Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 3:30 p.m., in closed session to mark up the Seapower programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once Senator Allen offers his amendment with respect to home mortgages, it be set aside only for the purpose of Senator Cantwell offering an amendment, and that after the clerk reports the amendment by number, it be immediately set aside, and the Senate resume consideration of the Allen amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Collins amendment, No. 3108, be modified with the changes that are at the desk and that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, I ask that there then be 45 minutes of debate in relationship to the Wyden amendment, No. 3109, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator Wyden and 30 minutes under the control of the chairman or his designee; further, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; finally, I ask consent that following that vote, Senator Allen be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote, I have an unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad we are back on the jobs and manufacturing act. This will be the third time we have attempted to move this bill. President Reagan had a very famous quip: Here we go again. Here we go again, hopefully to conclusion of this very important piece of legislation. I hope things are going to be different. This time the European Union sanctions are very firmly in place. There should not be any doubt in the mind of any Member where Europe is headed. In the process of the European tax on our exports to that continent, they are freezing out of their markets U.S. companies. This time there is an agreement on the political message amendments that will be addressed on this bill even though those amendments have nothing to do with the measures contained in the bill. This time we will finally reveal with absolute clarity whether some on the other side of the aisle are ready to drop the political posturing and pass this bipartisan bill to remove European Union sanctions against our farmers and manufacturing workers. In Sunday's Washington Post was an article saying that Senate partisanship was the worst in memory. It spoke about the long list of legislation stalled in the Senate, stalled in the Senate because of political posturing. The article mentioned the bill that is before us today, this jobs and manufacturing bill. The paper said: Foreign tariffs have been imposed on many American products while the Senate dawdled over [today's bill]--to substitute corporate tax cuts for subsidies that have been outlawed by the World Trade Organization. Dawdled? That is no compliment, obviously. It is, unfortunately, an accurate description of what opponents to passing the JOBS bill have achieved during the last 2 or 3 months. It is an accusation that all of us will hear back home if we continue to allow the European Union to sanction our agriculture, timber, and manufacturing exports. I will have more to say about sanctions later, but I want to remind people who might say, Why do you have to worry about the European Union? They don't have any business doing that; we ought to be able to export our products to Europe; that America has also imposed some retribution against European products coming to this country because Europe decided not to abide by the agreement on beef hormones. They don't let our meat in. We won the case before the WTO, so we put duties on their products coming here. We lose a case before the World Trade Organization--and, by the way, we win more than we lose by a long sight. But regardless, Europe is doing what they can legally do under our international trade agreements. We all understand these international trade agreements have moved us in the right direction, the direction of lowering barriers to our products in other countries so we can export because we are an exporting nation and because exports create jobs and because those jobs pay 15 percent above the national average of jobs. It creates jobs and it creates good jobs. You don't have to dispute the 50-year history of the advantage of international trade agreements to the United States when other countries have higher barriers to trade than we do, and we bring those barriers down. We have a process for settling our differences. That is called the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process. This bill is before the U.S. Senate because we are changing our laws to be within our international trade agreements, agreements this Senate has already adopted. We have already voted on these international trade agreements, so now we have to live up to them in the same way we expect Europe to live up to those agreements when we win a dispute with Europe. That is why we are here. Only this legislation is going to go a lot further than just to make our laws comply with European laws; we are also going to do other things to our tax laws to encourage manufacturing in America, to create more jobs in America. This legislation has been held up, as the Washington Post said, while the Senate dawdled. That was over partisan politics. There is no excuse for allowing partisan politics to hold this bill up because this bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee with only two dissenting votes, and those two dissenting votes were not Democrat votes, those were Republican votes. The two Republicans who voted against it have a different philosophy on what we should do with this bill, and they are going to be offering an amendment. But I don't think they are trying to kill this bill, even if they disagree with it. They are not standing in the way of passing the JOBS bill just because they don't like exactly what it says. That is the difference here. Senators do, in fact, have a right to their own opinions on this bill and are free to file amendments to change it. That is exactly what they ought to be doing if they are representing the people of their State. But that is a far cry from trying to delay this measure just to score points on completely unrelated political issues that come before us in the form of nongermane amendments. This is a bipartisan bill that reflects everyone's concerns, both Republicans and Democrats. This is a bill that is going to pass 90 to 10 when we get to finality. But you don't play political games with a bipartisan bill that affects jobs of manufacturing workers all across this vast land. I think it is worth looking at the history of this bill. The jobs in manufacturing act is a bipartisan bill from the ground up. The framework was laid by my colleague and friend, Senator Baucus, when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the last Congress. It began with a hearing in July 2002 to address the controversy within the World Trade Organization and our tax laws. We heard from a cross section of industry that would be damaged by the repeal of the Extraterritorial Income Act. We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for international tax reform because our tax rules were hurting competitiveness in foreign trade. Their foreign competitors were running circles around them because of our arcane and probably outmoded international tax rules. During this hearing we had, for instance, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch of Utah express concerns about how our own international tax laws were impairing the competitiveness of the U.S. companies. That is almost 2 years ago. After some discussion on forming a blue ribbon commission to study this issue, we all decided that decisive action was more important than a commission. During that hearing, Chairman Baucus formed an international tax working group that was joined by Senators Graham, Hatch, and me, and was opened to any other Finance Committee Senator who was interested in participating. The bipartisan Finance Committee working group developed a framework that forms a basis for the bill that has been before this Senate now, off and on, over the last 3 months. We directed our staff 2 years ago to engage in an exhaustive analysis of many international reform proposals that have been offered. We sought to glean the very best ideas from as many sources as possible. Chairman Baucus and I formed a bipartisan bicameral working group with the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee in an effort to find some common ground in dealing with the repeal of the Foreign Sales Corporation Extraterritorial Income Act that was ruled contrary to our international trade agreements. While that effort with Ways and Means did not go so well, it did inspire Chairman Baucus and me to continue our Senate bipartisan development of the repeal of this legislation and also to bring about international tax reform. We continued our efforts in cooperation