Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request on the order of speakers to be recognized: Senator Kerry for 20 minutes, and that is from the time of Senator Baucus; Senator Inhofe, for 15 minutes from my time; Senator Bingaman, 8 minutes from the time of Senator Baucus; and Senator Brownback for 10 minutes from my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will respond to some of the speakers through the course of debate on this bill who pointed to a report of the International Trade Commission on CAFTA as evidence that this trade agreement is not meaningful to the United States. Let me explain that the International Trade Commission is an agency of the Federal Government, but it is an agency that is very independent, with 9-year terms for members to serve. They do a great deal of research in international trade and are very well respected for the reports they put out. This report that was referred to as evidence of this trade agreement not being helpful to the United States misrepresents the scope of the International Trade Commission estimates as well as the scale of the CAFTA agreement itself. Critics point to one part of the International Trade Commission report which estimates the tariff and quota liberalizations under the agreement will result in zero percent change in welfare for the United States. Now, those critics ignore the Commission's conclusion that if CAFTA is fully implemented, overall U.S. welfare will increase in a range of $135 million to $248 million, with minimal impact on U.S. employment and output. In fact, the Commission estimates that no sector of the U.S. economy is likely to experience a decline in output, revenue, or employment greater than 2.5 percent once CAFTA is fully implemented. So critics fail to acknowledge that the Commission's estimates are based only on the tariff and quota liberalization provided under this agreement. The Commission's estimates do not quantify the other very important elements of this agreement--which the people using this report to justify a vote against CAFTA take into consideration--such as the benefits from an improved regulatory environment, improved protection of intellectual property rights, efforts at trade facilitation, and liberalization of regulations governing investment and the provision of services we will sell to those countries of CAFTA. The Commission report does not attempt to quantify any broader geopolitical benefit to the United States of improved economic well- being and political stability in the CAFTA countries as a result of the agreement. But the fact remains that those benefits--not referred to by the opponents of this agreement, who find it convenient to quote one part of a trade commission study but not the whole study--the fact remains, then, that if you look at the whole report of the International Trade Commission, those benefits are a part of this agreement, as well, and will materialize and are obviously good reasons for voting for this bill. After some critics are done arguing that CAFTA is meaningless to the United States, they do, however, point to another part of the Commission's report and offer another doom-and-gloom scenario. They point to the Trade Commission's estimates that suggest that once CAFTA is implemented we will increase our bilateral trade deficit with these countries by as much as $110 million. Those critics ignore the Commission's conclusion that if you take into account likely changes in our global pattern of trade, once CAFTA is fully implemented, then our overall trade deficit is likely to decline by $750 million. Now, how does the figure of $750 million get ignored, but a $110- million figure gets taken into consideration? Well, it is quite obvious that the people who are quoting from this report quote what benefits their position for voting against CAFTA and do not look at the overall beneficial impact of CAFTA on the United States. That $750 million is a very important number. Our bilateral trade balance with individual countries or regions may be interesting to consider, but the one number that is of significance to our economic health is our overall trade deficit. According to the ITC, the International Trade Commission, CAFTA will help reduce that trade deficit by $750 million. Now, all the people crying about our trade deficit, are they going to take into consideration $750 million? Why on Earth would we walk away from that benefit, as the opponents of this agreement will have the United States do with their ``no'' vote? I hope this dispels the critics' misinformation about CAFTA. The fact is, when you read the ITC report in its entirety, it becomes clear that implementing CAFTA offers meaningful benefits to the United States, both in terms of improving the economic welfare of the United States and in terms of reducing our overall trade deficit. Again, CAFTA offers us those benefits with minimal impact on U.S. employment and output. That is not what Senator Grassley says, that is what the International Trade Commission says. And if you add all the other economic and geopolitical benefits that are not readily quantified, I believe the tremendous benefit of this agreement to the United States is then seen in its proper light. So I urge my colleagues not to be misled by the critics. The ITC report corroborates that CAFTA will be beneficial to the United States. Also, let me suggest that during this debate, I have heard much talk about the lack of Government policies concerning the trade deficit. I am not here to justify any trade deficit. I am not here to say those people who say it is too big are wrong. But I think I have heard left out of this entire debate a policy that we have had under Republican and Democrat administrations for a long period of time, and that is, the freedom of the American consumer to have access to any product made anywhere in the world that they want to buy. Because we believe in freedom, we believe in choice for our consumers. We believe the consumer ought to have the benefit of choice, of quality, and price. And we happen to have the consumers of America buying much and saving little. Now, is that right? I do not know. But people who are concerned about our trade deficit, do they want to shut off the faucet that allows our consumers to have the choice of anything? I may be speaking too sweepingly when I say this next sentence but I believe we let anything into our country that consumers want to buy, except for pharmaceutical drugs. Senator Dorgan and I have been working together to make sure the consumer has that choice as well, to drive down prices, and give them the best product they can get. Now, I do not think anybody wants to take freedom of choice away from American consumers. If we are spending too much on consumer products, importing too much, maybe we ought to have more incentives for savings, maybe we ought to be, without a doubt, enforcing our antitrust laws, antisurging laws, countervailing duties to be applied, and all those things that need to be done about the problem that exists. But our deficit is overwhelming because of consumer products coming into the United States. Wal-Mart brings in $18 billion from China--$18 billion of our imports; just one company. Now, when you go to Wal-Mart--I don't care. I happen to go to a Wal-Mart some. I don't go there as much as I go to our small businesses in Iowa to buy things but occasionally go there. Are you going to take that choice away from the American consumer by not having Wal-Mart import? I don't know. I don't see anybody suggesting that. Somehow we are led to believe that China is like a Japan with these big surpluses. China has a trade deficit as well. China has 3 percent of our national debt in bonds. Japan has 8 percent. Yet you would think that somehow that 3 percent is a major problem. I would suggest that what we ought to be doing here is encouraging our consumers to buy American, buy American, or don't buy so much consumer goods yourself, and invest that money that we send to Japan through Wal-Mart directly in U.S. bonds. Buy American products. Do as we did in World War I and World War II, be patriotic and buy U.S. bonds to help our economy. Consumers in America are king. And when consumers in America decide to cut down on our trade deficit, it will be cut down. I think consumers ought to continue to be king in America because that is economic freedom, that is individualism, that is America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam president, I yield such time as the Senator from Colorado may use.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in introducing the Medicare Value Purchasing (MVP) Act of 2005. Senator Baucus shares my strong commitment to ensuring the vitality of the Medicare program for generations of beneficiaries to come. Two years ago, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the first ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, to create new coverage choices under the Medicare Advantage program, and to cover more preventive screening tests. The Medicare Modernization Act transformed Medicare benefits and choices. Over the past 40 years, Medicare has made immeasurable differences in the lives of our Nation's seniors and disabled citizens by providing beneficiaries with access to care. The bill that we are introducing today will ensure that they continue not only to have that access, but also have access to good care. Some folks might think I am saying that beneficiaries don't receive good care today. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that physicians, hospitals, nurses and other providers across the country work every day to provide quality care. But just like all Medicare beneficiaries have the same benefits, all Medicare beneficiaries should get the highest quality care possible. And today, that's just not the case; there is tremendous room for improvement. A May 2005 Commonwealth Fund review of more than four hundred studies and data sets painted a mixed picture on the quality of care received by Medicare beneficiaries. The analysis found that many improvements are occurring--breast cancer screening rates have tripled and many patients with diabetes get the tests they need to keep them healthy. At the same time, the review showed that in some parts of the country, beneficiaries get recommended treatments, such as immunizations, but in other parts they don't. They found that improvements in care for Medicare beneficiaries have not kept pace with improvements among other groups. For example, between 1988 and 1994, the percent of forty-five- year-olds to sixty-four-year-olds whose blood pressure was controlled, increased from 33 percent to 40 percent. Among Medicare beneficiaries, it stayed the same--just 24 percent. They also zeroed in on the need to strengthen programs to care for beneficiaries with a chronic illness. Research shows that twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic illnesses. Caring for these beneficiaries accounts for nearly 70 percent of Medicare spending. One of the study's most disturbing findings was the States with higher spending per Medicare beneficiary tended to rank lower on twenty-two quality-of-care indicators. According to the researchers, this might reflect practice patterns that favor intensive, costly care rather than ``effective'' care. Simply stated, spending more, does not necessarily translate into better quality care for beneficiaries. Of the $300 billion Medicare dollars spent last year, I think it is safe to say that in many cases we--beneficiaries and taxpayers--did not get the absolute best value. Not even close. Why is that the case? In part, it is because of the way we pay for care. I am sure that everyone remembers ``To Err is Human'' in which the Institute of Medicine reported the startling fact that studies suggest that up to 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year from medical errors. It was in headlines for months. I would bet that not as many folks know about the IOM's follow-up report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm.'' In my opinion, that report is equally, if not more, important because it sets forth a wide-ranging strategy to address the deficiencies in our health care system that undermine the delivery of high quality care. Among the IOM's chief recommendations was a call to both public and private purchasers to examine their current payment methods to remove barriers that currently impede quality improvement, and to build stronger incentives for quality enhancement. The IOM specifically recommended that payment methods should provide ``fair payment for good clinical management.'' Providers also need to be able to share in the benefits of quality improvement. Consumers and purchasers need opportunities to recognize quality differences and to use quality information when making health care decisions. In simplest terms, we need to better align financial incentives to help promote quality and to achieve better value. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has issued similar recommendations. Today, Medicare pays the same amount regardless of quality of care. Some people would argue that in fact, the current Medicare payment system rewards poor quality. For example, if a patient suffers a complication from subpar hospital care and ends up back in the same hospital to treat that complication, Medicare will pay the hospital for the patient's rehospitalization. On the other hand, if a hospital follows best practices of care and helps patients avoid complications that could require a rehospitalization, well, that hospital doesn't get anything. The hospital that provides lower quality care to the beneficiary gets another payment. The hospital that provides higher quality care to the beneficiary gets nothing. Over time, this perverse situation could disadvantage the hospital that delivers higher quality care to beneficiaries because it will get less revenue, which could compromise its ability to compete against other hospitals. This situation just does not make sense; neither to me, nor should it to beneficiaries. Providing lower quality care can lead to greater revenue, while providing higher quality care can penalize providers financially. It is the exact opposite of what we want and need for Medicare and beneficiaries. Of course, our Nation is blessed with millions of dedicated and qualified health care providers who care deeply about the quality of care they provide to their patients. What we have is a systemic failure of Medicare payment systems to reward quality and provide the incentives to invest more in health care information technology and other efforts to improve health care quality. This bill creates the financial incentives that reward those providers who deliver that quality care today, and to those who make improvements where they are needed. The MVP Act seeks to remedy this situation and to implement the IOM's and MedPAC's recommendations by creating quality payments under Medicare for physicians and other providers, hospitals, health plans, skilled nursing facilities, home health, and end stage renal disease facilities. Senator Baucus and I know that it is a pretty ambitious strategy. We also recognize that this substantial departure from current payment practices cannot and should not happen overnight. Careful consideration of which quality measures that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use in making quality-based payments will take some time. Providers will play a significant role in determining which measures to use. This is important--we need to make sure that the measures are valid and reliable. In addition, providers will need some time to become more proficient in collecting and reporting quality data for payment purposes. The MVP Act builds on the small step made in the MMA which established reporting incentives in its early years. Under the MMA, hospitals that report ten quality measures receive a full payment update, those that don't report, receive a smaller update. This approach has been successful. In 2005, 99 percent of hospitals reported the data and CMS has seen improvements in quality among the participating hospitals. Under the MVP Act, using the data from these reporting years, CMS will give providers an idea of where they stand on quality before quality payments will begin. This will allow providers the chance to fine tune their quality practices and data reporting capabilities before payments will be determined based on a specific provider's quality measures. For each provider group and facility, as well as Medicare Advantage plans under our legislation, CMS will then begin to make quality payments from a pool that initially will equal one percent of their Medicare payments. Over five years, quality payments will increase to two percent of total payments. Payments will be awarded for meeting performance thresholds and to those who demonstrate a level of improvement specified by CMS. This approach recognizes that we need to offer incentives to a broad base of providers--providers who perform well today deserve recognition; those that might not be performing well, but have improved, also should be recognized. Finally, CMS will report publicly on how various providers, facilities, and plans do with respect to quality. This information will help empower beneficiaries when making their health care decisions and when making informed choices. Our bill recognizes that the private sector has made a lot of progress in developing and adopting quality measures. There are several value-based purchasing projects underway around the country. We don't want to reinvent the wheel--we want to build on these initiatives. These private projects, along with its own projects, can help inform the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as it works out technical details to implement quality-based payments using the framework established by the MVP Act. This framework is consistent with the thinking of CMS on quality- based payments as expressed by Administrator Mark McClellan. It also is consistent with principles endorsed today by more than twenty of the Nation's leading consumer, employer, and labor organizations. In announcing the principles, Peter Lee, president and CEO of the Pacific Business Group on Health and co-chair of the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project stated, ``We must move beyond a system that is performance-blind to one that rewards better quality and gives consumers tools to make informed choices.'' Now some folks may think that Medicare shouldn't take on this issue-- that it might better for the private sector to do it alone. I respectfully disagree with that view. Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the Nation. The IOM in ``Leadership by Example'' expressed its opinion that Federal Government health care programs can significantly influence how care is provided by the private sector. The Commonwealth Fund researchers share this view--that adopting quality payments in Medicare can influence the level of quality in all health care, not just care for the elderly. And there's a lot of health care to be influenced. Our Nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care last year. Health care spending is expected to reach more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product. But just like in Medicare, we are not always getting the best value for those dollars. That $1.8 trillion in spending translated to a 37th place ranking for the United States compared to other countries around the world, in quality, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Spending more and more money without achieving commensurate improvements in quality is simply wasteful and unsustainable. Medicare is just one month shy of its fortieth anniversary--a tremendous milestone. It has positively affected the lives of millions of seniors and disabled citizens. We set a goal for ourselves forty years ago--to improve access to care. Providers and policymakers came together to make that goal a reality. It is time for a new goal, a new challenge--to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans get the best possible care and that as a nation, we get the highest value for our health care dollars. The MVP Act of 2005 provides us with a road map to live up to that challenge. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Baucus in advancing this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain my action today related to S. 1239, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Today, with great reluctance, I asked Leader Frist to inform me before entering any unanimous consent agreements related to consideration of this bill, which the Indian Affairs Committee reported by voice vote this morning. S. 1239 would pencil the Indian Health Service, IHS, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or urban Indian organization to pay the monthly part D premium of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. The bill defines eligible beneficiaries as individuals who are Indian and who are eligible for the part D prescription drug benefit, but who do not receive any additional financial assistance made available under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, to beneficiaries with limited incomes. I am all for providing assistance in paying premiums for beneficiaries in financial need. We devoted a lot of time to those provisions in the MMA. I am troubled, however, that as currently drafted, S. 1239 would permit the IHS, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or urban Indian organization to pick and choose who will get premium assistance. Specifically, the bill would allow them to consider an eligible beneficiary's ``expected drug utilization'' and any other factors to determine the cost-effectiveness of paying the beneficiary's premium. This provision might be an attempt to reflect that the IHS, tribes, and tribal organizations have limited resources. The bill language, however, raises a number of questions. First, how would the IHS and tribes determine expected drug utilization or cost-effectiveness? Would it be based on the number of drugs a person takes or the severity of illness? Second, how would they account for the fact that a beneficiary's drug needs could change dramatically with just one illness? That is the point of having insurance. When we crafted the MMA, we were keenly aware of the potential for adverse selection--meaning that beneficiaries might wait until they need part D coverage to enroll in part D. This would have the effect of driving up the cost of the part D premium for all beneficiaries. The additional considerations currently included S. 1239 set a dangerous precedent by seemingly promoting adverse selection in the part D program. This is exactly opposite to what we sought to achieve in the MMA. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors of S. 1239, Senators McCain, Dorgan, and Baucus, and with members of the Indian Affairs Committee on this matter. I had hoped to accomplish that before the bill was reported out of committee. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I do not take actions such as these lightly. But I am deeply troubled that as currently drafted, S. 1239 could end up having unintended consequences for the very people it is intended to assist and for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator. Following on the spirit of the statement that he made and probably not directly germane to this discussion, though, is also the fact that too often the public draws conclusions that all we do is have partisan fights, Republican and Democrat, and that we are always at each other's throats. I think people, including my constituents in Iowa, get that view because conflict makes news. They never hear of the cooperative efforts that we have made. In fact, the very week this bill was voted out of committee, we had some differences that were not entirely partisan. There were some Republicans who agreed with Senator Baucus and some Democrats who agreed with me on this bill. It was a very narrow margin in our committee. But that very same week we voted out a bipartisan Energy bill on a 20-to-0 vote, which shows one gets a lot of attention and the other one doesn't. But I think it shows you can have differences and still make the system work. As you would expect, I have talked about this legislation over a long period of time. I am glad we are to the point of the Senate consideration of it, so it is no surprise to you or anybody else that I support what is referred to as the Dominican Republic-Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am just going to shortly call that the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA for short. The bill before us, then, implements the trade agreement that was negotiated between our executive branch and the leaders of these five countries over the past several months. Our President gets the authority to negotiate through what we call the trade promotion authority legislation, where Congress has the constitutional control over international trade; it is our constitutional responsibility. But since it is impossible for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate legislation, we delegate, under strict procedures, the President making those negotiations. These negotiations went on for several months, maybe even over a period longer than a year, and was signed a year ago. Congress then has the responsibility of considering it. In most cases, we end up agreeing to it, but we pass these free-trade agreements--whether they are bilateral, multilateral or regional--in the form of legislation, so Congress has control over the final product and implements our constitutional responsibility through the agreements being passed by Congress in the form of legislation. That is where we are now: The Senate's final consideration of adopting a law that includes the contents of the negotiated agreement between the United States and these five countries of Central America. This agreement strengthens the ties of friendship, cooperation, and economic growth between our Nation and the growing economies of Central America and the Dominican Republic. It is also an agreement that is fundamentally in our national economic and security interests. If it were not in our national economic and security interests, obviously we would have no business having our President negotiate it. Or if it were not in our interests and he did negotiate it, the Congress should not be passing it as law. Today, when it comes to the economic interests that we have with this legislation, most imports from the region enter our market duty free. They come from those countries into our market duty free. In contrast, exports from the United States to those countries face a myriad of tariffs and nontariff barriers in the region. That is where we are now. That is the status quo. I have a chart here that obviously is not going to contain every product. I am not going to have on the chart every product that goes back and forth between our countries. But this chart illustrates, on this side where you see various products--let's say just on grains. I will just go to the first line. We pay now a 10.6-percent tariff to get our products into these countries. If those countries were shipping the same product to us, they would be paying zero tariffs. Now, with this agreement before the Senate that we are considering, when it is fully implemented--because some of these are phased in--you will see that we will not have any tariffs that we now pay for getting our products into the countries. And of course it has not changed anything for them. But this chart shows, if we do not do anything, what the status quo is. The status quo is on that side of the chart. It is kind of a one- way street. All the advantages are from products coming from Central America into America. All of the impediments are against products going from the United States down to those countries. So on this side of the chart, after the legislation is passed, you see a two-way street. You see the status quo has ended. Let's be clear. A vote against this agreement is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to maintain unilateral trade and to keep tariff barriers to our exports very high. I could say this another way by saying that the ``F'' in Central American Free Trade Agreement, the ``F'' in CAFTA, once we pass it, is really going to make it a Central American Fair Trade Agreement. You can see what is unfair to American producers now. What is very unfair to American producers now, shipping to those countries down there, becomes a level playing field. It becomes a fair agreement, a fair, level playing field. A vote against this agreement is a vote that denies logic. Make no mistake, these tariff barriers to our exports are real. They affect everyday Americans, maybe not in a way that they know, but when you study it, you see how it impacts them. Under the status quo, an off-road loader manufactured by Caterpillar in Peoria and exported to Costa Rica must pay a 14-percent tariff. This is equal to a $140,000 tax