Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

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. 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. Mr. President, it has been almost 10 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--went into effect. Overall, this agreement has been a great success for America's farmers and ranchers. Between 1994 and 2002, U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico grew by 95 percent. Mexican agriculture has benefited as well from NAFTA. Exports of Mexican agricultural products to the United States increased by almost 97 percent from 1993 to 2001. At the present time, some 78 percent of all agricultural products exported by Mexico are sent to the United States, making the United States by far the largest market for Mexico's agricultural exports. Clearly, the agricultural sectors of both the United States and Mexico have on the whole profited from NAFTA. For this reason, I am confounded by some of the recent actions of the Mexican government that undermine the spirit, if not the letter, of NAFTA. Allow me to elaborate on some of these actions. Mexico has recently imposed, or threatened to impose, trade barriers to a wide variety of U.S. agricultural products. These products include pork, beef, corn, high fructose corn syrup, rice, apples, and dry beans. Apparently ignoring that increased competition in the Mexican market has benefited that country's consumers, some in Mexico have spoken of renegotiating the agriculture provisions of the NAFTA. Mexico's measures against U.S. agricultural products have certainly caught the attention of many members of the Senate, including me. Let me explain Mexico's actions that are directly impacting producers in my state of Iowa. I'll start with high fructose corn syrup. It's true that U.S. producers of agricultural products have, on the whole, benefited from NAFTA. And, at one point, that was the case with U.S. producers of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico was formerly the largest export market for U.S. produced high fructose corn syrup. But in January 2002, the Mexican Congress imposed a tax of up to 20 percent on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. This move was undoubtedly intended to provide Mexican sugar producers with an unfair advantage in the Mexican market over U.S. high fructose corn syrup producers. As a result of this discriminatory tax, U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup to Mexico are now at almost zero levels. Mexico's high fructose corn syrup tax was imposed following WTO and NAFTA panel rulings that found that a 1998 Mexican antidumping order on U.S. high fructose corn syrup did not comply with Mexico's trade obligations. Clearly, Mexico is going out of its way to prevent the sale of high fructose corn syrup in its market. Mexico's high fructose corn syrup tax is causing great harm to U.S. corn producers and U.S. high fructose corn syrup manufacturers. The U.S. corn refining industry estimates that it is losing up to $620 million annually on account of Mexico's discriminatory tax. It estimates that U.S. corn farmers are losing over $300 million each year due to lost sales to both U.S. and Mexican high fructose corn syrup producers. I find it especially ironic that Mexico, a country that is actively seeking foreign investment, is treating so poorly the U.S. high fructose corn syrup industry, an industry that has invested heavily in Mexico. Based upon the promises of NAFTA, U.S. high fructose corn syrup producers made major investments in the United States and Mexico. Mexico has now pulled the rug out from under them. This certainly sends, at best, mixed signals to foreign investors. Let me give you another example of Mexico's actions against U.S. agricultural products, this one impacting Iowa's pork producers. In January of this year, Mexico initiated an antidumping investigation on U.S.-produced pork. The petition that initiated this investigation has serious deficiencies. for example, the petition was filed by Mexican hog producers, not pork processors, so it is my understanding that the party bringing the case lacks standing under the Antidumping Agreement of the WTO. While Mexico's antidumping investigation on pork is ongoing, I recognize that Mexican officials last month terminated the Mexican antidumping order on imports of live hogs from the United States. I am pleased with Mexico's decision regarding the live hog order. I strongly hope that this decision provides an indication that Mexican officials will act reasonably and not impose an antidumping order on U.S. pork. But there are other problems. Large quantities of U.S.-produced pork have been rejected at the Mexican borer during the past year due to alleged sanitary problems. But millions of Americans consume U.S.- produced pork each day, and we know that this product is safe. Mexico's rejection of U.S. pork for non-scientific reasons violates Mexico's WTO obligations. Iowa's beef producers are also being harmed by Mexico's actions. In April 2000, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of U.S. beef, and this trade measure remains in place. Mexico's investigation resulted in numerous probable violations of Mexico's commitments under the WTO Agreements. On June 16, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that the United States is filing a case at the WTO over Mexico's antidumping order. I fully support the U.S. trade Representatives's actions at the WTO regarding this matter. Despite the ongoing Mexican antidumping order on U.S. beef, Mexican cattle producers earlier this year filed a safeguard petition on beef from the United States. Mexican officials have neither confirmed nor denied the existence of this petition. Lack of certainty with regard to this safeguard petition has made it even more difficult for the U.S. cattle and beef industry to plan sales in Mexico. White corn producers in Iowa are also