Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 24, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Rockefeller amendment No. 976, provided that immediately following that vote and 2 minutes of debate equally divided, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 984; further, at 2:15 there be 10 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Dodd amendment No. 969, with no second-degree amendments in order to the above mentioned amendments prior to the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This is the Drug Competition Act of 2003. I filed it as an amendment to S. 1. I do it in a bipartisan way with Senator Leahy and many others. Our amendment will help Federal regulators ensure that antitrust laws are not being violated and that there is full and unfettered access to competition for prescription drugs under the law. What I want to do is make sure American consumers--and in the case of prescription drugs for Medicare, senior citizens--are able to get the lifesaving drugs they need and to do it in a competitive manner with resulting lower prices. Our patent laws provide drug companies with incentives to invest in the research and development of new drugs, but the law also provides that generic drug companies have the ability to get their own drugs on the market so there can be price competition and lower prices for prescription drugs. We have a legal system in place that provides such a balance; that is, the Hatch-Waxman law. Ultimately, we want consumers and seniors to have more choices and to get drugs at lower prices. So I was concerned when I heard reports that the Federal Trade Commission had brought enforcement actions against brand-name and generic drug manufacturers that had entered into anticompetitive agreements, resulting in the delay of the introduction of lower priced drugs. Our amendment targets this problem. I would like to explain in a little more detail the problem. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so that consumers can benefit from lower generic drug prices. Current law gives temporary protection from competition to the first generic drug manufacturer that gets exclusive permission to sell a generic drug before the patent on the brand-name drug expires. This gives the generic firm, then, a 180- day head start on all other generic companies. However, the FTC discovered that some companies were exploiting this law by entering into secret deals, which allowed the generic drugmakers to claim a 180-day grace period, and to block, then, other generic drugs from entering the market, while at the same time getting paid by the brand-name manufacturer for withholding sales of generic versions of the drug. Quite a sweet deal. This meant, then, under this sweet deal, that consumers continued to pay high prices for drugs rather than benefiting from more competition and consequently lower prices. The Federal Trade Commission brought antitrust law enforcement actions against the brand-name and generic drug companies that had engaged in this anticompetitive behavior. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission conducted a comprehensive review of agreements that impacted the 180-day exclusivity period. The FTC found that there are competition problems with some of these agreements that potentially delayed generic drugs entering the market--just the opposite of what the FTC wanted to happen. So the FTC made this recommendation: Given this history, we believe that notification of such agreements to the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice is warranted. We support the Drug Competition Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Leahy, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. As the Federal Trade Commission has indicated in its report, the Grassley-Leahy amendment, the Drug Competition Act of 2003, is a simple solution to the 180-day exclusivity period and the problems the FTC has identified. Our amendment would require drug companies that enter into agreements relating to the 180-day period to file documents, those very documents with the FTC and the Department of Justice. Our amendment would impose sanctions on companies that do not provide timely notification. This process would facilitate agency review of the agreements. It would do it to determine whether they have anticompetitive effects. Making sure the agreement between the generic and brand-name drug companies is in compliance with the law is good for the American consumer because it guarantees free, full, and fair competition. Both Senator Leahy and I worked with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, the generic and brand-name drug companies, and other interested groups in crafting the language contained in this amendment, and I think we have a very good work product that I am offering the Senate. We tried to address everyone's concerns and we tried to limit the scope of the act. We also made every attempt to ensure that the notification requirement did not unnecessarily burden industry. I am not aware of any opposition to this language. In fact, the Drug Competition Act, passed out of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year by unanimous consent, and the Federal Trade Commission report came out in full support of the Grassley-Leahy amendment as a way to help preserve healthy and open competition in the drug markets. The Grassley-Leahy amendment will ensure that consumers ultimately are not hurt by secret, anticompetitive contracts, so the consumer can get competition and lower drug prices almost immediately. I urge my colleagues to support the Grassley-Leahy amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator will try to answer a question, yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Could I say this: If you would allow me, rather than reserving the right to object, when he asks unanimous consent to set aside an amendment to offer his amendment, I am not going to object to that. But the leader has asked we have no more amendments tonight. So I would then be forced to object to any other amendments from either side that would come up.