Medicare Assurance of Rx Transitional Assistance Act of 2004

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I was thinking about speaking about trade but I nearly wore out my welcome last week on that subject so I will only say that I would much prefer a trade bill be brought to the Senate floor that solves problems rather than creates new problems. I do not know that a trade agreement with Morocco is going to cause new problems but I do know that in trade agreement after trade agreement over a good many years, we have caused more problems, none of which ever get fixed. The problems of trade with Europe, with Japan, with Korea, with Mexico, with Canada never get fixed. Again, I do not know that this will cause problems with respect to Morocco. Morocco is one of those few countries with which we have a trade surplus.

But it has been the case that in every circumstance where we negotiated a trade agreement the surpluses that existed soon turned into deficits. In fact, we have the largest trade deficit in human history right now and that trade deficit exists with China, well over $130 billion a year; we have a trade deficit with Japan, Europe, Korea, and more. The NAFTA agreement was supposed to create a massive number of new jobs, hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country, yet following the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada we, in fact, turned a small trade surplus we had with Mexico into a very large deficit and we turned a modest deficit that we had with Canada into a very large trade balance deficit.

I do not intend to give a lengthy speech about trade today and repeat what I have talked about before, the outsourcing of American jobs, the movement of jobs from this country to other countries that is going on in a wholesale capacity. I will mention just a couple of issues, as examples of broken promises in trade. With respect to Mexico, we were told that we would see the products being imported into this country from Mexico, being the product of low-skill, low-wage labor. In fact, that is not the case at all.

The three largest imports into this country from Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics, the products of high- skill, high-wage labor except they do not pay high wages in Mexico. That is why these jobs have moved to Mexico.

I was told, although I have not yet checked this, that we now perversely import more automobiles from Mexico into the United States than we export to all of the rest of the world. This is after we did a trade agreement with Mexico.

I could spend time talking about our trade agreements with China, Japan, Europe, and others, and it is the same result.

Now, especially during the Olympic trials, our negotiators really ought to be required to wear jerseys so they can look down and see, as the Olympic athletes do, ``USA'' so at least they know for whom they work.

It is not very easy, in my judgment, to see the result of their work and understand whose side they were on when they negotiated these agreements.

I mentioned last week the recent agreement that was negotiated with China. In the agreement between the United States and China, we agreed the Chinese could impose a 25-percent tariff on any automobiles the United States ships to China and that we would impose a 2.5-percent tariff on any Chinese automobiles they would aspire to sell in our marketplace. In other words, our negotiator agreed that, with a country with which we have a $100-plus billion deficit, we would allow them to put a tariff on automobiles that would be 10 times higher than the tariff we would impose on Chinese automobiles to be sold in our country.

I say to you, that is incompetent. I have no idea how that happens; how someone rationalizes that this is fair.

What does it mean to average folks? It means jobs lost. It means jobs are created there rather than here. It means jobs leave here to go there. It means outsourcing. In most cases, it is why I do not support these trade agreements. Those who negotiated the agreements did not decide to stand up for the economic interests of our country. I am not talking about protectionism, I am talking about standing up for our economic interests and requiring and demanding fair trade.

It was one thing post the Second World War to be able to have concessionary trade policies, to say to other countries: Look, we will be glad to provide some concessions because we are bigger than you are, we are stronger, we are more capable, we have a thriving, growing economy and we can beat almost anyone in economic competition with one hand tied behind our back. That wasn't a big problem then. But things have changed. We now face stiff, shrewd, international competitors, yet most of our trade policy is still softheaded foreign policy, and those who negotiate it don't stand up for the economic interests of this country, in my judgment.

So much for trade.

I did want to mention a couple of other items, if I might.

Tax Shelters

The Washington Post did a story which described something most of us now have known is occurring. The U.S. Treasury Department has tapped a private company called KPMG, one of the largest accounting companies, perhaps the largest in our country, to audit the Treasury Department's consolidated financial statements. These are audits that were done previously by Government folks. These are internal audits by the Inspector General's office or others. But now they have tapped this company to audit the Treasury Department's financial statements.