on our export. With CAFTA, the tariff goes to zero--not tomorrow, but immediately. This is good news then for those UAW workers at Caterpillar, in Peoria, who make this vehicle within the United States. On another example under the status quo is microchips produced in New Mexico and/or Oregon face a 10-percent tariff today. With this Central American Free Trade Agreement this tariff barrier is eliminated. Under the status quo, manufactured auto parts cannot even sell in the Central American market. You don't get them in. It isn't a question of how high is the tariff; you can't get them into the market. Under CAFTA, we will be able to export these manufactured goods to the Central American market. So this means new opportunities for companies such as CARDONE Industries and their workers in Philadelphia, PA. Under the status quo--in other words, if we didn't pass this agreement--DVDs produced across the country would be subject to tariffs of up to 20 percent before they can be sold to consumers in Central America. But with this agreement becoming law, those DVDs become tariff free, leveling the playing field, being fair to workers in America. The story is very similar for products that I am very much involved in, in my State of Iowa, products from U.S. farms. Today, over 99 percent of the food and agricultural products that we import from the region of Central America come into the United States duty free, as evidenced by the zeroes there on the second column. Meanwhile, our food and agricultural exports to Central America are hit with an average 11- percent tariff, with some tariffs ranging as high as 150 percent. CAFTA levels the playing field for U.S. farmers. It takes one-way trade and makes that one-way trade into a two-way street. It tears down unfair barriers to our agricultural exports. It gives our farmers a chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market of 40 million consumers. If anybody thinks that globalization is bad, do you know what they are saying? They are saying that the United States ought to concentrate on selling to Americans. We make up 5 percent of the world's population; 95 percent of the world's population is outside the United States. That is a market that we need to be competing in. We are an exporting nation--agriculture, manufacturing, services. If we are an exporting Nation and our market is 95 percent of the people in the rest of the world, we have to be playing on that field. This gives us an opportunity to play on that field, not with all the other 95 percent of the people in the world, but at least with 40 million of those consumers who live in these five countries. These barriers I have just referred to are real for our U.S. farmers. Pork producers in my home State of Iowa face import tariffs from 15 percent to 40 percent. When we have full implementation of this agreement, Iowa producers will be able to export pork products duty and quota free. Today, rice producers from across the South must overcome in-quota tariff rates of from 15 percent to 60 percent. These tariffs are phased out and eventually eliminated under this agreement. Prohibitive tariffs of up to 40 percent lock our beef exports out of the Central American market. This agreement provides immediate duty- free, quota-free access for high-quality U.S. beef, with eventual elimination of all tariffs on U.S. beef. And value-added agricultural products, such as breakfast cereal, will see tariffs reduced from 32 percent to zero immediately, providing new opportunities for U.S. workers. The fact is, virtually every major agricultural producer in the country, in the United States, will benefit from the passage of this agreement, including dairy, Vermont; poultry, Arkansas; apples, Oregon and New York; barley, Montana; frozen french fries, Maine; nuts, New Mexico; dried beans, Wyoming. All in all, the total given to us by economists at the American Farm Bureau Federation is an estimated net gain to U.S. agriculture of nearly $1.5 billion each year upon full implementation. The agreement also opens the services market to U.S. service exports. Key sector opportunities include telecommunications, banking, insurance distribution, audiovisual and entertainment, energy, transport and construction. Our high-tech sector stands to benefit; the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador will join the agreement and eliminate tariffs on imports of high-technology products, thereby saving United States exporters more than $7 million annually on import duties that would be paid today. The agreement goes far beyond reducing important tariffs, putting into place strong investment protections, anticorruption provisions, intellectual property protections, strong provisions on labor in the environment. This agreement is a solid win for the U.S. economy. It is a solid win also for the neighbors of these Central American countries. For a third time, I say, let's be very clear. The alternative to this agreement is nothing but the continuation of the status quo. It is unilateral access to our markets and nothing in return for American exports. I don't think the status quo is good enough for our farmers and our workers. I don't think Congress should vote to keep barriers to our exports to these countries high when they can be eliminated. This is what this vote on the Central American Fair Trade Agreement is all about. It all boils down to a vote for unilateral trade and the status quo or a vote to reduce barriers for our farmers and workers. To me it is a very simple answer. Get this agreement passed as fast as we can and bring this level playing field for our farmers, our service industries, our manufacturers. Too often, we talk in economic terms about trade. There are other compelling reasons to support this agreement. Over 20 years ago, Congress first opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean. Why did we do that? That part of the world was in turmoil. Central America was a region in great political and economic upheaval. Civil strife, civil war, and political violence were part of daily life. As a result, too many innocent people lost their lives and many more lost their livelihood. I have a chart of headlines accurately reflecting that gruesome and chaotic violence that was going on at that time. Whether it was Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvador, it was constant conflict. The headlines accurately reflect that violence. So where are we 20 years later? We see a very different Central America. Through sustained political and economic engagement with the region, including the continuation of the unilateral trade preferences for over 20 years, the United States of America has helped this part of the world develop a very different story today. Today, that story is that with progressive leadership of these democratic governments, the people of Central America are enjoying the fruits of freedom, the fruits of democracy that we would describe as elected governments, participatory democracy, choice for the voters, and, as a result, generally stable civil societies. Now we have this situation in Central America. These leaders, who many of us have had an opportunity to meet with, have given us confidence that this sort of leadership will continue in the future, but these leaders want more for their country. They want to cement the gains of the last 20 years since the civil wars have ended. They want to build a better foundation for that future. Part of that better foundation is the progressive ideas that are articulated in the CAFTA agreement. These ideas came not from the United States but from the leaders of Central America who first approached us with the idea of strengthening our trade relations at the Quebec Summit of the Americas in April 2001. The fact is that passage of CAFTA is good both for our geopolitical and economic interests. We have very little to lose. We have much to gain with its passage. In contrast, we have much to lose and we have little to gain if this agreement is defeated. I have a letter displayed from President Carter. He makes the point I just made very well. In that letter he recently wrote, saying through CAFTA: Our own national security and hemispheric influence will be improved with enhanced, improved stability, democracy and development in our poor fragile neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. Continuing from President Carter: There are now democratically elected governments in each of the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this agreement, the Presidents of the six nations had to contend with their own companies that fear competition with United States firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting market reforms that have been urged for decades by United States presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with the United States. The stakes are high. President Carter, being a President with a global view, saying the stakes are high, lends a great deal of credibility in a bipartisan way--he is a Democrat, I am a Republican-- to the reasons and rationale behind this. That going beyond the economics of trade to the good that comes from trade. I often say during debates on trade in this body we as political leaders, as Senators, our President of the United States, the Cabinet, our diplomatic corps, we always think we are negotiating all these things, we are making decisions that are going to bring about world peace. Obviously, we set a standard or at least create an environment for either a peaceful society or a less peaceful society to exist. Our efforts are a spit in the ocean compared to what business men and women in America and other countries do in millions of transactions and the dialog