Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, the unanimous consent provision does allow for amendments, an equal number on both sides. We hope the people who are interested in following that rule will come over. I have been told there is at least one Member on my side of the aisle who should be here shortly to offer an amendment. I urge that to happen. Obviously, we will be glad to have debate and accommodate everybody in any way we can. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to follow on what Senator Kennedy said in his opening remarks about this bill being here through a great deal of cooperation between two committees, and Republicans and Democrats within those committees. It also gives me an opportunity to thank Senator Baucus because I always have a very close working relationship with him on our Finance Committee. This is a result of that cooperation. But, as I previously said, and it has been alluded to by Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, this is an issue where two committees, the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee share jurisdiction. So we have had a remarkable cooperation between the two committees, and that includes Senator Kennedy's cooperation to get this bill out and hopefully not only get it to the floor but that this sort of cooperation helps us expedite this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation and is needed by a lot of segments of the economy in order to keep companies viable. In addition, I hope we will be able to have Senator Baucus back with us quickly. Originally when he left the hospital we heard it might be 2 weeks' recovery. I hope that is coming along OK and he should be back here with us very shortly. Mr. President, I will suggest the calling of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that people on Senator Baucus's staff, Jane Bergeson, Simon Chabel, and Trace Thaxton, interns with the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on H.R. 3108, the 30-year Treasury bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathleen West, a fellow on the Finance Committee staff, be permitted access to the floor during debate on the Pension Funding Equity Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to honor an exceptional Iowan. On October 20, 2003, Iowa National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Jodi S. Tymeson was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. She has the distinct honor of being the first female General Officer in the history of the Iowa National Guard. Her hard work and dedication to service are celebrated by this promotion. I want to extend my deepest congratulations to Brigadier General Tymeson. Serving in the Iowa Army National Guard for nearly 30 years, she continues to prove herself a capable and responsible leader and one who garners respect from her colleagues. She has received numerous Army awards and decorations, including the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal. She also completed the U.S. Army War College in 1999. Brigadier General Tymeson also serves as a member of the Iowa House of Representatives. She chairs the House Education Committee and is a member on both the Human Resources and Ways and Means Committees. She is also active in many community and civic organizations and serves on the boards of directors for the Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center and Iowa Jobs for America's Graduates. Congratulations again to Brigadier General Tymeson. She continues to serve her country with dedication and I thank her for her continued energy and devotion to Iowa and to America.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003. The Social Security Protection Act of 2003 provides the Social Security Administration with important new tools to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. This bill would eliminate benefits to fugitive felons. It would prohibit benefits to illegal workers. It would eliminate the ``last day'' loophole in the Government Pension Offset. It would provide additional oversight of representative payees. Finally, the bill would improve benefits for person with disabilities. This bill passed the House of Representatives in April. The Senate Committee on Finance approved the bill in September with a number of important changes. In order to expedite passage of this legislation, Senator Baucus and I have worked closely with the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee over the past several weeks. The result of this work is reflected in the managers' amendment that has now been incorporated into this bill. I have drafted an explanation of the amendment that has been agreed to by the chairman and the ranking member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, as well as by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the explanation be printed in the Record. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Iowan and a great patriot, Iowa National Guard Specialist Aaron J. ``George'' Sissel. Specialist Sissel gave his life in service to his country on November 29, 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom when the convoy in which he was traveling came under enemy fire. This brave young man was only 22 years old at the time of his death. I ask my colleagues in the Senate, my fellow Iowans, and all Americans to join me today in paying tribute to Specialist Sissel for his dedication to the cause of freedom and for his sacrifice in defense of the liberties we all so dearly prize. He selflessly served his Nation, sacrificing his life for the great principles that underpin both our way of life and the hopes and dreams of all humankind--the principles of liberty, justice, and equality. In a statement released following his death, Specialist Sissel's family offered the following words about their son and brother: ``Aaron 'George' died doing what he loved and believed in. We are very proud of him.'' We can all be very proud of men like Specialist Sissel. Our Nation's history is distinguished by the presence of extraordinary men and women willing to risk their lives in defense of our country, but also by families who sacrifice those they love for the sake of the great principles of American life. While we share the pride felt by Specialist Sissel's family, we also share their grief. My deepest sympathy goes out to the members of Specialist Sissel's family, to his friends, and to all those who have been touched by his untimely passing. May his mother, Jo, his father and stepmother, Kirk and Cindy, his sister, Shanna, and his fiancee, Kari Prellwitz, be comforted with the knowledge that they are in the thoughts and prayers of many Americans, and that they have the eternal gratitude of an entire nation. Specialist Sissel did not die in vain; rather, he died in defense of the Nation he loved and the principles in which he believed. Indeed, Specialist Aaron J. ``George'' Sissel has entered the ranks of our Nation's greatest patriots, and his courage, his dedication, and his sacrifice are all testaments to his status as a true American hero. SP4 David J. Goldberg, U.S. Army