Interestingly enough, the company they have hired to do that down at the Treasury Department is the subject of a Federal grand jury probe into its tax shelter abuses. By tax shelter abuses I mean this is a company that by all accounts now was aggressively marketing tax shelter abuses to clients and refuses to provide to the Treasury Department names of its clients so we can find out who avoided paying taxes by using the aggressive tax shelters proposed by this company. The Treasury Department says: On the one hand, we are investigating you with a grand jury probe. On the other hand, let's give you a big contract.

I don't understand that. I don't understand it at all. Why on Earth would the Treasury Department do this?

This aggressive marketing of tax dodges to those who want to avoid paying taxes is pretty difficult for the Treasury Department to get at. They have a difficult time trying to shut these down, these aggressive tax shelters. Because of the marketing of aggressive and abusive tax shelters, more and more companies have decided I want to be an American company for purposes of doing business in America and calling myself American, but I don't want to be an American company when it comes to paying taxes. Then I want to call myself a citizen of the Bahamas, or the Cayman Islands, or the Dutch Antilles. I want to run my company through a mailbox. I want to rent a mailbox in one of these countries that sets themselves up as a tax haven, and I want to run my company through a mailbox. Why? Not because that is where the company is going to be run from. It is because they want to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Some companies--not too many, but some--have gone the extra step of deciding to dump their U.S. citizenship, renounce their U.S. citizenship and become citizens of other countries.

These corporations are given life as an artificial person. A corporation isn't a real person, but we, in law in this country, have decided to create artificial persons. It is called a corporation. They can sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with. They, by a charter granted them in this country--in most cases by the State of Delaware but in other places as well--become an artificial citizen of the U.S. They do business. With a corporation, they limit liability and they are able to accumulate capital. It has been good for this system of ours, the capitalistic system, the free enterprise system. It has been good.

Except now this is what we are saying to companies such as KPMG, that are marketing aggressive tax shelters to these other companies, American companies who want to remain American companies and want to do everything but pay taxes to our country. We have the largest Federal budget deficit in history and we have companies trying to avoid paying taxes right and left and we have a big company that was advising them on how to avoid paying their taxes and in some cases creating abusive and aggressive tax shelters, and the Treasury Department says: Oh, by the way, I know we are investigating you in a grand jury probe, but on the other hand, let us help you out with a big, fat contract.

I don't understand who makes these decisions, but I don't think it is a decision that makes sense for the taxpayers of this country. I don't like the signal it sends. I don't know this company. I am not involved with the people involved in this company. It is not about this being personal. It seems to me, if a company, in order to curry favor with its clients, decides it wants to market aggressive and abusive tax shelters, it has to bear the responsibility for having done that. Part of the responsibility is not, in my judgment, bringing down a big, old contract on the positive side of the ledger, to now audit the Department of the Federal Treasury.

Let me say, while I am at this, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have made statements about this which I think are very admirable. I could read some of them. I think the statements about this by both the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee are right on target. Senator Grassley says:

If we could just get Federal agencies not to work at cross

purposes it would go a long way towards ensuring everybody

pays their fair share of taxes.

Senator Baucus launched a probe into the Department of Interior's planned acquisition of mineral rights from a seller who wanted to claim a big charitable deduction. That is the same thing.

These companies marketing these strategies these days, they even have now in this country something a lot of people would find strange, subway systems and city hall being sold to the private sector in a leaseback. You actually sell it and then lease it back so the private company can get tax benefits from a building that was owned by the Federal Government or State government or local government--in most cases it is State or local government--and it is kind of a golden handshake where a building that would not be depreciated, because the government wouldn't depreciate it, sells the building to a private business and then leases it back so the private company can actually collect more in tax benefits than it lays out to the government in the first place. It is a big tax dodge. It doesn't make any sense at all.

At a time when we have a giant Federal budget deficit, trying to figure out how we make enterprises pay their fair share and people pay their fair share, the ordinary folks, the folks who go to work every day and try to do the best they can, at the end of the year file a tax return on April 15 and pay their fair share, they look at this and say I don't understand that. A company that makes $500 million pays zero or next to zero, companies that make billions of dollars end up claiming these tax dodges.

