Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am glad to speak about the man from Connecticut and his amendment but not to support it. First of all, we need to remember, with or without this subject before the Senate, these plans could be dropped without any hesitation. We can have the prescription drug plan before the Senate, and there could be some reason some companies would drop that. But right now, remember, our passage of this legislation is very much to fill a gap. We are worried about people who do not have any coverage whatever. As I have said before, we are all very concerned about the future of retirees' benefits and making sure retirees are treated fairly. Under the beneficial before the Senate, retirees get the same protection from high prescription drugs and the costs as any other beneficiary. That is a generous subsidy, far greater than they currently get, which would be zero. The fact is, typical retiree plans provide much more generous coverage, and the beneficiaries spend much less out of pocket for their prescriptions. There has been a great deal of interest in the assumption by the Congressional Budget Office that corporations are going to drop their coverage of prescription drugs for about 37 percent of the retirees in retiree health plans over the next 10 years. What we cannot forget is employers, as I indicated, are already dropping or, maybe more, scaling back retiree health benefits not because of our legislation but because retiree health benefits are rising because of very high health care costs. They have already been dropping plans or cutting them back for at least a decade, a point made by my colleague, Senator Dodd. We have worked hard to address this problem in the underlying legislation. One of the most significant future liabilities faced by retiree plans is the cost of prescription drugs. We have given employers serious and generous subsidies. The Dodd amendment proposes to boost subsidies for employers beyond the 64 percent we have given them already. This change would send millions more in taxpayers dollars to these corporations during the next decade. We had to put priorities first. We have $400 billion. We have looked at States and the problems of dual eligibles. We looked at corporate retiree plans and what might happen and what can we do to keep those that are going out of business or dumping theirs on a government plan. We have worked with a lot of different problems. We have had to do the best we can to squeeze within that $400 billion. We have tried to help the States to some extent on dual eligibles. We are trying to help corporations with incentives not to dump their retirees on this plan. I can go down a long list we have tried to squeeze in and prioritize. The overriding goal was to help those who had no drug plans whatever. That was very much a high priority. We have maybe 30 percent or a little more on private plans. We have people on Medicare with Medigap policies. We have people who are duly eligible subject to Medicaid. But we have 30 percent or more with zilch. We go beyond just helping those who do not have any plan. But that has been our priority. We tried to do it in a way that people who have better--and maybe most corporate retiree plans do have better incentives than what we can provide--and they can continue to have better. But we cannot control entirely what corporations are going to do. Particularly, you cannot do that on the amount of money we have here. As I indicated, this is a very expensive amendment that we cannot squeeze into the $400 billion. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. First, let me explain to the distinguished Presiding Officer why we refer to ``the man from Connecticut.'' When I was going to yield him some time, I didn't think of the word ``Senator.'' I said I will give 1 minute to the man from Connecticut, and I apologize. First of all, I wish I had an exact number for this amendment. It has some costs, but I do not have an official score from the Congressional Budget Office so I cannot say that this costs X number of billions of dollars at this point. But it does have some cost. I am going to try to convince the Senator from Connecticut that we have done a lot in this legislation for people who are low income. Maybe it doesn't go as high up the economic ladder as he would like to have us go. But my point is we have done an awful lot. We worked very hard to minimize the gap in coverage with resources provided in the budget resolution which would be roughly $400 billion. The bill also provides generous coverage to lower income beneficiaries, those who have income below about $15,000, and couples with incomes below about $20,000. They, in fact, have no gap in coverage. That is 44 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who are completely unaffected by the benefit limit. In the writing of this bill, a conscious decision was made to devote excess dollars to filling in the gap in coverage for all seniors. Under the underlying bill, the average senior at this income level will still save more than $1,600 annually off the drug spending after paying an affordable monthly premium of $35 per month. This is a savings of about 53 percent off annual drug costs for the average senior who would enroll in the drug benefit. Let me remind everybody, this drug benefit is optional. People do not have to join it. If anybody is saying I don't want to pay $35 per month to get this sort of coverage, then that person does not have to pay $35 per month for coverage because this is a voluntary program. So the people who enroll in this program would save that $1,600, even beyond the $35-per-month premium. While I appreciate what the Senator from Connecticut is trying to do, it cannot possibly fit within the $400 billion that we have. We had to draw a limit someplace. We drew the limit at 160 percent of poverty. So I cannot support his amendment. I am sorry to say that to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield any time I have and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while I am at it, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on both the Dodd amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will yield the man 1 minute of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have some sympathy for what the Senator from Connecticut says because so many times I have said to my constituents, this is voluntary. You are going to have your choice to go into another plan or change plans. I emphasize the ability to change plans. In addition, we have to have some stability even in the early years. Most importantly, when we are developing a new prescription drug benefit, the most vast improvement in Medicare in 35 years, I think it demands more stability than when you get down the road a ways. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Maybe I should ask, are we under time constraints?

