection of our courts, stay in this country for years through the appeals process of seeking relief from deportation. Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We cannot let that happen again. This amendment will be helpful in making sure that doesn't happen again. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. Will the Senator let me check with our leadership?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, may I say to the Senator that it is not my idea to take a long time, but I was asked to offer my amendment now by the leadership. I want to check with them.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to use time in morning business to discuss the very important bill that is before us that we will be going on in about 20 minutes, and that is the immigration bill. This sometimes is referred to as the ``grand compromise.'' It is no secret that I have had concern about the immigration issue, and now specifically this bill, and in my opinion it contains an amnesty program. I know around here those who are backing this ``grand compromise'' don't want us to use the word ``amnesty,'' but I think if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So I am going to refer to it as the amnesty program for illegal aliens already in the United States. Not too many Senators today can say they voted for the 1986 amnesty bill. That was the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, the present law we are amending. I did vote for that amnesty bill, so, in a sense, I voted for amnesty. I am here to tell you that I felt at that time as though I were doing the right thing. I can also tell you that now, looking at history, it was the wrong thing to do. I thought then that taking care of 3 million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it. Today, as everybody has generally agreed, we have 12 million people here illegally. I did believe that bill would solve our problems, but it was not only shortsighted, the one we passed 20 years ago, it turned out to be unworkable. It was soft on enforcement and weak on legal reforms. We believed a legalization component was in the best interest of the country. The American people, myself included, thought that illegal immigration would decline with an amnesty program. We were wrong. The 1986 legislation failed us, as well intended as it was. That was not a bill that went through very quickly. That bill was worked on over a period of 6 years, as we have been working on other immigration legislation at least over a 3- or 4-year period of time. Today we are back as a body we call the Senate to put another bandaid on this issue. I don't blame the American people for being angry or rejecting the promises some are making that we will enforce our laws from now forward because I heard that same thing in 1986--from now forward. I think it is fair to say the people of this country are cynical on this issue. They don't have any faith that the law is going to be enforced. One specific aspect of this bill that is so concentrated on enforcement, first, before we do anything else, is called the trigger mechanism. I am going to talk about that trigger mechanism. Before I get to the amnesty program and trigger, I want to point out that the trigger that is included in this substitute, the trigger says the Y and the Z visa program would be subject to a trigger. I wish to point to the famous Trigger, Roy Rogers' Trigger. I think everybody knows about that Trigger. I point to that because I think, if Roy Rogers were here today--and he has been dead about 20 years--he would say: Boys, saddle up. There is going to be a rough ride ahead for us. The ``Trigger'' is coming in handy today. He first galloped into this Chamber when I used ``Trigger'' during a budget resolution because there is a trigger in the budget resolution just adopted. Now ``Trigger'' is back for the immigration debate because there is a trigger mechanism in this bill. You can see from the chart that Trigger is a very impressive-looking horse. He looks big and strong and probably can help do some of the chores around the farm. I am sure my grandkids would like to ride Trigger, if they knew he was safe to ride. This horse and its rider look very safe and confident. But I wish to make the point, in this bill, with a trigger mechanism, we can't trust the trigger in this bill. It is false and it is misleading and that is what I wish to point out. I have heard Members of this body talk about how amnesty would not start until the trigger is pulled. It says on page 2, ``with the exception of the probationary benefits,'' the Y and Z visa programs cannot start until certain actions and certain items are completed. So 12 million illegal aliens will apply and likely get a probationary card. This card gives the illegal alien a work authorization, a Social Security number, and protection from removal. That is problem No. 1. Amnesty is given away before we even get to the trigger. I wish to talk about four of the key actions that the trigger requires. First, it requires the establishment of an electronic employer verification system. I am a champion for that concept--make the employer responsible for making sure the person is legally in the country. In fact, I wrote title III last year. It could be a very solid enforcement tool. But the trigger only says it needs to be established. It says nothing about requiring all businesses to use it. Under the compromise, employers would not be forced to use it until up to 3 years after the date of enactment. Second, the trigger says that 18,000 Border Patrol agents have to be hired. According to the Department of Homeland Security, we already have 14,000 agents, so the trigger requires that 4,000 more are hired. Sure, we can hire these agents. But the trigger doesn't require that the agents be trained and stationed and doing their job. Third, the trigger says we have to construct 370 miles of real fence along the border. I understand this construction is currently underway. Congress authorized 700 miles of fencing in the Secure Fence Act of last year. We also provided billions of dollars for fencing and infrastructure last year. Why