Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to re- introduce the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act--or the NESTEG bill as we call it in the Finance Committee. The NESTEG bill would reform our pension and retirement savings laws in several important ways. For example, NESTEG would require companies to allow their employees to diversify out of company stock, a provision that the Committee adopted in response to the events at Enron which saw employees' retirement plans vanish almost over night. The NESTEG bill also includes other important participant protections, including enhanced disclosure requirements, new rules governing so-called blackout periods, and faster vesting of employer contributions. In addition, NESTEG expands the portability of retirement plan assets so that workers can keep money saved for retirement, and simplifies pension laws and regulation. The NESTEG bill also responds to the uncertainty in the rules governing defined benefit pensions by permanently adopting the yield curve as a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate. Last year, the Finance Committee unanimously approved the NESTEG bill. This year, I am looking forward to seeing it signed into law. This bill first began in the wake of the outrageous events that went on in the wake of the collapse of Enron and corporate scandals at other companies. Over the past few years, the Finance Committee has worked diligently to enact reforms in a number of areas of the law to make sure that events like that don't happen again. The important pension protections in the NESTEG bill are one remaining area for reform. The headlines have died down, but workers' pensions are still too vulnerable to company failures. Thus, a central piece of this bill would allow employees to diversify their retirement plans so that they are not overly concentrated in company stock. Diversification is one of the hallmark principles of sound investment strategy, and promoting diversification should be a hallmark of our pension laws. But the NESTEG bill is not just a bill that responds to Enron-like situations. The NESTEG bill includes other important improvements to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans as well. The bill makes it easier for employees to transfer amounts from one plan to another, thereby making sure that plan assets remain saved for retirement. And the bill includes provisions designed to make it easier and more cost effective for small businesses to sponsor a retirement plan. Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we need to encourage a level playing field so that workers at small businesses throughout our country have the same access to retirement plans as workers at Fortune 500 companies. The NESTEG bill also would remove a major source of uncertainty plaguing our pension system by enacting the yield curve as a permanent replacement to the 30-year Treasury rate for pension funding. Workers need reliable pension funding, and employers need a reliable basis on which to calculate pension payments. The NESTEG bill also gives plan sponsors more flexibility to fund their plans well in good times, and restricts the ability of companies with severely underfunded plans to promise more benefits to work. The Administration has recently come forward with additional pension funding reform proposals, and I look forward to examining those reforms as the Finance Committee considers legislation in this area this year. Retirement security is a topic that is going to get a great deal of attention this year. We know we need to increase long-term savings in America, and we know that there are ways that we can improve our private retirement system. The reforms in the NESTEG bill that I am introducing today with Senator Baucus represent an important step forward in improving Americans' retirement security. As we debate retirement security issues this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the goal of ensuring that all Americans achieve a secure retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to re- introduce the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act--or the NESTEG bill as we call it in the Finance Committee. The NESTEG bill would reform our pension and retirement savings laws in several important ways. For example, NESTEG would require companies to allow their employees to diversify out of company stock, a provision that the Committee adopted in response to the events at Enron which saw employees' retirement plans vanish almost over night. The NESTEG bill also includes other important participant protections, including enhanced disclosure requirements, new rules governing so-called blackout periods, and faster vesting of employer contributions. In addition, NESTEG expands the portability of retirement plan assets so that workers can keep money saved for retirement, and simplifies pension laws and regulation. The NESTEG bill also responds to the uncertainty in the rules governing defined benefit pensions by permanently adopting the yield curve as a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate. Last year, the Finance Committee unanimously approved the NESTEG bill. This year, I am looking forward to seeing it signed into law. This bill first began in the wake of the outrageous events that went on in the wake of the collapse of Enron and corporate scandals at other companies. Over the past few years, the Finance Committee has worked diligently to enact reforms in a number of areas of the law to make sure that events like that don't happen again. The important pension protections in the NESTEG bill are one remaining area for reform. The headlines have died down, but workers' pensions are still too vulnerable to company failures. Thus, a central piece of this bill would allow employees to diversify their retirement plans so that they are not overly concentrated in company stock. Diversification is one of the hallmark principles of sound investment strategy, and promoting diversification should be a hallmark of our pension laws. But the NESTEG bill is not just a bill that responds to Enron-like situations. The NESTEG bill includes other important improvements to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans as well. The bill makes it easier for employees to transfer amounts from one plan to another, thereby making sure that plan assets remain saved for retirement. And the bill includes provisions designed to make it easier and more cost effective for small businesses to sponsor a retirement plan. Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we need to encourage a level playing field so that workers at small businesses throughout our country have the same access to retirement plans as workers at Fortune 500 companies. The NESTEG bill also would remove a major source of uncertainty plaguing our pension system by enacting the yield curve as a permanent replacement to the 30-year Treasury rate for pension funding. Workers need reliable pension funding, and employers need a reliable basis on which to calculate pension payments. The NESTEG bill also gives plan sponsors more flexibility to fund their plans well in good times, and restricts the ability of companies with severely underfunded plans to promise more benefits to work. The Administration has recently come forward with additional pension funding reform proposals, and I look forward to examining those reforms as the Finance Committee considers legislation in this area this year. Retirement security is a topic that is going to get a great deal of attention this year. We know we need to increase long-term savings in America, and we know that there are ways that we can improve our private retirement system. The reforms in the NESTEG bill that I am introducing today with Senator Baucus represent an important step forward in improving Americans' retirement security. As we debate retirement security issues this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the goal of ensuring that all Americans achieve a secure retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act. The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years. The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up to age 21. The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at 300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and provides coverage for children up to age 18. I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year. The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative'' agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership. It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services. Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. These parents are hard working taxpayers. There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults with a child with a disability. The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and customized durable medical equipment. Children with significant disabilities need these services in order to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of society. Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children. Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help realize this goal for these children. The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in the Medicaid program. Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide families through the maze of programs and networks associated with the challenges of raising a child with a disability. The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of numerous family and child advocacy groups. This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act. The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years. The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up to age 21. The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at 300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and provides coverage for children up to age 18. I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year. The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative'' agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership. It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services. Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. These parents are hard working taxpayers. There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults with a child with a disability. The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and customized durable medical equipment. Children with significant disabilities need these services in order to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of society. Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children. Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help realize this goal for these children. The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in the Medicaid program. Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide families through the maze of programs and networks associated with the challenges of raising a child with a disability. The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of numerous family and child advocacy groups. This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in the tradition of the work of the Senate Finance Committee--and that is basically described in one word, bipartisanship--we bring this nomination to the floor. We bring it with the unanimous approval of everybody on the committee, saying that Governor Leavitt should be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is a person who is very well qualified for this position, and we look forward to working with him on all of the quality-of-life issues that come before Congress, whether they deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare--issues that are under the jurisdiction of this new Secretary to administer, and issues that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee for oversight. During his tenure as Governor, he reduced the number of uninsured children through his work on the Children's Health Insurance Program, he made significant improvements to the child welfare system, and he significantly increased the number of those with health insurance coverage. So some of the things he has done as Governor are some of the things that we are working on in this committee, and some laws are already passed. He will have a chance to continue his good work on these issues in conjunction with us as a committee and directly himself as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I am not alone in my high estimation of Governor Leavitt. The people of Utah recognize his strong leadership capabilities in reelecting him to three consecutive terms as Governor. Certainly big challenges lie ahead for this Department, as it does for our committee, and strong leadership in that Department is needed. I am glad it comes with Governor Leavitt. First and foremost, there are an estimated 45 million Americans who lack basic health coverage, and those numbers seem to have been increasing every year. As Secretary, his leadership will be called upon to propose innovative ways that we can help contain costs and increase access to health insurance and the health care resulting from that insurance. The Medicaid Program will also be a key issue this year. Medicaid provides health care coverage and benefits for low-income individuals and families. It is now the largest Federal care program in terms of total spending and served about 51,000 people in 2002. It was originally enacted in 1965, and many have suggested it has not kept up with the times. Increasingly, States have been forced to rely upon what we call the 1115 waiver process to manage the program to fit the needs of their State. These waivers are negotiated with little congressional oversight. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt to ensure that the Medicaid Program is functioning as effectively as it ought to function. There is the issue of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Madam President, $1.1 billion in SCHIP allotments expired last year and were returned to the Treasury. In addition, there are anywhere from 4 million to 6 million children currently uninsured who could qualify for this program. Over the next 3 years, a growing number of States, including my own State of Iowa, are projected to consume their Federal SCHIP allotment. When this happens, they will lack the Federal funds necessary to provide their current level of coverage and also the level of benefits for low-income children. We need to recapture the $1.1 billion in SCHIP funds, increase our outreach effort to enroll more children, and revitalize the SCHIP program so it is on firm financial footing. Finally, we need to enact improvements to the 1996 welfare reform bill. We have debated this issue now for 3 years. It is time for action. The numerous short-term extensions are disruptive to the program. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt to get a welfare bill sent to the President this year. I think that process is starting with the usual bipartisan cooperation between Senator Baucus's side of the aisle and his leadership and the Republicans who I lead. The Department also has the important job of implementing the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Under Dr. McClellan's leadership, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has accomplished an impressive workload over the last year. Dr. McClellan and the staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are to be commended for their long hours, hard work, and, most importantly, a dedication to doing the best they can. This is a crucial year for the drug benefit that was passed and signed by the President in 2003. I look forward to working with the Governor on this particular issue and continuing the close working relationship with Dr. McClellan. Medicare still faces significant challenges to be sure. Medicare spending grew by 5.7 percent in 2003, and as spending continues to increase, there is a growing need to restrain its growth. Many have said rising costs and health care can be contained and health care quality improved by paying providers based on their performance and by utilizing health information technology. The Department has taken significant steps to reduce health care costs and provide better care through chronic care management initiatives and additional preventive benefits that were in the 2003 legislation. The Department also called upon Dr. Brailer, as the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, to develop, maintain, and oversee a plan focused on a nationwide adoption of health information technology in both the public and private sectors. Bringing these initiatives together to reward quality and efficiency while reducing medical errors and duplication will be one of the major undertakings in health care over the next decade, and strong leadership at Health and Human Services is needed to make that happen. Another issue on which the Governor's leadership is needed is the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other developed nations. That surely is a controversial issue that hopefully we can debate in the Senate, because the law must be changed to make that happen. American consumers are demanding lower prices for prescription drugs, and I believe that legalizing importation under conditions that ensure safety is the right thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft legislation that will pass Congress and be signed by the President. I would also be remiss if I did not address an issue that continues to be of great concern. The frail and elderly residing in our Nation's nursing homes deserve high-quality care. I am confident that with Governor Leavitt's help, we can ensure that they receive no less. Besides these issues, the Department faces other significant challenges. I have always taken responsibility of conducting oversight over the executive branch operations very seriously, and I will continue to do that as chairman again. Government truly is the people's business, and Americans have the right to know what their Government is doing and how it spends their money. Transparency in Government, coupled with aggressive oversight by Congress, is critically important in helping to make Government transparent, more effective, more efficient, and more accountable to the taxpayers, program participants, and beneficiaries. I am also a firm and ardent supporter of whistleblowers. Historically, whistleblowers have been key to uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, whistleblowers are often as welcome in an agency as a skunk at a picnic. I look forward to addressing these problems with Governor Leavitt. Taking a closer look at Medicaid, SCHIP improvement, implementation of the new drug benefit, importation of prescription drugs, enactment of welfare reform, and the advancement of information technology and quality in health care as a reimbursement tool are just some of the priorities I look forward to addressing with Governor Leavitt. I close by urging my fellow colleagues to support Governor Leavitt in his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is a major commitment that requires personal sacrifices on many levels, although I believe Governor Leavitt and his wife Jackie are the right team for this job. I also thank President Bush for his choice of such a qualified and competent candidate. I thank Senator Baucus not only for his cooperation on this effort, but we have had 4 years now of cooperative effort, and we expect that to continue. I know he is committed to that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules for the Committee on Finance, for the 109th Congress, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in remembrance of a brave Iowan who has left his countrymen to join the ranks of those who have paid the highest price in the defense of freedom. Sergeant Thomas Eugene Houser was a native of Council Bluffs, IA and was killed on January 3, 2005, in action against enemy forces in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was twenty-two years old. An active young man, SGT Houser participated in football, wrestling, and track while attending St. Albert's Catholic High School and is remembered by his family and friends as a compassionate soul who, as his mother says, could ``talk to anyone.'' As a boy, he dreamed of following in the tradition of military service set by his father and grandfather, a dream which he fulfilled courageously as a member of the 1st Marine Division. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Iowans in remembering SGT Houser. My prayers go out to his family and friends who feel his loss so deeply. Such men as Thomas Houser inspire us to hold in ever higher esteem the ideals of freedom and service. His valor shall certainly not be forgotten. Private First Class Gunnar Becker

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor CWO David H. Gardner Jr., an Iowa native who was killed when his UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter went down near Fort Hood in Texas. A 1991 graduate of Mason City High School in Mason City, IA, David Gardner served as a helicopter pilot assigned to the 4th Infantry Division's A Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Aviation Regiment. He had previously served in the Iowa National Guard before going on active duty in the 1990s. From October of 2003 until the following April, Chief Warrant Officer Gardner served his country in Iraq. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans to join me today in paying tribute to Chief Warrant Officer Gardner. My deepest sympathy goes out to his friends and family, and particularly the 7-year-old daughter he leaves behind. It is my hope that she grows up knowing of the tremendous sacrifice her father made for his country and the deep appreciation America has for him. Chief Warrant Officer Gardner will always be honored as a hero who gave his life for his country, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a heroic American, SPC Daryl Davis, a fellow Iowan originally from Spencer, IA. A member of the 144th Transportation Company of the Florida Army National Guard, Specialist Davis was killed November 29, 2004 when his Humvee was involved in an accident traveling between military camps in Iraq. Specialist Davis was serving as a gunner when the accident occurred. Daryl Davis graduated from Spencer High school and enlisted in the Iowa National Guard at age 17 before transferring to Florida earlier this year. Specialist Davis is survived by his mother and father, Dana Davis and Richard Rosado, as well as two brothers. I know that he will be deeply missed by his family and friends. My thoughts and prayers are with them. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and my fellow Americans to join me in remembering Specialist Davis and the enormous sacrifice he made for his country. Many people thought very highly of Specialist Davis and he will always be remembered for his willingness to serve others. The United States owes its continued prosperity to Specialist Davis and others like him who are willing to advance our ideals at great personal cost. Daryl Davis will be remembered as a great patriot and it is fitting that we honor him today. Marine Sergeant Nick Nolte