they have in the process, breaking down, misunderstanding, creating friendship through what they do at their level, their citizen level of participating much more so than we can. The things that are evidenced by our trade agreements over the last 50 years--and this is a little part of this 50-year effort to promote international commerce--have set a stage where business and commerce is doing more to bring about world peace than we as political leaders can do. The United States, I suppose, has about 300 million people now; 40 million people down there. It is a small part of the world. How do you make progress in peace? You make progress in peace by inches, not by miles. This may be a couple inches of helping us down the path to world peace, but we need to take every opportunity we can to encourage commerce. Yes, it creates jobs. It creates prosperity. It is also going to help bring about greater world understanding. This is a very good agreement. I hope it receives very broad support in the Senate. I hope through my views I have helped colleagues understand the importance of it. I hope those colleagues will join me to ensure that we do not undermine the significant progress that has been made in this region of Central America over the last 20 years and to ensure our American exporters can enjoy the benefits of this agreement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks I want to thank the Senator from Montana, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and the former chairman of the committee for his cooperation and good- faith effort to have the Senate and our committee work to get its job done. Even though he has a different view on this legislation than I do, he has been very cooperative in helping things happen, even though he disagreed. I think it is that spirit that gets things done in the Senate. It is kind of the tradition of our committee, but I think it is particularly true of his and my working relationship. So I thank him very much.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I say to my colleague that I understand the importance of these provisions in a comprehensive Energy bill. I have supported these in the past and included them in our bill in the 108th Congress. I agree that sensible tax treatment that will promote the development of domestic oil and gas sources should be a part of the final bill. As we move forward to conference, we will work to include these two important provisions.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I say to my colleague from Texas that I do agree that our dependence upon foreign sources of energy is dangerously high. It is a threat to our economic stability and national security. We cannot continue to rely on foreign imports for 60 percent of our supplies. We must utilize available domestic resources, and I believe the Energy bill before the Senate is a good step forward.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that energy infrastructure, particularly electric transmission capacity, is a critical component of our domestic energy policy, and I am committed to helping you ensure that it is included in the final energy bill. Sec. 261, Hydroelectric Relicensing Reform

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to an honorable soldier who has fallen in service to his country. Specialist Casey Byers of the 224th Engineer Battalion died on the 11th of June in Al Taqaddum, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his Humvee. Specialist Byers was a young native of Schleswig, IA, who was only 22 years old. I salute his patriotism and his sacrifice for the sake of freedom. Specialist Byers was a proud American who joined the Iowa National Guard in1999. He graduated from Ar-We-Va High School in 2001 where he participated in football and track and later attended Iowa Lakes Community College. Specialist Byers graduated from the combat engineer qualification course in July 2004 and volunteered for duty with the 224th in Iraq. This was his second tour of duty in the Middle East. Casey Byers has earned the highest gratitude of the entire Nation and today I want to recognize him with the respect he deserves. His sacrifice reminds us of the incredibly high cost of ensuring freedom. My prayers go out to Ann and William Byers who grieve the loss of their son, Paul and Jennifer Byers who grieve a lost brother, and his infant daughter Hailey who grieves the absence of her father. I also extend my prayers to all of the family, friends, and neighbors of Casey who are touched by his passing. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Iowans in remembering Specialist Casey Byers. Such men as Casey Byers inspire us to hold in ever higher esteem the ideals of freedom and service. His valor shall certainly not be forgotten.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the life of Jesse Nichols, Sr., who passed away on February 22, 2005. Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., faithfully served the U.S. Senate for over 30 years. He was the first African American Clerk employed by the U.S. Senate. Jesse Nichols was born on June 14, 1909, in Clarksdale, MS. He began his service when the late Pat Harrison of Mississippi was the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee--the committee I am now privileged to chair. Jesse was appointed as a messenger for the Finance Committee in 1936, and was elevated about 6 months later to assistant clerk of the Committee. At that time, the staff of the Finance Committee numbered only three. In 1967, on the occasion of his thirtieth anniversary on the Senate staff, several members of the Finance Committee, led by Delaware Republican John J. Williams, rose in the Senate chamber to pay tribute to Jesse Nichols who had ``earned the respect of those former giants of the Senate, each of whom was proud to call him a friend.'' Senator Williams added that: It is refreshing to meet a man who throughout the years has served the Senate and his country with but one thought in mind, and that is, to do his job to the best of his ability, always remembering that as a Government employee he is a servant of the people. Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen added his endorsement, noting that: Thirty years of faithful and devoted service certainly deserves to be taken account of in the proceedings of this body. An oral history interview conducted by the Senate Historical Office from March 26 to April 12, 1994, is available on the Senate Web site. The history documents Jesse's employment by the Committee on Finance from the 75th Congress through the 91st Congress. He worked under the guidance of Democratic and Republican Chairmen, including Walter F. George of Georgia, I Senator Eugene Millikin of Colorado, Harry Flood Byrd of Virginia and Russell B. Long of Louisiana. Jesse Nichols' service was faithful, exemplary and noteworthy. He served not only the Finance Committee with class and grace, but also the Senate as a whole during that critical period in American history. I join my colleagues in recognizing Mr. Nichols' life and am grateful to his service to our country. S. Res. 168 Whereas Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., faithfully served the United States Senate and the Committee on Finance as the Government Documents Clerk and Librarian from nineteen hundred thirty- seven through nineteen hundred seventy-one; Whereas Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., was born on June 14, 1909, in Clarksdale, Mississippi, and was the first African American Clerk employed by the United States Senate; Whereas he carried out his duties in exemplary fashion, bringing credit to the Committee and to Congress; Whereas Jesse Nichols worked effectively under the guidance of Democratic and Republican Chairmen, including Pat Harrison of Mississippi, Walter F. George of Georgia, Harry Flood Byrd of Virginia and Russell B. Long of Louisiana from the 75th Congress through the 91st Congress; and Whereas the Committee on Finance will long remember the commitment, service and leadership of Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., as documented in an oral history posted on the Senate Historian's website: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Senate expresses its deep gratitude and sincere respect for Jesse R. Nichols for his unfailing service and his dedication to the United States Senate. The Senate hereby expresses condolences to the family due to the death of Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., on February 18, 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will see through all the smoke and mirrors that have been kicked up by groups such as the People for the American Way. I hope my colleagues will take a very close look at the facts and reject those allegations that are not true, just as many Alabamians have so rejected because the people who know this man best ought to be the ones to whom we listen. I hope that Bill Pryor's true record will shine through and that my colleagues will join me in supporting his nomination. I close by, once again, telling my Senate colleagues that if the role of a Federal judge is to say, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, ``to say what the law is,'' then there are very few candidates as qualified as William Pryor. Being a good judge is not about doing what is popular, and it is not for sure about giving in to liberal special interest groups, and it certainly is not about legislating the left-wing's agenda from the bench. Being a good judge is about fairly applying the law, fairly applying the law no matter who the person is, no matter how unpopular the cause or the argument being advocated is. It is not the role of a judge, nor should