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia raises an important point in his amendment. In the underlying bill from the Senate Finance Committee, beneficiaries who are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare--and this is the group we call dual eligibles-- would continue to receive drug coverage under the Medicaid Program. Some of my colleagues have argued that by having dual eligibles remain in the Medicaid Program, Congress is thus treating these vulnerable seniors as second-class citizens and subjecting them to lower quality benefits. I strongly disagree with that point of view. I have worked closely with my Finance Committee colleagues on the development of this package, and we had an opportunity during this debate to reflect on the concerns that were raised by the Senator from West Virginia and also by others during the debate last summer of the so-called tripartisan bill, meaning the bill that was before the Senate in 2002. All of us authoring the underlying bill took these concerns to heart. We made the decision that it was most beneficial to these seniors to continue to build off the existing Medicare and Medicaid low-income assistance programs that they know and understand. That said, I remind my colleagues that the intent of this legislation is to expand prescription drug coverage to our senior citizens who do not have access to the prescription drugs and who are faced with paying a large share of their income for their drug coverage. About two-thirds of the citizens of the United States today have some coverage for prescription drugs. Retirees from major corporations have prescription drugs paid for in their retirement plans. We have people who are in Medicare plus their Medigap policies that also have some coverage, and then we have lower income people who are dual eligibles who are covered under both Medicare and Medicaid. This makes up 60-some percent of the seniors of America who have some drug coverage. We want to fill in the gap for those who do not have drug coverage or might have inadequate drug coverage. Quite frankly, for people who already have drug coverage, particularly those who have lower incomes, who are covered by State Medicaid Programs, we felt it was best not to upset their coverage, not to give that group any angst about how they might be covered in the future while the debate on this legislation was going on and how it might be put in motion, so we decided just to leave those as is. The Senator from West Virginia believes it would be better if we would cover them under our plans that are meant for people who have no coverage whatsoever. We are in a situation where coverage experienced by those who are dual eligible is the issue before us. These seniors currently have drug benefits through the Medicaid Program. In fact, many advocates and beneficiaries describe these benefits as very generous. Medicaid beneficiaries have come to know their drug benefits, along with its nominal levels of cost sharing. We should not require seniors to leave coverage with which they are comfortable. Further, I remind my colleagues that we are discussing populations eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid was created to assist individuals who do not have the means to pay for their share of health care costs. That is a responsibility that is shared by the Federal Government and by State governments. Medicaid pays for many benefits that Medicare does not. Is the purpose of the prescription drug bill before us to grant fiscal relief to the States, which would be what the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would do? I do not believe that is what we should be doing. We all know the purpose of the prescription drug bill is to provide prescription drugs to seniors who do not currently have access to drugs or otherwise would be paying extremely high drug costs and, hence, the provisions of our legislation for catastrophic coverage. However, recognizing the costs associated with covering the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to dual-eligible populations, the bill before us does provide nearly $18 billion in new Federal dollars to compensate States for some of these additional costs, mostly because it is a fast growing part of the Medicaid budgets of most States. The funding we provide in this bill will be channeled to States by federalizing the cost of Part B premiums for dual eligibles in a subclass called qualified Medicare beneficiaries. This is because the prescription drug bill before us provides minimum standards that ensure the benefit provided through Medicaid is at the same high quality that is being provided through Part D of our Medicare Program. As is usually the case, the argument would be made yet that we should still do more and perhaps serve this population differently than we do. But, in fact, we developed the underlying bill to best utilize the availability of $400 billion, an absolute figure that we must be in; otherwise, we are subject to a point of order and, in a sense, instead of 51 votes it takes to pass this body, one could argue it would take 60 votes. If we exceeded the $400 billion, we would have to have 60 votes. Our approach helps to deliver care that is consistent with current law but, most important, familiar to vulnerable beneficiaries. A prime rationale behind our legislation is it really does not make seniors do anything they do not want to do. We set up a new Medicare Program that is closer to what baby boomers have in the workplace today. They can choose that or they can choose to stay in the 1965 model Medicare. People who want to stay in the 1965 model Medicare can choose voluntarily to join a prescription drug program. They do not have to. We