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a fine Iowan and American. Tim Turner, formerly of Iowa, has been selected for his photographic skills to represent the United States in the First International Culinary Competition. This competition brings together professional culinary photographers from around the globe to bring to life the elements of wine and food in unique settings. The artists will be judged by professional chefs, members of the press, and the general public. Mr. Turner began his interest in photography while at Heelen High School in Sioux City, IA, and pursued it further at the University of Iowa and the Brooks Institute of Photography. By combining his passion for cuisine with his keen eye for photography he has received major recognition for his work. His photographs have appeared in over 40 cookbooks and he has been nominated three times for the prestigious Beard Award and received a Beard Award for best food photography in a cookbook. Commenting about his photograph selected for the competition, Turner stated: The human touch is vital to the authenticity of the food we eat, the wines we drink and the heirlooms we treasure. These are the connections to the heart and soul of mankind. This photograph, uses a patchwork (quilt) as a metaphor for the connection between food and wine, all are united by tradition, in methods, techniques, knowledge and cultural influences, passed through the generations. The patchwork (quilt), sewn for the occasion, was created from scraps of old fabric, clothes and my photographs reproduced on fabric. Set in a timeless space, the chair invites the viewer to explore and enjoy. The competition is being organized by the Beaujolais winemaking region of France and competitors from 12 countries including Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Finland, Great Britain, and France are displaying their artistic photographs. I want to encourage my colleagues to log on to the website at http:// lauriers.beaujolais.com/en to learn more about the competition and to vote for the United States contestant Tim Turner. The winner will be decided on February 1, 2005. I ask that you please join me in supporting Mr. Turner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think the Senate should be assured. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak in strong opposition to a very troubling provision in this bill that will potentially take away American taxpayers' right to privacy regarding their personal income tax return. The section I refer to is Section 222 of the bill. This section will allow any agent designated by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee access to tax returns and tax return information. Section 222 provides this sweeping new authority while at the same time it throws aside years of detailed strict statutory protections for taxpayers that also ensure the privacy of taxpayer information. Given that the language in this section can be interpreted to eliminate all restrictions on access to taxpayer information and publication of taxpayer information, there is nothing to prohibit the Appropriations Committee from obtaining taxpayer information, information about a corporation, information about an individual and releasing it to the press without fear of penalty. There is no reason that the Appropriations Committee cannot obtain taxpayer information, your 1040, and just posting it on the Web. This poorly drafted and even more poorly conceived legislation will bring us back to the doorstep of the days of Nixon, Truman and similar dark periods in our tax history when tax return information was used as a club against political enemies. My colleagues may find these concerns over the top but I can assure you that when it comes to protection of taxpayer information the history has been a very troubling one and it is only through constant vigilance that we have been able to give Americans confidence that their tax return information will be protected and private. I find it especially troubling that this language which will harm the volunteer tax system and make the work of the IRS harder comes in an appropriations bill that fails to even provide the the full funding requested for the IRS by President Bush. What is more important, providing more money to the IRS to combat tax shelters, or allowing Appropriations staffers the right to dance through private citizens' tax returns at will? This is an outrage. Just so my colleagues understand the claim for this language is that it is to allow the appropriations committee with access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the ability to examine individual tax returns, data or information. This is the statement that was made in colloquy between the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the other body. The statement between the two members further states that it is the intent of the Appropriations Committees that all access to taxpayer information remains governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. For my colleagues information, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally governs and protects taxpayer information. What is particularly frustrating is that Section 6103 already provides the Appropriations Committee a means to have access to taxpayer information--within the protections and limitations provided by law to protect taxpayer privacy. The Appropriations Committee can seek permission for access to taxpayer information from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or myself, in the Senate, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I have received no request for access to taxpayer information from the Appropriations Committee during my time as chairman. However, I would say that my colleagues know my reputation for oversight and encouraging oversight and I have been very open minded about granting such requests. In addition, any committee can appeal for such authority to the House or Senate for authority--that also has never taken place by the Appropriations Committee to my knowledge. Again, if that authority is granted the protections provided under Section 6103 are still in place. This provision in the omnibus bill reflects a mindset that Members or, more likely, their staff--don't want to be bothered with such longstanding successful mechanisms to provide access for legitimate congressional oversight and have instead opted for the ``easy way out.'' And let me be clear, the ``easy way out'' contained in this bill will jeopardize taxpayer privacy and taxpayer information. Let me make a final point. This section places the Commissioner of the IRS in the position of possibly forcing him to violate the law under Section 6103. The Commissioner of the IRS is still covered by Section 6103 and the penalties for improper disclosure. It is my early review of this language that this Section 222 will put the Commissioner in the position of an improper release of tax information in violation of 6103. In such a case it is my view that the Commissioner should not release any tax information under this Section 222. They say haste makes waste. In this case, with Section 222, haste has made a hash of years of efforts to protect taxpayer information and ensuring that taxpayer information is kept private. It is disgraceful that all this is being done because some Members of the Congress can't be bothered with following the simple rules in place to protect taxpayer information. Now, I have been satisfied since this has come to our attention that this goes much further than what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has desired, or even more so, that he was not aware of the sweep of this legislation and that it will be corrected shortly in other action taken by this body under the leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and presumably, I am also told, with the adherence of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. So this may no longer be an issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I do. But I want to say thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY. To the Senator from Arizona, I cannot disagree with what he says. But we do have a bill before us. And the fact is, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has assured me--and he is a man of his word--that he is going to take action to get this out of here. That does not detract anything from what the Senator from Arizona said about the bill, but I am satisfied as far as this egregious provision being taken care of.