doesn't the trigger require that all 700 miles has to be constructed? The trigger also says the Department of Homeland Security needs resources to detain up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis. If they are caught, you have to have someplace to secure them. The problem is these spaces are full this very day. How do these trigger actions, then, add to our present day enforcement? The impression is left by the author of the trigger--and I think it is the intent of that author and the ``grand compromise''-- that all these security provisions are going to be in place before any of the other provisions of the law, such as allowing legality of people here illegally--before those provisions can go into effect. Fourth, the trigger requires the United States to end what we call the catch-and-release practice. Maybe it is late-breaking news to some around here, but we ended that practice already. Secretary Chertoff was on TV, telling the world on August 23, last year, that he ended catch and release. However, further along in the bill it says--and it is referred to as OTMS, ``other than Mexicans''--can be released into our community on a $5,000 bond. The policy of catch and release will not end. This part of the trigger in my judgment is false and misleading. There is a lot missing from the trigger. For example, title I of the compromise has border security requirements, but they are not in the trigger. The bill requires the Department to have a national border security strategy and surveillance plan. One would think a plan is necessary right away in order to secure the borders, not after the trigger is pulled. The trigger does not include authorizations for a number of Homeland Security personnel. While the bill requires the Department to hire more investigators for alien smuggling and more interior enforcement personnel, these requirements are not part of the trigger. I think, before an amnesty starts, we should require interior enforcement measures to be met. Our national security is not just a border issue. Finally, I think the trigger should include something we have been trying to do since 1996, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center. Congress enacted a law that requires an entry and exit system to track all foreign travelers. That is known as the US-VISIT Program. We had to endure another attack in 2001 before people took the entry and exit system seriously. We got it partly implemented, but the administration decided on their own that the exit portion was not worth the cost, so that 1996 mandate still remains ignored. After 10 years, for us in Congress it is still like pulling teeth, trying to get an implementation schedule out of the agency bureaucrats. I think we should be ashamed that is not done yet. This trigger is not legitimate or worthy of the tradition of Roy Rogers. It is only a coverup for amnesty. I wish to address the flaws that I found in title 6, the part of the bill that gives probationary status and Z visas to illegal aliens currently in the United States. I am simply going to list my top 15 flaws. I don't have time to go into them in great detail. I will be glad to supply more detail if people want it. No. 1, probationary benefits are not subject to the trigger. Probationary benefits, including work authorization, protection from removal, and a Social Security number are granted to illegal aliens immediately, even if the alien's background check is not complete. I wish to emphasize that point--even if the alien's background check is not complete. No. 2, many criminal provisions may be waived. Numerous criminal provisions are waived for eligibility purposes. For example, an alien who falsely claimed U.S. citizenship would be considered eligible for amnesty, even though it is a crime. No. 3, background checks are taken too lightly. An illegal alien can apply for probationary status and a Z visa without thorough background checks. Immediately after the bill passes, the alien can apply for probationary legal status and receive a card, even if the alien's background check is not complete. No. 4, illegal aliens are protected from removal. If an alien is in removal proceedings or being detained at the time of enactment, the alien can still apply for amnesty. Aliens who apply for amnesty cannot be detained or deported while their application is being processed, essentially giving them immunity from justice. No. 5, terrorists and criminals can apply for amnesty. The Secretary of Homeland Security is allowed to waive the grounds of ineligibility for those who have an outstanding final administrative order of removal, deportation or exclusion. Currently, there are more than 637,000 alien absconders in the United States who have defied orders to leave. No. 6, taxes. Illegal aliens are required to provide the Internal Revenue Service information about tax payments only when applying for legal permanent residence if that avenue is pursued. Illegal aliens can skirt the Federal, State and local tax laws because it is not a requirement to prove one has paid outstanding tax liabilities to get probationary or Z status. No. 7 limits eligibility to illegal aliens. It creates a Z nonimmigrant visa program for illegal aliens and illegal aliens only. No one else is eligible for this program, particularly those waiting their turn in line. Also, there is no cap on the number of eligible participants. No. 8, indefinite renewal of the Z nonimmigration visas. Z nonimmigrant visas are valid for 4 years and may be renewed indefinitely. This is a disincentive for illegal aliens to pay the $4,000 penalty, touch back to their own country, and prove that they paid their taxes or receive a very important medical exam. No. 9, health standards are ignored. No medical exam or immunizations are needed to get a Z visa. No. 10, there is no incentive to learn English. There is no English requirement to get a Z visa. Each Z nonimmigrant must only demonstrate ``an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language'' upon the first renewal of the Z visa. There are waivers even for that requirement. No. 11, green card applicants are not required to return to