wanted to help those who are in Medicaid to stay in Medicaid if they wanted to. They do not have to go into these new programs. Finally, I remind my colleagues that the adoption of this amendment will not expand coverage at all. It will simply shift the cost to the Federal Government and, in time, to other Medicare beneficiaries. So after careful thought, because at one time we did debate internally the substance of the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia to federalize all dual eligibles, we thought maybe we should include that in the program, but we figured it raised a lot of questions from people who are already adequately covered and who seemed to be very satisfied. Also, there are some additional costs that would subtract from what we could do for those who have no coverage for prescription drugs whatsoever, and in order to get the most bang for the dollar within the $400 billion that is in the budget for this program, we decided to leave the dual-eligible program alone. That is why I suggest we defeat Senator Rockefeller's amendment when it comes to a vote. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I would like to remind the Members of my caucus we do have an arrangement between the two parties that every other amendment offered could be offered by a Republican and then in turn by a Democrat. We have several Democrat amendments pending. There is nothing wrong with that. It hasn't hurt the process at all. But I think it would be fair for me to remind the Members of the Republican caucus if they have amendments to propose, come over and do it. It will speed up the process and I think be considered a little more fair by everybody here. I will not object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 179, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the benefit of the distinguished Democratic whip, I just came from a meeting with Senator Baucus discussing some of the issues the Senator has suggested. When I am done here serving as acting leader, I will return to that same meeting and we will try to get some of these things worked out tonight.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Dorgan amendment has been amended to further enhance the safety precautions included in the bill. The amendment now gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to certify that reimportation would be both safe and would save the hard-earned money of U.S. consumers. The HHS Secretary would also have the authority to terminate the program if for some reason it is not working. The fact is, pharmaceutical manufacturers here in the United States are reimporting these very same drugs that seniors are forced across the border to obtain. But if it's safe enough for the manufacturers to do, then it should be safe enough for local pharmacies as well. After all, these drugs are manufactured in factories that meet FDA standards. And it shouldn't matter whether these drugs come from New Jersey, Alberta, or Atlanta. In fact, a Congressional Research Service study found United States and Canadian drug development, manufacturing, and distribution systems have the same high level of integrity. If this amendment is accepted and the bill is enacted, Americans will no longer have to drive through an international checkpoint to check out their prescription drugs. Instead, they will have the potential to save an estimated $38 billion out of the $100 billion Americans spend every year on their prescription drugs. Consider the savings: A month's supply of Coumadin, a blood-thinning drug, costs $40 here in the United States and just $7 in Canada. The emphysema drugs, upon which some seniors rely to breathe, can cost $1,700 for a 6-month supply in the United States and just $800 in Canada. Again, let me say that, while the Dorgan amendment provides a step we can take right now to help seniors afford their medication, it is only a stop-gap--not a solution. For the long-term, there is no substitute for passing a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. We need to accomplish this goal so that every senior in America has access to affordable prescription drugs. With that, I want to again thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for his leadership on this issue, and call on the Senate to accept this amendment and move forward to pass S. 1 to create a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit without delay.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I amend my consent request accordingly.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and that Senator Gregg be recognized in order to offer an amendment regarding generic drugs, with no second-degree amendment in order to the amendment; further, that there be 60 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote in relation to the amendment; provided further that at 3:45 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Enzi amendment, No. 932, as amended, with no other amendments in order to the Enzi amendment. I further ask that following that vote there be 10 minutes equally divided for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment, No. 939, again with no second-degree amendment also in order prior to the vote. Finally, I ask consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Gregg amendment, with no intervening action or debate, and 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote. I further ask consent that following disposition of the Gregg amendment, the next sequence of amendments be the following: Senator Dorgan, Senator Grassley, and Senator Harkin, and these would be first- degree amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Schumer for their bipartisan efforts and leadership on this issue. This amendment would eliminate questionable practices that have emerged since passage of Hatch-Waxman. I applaud the responsible intent of this amendment. This amendment reduces the possibility for drug companies to play games and prevent competition. These drug companies have not been accountable to consumers. Simply stated, this bill helps to ensure that consumers have access to low-priced drugs. This is a good thing. This amendment reduces the cost of prescription drugs. I can't think of a better time to enact these improvements. The underlying bill, S. 1, will provide drugs to seniors and this amendment will ensure access to lower priced drugs to everyone. I support this amendment and appreciate the efforts of the HELP Committee on this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is in my request.