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I listen to the debate tonight about Section 222, which invades the privacy rights of taxpayers, I would like to point out an important lesson in all of this. The lesson is that tax measures should be left to the tax writing committees. Only the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have the jurisdiction and the technical expertise to write our Nation's tax laws. And tax laws are technical. As Section 222 in this bill shows, one had better know what they are doing when they write a tax provision. They had better understand the history of the measure and all of its ramifications. In the Finance Committee, we use great care in drafting our tax provisions, and we do it in an open manner. All members can see what we are doing and have a chance to understand why we are doing it, and to comment on it. But frequently the Finance Committee has to go through a rite of scrubbing appropriations bills to remove poorly conceived and poorly drafted tax provisions that try to sneak in at the dark of night. It is not just appropriations bill where this occurs. It happens on many other bills as well. Often, these provisions have been rejected by the Finance Committees as bad policy, only to turn up in an unseen attack on our committee's jurisdiction. As the bill shows tonight, it is not necessarily Members that do this. It is sometimes staff who add an idea. This allows staff to bypass the scrutiny of the entire Finance Committee; 21 senior Members of the Senate are deprived of their right to pass judgment on a tax measure. Let me give some examples of what we have had to fend off lately. Last week, we had to defeat an appropriations proposal that would have cut off funding for Federal agencies that help the IRS obtain information about Americans investing in foreign countries. That measure would have undercut U.S. tax law enforcement and damaged our initiatives to combat tax shelters. It would have damaged our international competitiveness and undermined our Nation's efforts to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing. I am confident that the proponents of this measure never knew about its broader ramifications. But that is what happens when tax proposals evade the scrutiny of the Finance Committee. Here is another example. Recently, the Armed Services Committee sought to create a charity for assisting servicemen and their families. On its face, this is certainly a good cause that we can all support.Unfortunately, the statutory language drafted by the Armed Services Committee had very serious flaws and was unworkable under the Tax Code. It was only after significant time and energy by the Finance Committee, exerted after the fact, that we fixed something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place. If Members will learn to work with the Finance Committee, instead of bypassing it, we can usually achieve the results they seek. Here is an example. The House Appropriations Committee tried to expand the definition of census areas for determining eligibility for a certain tax program. This provision was not agreed to by the Senate Appropriators. The provision was later passed in the JOBS bill. This highlights that we try in good faith to work with Members who will work with the committee. So let me send a very clear message. The controversy around this appropriations bill should serve as a warning to all who would bypass the jurisdiction and expertise of the congressional tax writing committees. We work to defeat stealth tax measures not just to protect our committee's jurisdiction, but to protect the American people from bad ideas. In the Senate it is the Finance Committee, and only the Finance Committee, that has the experience, expertise, and seasoned resources to process tax laws for our Nation. Members and staff should remember today's events the next time they are approached to insert a ``harmless'' tax measure into an unrelated bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Iowan, Marine Cpl Jarrod Maher, who gave his life for his country in Iraq, and to express my heartfelt sympathy to his family. A native of Imogene, IA, Corporal Maher was serving in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib as a member of the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force stationed in Camp Pendleton, CA. Only 2 weeks after his graduation from Shenandoah High School, Maher became a marine. Corporal Maher is survived by his father and mother, Kevin and Jacque Maher, as well as numerous siblings. Jarrod Maher will be missed by a great many people. His service and sacrifice represent Iowa at its best. In describing him, his father, Kevin Maher said, ``He loved being a Marine, but he also loved coming home. He loved the farm. He loved to help.'' In honor of Jarrod's spirit of selflessness, I ask my colleagues in the Senate and my fellow Americans to join me in paying respect to Marine Cpl Jarrod Maher.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the House and Senate are considering whether to approve the conference report to H.R. 4818. H.R. 4818 is what is commonly called in the Congress an omnibus appropriations bill. Basically, an omnibus bill rolls a number of other bills into a single legislative vehicle for an up-or-down vote on the final package. It is a method frequently used by the Appropriations Committee at the end of the legislative session after the committee has failed to complete its work in regular order. It enables the Appropriations Committee to appropriate funds at the end of the year. Without this appropriation, the Government would shut down. So, it is must pass legislation. Work on this bill was completed last night around midnight. Since that time, my Finance Committee staff has been scouring the package to determine whether there are any provisions within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee in the bill. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee often includes authorizing language on matters within the jurisdiction of my committee, but fails to notify us. The result is usually poorly drafted and short-sighted provisions, many of which have unintended effects. Unfortunately, this year is no different. Let's just take one area--international trade. A few years ago, the Appropriations Committee included an amendment which required that monies collected as countervailing duties and antidumping duties be distributed to the petitioners who filed the underlying cases. Many of our trading partners thought this provision violated our international obligations because it enables petitioning industries to not only have duties placed against competing imports, but to also receive these duties. The World Trade Organization agreed and found the amendment to be contrary to our trade obligations. Nevertheless, the law is still on the books. As a result, many of our export industries may face retaliatory sanctions. As I said, this amendment was slipped into an appropriations conference report without full debate in the Senate. The Finance Committee, as the committee of jurisdiction and the committee with expertise in international trade, never had a chance to review the amendment. Now, I'm not surprised that a bill that was never considered by the committee of expertise or even the full Senate was found to violate our international commitments. But, even aside from the WTO ruling, there are a number of other problems with the way the amendment operates. For example, earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in