Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Tuesday night, Senator Baucus and I introduced a package of tax relief measures designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina both in the short and long term. We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport, and other hurricane-hit areas. We are pleased that the Members of the affected region join us in this effort, including Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran, and Shelby. The immediate relief package will help get short-term aid to the hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced persons, as two examples. For those who have suffered casualty losses, we have liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property. We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment. We expect to see prompt action by Congress on this tax relief package. We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start. After this package is completed, our focus in the committee will be on longer term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses. We are looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority, and enterprise zone initiatives. Life will never be the same for our fellow citizens in the gulf region, and what we have all seen over the last 2 weeks will stay in the hearts and minds of all of us for years to come. With this first initiative from the Finance Committee, a bipartisan initiative--and I thank Senator Baucus for his extreme cooperation, in fact, even leadership in getting this to where it is now--this first initiative--and there are going to be more in other areas where we have jurisdiction--we want the victims in all the affected areas to know they can count on us to create a set of measures that will help return vitality and vigor to the gulf region. Mr. President, I defer now to Senator Baucus.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, obviously, I thank Senator Baucus for the personal comment he made about my upcoming birthday. More importantly, once again, we have had such smooth working relationships on these two very important bills. Our staffs have cooperated very closely. There has been some compromise but not a lot because I think we are all going in the same direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to the remarks I made and the remarks Senator Baucus has made, that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1696 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to offer a few observations with respect to Stabenow amendment No. 1688 to H.R. 2862, which was accepted by the Senate yesterday, as modified, and elaborate on why I supported this amendment. As my colleagues well know, I have long supported the legalization of prescription drug importation in this country. In fact, I have sponsored a bill to legalize the importation of prescription drugs. That bill is S. 334, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2005. I want to thank Senators Dorgan, Snowe, Kennedy, and McCain for working with me to carefully develop legislation that I could fully support. I worked very closely with my colleagues to draft S.334 in way that does not create any litigation risk with respect to any of our trade agreements. We achieved that in S. 334. I believe S. 334 is fully consistent with the terms of our trade agreements, including our agreements with Singapore, Morocco, and Australia. The Stabenow amendment is not limited to pharmaceutical patents. That concerns me. I believe the international trade obligations of the United States allow us to apply a special rule of patent exhaustion to pharmaceutical patents as long as we respect the principles of national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment. I hope that the Stabenow amendment will be further refined in conference so that its scope is limited to pharmaceutical patents. By legalizing the importation of prescription drugs we will increase competition and keep the domestic pharmaceutical industry more responsive to consumers. Drug companies will be forced to reevaluate their pricing strategies, and American consumers will no longer be forced to pay more than their fair share of the high cost of research and development for new innovative pharmaceuticals. Prescription drug importation legislation has been stalled in Congress for far too long. My support for the Stabenow amendment is intended to help kickstart the legislative process, so we can pass prescription drug importation legislation without any more delay. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Keith E. Gottfried, of California, to be General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Israel Hernandez, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service; Mr. Darryl W. Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce; Ms. Kim Kendrick, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Franklin L. Lavin, of Ohio, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Mr. David H. McCormick, of Pennsylvania, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; Mr. Keith A. Nelson, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and Ms. Darlene F. Williams, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1665.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night, Senator Baucus and I introduced a package of tax relief measures designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina both in the short and long term. We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport, and the other hurricane-hit areas. We're pleased that members of the affected region join us in this effort including Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran, and Shelby. The immediate relief package that we are announcing today will help get short-term aid to hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced individuals, for example. For those who have suffered casualty losses, we have liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property. We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment. We expect to see prompt action by Congress on this tax relief package. We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start. After this package is completed, our focus will be on longer term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses. We are looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority--arbitrage rebate--and enterprise-zone initiatives. Life will never be the same for our fellow citizens in gulf region. And what we have all seen over the last 2 weeks will stay in the hearts and minds of all of us for years to come. With this first initiative from the Finance Committee--and there will be more in other areas where we have jurisdiction--we want the victims in all of the affected areas to know that they can count on us to create a set of measures that wit1 help return vitality and vigor to the gulf region.