Let me commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and encourage them and say, as one Member of the Senate, I hope you will be as aggressive as possible to try to shut this down because this makes no sense at all.

Secret Airplane Flights after 9/11

Mr. President, I want to mention one other issue, one that I think very few people are paying as much attention to as they should, especially in the press.

I believe my colleague from New Jersey has discussed it on the Senate floor, it was discussed recently in a Commerce Committee hearing, and I have discussed it in many venues--the question of something that happened which was curious and very worrisome to me in the days following September 11, 2001. Let me describe what it was. We have all read snippets about it, and some of them are not accurate.

In the days following 9/11, there were six secret charter flights that were allowed to leave this country. They gathered up 142 Saudi nationals that were in the United States. They gathered up those Saudis, which included over two dozen members of the bin Laden family, and got them to a few gathering points, and on six secret charter flights they left this country. The public did not know they were leaving. The public did not know that these flights were occurring until after they left our country.

There have been a lot of questions about this issue. Let me describe some of what is in the public record.

Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who struck this country on September 11, 2001, were Saudi citizens. So who would have allowed the gathering up of 142 Saudi citizens to be put on 6 secret charter airplane flights to leave this country?

On September 3, 2003, Richard Clarke, head of counterterrorism in the White House at the National Security Council, said this before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He addressed this question:

It's true that members of the bin Laden family were among

those who left.

That is part of the 142 Saudis who left on the 6 secret flights.

It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among

those who left. We knew at the time--I can't say much more in

open session--but it was a conscious decision with complete

review at the highest levels of the State Department and the

FBI and the White House.

That is Richard Clarke testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee when asked about who allowed these secret flights. He said: Well, we knew about it. I can't tell you much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.

Then Richard Clarke--the same Richard Clarke--appeared under oath in March 2004 at the 9/11 Commission. Here is what he said about who sought these secret charter flights:

I'd love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought

this proposal to me, but I do not know. The two possibilities

that are the most likely are either the Department of State

or the White House Chief of Staff's office.

That is what he told the 9/11 Commission when asked who proposed these secret flights to be allowed to leave. He said: I do not know. The two possibilities are the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's office.

In the same testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Clark testified with respect to the secret flights, and the request that the flights be approved:

I suggested that it be routed to the FBI, and the FBI

looked at the names of individuals who were going to be on

the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I

spoke with at the time the No. 2 person at the FBI, Dale

Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then

approved the flight.

That is Richard Clarke, a direct quote under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

The FBI spokesperson, speaking of these charter flights with the Saudis and the bin Laden family members, said:

We haven't had anything to do with arranging or clearing

the flights.

Then the FBI said no one was allowed to depart ``who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.''

That is what the FBI said. No one was allowed to leave who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.

However, Dale Watson, the No. 2 person at the FBI, head of counterterrorism at the time of these flights, said that the FBI did not conduct in-depth checks on the Saudis being repatriated.

He said:

They were identified but they were not subject to serious

interviews or interrogation.

What we now know, according to the 9/11 Commission, is that about 30 of the 142 Saudis who were allowed to leave were interviewed by the FBI. But the No. 2 person at the FBI said none of them were subject to interviews or interrogation.

Among those who were allowed to leave this country, the Saudis--and I will not use their names; though I may have used them before--was a cousin of Osama bin Laden who had run the U.S. operations of a charity that had been accused of financing terrorism by the Governments of India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Bosnia. The FBI had investigated this person dating back to 1996. His case file was reopened on September 19, 2001, even as these flights were in progress.

Another individual was allowed to leave. He, it turns out, curiously, was in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before September 11, 2001. He was a former director of a Saudi charity that has been investigated for ties to terrorism. He was interviewed by the FBI shortly after 9/11, but the interview was cut short when he pretended to be ill. The FBI agent recommended that he should not be allowed to leave until a followup interview could occur. That recommendation was not complied with, and he was allowed to return to Saudi Arabia without a followup interview.