their home country. Green card applicants, only for the principal alien, must be filed in person outside the United States but not necessarily in the alien's country of origin. The alien can then reenter, likely on the same day, under a Z nonimmigrant visa because it serves as a valid travel document. Again, there are exceptions for the requirement. No. 12: Fault with these provisions. Fines are, quite frankly, false and misleading. Not everyone is required to pay the $5,000 penalty. The principal alien pays some fines and fees, and the dependents only have to pay a processing and State-impact fund fee. To get a green card, if an alien intends to pursue this route, a Z-1 nonimmigrant must pay a $4,000 penalty. Z-2 and Z-3 aliens are only required to pay application fees. No. 13: Fines will not adequately pay for the cost of amnesty. The bulk of the monetary fines are required at the end of the program. All fines may be paid in installments, and waivers are available in extraordinary circumstances. No. 14: Impact on State and local government. State impact money will be granted to States to provide services for noncitizens only, instead of providing services to all citizens impacted by the large number of illegal immigrants. Examples would be school systems and health care services. No. 15 and last: Revocations of terrorist visas. You know that visas revoked on terrorism grounds--I am talking about terrorists--if a visa is revoked on terrorism grounds, it would allow Z visa holders to remain in the United States and use the U.S. court system to appeal those terrorism charges. The bill, including the amnesty program, does not address visa revocation for any visa holder. I would like someone to tell me that this is the last time we will do an amnesty because I heard that 20 years ago. I will not hold my breath. Nobody is making any promises that this is the last amnesty, and that is because we all know amnesties will continue. We are on a path to make what I consider a mistake that I made in 1986. We ought to get it right and focus on the long-term solutions to this problem. So I am going to be offering some amendments to fix some of these 15 flaws, but I am not sure it can be repaired at the end of the day. It is my plan, when we go into the bill, to offer an amendment, to lay an amendment before the body. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to talk about an energy issue. I am sure people listening, and my colleagues, might think I am talking about an energy issue because gasoline is at the highest price it has ever been in the history of the country. I assure you I would be giving these remarks even if the price of gasoline was only $1 a barrel, because it involves, in an overview, testimony that was given by oil company executives before the Judiciary Committee some time ago. What is being reported are policies of oil companies. I have become aware of an article in the Wall Street Journal. So I am going to be referring, during my remarks, to evidence I got from the Wall Street Journal, letters that I have sent to the CEOs of major oil companies, and testimony that was given before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--I might say that it was sworn testimony--and what I consider to be some inconsistencies. I will be referring to that testimony from the record. I will be referring to the letters I have sent to the CEOs. As an overview, I am going to be pointing out inconsistencies between sworn testimony and what oil company executives say are their company policies regarding ethanol, and particularly the 85-percent ethanol that we call E85; and then, of course, letters I sent to the oil companies, raising questions that were raised because of this article, to have the oil companies give me their story, in case this article was wrong. Across the country, American families and businesses are suffering from the economic impact of rising gasoline prices. As many families begin to plan their summer vacations, they are being forced to dig deeper into their pockets to fill up the family car. The rising cost of gasoline is a result of many factors. Global demand for crude oil and refined products is way up constantly, as a result, driving up the price. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies--what the people of this country know as OPEC--has curtailed some production. Refineries are offline for maintenance or have experienced outages. As a result, these refineries are operating at 5 to 10 percent below normal. Once again, refinery outages have, coincidentally, occurred just as the summer driving demand kicks into gear, and this has led to an average price of over $3.15 a gallon as a national average. In my State of Iowa, I think it is $3.33 today. The impact of these increased prices is being felt across the country by working families, farmers, businesses, and industry. The increased cost for energy has the potential to jeopardize our economic security, our economic vitality. Because we are dependent upon foreign countries for over 60 percent of our crude oil, our dependence on them is a threat to our national security. In recent years, many Members of the Senate have touted the value of increasing our domestic energy resources. I have been one of those-- particularly for ethanol and particularly for biodiesel. In Iowa, I am the father of the wind energy tax credit. Iowa is the third leading State in the production of electricity from wind energy. Increasing domestic resources, whether it is ethanol, biodiesel, wind, biomass, you name it--all of these are from alternative sources that are good for our economy and particularly good for our national security. Diversity of supply can go a long way toward reducing the impact of price spikes and volatility. That is why I have been such an ardent supporter of the development of these domestic renewable fuels. Each gallon of homegrown, renewable ethanol or biodiesel is 1 gallon of fuel that we are not importing from countries such as Iran, or Venezuela, which are very unpredictable--or Nigeria, where we get 10 percent of our oil, which might be unpredictable because of revolutionaries there