Chuck Grassley

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 rise to re-introduce the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007. This bill would simply instill fairness into contractual dealings between farmers and processors. It ensures that parties to a dispute related to agricultural contracts have a true choice of venues. I introduce this legislation because I believe that anti-competitive activity has become a grave threat to the family farmer. During the last Farm Bill debate, I brought this same bill forward, along with several others. Despite this policy passing the Senate, remarkably the final Farm Bill included no provisions to address concentration. So, earlier this year, I announced that I will be putting forward a package of bills that will focus on anti-competitive activity in the agriculture industry. This bill is the first step of my agriculture concentration agenda. Today's legislation is one piece of the puzzle to help stop the unfair impact that vertical integration is having on the family farmer. In the last several years we've seen a tremendous shift in agriculture toward contract production. Under many of these contract arrangements, large, vertically integrated agribusiness firms have the power to dictate the terms of ``take-it-or-leave-it'' production contracts to farmers. Then, when there is a dispute between the packer and the family farmer, and the contract between the two includes an arbitration clause, the family farmer has no alternative but to accept arbitration to resolve the dispute. These clauses limit farmers' abilities to pursue remedies in court, even when violations of Federal or State law are at issue. This mandatory arbitration process puts the farmer at a see disadvantage. Even in a situation where discrimination or fraud is suspected, a farmer's only recourse under such a contract is to submit to arbitration. The farmer cannot seek redress in court, even if the result is bankruptcy or financial ruin. Make no mistake, arbitration is very useful in certain situations. It reduces the load on our courts, and can save parties the expense of drawn-out litigation. This bill would not rule out arbitration-just forced arbitration. The Fair Contracts for Growers Act would amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to require that any contract arbitration be voluntarily agreed upon by both parties to settle disputes at the time a dispute arises, not when the contract is signed. This would allow farmers the opportunity to choose the best form of dispute resolution and not have to submit to the packers. It ensures that a farmer, most often the ``little guy'' in these dealings, is able to maintain his constitutional right to a jury trial. It also gives him a chance to compel disclosure of relevant information, held by the company, which is necessary for a fair decision. During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Feingold and me, along with our other cosponsors, in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the sense of what we can afford for veterans, we ought to think in terms of that we cannot afford enough for veterans who put their lives on the line. When we have appropriated accounts, there are some limits, as opposed to an entitlement such as Medicare, but it is not as good as what seniors have under this because there are several therapies the Government will not pay for under the veterans program we pay for under Medicare. From that standpoint of the quality of the program, based upon the therapies that are available, it is not as good as what we have in Medicare.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am back again tonight to talk about the Medicare drug benefit. As I said yesterday, the 110th Congress will consider legislation that would fundamentally change the benefit. The public and Medicare beneficiaries need to fully understand the proposed changes and how they would affect them. When we talk about the public and Medicare beneficiaries, remember, for the most part, we are talking about the senior citizens of America and people who are on Social Security disability. Yesterday I spoke about how the benefit uses prescription drug plans in competition to keep costs down and how well that has worked. Today I want to get to the crux of this debate, the so-called prohibition on Government negotiation with drugmakers. Opponents of the Medicare drug benefit have twisted the law to come up with their absurd claim that Medicare will not be negotiating with drugmakers. They misrepresented the noninterference clause. The language does not prohibit Medicare from negotiating with drugmakers; it prohibits the Government from interfering in negotiations that are ongoing all the time. So it is a prohibition on Government negotiating. It is not a prohibition on negotiation. It is very important because it is not the Government agency itself that is doing the negotiating. It is the private prescription drug plans that are doing the negotiation. That may surprise some people who have heard about the so-called prohibition on negotiations. Of course, price negotiations occur on drugs provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Those negotiations occur between the prescription drug plans and the manufacturers. We have a precedent for this. The plans are run by organizations experienced in negotiation with drug manufacturers. They deliver prescription drug benefits to millions and millions of Americans--in other words, meaning millions and millions of Americans beyond senior citizens--and including this 50-year precedent of it being done for Federal employees through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans. As I said yesterday, competition among the plans to get the best price is working. We have lower than expected bids and cost of premiums and lower than expected costs for the Government as a result. So not only is it saving the senior citizens money, as it has been saving Federal employees money for 50 years, but also lowering costs to the taxpayers because there is some subsidy for seniors in the Medicare prescription drug program. Most importantly, we have lowered prices on drugs for beneficiaries. For the top 25 drugs used by seniors--so I am just taking the top 25 drugs used--the Medicare prescription drug plans have been able to negotiate prices that on average are 35 percent lower than the average cash price at retail pharmacies; 35 percent lower. The purpose of the prohibition on Government negotiation--in other words, getting back to what is referred to as the noninterference clause--is