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Senator Biden's amendment to add over $1 billion to the COPS Program. I am troubled by this amendment because it would declare these funds an emergency, siphoning away much needed funds that should go directly to the hurricane effort. The definition of an emergency includes situations that are necessary, or vital, sudden, urgent, and unforeseen. This amendment does not fit those characteristics. I must also oppose this amendment because it lacks an offset. As a senior member of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Finance Committee, I believe that we owe it to the taxpayers to be fiscally responsible with their tax dollars. Congress passed a budget, and we should stick by it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize some of the most brilliant and hardest working young adults in our Nation and in the world today. These seventeen outstanding scholars have recently been named 2005 Davidson Fellows and are being rewarded for their cutting-edge and distinguished work. The Davidson Institute Fellowships promote and reward under-18 year olds who have undertaken invaluable projects and studies for the greater good of our country and the world. The Davidson Institute awards scholarships to each of the Fellows to assist them in furthering their education. I don't believe the Davidson Institute could have found a more distinguished or more deserving group of young scholars. I would like to detail their accomplishments for a moment. Karsten Gimre was just 11 years old when he became a Davidson Fellow based on his project entitled ``Conversation Without Words.'' This young pianist from Banks, Oregon has performed with several professional orchestras and has been winning awards for his exceptional abilities since the age of 6 when he earned first place at the International Young Artists Concert here in Washington, D.C. At the age of 12 he is now studying math and physics at the Pacific University while continuing his musical instruction. As a young writer from Canton, MI, Heidi Kaloustian's unique talent and creative genius allowed her to explore complex relationships and personal identity in her portfolio entitled ``The Roots of All Things'' while still allowing the reader to emotionally connect with the work and characters. Heidi plans to continue creative writing at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and I have no doubt that she will be very successful as a professor and as a writer. Tiffany Ko, a 16 year old from Terre Haute, IN, put herself on the cutting edge of technology and science when she used electric field sensing to design a new type of computerized security system. Her project is a significant advancement from current security systems and could be used to make people and businesses safer than ever before. At the age of 17 years old, Milana Zaurova from Fresh Meadows, NY has begun developing a new way to treat the most deadly form of brain cancer, malignant glioma. She combined chemotherapy and gene-therapy to develop a creative new method that has the potential to save many lives. As a 12-year old from Chapel Hill, NC, Maia Cabeza has already developed an extensive resume as a violinist. She has earned praise in the United States and abroad for her technical proficiency and musicality. Maia has the noble goal of using her music to breach cultural and language barriers, and I wish her the best of luck and success. When Brett Harrison was just 16 years old he was able to develop a mathematical proof that actually improved upon a conjecture developed by a Princeton University professor. This Dix Hills, NY native's work is applicable to numerous fields such as communications, structural design, and computer networking systems. Tudor Dominik Maican is a gifted and talented 16-year-old composer from Bethesda, MD. He has already been commissioned by the Dumbarton Musical Society for a piano solo and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his imaginative and wide-ranging compositions. Justin Solomon, from Oakton, VA, designed an algorithm to recognize an object based on its three dimensional features. Most recognition programs only use two dimensions, so Justin's new algorithm increases a program's accuracy and can potentially be used in the fields of security, robotics, and artificial intelligence. John Zhou of Northville, MI took an interest in biomedicine because of its scientific and humanitarian aspects, and has now studied the DNA replication process with the goal of understanding and ultimately halting mutations and cancer development. John is also accomplished in many other fields including mathematics, physics, and Spanish. Kadir Annamalai's project focused around building nanowires, or wires only about two molecules thick that could be used in devices like power generators and circuit boards. In addition to this extremely technical work, Kadir, who is from Saratoga, CA, is also an Eagle Scout and is the recipient of numerous Future Business Leaders of America awards. Motivated by a strong desire to help those affected with Alzheimer's disease, Stephanie Hon, from Fort Myers, FL, investigated a creative method that her study suggests could possibly reverse some of the effects of Alzheimer's. Stephanie is considering continuing her Alzheimer's research at Harvard University this fall and we all wish her continued success. Benedict Shan Yuan Huang's project, Changed Particle Production in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, is as technical and advanced as it sounds. He has created a new technique that promises to achieve quicker and more accurate results when studying the structure of matter. Benedict, who is from Coram, NY, will attend Harvard University in the fall and will most likely study science as well as the piano. At the age of 16 Lucas Moller from Moscow, ID has already worked with NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His study on Martian dust and its effect on Martian lander