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003, the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 authorizes the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States. Allow me to explain how this might happen. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, former President Bush issued Executive Orders 12722 and 12744, which declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq. Those orders imposed economic sanctions against Iraq, including a complete trade embargo which automatically prohibited trade in Iraqi antiquities as of that time. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, which also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions imposed under the Executive Orders are spelled out in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations. These regulations are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC. Now until recently, the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations continued to restrict trade with Iraq, including trade in Iraqi antiquities. However, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1483, which lifted most sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 also provided that Member States should establish a prohibition on trade in archaeological, cultural, historical, religious, and rare scientific items of Iraq, that may have been illegally removed from the country since the adoption of Resolution 661 back in 1990. On May 23, 2003, OFAC implemented UN Resolution 1483 and issued a General License which lifted most of our trade sanctions with respect to Iraq. Importantly, OFAC's general license continues to ban trade in looted Iraqi antiquities. However, this legal structure that is currently in place is vulnerable to a potential loophole. It is important to recognize that the legal authority for OFAC's continuing restrictions on trade in Iraqi antiquities derives from the Executive Orders issued in 1990, which are themselves premised upon the existence of emergency conditions with respect to Iraq. It is possible that once an interim government is in place, the President may determine that emergency conditions no longer exist with respect to Iraq and relations between the United States and Iraq will be normalized. At that point, the legal authority for the OFAC restrictions will be terminated. This bill is designed to bridge a potential gap in the protections afforded Iraqi antiquities by allowing the President to impose emergency import restrictions without delay. These emergency restrictions would be authorized for an interim period to extend beyond any termination of the OFAC restrictions, and would remain in place until such time as other, more lengthy, legal mechanisms for the protection of cultural antiquities can be completed. I will elaborate on these other legal mechanisms in a moment. If Congress does not act to provide the means for establishing the interim ban on trade contained in this bill, the door may be opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in the United States. The stopgap authority in this bill derives from legislation implementing the U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural property. This bill amends the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Implementation Act, to allow the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions with respect to Iraqi antiquities. The Implementation Act already authorizes the President to restrict imports of cultural antiquities, but there is a somewhat lengthy process called for under the Implementation Act before the President may impose such restrictions. Since we passed the Implementation Act in 1983, we have imposed import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological materials from ten countries to assist in the protection of their cultural property. Unfortunately, the Implementation Act does not address the unique conditions that prevail in Iraq today. Normally, under the Implementation Act a country formally requests that the United States prohibit stolen or illegally exported cultural antiquities from entering into the United States. The State Department will then publish a Federal Register notice announcing the request. Following publication, a Cultural Property Advisory Committee will investigate and review the request and report its recommendation to the President. With the benefit of the Committee's report, the President can then proceed to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the foreign country. In the past, this entire process has taken at least a year before import restrictions are put in place. There are two major deficiencies with the current process which necessitate the bill we are introducing today. First, the Implementation Act requires a foreign government to make a formal request to the United States. Right now, there is no Government of Iraq to request such a bilateral agreement with the United States. The second problem is that, even if there were an Iraqi Government in place to make such a request, the administrative process called for under the Implementation Act just takes too long given the present circumstances--although the extent of looting of museums, libraries, and archaeological sites in Iraq may not be as great as was first feared, the fact remains that such looting has