with Senator Hatch, Senator Bob Graham, and others on the Finance Committee who wanted to do what was fair and what was right in complying with the World Trade Organization ruling. We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became chairman again after the 2002 election. In July 2003, we held two hearings on the FSC/ETI and international reform issue. One hearing focused on the effects of our tax policy on business competition within the United States, and the other hearing focused on international business competition. These two hearings led to this bipartisan bill that has been before the Senate for the last 3 months. Let me again emphasize that there is not one provision in this JOBS bill that was not agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats--not one. We have acted in good faith to produce a bill that protects American manufacturing jobs and also ensures our companies remain the global competitors we ought to want to be, are, and we ought to continue to be. We did this in a fully bipartisan manner, which is what the American people expect us to do on such an important issue as manufacturing jobs and our Nation's economic health. The core part of this bill repeals the current FSC/ETI provisions that are now in our tax law. FSC/ETI reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the United States and exported overseas by as much as 3 to 8 rate points. That is, if the corporation tax rate is 35 percent, the tax rate on export income is going to be somewhere between 27 to 32 instead of the 35 percent it is right now. It lowered the U.S. corporate rate on goods made in the United States and sold overseas. The World Trade Organization has determined that FSC/ETI is an impermissible export subsidy and has authorized the European Union to impose a $4 billion a year tax against U.S. exports until we get rid of the FSC/ETI legislation that has been on the books for about 3 decades. We have sanctions put on us by Europe. They began on March 1 with 5 percent right off the bat, increasing 1 percent a month. You have March, 1 percent; April, 1 more percent; and May, 1 more percent. This is a 7-percent Euro tax on American exports. It is a very serious threat for all members because sanctions are hitting commodity products, agricultural goods, timber, and paper. Presently, about 89 percent of Foreign Sales Corporation export benefits go to the manufacturing sector. Repealing this legislation raises around $55 billion over 10 years. If that money is not sent back to the manufacturing sector, that means an additional $55 billion cost to manufacturing. It is mathematically impossible for it to be anything else. That is why our bipartisan jobs in manufacturing bill takes all $55 billion of the FSC/ETI repeal money and sends it back to the manufacturing sector in the form of a 3-point tax rate cut on manufacturing income. This rate cut is for manufacturing in the United States, it is not for manufacturing offshore. We start phasing in those cuts this year if the Senate passes this jobs in manufacturing bill this year. The cuts apply to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, and foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in this country. In total, this bill provides $75 billion of tax relief to our U.S.- based manufacturing sector to promote factory hiring here in the United States. We also include in this legislation international tax reforms, mostly in the foreign tax credit area and most of which benefit the manufacturing sector. The international tax reforms largely fix problems which our domestic companies face because of the complexity of the foreign tax credit. These reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete with our trading partners. You will hear arguments this week that the international tax reforms provide an incentive to move jobs offshore. I am going to show you later how adamantly I disagree with that argument. We have carefully selected on a bipartisan basis the international reforms that do not provide offshore incentives. Our bill also includes a Homeland Reinvestment Act which will temporarily reduce tax on foreign earnings that are brought into the United States for investment here at home instead of leaving that money overseas to create jobs overseas. This provision is sponsored by Senator Ensign, Senator Boxer, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Smith from Oregon. It has broad support in the House and Senate. The JOBS bill will extend the R&D tax credit through the end of 2005. This is a domestic tax benefit that generates research and development here in the United States. That translates into good, high-paying jobs for workers here in America and not jobs overseas. The legislation before us extends for 2 years many tax provisions that expired in December of last year or, if they didn't expire then, will expire during this calendar year. These items include the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. The JOBS bill will make the merger of those credits permanent. We include a provision that allows Naval shipbuilders to use a method of accounting which results in more favorable income tax treatment. There are enhanced depreciation provisions to help the airline industry. There are new homestead provisions. These are rural development provisions to create businesses in counties that are losing population. For example, they would provide incentives for starting or expanding a rural business in a rural high-outmigration county, something that would benefit States such as mine in the Midwest where rural counties are losing population--not even maintaining but losing. The jobs in manufacturing underlying bill also includes the new markets tax credit for high-outmigration counties. These credits help economic development in rural counties that lost over 10 percent of their population. The bill includes brownfields revitalization provisions which help tax-exempt investors that invest in cleanup and remediation of qualified brownfield sites. The bill includes a mortgage revenue bonds measure which repeals the current rule that doesn't allow mortgage revenue bond payments to be used for issuing new mortgages. There are 70 Senate cosponsors of this mortgage revenue bond bill. It is included because it has broad support in the U.S. Senate. We allow deductions for private mortgage insurance. The JOBS bill includes a tax credit to employers for wages paid to reservists if they are called to active duty. We have extended and enhanced the Liberty Zone Bonds used in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We also include $200 million in tax credits to be used for rail infrastructure projects in the New York Liberty Zone. The bill contains renewal communities provisions. We increase small business industrial development bond levels to spur economic development in rural areas. We have bonds for rebuilding school infrastructure. We have included tribal bonds in the JOBS bill which allow the same rules that apply to tax-exempt bonds for State and local Governments to also apply to our constitutional relationship with Native American tribes so they are treated like States and other political subdivisions. We have tribal school bonds. Under current law there is no class of bonds designated for the purpose of encouraging school construction on Indian reservations as we have for our States and local communities. There is a new tribal markets tax credit which would add $50 million a year for economic development on reservation lands. We have included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. The JOBS bill contains a change in section 815. The provision suspends application of the rules imposing income tax on certain distribution to shareholders from the policyholders' surplus account of a life insurance company. We have a special dividend allocation rule that benefits farm co-ops. Other farm provisions give cattlemen tax-free treatment if they replace livestock because of drought, flood, or other weather-related conditions over which that farmer has no control. We include a provision that allows payments under the National Health Service Corporation Loan Repayment Program to be exempt from tax to help get health care providers into rural America. We included the passenger rail infrastructure tax credits that provide $500 million for inner-city passenger rail capital projects. We also included so-called short-line railroads. We have many other improvements in this bill. One I bring up deals with the stalled Energy bill before the Senate. We have included in this bill, because gasoline is so high, because this country needs a national energy policy and because the Finance Committee Senator Baucus and I lead has so much to do with tax credits for incentives for the production of fossil