Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield such time as he might consume to the Senator from Utah to either speak on the pending amendment or to speak on the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the remaining debate time, it be in order for me to raise a point of order against the pending Reid amendment No. 560; provided further that Senator Reid then be recognized and ordered to move to waive. Finally, I ask consent that the vote in relationship to the amendment occur at 2 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me explain why the distinguished Senator from Nevada is wrong. We are going to take it off the time on the bill, not extra time. This will come off the 7 hours we have on the bill. I yield whatever time the Senator from Alaska may consume. I understand she is only going to take about 5 minutes.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I rise to address a couple of issues that have been presented before we go to other people who want to speak. This is on the Dorgan amendment. It might be in the form of asking rhetorical questions or what have you. But first of all, I want to say to my friend from Montana, the distinguished ranking member of this committee, that for this farmer to be called a lawyer, if he were not a good friend of mine, I would take offense. Regardless, before us is this amendment that reduces the amount of Social Security income that must be reported for taxation. One of the issues I didn't mention in my debate against the amendment is the fact that all the money raised from this tax goes into the Medicare health insurance trust fund. We all know the Medicare Program is in much more serious condition than the Social Security Program. The Medicare trust fund has a drop dead date of 2026. The Social Security trust fund has a drop dead date of 2042. None of those dates are anything that I am making light of, that they are so far off that we should not be concerned. We have to be very concerned. But people ought to understand that to the extent this amendment is adopted, it would take money out of the Medicare health insurance trust fund. And I don't think we ought to be doing anything to weaken the Medicare trust fund. I would rather refer to a point made by the two Senators from North Dakota, most often made by the sponsor of this amendment. I cannot help but ask both of these Senators who are trying to make an issue about this bill by saying that this bill will increase the debt. Somehow that just doesn't add up, when you consider the thrust of their amendment. How does this amendment they have before us reduce the debt? The bottom line of the bill is exactly the same with or without the Dorgan amendment. In other words, it costs the same as the underlying bill. So, again, we have people speaking on three sides of a two-sided coin. Senator Dorgan's amendment will increase the debt, so I don't hear any more about increasing the debt on the part of the underlying bill, because with their amendment, we end up exactly in the same place.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska has asked for time to speak as in morning business for whatever time she needs. I will be glad to yield time to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we will extend unemployment compensation. We will support an extension, though, of current law. We will do it before its expiration at the end of May. But this amendment goes beyond extending unemployment compensation as it is written in current law. This is unprecedented for sure, and I also think it is an unjustified expansion. There might be legitimate debate on that point, but there is no legitimate opposition to a statement that this is unprecedented. Also, this extension and this change in law comes at a time when unemployment is not as high as it has been in previous recessions. The current unemployment rate is 6 percent. That is compared to 7 percent at times during the 1990s and more than 8 percent during the 1980s. It was in the 1990s at 7 percent, in the 1980s at 8 percent. Those happen to be the last two times that Congress provided extended benefits. I also point out the unemployment rate right now in 23 States is lower than it was 1 year ago. When it comes to people who have exhausted benefits, this amendment would provide 26 weeks of Federal benefits even without regard to the duration of State benefits. So this violates an insurance principle that we followed for a long time inherent in the unemployment program, and it violates it by breaking the link between the time someone has worked and the time that person can collect unemployment benefits. This amendment additionally would also allow someone who worked as few as 20 weeks to collect as much as 26 weeks of federally-funded benefits. This amendment also deals with part-time workers. In offering this amendment, what they forget at the Federal level is that we already give States the option of covering part-time workers. So why a national policy of covering part-time workers when this has been historically a State program that has been financed through some Federal taxation? There are a lot of details left to individual States to decide. It is not possible for us to legislate at the Federal level the conditions that exist in various States for deciding whether part-time workers should be included. This provision would allow those seeking only part-time work to collect unemployment benefits. What this basically means is a worker could turn down a full-time job and continue collecting unemployment benefits. There is a provision of this amendment that changes policy in regard to low-wage workers. This is another provision under Federal law where States already are given the option of doing this. This provision would require States to use what is referred to as an alternative base period. That means using the most recent quarter to calculate benefits. In 1997, this was offered to the Senate and we voted 85 to 15 to overturn a Federal court decision that would have required the States to use the most recent quarter. In other words, Congress