kidnapping American workers, such as they did 2 weeks ago, or German workers over the period of the last year. It is a very nervous environment we are in. The supply from the Saudi oil wells to our gas tank is maybe a 17-day inventory. So any little thing happening, according to the business pages of the newspaper, causes the price to spike. So I have been an ardent supporter of these domestic renewable fuels. In the past few years, domestic ethanol production has grown tremendously. Right now, we are consuming about 5 billion gallons of ethanol annually. With all of the new ethanol biorefineries under construction, we will be producing as much as 11 billion gallons annually by 2009. Ethanol's contribution is a significant net increase to our Nation's fuel supply. But as the industry grows, it is imperative that higher ethanol blends be available to consumers. When I say higher ethanol blends, I mean beyond the 10 percent mixture that we have right now. We even have cars right now that can burn up to 85 percent ethanol. That is why we refer to it as E85. That is what we are talking about, increasing the 10 percent as cars are manufactured, to be able to consume it without hurting the engine. That is where the automobile companies are headed. That is where the ethanol industry is headed to back it up. But the point I will make in a minute is that the distribution for E85 is a problem, and it looks to me like big oil is a major part of that problem. That is what I am going to point out. We are quickly approaching a time when ethanol will be produced in a quantity greater than that needed for the blend market as we continue down the road that has been pioneered by Brazil--and that is the best example--to use cars that will, in fact, burn 100 percent ethanol. For sure, we must continue on this path of reducing foreign oil dependence and greater renewable fuel use. To do that, then, it is critical that we develop the infrastructure and the demand for E85, an alternative fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline. Our domestic auto manufacturers are leading the effort to expand what we call the flex-fuel--meaning flexible fuel--market. Our domestic manufacturers of automobiles are doing this. Our domestic automakers have produced approximately 6 million flex-fuel vehicles over the past decade. In fact, you might be driving a flex-fuel vehicle and don't even know it, burning 100 percent gasoline, or the 90/10 percent mixture of gasoline and ethanol. Look at your book. If you can burn E85, do it--if you can buy it. I am going to point out how that is a problem--the distribution--and the oil companies' involvement in it. In a visit to the White House in March of this year, the chief executive officers of Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler committed to double their production of E85 vehicles by 2010. By 2012, they committed to have 50 percent of their production of vehicles E85 capable. Listen, there is a big price difference here--$2.85 for E85 a gallon versus $3.33 for gasoline today. So when they get 50 percent of their production E85 capable, this is then, as they say, a highly achievable goal with very little impact on consumers because you can buy these cars for as little as $200 in additional cost. So you can burn the E85 as well as 100 percent gasoline. If you would rather pay more and buy the 100 percent gasoline, you can still burn it in the same car. This is very inexpensive for the money that can be saved. However, a very important component of the alternative fuel market is ensuring that the fuel is available to the consumers. The ethanol industry is working hard to increase production of ethanol, and they are on target to have 11 billion gallons in a little while. The automobile makers are ramping up production of their vehicles. So everybody seems to be doing their part. But where is the oil industry? I thought a year ago, when they appeared before the Judiciary Committee, they were on the road to cooperating with the distribution of E85, but I read in the Wall Street Journal quite a different story. So I think I can legitimately ask, if we got the car manufacturers producing E85 cars that can burn that and the ethanol industry producing it, where is the oil industry? Because that is the distribution of this. There is not an independent distribution of E85. You have to go to your filling station, where you can buy 100 percent gasoline and have the alternative of filling up with E85. What have they done to ensure a robust growth of the alternative fuels market? Well, Mr. President, it appears they have been less than helpful. I have referred to this article in the Wall Street Journal. It details many of the obstacles the major oil companies use to block service stations from selling E85. Now, imagine my surprise when I read this story, because just over a year ago, I questioned many of the CEOs of the major oil companies on this very issue when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee about whether there was any sort of violation of antitrust laws, any sort of collusion. There was a whole range of questions that were being asked by the members of the Judiciary Committee, wanting to know if the marketplace is working, because if the marketplace is working, you cannot have any complaints. But if it is not working, we have to do something about it. The CEOs of ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and others testified before this Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. The bottom part of this picture depicts the CEOs I named from ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Chevron, ConocoPhillips--I will not name them all, the major oil companies testifying, taking their oath, as they swore to tell the truth in the Judiciary Committee. I remind my colleagues of another very famous group of CEOs on the top of this picture back in 1994 taking the oath to tell the truth to a House committee. Those are the CEOs of the major tobacco companies. At that hearing, our great colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who was then a Member of the other body, went down the line of these CEOs