to keep the Government from undermining these negotiations that have been so successful and to keep the Government out of the medicine cabinet. I have lost count of the number of times I have talked about this so- called prohibition that is not a prohibition on negotiations, because negotiations are going on every day. I am not easily discouraged and that is why I am here talking tonight on this subject. I prefer to debate more substantive issues, but unfortunately that is not the case. The debate that went on during the campaign, the debate that went on in some speeches on the floor in the last Congress, and the debate that will come here on the Senate floor in the next 3 weeks, is in fact a shell game. It is about distortion of the language of the law, it is about manipulation of beneficiaries and, in turn, the public, and it hinges on the convenient lapse in some people's memory about the history of this noninterference clause. What I want to do today is remind people about the history. We are going to take a little trip down memory lane. For our first stop on memory lane, let me take a second to read something to you. This is a quote from someone talking about their own Medicare drug benefit proposal. Under this proposal, Medicare would not set prices for drugs. Let me start over again because that first sentence needs to be emphasized: Under this proposal, Medicare would not set prices for drugs. Prices would be determined through negotiations between the private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers. . . . The person who said this clearly wanted private negotiations with drug companies for Medicare benefits. He was proposing, and I want to quote again from this person--and I am soon going to tell you who that is-- . . . negotiations between private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers. So I am taking that quote out of the previous quote for a way of emphasis. Negotiations would go on between private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers. In other words, not involving the Government. So it could not be more clear what this person had in mind when he was proposing legislation a few years ago. You are going to be shocked to hear who said this. For those who thought President Bush said it, they are wrong. The quote is from none other than President Clinton. President Clinton made that comment as part of his June 1999 plan for strengthening and modernizing Medicare. President Clinton had in his idea, when we were going to strengthen and modernize Medicare with a prescription drug program, that we ought to have negotiations done by the private sector, not by the Government. President Clinton went on to say that under his plan: Prices would be determined through negotiations between the private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers. Quoting further: The competitive bidding process would be used to yield the best possible drug prices and coverage. . . . And following the 50-year precedent I have been referring to, he went on to say: . . . just as it is used by large private employers and the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans today. That is the end of the quote from President Clinton. President Clinton also described his plan as using private negotiators because: These organizations have experience managing drug utilization and have developed numerous tools for cost containment and utilization management. This is a President whom a lot of people would believe, because he comes from the Democratic Party, has great faith in big Government, that he would not be suggesting these things. But when you have a precedent of 50 years of it working for Federal employees, he believed it was good enough to use when you offer prescription drugs to the senior citizens of America. Does this ring any bells? It should, because it is the same framework used in today's Medicare prescription drug benefit--and I had a hand, as a conferee, in writing that. Private negotiations with drug companies--and it is based on a nearly 50-year history of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Here is another interesting spot on memory lane--if I could digress for a minute for the benefit of Members who keep ringing up about a doughnut hole--separate from the issue of pricing drugs and negotiating. I thought it would be good to remind people. The Clinton plan had a coverage gap as well. It had a doughnut hole, as we refer to it, like the bill eventually signed by President Bush in 2003. Like many others, the new Speaker of the House has questioned why one would pay premiums at a point in time when you are not receiving benefits. In other words, when you are in the doughnut hole. It happens in the private sector, in a lot of different insurances. That is how insurance works. Go look at any homeowner's policy and auto policy or even the Part B of Medicare. You pay premiums to have coverage, and that is also how President Clinton's plan would have worked if it had been passed in 1999 instead of 2003. In Sunday's Washington Post, Speaker Pelosi was quoted on her thoughts about having a doughnut hole. She said: How could that be a good idea unless you're writing a bill for the HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies and not for America's seniors? Maybe she was referring to President Clinton's plan. As I said, President Clinton proposed this plan in June of 1999. On April 4, 2000, in a bill that is listed as S. 2342, the Medicare Modernization Act introduced here in the Senate, S. 2342 from that year, 2000, would have created a drug benefit administered through benefit managers. It even had the same title as the Medicare law that is now law. The Medicare Modernization Act is the title in 2000. It is the title of a bipartisan bill that is now law. So, here again, we have private negotiations with drug companies. It sounds familiar. It is like today's Medicare drug benefit. Here is another important stop down our memory lane. This bill, which I referred to as S. 2342 previously, included the following language. ``Noninterference,'' nothing in this section or in this part shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to: require a particular formulary or to institute a price structure for benefits; (2) interfere in any way with negotiations . . . or (3) otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through private entities. This is the first bill, the very first one where the noninterference clause appeared. You could say it is the second time it appeared because it appeared as a suggestion of President Clinton, but it