missions has been incorporated on the Mars Surveyor lander and the Mars Express/ Beagle 2 mission. Nimish Ramanlal from Winter Springs, FL was able to advance the field of quantum computing by creating a new framework for quantum computing that overcomes the limitations on the effectiveness of quantum computers. His work could help a new form of computing to emerge with profound implications in nanotechnology, medical research, and advanced physics. With the internet growing every day, Tony Wu of Irvine, CA created a new internet search method that could be highly useful in the information society of the 21st century. He has competed successfully in numerous science competitions and plans to study computer science or electronics engineering in college. Fan Yang, a 17-year-old young woman from Davis, CA, developed a method of preventing eye infections by using three compounds that prevent bacteria from forming and growing on the contact or intraocular lenses. This is a promising line of research that demonstrates the combination of Fan Yang's love of science and desire to help people. At the age of 6 years old, Marc Yu, who is from Monterey Park, CA, has already won numerous awards and competitions for both his piano and cello performances including both first place for the cello and second place for the piano at the Southwest Youth Music Festival. Mr. President, despite their relatively young age, these seventeen outstanding young men and women have all achieved remarkable things and fully deserve the awards that they have earned. Their past is overshadowed, however, by their even brighter futures and careers made easier by becoming 2005 Davidson Fellows. I would like to thank these young scientists, mathematicians, writers, and musicians for their accomplishments, past, present, and future, that will no doubt improve the lives of a great many people in this country and abroad.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Harkin to introduce legislation today that would extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting. Due in large part to concerned Iowa livestock producers, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, LMPR, in 1999 to help improve market transparency. Since Mandatory Price Reporting was implemented by USDA in 2001, I have heard from producers across Iowa who question the integrity and accountability of the reported prices under Mandatory Price Reporting under this law. While there is a lack of ``believability'' regarding the information generated by Mandatory Price Reporting, nearly all producers across Iowa feel strongly that the information would be valuable if the program had more credibility and improved transparency. Thanks to producer comments and dissatisfaction with the current program, Senator Harkin and I offered to initiate a Government Accountability Office, GAO, examination of the Mandatory Price Reporting program. I then conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of Mandatory Price Reporting on the GAO study results. Unfortunately, there is growing pressure from packers and ``packer lackeys'' to act before the GAO report is completed. Under the auspice of ``consensus'' a number of groups serving packer interests are pushing agendas contrary to the interests of Iowa's pork producers and cattlemen. The Iowa livestock community believes any congressional action before receipt and review of the GAO report would be premature and ill- advised. The goal of re-authorization should be to improve the existing legislation to the best of our ability based upon the best available information and analysis. If the non-partisan GAO is not allowed to complete its work before the law is re-authorized, Congress will be neglecting the opportunity to review and reflect upon an exhaustive study. Let me be clear, livestock producers in Iowa do not think it is prudent to move forward without substantive review and potential improvement of the current program. Only those entities that fear transparency should be fighting for a 5 year extension with no consideration for the GAO's pending conclusions. The House Agriculture Committee passed out a five year extension and I hope they will take into consideration the remarks made by me today. I look forward to protecting the interests of family farmers and believe this another way of providing that protection.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Harkin to introduce legislation today that would extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting. Due in large part to concerned Iowa livestock producers, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, LMPR, in 1999 to help improve market transparency. Since Mandatory Price Reporting was implemented by USDA in 2001, I have heard from producers across Iowa who question the integrity and accountability of the reported prices under Mandatory Price Reporting under this law. While there is a lack of ``believability'' regarding the information generated by Mandatory Price Reporting, nearly all producers across Iowa feel strongly that the information would be valuable if the program had more credibility and improved transparency. Thanks to producer comments and dissatisfaction with the current program, Senator Harkin and I offered to initiate a Government Accountability Office, GAO, examination of the Mandatory Price Reporting program. I then conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of Mandatory Price Reporting on the GAO study results. Unfortunately, there is growing pressure from packers and ``packer lackeys'' to act before the GAO report is completed. Under the auspice of ``consensus'' a number of groups serving packer interests are pushing agendas contrary to the interests of Iowa's pork producers and cattlemen. The Iowa livestock community believes any congressional action before receipt and review of the GAO report would be premature and ill- advised. The goal of re-authorization should be to improve the existing legislation to the best of our ability based upon the best available information and analysis. If the non-partisan GAO is not allowed to complete its work before the law is re-authorized, Congress will be neglecting the opportunity to review and reflect upon an exhaustive study. Let me be clear, livestock producers in Iowa do not think it is prudent to move forward without substantive review and potential improvement of the current program. Only those entities that fear transparency should be fighting for a 5 year extension with no consideration for the GAO's pending conclusions. The House Agriculture Committee passed out a five year extension and I hope they will take into consideration the remarks made by me today. I look forward to protecting the interests of family farmers and believe this another way of providing that protection.