occurred and that illicit trade in such antiquities could spread if there is even a temporary lifting of import restrictions. Now granted, the Implementation Act does authorize the President to impose emergency import restrictions even before a bilateral agreement is finalized. However, before the President can do so, all of the other administrative processes under the Implementation Act must be completed; this includes a three month period for the preparation of a report to the President by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Again, the problem here is that the normal process for imposing even emergency import restrictions could take too long. If the Administration were to normalize relations between the United States and the next Government of Iraq, thereby terminating the OFAC import restrictions, it is possible that looted Iraqi antiquities could begin entering the United States while we sit and wait for a possible bilateral agreement to be finalized. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 solves this problem. This legislation provides a uniquely and narrowly tailored amendment to the Implementation Act which closes the potential legal loophole between the time when relations are normalized and the time when we can undertake and complete the normal processes for the protection of cultural antiquities contained in the Implementation Act. By extending the President's authority under the Implementation Act for an interim period, this bill is narrowly designed to meet the unique circumstances in Iraq today. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 provides that this extension of the President's authority will terminate one year after relations are normalized, or by September 30, 2004, so that the next Iraqi Government can determine for itself whether to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States, and if so, the President can negotiate such an agreement with the benefit of input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee--as envisioned by the Implementation Act. In short, our bill does not seek to supplant the established process for protecting cultural antiquities under the Implementation Act; instead, it permits an extra guarantee of protection for Iraq's cultural antiquities in the short term while Iraq completes its transition back into the community of nations. I thank Senator Baucus for his support, and I hope our colleagues can also support this important and timely bill. I hope we are able to move this legislation quickly, perhaps as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, which is waiting for full Senate approval. As we work to reestablish the free flow of trade with a liberated Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in Congress remain mindful of the need to take steps to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. Our bill will ensure that going forward we continue to adhere to the full spirit of Resolution 1483 and avoid any break in the protections afforded to Iraqi antiquities. Our bill also provides an important signal of our commitment to preserving Iraq's resources for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It is time to close the potential gap in protections, and pass the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003, the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 authorizes the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States. Allow me to explain how this might happen. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, former President Bush issued Executive Orders 12722 and 12744, which declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq. Those orders imposed economic sanctions against Iraq, including a complete trade embargo which automatically prohibited trade in Iraqi antiquities as of that time. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, which also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions imposed under the Executive Orders are spelled out in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations. These regulations are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC. Now until recently, the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations continued to restrict trade with Iraq, including trade in Iraqi antiquities. However, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1483, which lifted most sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 also provided that Member States should establish a prohibition on trade in archaeological, cultural, historical, religious, and rare scientific items of Iraq, that may have been illegally removed from the country since the adoption of Resolution 661 back in 1990. On May 23, 2003, OFAC implemented UN Resolution 1483 and issued a General License which lifted most of our trade sanctions with respect to Iraq. Importantly, OFAC's general license continues to ban trade in looted Iraqi antiquities. However, this legal structure that is currently in place is vulnerable to a potential loophole. It is important to recognize that the legal authority for OFAC's continuing restrictions on trade in Iraqi antiquities derives from the Executive Orders issued in 1990, which are themselves premised upon the existence of emergency conditions with respect to Iraq. It is possible that once an interim government is in place, the President may determine that emergency conditions no longer exist with respect to Iraq and relations between the United States and Iraq will be normalized. At that point, the legal authority for the OFAC restrictions will be terminated. This bill is designed to bridge a potential gap in the protections afforded Iraqi antiquities by allowing the President to impose emergency import restrictions without delay. These emergency restrictions would be authorized for an interim period to extend beyond any termination of the OFAC restrictions, and would remain in place until such time as