was introduced the first time, and this was the language. But S. 2342 was not introduced by Republicans. It was introduced by my esteemed colleague and friend, the late Senator Moynihan. One month later there was S. 2541 introduced. I will read some language of that bill. Here I go to the first chart I have. I have four charts coming up. (B) Noninterference . . . The Secretary may not-- (1) require a particular formulary, institute a price structure for benefits; (2) interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and drug manufacturers or wholesalers; or (3) interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through private entities. That wasn't a Republican bill, either. It was introduced by Senator Daschle, who was joined by 33 other Democrats, including Senators Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy. For instance, 33 Senate Democrats cosponsored language for a bill that they now find not to their liking. I don't understand it. It turns out that the Democrats did not want Government interfering in the private sector negotiations, either. They recognized then that the private sector would do a better job. They recognized then what President Clinton recognized: something that had worked 50 years for Federal employees could be allied to senior citizens and Medicare as well and maybe do it better. And they didn't want the Government, some bureaucrat, messing it all up. At that time, they didn't want the Government in their medicine Cabinet, either. In June 2000, two Democratic bills were introduced in the House of Representatives that also included the noninterference language. One was introduced by Dick Gephardt. That bill had more than 100 cosponsors, including then-Representative Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, but it also included Representatives Rangel, Dingell, and Stark. I want Members to know I worked very closely on some health issues with Dingell and Stark, and I worked very closely with Congressman Rangel on trade and tax issues. That language included in H.R. 4770, introduced by Representative Gephardt and supported by more than 100 House Democrats, was almost identical to the language in Senator Daschle's bill. So we have 33 Senate Democrats, we have 100 House Democrats supporting the noninterference language. Here is a chart with the text of the noninterference clause included in what is now Part D, the prescription drug part of Medicare, referring to it again under its official title, the Medicare Modernization Act. It says: (B) Noninterference--in order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary-- (1) may not interfere with the negotiations between the drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and (2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered Part D drugs. It sounds exactly like what was introduced in the Democratic bill. If we compare this language to the Gephardt-Pelosi language, the Medicare Modernization Act provisions have 26 fewer words. Compare it to the Daschle-Kennedy noninterference clause--the Medicare Modernization Act has 10 fewer words. It sounds as if sponsors of those bills were pretty concerned about the potential of Government interference. Last week, the senior Senator from Illinois described the Medicare law enacted in 2003 as being written by the pharmaceutical industry. But the noninterference clause first appeared in legislation introduced by Democrats who now oppose the same provision that is law. Since the opponents of the Medicare drug benefit always say that the noninterference clause is proof that the drug industry wrote the law, my question is, If that is what you think, did the pharmaceutical industry also write the bills that you had put in over the previous years going back to the bills I have referred to that were introduced by Democrats? I bet you wonder just how many Democratic bills contain that now infamous ``noninterference clause''--the prohibition, in other words, on Government negotiating. I have a timeline. As this chart shows, the prohibition on Government negotiation--the noninterference clause--has been in seven bills by Democrats between 1999 and 2003. That is in addition to the point I make clear of where the last Democratic President was on this subject: right where the law is today. Seven bills, including the bill introduced in the House on the same day as H.R. 1, which is now the law. First it was in the Moynihan bill in 2000. There was a Daschle-Reid- Kennedy bill. That was followed in the House by a bill introduced by Representative Eshoo and then the Gephardt-Pelosi bill which has Representatives Rangel, Dingell, Stark, and our colleague who then was in the House, Senator Stabenow now, as a cosponsor. Representative Stark then had his own bill, and the senior Senator from Oregon introduced his bill in the Senate. Finally, in the House, Representative Thomas introduced a bill. I know what the response will be. It will be that even though Democratic bills had nearly exactly the same noninterference language, practically word for word in seven bills over a long period of time, opponents now think that approach is no longer best for Medicare. It is sort of like we supported it before we opposed it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have, too, so I agree with the Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I want to comment on the first part of what he recently said; that is, that what you say is true in regard to plans changing what drugs can be offered. We require that every therapy be available, but you are right, not every drug is available. And you want what the VA has because it might be better. Now, let me point out then why our program is better. In the VA, 30 percent of drugs are covered, 70 percent not covered. In our program, if a senior finds him or herself in a plan where at the end of the year it has changed, they have choices of several plans to go to. The VA does not have that choice. There is no place a veteran can go. There is no place my constituents could go when they came to me and said: Why don't you cover this drug? My doctor says I need it because of what it does to me that the other one won't--or just the opposite.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I noticed you have not said that so I can quote you again.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is true, but every therapy is available.