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Pennsylvania raises an important and time-sensitive question. When we considered the section 29 changes, the conferees were aware of the process described by the Senator. As the senior conferee for the Committee on Finance, I urge the Internal Revenue Service to consider that process as a qualified fuel that is eligible for the section 29 credit under such circumstances.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Yes, the distinguished Senator is correct. The conferees understand that there are requests for private letter rulings with respect to the process the Senator from Pennsylvania has described. Moreover, these requests were submitted in Fall 2000. The conferees expect that the Internal Revenue Service would consider issuing these rulings immediately, with due diligence, and without delay.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations has now performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more infrastructure security then ever before. Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating committees that have been involved in this process. Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Kurt Kovarik, John Good, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them. As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, and Ryan Abraham. I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud and energy team of Tom Barthold, John Navratil, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, Allen Littman, Gray Fontenot, and Gary Bornholdt as well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen and Mark McGunagle of Senate legislative counsel. This conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. It is my commitment that spirit will be influential to the entire ongoing legislative process.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are committed to this as the correct policy for large scale commercial projects. In addition, we are committed to seeing energy-efficient skyscrapers in the sky and recognize that these types of projects take years to design and build. We will continue to work with you to make this a long-term policy of the Tax Code.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations, has now performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more infrastructure security then ever before. On June 21st, the Senate passed H.R. 6 which included the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. The tax provisions were a bipartisan product formulated with Senator Baucus, after consultation with many Members of the Senate. In my estimation, the energy policy tax incentives reflected in this conference agreement are a fair balance of the interests of the Members and effectively supports the development of energy production from renewable and environmentally beneficial sources. I would like to briefly describe these tax incentives that are included in the final energy Conference agreement. For years, I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that uses renewable energy and fosters economic development. Specifically, the development of alternative energy sources should alleviate domestic energy shortages and insulate the United States from the Middle East-dominated oil supply. In addition, the development of renewable energy resources conserves existing natural resources and protects the environment. Finally, alternative energy development provides economic benefits to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners, such as those in Iowa who have launched efforts to diversify the State's economy and to find creative ways to extract a greater return from abundant natural resources. Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, biomass, and other renewables. The final Energy Tax Incentives Act extends the section 45 credit through the end of 2007. I have been a constant advocate of alternative energy sources. Since the inception 13 years ago of the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production has grown considerably. In addition, wind represents an affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy. Extending the wind energy tax credit until 2008 will support the tremendous continued development of this clean, renewable energy source. The conference agreement supports a maturing green energy source. Experts have established wind energy's valuable contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels. In addition, this agreement helps to empower our rural communities to reap continued economic benefits. The installation of wind turbines has a stimulative economic effect because it requires significant capital investment which results in the creation of jobs and the injection of capital into often rural economic areas. In addition, for each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms currently pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners, and the development of 1,000 megawatts of capacity in California, for example, would result in annual payments of approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners in that State. Environmentally friendly biomass energy production is a proven, effective technology that generates numerous waste management public benefits across the country. The biomass definition covers open loop biomass. Open loop biomass includes organic, nonhazardous materials such as sawdust, tree trimmings, agricultural byproducts and untreated construction debris. The development of a local industry to convert biomass to electricity has the potential to produce enormous economic benefits and electricity security for rural America. In addition, studies show that biomass crops could produce between $2 and $5 billion in additional farm income for American farmers. As an example, over 450 tons of turkey and chicken litter are under contract to be sold for an electricity plant using poultry litter being built in Minnesota. This is a win-win. Not only do the farmers not have to pay to dispose of this stuff, they get paid to sell the litter. You could find similar