it ever be the role of a judge, to serve as a puppet to the popular position. That is what William Pryor has built his career on--the rule of law, enforcing the law, carrying out the law. I know that is what William Pryor will continue to do when he is finally confirmed by this Senate for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. I think he is a truly outstanding individual and, most importantly, after all these years of waiting, I am pleased he is finally going to get an up-or-down vote on his nomination. I am pleased, in just a few hours, Bill Pryor will be confirmed as a Federal appellate judge. He more than deserves to be confirmed by the Senate. Bill Pryor is doing a great job now, and he will continue doing a great job in the future. The problem is how we have gotten to where we are with the hangup and these judges not being voted on. I continue to be troubled by the road we have been going down in this judicial nomination process. Unfortunately for Bill Pryor, he has been one of the prime targets of the slash-and-burn program of the left-wing liberal interest groups. He and several other good candidates nominated by President Bush have been subject to off-base, trumped-up charges which just smear an individual's record without regard to the reality of that record. We need to look at the merits of a candidate, and, on the merits, Bill Pryor is one of the more impressive nominees coming before the Senate. William Pryor graduated magna cum laude from Tulane Law School, where he was editor in chief of the law review. He served as a law clerk to civil rights legend and champion Judge John Wisdom. He practiced law for several years before joining the attorney general's office in the State of Alabama. He also taught law as an adjunct professor at Cumberland Law School. So without a doubt, and going even beyond the good attributes I pointed out, Bill Pryor has the legal experience to serve on this Federal bench. But that is not all. William Pryor has the unwavering support of the people who knew him best--the citizens of his very own State of Alabama. His support among Alabama Republicans is near unanimous. But furthermore, and maybe more importantly, some of the most important members of the Alabama Democratic leadership are just as supportive of this Pryor nomination. For example, the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, which is the State Democratic Party's African-American caucus, said that Bill Pryor is a first-class public official who will be a credit to the judiciary and a guardian of justice. Former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman described Bill Pryor as an incredibly talented, intellectually honest attorney general who calls the issues like they ought to be called. These are just some of the comments made by Democrats, of which I am aware, who support this good man. But that does not seem to stop some groups or people inside the beltway from upping that ante and spreading lies. The usual suspects are back in the saddle again, however, with a vengeance to mischaracterize this man's record and drag his good name through the mud. But if one really takes a close look at Bill Pryor's record, one can only find that he is a man who embodies the characteristics that any Federal judge ought to have. The fact is that William Pryor is a man who puts law before politics. The role of a Federal judge, as all my colleagues know and as best stated by Chief Justice John Marshall, is to ``say what the law is.'' That is exactly upon which Bill Pryor has built a distinguished law career. The truth is, in the face of opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, Bill Pryor has steadfastly based his legal decisions on court rulings and not on his own political beliefs. Bill Pryor's actions are the only record that we need to look at to see that this is an individual who truly believes in the rule of law. He is the right man for the job, and we should keep this man on the Eleventh Circuit Court. I have looked at Bill Pryor's record and some of the allegations made against him. Bill Pryor wins hands down, no contest. I would like to refer to an article in the ``Mobile Press Register,'' ``Civil Rights Guardian, Outstanding Nominee.'' In this article, Willie Huntley took the opportunity to distinguish the views of Alabamians and most Americans from those shared by some inside-the-beltway, left-wing interest groups. Mr. Huntley is an African-American attorney. He is from Bill Pryor's hometown. He expressed why the people of Alabama should continue to trust in this man, Bill Pryor, rather than in the liberal special interest groups, such as People for the American Way, organizations that are so powerful here with some Members of Congress. I would like to read some of what this article has to say about Bill Pryor, again, emphasizing Willie Huntley, an African-American attorney from Bill Pryor's hometown: People for the American Way asserts that Pryor's appointment would devastate civil rights. What its people don't say is that after about 100 years of inaction by other leaders, Bill Pryor led a coalition that included the NAACP to rid the Alabama Constitution of its racist ban on interracial marriage. Bill Pryor then defended the repeal against a court challenge by a so-called Confederate organization. Our Attorney General also took the side of the NAACP in successfully defending majority-minority voting districts-- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--against challenges by white Alabama Republicans. Bill Pryor further opposed a white Republican redistricting proposal that would have hurt African-American voters. He did not back down to criticism from his own party--not one inch. He then played a key role in the successful prosecution of former Ku Klux Klansmen Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Blanton, Jr., for the 1963 bombings of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Pryor started a mentoring program for at-risk kids and regularly goes to Montgomery public schools to teach African- American kids to read. Because Bill Pryor has a civil rights record that very few can equal, it is no wonder that African-American leaders who know and who have worked with him--like Artur Davis, Joe Reed, Cleo Thomas, and Alvin Holmes--support his nomination to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Ignoring Pryor's defense of voting rights for African- Americans, People for the American Way charges that he opposes the landmark Voting Rights Act. The truth is, he has dutifully enforced all of the Voting Rights Act every time a case has come up. The article goes on to conclude: The truth and the record show that Bill Pryor has fought for the civil rights and voting rights of African-Americans in Alabama when People for the American Way were nowhere to be found. Now that President Bush has nominated Pryor to a Federal judgeship, People for the American Way assumes that it can come here and attack him. . . .We who actually know Bill Pryor support him 100 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the article from which I quoted so people can read it in its entirety.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in honor of a fallen soldier who has paid the highest price in defense our freedom, SSG Russell J. Verdugo of the 767th Ordnance Company died on the 23rd of May, 2005 in Baghdad, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated as he was responding to a call to dismantle the bomb. I would like to take this moment to salute his patriotism and his sacrifice. Russell Verdugo deserves the highest gratitude of this body and the entire Nation. His sacrifice reminds us that freedom is so precious because of its incredibly high cost. My prayers go out to his mother, Susan Stanley, and his wife, Kari, who grieve the loss of a son and a husband and to all of the family, friends, and neighbors who are touched by his passing. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Sergeant Verdugo. The love of country and the dedication to service shared by many of it citizens is the great strength of our Nation, and we can all be very proud of patriots such as Russell Verdugo.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have notified Senate leadership of my intent to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Alice S. Fisher to the position of Assistant Attorney General. This action has nothing to do with Ms. Fisher or her qualifications for the position to which she has been nominated. I have taken this action because there are a number of outstanding issues regarding the activities and operation of the Justice Department that should be resolved before considering this nomination. I am hopeful that, with the cooperation of the Justice Department, these issues can be resolved shortly.