which it found that, regardless of the economic harm which can be caused by retaliation, the amendment is detrimental to the overall economic welfare of the United States. An earlier report issued by the Department of Treasury Inspector General found that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection made $25 million in overpayments when disbursing funds. The report also faulted the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection because qualifying expenditures claimed by domestic producers are not verified on a routine basis. So, there are a lot of problems with the way this program functions that are totally independent from our WTO obligations. But because the Finance Committee never had an opportunity to review the amendment, these problems were never addressed. Instead of working with the Committee to address these problems, they took a different tack. In this year's omnibus appropriations bill they decided to require our United States Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce to negotiate the right for WTO members to distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing duty measures. In short, they are directing our trade negotiators to go back to the negotiating table and try to negotiate for something which we have already lost. I doubt our trading partners will be sympathetic. The Appropriations Committee also required the Office of the United States Trade Representative to create a new position of Chief Negotiator for Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement. Now, this may be good idea--but, again the Finance Committee has not had an opportunity to review this provision so we do not know if this is an appropriate use of government resources or not. We do know that the decision about whether to create new trade negotiating positions is up to the Finance Committee, not the Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately Mr. President, these provisions are just exemplary. There are many other provisions in the bill dealing with international trade that, frankly, should not be in there. Whatever position you may take on the merits of these provisions, international trade negotiations and antidumping and countervailing duty laws are plainly matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance. The vast trade implications of these provisions were not carefully weighed by the Committee on Finance. This is bad precedent--and I sincerely hope we will not see similar actions in the future.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Federal Government has a long- standing obligation to monitor the purity, safety, and effectiveness of the medicines that are available to the public. For this reason, I would like to express my opposition to S. 2989, the Truth in Trials Act. This legislation reverses almost 100 years of progress that we have made by undermining any scientific evidence about medicine and replacing it with popular referendums passed by slick ad campaigns. There was a time in this country when individuals and businesses could market anything as a medicine and make any claim for its effectiveness. Because of this, a flood of narcotics and stimulants were freely marketed as nostrums sold over the counter and through the mail. Often these ``miracle cures'' were miscellaneous concoctions made from unknown ingredients. In addition, these nostrums were often accompanied by endless testimonials from satisfied customers on how well these products performed. Thankfully, our grandparents and great-grandparents, who had to deal with these practices, woke up to the fraud that was being perpetrated on the public by these ``snake-oil salesmen.'' These dangerous drugs were creating a major addiction problem, and the unknown ingredients in these cures were actually doing a great deal of harm. In response to demands from the public, truth in labeling was born. Consumers in the early 1900s took steps to ban dangerous drugs to determine what drugs had medical uses that could be demonstrated to be safe and effective. Based on this experience, the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDCA, of 1906 was passed, which required food and medicines be pure, and the contents of medicines be labeled. In 1938, the FDCA was amended to add the requirement that all medicines be safe, and the Food and Drug Administration was created to regulate this. In 1962, the FDCA was further amended by the Harris-Kefauver amendment, which added an additional requirement that any medicine must also be effective, and further required the FDA to establish efficacy standards. Furthermore, a variety of laws were passed to deal with the distribution of dangerous drugs. The first of these was the Harrison Narcotics Control Act of 1914. The next major piece of legislation on drug control was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. These and other laws covering various types of drugs were replaced in 1970 when the Controlled Substances Act was signed into law. This Act further defined the process that a substance had to go through to become an acceptable medicine. In addition, a five-tier scheduling system for all pharmacological substances was established, allowing for the categorizing of all medicines and other pharmacological substances based on their abuse potential and accepted use as a medicine. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we will no longer have unscrupulous business enterprises that promise salvation through snake- oil products. Over the past 60 years, the FDA has developed a careful, proven method for testing and approving drugs. This process is the standard by which the rest of the world measures the safety and effectiveness of their drug approval system. Americans today have the world's safest, most effective system of medical practice, built on a process of scientific research, testing, and oversight that is unequaled. Every drug prescribed as medicine in this country must be tested according to scientifically rigorous protocols to ensure that it is safe and effective before it can be sold. To this date, over 15,000 scientific, peer-reviewed studies into the medicinal value of marijuana have been published, and not one demonstrates that smoking marijuana has any medicinal value for any condition. In fact, there is medical evidence to suggest that marijuana may actually aggravate some of the conditions it is supposed treat. On top of all that, there are legal, effective medicines that are already currently available and meet all of the guidelines that have been established by the FDA. This includes Marinol, which is a legally available, FDA-approved form of a marijuana extract that is currently being used as a treatment for nausea and AIDS wasting syndrome. In addition, there are many other medicines that have been developed and received FDA approval that do not have the hallucinogenic side effects that come with smoking marijuana. These are medicines that meet scientific standards and do not rely on anecdotes and testimony for validation. Certainly, we all want to provide relief for people who are sick and dying, but smoking marijuana has not been scientifically proven to have any medicinal value. By allowing patients and caregivers to use and provide marijuana through the political process, we clearly bypass the safeguards established by the FDA to protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and other efforts to legalize marijuana.