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If you want to say for a period of a year or beyond a year, the answer is yes, but for 12 months, no. But also remember that every year the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to approve these plans, and there are certain basic needs they have to meet. One of those basic needs that is in the law that is not in the VA program is a requirement that every therapy be available.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The answer is yes. But you get back to the person who came to one of my town meetings and said: The doctor said I ought to have this prescription. Why won't the Veterans' Administration pay for it? I have to have this one, according to the Veterans' Administration, and there is some way it affects me that the other one wouldn't. We have to take that into consideration as well. Yes, bulk discount gets drugs cheaper, but the Government is not going to pay for every drug. You are going to have the bureaucrat in the medicine cabinet of the veteran, and the bureaucrat is not today in the medicine cabinet of the senior citizen. You also have to realize that, in addition to the VA having a limited formula, they also do not have the availability of the drug in the pharmacies the way we provide in this Medicare Program.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Of course I yield for a question. We very seldom get a chance to debate. That is a welcome opportunity.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me suggest to you that the committee that has jurisdiction over it, which I am no longer chairman of, has a tradition of trying to work through things. I want you to know I am committed to looking if there are better ways of doing it. But I think it is pretty difficult to argue with a program that has come in with senior citizens, by 80 percent in more than one poll, saying they are satisfied and, secondly, a program--what Government program have you ever seen come in without big cost overruns? This one has come in now with the latest projection by CBO that it is going to cost $189 billion less than we anticipated it would cost. And we got lower Federal costs. We got lower premiums for the seniors. We got 35-percent lower drug prices for the 25 drugs most used by seniors. We got lower State costs, because the States do not have to pick up the duel eligibles as they used to. There is something good coming out of the discussion the Senator and I are having. If we would have had this discussion 3 years ago, you would have said what we were doing was going to bring holy hell and not do any good and it would never work. At least now there is some acceptance of the program. So maybe with a little bit more dialog we will come around to the point where you are saying: Maybe, Senator Grassley, you were right.

Mr. GRASSLEY. So I cannot attribute this specifically to the Senator from Illinois, but the Senator is talking about choice now, and if there is anything people have choice on, it is all the plans that are available. But from your side of the aisle, starting in 2004, all I heard was there was too much choice, too much choice, too many plans. So I do not know for sure if you and your party know where you are coming from, whether choice is OK, how much choice is OK. Maybe you are leading us down the line where we are going to end up, if you get too much Government interference, we will not have choice.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think I have to give a bottom line and say it is working. Or if that is not good enough for you--after 2 years--that it is something that is working, it is something that is needed, it is something that Republicans got passed. And we did not get it passed without Democratic help, thank God--it was bipartisan-- otherwise we would not have gotten it done. But for 4 years we were waiting for something to happen on your side of the aisle. It did not happen. So could I end by saying one thing? In case my word is not so good, I would quote from the LA Times. It is in response to what the Senator said about the VA program. And I do not have any problems with the VA program. But it says here: VA officials can negotiate major price discounts because they restrict the number of drugs on their coverage list. In other words, the VA offers lower drug prices but fewer choices. Now, do we want to give the seniors of America fewer choices? I think you do. The route you are going, that is where you are going to end up.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is a good idea, I think the Senator from Illinois would do the consumers more good by offering a Government program to compete with Wal-Mart, maybe.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Because I was very joyful the Senator was coming out here. I saw him come out. I probably irritated him or something. Here is what I was hoping we would be debating. Because the whole point of the last 2 days is: From President Clinton in June 1999, all the way through bills that the Senator's party introduced in 2003, we had the noninterference clause in it. I want you to know I felt very comfortable adopting a Democrat noninterference clause in my bill that is now law, and I was hoping the Senator was going to come out and give some justification why his party--mostly in his party; there were some on our side who would agree--why his party would change its mind after President Clinton thought that what we have been doing for 50 years was working so well in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program that he wanted to do it. And he said you get lower drug prices by doing it that way. Several bills--I think I said seven bills--introduced by Democrats had the same principle in it. And now you don't like it. I don't understand why. I was hoping that was why the Senator came out to debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank you. Mr. President, I want to finish my remarks. I am not sure finishing my remarks can be more valuable than what we just had here in this sort of discussion. But I think when the Senator came in, I was kind of needling the other party a little bit with a statement like all of this business of Democrats introducing this noninterference language, and my copying it, thinking that was the right thing to do, was the bipartisan thing to do, that now they are backing off of it, as you can see by the recent exchange I had with my friend from Illinois, that it is sort of for the Democrats like: We supported it before we opposed it. But I want to recap. When Democrats controlled the Senate, their bills took the same approach and had basically the same noninterference language--the same prohibition on government negotiations. Looks like my colleagues across the aisle yielded--and