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, CBO estimates that under the conference report seniors will be offered average greater savings under the Senate bill. The price for prescription drugs will almost certainly be lower than the prices seniors who do not have drug coverage pay today. company-owned life insurance

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. First, I very much appreciate the passion of the opposition. Hopefully, they will look back on this day and come to the conclusion that we have not only provided prescription drugs for seniors as the first improvement in Medicare in 38 years and the strengthening of Medicare that follows it, but that we are also in the process of giving baby boomers an alternative Medicare Program, if they would so choose. The basis of such legislation is the right to choose for seniors. No one is forced to do anything. We will give those baby boomers a program that is much closer to the health insurance they have in the places from which they retire. Regardless, there are two classes of people covered today or not covered today with prescription drugs that we are emphasizing. For low- income people, too often our seniors are choosing between heat and prescription drugs, particularly in the cold areas of the country, or between food and prescription drugs. This legislation is going to lessen the chances that low-income people are going to have to make such choices. The other group of people are those who have catastrophically high prescription drug costs. There is heavy subsidy and help in this bill for those two categories of people. Those are significant categories of people. Also, we are doing something for everybody in this legislation from the standpoint that for the first time there will be in place mechanisms to dramatically negotiate down the price of drugs. That is obviously going to help the people who voluntarily choose to go into these plans, but the extent to which that is going to have an impact on everybody, old or young, is very important because all I hear from opponents of this bill is that we do not do anything to help cut down on the costs of drugs. We do it through the subsidy. We do it through negotiations. We do it through getting generic drugs on the market much sooner than before. Also, this bill is about enhancing quality of life, because none of us think the quality of life is enhanced by putting people in the hospital if they do not need to go to the hospital. Remember when Medicare was enacted 38 years ago, the practice of medicine was to put everybody into the hospital. Today, the practice of medicine--and a lot of the thanks can go to prescription drugs--is to keep people out of hospitals and out of operating rooms. So people who cannot afford drugs, who go to the doctor very sick, are going to not only end up in a place they do not want to go, because people would rather not go to hospitals, rather not go to operating rooms. It is going to save our programs a lot of money, both private and public payment programs, for doctors and hospitals, when we can have people go into programs where they can get prescription drugs and keep their health up so they do not go to the hospital. So we are bringing Medicare and the practice of medicine into the 21st century. In strengthening and improving Medicare, we are doing today exactly what we would be doing if we were writing a Medicare Program in the year 2003 as opposed to the year 1965. I hope the opponents, in a few years, can look back and say this is the day we have done the right thing for seniors, for their economic life, for the quality of their life; we have done the right thing for our hospitals and our doctors; we have done the right thing for America. I would like to spend just a little bit of time counteracting the arguments that are used against this bill by those who say we are not doing enough for low-income people. In fact, this bill is coming back from conference doing better for low-income people than when it went into conference. One of those major changes that were made, not only at the behest of the House of Representatives but also at the behest of a lot of people in this body, probably more prominent in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, was to make sure the category of people we call dual eligibles--those low-income seniors who are already on Medicare but also qualify for Medicaid--is to put all of those into the Medicare Program so we didn't have an inequality. Maybe it was not a very big inequality but at least there was some inequality from one State to another State because of the Federal-State partnership in Medicaid that enables the State legislatures in some States to maybe set up a little different program--a little more rich, a little less rich--than what might be done in another State. So dual eligibles are in this bill because of the demands of mostly Democrat Senators and people in the House of Representatives. That is something I didn't believe should be done, but I supported it because that was a necessary compromise. But now I find people who were advocating that position complaining about the legislation. So I want to tell them how wrong they are or how, if they are right just a little bit, they are right in such an insignificant way that it is immaterial because that ought to be seen as something that results from something they wanted us to do in this legislation. This conference report, then, contains a generous drug benefit for these dually eligible seniors. There is, first of all, no donut hole