decided in 1997 against a court decision doing what this amendment does. We decided 85 to 15 to leave it to the respective States, as has historically been the case, to make this decision of using an alternative base period. So as I mentioned, I will support, and I believe the Senate will pass, an extension of current law for unemployment benefits before it runs out. This amendment is paid for in a way that discourages job creation. Remember, the fundamental purpose underlying this legislation is to give incentive for investment for the creation of jobs. So how is this amendment paid for? By attacking small businesses, by delaying the tax relief that is in this bill for 80 percent of those who are taxed at the 39 percent rate. Remember, we reduce the highest marginal tax rate down to the same as the highest corporate tax rate. Why? Because there should not be a bias in our tax law against small entrepreneurs, unincorporated entrepreneurs. As we have been told so often by Joint Tax and by the White House, 80 percent of the benefits go to small business. Now, that does not mean all small business is taxed at the 39 percent level, but by reducing this we are taking away a bias against small business. There should not be an 11 percent penalty for being an unincorporated small business. It is unfair. When we had a lower marginal tax rate for small business at 28 percent for the top individual rate, as we did after 1986 until it was raised, we had a 5 percent differential between the corporate rate of 33 percent and the highest individual rate of 28 percent. During that period of time, we had an explosion of small business, setting the stage for the massive growth we had in the economy in the 1990s. What does this amendment do? It will kill the opportunity for job expansion that we have prepared in lowering the marginal tax rate for self-employed people, doing away with the bias in favor of corporations so that where 80 percent of the jobs are created in small business, there will be an incentive to create new jobs. The National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the surest way of expanding small business is from their own equity, by reducing the marginal tax rates, which is going to encourage the sort of investment that creates jobs. The Senators who have offered this amendment are complaining about lost jobs, but then this amendment undermines the very provisions of the basic bill that will create the jobs we need. Obviously, I urge the defeat of this job-killing amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will answer his question, if I am permitted. Two reasons: One, this amendment is not germane to this bill; two, it goes to the expansion of unemployment benefits as opposed to extension of existing benefits.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday May 14, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on the Columbia investigation in SR-253.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday May 14, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Tissue Banks: The Dangers of Tainted Tissues and the Need for Federal Regulations.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy today in introducing the Drug Competition Act of 2003. This bill will help Federal regulators ensure that there is full and unfettered access to competition for prescription drugs under the law. As the past Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging and now as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I want to make sure that American consumers-- especially our seniors--are able to get the life-saving drugs they need in a competitive manner. Our patent laws provide drug companies with incentives to invest in 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 that there can be price competition and lower prices for prescription drugs. We have a legal system in place that provides for such a balance--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 anti-competitive agreements, resulting in the delay of the introduction of lower priced drugs. This bill targets that problem. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so 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 a 180-day head start on other generic companies. However, the FTC discovered that some companies were exploiting this law by entering into secret deals, which allowed the generic drug makers to claim the 180-day grace period and to block other generic drugs from entering the market, while at the same time getting paid by the brand-name manufacturer for withholding sales of the generic version of the drug. This meant that consumers continued to pay high prices for drugs, rather than benefiting from more competitive and lower prices. So the FTC brought enforcement actions against these companies. In addition, the FTC 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 drug entry into the market. The FTC recommended: 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, S. 754, introduced by Senator Leahy, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. The Drug Competition Act is a simple solution to the 180-day exclusivity problems that the FTC has identified. The bill would require drug companies that enter agreements relating to the 180-day period to file those documents with the FTC and DOJ. It would impose sanctions on companies who do not provide timely notification. This process would facilitate agency review of the agreements to determine whether they have anti-competitive effects. The Drug Competition Act will ensure that consumers are not hurt by secret, anti-competitive contracts, so that consumers can get competition and lower drug prices as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy today in introducing the Drug Competition Act of 2003. This bill will help Federal regulators ensure that there is full and unfettered access to competition for prescription drugs under the law. As the past Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging and now as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I want to make sure that American consumers-- especially our seniors--are able to get the life-saving drugs they need in a competitive manner. Our patent laws provide drug companies with incentives to invest in 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 that there can be price competition and lower prices for prescription drugs. We have a legal system in place that provides for such a balance--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 anti-competitive agreements, resulting in the delay of the introduction of lower priced drugs. This bill targets that problem. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so 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 a 180-day head start on other generic companies. However, the FTC discovered that some companies were exploiting this law by entering into secret deals, which allowed the generic drug makers to claim the 180-day grace period and to block other generic drugs from entering the market, while at the same time getting paid by the brand-name manufacturer for withholding sales of the generic version of the drug. This meant that consumers continued to pay high prices for drugs, rather than benefiting from more competitive and lower prices. So the FTC brought enforcement actions against these companies. In addition, the FTC 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 drug entry into the market. The FTC recommended: 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, S. 754, introduced by Senator Leahy, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. The Drug Competition Act is a simple solution to the 180-day exclusivity problems that the FTC has identified. The bill would require drug companies that enter agreements relating to the 180-day period to file those documents with the FTC and DOJ. It would impose sanctions on companies who do not provide timely notification. This process would facilitate agency review of the agreements to determine whether they have anti-competitive effects. The Drug Competition Act will ensure that consumers are not hurt by secret, anti-competitive contracts, so that consumers can get competition and lower drug prices as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Iowan and a great American. It is with a sense of sadness but also pride that I must call to the attention of the Senate the sacrifice of Marine GySgt. Jeff Bohr of Ossian, IA, who was killed April 10, 2003, while participating in the liberation of Baghdad. Jeff Bohr is the second Iowan to have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and hopefully the last. Jeff Bohr served his country in the military for 20 years and had no reservations about putting his life on the line to protect American freedom and to give freedom to the Iraqi people. His loss will be felt throughout Iowa, and particularly in his hometown of Ossian. My thoughts and prayers are with Jeff's wife Lori as well as his father Eddie and mother Jeanette, his brothers, and all his family and friends. As they mourn his loss, they can know that they are not alone. Many people in Iowa and across the country share their grief and reflect on the life of Jeff Bohr, whether they knew him or not. At the same time, Jeff's family can be very proud of his service to his country. Jeff Bohr's sense of patriotic duty is a source of inspiration to us all, and his sacrifice will not be forgotten. He paid the ultimate price for our freedom and security. Words can scarcely convey the debt of gratitude that we all owe Jeff Bohr, but I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest respect and admiration for Jeff and what he did for America. Although his loss is tragic, Jeff Bohr died fighting for his country and he died a true patriot.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to SP James Kiehl, who gave his life for his country as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and to express my deepest sympathy to his family. SP Kiehl was part of the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, which was ambushed in southern Iraq. While we still don't know for sure what happened that day, U.S. forces later recovered his body during an operation in which they rescued another member of James's company, PFC Jessica Lynch. My prayers are with James's father in Comfort, TX and James's wife, Jill, Des Moines, IA. Since James left their home in Texas to go to war, Jill has been staying with her parents in Iowa where she is expecting their first child. I can only imagine how difficult this time must be for her. Although their child will never meet James, the child can take comfort knowing that SP Kiehl died a hero and a patriot. James Kiehl will be missed by a great many people who were a part of his life. I know I join all Iowans in expressing my support for Jill in her time of loss. Just as she will keep James's memory alive, it is our duty to recognize and remember James's sacrifice. In fact, I understand that James Kiehl spoke to his father about his military service saying that he did not want to raise his son in a world of terrorism; and so his service has helped to make us all safer. We must not forget those who have paid the immeasurably high price in the name of freedom. Liberty-loving Americans like James Kiehl deserve our unending gratitudes. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an aspect of the budget resolution that we are debating today. I am going to focus on one of the Finance Committee's tasks that is included in the resolution. I am referring to growth package and reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee. I would first like to put all of this into context. After that, I will describe an agreement with Senators Snowe and Voinovich. When I was thinking about the budget, Former Senator Barry Goldwater's words came to mind. Among legislators, you will find purveyors of perfection and those who practice the art of compromise. Reflecting on Senator Goldwater's words, I came up with a new version of Senator Goldwater's famous statement. With a little bit of poetic license, here is the version that I think sums up where we are: Let me remind you that extremism in tax policy at the expense of no budget resolution is a vice. Moderation in tax policy in pursuant of a budget resolution is a virtue. Fiscal conservatism is a virtue. No budget equals no spending ceilings and that equals a vice against taxpayers. Our economy has not recovered as we had hoped. Too many factories are shut or running below capacity. Too many workers are looking for work and need jobs to provide for their families. Stock prices have remained well below the ``bubble'' prices of the late 1990's. Americans wonder when their 401(k) accounts will bounce back. To me, there is a clearly demonstrated need for bold fiscal policy to give our economy a ``kick start.'' President Bush took the initiative and the responsibility. The President put forward a bold plan that focused on consumer demand and lagging investment. Let me be clear. I am with the President and supported his proposals in committee and on the floor. Keep in mind, press reports indicated administration officials pursued ever larger resources for the growth package. Last fall, the figure seemed to be $150 billion. In early winter, the Wall Street Journal reported one day the figure had gone up to $300 billion. Finally, when the President announced his plan the figure had grown to almost $700 billion. In fact, Joint Tax scored the plan at $726 billion. I supported the President's number at each step and support it today. Unfortunately, there is not now a majority of Senators in support of the President's figure. Based on countless conversions I have had that majority is not going to materialize over the next few weeks. As much as I wish it were no so, that is the political reality. The reality is that the Republican caucus is split. Most of the Senate Republican caucus supports the President's number. My moderate friends, such as Senators Snowe and Voinovich, think the President's number is too large. Our Democratic colleagues who want to be constructive legislators, such as Senators Baucus, Breaux, Ben Nelson and others, share our Republican moderates' view. Unfortunately, there are many on the other side who appear to view this exercise solely from the political objective of destroying part of the President's agenda. They seem less concerned about addressing the needs of the people. My moderate friends base their views on concerns about future deficits. Those are sincere concerns. Likewise, I do not like the prospect of deficits. My difference is that fiscal discipline needs to come from the spending side as well. I do want to differentiate these moderates who are deficit hawks from those that claim the title of deficit hawk and seem to be advancing political objectives. I would ask a question of those hard line opponents of the President's growth package who claim to be deficit hawks. How often have they offered to restrain spending? Did they offer any fiscally responsible spending restraints during the budget debate? I think we know the answer on that one. We all need to focus on getting spending under control. Unfortunately, the reality is that a majority of the Senate wants to focus only on the tax relief side. That is where we find ourselves. We only see restraint on the revenue side of the ledger. There is a more fundamental issue at stake. Republicans have a responsibility to govern. Aside from 135 days in the 2001, Republicans have not had control over both the Congress and the administration for almost half a century. The American people gave us the authority to govern in the last election and we owe it to them to produce. Senators Snowe and Voinovich understand this. Senators Frist and Nickles also understand this responsibility. I want Iowans to know I understand it as well. The people are tired of the partisan games and want us to govern. That is one of the reasons why I have said, as the growth package emerged, I want a bipartisan product. Senators Baucus and Breaux have told me they want to help me get a bipartisan growth package. They, along with other Democrats, made a down payment on this pledge with their support of the Senate budget resolution. I will work with them and like-minded Democrats in the bipartisan tradition of the finance Committee. In this context, the governing comes down to a couple of pieces of the peoples' business. One, producing a budget and, two, advancing an economic growth package. We cannot go through the chaos of last year when, under Democratic control, we did not have a budget. Chairman Nickles has made it his priority to restore the order that comes with the fiscal blueprint of a budget resolution. A few moments ago, I discussed the importance of the second item, the growth package. That is my job, hopefully with my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, to get a bipartisan economic growth package out of the Finance Committee, out of the Senate, out of conference, and on its way to the President. So, the reality is these two items, the budget and the growth package, will not happen unless a majority of the Senate support the effort. Last night, a majority of the Senate did not support the budget resolution that passed the House early this morning. In order to get the necessary support, we made an agreement with Senators Snowe and Voinovich. Let me be clear, without this agreement, the budget resolution conference report would not pass the Senate today. There would be no budget and no growth package without our agreement. That is why the leadership supports my efforts. The agreement is simple. It relates to the revenue number for the growth package. I agreed that I would not return from the conference on the growth package with a number greater than $350 billion in revenue reductions. This means that, at the end of the day, the tax cut side of the growth package will not exceed $350 billion over the period of the reconciliation instruction. Now, some on the other side will characterize this agreement as a ``defeat for the President.'' Those who say it is a defeat for the President may reveal their objective. It appears that they view this important responsibility solely from a political angle. I would say the