examples throughout the Midwest and other farm regions across America. Finally, marginal farmland incapable of sustaining traditional yearly production is often capable of generating native grasses and organic materials that are ideal for biomass energy production. Turning tree trimmings and native grasses into energy provides an economic gain and serves an important public interest. I am very proud of a long history of supporting new alternative energy concepts in the production of electricity. The energy conference agreement continues that commitment. By using animal waste as an energy source, an American livestock producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas suppliers and provide excess energy for distribution to other members of the community. Swine and bovine energy is truly green electricity, as it also furthers environmental objectives. Specifically, anaerobic digestion of manure improves air quality because it eliminates as much as 90 percent of the odor from feedlots and improves soil and water quality by dramatically reducing problems with waste runoff. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to remain competitive in today's livestock market. In addition, the technology used to create the electricity results in the production of a fertilizer product that is of a higher quality than unprocessed animal waste. The Energy Tax Incentives Act is important to agriculture, rural economy and small business. It is also important for domestic supply and energy independence. Rural America can play an important part in energy independence and domestic supply. In addition to the production of electricity, this agreement includes additional tax incentives for the production of alternative fuels from renewable resources. We continue the small producers credit for the production of ethanol. We continue the incentive for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel is a natural substitute for diesel fuel and can be made from almost all vegetable oils and animal fats. Modern science is allowing us to slowly substitute natural renewable agricultural sources for traditional petroleum. It gives us choices for the future and it can relieve the strain on the domestic oil production to fulfill those important needs that agricultural products cannot serve. Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel will improve air quality, strengthen national security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence on the Middle East for oil, and expand markets for agricultural products. This package is fiscally responsible. The conference report provides a net $11.5 billion in tax relief over 10 years. That figure aligns with the budget resolution. Over 5 years, the package loses only about $6.9 billion. The Energy conference agreement is a balanced package. I would like to note, with some satisfaction, that today we have performed the people's business in the way they want us to do business. This Energy Tax Incentives Act was crafted in a bipartisan, bicameral way on an important initiative, in a way that reflects the diversity of our views and the diversity of our Nation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Bayh and Senator Clinton in introducing the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. This legislation sets forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also seeks to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home- and community-based care, which many folks prefer to institutional care. Before I begin my discussion of the merits of the legislation that I am introducing today, I want to take this opportunity to once again emphasize my commitment to enacting the Family Opportunity Act. I have worked to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years now. I have been motivated to work so hard because I have been deeply moved by a number of stories from families, both from my State of Iowa and elsewhere, who have had to turn down promotions, or even put their child with a disability up for adoption in order to secure for these children the medical services they so desperately need. The Family Opportunity Act would provide a State option to allow families with disabled children to ``buy in'' to the Medicaid program; establish mental health parity in Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver programs; establish Family to Family Health Information Centers and restore Medicaid eligibility for certain SSI beneficiaries. As part of the on-going negotiations relative to the FOA, many stakeholders have agreed that a modification of a feature of the President's New Freedom Initiative, a demonstration program known as ``Money Follows the Person'' should be enacted along with the FOA. Money Follows the Person allows the Secretary to provide grants to states to increase the use of home and community based care and provides States a financial incentive for the first year to do so. I want stakeholders in the disability community as well as the many organizations who support the Family Opportunity Act to understand that the legislation I am introducing today compliments rather than supplants my efforts to enact FOA and Money Follows the Person. I believe that we should provide a wide array of options to the states to encourage them to identify and eliminate barriers to community living including access to consumer direction and respite care. Long-term care services can be prohibitively expensive. Just one year in a nursing home can cost well over $50,000. In many cases, individuals deplete their savings and resources paying for long-term and ultimately qualify for Medicaid coverage. Right now, Medicaid pays for the bulk of long-term care services in this country. In 2002 alone, we spent nearly $93 billion on long-term care services under Medicaid. With our aging population, one thing is clear: spending will only increase. When most people think about purchasing long-term care insurance, they think, ``that's something I can put off until tomorrow.'' We need to change the perception because the older you are when you first buy coverage, the more expensive the premiums are. Our legislation calls for the Secretary to educate folks about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. We envision people having the opportunity to compare policies available in their States. Among other means, this could be accomplished through an internet website for example. Making people aware