fuel, conservation and for alternative sources of energy--those all need to be done now that we have gas over $2 a gallon. We need a national energy policy. We are taking advantage of this legislation being in the Senate, working with Senator Domenici to include provisions in the Energy bill that have previously been approved by the Finance Committee, but which did not go to the President because of the filibuster in this body against that overall Energy bill. It is essentially the exact bill originally cosponsored at the beginning of this Congress by this Senator and Senators Baucus, Domenici, and Bingaman. It is the first time the chairman and ranking member of both committees of jurisdiction, Finance and Energy, have crafted a bipartisan bill that would serve as a national energy policy that represents the business of the American people and the sort of cooperation by which things get done around here. Too bad it is not done more often. The energy provisions are balanced in all segments of our energy needs, and we have expanded all provisions for renewable electricity to include wind and biomass, to promote conservation of energy and alternative cars and fuels. It does not abandon our tried-and-true energy performers like traditional oil and gas production and the newer, cleaner coal provisions for electricity. The best aspect of the entire package is the energy part of this jobs and manufacturing bill creates jobs all by itself. The volumetric ethanol excise tax credit provisions, known as the VEETC, in this package would add up to $14.2 billion in revenue to the highway trust fund over the 6-year life of the transportation bill pending before the Congress. This provision alone creates as many as 674,000 new jobs across our country. The energy tax package also includes a new incentive for the production of renewable biodiesel. This provision means jobs in the heartland. Renewable fuels have directly generated over 150,000 new jobs. In fact, in this year alone, this industry will add 22,000 new jobs. Another provision creates a tax incentive for the production of super energy-efficient appliances which is critical to the 95,000 employees in the U.S. home appliance industry. The bill also includes a provision to accelerate the production of natural gas from Alaska and the construction of a pipeline for natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48. According to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis, construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline would create nearly 400,000 jobs in construction, trucking, manufacturing, and other service sectors. The jobs and manufacturing bill provides all this tax relief, nearly $170 billion worth, and remains revenue neutral, meaning there is no net cost to the Federal Treasury. That cannot be, one would think--$170 billion of tax changes; and we have not affected the income coming into the Federal Treasury by one dime. That is pretty significant for people worried about the budget deficit. People ask: We have a budget deficit; how can you reduce the corporation tax and create jobs? How can you give all these tax incentives to bring about alternative energy and conservation and have a national energy policy, without costing a lot of money? There are a lot of unfair things in the Tax Code and we take care of those unfair things. Basically, there are some corporations playing games with the Tax Code to avoid taxation. We are going to plug those loopholes. This bill is paid in full by extending custom user fees, shutting down abusive tax shelters, and attacking the abusive tax strategies used by companies such as Enron--strategies we unearthed during our Finance Committee Enron investigation last October. The Finance Committee held hearings on the status of abusive tax shelter activity. During that hearing, we received anonymous testimony from a leasing industry executive describing how U.S. corporations are able to take tax deductions for the Paris sewer lines and the New York subway system. Did you hear me right? American corporations are taking tax deductions for Paris sewer lines and the New York subway system. They are claiming tax deductions on taxpayer-funded infrastructure located not only in the United States but overseas. One can imagine the surprise of the members of the Senate Finance Committee upon learning the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the cost of electric transmission lines in the Australian Outback. This jobs in manufacturing bill is revenue neutral because we end this abuse of the Tax Code. It was shortly after the attack on September 11, 2001 we saw the beginning exodus of U.S. companies moving their corporate headquarters to tax havens for the sole purpose of evading U.S. taxes. It was the events of September 11 and the ensuing stock market plunge that provided companies with a cost-efficient way to get out of the United States, to cheat on their taxes. You may recall the videotape of a Big Four accounting firm partner saying U.S. companies were resistant to this scheme out of a post-9/11 sense of patriotism and national duty. But that employee said patriotism would have to take a backseat when they see their improved earnings per share. Now here you have 3,000 Americans killed on September 11 when the terrorists attacked our country. Then you have these big accounting firms marketing these tax shelters--that maybe would raise some question about the new patriotic fervor in this country because we have been attacked--telling people: You are going to forget all about that when you see your new earnings report. Corporations like that ought to get their heart into America or get their rear end out because what this country is all about is pulling together, particularly now in time of war. The JOBS bill includes measures to shut down corporate expatriation and to limit the tax benefits for those corporate cheats that manage to get out under the wire before Congress can enact this legislation. We will shut down that abuse in this bill. All we have to do to do these obvious things is to convince a few people who are stalling this bill with nongermane amendments that this bill needs to get passed. There is so much good in this bill. We can rescue the manufacturing sector. We can end this European tax on our exports to Europe and continue to sell over there. Pretty soon that market is going to be shut down. We can respond to the recent rise in gas prices because in this bill we have a national energy policy for alternative fuels and conservation and for stimulating fossil fuel development, and we are going to pay for it all by shutting down every known tax abuse. But we cannot do any of this without the support it takes to pass this bill. And I do not mean final passage, because when this bill comes to final passage, it is going to pass overwhelmingly. What I am talking about is getting to finality. People all over this body are telling me: Well, this bill is going to pass. This bill is going to pass. But those very same people are hooking this nongermane amendment or that nongermane amendment on to this bill. Well, we have accommodated even those people with nongermane amendments. I do not have any fault with the legitimacy of the subject matter of their amendments because it is legitimate debate, particularly in the Senate. But it seems to me we should not be gambling with manufacturing jobs in America. We should not be gambling with whether we ought to have a national energy policy. And, for sure, if you are one of the Members who is complaining about corporations not paying their fair share--and we are shutting down these tax shelters--you ought to be in the forefront of getting this bill passed. It is unbelievable to me this bill has been held up for so long over political gamesmanship. It is time to put the adults back in charge. It is time to pass this very important bill to aid our manufacturing sector, to remove tariffs off our farmers and workers on products shipped to Europe, and to place the Senate back on its footing to do its job and move legislation--this legislation--that will benefit the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains for morning business on our side?