perhaps against their own better policy judgment--to take the opportunity to make political hay by demagoguing what seems like a reasonable proposition. That proposition was that Government, with all those Medicare beneficiaries in the Medicare program, should negotiate lower prices for drugs. In reality, it is nothing but an appealing sound bite. After the Medicare law was enacted, opponents distorted the meaning of the language and vowed to change it. They have now demagogued on this issue for 3 years. They had all that time to prepare their proposals. What has been introduced to date? The bill introduced in the House to address the so-called prohibition has been described as ``not as far-reaching as the new majority indicated before taking power.'' The Senate bill is a nonbinding sense of the Congress resolution as a placeholder with no details. I understand that some bills are introduced as markers pending further development. I have done that myself. But 3 years of talking about this issue, talking about what is wrong with the noninterference clause, and there still is no more substance behind the proposal than that? One of the questions I should have asked the Senator from Illinois is, please describe to me how it is going to work if you take out the noninterference clause. I have never had anybody tell me that. Something like, let's do it a little bit like the VA, but the HHS is not the VA. So how is it going to be done? Somewhere along the line they are going to have to tell us. In fact, the USA Today editorial page recognized the lack of substance when they wrote in November that House Democratic aides couldn't provide any details on their party's proposal. This is after 3 years of their finding fault with what is law. It makes me wonder if people who led the charge against the so-called prohibition on Government negotiation truly ever did change their minds about this provision. There was actually a surprising level of agreement among Democrats and Republicans that the private sector would be able to do a better job of tough negotiation with drug companies than the Government could ever do. We had all seen the same history of the poor job Medicare does setting prices on almost anything, whether it is hospitals or whether it is wheelchairs. Everyone from President Clinton to Mr. Gephardt to Speaker Pelosi to the senior Senator from Oregon, recognized that at the time when they put their names on legislation. The same USA Today editorial referred to opponents' plans to change the law as ``more of a campaign pander than a fully baked plan.'' Maybe the opponents finally realized that themselves. I believe beneficiaries and the public deserve more than that. That is what the debate is going to be all about. But they are going to have to sell their point. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Remember, the bill you want to amend is a bipartisan bill. Remember that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business for such time as I might consume, and for other Members, it will be in the neighborhood of about 25 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for being a bulldog on this issue and working so closely with me. Besides complimenting him on his efforts, and finally being victorious on these efforts, it gives me an opportunity to say to the country at large, people who generally believe that everything done in Washington is done on a partisan basis, this is an example of where one Democrat and one Republican, working together, have been successful, and we have been working together. So everything in Washington is not partisan. Also, I think it brings to a point that as far as the Senate is concerned, as opposed to the other body, the fact that this probably would not have gotten done if it had not been done in a bipartisan way. For things to be successful in the Senate, it takes some bipartisanship and the broader the bipartisanship the better. But also as a substitute for bipartisan opposition to what we are doing, our bulldogging this issue for a long period of time has proven to override the bipartisan opposition to it because when we put an issue such as this to public debate, common sense has to prevail. Getting back to what Senator Wyden quoted me as saying over the last several years, that the public's business ought to be done in public, that people who are surreptitiously trying to do things and then try to explain that to the public, the public is not going to buy into it. But the public does buy into doing what the public thinks Congress is all about, and that is being a very public body because we are representatives of the people. I say those things aside from the merits of the issue. I cannot express those merits for myself any better than Senator Wyden has done. I don't intend to try to attempt to do that, but I will give you my version of why this is a very important issue. In doing this, I fully support everything Senator Wyden has said, and I associate myself with those remarks. As an extension of what he said, I will say for myself, every Senator does have a right and, if he or she is representing their constituents, ought to exercise this right to object to a unanimous consent request to bringing matters before the Senate that they might feel are detrimental to their constituency or detrimental to the good of the country. Of course, an extension of unanimous consent is putting a hold as a way of protecting that right. Since Senators cannot be on the floor all the time, a hold is essentially a way of putting the leaders on notice that a Senator intends to object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to a matter. Of course, I have exercised, and the Senator from Oregon has said he has exercised, putting on holds for various reasons. For a long time, I have made my holds public by putting a very short statement in the Congressional Record of why I was holding something up, No. 1, because I think the public's business ought to be public, and, No. 2, because I am saying holds ought to be public, so it would be unethical for me to have a secret hold, and No. 3, people who disagree with my hold ought to have an opportunity to discuss with me why they think their position is right, and I ought to have a right to discuss with them why I think something ought to be changed in their bill or some reason I am holding it up, so one can talk and know they are getting together to solve the problem so the work of the Senate can be done. Since I have done that, I have to say I fully support the right of Senators to place holds on items that they do not