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate the Senator raising this issue with me. I am happy to work with the Senator from Kentucky and the Commerce Department to ensure that an appropriate and timely analysis is completed. I recognize that the duty suspensions in question take effect on January 1, 2005. If the results of this analysis demonstrate that the inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 1047 was inappropriate, I will gladly work with him to try and rectify the situation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, commonly called the miscellaneous tariff bill. This legislation has traveled a long and difficult road to get to the floor today. In fact, the journey began over 2\1/2\ years ago when Senator Baucus chaired the Finance Committee. The Senate historically passes a miscellaneous tariff bill at the end of every Congress. The bill under consideration today was supposed to pass at the end of the 107th Congress. However, it was left as unfinished business for the current Congress. Upon resuming the chairmanship of the Finance Committee, my intention was to complete unfinished business from the 107th Congress as quickly as possible. To that end, we passed the bill out of Committee by voice vote on February 27, 2003. We hoped that early passage of this bill would pave the way for consideration of another miscellaneous tariff bill in the 108th Congress. But that was not meant to be. Throughout the remainder of the Congress we faced significant delays and stall tactics. In March 2004, over a year after the bill was reported out of the Finance Committee, we reached agreement and passed the bill by unanimous consent. But quick conference consideration was not meant to be. We were forced to wait another 6 months before we could go to conference with the House. The conference committee quickly reached an agreement in October and the House passed the conference report shortly thereafter. However, Senate action was further delayed until today. Happily, it looks like the bill is finally near the end of its journey as we appear to be on the verge of passing this bill as one of the last orders of business for the 108th. At this point, it might be interesting to reflect on what the Senate Finance Committee has been able to accomplish on trade during the time it took to pass this bill. During the first session of the 108th Congress, we were able to complete work on the Clean Diamond Trade Act, legislation designed to help thwart trade in conflict diamonds. We also implemented two free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. In addition, we enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which put in place an import ban on products from Burma in an effort to help stop human rights abuses and the repression of democracy in that country. During the second session of the 108th Congress, we enacted the Africa Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act, which continues trade preferences for some of the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa. We also implemented two trade agreements with Australia and Morocco and brought the United States into compliance with an adverse WTO ruling in the FSC/ETI case through passage of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. There is no doubt that Senate passage of the conference report on the MTB will be a nice capstone to what has already been a highly successful Congress on trade. This package contains many trade provisions, primarily duty suspensions, reductions and extensions, for products that are not produced domestically. This bill supports American factories and workers by allowing manufacturers to save money when they import these products. Each of these provisions went through an extensive vetting process including a public notice and comment period to ensure that they did not compete with domestic manufacturers. The bill also contains a number of liquidations or reliquidations for certain entries. The general rule for inclusion here is that the product entered the country under an incorrect duty rate due to Customs or other administrative error. These provisions allow those entries to enter the country at the correct duty rate. There are several some other very important provisions in this bill. The bill grants the President the authority to provide permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, for Armenia. Armenia recently joined the World Trade Organization. But, in order to reap the benefits of their accession, the United States needs to extend PNTR to Armenia. This legislation provides the President with the authority to grant that extension. I also hope we will be able to consider similar treatment for Azerbaijan in the very near future. The bill also extends normal trade relations to Laos. Last year the Bush administration signed a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with Laos, an agreement that was negotiated during the Clinton years. The agreement will promote U.S. interests by protecting U.S. intellectual property rights and opening the Laotian market to U.S. goods and services. It is a good agreement. But to enable the United States to benefit from it, we must extend normal trade relations to Laos. Doing so will also benefit the Laotian people. Laos is one of the poorest nations in Asia. Yet exports from Laos are subject to some of the highest tariffs when they enter the United States. This agreement will help alleviate poverty, help bring Laos out of the Vietnam War era, and further integrate Laos into the global marketplace. We also included in this bill a provision that extends preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, to allow duty-free treatment for hand-knotted and hand-woven carpets. This provision is designed primarily to help the citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe that allowing these products to be considered as eligible articles under GSP will help beneficiary countries that have joined the United States in the fight against global terrorism. Further, H.R. 1047 corrects a mistake in the Trade Act of 2002 that inadvertently and temporarily raised duties on Andean originating handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves and leather wearing apparel under the Andean Trade and Preferences and Drug Eradication Act, ATPDEA. This provision retroactively reinstates the reduced duty treatment for eligible products that entered the U.S. from August 6, 2002, the date ATPDEA was signed, and the time in which these products met the import sensitivity test, several months later. It provides for continued duty-free treatment for these eligible products, which was the intent of the trade act. I am also pleased that the bill includes the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act. I introduced the EPIC Antiquities Act to authorize the President to continue emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States. If Congress does not act to ensure the continuing means for banning trade in antiquities that may have been stolen, the door could be opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in the United States. Other important provisions in the bill include modifications to the cellar treatment of natural wine and repeal of the 1916 act. Repeal of the 1916 act will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations. We have also improved and extended the wool trust fund and added a provision that simplifies some processing U.S. Customs processing procedures, thereby resulting in increased efficiency and productivity for both the government and the trade community. I also want to point out that the provisions I have covered are not the only important provisions contained in this bill. This bill makes a number of other technical yet meaningful changes to our trade laws. I am very pleased that we are going to be able to pass this bill today. We would not be here today if not for the bipartisan efforts of a number of the Finance Committee staff, some of whom have long left the Senate. First, I want to thank Andy Harig who shepherded this bill through its first stages of development under Chairman Baucus' leadership during the 107th Congress. I also want to recognize Carrie Clark Phillips, for immersing herself in the tremendous complexities of this bill