Mr. GRASSLEY. What the Senator from New Jersey wants to do I wish we could do. I personally was somewhat astounded when we asked experts at the Congressional Budget Office, experts at the Office of Management and Budget, experts in the Department of Health and Human Services, how much time it would take to get this new prescription drug program underway. We were advised to start it in the year 2006. In an ideal world, all seniors would have access to our comprehensive prescription drug benefit next year. But our plan, I am sorry to say, cannot go into effect until 2006. Therefore, we need to do something to help our seniors right now. Part of S. 1 does that. They have been doing it because seniors, as I am sure the Senator from New Jersey is trying to respond to, have been waiting a very long time for Congress to act and pass a prescription drug benefit, in the end, helping them with the tremendous costs they are paying for prescription drugs. This obviously is not satisfying to the Senator from New Jersey who would like to get this plan underway much sooner. Because of the waiting period until the year 2006 to get the very comprehensive program underway, we included in our plan a temporary prescription drug discount card. This is a voluntary program that all seniors can partake of next year. It is available for an annual fee costing no more than $25. Since our low-income seniors need extra help, this fee would be waived. It provides for a 10-percent to 25-percent discount on all costs of prescription drugs. There are some seniors for whom even a 10-percent to 25-percent discount is still a hardship to purchase prescription drugs. So we have added to this for really low-income seniors to receive a $600 annual help in purchasing prescription drugs during this interim period of time, 2004 and 2005. They will be required to pay a minimal copayment of 10 percent when the spending of the $600 subsidy is in place. Spouses who receive the low- income benefit are also allowed to pool share their deposits. When the comprehensive drug program begins January 1, 2006, the discount card program automatically ends. However, low-income seniors will be able to use their allotment of $600 until June 2006. Almost 10 million Medicare beneficiaries with significant prescription drug needs will realize savings from this endorsement program. The Center for Medicare Services projects that the Medicare beneficiaries will save between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion in the program the very first year. As I said, I feel, not for reasons I like to give to my fellow Senators, that we cannot expect this comprehensive new prescription drug program for seniors, which happens to be the first major improvement in strengthening of Medicare since 1965, to go into effect. Maybe we can push and push and push, but this first major expansion of Medicare in 38 years ought to be carefully done and done right. Consequently, that is why we have deferred to the judgment of the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, as well as the Secretary of HHS. We have tried to compensate for the long period of phasing with the discount card and the $600 subsidy. I wish I could do more. I wish I could vote for the Senator's amendment but I cannot. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator from New Hampshire will just give me a minute, I have a unanimous consent request on votes coming up I would like to propound. I ask unanimous consent that at 4:20 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Dayton amendment No. 957, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lincoln amendment, No. 1002; to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment, No. 982, with 2 minutes equally divided for debate for each succeeding vote after the first; further, that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes; and finally that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes in length. I ask unanimous consent that prior to the first vote, Senator Sununu be recognized for up to 5 minutes in order to offer an amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I modify my unanimous consent request accordingly.

Mr. GRASSLEY. You will get 2 minutes, one from your leader. Can we go ahead?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I sympathize with those who feel a need to get this program going sooner than we have it in this legislation. But the fact is, CMS has told us it is physically impossible to get this benefit up and running in the year 2004. Now, knowing that, we have provided a prescription drug discount card, starting on January 1, 2004, in order to get immediate relief from the high cost of prescriptions for our seniors. The amendment would spend close to $24 billion in fiscal year 2004-- the amendment that is before us--and that is money that is not in the budget. We deal with the needs of our seniors in a fair way with this bill, the discount card, and the $600 help for them for each of the next 2 years. So I urge my colleagues to take all this into consideration and oppose the amendment. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd have up to 20 minutes and Senator Grassley up to 10 minutes for debate on amendment Nos. 970 and 998 concurrently. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment No. 970, to be followed by a vote in relation to amendment No. 998, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. tomorrow the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Grassley, or his designee, amendment, regarding the benchmark, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further, that this vote be subject to the approval of both leaders.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code until January 1, 2004. This measure will provide our family farmers with the necessary bankruptcy protections during hard times. However, I remain hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the comprehensive bankruptcy legislation that the House passed not long ago. That bill makes Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent, so family farms are guaranteed the ability to reorganize. The bill also makes significant improvements to Chapter 12 so that it will be more accessible and helpful to farmers. So while I urge quick passage of this temporary Chapter 12 measure, I would like to see the comprehensive bankruptcy Reform bill and permanent Chapter 12 enacted into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce today the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill will be yet one more tool for the United States to use to expand its exports of agricultural products. Agricultural exports are key to the economic health of rural America. Just last year, $53.1 billion worth of U.S.