consent to consider. However, a Senator has no right to register an objection anonymously. That has not been that way for decades in the Senate because some Senators feel that the public good ought to require that sometimes things ought to be done in secret. I don't happen to agree with that thought. So I am taking the position that the public's business ought to be public. If I could expand on that a little bit, I suppose there are some legitimate exceptions to it, but except for the privacy laws, except for national security and connected with that maybe our intelligence operation and maybe in the case of executive privilege--meaning people who are in the White House very close to the President--I think there is no reason for business not to be public. That is, 99 percent of the rest of the business that the Federal Government does, from my point of view, ought to be public. In practice, a hold can prevent a measure from coming before the Senate indefinitely. This gives tremendous power to a single Senator that no single Senator should be able to exercise for a very long period of time, maybe in the purist way--but in the less pure way should not be able to exercise secretly because the public's business ought to be done in the public. There is no good reason why a Senator should be able to singlehandedly block the Senate's business without public accountability. For several years now, as I have said, I have practiced using holds for various reasons, but I placed a statement in the Record of why I was doing it. We must have transparency in the legislative process for the right of the public to know what we are doing but also to expedite the public's work. The use of secret holds damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate. I figure a secondary, subsidiary benefit of what we are doing is when people get the idea that we are not trying to do something secret, that the public's business is public, they are going to be less cynical about the institutions of Government generally. The less cynicism we have, the more confidence people are going to have in the institutions of Government and the better our Government is going to operate, the better the representative system of Government is going to operate. But where does less cynicism start? It doesn't start necessarily with changing the rules. It starts with people such as Senator Grassley, Senator Wyden, and Senator Whitehouse because when we do things in the way the public expects us to do them and more Senators do that all the time, Senator by Senator we are going to reduce the cynicism and enhance public respect for the institutions of Government. The purpose of the underlying bill before the Senate is to provide greater transparency in the legislative process. Therefore, the amendment by Senator Wyden and this Senator from Iowa is a natural extension of that purpose. It is quite appropriate that this underlying bill include disclosure requirements for holds that he and I have been working on for several years. In the process, we have to compliment Senator Reid for including this in the underlying bill and Senator McConnell, and I am not sure how they individually felt about this in the past. But I think it is very clear that with the vote we had last year--I think it was in the mid- eighties--of Senators who support what we are doing, it is a foregone conclusion that regardless of how leaders might feel about it, if they were on the other side, they were very much in the minority. Realism finally comes through when we have consistency and determination, as Senator Wyden has demonstrated and that vote demonstrates, and it is a tribute to our leaders that if they don't necessarily like what we are doing, that they have included it in their legislation. Obviously, I have to give thanks to them. I, also, give thanks to Senator Lott who, over a period of couple of years, has been working with us. I, also, wish to give credit to the President pro tempore, Senator Byrd, who a couple years back gave us some encouragement along this line. I hope, now that everything is coming together, that within a few short weeks we can have a very open process of making holds public, bringing people together and producing results in the Senate because of one giant step we are taking here. Doing away with holds might not sound like one giant step, but it is from the standpoint if you knew what the four-letter word ``hold'' does to the legislative process around here, it grinds everything to a halt--everything to a halt. Try to explain to your constituents back home that some Senator has a hold on a bill and try to explain that is why we can't get something done. They wonder what planet we come from. It is very difficult to explain. We are still going to have holds, we still have to explain it, but at least I can say to people it is Senator Smith or Senator Jones or Senator Wilson who has a hold on the bill, and I am going to talk with them and see what we can do about it and get something done. I compliment the Senator from Oregon very much and hopefully the Senate is going to work better.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I welcome the new Presiding Officer to the Senate. I look forward to working with him as a new Senator. I hope he enjoys his time in the Senate. I am back here again today, as I was yesterday, to talk about the Medicare drug benefit. Yesterday I spoke about how the benefit uses prescription drug plans and competition--with emphasis upon competition--to keep costs down for our senior citizens. I spoke about how well that system of competition that is in the prescription drug bill has been working for the last 2 years of its operation. Today I want to get to the crux of this debate and a debate that is going to take place a few days from now in this Chamber, the so-called prohibition on Government negotiation with drugmakers. Opponents of the Medicare drug benefit have misrepresented what we call the ``noninterference clause'' language. That language doesn't prohibit Medicare from negotiation with drugmakers. It prohibits the Government from interfering in negotiations that are actually taking place. Much of this debate hinges on a convenient lapse of memory that I am going to emphasize during my remarks about the history of the noninterference clause. So today I want to take my colleagues on a little trip down memory lane. For our first stop on memory lane, I would like to read something. This is a quote from someone talking about their very own Medicare drug benefit proposal: Under this proposal, Medicare would not set prices of drugs. Prices