The interesting thing about the 9/11 Commission report is what they say about this flight and these citizens. The 9/11 Commission says that no one was allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks. Incidentally, we can't get the manifest of the passenger list; I think Senator Lautenberg has gotten one of them, but the rest of them have not been made available--but at any rate, the 9/11 Commission says that no one was allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks.

Just take that for a moment and understand what they are saying. No one was allowed to leave who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks. What about someone who they should have interviewed in connection with financing terrorist activities? What about someone who they should have interviewed because of involvement with a charity that had been financing terrorist activities, perhaps not 9/11 but other terrorist activities?

They say no one was allowed to leave who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with these attacks, but I just described to you two people who left, one who an FBI agent did not want permitted to leave, and the other who had his case reopened on September 19, 2001.

This is really a little too cute, I think. The 9/11 Commission says no one was allowed to leave who might have had some issue dealing with 9/11. But what about other ties to terrorism? The issue is the gathering up of 142 Saudi citizens in the aftermath of 9/11--keeping in mind that 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia--and putting these 142 people, including two dozen members of the bin Laden family, on 6 secret charter flights, disclosing those flights to no one until they left for Saudi Arabia.

The question for me is, Were any of those people involved in any way in the financing of terrorist activities anywhere any time in the world? That has not been answered. The 9/11 Commission has not answered that and may not answer it, apparently, and most people have stopped asking those questions.

My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, asked those questions. I asked those questions. The American people deserve to know answers to those questions.

I don't allege some elaborate coverup. I allege gross incompetence. Somebody said that I was alleging a conspiracy at the White House. I am not alleging that at all. Richard Clarke says that the decision to allow these six secret flights was ``at the highest levels'' of the State Department, the FBI, and the White House. But I am not alleging there is some sort of conspiracy or connection. All I am alleging is gross incompetence, I think, because somebody allowed there to be gathered up a big group of people who should have been properly interrogated, and they allowed them, before those proper interrogations, to jump on six secret charter flights and were given opportunities no one else in this country was given. There are a lot of other Saudi citizens here. A lot of other people weren't given the opportunity to leave this country on secret flights. Why did that happen? How did it happen? Who asked for it and who approved it? Those questions have not yet been answered. I think the American people deserve those answers.

We are told now that there is threat of a substantial terrorist attack

against this country. Two weeks ago we were told that terrorists would attempt to strike this country between now and the election to disrupt the election, or disrupt the two political conventions. The ability of this country to detect and to stop a potential terrorist attack relies on our ability to use good intelligence and the coordination between the intelligence community and our law enforcement community. If that does not work, then we are in trouble.

I don't for the life of me understand how we could have allowed these secret flights to occur without learning everything there was to learn from these passengers. One might say: Well, maybe we would not have learned anything. Maybe not. I expect you would learn something from the two people I described, both of whom had previously been of interest to the FBI, but now, after 9/11, were not questioned thoroughly by the FBI. I don't know about the rest of them.

Someone made a grievous error, in my view. Someone did not exhibit the competence we should expect from those making decisions to protect this country.

I continue to ask these questions. I know my colleague, will, as well, and I hope at some point we will find out what the answers are. Who authorized these flights? Why were they authorized? What is on the passenger manifest list? Are there more Saudis who the FBI should have questioned further who were allowed to leave this country? I don't know the answer to that, but this country, in my judgment, deserves an answer.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the situation in Darfur, Sudan. I have come to the floor many times before to discuss this horrible crisis. I do so again today.

My colleague Senator Biden and I have introduced a bill, which I will describe in detail in a few minutes. Significant, I think, within the past hour was a very graphic video and audio description of the situation in Darfur, as it appeared on CNN. I commend it to any colleagues who may have the opportunity to see it, or who can even get a transcript of that show. It is a 3- or 4-minute piece. It clearly demonstrated in the most stark terms that the tragedy of Darfur continues to unfold. We saw little children who were in danger of dying. Some may be dying. They described one man who had been injured-- shot within the last week by the militias who came in. So despite the pledges of the Sudanese Government that they will stop the militias from carrying out this genocide, in fact, as we meet here today, it continues.