-produced agricultural products were exported. About one-third of America's farm products are sold outside of our borders. These sales in foreign markets translate to improved incomes for our country's farmers. Today, approximately one-fourth of gross farm income for U.S. producers comes from exports. Agricultural exports are particularly important to farmers in my State of Iowa. In 2001, some $3.3 billion worth of Iowa's agricultural production was exported. This makes Iowa the second largest agricultural exporting State in the country. Iowa's largest commodities--corn, soybeans, pork, and beef--greatly benefit from sales abroad. Approximately one-half of U.S. soybean production, and 20 percent of our country's corn production, is exported. Last year U.S. pork exports set record levels. Since the implementation of the NAFTA, exports of U.S. beef and beef variety meats to Mexico have increased five-fold. Iowa's producers clearly benefit from exports. While Iowa's agricultural exports are already high, they have the potential to grow even more in coming years. Demand in the U.S. market for agricultural products is relatively stable. But populations, as well as disposable incomes, are increasing rapidly in foreign countries. With the hardest-working farmers and ranchers in the world, and with productivity increasing through improved technologies, the United States clearly has the ability to continue feeding a growing world. But trade barriers imposed by foreign governments often cloud this bright spot for U.S. agriculture. Too frequently, misguided foreign governments overlook the wants and needs of their consumers and take measures to restrict, or prevent, imports of U.S. farm products. These policies hurt U.S. farmers. They also hurt foreign consumers. In fact, due in part to foreign trade barriers, U.S. agricultural exports declined from $60.4 billion in 1996 to $53.1 billion in 2002. Unfortunately, even countries that should be our closest trade allies are proving adept at imposing measures that block imports of U.S. farm products. As an example, our NAFTA-partner Mexico is imposing, or threatening to impose, barriers to imports of a wide variety of U.S. agricultural products. These products include corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, beef, rice, apples, and dry beans. Iowa is a major producer of four of these products--corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, and beef. Not surprisingly, much of U.S. agriculture is upset with Mexico and other of our trading partners at this time. U.S. agricultural producers have traditionally been the strongest supporters of new trade deals. But due to foreign trade barriers, some in U.S. agriculture are beginning to question their support for new trade agreements. The U.S. Trade Representative, in conjunction with Congress, is working hard to remove trade barriers imposed by Mexico and other countries. But the current tools available to the USTR, including negotiations, NAFTA challenges, and WTO challenges, don't always accomplish the job. Let me give you an example. For several years now, Mexico has gone to great lengths to block imports of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. In 1998, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of this product from the United States. The United States challenged this antidumping order under the NAFTA. Mexico lost at the NAFTA. The United States challenged this order at the WTO. Mexico lost at the WTO. Following its defeats at the NAFTA and the WTO, Mexico revoked this antidumping order. But, no, that wasn't the end of the story. Mexico turned around and imposed a 20 percent tax on sales of soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. This discriminatory tax was designed to boost sales of Mexican sugar at the expense of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. Mexico's tax in effect shut down the Mexican market for this product. Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers are now being locked out of what was at one time their largest export market. This discriminatory tax is hurting Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers. It's hurting Iowa's corn farmers. This example clearly demonstrates that existing tools aren't always enough to remove entrenched trade barriers. Despite losing at the NAFTA, despite losing at the WTO, and despite lengthy negotiations, Mexico is still blocking imports of U.S. high fructose corn syrup. It's time to add yet another tool to our arsenal. That's why I'm introducing the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill creates a new mechanism with which to confront foreign trade barriers. The new mechanism operates in a similar fashion to the existing special 301 provision for intellectual property. The bill requires USTR to identify and report on those foreign countries that deny fair and equitable market access for U.S. agricultural exports, or countries that apply to U.S. agricultural products sanitary or phytosanitary measures that are not based on sound science. USTR would annually issue a report on its findings. Out of the countries identified in USTR's report, USTR would identify which ones have the most egregious practices impacting U.S. agricultural exports and, further, are not entering into good faith negotiations with the United States to end these practices. This legislation also authorizes additional staffing for USTR to focus on these agricultural enforcement issues. This bill will further strengthen the ability of the United States to enforce its existing market access rights for agricultural exports. Perhaps just as important, it will help Congress and the Administration prioritize barriers imposed by our trading partners. Through such prioritization, U.S. negotiators will be better able to focus upon removing the most egregious of these barriers. The United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act will not solve all of our agricultural market access problems. We need to move ahead vigorously in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to tear down barriers to our exports. At the top of this list is successful completion of agricultural negotiations in the WTO. However, the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003 will help us identify the most egregious problems, so we can focus our energy on fixing them. It will also provide a new enforcement tool to help make sure American farmers are getting the benefit of our hard fought trade bargains. This bill is strongly supported by Iowa's agricultural community, including the Iowa Corn Growers, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and the Iowa Soybean Association. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues Senator Max Baucus, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp for their hard work on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that the Senator from New Mexico is ready to modify his amendment. With the modification, I accept that amendment. We would not have a vote. I urge we proceed to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico for consideration of his modification.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from New Mexico will explain that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As I indicated, we accept that amendment, and I would like to have it adopted on a voice vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We have had so many Democrat amendments that have been offered. We have reserved time for Republicans to fit in. It is my understanding that Senator Smith of Oregon is prepared to offer an amendment from our side. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith be recognized.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in answer to the distinguished Democrat whip, there is an effort being made at the staff level to put together a series of votes. In further response, we are not prepared at this point to ask unanimous consent, but we will have such a request to make for stacking of votes and an order for votes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is my understanding.