would be determined through negotiations between private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers. The person who said this clearly wanted private negotiation with drug companies for a Medicare benefit, not Government negotiations. The person I quoted was proposing--and I will quote again what he said-- ``negotiations between private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers.'' I don't think that person could be more clear in what he was attempting to accomplish with his proposal. You are going to be shocked to hear who said this. The quote is from none other than President Clinton. President Clinton made that comment as part of his June 1999 plan for strengthening and modernizing Medicare for the 21st century. President Clinton went on to say that under his plan ``prices would be determined through negotiations between the private benefit administrators and drug manufacturers.'' I quote further: The competitive bidding process would be used to yield the best possible drug prices and coverage, just as it is used by large private employers and by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan today. President Clinton also described his plan as using private negotiators as opposed to Government negotiators, because ``these organizations have experienced managing drug utilization and have developed numerous tools of cost containment and utilization management.'' Does this ring any bells? It should because it is the same framework used in today's Part D Medicare prescription drug benefit, private negotiations with drug companies, and it is based on the nearly 50-year history of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I would like to refer to another part of Medicare history for memory's sake as well. This is another interesting spot on memory lane for history buffs. The Clinton plan had a coverage gap that we refer to in the Senate as the doughnut hole, just like the bill eventually signed into law in 2003. Like many others, the brandnew Speaker of the House has questioned why one would pay premiums at a point in time when you are not receiving benefits, as is the case with the doughnut hole. Well, that is how insurance works. We all know how the insurance industry works. Go look at your homeowner and auto policies and Part B Medicare. You pay premiums to have coverage. That is how President Clinton's plan was meant to work, if it had become law. In Sunday's Washington Post, the new Speaker of the other body, Pelosi, was quoted about having a doughnut hole. She said: How could that be a good idea, unless you are writing a bill for the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies and not for America's seniors? Was she referring to President Clinton's plan proposed in 1999? As I said, he proposed his plan in June of that year. On April 4, 2000, S. 2342 was introduced in the Senate. S. 2342 would have created a drug benefit administered through private benefit managers. So here again would be private negotiators negotiating with the drug companies to save seniors money on their prescription drugs. Does that sound familiar? It is just like today's Medicare Program that is law. Here is another important stop down our memory lane. That bill, S. 2342, introduced in 2000, included language on noninterference: Nothing in this section or in this part shall be construed as authorizing the secretary to authorize a particular formulary, or to institute a price structure for benefits, or to otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through benefit managers. This is the first bill--the very first one--where the noninterference clause appeared. This is the first prohibition in present law on Government negotiation that was introduced. But S. 2342 wasn't introduced by a Republican; it was introduced by my esteemed colleague, the late Senator Moynihan. One month later, there was a bill, S. 2541, introduced. I will read some of the language that was in that bill. That bill said this; I have it on the chart: The secretary may not (1) require a particular formulary, institute a price structure for benefits; (2) interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and drug manufacturers, and wholesalers; or (3) otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through private entities. I will make it clear that this wasn't a Republican bill, either. It was introduced, as you can see, at that time by Senator Daschle, who was joined by 33 other Democrats, including 3 who are still prominent in the Senate--Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy. That is right. I want you all to know that 33 Senate Democrats cosponsored a bill with a noninterference clause in it. You see, it turns out that the Democrats didn't want the Government--nor did President Clinton--interfering in the private sector negotiations either. They recognized then that the private sector would do a better job, and they didn't want some Government bureaucrat messing it up. I will go to another chart. In June 2000, two Democratic bills were introduced in the House of Representatives that also included noninterference language. H.R. 4770 was introduced by then-Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. That bill had more than 100 Democrats cosponsoring, including the new Speaker of the House--then not speaker--Nancy Pelosi, and Representatives Rangel, Dingell, and Stark. Rangel, Dingell, and Stark are people whom I have worked closely with in Congress recently on a lot of health legislation or tax legislation--or trade legislation, in the case of Congressman Rangel. The prohibition on Government negotiation included in that House bill was almost identical to the language Senator Daschle had in his bill. Here is the text of the actual noninterference clause included in the bill signed by the President in 2003, present law--what we refer to as Part D now: Noninterference.