and her dedication to seeing the task done upon my resumption as chairman of the committee. Zach Paulsen and Sara Andrews also deserve recognition for their ability to pick up where Carrie and Andy left off and their hard work in bringing this bill to a successful conclusion. I also appreciate the hard work of Rohit Kumar, who was instrumental in helping us move this bill forward. Finally, Liese Wright, with the Washington International Business Council, has done an outstanding job bringing together, and holding intact, the Ad Hoc Coalition on Tariffs. In good times and bad, Liese remained ever hopeful and committed to getting this bill done. Her hard work and optimism is appreciated. Let me also thank the rest of the Finance Committee international trade staff for their work not just on this bill, but for all we have been able to accomplish this Congress. On Senator Baucus's staff I would like to recognize Russ Sullivan and Bill Dauster, who provided the guidance necessary to help the Committee accomplish its goals, and Tim Punke, Brian Pomper, John Gilliland and Shara Aranoff for their technical expertise and policy advice which was so crucial to our success. On my staff, I would like to thank Kolan Davis, Everett Eissenstat, Stephen Schaefer, David Johanson, Tiffany Atwell McCullen, and detailees Nova Daly and Dan Shepherdson. Their knowledge, hard work, and ability to pull together as a team, enabled me to accomplish a number of important trade priorities in this Congress. And for that, I am grateful.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi- annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the United States. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., is the Government's single most effective program for recouping money improperly obtained from the United States by false claims and fraud. Initially passed during the Civil War at President Abraham Lincoln's request to suppress fraud against the Union Army, the FCA was modernized and updated in 1986. Since President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amendments into law, settlements and judgments in FCA cases have exceeded $13 billion. No other antifraud program of the federal government can match this result. Despite the significance of these results, the Congress does not have a way to evaluate the performance of the FCA program. While the program, which is overseen by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, appears to be doing well, it is not known at this time how the program is performing as compared to its potential. What percentage of the various frauds perpetrated against the United States is recouped in False Claims Act cases? How effectively does DoJ capture the multiple damages and penalties provided for by the act? How quickly does DoJ move FCA cases? How effectively does DoJ use the tools provided to it by the FCA, such as civil investigative demands? How effectively does DoJ use relators and how well does it reward them? The purpose of this bill is to require the submission of the information that will allow Congress to evaluate of DoJ's performance in managing FCA cases. Thus, under this bill the Department of Justice will be required to describe its settlements of FCA cases. The report to Congress shall include a description of the estimated damages suffered by the United States, the amount recouped, the multiplier used to calculate the settlement amount, the criminal fines collected and whether the defendants were held liable in previous cases. The report will also inform Congress as to whether the defendants have been required to enter into corporate integrity agreements. In addition, in order to understand how the program is working, the Department of Justice will be required to inform Congress as to whether civil investigative demands were issued. The Department will also be required to provide certain information about the conduct of qui tam cases initiated by whistleblowers. For example, Congress will receive information about the length of time cases are under seal, whether whistleblowers (technically termed ``relators'') sought a fairness hearing regarding a settlement and what share of the settlement they received. The Congress would also receive information about whether the agency that suffered from the fraud involved participated in the settlement. In regard to cases involving Medicaid Fraud, the report will provide Congress with the details of how much money was returned to each state participating in the settlement. In a time when many States are struggling with their Medicaid budgets, the Congress needs to know how effectively DoJ is in suppressing Medicaid fraud and returning money to the States.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi- annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the United States. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., is the Government's single most effective program for recouping money improperly obtained from the United States by false claims and fraud. Initially passed during the Civil War at President Abraham Lincoln's request to suppress fraud against the Union Army, the FCA was modernized and updated in 1986. Since President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amendments into law, settlements and judgments in FCA cases have exceeded $13 billion. No other antifraud program of the federal government can match this result. Despite the significance of these results, the Congress does not have a way to evaluate the performance of the FCA program. While the program, which is overseen by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, appears to be doing well, it is not known at this time how the program is performing as compared to its potential. What percentage of the various frauds perpetrated against the United States is recouped in False Claims Act cases? How effectively does DoJ capture the multiple damages and penalties provided for by the act? How quickly does DoJ move FCA cases? How effectively does DoJ use the tools provided to it by the FCA, such as civil investigative demands? How effectively does DoJ use relators and how well does it reward them? The purpose of this bill is to require the submission of the information that will allow Congress to evaluate of DoJ's performance in managing FCA cases. Thus, under this bill the Department of Justice will be required to describe its settlements of FCA cases. The report to Congress shall include a description of the estimated damages suffered by the United States, the amount recouped, the multiplier used to calculate the settlement amount, the criminal fines collected and whether the defendants were held liable in previous cases. The report will also inform Congress as to whether the defendants have been required to enter into corporate integrity agreements. In addition, in order to understand how the program is working, the Department of Justice will be required to inform Congress as to whether civil investigative demands were issued. The Department will also be required to provide certain information about the conduct of qui tam cases initiated by whistleblowers. For example, Congress will receive information about the length of time cases are under seal, whether whistleblowers (technically termed ``relators'') sought a fairness hearing regarding a settlement and what share of the settlement they received. The Congress would also receive information about whether the agency that suffered from the fraud involved participated in the settlement. In regard to cases involving Medicaid Fraud, the report will provide Congress with the details of how much money was returned to each state participating in the settlement. In a time when many States are struggling with their Medicaid budgets, the Congress needs to know how effectively DoJ is in suppressing Medicaid fraud and returning money to the States.