threatened by potential Mexican trade actions. Mexican officials are hinting at initiating a safeguard investigation on imports of U.S. white corn. In addition, these officials have suggested limiting import permits for white corn for periods of short supply. Such a policy would not comport with Mexico's NAFTA obligations. Mexico's actions, and threatened actions, against U.S. agricultural products such as high fructose corn syrup, pork, beef, and white corn are having real effects on U.S. producers. Sales in Mexico are being lost or threatened. Uncertainty is making it difficult for U.S. producers to plan for future sales in Mexico. But Mexico's actions are having a broader effect than lost sales. Mexico's policies are indirectly threatening the entire U.S. trade agenda. Most of U.S. agriculture was solidly behind the passage of the NAFTA. But with Mexico failing to abide fully with its NAFTA commitments, many U.S. producers are beginning to question the worth of trade agreements. If America's farmers and ranchers back away from their strong support for new trade agreements, the U.S. trade agenda will lose its biggest proponents. And if the United States falters in its support for trade liberalization, the whole world will suffer. Given the importance of maintaining the U.S. trade agenda, I urge the administration to make the removal of Mexican barriers to U.S. agricultural products a top priority. The U.S. Government must not overlook systematic efforts by Mexico to keep U.S. farm products out of the Mexican market in disregard of Mexico's international trade commitments. Finally, I urge Mexican officials to think twice about the effects of their decisions involving U.S. agricultural products. Mexico's actions are threatening that country's trade relations with its largest export market. Damaged trade relations between the United States and Mexico are certainly not in the best interests of either country. NAFTA can, and will, continue to provide great benefits to farmers, ranchers, and consumers on either side of the border. But this trade agreement will work only if all parties to it abide by their NAFTA commitments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Lautenberg for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill. We currently have approximately 33 amendments pending to the bill and several Senators have expressed interest in offering additional amendments during tomorrow's session. Under the order there will be two stacked votes beginning at 11 a.m. in relation to two of these amendments. In addition, there will be a vote in relation to the Dodd amendment following the policy luncheon recess. Therefore, I inform my colleagues that rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day tomorrow. For the remainder of the week, the Senate continues consideration of the prescription drug benefits bill. The leader has stated on several occasions that the Senate will complete action on this historic legislation prior to adjourning for the July 4th recess. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the days and into the evenings throughout this entire week. Senators are asked to make the necessary scheduling arrangements.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1157 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 160, 204, 205, 241, 243, 244, and 245. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 123, S. 239.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to call up my amendment numbered 974, which I filed on Friday. I am pleased to offer the Drug Competition Act of 2003.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment so Senator Harkin can offer his amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I ask unanimous consent Senator Murray's amendment be the first in order after the vote, and that any other amendment in order be laid aside.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Bingaman amendment, No. 933.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays, to have the vote occur at 5:30 and that the time between now and 5:30 be evenly divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will answer the Senator's question by giving some detail about the issue of the asset test. It is a legitimate point of discussion as we deal with this legislation. Rather than just speaking specifically to his question, I answer it more generally with how we try to respond to the issues he brought up. The asset test in the underlying bill is the same asset test currently used for determining eligibilities for the qualified Medicare beneficiaries, specified low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and qualified individuals. Those are three separate categories of low- income people that I just described. S. 1 provides a generous low-income subsidy for those who are below 160 percent of the Federal poverty level. Currently, in order for some individuals under 160 percent of poverty to receive limited Medicaid protections, there must be both an income test and an asset test. In the underlying bill, we simply follow the same rules in order for low- income beneficiaries to see assistance with their prescription drug coverage. By including the Medicaid asset test for Medicare prescription drug subsidies, we are providing beneficiaries with seamless health coverage. We are not confusing beneficiaries, and we are not adding additional administrative burdens to the States. I will give some background on the current asset test included in the Medicaid Program. The group called qualified Medicare beneficiaries are individuals below 100 percent of poverty. In 2006, the annual income limit is $9,670 for individuals and $13,051 for couples. This qualified Medicare beneficiary group is allowed to have assets below $4,000 for individuals and $6,000 for couples. That is exactly what the Senator from West Virginia asked me about and implied some limitations because of that. Yes, there are limitations