Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the bill imposes an excise tax, equal to 100 percent of the acquisition costs, on the taxable acquisition of any interest in an applicable insurance contract. An applicable insurance contract is any life insurance, annuity or endowment contract in which both an applicable exempt organization and any person that is not an applicable exempt organization have, directly or indirectly, held an interest in the contract (whether or not the interests are held at the same time). An applicable exempt organization generally includes an organization that is exempt from Federal income tax by reason of being described in section 501(c)(3) (including one organized outside the United States), a government or political subdivision of a government, and an Indian tribal government. The bill provides that an interest in an applicable insurance contract includes any right with respect to the contract, whether as an owner, beneficiary, or otherwise. An indirect interest in a contract includes an interest in an entity that, directly or indirectly, holds an interest in the contract. Exceptions apply under the bill. An exception is provided if each person (other than the exempt organization) with an interest in the contract has an insurable interest in the insured person independent of any interest of the exempt organization. Another exception is provided if each person, other than an exempt organization, has an interest solely as a named beneficiary. An exception is also provided for a person, other than the exempt organization, with an interest as a trust beneficiary, if the beneficiary designation is purely gratuitous, or with an interest as a trustee who holds in a fiduciary capacity for an applicable exempt organization or another permitted beneficiary. The bill provides reporting rules requiring an applicable exempt organization or other person that makes a taxable acquisition of an applicable insurance contract to file a return showing required information. A statement is required to be furnished to each person whose taxpayer identification information is required to be reported on the return. Penalties apply for failure to file the return or furnish the statement, including, in the case of intentional disregard of the return filing requirement, a penalty equal to the amount of the excise tax that has not been paid with respect to the items required to be included on the return. The bill is effective for contracts issued after May 3, 2005. The bill requires reporting of existing life insurance, endowment and annuity contracts issued on or before that date, in which an applicable exempt organization holds an interest and which would be treated as an applicable insurance contract under the bill. This reporting is required within one year after the date of enactment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a fellow Iowan who has fallen in service to his country. SGT. Robert J. ``Jason'' Gore of Nevada, IA, was killed on April 21, when insurgents shot down his helicopter. Jason had already completed one tour in Iraq before he began his tour as a security guard for Blackwater USA. He was only 23 years old and is survived by a mother, father, brother, and grandparents. Jason grew in Nevada, IA, and chose to attend St. John's Northwestern Military Academy for his last 2 years of high school. Sergeant Gore excelled there in academics, athletics, and leadership, and he was described as a kind young man with a purpose-driven life and a great enthusiasm for the opportunity to serve in the military. Sergeant Gore's patriotism for his country and zeal for life must be recognized and appreciated today and in days to come. In his honor, I urge all Americans to contemplate their love for this great country and to think about the patriotic ideals which Jason held in such high esteem. In memory of his life and his great sacrifice so willingly made, we are called to rekindle in ourselves the fiery devotion and enthusiasm of SGT. Robert J. Gore. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Jason who have felt this loss most deeply. Today, their son, brother, grandson, and friend stands as a beacon of enduring patriotism, deserving of emulation by all Americans.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the students from Central Academy in Des Moines, IA who recently participated in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, DC The annual competition is the culmination of the students' extensive study of the American system of constitutional democracy. The team from Central Academy won the State competition, earning the honor of representing Iowa in the national finals from April 30 through May 2, 2005. I am also proud to say that they won a unit award for their impressive performance on unit 3. Unfortunately, I was in Iowa during the national finals this year so I was unable to meet with the students from Iowa as I customarily do. However, I am always impressed by how knowledgeable and politically astute the students are who have been through this program and I understand this year's group of students was no exception. I know Iowans can be very proud to have had them representing Iowa. The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program is run by the Center for Civic Education with the help of federal funding. The program provides an excellent curriculum and valuable professional development opportunities for teachers, giving students a solid grounding in the history, philosophy, and practice of our American system of constitutional democracy. The result is young people who are more politically aware, more engaged, and more equipped to be good citizens. In closing, I would like to recognize the Central Academy students who participated in this program, Emily Burney, Julia Busiek, Kate Conlow, Tim Di Iulio, Jon Hill, Lisa Jefferson, Alix Liftka-Reselman, Phillip Miller, Ben Miller-Todd, David Nolan, Caroline Rendon, Andrew Tatge, Erin Turner, Emily Varn, and their teacher, Michael Schaffer. They can all be very proud of their knowledge and accomplishments. I would also like to recognize the We the People district coordinator, Ivette Bender, and the state coordinator for Iowa, Linda Martin, for their hard work and dedication to the We the People program.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the capital cost to install new renewable generation capacity is three to ten times more expensive than the cost to install conventional gas generation. Given these costs, Federal production tax credits have been available over the past decade to investor-owned utilities and private developers for renewable generation from wind, closed loop biomass and poultry waste. I worked in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax incentives and expand them to additional resources, such as open loop biomass, animal waste nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, geothermal and small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to extend these incentives to electric cooperatives and public power systems, and today am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,'' that provides them with an important financing tool. Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies. . . .'' As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve. Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit, and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become economic. Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45 eligible for the bond. Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder. But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their tax liability. Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar financial instruments for public power systems and electric cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and understanding to purchase these financial products because of the longstanding success of municipal bonds. The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that is needed to push renewable generation options further than production tax credits alone.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and murder. The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders tougher penalties for the crimes they commit. I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing. My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways. It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in detail. The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case, something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life; three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10 years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life. The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child prostitution. The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For example, in district court parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this section will require that district-court review be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime. The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate that it took the recent tragic murders of those 3 beautiful young girls for a law of this nature to be proposed, but I strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the capital cost to install new renewable generation capacity is three to ten times more expensive than the cost to install conventional gas generation. Given these costs, Federal production tax credits have been available over the past decade to investor-owned utilities and private developers for renewable generation from wind, closed loop biomass and poultry waste. I worked in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax incentives and expand them to additional resources, such as open loop biomass, animal waste nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, geothermal and small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to extend these incentives to electric cooperatives and public power systems, and today am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,'' that provides them with an important financing tool. Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies. . . .'' As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve. Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit, and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become economic. Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45 eligible for the bond. Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder. But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their tax liability. Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar financial instruments for public power systems and electric cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and understanding to purchase these financial products because of the longstanding success of municipal bonds. The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that is needed to push renewable generation options further than production tax credits alone.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I want my colleagues to look at the baseline. We can see the orange line. That is the individual taxes based on historical average. The AMT is part of the individual income tax. Historically, individual income taxes have been at about 8 or 9 percent. That is the red line. The AMT and the regular tax balloon proportionately, under current law, over the next 40 years is going to go up very dramatically. This balloon effect is due to the sunset of bipartisan tax relief and AMT. Now let us focus a little bit closer. Let us look at the next chart. This chart shows that extension of the bipartisan tax relief still leaves individual taxes at record levels. The blue line shows individual taxes are going to be growing very dramatically. The chart also shows that fixing the AMT leaves individual income taxes at record levels, as we can see from the orange line. What we can see is we seriously do have an alternative minimum tax problem and fixing it will not gut the revenue base over the long term. It is common sense that an unfair tax such as the alternative minimum tax, that is out of control, should be fixed without regard to offsets. Common sense plays out on the budget side as well. We have even heard incorrect assertions that this budget does not address the alternative minimum tax problem. Well, guess what. In this budget, there is room for extending the current patch or hold harmless for millions of families facing an alternative minimum tax. We hear all about the fact that the budget does not have anything to do with the alternative minimum tax. Well, it does. I just said it does. It is part of it. But where is the Democratic plan for alternative minimum tax relief? Where is the response for even the current period we are talking about in this budget? I have been looking for a Democratic plan and I cannot find it. This budget contains plans for tax relief. The reconciliation instructions give us the resources to maintain current law tax relief. Put another way, the reconciliation instruction is our best means to protect against the tax hike automatically foisted upon millions of American taxpayers. Now I turn to the second aspect of the tax relief portion of the budget. We will hear a lot of criticism against the use of reconciliation for tax relief. It was not an easy choice. I prefer regular order in the Senate, but recent tax legislative history in the Senate suggests that the reconciliation option is an important tool to have at our disposal. With partisan obstructionism on the part of Democratic leadership, many regular order tax relief packages over the last 2 years have been stalled in the Senate. Even tax relief packages that the Democrat leadership claims to support encounter that sort of partisan obstructionism. Members will recall that several cloture votes were required to get the bipartisan FSC/ETI legislation through the Congress last October. Likewise, we were unable to go to conference with the House on the CARE Act and other popular tax relief packages because of Democratic leadership objections. The situation has only become worse this year. The climate may still be more difficult if the Democratic leadership acts on the threats they have talked about of shutting down the Senate if the controversy over judicial nominations is brought to the forefront. From a practical standpoint, there is a significant risk that reconciled tax relief may be the only tax relief vehicle that can pass the Senate in this environment. I hope that is not the case. It is prudent to consider a possibility. Because of this hostile partisan environment, a reconciliation bill may be the only known path to preserve the tax relief provided during the last 4 years. For this reason, our caucus viewed the reconciliation numbers as a comprehensive blueprint for preserving current law levels of tax relief. There is $36 billion of tax relief for regular order tax relief we will have to offset. This amount is meant to cover packages such as a comprehensive energy bill. What it comes down to is this: We need to take care of legislative business. We need to continue the tax relief promised to the American people, but we are better off with a plan that prevents tax hikes. I am pleased we have this plan. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I first compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, for his outstanding work in getting a budget before the Senate because that didn't happen last year. I am so glad we have a budget because it is discipline for the Congress, and anybody knows, when it comes to spending money, Congress needs discipline. So I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. Of course, a budget resolution is more or less a blueprint. It sets the overall level of spending and also for revenue of the Federal Government. The budget itself does not change any law. As I said, it is a blueprint, ground rules, for all of the other spending and revenue legislation that will be considered in the Senate yet this year. Under the Senate rules, any bill that exceeds the level set in the budget may be subject to a point of order that would require a 60-vote supermajority. That is where the discipline comes--when people want to spend more money without raising taxes or taking the money from some other program, then they would be beyond the budget, and consequently a point of order could be raised. It is very difficult to get a 60-vote supermajority in this body. Consequently, it keeps spending within the budget. So it is budget discipline that Congress needs. By imposing the supermajority requirement, the budget encourages the Senate to stay within these overall limits that are in the document we are going to vote on tonight, while at the same time providing the opportunity to exceed those limits if a supermajority can be gotten. And when there are extenuating circumstances, you have to assume extenuating circumstances get that sort of a vote in the Senate. The annual budget process is often the subject of much controversy, as I think you can tell from the debate tonight. I want to take a moment and focus on a number of specific provisions as they relate to the committee that I chair, the Senate Finance Committee, which has the responsibility for all of the legislation that affects Medicaid and Medicare, as well as everything dealing with the raising of taxes or the decreasing of taxes involved with the income tax code. The budget resolution conference report provides reconciliation instruction--in other words, mandating that the Finance Committee, like it mandates other committees to do similar things in their jurisdiction, to achieve $10 billion in program savings and $70 billion in tax relief. While these instructions do not actually require the Finance Committee to enact any specific policy--that is our option how we meet these goals--there are a number of policies that are assumed and I think realistic within the numbers that are provided in the budget resolution. The budget provides for $10 billion in savings from the Finance Committee, and I surely and confidently commit the Finance Committee to make every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion where we keep in mind principles that guide us in producing a better Medicaid Program. The Finance Committee will look at proposed savings that will be shared equally--I should not say equally but shared proportionately between the Federal Government and the States because the Medicaid Program is a Federal-State partnership. States are in trouble. We want to help them. We want to emphasize flexibility for the States through voluntary options that States can exercise to get more bang for the Medicaid dollar and even save money in the process, maybe in some instances, through flexibility, even serving a larger population than they now serve but with a more efficient expenditure of that money. The Finance Committee will do this while making a commitment not to eliminate coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. I look forward to taking action to improve Medicaid. Doing nothing is far worse for Medicaid. If we do not eliminate wasteful practices, if we do not provide States with this necessary flexibility, if we do not provide States the relief they are asking for, they are simply going to cut whole groups of people off the rolls to make their budget ends meet within their State legislative prerogative. I recall reading in the paper a couple of months ago, I think it was the State of Mississippi found itself in a position where it could not afford everything the Federal Government mandated on Medicaid, and they just dropped 55,000 people from the rolls. They should not have to do that, they do not want to do that, and we can help them not to do that by giving more flexibility to the States. That is why I say doing nothing is far worse for Medicaid beneficiaries than what we are going to attempt to do in the next few months through this reconciliation instruction to provide a rational, reasoned approach to protecting and strengthening the Medicaid Program. That is what we will do in meeting our instructions. I am going to leave Medicaid now and go to the tax relief portions in this budget and comment on two aspects: The amount of relief for the budget period--that is the next 5 years--and the use of reconciliation to bring about the tax relief that a majority of this Senate is going to say we need. Before I start with the numbers, I want to put in context the revenue side of the budget. Some have argued, and particularly we have heard this even tonight, that bipartisan tax relief has gutted the revenue base permanently, and that is hogwash. They argue that this change is a reason to raise taxes. People want to raise taxes, can you believe that, Mr. President, instead of not extending the tax relief that was voted in 2001, 2003, and I guess some in 2004? The facts, according to the Congressional Budget Office--and remember, they work for everybody, Republicans and Democrats; they are not Republican or Democrat, they are professionals. Their statistics show otherwise. I want to put a chart up and have my colleagues concentrate on Congressional Budget Office data, and this covers the period of time from 1960 to 2015, so we get a historical response to people who are saying we have permanently gutted the tax base. This chart shows the volatility of revenue and its relationship to economic performance. When we suffer economically--and that is the green line on the chart--as related to the ups and downs in the growth of the economy, the gross domestic product, it shows that we suffered economically. You can see the red lines going up and down being revenue coming into the Federal Treasury in relationship to the growth or the sinking of the economy over this historical period of time. Then we also see when the economy grows, revenues go up. When the economy sinks, obviously, revenue coming into the Federal Government goes down. We have heard so much about what this administration has done to the revenue base of the country. What we see in the first 4 years of the Bush administration--so you have to look at the years 2001 to 2005--you will remember we inherited a recession. I hope people on the other side of the aisle realize that the