of long-term care insurance won't go very far though, unless we make some other changes to enhance the value and protection that long-term care insurance can bring. Our bill takes several steps in this regard. First, the legislation would require that States disregard benefits paid under a long-term care insurance policy when determining eligibility for Medicaid. Second, it incorporates a series of consumer protections recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioner, NAIC, into the definition of `qualified long-term care services.' Individuals who purchase a policy that have these consumer protections will be eligible for an above the line tax deduction and a tax credit for out-of-pocket expenses made by caregivers. Third, the bill would expand the long-term care partnership program, which currently operates as a demonstration in four states. The long-term care partnerships combine private long-term care insurance with Medicaid coverage once individuals exhaust their insurance benefits. Several States would like to pursue their own long-term care partnerships and this legislation will enable them to do that. The Improving Long-term Care Choices Act also builds on the President's New Freedom Initiative by taking further steps toward removing the ``institutional bias'' in Medicaid, giving States the option of providing home- and community-based services as part of their State Medicaid Plan. In doing so, the bill gives States the flexibility to design long- term care benefits that will reduce the reliance on costly institutional settings and meet the needs of elderly and disabled individuals who overwhelmingly wish to remain in their homes and communities. In his New Freedom Initiative announced shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to tear down barriers preventing people with disabilities from fully participating in American society. The President also endorses the idea of shifting Medicaid's delivery system towards one that promotes cost-effective, community-based care instead of one weighted so heavily towards institutional settings. This legislation also challenges us to think beyond funding and program silos and directs the Secretary to address administrative barriers that impede the integration of acute and long-term care services. The Secretary also must develop recommendations for statutory changes that will make it easier for States to offer better coordinated acute and long-term care services. The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is consistent with our ideals about families, individual choices in health care and financial responsibility. This bill aims high. But it is sorely evident that we need to think creatively and comprehensively, even boldly, if we hope to make the type of inroads in promoting the availability of good long- term care insurance policies and in rebalancing the institutional bias in long-term care services that no longer reflects the needs and preferences of many stakeholders. The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is a good bill. The American Network of Community Options and Resources, the Arc & United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, and the National Disability Rights Network, the United Spinal Association, and the Association of University Centers on Disabilities support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the legislation and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is our final step to positively reaffirm our commitment to a strong and dedicated highway program, the safety and soundness of its infrastructure, and the security of the Nation's transportation network. But in the process of pursuing and completing those goals, conferees had to make many decisions. As chairman of the Finance Committee, at the outset, I committed to several fundamental principles during this conference. First, that the bill be paid for. Whatever we added to the trust fund should not increase the deficit. If you look at the revenue table, prepared by Joint Tax, you will see that the new trust fund money raised by fuel fraud enforcement is raised in a deficit-neutral manner. The tax-writing committees were fiscally responsible in our efforts to grow the trust fund. Second, highway taxes pay for highways. These are taxes that will be collected regardless of whether or not we have a highway bill. They can't be used for anything else. The tax provisions of the highway bill aggressively focus on collecting all of the taxes due and owed to the highway trust fund. So we increase the size of the trust fund. Primarily, we do it by being tough on fraud. Some of this fraud is just plain old criminal activity--but we have reason to believe that billions of our highway tax dollars are being stolen for a more sinister purpose, that being the potential funding of terrorism. So we have the opportunity with this legislation to not only shut down these thieves but to rightfully collect all of our highway taxes to fully fund this bill. Under the Senate bill, several billion dollars will be added to the highway trust fund merely by moving jet fuel to the rack. Unfortunately, we can't keep all of the untaxed jet fuel out of the diesel market unless all 50 States move all of their fuel tax collection to the rack. But we can collect billions that are currently stolen from both airport and highway trust funds. The third principle was to provide the highway trust fund with sufficient resources to serve America's highway needs. The additional resources the Finance Committee produced for the authorizers, I believe, enabled this deal to happen. Add up last year's FSC-ETI conference report changes and the trust fund gained $24 billion extra. This year we have added another roughly $3 billion in additional receipts for the trust fund. Without these additional resources, we would have faced another case of legislative gridlock. Legislative gridlock wouldn't help the folks we represent who were facing gridlock on their roads. I would also like to mention two policy initiatives that do not relate to the highway trust fund. The Senate carried into conference a package of excise tax reforms and a transportation bond proposal. The legislation before us also includes a number of excise tax reforms. These are small items, but important to the affected taxpayers. For the most part, these provisions simplify various Federal excise taxes. I will note that these excise tax reforms do