for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Let's get this clear. Let me make it clear. People on that side of the aisle are complaining about a donut hole. But for low-income people there is no donut hole. The bill guarantees all 6 million dual eligibles access to prescription drugs. Under our conference report, dual eligibles will have better access through Medicare, especially since State Medicaid programs are increasingly imposing restrictions on patients' access to drugs, and that is what brings about greater inequity from State to State. Since States are in a budget crunch, forced to do that, some dual eligibles might be treated less generously in one State as opposed to another, but when they are all under the Federal Medicare Program, that will not be the case. Further, States have the flexibility to provide coverage for classes of drugs, including over-the-counter drugs, that are not now covered by the Medicare Program. This bill ensures appeal rights for dual eligibles. Under the agreement, dual eligibles will maintain appeals rights like those in the Medicaid Program. The dual eligibles are a fragile population and I think, because of the conference report as opposed to either bill in its original form, they are taken care of better in this bill. The conference report recognizes and provides generous coverage to these 6 million people. I hope we can take the summation of the AARP when they said this bill ``is a historic breakthrough and [an] important milestone in the Nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens. . . .'' I hope that will be conceived or considered as a toning down of the partisan opposition to this legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time just in case some colleagues come over. I have more to say, but I will say it later if other colleagues don't show up, so I yield the floor. Title XI

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree. The hearing was informative and prepared the committee to come to an agreement on the reforms that ought to take place.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I share this regret. Let me pledge to have this markup on a COLI provision at the Finance Committee's first opportunity in 2004. I look forward to completing the action we began in October.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Kansas is correct. My commitment to cancer patients has not changed. Indeed, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, this bill is expected to actually increase net payments to oncologists in 2004. Also, CBO estimates that the new Average Sales Price Reimbursement model, when coupled with the changes in practice expense reimbursement, will amount to net reductions to cancer care of $4.2 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I did know that, and I know that certain mental illnesses also fall in that category. This bill contains a number of protections for people who need exactly the right medicine for them.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree. And I am pleased with the backup protections in this bill. That if a plan doesn't carry or doesn't treat as preferred a drug needed by, say, a person with AIDS, a simple note from a doctor explaining the medical need for that particular drug could get that drug covered.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume and I invite proponents of the legislation to come over so I can yield some time to them. One of the issues that has been bad-mouthed by the other side, the opponents of this legislation, is that we have not done enough to help retiree coverage; in other words, the problem they would suppose is that a lot of corporations will be dumping their plans on the Government. First of all, Congress can't pass a law telling any corporation X, Y, or Z that they can't do that. If they decide it is in their interest, they are going to do it. The point is they have been doing it for years and years. I had a chart up here 2 days ago that showed how we have gone down from about 89 percent to 60 percent over the last 10 years of the corporations that had retiree health plans. What we are doing is putting in place a program so that if a corporation does that, there is at least something for people who have zilch when it comes to prescription drugs. One of the things we have done to encourage corporations not to do that is we have put $89 billion in this bill to protect retiree health coverage. This funding makes it more likely--not less likely--that employers will continue their retiree benefits. We do that for two reasons. Obviously, it is better for people to keep what they have. So there is an incentive for that. That will help keep a good drug benefit. Second, if this is dumped on the Medicare Program, it is going to be much more costly than to keep it in the corporation plan. We did it for those two reasons. The opponents of this bill have been saying retirees are going to be dropped--that they will be left without coverage because of this bill. It is easy to make very clear that these retirees will not be left without drug coverage. That is, obviously, because one of the motivations behind this 3-year effort to get prescription drugs in Medicare is to take care of or at least offer a plan to people who don't have anything. That is about 35 percent of the people today. It is better for those who do not have as good a plan as we are putting on the books. These retirees will still be better off than they are today because today, when their employers drop their coverage, they are left with nothing--no coverage at all. Because of this bill, these retirees will be getting drug coverage from Medicare, and their former employer will likely pay the monthly premium for that. This is a bipartisan bill. This bill addresses the problem we saw as a very serious problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have addressed it in a very responsible way and by reducing very much the possibility that these corporate retirees will be dumped onto this plan. This bipartisan bill protects retirees' benefits. That has been our goal, and we have accomplished it. The time has come strengthen and improve Medicare with this historic bipartisan agreement. It is the culmination of years of work by Republicans and Democrats who have come together to get this done. As the AARP