and asked each of them whether they believed nicotine or cigarettes were addictive. We all know how that hearing went, with each of the CEOs testifying that nicotine was not addictive when, in fact, it is. There is the photo of those CEOs who got themselves in trouble a little bit later when there was plenty of evidence brought out that they knew what the situation was with tobacco being addictive and what they did to make it addictive. Of course, the second photo is from March 2006, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of the chairmen of the major oil companies taking an oath to tell the truth as well. Much like my colleague, Senator Wyden, when he was a Member of the House of Representatives asking the tobacco company executives about tobacco being addictive, I questioned the oil company executives, in the bottom picture, at the time of this hearing, about their policies regarding alternative fuels, meaning mostly ethanol. I was leading up to E85. I asked the CEOs quite clearly if they would commit to allowing independent owners of branded stations to sell E85 or biodiesel, B20, which is a 20-percent mixture with petroleum diesel. Remember, as I was asking them questions, these folks were under oath. I also asked them if they would allow those station owners to purchase the alternative fuel from any outlet because if they didn't sell it and oil companies are not selling ethanol but people who produce it can, will they let their stations buy it from an independent outlet. Each of these CEOs, when I asked that question, testified that they were perfectly willing to allow the sale of alternative fuels at their stations. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated: We've denied no request from any of our dealers who have asked for permission to sell unbranded E85. We've granted every request by our dealers who wanted to install separate pump facilities under their canopy for E85. Mr. David O'Reilly, the CEO of Chevron--I am referring to people who took an oath to tell the truth, and we can see their picture here--Mr. David O'Reilly, CEO of Chevron, responded, similarly stating that E85 was already available at Chevron stations and that it was available under the canopy. He offered with pride that Chevron was probably the largest seller of ethanol. According to the CEO for British Petroleum, all of BP's 8,900 independently owned stations are free to deploy E85. Finally, the CEO of ConocoPhillips simply associated himself with the comments of the other witnesses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant pages of the March 14, 2006, Senate Judiciary Committee transcript be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. So the CEOs of the major integrated oil companies testified under oath before the Judiciary Committee stating their willingness to allow independent stations to offer E85. But the Wall Street Journal told a much different story. It highlighted tactics used by the big oil companies to block alternative fuel. The obstacles included contracts restricting the purchase by the station owners of alternative fuel. They also required the installation of completely separate pumps, sometimes far away from the main canopy, and in many cases station owners are prohibited from advertising the product or even posting the price of that fuel, E85. British Petroleum goes so far as to prohibit station owners from placing signs that include E85 on gasoline dispensers, perimeter signs, or light poles. These tactics don't sound consistent with a company--meaning British Petroleum--with a marketing slogan ``beyond petroleum.'' The big oil companies on many occasions cited ``customer confusion'' as the rationale for their policies or that they don't want to ``deceive their customers'' about the product. I happen to believe that it has more to do with limiting the availability of a product that they don't control and the sale of alternative fuels much more than it is customer deception. After I read the Wall Street Journal article, which is so contrary to what I remember them telling me 1 year, 13 months before, I wrote letters to the CEOs who testified. Their picture is here. I pointed out the contradictions in their testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the allegations that were made in the Wall Street Journal. I wish to refer to these letters so my colleagues will know what I asked them based on this article. I have a letter to Mr. Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I am going to read what I am after here: In fact, Exxon Mobil's standard contract bars Exxon stations from buying fuel from anybody but Exxon--a fact you chose not to disclose to our committee. It also appears that even in cases where exceptions are made, Exxon requires those station owners to install entirely separate dispensers. . . . I refer to a letter I sent to Mr. Robert Malone, chairman of British Petroleum: The Wall Street Journal article indicated that BP prohibits branded stations from including E-85 on gasoline dispensers, perimeter signs or light poles. Another obstacle employed by your company is the prohibition of using pay-at-the-pump credit card machines for E-85 purchases. . . . That seems to be very contrary to what they told us, that they were allowing the sale of E85 at their stations. Mr. James J. Mulva, ConocoPhillips: The Wall Street Journal article indicated that Conoco Phillips does not allow E-85 sales on primary islands under the canopy. This policy directly contradicts the statement to which you associated yourself during the March 2006 hearings. And lastly, Mr. David J. O'Reilly, Chevron: . . . Chevron's agreement with franchisees discourages selling E-85 under the main canopy and includes policies that are claimed to prevent franchisees from deceiving customers as to the source of the product. The Wall Street Journal article indicated that Chevron recommends that E-85 pumps be outside the canopy and that Chevron prohibits branded stations from including E85 on signs listing fuel prices. I ask unanimous consent that these letters to ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron be printed in the Record.