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now I would like to address the issue of the Medicare prescription drug program, because on January 1, the seniors of America are going to make a voluntary decision whether they want to take advantage of this new program, and January 1 would be the opportunity to take advantage of the interim program for the years 2004 and 2005, before the permanent insurance program on prescription drugs kicks in November 15, 2005. It was just under 5 months ago that the President signed this Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. It was the first strengthening of Medicare in its 30-year history. Next Monday, then, beneficiaries can begin enrolling in the Medicare- approved drug discount card, the first stage of what I call the temporary program of the new comprehensive Medicare Modernization Act. The cards go into effect June 1 and will offer seniors much needed discounts and information on brand name and generic prescription drugs. Medicare beneficiaries who choose to enroll in the voluntary discount card will have choices. I emphasize, this is not something the seniors of America have to do. This is a voluntary program. Not only is it voluntary whether you join the program, but the seniors will have choices within their voluntary decision to join, because there are 38 sponsors offering cards to Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, with some sponsors offering more than one card. More than 40 Medicare advantage plans--the Medicare+Choice, or let's say the Medicare HMOs, as some people know it--offer Medicare beneficiaries additional coverage. They will offer exclusive cards to their members. There also will be regional cards offered to certain beneficiaries, such as those in nursing homes throughout our country. Under the drug discount card, beneficiaries will save 10 percent to 25 percent off the retail prices that they paid before they had a Medicare-endorsed discount card. In fact, a study recently in Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed journal of health policy, estimates that if seniors who currently lack prescription drug coverage enroll in a Medicare-approved drug discount program, they can expect to reduce their out-of-pocket drug spending by approximately 17.4 percent. There is still more good news. One of the most important parts of this drug bill is the nearly immediate help to very low income Medicare beneficiaries, people who do not have prescription drug coverage and who do not qualify for Medicaid. Low-income beneficiaries--and that would be generally those with incomes under 135 percent of poverty--are helped in two ways. They get a discounted price and they get up to $600 annually in 2004 and 2005 to help buy drugs they need at the pharmacy. The beneficiaries would get access to the $600 in assistance through the Medicare-endorsed discount card. The card will be just like a debit card. When the card is presented to your pharmacy, the beneficiaries are able to draw down from the $600 and purchase their prescription drugs. They can continue to use that until it has run out, between now and December 31. If they have some money left over on that card on December 31, 2004, that can carry over until year 2005, and they can get an additional $600 in the year 2005. If they didn't have that full $1,200 used by December 1, 2005, it can carry over until 2006, until it is all used and they take full advantage of the insurance program that is going into effect at that particular time. Also, let me make it very clear that if there are two in the family who would qualify for the $600, then that family would get $1,200 in 2004, and an additional $1,200 in 2005, until it is used then, either in 2005 or carried over to 2006. I should probably use a lot of examples but I just want to use one example of a woman enrolled in Medicare in Waterloo, IA, near my farm. If she had an income of $12,000 a year and she needed to fill a prescription for Celebrex, the retail price for 30 tablets would be $86.28. This woman from Waterloo, IA, would save nearly $22 a month off the retail price and be able to draw down some of her $600 in assistance to pay for the discounted prescription that lady needs. The $600 credit in conjunction with the discount card will give these most vulnerable low-income citizens immediate help in purchasing prescription drugs that they otherwise, maybe, would not be able to afford or maybe would have to make a very difficult choice between buying food or buying prescription drugs. We hope this eases that choice which some seniors and disabled people in America must make today. We expect more than 7 million beneficiaries to enroll in this program. Nearly 5 million low-income beneficiaries are expected to apply for this $600 of assistance--$600 in 2004 and $600 in 2005; husband and wife qualifying, that will be $1,200 in 2004 and $1,200 in 2005. What we need to do now is to continue to let people know about the availability of the card and to help them get information to make enrollment decisions to sign up for the $600 in additional assistance. I commend the Center for Medicare Services' staff for their work in this area. They are doing much to help people understand this situation. If I were going to summarize before I go into it, I could say, as I did in my 36 town meetings in Iowa that I have held since January to acquaint Iowans with this new prescription drug program, that I provided four sources of information. One would be if they want to contact any congressional office, including mine, I think they would find that as a source of information. No. 2 would be the 1-800 Medicare toll-free number to which I will soon refer. Also, I had the benefit of having personnel from the federally financed but State-insurance- department-administered program called SHIIP, the Senior Health Insurance Information Program. That program in my State of Iowa, and I assume in most States, will give people one-on-one consultation about how to compare the benefits of the prescription drug program with what their health care needs are and what their income happens to be. Those are all private matters that our constituents are not going to want to make public. So they have the benefit of the SHIIP employees and volunteers working with them to help them work through which program might be best for them. Then, of course, we have the AARP, which is an organization, I tell Iowa constituents, that deserves great benefit for bringing about the bipartisanship in the Senate that it took to get this legislation passed and signed by the President. Without the AARP we would not have a prescription drug program for seniors. The AARP has attended a lot of my meetings. I have not heard one criticism of the AARP at any of my 36 town meetings. The AARP representative has been present to tell how that organization can help people get information about this new prescription drug program. The AARP probably has the best layperson's explanation of this legislation that is available. I hand those out at my town meetings as well. I commend the Center for Medicare Services for their help in this area. I would like to say what their help has been beyond what I have just said. They helped develop an Internet-based tool that will help seniors learn more about the available discount card options. By using this tool, which will be up and running yet this week, beneficiaries will be able to compare the particular drugs and prices offered by senior sponsors. The Internet site can even tell them whether their neighborhood pharmacy participates in a particular card. But we know that not all beneficiaries feel comfortable using the Internet. Those who don't can call 1-800-Medicare and ask for information about the card being sent to them. The Center for Medicare Services also has taken important steps to streamline the enrollment process by having the standard enrollment form and allowing States under certain circumstances to enroll low- income Medicare beneficiaries into this card program. This will make it easier for low-income beneficiaries in States with pharmacy assistance programs to get the additional $600. The card sponsors will also be closely monitored by CMS to ensure that they are playing by the rules and not cheating anybody. CMS will track any changes made in the drug prices and complaints received by their 1-800-Medicare number or other sources. They will also ``mystery shop'' to make sure the sponsors are not falsely advertising. They will be on the lookout out for scam artists who claim to be offering an approved card. While I am confident that most card sponsors will do the right thing, I am very pleased that CMS will be dedicating resources to protect beneficiaries and in turn the Medicare trust fund as well. I want to respond to some accusations that were made yesterday by Senators from the other side of the aisle about this bill. It is a carping we often hear that is very inaccurate, and I want to make sure that constituents know what the true story is. I want to clarify once again important details and answer concerns-- particularly inaccurate concerns--that were offered on the other side of the aisle. Some have argued that our seniors would receive a greater benefit under this Part D drug benefit which I have been speaking about, set to begin in 2006, if the Government would step in on negotiations between drug manufacturers and