NASDAQ lost 50 percent of its value in the year 2000. I hope people remember that this economy started in a recession 3 months before President Bush was ever sworn in for the first time. So the bubble broke. We had those corporate scandals that date back to the midnineties becoming public in the year 2001. And then we can see from the chart that the uptick in the economy started late in the Bush administration and continues today. The Congressional Budget Office shows, as we can see, revenue is coming back. So let's not confuse cause and effect. The tax reduction we voted on in 2001 and 2003 has helped the economy recover and the Federal Treasury is benefiting. So we have to look at what is projected out, starting this year and into the future. We see the economy fairly stable for the next few years, and we see the revenue base high above the growth of the economy. So let's be clear, undertaxation of the American people is not the source of our budget problems. And all the people over here who think we ought to raise taxes, I wonder when they have their town meetings how many people in their town meetings say: I am undertaxed; I want to pay more taxes. I do not have people coming to my town meeting saying that. I think what the American people are saying is that Congress overspends, and this budget is all about discipline in spending. Undertaxation, I hope my colleagues understand over there, is not the source of our problems. Now, let's start with a basic number. When the Senate Budget Committee considered the resolution a few weeks ago, Republicans laid out our plan for reconciled tax relief. This plan was a product of discussion with members of the Republican caucus, just like I presume the Democrats have discussions about tax policy among their people. Our objective now is to preserve current law, levels of tax relief that were voted in 2001 and 2003, and anybody who says you should eliminate the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, they are not saying eliminate the tax cuts, they are saying raise your taxes. That is what they are saying. Our plan centers on a seamless extension of tax relief provisions that began in 2001. It is critical that these provisions be rationalized in a commonsense way. Assuring taxpayers of the continuity of promised tax benefits should be one of our highest priorities. Taxpayers should not face a reversal of the level of tax relief we have delivered. Certainty of tax policy is absolutely necessary for economic growth, and economic growth is absolutely necessary for creating jobs. This objective is critical with respect to the widely applicable provisions dealing with capital gains and dividends, small business expensing, low-income savings, the alternative minimum tax, and college tuition deductibility. Do those people over there who say we ought to eliminate the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 think we ought to eliminate the college tuition deductibility? I do not think so. But that is where they would take us. Millions of taxpayers from all walks of life have come to rely upon these tax relief provisions, and they are going to expire if we do not do something about it. They are going to get an automatic tax increase without even a vote of Congress if we do not do something. We should have guts enough to vote for tax increases if we want to, not just sit idly by and let taxes go up. Some on the other side have been critical of the $70 billion in reconciled tax relief that is in this budget resolution, as was Social Security reform. At my hearing this week we heard a lot of complaining about so-called Social Security reform, but we do not get a lot of answers from the other side on Social Security or on taxes. We do not get problem solving. We do not get any constructive dialogue. Where is the Democratic plan for tax relief? Has anyone seen it? All we hear are criticisms. How many times have we heard about AMT? Answer: We have heard we ought to be doing something about AMT plenty of times. There is an AMT problem. I have a couple of charts that tell the story. I would like to have my colleagues look at the baseline. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Robert Portman to be our next United States Trade Representative. Congress first mandated the appointment of a special representative for trade negotiation in 1962. Since that time, our trade representative has played a vital role in shaping much of our international economic policy. Today, it remains an important position that requires a unique blend of technical and political skills for success. In that regard, we are fortunate to have Rob Portman as the President's nominee. Congressman Portman has a strong commitment to public service, having served the people of Ohio in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years. His thoughtful consideration of complex issues and his determination to achieve sound public policy have made him an effective leader. He has played major roles in pension, tax, and IRS reform. He is well known for his leadership in the fight against drug abuse. And, as a member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Congressman Portman has been intimately involved in a number of key international trade policy initiatives. There is strong support for the nominee among the business and agriculture communities. In an open letter sent to Congress on April 18, literally hundreds of companies, associations and Chambers of Commerce expressed their desire to see Congressman Portman confirmed as the next United States Trade Representative, noting that he ``is the right person for the job. During his six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, he has distinguished himself as a thoughtful and respected leader on international trade and investment issues. Moreover, he has demonstrated a spirit of cooperation that will be essential in the months ahead as Congress considers many trade issues on its agenda. Similar sentiments are expressed by over 60 representatives of the agriculture sector. In a letter dated April 19 they note that ``Representative Portman has long championed bipartisan solutions to trade'' adding that he ``will bring tremendous talent and experience to this important post. We applaud Representative Portman's deep commitment to enforcing trade agreements and believe his desire to achieve meaningful results for American agriculture and agribusiness is precisely the leadership that is needed in the dynamic and sometimes difficult to navigate world of agriculture trade.'' There is strong interest in moving this nomination quickly. There are a number of important events coming up over the next few weeks including a meeting of the World Trade Organization ministers in early May. So, I hope we will be able to confirm this nominee quickly. There is a long tradition of legislative and executive branch cooperation on international economic policy. The importance of working together became most evident following the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which helped plunge our economy into the Great Depression. In 1934 President Roosevelt recognized that high tariff barriers were strangling our economy. To spur economic growth, he sought and received legislative authority to negotiate reductions in tariff barriers. That bill, the Trade Agreements Act, embodied the basic partnership between the legislative and executive branches of Government that