lose some revenue. It is roughly $1 billion over the 10-year period. When the highway bill came out of the Senate, these measures were offset with revenue raisers to make them deficit neutral. The House did not accept the group of revenue raisers we had allocated to these provisions. It should be noted that the budget resolution provides $36 billion over 5 years for tax relief outside of reconciliation. So this relatively minor deficit impact is accounted for in the budget. Finally, I am pleased we were able to reach agreement on the Talent- Wyden transportation infrastructure private activity bond proposal. Senators Talent and Wyden are to be commended for pursuing this innovative concept. There will now be $15 billion in bond authority for transportation projects. We did hear some sharp criticisms of the heavy-lifting the Finance Committee did to make this bill happen. We were told our offsets weren't real and that phony accounting occurred in the highway trust fund. I rebutted these charges during Senate floor debate. I said our principles would be honored in conference and they were. We got the job done. In the end, that is what counts: doing the peoples' business. The conferees achieved an important policy objective. The highway trust fund more accurately reflects the resources it receives from the taxpayers who use our Nation's roads. The resources will go into maintaining and improving America's highway system. All of this will be accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. That is what the folks back home should expect. That is what we have done. That is what really matters. That is why the folks back home sent us here in the first place. In conclusion, after great effort by many people, the Senate is poised to enacting legislation with the potential to impact all Americans in every State. Crumbling infrastructure and poor transportation choices impede our ability to live and do business, and today we are going to deliver legislation to the President's desk to start solving these problems. Our conference agreement utilizes more than $285 billion to ensure all Americans have access to efficient and reliable transportation as they go about their professional and personal lives. Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating committees that have been involved in this process. Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Sherry Kuntz, John Good, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them. As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, and Ryan Abraham. I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud team of Tom Barthold, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, and Allen Littman as well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen, and Mark McGunagle of Senate Legislative Counsel. This conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. Hopefully, that spirit will be influential to the entire ongoing legislative process.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is our intent. Present law allows the seller to rely on the weight rating specified by the manufacturer when determining the applicability of vehicle excise taxes on trucks. The same rule should apply for tractors.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Bayh and Senator Clinton in introducing the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. This legislation sets forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also seeks to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home- and community-based care, which many folks prefer to institutional care. Before I begin my discussion of the merits of the legislation that I am introducing today, I want to take this opportunity to once again emphasize my commitment to enacting the Family Opportunity Act. I have worked to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years now. I have been motivated to work so hard because I have been deeply moved by a number of stories from families, both from my State of Iowa and elsewhere, who have had to turn down promotions, or even put their child with a disability up for adoption in order to secure for these children the medical services they so desperately need. The Family Opportunity Act would provide a State option to allow families with disabled children to ``buy in'' to the Medicaid program; establish mental health parity in Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver programs; establish Family to Family Health Information Centers and restore Medicaid eligibility for certain SSI beneficiaries. As part of the on-going negotiations relative to the FOA, many stakeholders have agreed that a modification of a feature of the President's New Freedom Initiative, a demonstration program known as ``Money Follows the Person'' should be enacted along with the FOA. Money Follows the Person allows the Secretary to provide grants to states to increase the use of home and community based care and provides States a financial incentive for the first year to do so. I want stakeholders in the disability community as well as the many organizations who support the Family Opportunity Act to understand that the legislation I am introducing today compliments rather than supplants my efforts to enact FOA and Money Follows the Person. I believe that we should provide a wide array of options to the states to encourage them to identify and eliminate barriers to community living including access to consumer direction and respite care. Long-term care services can be prohibitively expensive. Just one year in a nursing home can cost well over $50,000. In many cases, individuals deplete their savings and resources paying for long-term and ultimately qualify for Medicaid coverage. Right now, Medicaid pays for the bulk of long-term care services in this country. In 2002 alone, we spent nearly $93 billion on long-term care services under Medicaid. With our aging population, one thing is clear: spending will only increase. When most people think about purchasing long-term care insurance, they think, ``that's something I can put off until tomorrow.'' We need to change the perception because the older you are when you first buy coverage, the more expensive the premiums are. Our legislation calls for the Secretary to educate folks about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. We envision people having the opportunity to compare policies available in their States. Among other means, this could