prescription drug plans. This is not accurate. This noninterference provision allows seniors to get a good deal through market competition rather than through price fixing by the Federal Government. A basic concern we have is that in writing the legislation the way we did, we don't want some government bureaucrat in the medicine cabinets of our seniors. We don't want that bureaucrat coming between our doctor and our patient. That is why that provision is in this bill. The provision protects patients by keeping government out of decisions about which medicines they will be able to receive. Under this section, the Government will not be able to dictate which drug should or should not be included in the prescription drug plan. The new Medicare Part D drug benefit allows seniors to use their group buying power to drive down drug prices. We rely on market competition--not price fixing by the Government--to deliver the drug benefit. The reason we know this works is because it has worked for 40 years in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. There is no bureaucrat telling some Federal employee what their plan can provide to them in the way of drugs. The law's entire approach is to get seniors the best deal through vigorous market competition and not through price controls. These private plans have strong incentives under this legislation to negotiate the best possible deals on drug prices. These plans are at risk for a large part of the cost of the benefit. They also have the market clout to obtain large discounts. By driving hard bargains, they will be able to offer lower Part D premiums and attract more enrollees. The alternative is a command-and-control system that would not be responsive to consumer desires or to marketplace reality. Bureaucrats would swing between adding benefit requirements without a means of paying for them and then restricting choices and access in an effort to contain costs. The noninterference provision is a fundamental protection against such inexplicable government bureaucratic action. We are also hearing complaints from the other side of the aisle even after three or four times last month straightening them out about what the true cost of this drug program is. What is the true cost? You look ahead 10 years to what a program is going to cost, and you make the best judgment you can of what it is going to cost. There are good people in the Congressional Budget Office who are good at that and who try to do the best thing, but you aren't going to know until 10 years have passed what the true cost is. It seems to me to be intellectually dishonest for people telling us that somebody downtown can tell us what the true cost of this legislation is. I am going to respond to those accusations about what the true cost of the Medicare bill is for a third time. I am going to do it for a fourth time and a fifth time if I have to until somebody on the other side of the aisle learns something about what this bill does or doesn't do. They are trying to say that somehow the true cost was hidden from Congress. This is simply election year hyperbole. The opponents of the drug benefit are making this claim because the final cost estimate from the Center for Medicare Service's Office of the Actuary was not completed before the vote took place. But let us be clear: The cost estimate was not withheld from Congress because there was not a final cost estimate from the Center for Medicare Services to withhold. But they don't even know what this so-called cost is because they have to look ahead 10 years and make the best educated estimate they can 10 years ahead of time just like the Congressional Budget Office does. But their estimate wasn't even completed until December 23. The President signed the bill December 10. Let me also make clear that the Congress had an official cost estimate on the Medicare bill before the vote, and that is the one from the Congressional Budget Office. I keep telling people who don't understand the importance of the Congressional Budget Office, which guides every Member of U.S. Senate, that when they say something costs something, even if they are wrong, that is what it costs. You don't dispute it. The ability to raise a point of order against the bill if you exceed that cost takes 60 votes. That is how important the Congressional Budget Office is. That is the only office we go by. Somebody can make a complaint that maybe some administrator downtown was muzzled into not talking to Congress, but they were talking to me. I don't know why other Members of Congress couldn't have had the same information I had, and it wasn't much information at that. But you can talk. If somebody was muzzled in our Government where transparency and openness ought to be the rule, that is wrong, I agree, but these accusations about whether the information was withheld have raised questions of whether Congress had access to a valid and thorough cost estimate for the prescription drug bill before the final vote in November. It should also be made clear while the cost analysis by the Office of the Actuary is perhaps helpful, it is not the one Congress relies on. Congress relies exclusively upon cost projections by the Congressional Budget Office. It is CBO's cost estimate we use to determine whether legislation is within authorized budget limits. For Congress, if there is a true cost estimate, that is CBO's. And true costs can, at best, be said as a 10-year guesstimate, an educated guess into the future, and it would be the Congressional Budget Office's. CBO's cost estimate is the only one that matters. When Congress approved a $400 billion reserve fund to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit, this meant $400 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office, not according to the Center for Medicare Services, as the other side would somehow say, that would have a definitive impact upon Congress. You do not raise a point of order in this body against an estimate by the Center for Medicare Services or even the Office of Management and Budget that speaks for the entire executive branch of Government. With all due respect to the dedicated staff who work at the Center for Medicare Services, Office of the Actuary, their cost estimates were irrelevant to our decision making process. The Congressional Budget Office worked closely with the conferees-- and I was one of those conferees--to the prescription drug bill and the staff of our Finance and Ways and Means Committees to ensure a full analysis of the projected costs was completed. The conferees and the staff regularly and constantly consulted with the Congressional Budget Office throughout the development of the Senate bill and in the preparation of the conference agreement. The Congressional Budget Office worked nearly around the clock and on weekends for months to complete an extremely thorough and rigorous cost analysis of the prescription drug bill. That cost estimate--our official cost estimate, straight from the god of Congress's finance estimating, the Congressional Budget Office--was available to every Member of Congress before the measure was presented to the House and Senate for a vote. It is also pretty disingenuous for opponents of the Medicare bill, especially on the other side of the aisle, to suggest the pricetag for the Medicare bill causes concern because the fact is they supported proposals that cost hundreds of billions of dollars more. You would think they would say: Thank God for the Center for Medicare Services that this bill is going to cost $134 billion more than what the Congressional Budget Office said it was going to cost because we like to spend money. We want to spend more on Medicare prescription drugs. The House Democratic proposal, for instance, last year would have cost $1 trillion compared to the $395 billion the President signed. The Senate Democratic proposal in 2002 cost $200 billion more than the bill that was enacted into law. Further, there were more than 50 amendments offered on the floor of the Senate during the debate on the Senate bill that would have increased the cost of the bill by tens of billions of dollars. The bottom line is, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind we had as true a cost estimate--or if they want to put it in their words, the true cost estimate--for the prescription drug bill last year. Everyone had access to it before the vote. But let me explain to the people of this country that whether it is the Congressional Budget Office or the Center for Medicare Services, when they look ahead 10 years, and the farther out you go, it is a fairly imprecise way of deciding what a bill we passed last year is actually going to cost. The true cost is going to be known on that 10th year. But these professional people with green eyeshades, without any political