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Stevens, to cosponsor the Clean Sports Act of 2005. While I regret that we have had to come to this point, it is clear that Major League Baseball and other professional leagues are more concerned with protecting their own collective bargaining rights than doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the abuse of illegal steroids by professional athletes is something we can no longer ignore. Steroid use is now affecting the most impressionable and vulnerable among us. The most recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, have admitted to using illegal steroids. Clearly we must act to curb this growing problem. Every day, millions of young people dream of one day playing in the big leagues. When superstar athletes, with their multimillion-dollar contracts and lucrative endorsements are seen using steroids to improve their performance, it should not be surprising that many young athletes would want to use steroids to improve their own performance. Professional athletes must be held to a higher standard when it comes to illegal substances such as steroids. Like it or not, young people look up to professional athletes as role models. The Clean Sports Act will require all professional sports leagues to adopt a unified standard for testing as well as tougher penalties for an athlete found in violation of these standards. Unlike testing today, this act will require athletes to test during the off-season and frequently during their season of play. Athletes will face severe penalties for a positive test: 2-year ban for the first offense and a lifetime ban for the second. I have little doubt that this will go a long way to rid professional sports of these dangerous substances and bring integrity back to the game. We must send a strong message to professional athletes. If you choose to cheat and use illegal steroids, you risk ending your career. In turn, our young people will hopefully get the message that using steroids to improve athletic performance is absolutely the wrong way to go. While this bill specifically addresses professional athletics, the importance of stopping steroid abuse extends well beyond the track, baseball diamond, or football field. We must continue to focus on the health and future of our children. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation to set the standard for fair competition.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to commend and thank Mr. Richard Price of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, for his many years of outstanding service to the U.S. Congress. In June, Mr. Price is retiring from CRS after 32 years of service. For over three decades at CRS, Mr. Price has played a significant role in providing assistance to Congress in analyzing major health care legislation. In his position at CRS, he has been an invaluable asset not only through his own work analyzing health care legislation, but also in his tireless efforts to guide others in the Health Care and Medicine unit at CRS which he managed. Over the past three decades, Mr. Price has worked on health care legislation across a wide array of health care policy and programs. Mr. Price is a recognized expert on the major U.S. health care financing programs--Medicare and Medicaid; his particular areas of expertise span most aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policy, long-term care, Medicaid eligibility, nursing home reform, managed care, hospice care, skilled nursing home services, end stage renal disease, home health care services, and public health service programs, among many others. His contributions to the development of legislation in these areas have been substantial. Over his long career at CRS, he has helped hundreds of staff understand the effect of the legislative proposals being considered through thoughtful analyses, balanced presentations, and clear explanations. I wish to especially thank him for his work with the Senate Finance Committee and its staff. In addition to his own analytic work on legislative analysis, Mr. Price has been responsible for management of a staff of CRS analysts who assist Congress across a wide spectrum of health care issues, including those related to Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. Mr. Price was instrumental in building the health care staff of CRS to a large team of senior analysts. In addition, Mr. Price has been involved in innumerable projects to develop the capacity of CRS analysts to evaluate and analyze health care data, including models to estimate the effect of various legislative changes in Medicare and other health care programs. Other organizations that analyze issues related to health care policy have acknowledged Mr. Price's accomplishments and knowledge of U.S. health care policy. For example, Mr. Price is a member of the steering committee of the National Health Policy Forum, a nonpartisan organization that provides research to senior level health policy makers in Washington. Mr. Price is also a member of the prestigious National Academy on Social Insurance, NASI. Mr. Price's service to Congress in the analysis and development of policy alternatives across a wide array of health care programs, his ability to conceptualize complex public policy issues, as well as his leadership of staff who work on many varied and complex health care issues, set the highest standards for assistance provided by CRS in service to the Congress. He will be missed, both here in Congress and across the street at the Library of Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, recently, the problem of steroid abuse has been getting a great deal of media attention. While this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal steroids, recent studies indicate that more and more young people are taking these drugs to improve their performance, appearance, or self image. In fact, some recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, admit to using illegal steroids. Even more widespread among adolescents, however, is the use of over- the-counter supplements. Many young people are turning to ``supplements'' as an alternative to illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. However, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids. Some, even become steroids in the bloodstream. Last year, the President signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added 18 anabolic steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as controlled substances. Yet as I speak, on the shelves of health stores across the country, sits one anabolic steroid that can be bought by anyone, at any age, without the need of a doctor's prescription. Dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, is an anabolic steroid that once ingested, the body turns into testosterone. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long term physical and psychological effects, including: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver damage, severe acne, baldness, dramatic mood swings, aggression etc. In fact, DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and Minor League Baseball, yet it actually enjoys special protections under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. In an effort to keep all potentially dangerous steroids out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers and children, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would add DHEA to the list of controlled substances under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. This legislation will eliminate the special exemption granted to DHEA, thereby treating it as every other substance in the steroid family. With the dramatic rise in the use of steroids among our nation's youth, now is the time to act to curb this increasingly growing problem. Just like all other anabolic steroids, DHEA should not be available over the counter, but only under a doctor's supervision. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, recently, the problem of steroid abuse has been getting a great deal of media attention. While this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal steroids, recent studies indicate that more and more young people are taking these drugs to improve their performance, appearance, or self image. In fact, some recent studies indicate that as many as 5 percent to 7 percent of students, even as young as middle school, admit to using illegal steroids. Even more widespread among adolescents, however, is the use of over- the-counter supplements. Many young people are turning to ``supplements'' as an alternative to illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. However, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids. Some, even become steroids in the bloodstream. Last year, the President signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added 18 anabolic steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as controlled substances. Yet as I speak, on the shelves of health stores across the country, sits one anabolic steroid that can be bought by anyone, at any age, without the need of a doctor's prescription. Dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, is an anabolic steroid that once ingested, the body turns into testosterone. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long term physical and psychological effects, including: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver damage, severe acne, baldness, dramatic mood swings, aggression etc. In fact, DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and Minor League Baseball, yet it actually enjoys special protections under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. In an effort to keep all potentially dangerous steroids out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers and children, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would add DHEA to the list of controlled substances under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act. This legislation will eliminate the special exemption granted to DHEA, thereby treating it as every other substance in the steroid family. With the dramatic rise in the use of steroids among our nation's youth, now is the time to act to curb this increasingly growing problem. Just like all other anabolic steroids, DHEA should not be available over the counter, but only under a doctor's supervision. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was very sad to learn that Colonel Hackworth had died on May 4, 2005, in Tijuana, Mexico. Tijuana is the place where Colonel Hackworth chose to make his last stand. He went there to fight one last battle. He had a particularly deadly form of cancer that spread. He went to Mexico, hoping for a miracle with an experimental drug treatment program. Just before leaving his home in Connecticut for the last time in January 2005, he sent me one final message: Give Senator Grassley my best. Have run out of conventional options re my cancer. Got until March to find a solution. Off to Mexico to see if we can't out Gee this monster. I am not sweating my final orders from Headquarters. It has been a fun ride. Plan on being planted in Arlington. ``Out-Geeing the G'' was one of Colonel Hackworth's favorite expressions. He invented the term while leading troops in combat during the Vietnam war. He told his troops that they could beat the Viet Cong by using the guerrillas' own mobile, hit-and-run tactics. ``We are going to do what they do but just do it better,'' he said. `` We out-gee the G.'' ``Out-geeing the G'' was the heart and soul of Colonel Hackworth's brand of soldiering. Sadly, Colonel Hackworth was not able to ``out-Gee'' the enemy this time. Colonel Hackworth began his military career just up the coast from Tijuana--in Santa Monica, CA. At the age of 10, after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, he worked as a shoeshine boy at a military post there where a group of soldiers adopted him as a mascot. They had a special uniform made for him to wear. Both his parents died before his first birthday. At this point in his life, Colonel Hackworth said: ``I knew my destiny. Nothing would be better than to be a soldier.'' You can't utter the name David Hackworth without also saying the word soldier in the same breath. He was a ``soldier's'' soldier. He was a soldier from the day he put on that special uniform in Santa Monica to the moment he died. He may have taken off his uniform after publicly denouncing the Vietnam war on national TV in 1971, but he continued to soldier until the very end of his life. I know that Colonel Hackworth was a highly respected combat veteran. I know he distinguished himself as a leader of troops in the field in Korea and Vietnam. I know he was awarded a large number of combat decorations for valor. Colonel Hackworth was a true American hero. But I do not want to leave my colleagues with a false impression. I did not know Colonel Hackworth when he was fighting wars and winning medals for valor. I have only read about that part of his life. I did not meet him until much later--after he had started a new career. I came to know Colonel Hackworth after he became a reporter and began covering the Pentagon. He was still a soldier all right--but a different kind of soldier. Colonel Hackworth had become what I would call a brave-hearted soldier for the truth. When I met him, he had taken off his uniform. He was fighting a different kind of war. He was a soldier in civilian clothes. But he still had a mission. He wanted to bring truth, justice, and accountability to military headquarters--the Pentagon. He wanted to shed some light on what he perceived as gross incompetence and corruption on the part of some senior officers. He was a contributing editor and reporter for Newsweek Magazine and syndicated columnist. Colonel Hackworth and I shared a small piece of common ground-- watchdogging the Pentagon. From the moment when I was first elected to the Senate, I have worked very hard to ferret out fraud, waste, and abuse at the Pentagon and stop it. I do it because I don't want to see a single tax dollar wasted. Colonel Hackworth attacked the very same problem but from a different angle. As in everything he did, he always looked at a problem from a common soldier's perspective. As I said, his main concern was incompetence and corruption among some senior officers in the Pentagon. He called them ``perfumed princes.'' These were some of the same officers he saw come and go in Vietnam. They came to Vietnam to get their ``tickets punched.'' They got their ``tickets punched'' by commanding a battalion or brigade for a shortened tour of duty before rotating home to the Pentagon for promotion. To the hardcore soldier like Colonel Hackworth, ``ticket punching'' in Vietnam translated into unnecessary casualties on the battlefield. The wasting of one soldier's life produced real fury inside this man. He could not--and would not--tolerate it. One illustrative incident, which occurred in Vietman, is described in his book ``About Face.'' During a very intense combat operation, a ``perfumed prince'' riding in a helicopter overhead issued an order to a unit under Colonel Hackworth's command--without Colonel Hackworth's knowledge or approval. That order resulted in a significant loss of life in one of Colonel Hackworth's units. Colonel Hackworth believed that those casualties were avoidable and unnecessary. When he returned to home base, he sought out that officer, put a 45 caliber weapon to his head, and threatened to kill him if he ever did anything like that again. That is Colonel Hackworth's own account of what happened on that day so long ago. Colonel Hackworth loved his troops above all else and would go to any length to protect them from harm and abuse. His lifelong commitment to the common soldier was the driving force behind the stories he produced as a reporter with Newsweek and other publications. In Colonel Hackworth's mind, the terrible loss of life in Vietnam had its origins in a disease that he set out to cure--the gross incompetence and corruption--that he perceived at the highest echelons in the Pentagon. Colonel Hackworth was determined to wipe it out and right a wrong. Over the years, we collaborated on a number of investigations. The one I remember best is the one involving Air Force General Joseph Ashy in 1994-95. Colonel Hackworth conducted his own investigation. He gathered the facts and the documents. I, in turn, referred Colonel Hackworth's allegations to the inspector general, IG, for review. This is what Colonel Hackworth reported in the press: General Ashy flew himself, his aide and family cat from Italy to Colorado aboard a 200-seat Air Force plane; he flew his wife round-trip on an Air Force VIP aircraft from Colorado to Washington; and he made palatial renovations at his headquarters. The IG concluded that General Ashy's ``wasteful escapades'' cost the taxpayers $424,602.00. Colonel Hackworth found out about General Ashy's ``escapades'' from one of his beloved soldiers who was denied a seat--and free ride home-- on Ashy's airplane. Colonel Hackworth's comments were as follows: The taxpayers got ripped-off for almost a half a million bucks by a member of our military elite and virtually nothing is being done about it. . . . The Air Force spinmeisters lied through their teeth about what General Ashy did. . . . Besides being a blatant waste of money, this incident is about deception and the art of diffusing responsibility. . . . Ashy was fined a mere $5,020.00 and continues to have four stars and his finger on the nuclear button. General Ashy wrote out a check for the fine and sent it to Air Force Headquarters on June 26, 1995. However, instead of depositing his check at the bank, the check was stashed in a safe in Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall's office--for what I suspect was permanent safekeeping. At my request, the IG began making new inquiries and the check finally went to the bank on September 15, 1995. This great American soldier told us--in ``plain old English''--what he expected from the top brass at the Pentagon. He expected them to lead by example. If they failed his leadership and integrity test at headquarters, he believed they would fail on the battlefield. His pronouncements were blunt, for sure. They were almost always harsh and sometimes coarse. But they always conveyed an important lesson tempered by battlefield experiences. So I listened and learned. His opinions on the Pentagon brass had credibility in my book. He had put them to the ultimate test on so many distant battlefields. That was good enough for me. The lessons taught by this great American soldier are lessons that will stand the test of time. Setting the example has been the most powerful element of leadership since the beginning of time. Colonel Hackworth kept going back to those enduring principles. As a Nation, we must do the same. We must rely on those ideas. They are too important to be forgotten. They must be followed. Colonel Hackworth was a constant and forceful reminder of just how important those principles really are. The memory of Colonel Hackworth and all that he stood for lives on in our hearts and minds. Colonel Hackworth has left us. His remains will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery on May 31. But he will not be forgotten. He will never fade away.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past three decades, prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one, take that responsibility very seriously. In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans' Administration provides an important source of health care access to those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well into the future. In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could be spent more wisely. When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs can improve your life. I appreciate that view. However, we live in a world of limited resources, and in that world of limited resources coverage of these ``lifestyle'' drugs under Medicare--or any other Federal program, in my opinion--is inconsistent with that goal of balance. I am pleased to join with Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign in working to rectify that situation today and urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.