has made clear when providing its strong endorsement, this bill ``helps millions of older Americans and their families,'' and is ``an important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens. . . .'' This bill offers an affordable, universal prescription drug benefit that will cover about half the cost of prescriptions for the average senior. It offers generous coverage for 14 million lower income seniors. It expands coverage for lower income seniors far beyond what is offered today. They will have access to drug coverage with lower or no premiums, no coverage cap, and coverage of 85 percent to 95 percent of the cost of prescription drugs. And the new Medicare drug benefit is voluntary--no one is forced to enroll in this benefit. Seniors can stay in traditional Medicare just like they have today and have full access to prescription drugs. There is also a guaranteed government fallback. It is a guarantee that seniors will be able to get prescription drug coverage. This bill also invests $89 billion to protect retiree health coverage. This funding makes it more likely, not less likely, that employers will continue their retiree benefits. This bill also creates new coverage choices for beneficiaries in a newly revitalized Medicare Advantage program. And this is voluntary too--no one will be forced to join an HMO. The bill lowers drug costs by speeding the delivery of new generic drugs to the marketplace, lowering costs for all Americans, not just those on Medicare. The bipartisan bill includes long overdue improvements to Medicare's complex regulations. It also revitalizes the rural health care safety net with the biggest package of rural payment improvements Congress has ever seen. I urge my colleagues to put the interests of our seniors first and give them more choices and better benefits by voting for this historic bipartisan prescription drug bill. We cannot let this opportunity pass. Mr. President, it has been a long and arduous process to get us to where we are today. This is a process that didn't start this year, or even last year, but many years ago, on the foundation of what we then called the ``tripartisan bill.'' Through many years of discussions and negotiations in the Finance Committee, we have taken the foundation of that first bill and crafted comprehensive Medicare policy that will vastly improve the health and overall well being of our nation's seniors. Our critics will say it is not enough or that it lacks one provision or another. My response is that no other Finance Committee membership and no other Congress has been able to produce a bill of this magnitude. We have worked tirelessly in the Finance Committee and with our colleagues in the House to try to make this bill as perfect as possible. The reality is the Medicare program itself is not perfect. And I challenge those in opposition to this bill, to show me perfect legislation. It is impossible because we're adding layers on a system that has been in place for nearly 40 years. But everyone involved in this process has worked their hearts out to make this bill the best bill that it can be. It has been a sacrifice for all involved. Missed dinners with family, missed weekends with the kids, little sleep, and intense emotions and intellectual energy--to make this bill what it is. We've all given 150 percent to get this bill done. And I will admit we did not reach ``perfection'', but we reached excellence. And America's seniors will benefit from the commitment that was made by all of us involved. We did it for them. And it will make a positive difference in their lives. To me, that is the closest thing to perfection that we could achieve. Let me close by thanking my colleagues on the committee, in the Senate, the House, CMS, HHS and the White House. Dedicated individuals across the Congress and the Executive Branch have worked tirelessly, night and day, to make this happen, and they deserve our thanks for their true commitment to this bill and their commitment to this country. For my part, I want to thank my own current Finance Committee staff: Ted Totman, my Deputy Staff Director who shepherded staff and members through this arduous process; Linda Fishman, my Health Policy Director who led the committee's consideration of this bill and who captained a team of talented analysts, including Colin Roskey, whose daughter, Rose, was born while negotiations played out in the Finance Committee in March; Mark Hayes, who balanced multiple titles of this legislation while attending law school at night; Jennifer Bell, whose dedication to the needs of rural Americans played an instrumental role in the success of our rural healthcare package; Leah Kegler, who managed many of the complex low income and Medicaid policies in the bill; Alicia Ziemiecki, who provided crucial assistance and support to all on this staff and to individual Committee members throughout the year; and Mollie Zito, who joined the staff just this year and immediately made important contributions to the overall effort. Still other former members of my Finance Committee staff who are not with me on the floor today have been instrumental in the development of this legislation. They include: Monica Tencate, Tom Walsh, Rebecca Reisinger, Hope Cooper, and Jeannie Haggerty, each of whom helped to shape the original Tripartisan proposal, whose imprint on this legislation is unmistakable. Each of these individuals contributed creatively, analytically and energetically to the successful completion of this legislation. Beyond the health staff of the Finance Committee, I want to recognize other committee staff who played important roles in resolving the many interwoven, complex tax, health and trade policies within this legislation. Mark Prater and Diann Howland helped navigate many of the health savings account and employer-related issues in the bill. Steven Schaefer and Everett Eissenstadt along with Rita Lari of my Judiciary Committee staff helped conferees reach consensus on difficult pricing, importation and generic drug policies. Steve Robinson assisted in budgetary matters, and Dean Zerbe and Emilia DiSanto provided good counsel on matters relating to Medicare program integrity. Jill Kozeny, Jill Gerber, Beth Levine and Dustin Vande Hoef provided cogent and concise outreach and explanation to the media. Leah Shimp, Cory Crowley and Mary Gross kept