There has been a discussion about whether genocide is in fact occurring. Some have argued this is not genocide. So as I describe what is in the bill Senator Biden and I have introduced today, I want to describe for my colleagues what, under the law, it takes for genocide to occur, what the convention says, and what the facts are.

I am on the floor tonight to discuss whether what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan is in fact genocide. I believe it is genocide, although for some reason there seems to be some confusion about what that term, in fact, means and what responsibilities come with that once it is determined that genocide is taking place.

I have been using the term ``genocide'' to describe what has been happening in the Darfur region of Sudan since May, and I think it is time, frankly, that this body, as a whole, and the world, more importantly, begins to do the same. That is why Senator Biden and I have introduced a bill that refers to what is happening, in fact, as genocide.

I thank my colleague, Senator Biden, for his leadership on this issue. He, too, has been calling this genocide since the beginning, and we hope our colleagues will join us and rightly identify the atrocities in Darfur as, in fact, genocide.

Our bill will also prevent any normalization of relations between the U.S. Government and the Sudanese Government unless and until the President of the United States can certify that the Government of Sudan is taking significant and demonstrable steps to stop the militias and allow humanitarian aid to flow.

The bill we have introduced today will allow us to place sanctions on Sudan contingent on improvements in Darfur. Simply put, this bill will use every weapon in our diplomatic arsenal to attack this problem, and, frankly, that is exactly what is needed.

Only when the Government of Sudan satisfies the requirements laid out in this bill--and we have set a high but, frankly, reasonable hurdle-- would the Government of Sudan then be eligible for any U.S. assistance.

The bill will authorize $800 million in support of the north-south peace process, but that money will not be available until and unless the Government of Sudan complies with the terms of the bill. But separate and apart from that money, the bill will authorize an additional $200 million for humanitarian assistance for Darfur, obviously not going through the Government of Sudan.

Let me reiterate. The $800 million that we would authorize in support of the north-south peace process would only be available if and when the genocide has stopped, the atrocities have stopped, the humanitarian situation has improved, and the President of the United States is confident and willing to certify to Congress that the Government of Sudan is protecting its people.

It is my hope that this bill will be passed before the summer recess so the pressure on the Government of Sudan begins immediately and does not stop until that Government complies.

I want to return to the larger issue of whether what is taking place in Sudan now is, in fact, genocide because there does seem to be a lot of confusion about this issue. There should not be any confusion about it because what is taking place in Sudan today clearly is genocide.

The definition of ``genocide'' can be found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which entered into force originally in 1951. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide is any one of five acts which is committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Let me repeat that. Specifically, article 2 states that genocide is any one of five acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Here are the five acts, any one of which will qualify for genocide.

First is the act of killing members of the group. There is no doubt that the militias in Darfur, aided by the Government of Sudan, have been killing the Black Africans of Darfur. Their scorched Earth campaign has left 30,000 dead--men, women, children. These people were killed because they were Black, while their Arab neighbors went untouched. That is the fact. Even when the people fled, the militias chased them into Chad trying to finish the job. Under this qualification alone, what is happening should be classified as ``genocide.''

The second group of actions that constitute genocide under the Convention is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The militias have used rape as a weapon, killed children in front of the parents, killed parents in front of the children, made husbands stand by while their wives are raped and killed, and have done all of this because their victims are Black.

An Amnesty International report stated:

The long-term effects of these crimes can be seen in

countries like Rwanda where many women and children remain

traumatized.

In the same way, the people of Darfur will remain traumatized for years to come, and this is what the militias want. The militias want to make sure that the Black Africans they do not

kill are broken by the atrocities they have witnessed and suffered through.

Let me turn to the third measure. The third way to commit genocide is to deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about a group's physical destruction in whole or in part. The numbers in Darfur are appalling and clearly makes a case that this provision is satisfied. Over 1 million people--1 million people--have been driven from their homes, over 400 villages have been destroyed, wells have been poisoned, crops have been destroyed, and granaries and herds have been looted. The militias and Government have done everything possible to ensure that the Black Africans of Darfur cannot survive even if they escape the initial killings. There is nothing left for them. Their herds are gone. Their crops are gone. What is worse is the Government militias are also now blocking humanitarian aid.