we know today as Trade Promotion Authority. It is a partnership that has served this Nation well for the better part of the last century, and hopefully will continue to do so for the next. But the battle for economic freedom is far from over. We cannot afford to return to the tyranny of tariffs embodied by Smoot-Hawley. Decisions we make in the near future on economic policy will have a significant impact on generations to come. They are decisions we cannot take lightly. Strong leadership at the Office of the United States Trade Representative is key. Congress will soon be considering free trade agreements with Central America, the Dominican Republic and Bahrain. We also have a number of important bilateral and regional negotiations underway that will bring significant benefits to the U.S. economy. And, perhaps most important, are on-going negotiations at the World Trade Organization. Successfully concluding these negotiations and ensuring their implementation will take a skilled champion of America's interests. I am confident that Rob Portman will effectively fill that role. I hope my colleagues will join me in strongly supporting Congressman Portman to be our next United States Trade Representative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated April 28, 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and murder. The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders tougher penalties for the crimes they commit. I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing. My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways. It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in detail. The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case, something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life; three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10 years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life. The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child prostitution. The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For example, in district court parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this section will require that district-court review be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime. The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate that it took the recent tragic murders of those 3 beautiful young girls for a law of this nature to be proposed, but I strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I introduce Senate Bill 930, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Dodd is co-sponsoring another piece of drug safety legislation with me. This legislation is part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be another meaningful step toward greater accountability and transparency at the FDA. Importantly, this legislation provides the FDA with some much needed authorities to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs for the long haul. The Food and Drug Administration cannot always serve the American people and the interests of the drug industry at the same time. These two interests are often at odds with each other. When there is a conflict the American people should win out each and every time. The Vioxx situation is a classic example of this inherent conflict. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The risks associated with a drug should be outweighed by its benefits, and this risk-benefit analysis should not be negotiated by the industry behind closed doors. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place drug safety front and center once and for all. When drugs go on the market, they are used by exponentially larger numbers of people than were involved in the pre-approval trials. What John Q. Public deserves and demands is for the FDA to embrace a renewed mission to pursue aggressively key safety questions that the industry would sometimes prefer to ignore. The FDA must protect the health of the public by considering not only the benefits but also the risks of drugs for the tens of millions of Americans who actually use new drugs already available in the marketplace. The FDA's post-market evaluation and research needs to be a separate but equal partner with pre-approval evaluation. Indeed FDA's post marketing surveillance function can no longer take a back seat within the agency. I have been pressing for necessary reforms at the FDA--both administrative and legislative--and the focus of these reforms center on a reorganization of the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 will establish an independent Center within the FDA--the Center for Post-market Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER). The new Center's primary mission, vision and values will focus on conducting risk assessment for approved drugs and biological products once they are on the market. The Director of the Center will report directly to the FDA Commissioner and will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs and biological products. Today's legislation is focused on the equal importance of pre- marketing evaluations by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)--the pre-market Center--and post-marketing evaluations by the newly established post-market Center. Consultation and coordination between pre-market and post-market Centers will be essential, but their relationship will place them on equal footing with the other. The present Office of Drug Safety will no longer be effectively under the thumb of the Office of New Drugs. We are hopeful that this reorganization of the FDA will go a long way toward eliminating the conflict of interest that shadows the FDA's post-market risk assessment presently. Today's legislation will also: authorize the Director to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biological product. Authorize the Director to determine whether an approved drug or licensed biological product may present an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general public, given the known benefits. Authorize the Director to take corrective action if a drug or biological product presents an unreasonable risk to patients or the general public--including the authority to make changes to the label or approved indication, place restrictions on product distribution, require physician and consumer education, and require the use of other risk management tools. Allow the Director to withdraw approval of a drug or biological product if necessary to protect the public health. Require submission of advertising prior to dissemination, and certain advertising disclosures related to risks and benefits to patients, if one or more of the three following conditions is met: the Director has determined that the product may present an unreasonable risk to patients, the product is the subject of an outstanding post-market study requirement, or the product was approved within the last two years. Establish strong enforcement mechanisms, including civil monetary penalties, for those who fail to comply. Ensure that the Director benefits from all appropriate resources, including but not limited to consultation with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and makes all decisions based on a risk-benefit analysis. Ensure that all findings and decisions made by CPDER are transparent. Require a report and recommendations to Congress on post-market surveillance of medical devices. Authorize graduated appropriations totaling $500 million over five years to ensure that CPDER has the resources to accomplish its goals. Today's legislation is another important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I introduce Senate Bill 930, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Dodd is co-sponsoring another piece of drug safety legislation with me. This legislation is part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be another meaningful step toward greater accountability and transparency at the FDA. Importantly, this legislation provides the FDA with some much needed authorities to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs for the long haul. The Food and Drug Administration cannot always serve the American people and the interests of the drug industry at the same time. These two interests are often at odds with each other. When there is a conflict the American people should win out each and every time. The Vioxx situation is a classic example of this inherent conflict. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The risks associated with a drug should be outweighed by its benefits, and this risk-benefit analysis should not be negotiated by the industry behind closed doors. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place drug safety front and center once and for all. When drugs go on the market, they are used by exponentially larger numbers of people than were involved in the pre-approval trials. What John Q. Public deserves and demands is for the FDA to embrace a renewed mission to pursue aggressively key safety questions that the industry would sometimes prefer to ignore. The FDA must protect the health of the public by considering not only the benefits but also the risks of drugs for the tens of millions of Americans who actually use new drugs already available in the marketplace. The FDA's post-market evaluation and research needs to be a separate but equal partner with pre-approval evaluation. Indeed FDA's post marketing surveillance function can no longer take a back seat within the agency. I have been pressing for necessary reforms at the FDA--both administrative and legislative--and the focus of these reforms center on a reorganization of the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 will establish an independent Center within the FDA--the Center for Post-market Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER). The new Center's primary mission, vision and values will focus on conducting risk assessment for approved drugs and biological products once they are on the market. The Director of the Center will report directly to the FDA Commissioner and will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs and biological products. Today's legislation is focused on the equal importance of pre- marketing evaluations by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)--the pre-market Center--and post-marketing evaluations by the newly established post-market Center. Consultation and coordination between pre-market and post-market Centers will be essential, but their relationship will place them on equal footing with the other. The present Office of Drug Safety will no longer be effectively under the thumb of the Office of New Drugs. We are hopeful that this reorganization of the FDA will go a long way toward eliminating the conflict of interest that shadows the FDA's post-market risk assessment presently. Today's legislation will also: authorize the Director to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biological product. Authorize the Director to determine whether an approved drug or licensed biological product may present an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general public, given the known benefits. Authorize the Director to take corrective action if a drug or biological product presents an unreasonable risk to patients or the general public--including the authority to make changes to the label or approved indication, place restrictions on product distribution, require physician and consumer education, and require the use of other risk management tools. Allow the Director to withdraw approval of a drug or biological product if necessary to protect the public health. Require submission of advertising prior to dissemination, and certain advertising disclosures related to risks and benefits to patients, if one or more of the three following conditions is met: the Director has determined that the product may present an unreasonable risk to patients, the product is the subject of an outstanding post-market study requirement, or the product was approved within the last two years. Establish strong enforcement mechanisms, including civil monetary penalties, for those who fail to comply. Ensure that the Director benefits from all appropriate resources, including but not limited to consultation with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and makes all decisions based on a risk-benefit analysis. Ensure that all findings and decisions made by CPDER are transparent. Require a report and recommendations to Congress on post-market surveillance of medical devices. Authorize graduated appropriations totaling $500 million over five years to ensure that CPDER has the resources to accomplish its goals. Today's legislation is another important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First, let me say I am profoundly disappointed by the way this issue has been handled over the past several weeks. My staff has been working hard with some of the proponents of this legislation to fully understand the pros and cons of the legislation. In fact, a meeting was held with the proponents just prior to a press release being issued saying that a hold was being placed on a nominee unless a vote were taken on the bill. I thought we were making good progress. Needless to say, I was very surprised to learn of that development. No one asked me about it. Let's be clear, I share concerns about China's economic policies and the impact of those policies on international trade and the U.S. economy. At this point, however, I'm not convinced that the Bayh amendment is the best possible policy response we can provide to China's economic policies. The amendment would substantively change United States trade law, and it is imperative that the repercussions be fully understood before we move ahead with the proposed change. That's why the committee process should not be circumvented. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues of international trade, and its expertise should be brought to bear on any trade issue before its consideration by the full Senate. When that process is not respected, we run the risk of adopting ill- thought out policy which in the end could undermine the very intent of legislation that is rushed in as an amendment, as Senator Bayh proposes we do in this case. For starters, I understand that the bill may not even be necessary, as it's possible this change could be implemented administratively rather than legislatively. We should explore with Administration officials the feasibility of implementing an administrative change, what that would entail and how that might best be accomplished. The proposed legislation doesn't give the Commerce Department any flexibility to develop appropriate regulations and procedures to implement this provision. Such a significant change from established practice should at least incorporate sufficient flexibility so that it can be implemented properly. Otherwise, proponents run the risk of undermining their very goal. Why wouldn't proponents want to ensure that such a significant change in the operation of our trade laws is implemented properly? Again, that's why the Finance Committee should have the opportunity to address the details. There are other repercussions that should be examined. How does the proposed legislation relate to China's accession to the WTO for example? Is it consistent with the terms of our bilateral agreement on China's WTO accession? Those questions should be answered before we move ahead on this legislation. Another very serious issue is the relationship between this legislation and existing U.S. trade law. It's quite possible that by adopting this bill we could undermine the application of U.S. antidumping law, and I doubt any of my colleagues would advocate that result. It is even possible that this amendment could force us to relinquish application of the nonmarket antidumping methodology in dumping cases. That question needs to be addressed thoroughly before we move ahead on this legislation. Proponents may offer blanket assertions to the contrary, but that is not sufficient, in my view. We should not run the risk of undermining our trade laws by pushing this amendment onto a bill today. I hope Senator Bayh will reconsider his decision and withdraw the amendment. If not, I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing his amendment until we can fully appreciate its repercussions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize today the passing of a fellow Iowan who has fallen in service to this country. Sergeant John W. Miller, of the Iowa Army National Guard Company, A, 224th Engineer Battalion, was killed by a sniper on April 12 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, while providing security for a road-clearing operation. He was 21 years old and is survived by a father, Dennis, two brothers, James and Nathan, and a sister, Jessica, who live in the Burlington, IA area. John Miller attended West Burlington High School and received his high school diploma from Des Moines Area Community College. He joined the Iowa Army National Guard in March of 2002 and was mobilized to go to Iraq in October of 2004. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' device for Mobilization. He was also promoted to sergeant posthumously. I offer my condolences to John's family and friends. Sergeant Miller's battalion leader wrote that John ``will never be forgotten.'' I ask all of my colleagues and fellow Americans to join me in fulfilling that promise of remembrance. We must remember John and his comrades who have fallen, their lives, and their sacrifices; for a Nation that forgets her heroes will lose her direction, her strength, and her spirit.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to thank my friend, Senator Mikulski, for her work on this issue. You have called attention to a solemn and critically important issue, and I commend you and join with you in your commitment to ensure that we provide a real and meaningful death gratuity to the families of our brave young men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. And I also share your commitment to ensure that those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice are not forced to pay again--to the IRS, in the form of taxation of these gratuity payments. Unfortunately, addressing the tax treatment of these payments on this bill could raise procedural hurdles to getting this bill signed into law as quickly as possible. But as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I pledge to work with you, Senator Baucus in his role as ranking member, and the rest of the Finance Committee and Congress to ensure that these gratuity payments will not be subject to Federal tax and to enact any necessary changes at the earliest possible date on the first available vehicle. I look forward to working with the gentlelady to resolve this issue expeditiously.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give Federal judges the discretion to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of Federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary. Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the Federal courts. Allowing cameras in the Federal courtrooms is consistent with our Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news media. The Constitution and Supreme Court have said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American values of openness and education are served by using electronic media in Federal courtrooms. There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our Federal courts. Fifteen States conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits derived from camera access courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moreover, the widespread use in State court proceedings show that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all 50 states allow for some modern audio-visual coverage of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for over 20 years. Further, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras in a select number of Federal courts. That study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in the right direction. Since then, the Supreme Court has allowed for audio broadcasting in other landmark cases. Other courts have followed suit, such as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public knowledge and discussion. We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well- founded confidence based on the experience of the States as well as State and Federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the provisions of the bill permanent. It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony. So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise their discretion to permit camera in appropriate cases. The bill protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the experience of the States and the Federal courts. And the bill's net result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial system, where the Federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by opening up the Federal courtrooms to public view through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of my constituents, James W. Carney, an attorney practicing in Des Moines, IA, recently requested that I bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate some aspects of the medical malpractice situation in Iowa he believes should be more widely known. I ask unanimous consent that his March 30 letter to me, and his e-mail to John Whitaker, a Representative in the Iowa State House of Representatives, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give Federal judges the discretion to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of Federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary. Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the Federal courts. Allowing cameras in the Federal courtrooms is consistent with our Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news media. The Constitution and Supreme Court have said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American values of openness and education are served by using electronic media in Federal courtrooms. There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our Federal courts. Fifteen States conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits derived from camera access courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moreover, the widespread use in State court proceedings show that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all 50 states allow for some modern audio-visual coverage of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for over 20 years. Further, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras in a select number of Federal courts. That study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in the right direction. Since then, the Supreme Court has allowed for audio broadcasting in other landmark cases. Other courts have followed suit, such as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public knowledge and discussion. We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well- founded confidence based on the experience of the States as well as State and Federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the provisions of the bill permanent. It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony. So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise their discretion to permit camera in appropriate cases. The bill protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the experience of the States and the Federal courts. And the bill's net result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial system, where the Federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by opening up the Federal courtrooms to public view through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I speak in remembrance of an Iowan who has died in service to his country. A member of the 212th Military Police Company, SSG Shane Koele died on the 16th of March from injuries sustained when his military vehicle ran over a land mine the day before near Shindand, Afghanistan. He was 25 years old and is survived by a wife, Cheryl, a young daughter, Kiley, a mother, Mary Donnenwerth, a father, Keith Koele, and two sisters. Staff Sergeant Koele grew up in Hartley, IA, and graduated in 1998 from Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn High School. He attended college at Northwestern College and Wayne State before joining the Army. After serving in Iraq for 6 months in 2003, Shane returned home to get married. He was sent to Afghanistan on March 13, 2005. SSG Shane Koele is remembered by family and friends as a true hero. President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.'' Today, we don't have to look far. We have only to remember with pride SSG Shane Koele and all those who have died in courageous service to their country. As his family and friends grieve their loss, I can only offer my prayers and my gratitude.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen soldier, SSG Donald D. Griffith, Jr., a member of B Troop, 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA. Staff Sergeant Griffith died on March 11, 2005, in Tal Afar, Iraq, when his dismounted patrol was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire. My heart goes out to his parents and family, who reside in Mechanicsville, IA, and his wife in Lakewood, WA. Today, this Nation remembers and honors a man who sacrificed his life to defend his fellow soldiers and his country. With the death of Donald Griffith, this Nation lost a hero. We know that there is no greater gift than the laying down of one's life for another. Staff Sergeant Griffith has given us that gift and we are forever grateful for his sacrifice. I ask that my colleagues join me reflecting on the memory of Donald D. Griffith, Jr. as we extend our thoughts and prayers to his family and friends.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the effect of this amendment is obviously to take the reconciliation process out of the budget. The reconciliation process is going to guarantee to the Senate the opportunities to get things done that need to be done without making tax issues a political football. That tax policy was made in 2001 and 2003 to keep that current law. We have seen too many times that laws that have widespread political support are filibustered and do not get passed.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is amazing to me that this is the second time tonight that we have had people who are standing around wanting to change the Medicare Modernization Act, and it does not even go into effect until the 2006. We do not even know that all this money my colleague wants to save will ever be spent in the first place, and if it is spent, it is to bring the plans to rural Wisconsin so that his folks in rural Wisconsin can have the same benefits as people in Florida or Los Angeles. It was a major compromise of this bill. We ought to preserve that compromise because it is for rural America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Enzi, and I filed our amendment dealing with the defined benefit plan reform proposals in this budget. The amendment provides the necessary flexibility with respect to revenues and outlay savings between our two committees. Unfortunately, a last-minute objection from staff on the other side sidetracked our amendment. We will pursue this amendment in the conference on the resolution. vote explanation

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and join Senator Baucus and our colleagues in offering this Sense of the Senate resolution calling for full funding of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. In all areas the President proposes and Congress disposes, and the budget is no different. While I support the President's efforts to control Federal spending to address the budget deficit, I have concerns about how some of his proposals would affect law enforcement efforts to identify, arrest, and prosecute drug trafficking organizations selling their poison to our kids and grand kids. I think it is critically important that we not hinder their ability to protect citizens, especially from the dangers of drugs. In particular, the proposal to transfer to the Department of Justice and reduce the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program--also known as the HIDTA program--would have a major impact on drug enforcement efforts. With the continued growth of meth in Iowa and throughout the Midwest, we cannot afford to reduce programs designed to increase cooperation and coordination. Just as modem technology allows our businesses and our citizens to freely move around the country, the criminal element within the United States can take advantages of these same opportunities. That's why it is essential that they be able to work together, across jurisdictions, so that our laws against drug trafficking can be effectively enforced. Congress provided the Office of National Drug Control Policy with the responsibility for the management--and effectiveness--of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. For a relatively modest investment, Federal, State, and local law enforcement have tremendously benefitted from the increased information sharing and improved coordination that HIDTAs create. The task forces created through the HIDTA program can serve as models for initiatives against terrorism, money laundering, and other modem threats to civil society. This amendment is consistent with the views expressed by the Budget Committee. It is consistent with the views expressed in the legislation introduced last year to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment. Amendment No. 197