--in order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the secretary (1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and (2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for reimbursement of covered part D drugs. Well, that sounds a bit like what was sponsored by Democrats over the last several years. Last week, the senior Senator from Illinois described the 2003 Medicare bill--and this was in a speech on the floor--as being written by the pharmaceutical industry. But the noninterference clause first appeared in legislation introduced by Democrats who now oppose the same provision that is in present law. Now, the opponents of the Medicare drug benefit always say that the noninterference clause is proof the present law was written by the drug industry. My question, Mr. President, is this: If that is what they want to think, then did the same pharmaceutical industry write these bills that the Democrats introduced in 2000, 2001, and 2002? I bet you are wondering how many Democratic bills had the now infamous noninterference clause in it--that is, the prohibition on Government negotiation. Well, here is the whole timeline. As you can see from chart 4, that prohibition on the Government negotiating, the noninterference clause, has been in seven bills by Democrats between 1999 and 2003, including a bill introduced in the House on the same day, H.R. 1, which eventually became the bill the President signed. There were seven. Here they are. The first is the Moynihan bill, April 2000; Daschle-Reid bill, May 2000; Eshoo bill, June 2000; Gephardt- Pelosi-Rangel-Stark-Dingell-Stabenow--when she was in the House and is now a Senator--introduced June 2000. Stark had it in a motion to recommit in June 2000. Senator Wyden from Oregon introduced it as part of S. 1185 in July 2001. Thompson of California had it in a House bill in June of 2003. It seems to me that on the other side of the aisle there ought to be some consideration of where did Republicans get this idea. I hate to steal ideas from Democrats, but if they work, they work. I spoke yesterday about how this provision--or the present way of doing it. The Federal Health Employee Benefit Program has been doing it for 50 years, and it has been saving senior citizens lots of money, not just on the price of prescription drugs but prescription drugs and premiums and a lot of other things--not only saving senior citizens money out of their own pockets but saving the taxpayers with a new judgment on what the cost of the drug program is going to be that was projected back when it was signed by the President. It is $189 billion less than the Congressional Budget Office, the CMS, and the OMB said it would cost. Now, I know what the response will be. It will be that even though Democratic bills had nearly the exact same prohibition on Government negotiation--practically word for word in seven bills over a long period of time--opponents now think the approach is no longer the best for Medicare. That's sort of like ``we supported it before we opposed it.'' Beneficiaries and the public deserve more than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with a sense of sadness, but also pride, that I rise today to pay tribute to CPL. Jonathan E. Schiller of Ottumwa, IA, who gave his life on New Year's Eve in service to his country in Iraa. He is remembered by friends and family for his good humor and his patriotism. Corporal Schiller's parents, Bill and Liz Schiller, said of their son, ``Jon died doing what he loved, serving his country and protecting the freedom of our people and others. We are proud of our son's accomplishments and those of his fellow soldiers in the Army and all branches of the military. We are forever grateful to the Army for changing our boy into a man who fought and died defending something that we take for granted every day... freedom!'' My thoughts and prayers are with Bill and Liz, Jon's brothers Charlie and Max, and all of those in the Ottumwa area and elsewhere who mourn the loss of this brave young man. Jon Schiller's willingness to volunteer for military service in a time of war speaks loudly to his love of our country. He now joins the honored ranks of generations of American youth who have laid down their lives for the preservation of freedom. His courageous service and tremendous sacrifice must never be forgotten by a grateful Nation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007. This bill would simply instill fairness into contractual dealings between farmers and processors. It ensures that parties to a dispute related to agricultural contracts have a true choice of venues. I introduce this legislation because I believe that anti-competitive activity has become a grave threat to the family farmer. During the last Farm Bill debate, I brought this same bill forward, along with several others. Despite this policy passing the Senate, remarkably the final Farm Bill included no provisions to address concentration. So, earlier this year, I announced that I will be putting forward a package of bills that will focus on anti-competitive activity in the agriculture industry. This bill is the first step of my agriculture concentration agenda. Today's legislation is one piece of the puzzle to help stop the unfair impact that vertical integration is having on the family farmer. In the last several years we've seen a tremendous shift in agriculture toward contract production. Under many of these contract arrangements, large, vertically integrated agribusiness firms have the power to dictate the terms of ``take-it-or-leave-it'' production contracts to farmers. Then, when there is a dispute between the packer and the family farmer, and the contract between the two includes an arbitration clause, the family farmer has no alternative but to accept arbitration to resolve the dispute. These clauses limit farmers' abilities to pursue remedies in court, even when violations of Federal or State law are at issue. This mandatory arbitration process puts the farmer at a see disadvantage. Even in a situation where discrimination or fraud is suspected, a farmer's only recourse under such a contract is to submit to arbitration. The farmer cannot seek redress in court, even if the result is bankruptcy or financial ruin. Make no mistake, arbitration is very useful in certain situations. It reduces the load on our courts, and can save parties the expense of drawn-out litigation. This bill would not rule out arbitration-just forced arbitration. The Fair Contracts for Growers Act would amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to require that any contract arbitration be voluntarily agreed upon by both parties to settle disputes at the time a dispute arises, not when the contract is signed. This would allow farmers the opportunity to choose the best form of dispute resolution and not have to submit to the packers. It ensures that a farmer, most often the ``little guy'' in these dealings, is able to maintain his constitutional right to a jury trial. It also gives him a chance to compel disclosure of relevant information, held by the company, which is necessary for a fair decision. During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Feingold and me, along with our other cosponsors, in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.