in close touch with Iowans on the legislation. And Kolan Davis, my Chief Counsel on the committee, provided important oversight and advice throughout the process. Beyond my own staff, I want to recognize Senator Baucus's staff, with whom I have enjoyed an excellent working relationship over the last few years and with whom my own staff has worked especially closely: Jeff Forbes, Russ Sullivan, Judy Miller, Bill Dauster, Liz Fowler, Jonathan Blum, Pat Bousliman, Andrea Cohen, Mike Mongan, Kate Kirchgraber and Dan Stein. Senator Baucus's team have shown a sincere commitment to balanced, fair bipartisan legislation and have been consummate professionals throughout. The staff to my Senate colleagues on the conference are also deserving our thanks. Each contributed to a collegial working environment under enormous time and political pressures: Pattie DeLoatche, Mark Carlson, and Bruce Artim with Senator Hatch; Stacey Hughes, Hazen Marshall and Bini Zomer with Senator Nickles; Don Dempsey, Diane Major, Elizabeth Maier and Lisa Wolski with Senator Kyl; Dean Rosen, Elizabeth Scanlon, Craig Burton and Eric Ueland with Senator Frist; and Sarah Walter, Michele Easton and Paige Jennings with Senator Breaux. Finally, all of us were extremely well served by the hard work of our Congressional support agencies, including the able work of our Senate Legislative Counsels who toiled longer into the night than most: Ruth Ernst, John Goetcheus and Jim Scott. Technical and analytical support was provided by experts at the Congressional Research Service, including Richard Price, Jim Hahn, Chris Peterson, Hinda Chakind, Jennifer O'Sullivan and Jennifer Boulanger and many others who assisted in the completion of the Conference Report. At the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Holtz-Eakin, Steve Lieberman, Tom Bradley, Chris Topileski, Phil Ellis, Rachel Schmidt, Jeannie De Sa, Eric Rollins, Shinobu Suzuki and many others played crucial roles in developing cost estimates for policies large and small in this conference agreement. Each of these dedicated individuals is deserving of our thanks for their commitment to improving Medicare and making affordable access to prescription drugs a reality for America's seniors. If the other side says it is OK, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with my good friend.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I would also note that the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, has some concerns over this issue. He has been a forceful advocate for the oncology community. And while I think the package for cancer care is a fair one, I understand that he has some concerns.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct, Senator. The Medicare conference agreement contains a number of significant reforms, which will save billions of dollars in overpayments from Medicare covered drugs, while also substantially increasing payments to physicians. I intend to preserve continued access to high-quality cancer care.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries get the benefit of negotiated discounts that the private sector is able to achieve. We want seniors, who today pay the highest prices, to have access to discounted prices. And we also don't want to see the situation we have today with Part B covered drugs. Isn't it true that the Federal Government dramatically overpays for the drugs that are currently covered under Medicare today?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we introduce a bill to fight tax fraud. I am not talking about just moving around a few numbers on a tax return. Today we will begin closing the loop holes that have created millions of gallon and billions of dollars of missing fuel and missing tax dollars. This problem not only robs the U.S. Treasury it also robs the American Taxpayer. We rely on these tax dollars to fund not only the Highway Trust Fund, which is charged with constructing and maintaining our national transportation system, this also robs money from our Airport Trust Fund. In light of investigations completed since September 11th, the safety and soundness of maintaining our nation's transportation infrastructure is now more than ever of the utmost importance. These issues are not just tax fraud--not only are we concerned with the tax loss, but where else is this money going--is it being used to fund terrorism? We need to know where all of this fuel is going. What makes us think that if we cannot find the fuel to collect the tax, that we could find the fuel to stop the terrorists acts. A missing barge could hold ninety tanker truck loads of fuel, that's about $500,000 in Federal and State excise taxes left uncollected, its also hundreds of thousands of gallons that we cannot account. That cannot happen, and this bill should help our enforcement officers close the loop holes and collect the tax that builds our highways.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we introduce a bill to fight tax fraud. I am not talking about just moving around a few numbers on a tax return. Today we will begin closing the loop holes that have created millions of gallon and billions of dollars of missing fuel and missing tax dollars. This problem not only robs the U.S. Treasury it also robs the American Taxpayer. We rely on these tax dollars to fund not only the Highway Trust Fund, which is charged with constructing and maintaining our national transportation system, this also robs money from our Airport Trust Fund. In light of investigations completed since September 11th, the safety and soundness of maintaining our nation's transportation infrastructure is now more than ever of the utmost importance. These issues are not just tax fraud--not only are we concerned with the tax loss, but where else is this money going--is it being used to fund terrorism? We need to know where all of this fuel is going. What makes us think that if we cannot find the fuel to collect the tax, that we could find the fuel to stop the terrorists acts. A missing barge could hold ninety tanker truck loads of fuel, that's about $500,000 in Federal and State excise taxes left uncollected, its also hundreds of thousands of gallons that we cannot account. That cannot happen, and this bill should help our enforcement officers close the loop holes and collect the tax that builds our highways.