be accomplished through an internet website for example. Making people aware of long-term care insurance won't go very far though, unless we make some other changes to enhance the value and protection that long-term care insurance can bring. Our bill takes several steps in this regard. First, the legislation would require that States disregard benefits paid under a long-term care insurance policy when determining eligibility for Medicaid. Second, it incorporates a series of consumer protections recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioner, NAIC, into the definition of `qualified long-term care services.' Individuals who purchase a policy that have these consumer protections will be eligible for an above the line tax deduction and a tax credit for out-of-pocket expenses made by caregivers. Third, the bill would expand the long-term care partnership program, which currently operates as a demonstration in four states. The long-term care partnerships combine private long-term care insurance with Medicaid coverage once individuals exhaust their insurance benefits. Several States would like to pursue their own long-term care partnerships and this legislation will enable them to do that. The Improving Long-term Care Choices Act also builds on the President's New Freedom Initiative by taking further steps toward removing the ``institutional bias'' in Medicaid, giving States the option of providing home- and community-based services as part of their State Medicaid Plan. In doing so, the bill gives States the flexibility to design long- term care benefits that will reduce the reliance on costly institutional settings and meet the needs of elderly and disabled individuals who overwhelmingly wish to remain in their homes and communities. In his New Freedom Initiative announced shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to tear down barriers preventing people with disabilities from fully participating in American society. The President also endorses the idea of shifting Medicaid's delivery system towards one that promotes cost-effective, community-based care instead of one weighted so heavily towards institutional settings. This legislation also challenges us to think beyond funding and program silos and directs the Secretary to address administrative barriers that impede the integration of acute and long-term care services. The Secretary also must develop recommendations for statutory changes that will make it easier for States to offer better coordinated acute and long-term care services. The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is consistent with our ideals about families, individual choices in health care and financial responsibility. This bill aims high. But it is sorely evident that we need to think creatively and comprehensively, even boldly, if we hope to make the type of inroads in promoting the availability of good long- term care insurance policies and in rebalancing the institutional bias in long-term care services that no longer reflects the needs and preferences of many stakeholders. The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is a good bill. The American Network of Community Options and Resources, the Arc & United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, and the National Disability Rights Network, the United Spinal Association, and the Association of University Centers on Disabilities support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the legislation and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past two decades, Congress has voted again and again to open markets to exports from Central America. In 1983, 392 Members of the House and 90 Members of the Senate voted unilaterally to reduce tariffs on exports from Central America and the Caribbean. In 2000, 309 Members of the House and 77 Senators voted in favor of the Trade and Development Act which further unilaterally opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean. Today most imports from the region enter our market duty-free. In contrast--and the purpose of this legislation--our exports have faced and continue to face a myriad of tariffs and nontariff trade barriers into that region. Our products going that way, having tariffs and nontariff trade barriers, products coming this way to our country, no barriers. That is the status quo. In 2005, with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Congress has the opportunity to reduce tariff barriers to our exports going to these countries. You can see it is a very unfair situation. If we maintain the status quo, it is unfair to American workers, American manufacturers, the economy of America, because their imports come into our country duty-free. Meanwhile, our exports that go to those countries face tariff barriers of from 3 to 16 percent, some tariffs ranging as high as even 150 percent. This agreement, finally, after about 20 years of our doing favors in that direction, levels the playing field for American workers, American farmers, and American manufacturers so we can sell our products in these countries. This agreement takes a one-way street of trade and makes it a two-way street. It tears down unfair barriers to our agricultural exports and gives our farmers a chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market of over 40 million consumers. A vote against CAFTA is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to keep import duties duty free, but it also keeps tariff barriers to our export products high. If you vote that way, you are not voting for the American worker, you are not voting for the American farmer, you are not voting for the American manufacturer. You are voting for the status quo. Well, that status quo is that the United States has been giving and giving for 20 years. This is our opportunity to get, to benefit our workers, to have a level playing field for trade--a two-way street for trade. I don't see how anybody can justify not leveling the playing field for American exporters. That would end up creating jobs here in America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield that back.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that if a traditional plant were constructed several miles from its customers, the network to deliver cooling would qualify. It seems to me that piping used to draw cold water from the ocean is analogous to piping used with respect to a traditional cooling system and also should qualify.