same thing about my Republican friends who use that same characterization. This is not about the President. It is not about the House. It is not about the Senate. It is about doing our job. It is about doing the people's business. As a matter of fact, if you review where the growth package started, at about $150 billion, you could say the ball has been moved substantially. Why is that? Common sense will tell folks on both sides of the aisle are a lot more concerned about the economy now than they were when we started. The reality is that we have the resources to do a very good growth package. We have the tools to cut taxes that burden workers. We have the tools to cut taxes that burden small business. We have the tools to make investment decisions more attractive. That is where my focus will be-- on workers, small business, and investors. I hope that my colleagues will join me and focus on doing the people's business. They can start by supporting the budget resolution conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on the PROTECT Act, S. 151. As a conferee on that Conference Committee, I proudly support this important bill. It is undoubtedly, one of the most significant and comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. By marrying the AMBER alert bill with the Senate's PROTECT Act, and the House's Child Abduction Prevention Act, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children and greatly impacting their safety. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the Senate's version of the PROTECT Act. This portion of the conference bill does many important things. Because of advances in modern technology, prosecutors and experts are finding it more and more difficult to determine which images of child pornography are of real children and which are computer generated. This makes it very difficult to prove that an image is of a real child in a criminal case. To solve this problem, the bill makes it illegal to possess any material that contains a visual image of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Because child pornography, including morphed child pornography, is used to seduce children, the bill also makes it illegal to try to induce a child, through any means, including by computer, to participate in any activity that is illegal. The bill also makes any identifying information of a child, with the exception of age, inadmissible evidence in a court of law. Finally, to combat a grave problem that is growing worse daily, the bill requires the Attorney General to appoint 25 additional trial attorneys that would focus on the investigating and prosecuting Federal child pornography and obscenity laws. Another important inclusion in this bill is the Public Outreach Title, which deals with the AMBER alert and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard very poignant testimony about how the AMBER alert, had it been available, could have been used to save young children, like Polly Klaas. We also heard testimony of how the California AMBER alert was successfully used to find two Lancaster teenagers, last summer. That hearing built a good record for why we need a nationally coordinated AMBER alert communications network. Additionally, the Public Outreach Title increase the support for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; gives the US Secret Service the authority to render investigative and forensic support to missing children; and creates a cyber tipline. This title will greatly enhance the ability of law enforcement to find our Nation's missing children. While the bill makes significant progress in strengthening Federal child pornography laws and in enhancing public outreach, so that missing and exploited children can be recovered, the bill also includes the Houses' tough on crime penalties for Federal sex offenses. The bill increases penalties for crimes like kidnaping, sex tourism, child abuse, and child torture. It also includes a ``two-strikes'' provision that would establish a mandatory life sentence for twice convicted sex offenders. This one provision alone will help keep some of the worst violent child molesters off the streets and out of the exploitation business. The bill also includes new rules for supervised release of sex offenders, so that criminals with deep-seated aberrant sexual tendencies will not just be released to the public without some measure of protecting the public once the criminal is let out of prison. Additionally, the bill removes the statute of limitations for sex crimes against minors. This provision will be particularly helpful in cases where there is old DNA evidence, but still no suspect. It is my hope that these new sanctions will have a tremendous deterrent impact, and when taken all together they will provide for greater security for America's most precious resource--it's children. Although the underlying bill is an exceptional piece of legislation, I felt that there were a few additional provisions that would make the bill even better. I appreciate the way some members of the conference worked with me to include these additional provisions on the bill. First, I was able to get accepted an amendment to include child pornography manufacturers and distributors in the Federal sex offender registry. Because child pornography is a gateway to child molestation, just as marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs, those who deal in this type of material should be included in the offender registry, so that the public is on notice of these criminals. I was also able to get approved a technical amendment to the Communications Decency Act. This amendment would conform the language of the CDA to the Supreme Court's decision in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). The amendment strikes the indecency provisions, which the court ruled were unconstitutionally vague, and limits the scope of the CDA to obscenity and child pornography, which can be restricted since they do not benefit from first amendment protection. The conference also accepted two sense-of-Congress provisions. The first provision expresses that