other, more lengthy, legal mechanisms for the protection of cultural antiquities can be completed. I will elaborate on these other legal mechanisms in a moment. If Congress does not act to provide the means for establishing the interim ban on trade contained in this bill, the door may be opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in the United States. The stopgap authority in this bill derives from legislation implementing the U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural property. This bill amends the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Implementation Act, to allow the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions with respect to Iraqi antiquities. The Implementation Act already authorizes the President to restrict imports of cultural antiquities, but there is a somewhat lengthy process called for under the Implementation Act before the President may impose such restrictions. Since we passed the Implementation Act in 1983, we have imposed import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological materials from ten countries to assist in the protection of their cultural property. Unfortunately, the Implementation Act does not address the unique conditions that prevail in Iraq today. Normally, under the Implementation Act a country formally requests that the United States prohibit stolen or illegally exported cultural antiquities from entering into the United States. The State Department will then publish a Federal Register notice announcing the request. Following publication, a Cultural Property Advisory Committee will investigate and review the request and report its recommendation to the President. With the benefit of the Committee's report, the President can then proceed to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the foreign country. In the past, this entire process has taken at least a year before import restrictions are put in place. There are two major deficiencies with the current process which necessitate the bill we are introducing today. First, the Implementation Act requires a foreign government to make a formal request to the United States. Right now, there is no Government of Iraq to request such a bilateral agreement with the United States. The second problem is that, even if there were an Iraqi Government in place to make such a request, the administrative process called for under the Implementation Act just takes too long given the present circumstances--although the extent of looting of museums, libraries, and archaeological sites in Iraq may not be as great as was first feared, the fact remains that such looting has occurred and that illicit trade in such antiquities could spread if there is even a temporary lifting of import restrictions. Now granted, the Implementation Act does authorize the President to impose emergency import restrictions even before a bilateral agreement is finalized. However, before the President can do so, all of the other administrative processes under the Implementation Act must be completed; this includes a three month period for the preparation of a report to the President by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Again, the problem here is that the normal process for imposing even emergency import restrictions could take too long. If the Administration were to normalize relations between the United States and the next Government of Iraq, thereby terminating the OFAC import restrictions, it is possible that looted Iraqi antiquities could begin entering the United States while we sit and wait for a possible bilateral agreement to be finalized. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 solves this problem. This legislation provides a uniquely and narrowly tailored amendment to the Implementation Act which closes the potential legal loophole between the time when relations are normalized and the time when we can undertake and complete the normal processes for the protection of cultural antiquities contained in the Implementation Act. By extending the President's authority under the Implementation Act for an interim period, this bill is narrowly designed to meet the unique circumstances in Iraq today. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 provides that this extension of the President's authority will terminate one year after relations are normalized, or by September 30, 2004, so that the next Iraqi Government can determine for itself whether to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States, and if so, the President can negotiate such an agreement with the benefit of input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee--as envisioned by the Implementation Act. In short, our bill does not seek to supplant the established process for protecting cultural antiquities under the Implementation Act; instead, it permits an extra guarantee of protection for Iraq's cultural antiquities in the short term while Iraq completes its transition back into the community of nations. I thank Senator Baucus for his support, and I hope our colleagues can also support this important and timely bill. I hope we are able to move this legislation quickly, perhaps as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, which is waiting for full Senate approval. As we work to reestablish the free flow of trade with a liberated Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in Congress remain mindful of the need to take steps to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. Our bill will ensure that going forward we continue to adhere to the full spirit of Resolution 1483 and avoid any break in the protections afforded to Iraqi antiquities. Our bill also provides an important signal of our commitment to preserving Iraq's resources for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It is time to close the potential gap in protections, and pass the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.