predilection, study what we put on paper and they say: Senator Grassley, as chairman of the Finance Committee, if you do this, it is going to cost X number of dollars. So if it does not all fit into $400 billion, you kind of tailor it to fit, because if you do not, you are going to be subject to a point of order and you will have to have 60 votes to override it. I hope I have once again cleared up any misunderstandings about these issues. We should move on and not lose sight of what really matters: helping our Nation's seniors get the drugs they need at lower prices through the Medicare discount card, and $600 of additional assistance, which beneficiaries can begin enrolling in next week, and through the voluntary Part D drug benefit in 2006, which is what really matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. As to the issue of education, all I can point out is that this President has always had education very high on his agenda. Except for September 11 and the war that we are now involved in, education would be No. 1 on this President's agenda. But because of the war, we are in a budget situation now where we are having 10-percent increases for homeland security, 7-percent increases for defense because of the war, and we are having 3-percent increases for education. Now, that may be, as the distinguished Democratic leader said, the smallest increase in education for years, but this 3-percent increase in education is far higher than anything else in the domestic budget that the President proposed to the Congress of the United States because every other domestic program in that budget is going to be increased nine-tenths of 1 percent. So when we are involved in war, whether it is the 21st century war on terrorism or whether it is the 20th century war on fascism, World War II, this country puts all of its efforts behind the men and women who are on the front line, giving them all of the resources they need to win that war because we only go to war if we go to war to win. This President has done that. But, after taking care of our responsibilities to the men and women on the battlefield, this President has always had education at the top of his agenda. With the way this year's budget treats education compared to every other domestic program, and only third to homeland security and the war, this President is keeping his commitment to education.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of prescription drugs as part of Medicare, a new provision dealing with Medicare, but before I do I will comment on the two issues that have been brought up by Democratic Members of the Senate. I only do that because I think it is appropriate people know that there are two sides to every story--maybe five sides but at least two in the Senate. I do not find fault with my Democratic friends for bringing issues to the Senate floor, but in the case of the high cost of gasoline as an example, which the Senator from Oregon was talking about, all I can say is we had a national energy policy before the Senate. It passed the House last year; it passed the Senate last year. We spent a couple of months in conference and worked out a very good compromise. It passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin. Exactly how much I do not recall. Then it came to the Senate and we were faced with a filibuster. In that filibuster cloture vote, we got 58 votes. It obviously takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. Out of those 58 votes, we only had 13 out of 49 Democrats vote to break that filibuster. So there are another 36 Democrats that if they want to help us reduce the cost of energy, I would beg them to tell our leader that they are prepared to break that filibuster. The leader filed a motion to reconsider. We could bring that up again and within 2 minutes we would have a national energy policy that would send a clear signal to OPEC that we have our energy house in order in this country, and hopefully let them know they are not going to have an economic stranglehold on our economy as they evidently think they have by reducing their production of oil by 4 percent as they did a month ago. Why would we not expect the OPEC nations to take advantage of a divided Congress when we all know, with the energy blackout in the Northeast last August and with $2 gasoline right now in the United States, that this country ought to be doing everything it can to solve its energy problem? The national energy policy we had before Congress last fall that there was a Democrat filibuster against would be a solution because it emphasizes in a very balanced way three things: One, tax incentives for the enhanced production of fossil fuels; No. 2, tax incentives for renewable fuels, wind energy, ethanol, biodiesel, biomass; and tax incentives for conservation, such as fuel cell cars. So when we have an effort to bring a national energy policy before this Congress, and it is defeated by a filibuster that only 13 out of 49 Democrats would support, then it seems to me very wrong for people on the other side of the aisle to be complaining about the high price of gasoline. Now, it is all right to complain about the high price of gasoline because I do every time I go to fill up my car, but on the other hand, it is one thing to complain about it and not do anything about it. What we need to do is join forces to get this national energy bill passed. It would help if we could get two more Democrats to help us defeat that filibuster.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to CPL Michael R. Speer of Davenport, IA, who courageously gave his life for his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is the 12th Iowan to be killed in Iraq. My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife and his entire family as they deal with their loss. Corporal Speer was killed when his unit came under enemy fire in the Al Anbar province of Iraq on Friday, April 9, 2004. Corporal Speer was a rifleman assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Camp Lejeune, NC. He performed his duty to his country admirably and I know his loss will be deeply felt by all those who knew him. Michael Speer enlisted in the Marines in Davenport, IA, on January 16, 2001. He died a true patriot and it is fitting that we recognize his sacrifice here today. staff sergeant cory brooks

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I would like to speak of a man who was instrumental in the completion of the Washington Monument, a former Senator from Florida, Thomas Ward Osborn. The cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid July 4, 1848, but the monument itself was not completed and opened to the public until October 9, 1888. The construction of the memorial was stopped in 1856 due to the Civil War, a lack of funding, and political difficulties within the Washington Monument Society. Senator Thomas Ward Osborn was instrumental in passing the legislation required to complete the monument after the Civil War. Many were reluctant to finish funding the project because of technical issues related to the construction and the perception among some that it was a waste of money. S. 245, a bill to secure the completion of the Washington and Lincoln Monuments, was introduced on the Senate floor by the Honorable Thomas Ward Osborn on April 1, 1869. Through Senator Osborn's efforts, this legislation was enacted and construction of the Washington Monument quickly resumed. The design of the monument was altered to remove much of the embellishment in the original design and the result was the 555 foot obelisk that is so recognizable today as the symbol of an exceptional man and an exceptional Nation. Senator Thomas Ward Osborn was motivated out of a sense of patriotism and a desire to create a permanent reminder for posterity of the character of George Washington. It is important for citizens to retain a link to their country's origins in order to fully engage in civic life in the present. To understand the exceptional nature of Washington's character is to understand the exceptional nature of the United States as a Nation. I believe that Senator Thomas Ward Osborn deserves recognition for his vital efforts in seeing to the completion of the Washington Monument. In fact, I have written to the Department of the Interior urging that some form of recognition, such as a plaque, be provided to remind visitors of Senator Osborn's efforts. It is my understanding that the regional director for the Park Service National Capitol Region has since directed the chief of Visitor Services to research Senator Osborn's efforts and share that information with the park rangers whose job it is to help interpret the monument for visitors. The late Senator Thomas Ward Osborn played a key role in seeing that George Washington received the recognition he deserves, and now it is my hope that Senator Osborn will receive the recognition he deserves.