These tactics, in the face of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, can be for no other purpose than to ensure that those who escape the killing now die along the way or die in camps.

The militias have turned the camps into prisons, killing those who leave in search of firewood and food. This campaign is, obviously, not just about driving these people off the land; it is about destroying the Black African groups, and that, I say to my colleagues, is what is genocide. That is genocide.

The final two acts that qualify as genocide are imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. We have reports that children have been abducted and that women are being raped by Arab men to ``make a light baby.''

In these societies, a child adopts the father's ethnic background, and by raping all of these women with the purpose of making lighter children, they are effectively meeting the fourth and fifth criteria for genocide in the Convention.

Specifically on the fifth criteria for genocide, forcibly transferring children from one group to another group, I want to share with my colleagues in the Senate the story of a woman named Mecca. She was killed by the militias when she tried to stop them from taking her 3-year-old son. I am sure there are countless others who were killed trying to save their children, as any parent would. For these parents, for the children who have been abducted, for the girls and women who have been raped, for the people dying right now, I ask this body, I plead with this body to support using the term ``genocide'' because that is what it is.

Although we can make a case that all five of these provisions have been met, the Convention is very specific. The Convention states that any one of these actions constitutes genocide. The fact that we have evidence to support all five qualifying categories only makes the decision to call this genocide that much easier.

The question remains, though, if we call it genocide, what does that mean? What is the significance? Maybe when we know the answer, that will tell us why sometimes some people in the international community may be a little reluctant to call it genocide. The answer to the question once again is right in the convention, both in its title and in its articles. The document is called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is called that for a good reason.

We need to make sure that the crimes being committed in Darfur are both prevented and punished. To prevent these crimes, the Government of Sudan and the militias need to be forced to end their reign of terror. We have tried to use diplomatic pressure to get them to start. The U.N. Secretary General and our own Secretary of State Colin Powell both went to the region to plead with the Government to stop the atrocities. The U.N. even submitted a draft U.N. Security Council resolution including targeted sanctions on the militias and an option for sanctions on the Sudanese Government if they did not keep their promises to rein in the militias. All of this, and yet, as Secretary Powell has said, the Government of Sudan is still not keeping their promises. The atrocities continue. That means to prevent genocide, we will need more than promises and high-level visits.

Quite frankly and bluntly, we need troops on the ground. The African Union is going to send 300 peacekeepers, but we all know that is not enough for a region that is the size of Texas. We need more countries to commit troops, and we, the U.S. Government, need to be prepared to fund and assist these troops in reaching the region and protecting the civilian population of Darfur.

The second major responsibility we have under the convention is to ensure that the crime of genocide is punished. The Government of Sudan must try those individuals suspected of committing these atrocities, and if they are found guilty, they must punish them. This includes vetting the ranks of the military to ensure that no further militia members find refuge there. It also means not just rounding up a few low-level members of the militias and punishing them. That is not enough.

In addition, the international community will not accept show trials and, if necessary, an international tribunal should be convened to ensure that justice is served in Darfur.

Justice also must be blind to the position held by those responsible for genocide. If any public officials in Sudan are guilty of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, an attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, they must be held just as accountable as the militia members themselves.

It does no one any good to wait until after the fact to call this genocide. Let's not wait 6 months. Let's not wait a year. Let's not wait 5 years. That is what happened in Rwanda. We cannot afford to let that mistake happen again. That is why I have been calling this genocide, because it is. We must call this genocide.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and myself in calling this genocide. I urge my colleagues to speak out. My colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and others, have been on the floor of the Senate speaking about this issue. Senator Biden and I have a bill. I urge my colleagues to come forward and cosponsor and help us pass this bill. I also urge my colleagues to come forward and help us pass Senator Brownback's resolution condemning this as well. This is something that needs to be done. This Senate needs to speak out. This country needs to take action. The international community needs to take action.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume legislative session and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2677, the Morocco free-trade legislation, as provided under the statute.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant minority leader for his approval of going ahead on this issue. I thank every Senator on the other side because any Senator on the other side or, for that matter, this side can object to any legislation coming up. Trade legislation is a little more controversial than it used to be. We have had great cooperation from the Democrats in the bipartisan manner it takes to get business done in the Senate on three very important trade agreements, including now this one, the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Last week we did the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and prior to that the extension and reauthorization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which was passed just prior to our previous recess for the Fourth of July.