it is the sense of the Congress that the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice should focus its investigative and prosecutorial efforts on major producers, distributors, and sellers of obscene material and child pornography that use misleading methods to market their material to children. This provision was recommended in the 2000 report of the COPA Commission, a congressional commission tasked with studying how to protect children from pornography online. The second provision, which is also taken from the COPA Commission report, expresses that it is the sense of the Congress that the online commercial adult industry should voluntarily refrain from placing obscenity, child pornography, or harmful-to-minors material on the front pages of their Web sites. By taking this step, these Web sites will be helping to protect minors from material that may negatively impact their social, moral, and psychological development. With improved child pornography laws, enhanced public outreach, and tougher sentences for sex offenders who victimize minors, this conference report will be essential to keeping our children safe from individuals who wish to do them harm. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report on S. 151, The PROTECT Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are introducing the Tax Administration Good Government Act. The legislation contains five major components. First, it provides additional safeguards for taxpayers. Second, the legislation significantly simplifies the current interest and penalty regimes. Third, the Act also includes the proposals passed out of the Finance Committee on April 2, 2003 and included in a bill introduced by Senators Hatch and Breaux to modernize the United States Tax Court. Fourth, our legislation also includes several provisions, some of which were requested by the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation, to strike an appropriate balance in protecting taxpayer confidentiality through disclosure reforms. Finally, the legislation takes a small, but important step toward simplification of the tax code through the elimination of obsolete provisions. We have worked closely with the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Joint Committee on Taxation to develop this package of proposals to promote good government in the administration of our tax code. Congress's responsibility for the tax system does not stop after we pass tax law changes. We have an oversight responsibility to ensure that taxpayer rights are protected, that our tax laws are not administered counter to Congressional intent, that the judicial body with primary jurisdiction over the tax laws has the tools necessary to provide independent review of controversies between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, and to take steps to simplify the tax code whenever possible. It is our intention to pass a package of tax administration good government proposals out of the Finance Committee in the coming months. We urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. We also submit for the Record a more detailed description of the specific provisions included in the Tax Administration Good Government Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the description be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are introducing the Tax Administration Good Government Act. The legislation contains five major components. First, it provides additional safeguards for taxpayers. Second, the legislation significantly simplifies the current interest and penalty regimes. Third, the Act also includes the proposals passed out of the Finance Committee on April 2, 2003 and included in a bill introduced by Senators Hatch and Breaux to modernize the United States Tax Court. Fourth, our legislation also includes several provisions, some of which were requested by the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation, to strike an appropriate balance in protecting taxpayer confidentiality through disclosure reforms. Finally, the legislation takes a small, but important step toward simplification of the tax code through the elimination of obsolete provisions. We have worked closely with the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Joint Committee on Taxation to develop this package of proposals to promote good government in the administration of our tax code. Congress's responsibility for the tax system does not stop after we pass tax law changes. We have an oversight responsibility to ensure that taxpayer rights are protected, that our tax laws are not administered counter to Congressional intent, that the judicial body with primary jurisdiction over the tax laws has the tools necessary to provide independent review of controversies between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, and to take steps to simplify the tax code whenever possible. It is our intention to pass a package of tax administration good government proposals out of the Finance Committee in the coming months. We urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. We also submit for the Record a more detailed description of the specific provisions included in the Tax Administration Good Government Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the description be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Clean Diamond Trade Act. Clean Diamond legislation passed unanimously through the Finance Committee on April 2, by a voice vote. The bill we are taking up today is nearly identical to the bill that passed the House of Representatives on April 8, 2003, by a vote of 419 to 2. Today, with the passage of this bill, the Senate is taking a step toward bringing our Nation into compliance with our responsibilities as a participating Nation in the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme. Passage of this legislation is a true bipartisan success and a significant step forward in stopping trade in conflict diamonds. I would like to thank my colleagues for helping to develop the compromise legislation in this act. I would especially like to recognize the hard work of Senators Gregg, DeWine, Durbin, Bingaman, and Feingold, whose devotion and dedication to stopping trade in conflict diamonds is unsurpassed. The Clean Diamond Trade Act will implement the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. This is an international agreement establishing minimal acceptable international standards for national certification schemes relating to cross-border trade in rough diamonds. It represents over 2 years of negotiations among more than 50 countries, human rights advocacy groups, the diamond industry and nongovernment organizations. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme will help end the trade in conflict diamonds, which has been fueling conflicts in some African countries for many years, leading to human rights atrocities that are beyond anything we in America have ever experienced. I am pleased that we can help put an end to these atrocities with this legislation. The next plenary session of the Kimberley Process is scheduled to convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, from April 28 to 30, 2003. The U.S. played a leadership role in crafting the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, and it is critical that we implement the certification process before April 28 if we are to retain this leadership. We also need to do this to ensure that the flow of legitimate diamonds into and out of the United States will continue without interruption. Most important, we need to do everything we can to stop trade in conflict diamonds as soon as possible. This is a trade issue, a consumer issue, and most of all, a human rights issue. Legitimate trade can elevate the standard of living for people all over. This bill sends a strong message that the benefits of trade in valuable natural resources like diamonds should accrue to the legitimate governments and their people in Africa. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my staff whose hard work helped to get us to this point. First and foremost, my Finance Committee staff led by Kolan Davis, my Chief Trade Counsel Everett Eissenstat, along with Carrie Clark, Zach Paulsen and Nova Daly. And I would like to acknowledge Senator Baucus's staff Tim Punke and Shara Aranoff for their help in getting this bill through the Finance Committee and to the Senate floor. I hope this bill will receive wide support.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays and then that the vote occur at 12:30.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think we should wait until 12:30. I will wait. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I move to table the----

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the amendment by Senator Nickles is in order, is that right?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act.'' This bill would clarify that the bonuses and other excessive compensation of corporate directors and wrongdoers can be brought back into a bankruptcy estate when a company goes bankrupt. It is only fair that corporate officers and employees who have engaged in wrongdoing and violated the securities and accounting laws should not be able to make money off of a company which has gone bankrupt, while company employees, shareholders and creditors are left carrying the burden of the bankruptcy. Moreover, corporate officers and insiders should not be allowed to keep their bonuses and loans when a company has done so poorly to go bankrupt. Currently, the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to recover assets which a debtor has previously distributed to creditors within a certain time period prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. This allows a trustee to increase a debtor's assets for the fair treatment and equitable distribution of assets among all creditors, as well as to help shore up a debtor's assets during a reorganization. Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code currently allows a trustee to recover assets from an insider made within a year of the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to recover transfers of assets, made within one year, where there has been a fraudulent transaction or where a debtor has received less than what is reasonably equivalent in value. However, the Bankruptcy Code is not clear as to whether these sections would include the bonuses and other extraordinary or excessive compensation of officers, directors or other company employees. That needs to change. The Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act clarifies section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive compensation as determined by the court, made to an insider, officer or director and made within one year before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In addition, the bill amends section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that a trustee may recover bonuses, loans, nonqualified deferred compensation, and any other extraordinary or excessive compensation, as determined by the court, paid to an officer, director or employee who has committed securities or accounting violations, within 4 years of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The reason that the bill extends the present one year reach-back period for fraudulent transfers to four years is because a majority of States have adopted a four year time period or the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, (which allows for 4 years). The plain fact is that corporate officers and employees who have violated the law, as well as corporate officials who have not done a good job in managing a company, should not be allowed to benefit where their actions have contributed to the downfall of the company. Corporate mismanagement and irresponsibility should not be rewarded, and the bad guys need to be held accountable. The changes to the Bankruptcy Code contained in this bill are tied to excessiveness and wrongdoing and are fair. We need to do something about bringing more accountability and fairness to the system, and the Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act does that.