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to LCpl Benjamin Robert Carman who bravely gave his life for our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I offer my deepest sympathy to his parents, Marie and Nelson, as well as his siblings; James, Catherine, and Amelia. LCpl Carman was killed in action by small arms fire during combat operations in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq on Tuesday, April 6, 2004. LCpl Carman is the eleventh Iowan to be killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I appreciate his faithful service to our country and the patriotic mission that he died supporting. The attitude that Ben had toward his military service was summarized by his pastor at his funeral; ``Ben died because he loved freedom. He died because he loved justice.'' LCpl Carman was not afraid to courageously serve his country and accomplish his duty. As an Iowan, I am proud of this exemplary young man who will be missed by many. Ben Carman graduated from Jefferson-Scranton High School in 2002 where he excelled in the industrial arts, winning first in the State on several occasions in the sheet metal category of an industrial skills contest. He also participated in football and golf and was well loved by his classmates. Ben also loved the outdoors and his hobbies included fishing, hunting and camping. He was a proud Marine who proved himself to be a true hero and patriot. LCpl Ben Carman lived out the Marine motto, Semper Fidelis, always faithful, and is a credit to his State and to his country. I again express my sympathy for Ben's family and my gratitude for his courageous service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a fine young Iowan, Erin Smalley of Johnston. Erin is a seventh-grade student at Johnston Middle School. Erin wrote the following essay for a school- wide contest for American Education Week on the topic ``Great public schools for every child--America's promise.'' Erin's eloquent and inspiring words remind us of the importance of education in America. I would like to take a moment to share with you what Erin Smalley wrote in her essay, A Passion for Education. William Butler Yeats, an Irish poet who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1923, once said, ``Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.'' He made an excellent point, but reading through is quote just once will not make the meaning sink in. I am going to break it down to make it more easily understood. The first part of Yeats' quote states, ``Education is not the filling of a pail.'' I believe it means this: Education is not just putting information and knowledge into someone's mind. You can't dump fact, after fact, after fact onto someone because it will just go in one ear and out the other. Putting a lot of information into someone's head is just like filling a pail with a lot of water. It will probably just sit there, but it won't sink in. That is why education means something more. The rest of the quote says: ``. . . but the lighting of a fire.'' I believe this means that education is all about enlightening students and making them wonder. To light their fire is to make them want to learn more, to build a passion for what they are being taught. When they have an interest, then they will go for it. When kids are given an education, and they discover a passion for something important to them, then they will go higher and higher and never give up, until they reach their dreams. When the light goes on, that's when they start to discover and learn. That's when education is most important, because then it will hopefully become a turning point in their life. Everyone should get to go to a free school to learn freely and learn new things. I want every kid to be able to have a passion for something, and be able to have the chance to go for their dreams. I want every kid to get the chance, because it's not fair if only some do. I hope that having an education will light all of the flames, and not just fill up the pails.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation. Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world. My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm. Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority. Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill. I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level. I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year. We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November. The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done. I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today. What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs. Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe. Here are some examples. The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51. Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86. And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't. One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair. This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy. I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless. I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry. So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement. With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done. Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority. I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate. You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors. Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan. In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent. What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise. It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment. No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today. This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself. Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it. Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted. Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today. The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety. Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians. From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania. My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well. The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs. A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs. The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation. Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation. So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs. Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible. But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses. Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit. I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs. I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements. Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development. So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair. I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation. Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world. My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm. Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority. Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill. I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level. I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year. We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November. The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done. I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today. What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs. Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe. Here are some examples. The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51. Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86. And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't. One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair. This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy. I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless. I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry. So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement. With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done. Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority. I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate. You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors. Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan. In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent. What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise. It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment. No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today. This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself. Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it. Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted. Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today. The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety. Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians. From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania. My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well. The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs. A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs. The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation. Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation. So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs. Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible. But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses. Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit. I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs. I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements. Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development. So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair. I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield the Senator 10 minutes for that purpose, yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his kind comments. He was active in helping us arrive at a solution, even though he was not on the conference committee. I would emphasize one thing he said, because I hope it sets a pattern for the future and maybe would relieve the Democratic Members of the Senate of some nervousness they have about conferences: This does set an example of both sides of the aisle participating fully in the conference, because we want to be able to use that pattern for the future. Wherever I am involved, we are going to use that in the future. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. When the Senator from Mississippi asked to intervene, I had already emphasized the temporary aspects of this legislation and what it included and the necessity for it. Now I want to speak about the need for permanent reform because this is temporary legislation. It is a first step in what needs to be done to preserve the defined benefit pension plan. While this 2-year interest rate fix provides a temporary solution, we must take action then on a permanent solution. Pension plan sponsors continue to confront a world of uncertainty until we get a permanent replacement. They need to be able to budget for future pension expenses. It is unfair to leave them in financial limbo. If we continue to do so, many will simply abandon pension plans altogether. We ought to be promoting the concept of pensions rather than doing things that encourage companies to abandon pensions for their employees. There is uncertainty facing our pension system on a variety of other fronts as well. Our pension system needs funding rules that make sense and help avoid the funding problems many plans are facing today. In that regard, I was very pleased this conference agreement included a provision from the Senate bill that allowed plans that have funded their plans well and responsibly in recent years to continue making contributions. Pension plans also are facing uncertainty due to the fact many of our pension laws predate the development of new and innovative pension plan designs that have been developed to meet the needs of today's workers. This uncertainty should be removed, and our pension laws and regulations should be brought up to date to take account of positive developments and evolutions in pension plans. Defined pension plans are an irreplaceable part of our national retirement system. We owe it to the millions of workers and retirees who participate in these plans to make them as strong as possible. We also owe it to the young people of our country today to ensure our pension system remains healthy and vibrant, so they can benefit from these plans many years from now. This bill is a first step to address what many experts have called a crisis in our pension system. I hope we in Congress can work on a bipartisan basis to address these problems. I look forward to working with my colleagues on that long-term solution. (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 2307 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to speak for, I believe, in the neighborhood of 20 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I share my colleague's understanding. Under current law, the IRS is authorized to waive all or a portion of the minimum funding standard requirements for a given year or, alternatively, to allow plans to extend the period for amortizing their liabilities for up to an additional 10 years, so long as certain required showings are made. IRS regulations also include what is known as the ``shortfall funding method.'' The enactment of the short-term multiemployer plan relief in this legislation is not in any way intended to foreclose the availability of any of these existing relief measures to multiemployer plans.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, in the Senate, as you can tell from the debate, we are considering a bill that is critical to our Nation's pension system and is necessary to help this economy as a whole, primarily because of airlines being so essential to the economy of the United States of America, although it affects other segments of the economy. This bill, H.R. 3108, is entitled the Pension Funding Equity Act. It provides a temporary 2-year fix to the interest rate companies are required to use in their pension calculations. Without this legislation, companies will be required to make pension contributions based on the 30-year Treasury bond interest rate, even though the Government stopped issuing 30-year bonds way back in the year 2001. Clearly, this is a rule, under the 30-year bond rule, that does not make sense anymore, so we have to change the pension laws to conform. This legislation will fix that by adopting a conservative, long-term corporate bond rate for the next 2 years. While the bond rate of corporations is in place for the next 2 years, Congress will have a chance to find a permanent replacement. That is what we are about doing already. For instance, that is one of the major issues before the Senate Finance Committee. This bill also includes provisions to provide some temporary help to the pension plans that need it most. Airlines and steel companies that have been hit very hard by tough economic times are given a little more time to get their plans' funding levels up to where they need to be. Of course, even multiemployer pension plans that were hit hardest by the bear market are given more time to make up their losses. This bill is truly a must-pass bill. Without it, pension coverage for millions of workers across the country will be in jeopardy. Without it, tens of billions of dollars that could be used to create jobs and grow businesses will unnecessarily be drained from our economy. Without it, some companies could be forced into bankruptcy. In my own State of Iowa, I know there are a lot of companies working hard to compete in today's challenging economic environment. These companies want to provide pension plans for their employees, but they also need to know what the rules are for contributing to those plans. They want those rules in the process to make sense. Without this legislation, some companies could see their pension contributions increase three or four times in 1 year; in some cases, even more. That is a very difficult burden for any company to bear. For a smaller or medium-size company, that kind of burden is probably too much. This bill then gives our pension system a rule so pension contributions will be calculated based on a rational interest rate rather than one that is obsolete and artificially low. I know this bill does not do everything everyone wanted. This is true. But the provisions in this bill have broad bipartisan support. And, of course, as I constantly remind my colleagues, nothing of substance gets done in this body if it is not done in a bipartisan way, unlike the House of Representatives where partisanship can prevail from time to time and does most of the time. This legislation before us is simply too important not to be enacted now. Companies must pay their next pension payment on April 15, just around the corner. Failure to pass this bill would have devastating consequences for workers and the economy. This is a temporary bill, but we need to be working on permanent reforms. The Senate Finance Committee is about doing that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am glad to yield without losing the floor, yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Would the Senator from Minnesota allow me to have 2 more minutes?