So often in this body the antagonism gets highlighted between Republican and Democrats. I wish to thank all the minority Members for allowing me to move ahead with this legislation.

Obviously, since I presented this legislation, I support this bill, S. 2677. It is legislation that implements the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I happen to believe this agreement marks a solid win for America, and when it comes to trade legislation, when we talk about a solid win, that is in economic terms and that creates jobs in America because America produces, in most instances, more than we can consume, particularly in agriculture but in other areas as well.

The United States is 5 percent of the world's population. So if anybody thinks we should not accept goods from overseas and then other countries not let us export, understand that 5 percent of the people of this world, the Americans, when we produce much more than we consume-- and in agriculture that is 40 percent--what they would be saying is that we ought to shut down part of productive America. Obviously, if we shut down part of productive America, we lose jobs. So if we are going to keep enhancing our economy, to increase our standard of living--and that is related to increased productivity--then, obviously, we have to look to the 95 percent of the people of the world who are outside the United States as a market.

Other countries, obviously, look to the world for a market. So it is a very competitive market. But the extent to which we reduce trade barriers--and this Morocco agreement is one example of reducing barriers to trade--then we let the marketplace make a decision on where goods go, what goods cost, and the quality of goods. For the most part, consumers of those respective countries, including America, make a determination as to what they want to pay and the quality of product they want. But the marketplace is going to be making that decision.

When we have barriers to trade that are set up by governments, then political leaders are making those decisions. Or if it is not political leaders, it is government employees making those decisions. Quite frankly, when government makes decisions, you do not reap the benefits of the efficiency of the marketplace and the efficiency of productivity of the respective workers of the respective countries that you do if the marketplace is making those decisions.

Willing buyer, willing seller, setting price, setting quality, setting time of transaction is better than 535 Members of Congress making that decision. All one has to do is look at Russia today. It is much more productive than it was when bureaucrats in Moscow were deciding how many acres of wheat to plant and when to combine those acres, the mature crop. A third of it was left in the field because when 5 o'clock came, they went home. When the American farmer goes out to harvest crops, he stays there until he gets it done, particularly something that is time sensitive, such as the maturing crop of wheat or soybeans. But not the Russian farmer under the Soviet system of command and control. Russia was not exporting grain. Today, Russia is exporting grain. We have to go back to the new economic program of the late 1920s for that to have happened, or you have to go back to the days of the czar for that to have happened in Russia.

So the marketplace is the best place to make these decisions, and agreements leveling the playing field, such as this Morocco agreement, are examples of the United States looking to the rest of the world to sell the surplus we manufacture, the surplus we produce, the excess--if you do not want to call it surplus, it is excess--of what we can consume here.

When this agreement is implemented, more than 95 percent of bilateral trade will become duty free immediately. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, this is the best market access package of any U.S. free-trade agreement with a developing country. This will bring important new opportunities for America's manufacturing sector. The agreement will also benefit our service providers with new market opportunities, particularly in key sectors such as engineering, telecommunications, banking, and insurance. U.S. intellectual property rights owners will obtain the benefits of

stronger protection for their trademarks, for their copyrights, and for their patents.

Any agreement will lead to a more open and transparent trading regime with the implementation of the new transparency procedures for customs administration, new commitments to combat bribery, and strong protections for U.S. investors in the region.

Perhaps most importantly for my home State of Iowa, the agreement brings substantial benefits to the U.S. agricultural community. I note firstly that the agreement is comprehensive. No sector is excluded. This is important for the future of our U.S. agriculture. The fact is, when we take a sector off the table during negotiations, our trading partners are bound to do the same. All too often the sector they want excluded is one of our most competitive agricultural products. That means lost sales for America's family farmers.