because of that, but they are legitimate limitations within the priorities of our $400 billion budget limit. Then we have the category of specified low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and then the qualified, and those are people with incomes between 100 percent of poverty and 135 percent of poverty. In 2006, the annual income limits of this group, $13,054 for individuals, $17,618 for couples, these two groups are allowed to have assets below $4,000 for individuals and $6,000 for couples. Beneficiaries between 136 percent of poverty and 159 percent of poverty will have annual income limits of $15,472 for individuals and $20,881 for couples in 2006. Beneficiaries between 136 and 159 percent of poverty would not be subject to those asset rules. Current law establishes resource limits for low-income elderly or disabled individuals. Let me emphasize, this is not a newly added restriction on certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries. However, current law also provides States with the flexibility to choose to disregard all or part of these resources. The issue of changing this asset test is one that would very drastically increase the number of eligible beneficiaries. Understand that the question the Senator from West Virginia raised about changing the asset test would very dramatically increase the number of people eligible. Now, again, we get back to the priorities of fitting in the $400 billion in the budget. Give more help to this group of people that already have some help from our legislation, then there is less for other people, particularly less for people who have no help whatever. A study was prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation estimating this group could be as many as 11 million individuals if the asset test were eliminated and obviously to a lesser extent if it were increased by some amount. S. 1 currently includes a provision requiring the General Accounting Office to conduct a study and make recommendations to Congress by the year 2007 regarding the extent to which drug utilization and access to covered drugs differs between qualifying dual eligibles who receive subsidies and individuals who do not qualify solely because of the application of the asset test. This report ensures that there will be opportunities in the future to debate the question raised by the Senator from West Virginia. There is a limited number of dollars available for the Medicare drug benefit. In the writing of this bill, we made a conscious decision to devote excess dollars to filling the gap in coverage--which means what we commonly refer to around here as the donut hole--rather than eliminating or changing to some extent the asset test the Senator from West Virginia is asking me about. This bill already provides generous coverage to low-income seniors. This amendment will not only cost more money, it will add more confusion to both States and Medicare beneficiaries. I hope I have sufficiently explained the rationale behind our bill. I may not have directly answered the question of the Senator from West Virginia, but I thought I should take time to explain the rationale behind our bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I cannot disagree with the Senator from West Virginia, but I think the answer is that there are 50 different answers to his question from the standpoint of there being 50 different States with 50 different budget situations. So there is not just one answer to his question. Another way to say it is I would have to understand the situation in 50 different States and then, in a sense, give 50 different answers. But there is a recognition on the part of the Congress of what the Senator from West Virginia says and a response by the Federal Government to that, albeit a temporary response, when over a 2-year period of time we decided to put $20 billion of State aid to the States, and we did that through the tax bill recently signed by the President of the United States, of which $10 billion was earmarked for Medicaid solely because the Congress understood the problems the Senator from West Virginia has adequately described, and then another $10 billion of other State aid that a State is free to use for Medicaid or anything else. I assume some States that have very bad Medicaid fiscal problems might take some more of that additional $10 billion to use for Medicaid. In further answer to my colleague's question, what we face is the issue of about $16 billion a year just for drug costs. Multiply that times the 10 years we have to look ahead. That is about $160 billion, I believe, of the $400 billion which would go then for groups who are already covered, detracting then from the 30-some percent of people who have no prescription drug coverage. We would like to fill in the gap of those who have no coverage as opposed to some who have very good coverage. I know it varies from State to State how Medicaid might cover certain groups of seniors with prescription drugs, but I think the Senator would say they have had a better program for sure than most people--except maybe those who are on a corporate retirement plan, which is only about 30 percent of our people--than anybody else, particularly those who have no coverage whatsoever. In further answer to the question of the Senator from West Virginia, it is a case of priorities. We have suggested those who already have some coverage, and very good coverage, we would basically leave untouched and then would try to use our resources for those who have no coverage whatsoever.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield for an additional question.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I assume he asked unanimous consent to set the amendments aside.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 24. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drugs benefit bill. I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party lunches.