It is very important that we send a strong message to our future trading partners that our country, the United States of America, remains committed to negotiating broad and very comprehensive free- trade agreements. Passage of this agreement moves that ball closer to the goalpost and reaffirms our commitment to negotiating and not being on the sideline.

Second, this agreement is sure to advance our agricultural exports in an important and growing region of the market. The recent trend of Argentine and Brazilian corn displacing American corn in the Moroccan market will end. In fact, the International Trade Commission predicts that absent the current tariff, United States corn producers will supply nearly all of Morocco's corn imports in the coming years.

The International Trade Commission also estimates that United States exports of soybean meal to Morocco will likely increase substantially under this agreement. With Morocco presently imposing tariffs as high as, believe this, 275 percent on the import of United States beef, the United States is in effect literally shut out of the Moroccan beef market. This will change under this agreement, with the United States gaining new access for our beef going into Morocco.

United States exporters are currently at a competitive disadvantage when they try to sell wheat to Morocco. The fact is that competitors of the United States can sell their wheat cheaper. This agreement will change that. This agreement will level the playing field for America's wheat farmers. It is also going to do it for our beef ranchers.

An independent study by the American Farm Bureau Federation found that under this agreement--now, this is the American Farm Bureau--the United States agricultural trade surplus with Morocco could reach $382 million by 2015 with Moroccan agricultural exports rising by only $25 million. Thus, under this agreement, U.S. agriculture would see roughly a 10-to-1 gain. Those figures speak louder than words.

I have received testimony and letters in support of this agreement from across America's agricultural sector. I concentrate on what we have heard from one Iowa farmer, but also a person who is very much a leader in the Iowa Soybean Association, Ron Heck from Perry, IA. He testified before the Finance Committee, which I chair, that the agreement will not only benefit soybean farmers directly in increased exports to the country of Morocco but also indirectly as they sell their grain to America's beef and poultry farmers who will in turn export these products of beef and poultry to Morocco.

When one sells meat, one sells a value-added agricultural product that has created more jobs in America. It is better to sell the beef and the poultry, it brings more wealth to America than sending our raw grain and our raw soybeans overseas.

We have the National Corn Growers Association, the International Dairy Food Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Chicken Council, the Corn Refiners, and the USA Rice Federation, to name a few, that have all written to me in favor of this agreement.

The Morocco free trade agreement also contains a preference clause that grants the United States market access provisions that will be at least as good as those granted by Morocco to other countries in any future free trade agreement they may enter into.

Finally, the agreement enabled us to tackle tough sanitary and phytosanitary issues which had been acting as a bar to many of our agricultural exports.

In my mind, the economic benefits are enough for any Senator to support this agreement. I think my colleagues ought to take into consideration other less tangible reasons to cast their vote as yea.

Morocco is a longstanding friend and ally of the United States. In fact, Morocco was the first country to extend diplomatic relations to the United States following our independence. Our two nations first signed a treaty of peace and friendship in 1786, making this the oldest unbroken treaty in the history of the United States foreign relations.

Today, Morocco is a valuable ally in the war against terrorism, working with our country to bring peace and stability throughout the Middle East. In short, Morocco has been and still remains a valued friend of our country. I am pleased we will be able to strengthen our friendship with the passage of this free trade agreement.

The Morocco free trade agreement marks our third free trade agreement in the Middle East. Although we enjoy strong free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan, the Congress may soon have an opportunity to consider a fourth free trade agreement with Bahrain, another important Middle Eastern country and one that is very helpful to us in a military way.

While each free trade agreement is valued in and of itself, these free trade agreements are also steppingstones toward President Bush's broader vision of a Middle East free trade agreement by the year 2013. Today, far too many people in the Middle East are plagued by poverty and lack of education and opportunity. While trade itself will not alleviate every ill, it is a vital tool of development which has been lacking for far too long in that important region of the world. I am confident the passage of this free trade agreement, along with our continued efforts to build a Middle East free trade agreement, can help change that by ushering in a new era of hope and prosperity in that critical part of the world.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicare Assurance of Prescription Transition Assistance Act of 2004. It is my hope that this will be put on the Senate Calendar so it can be considered under rule XIV.

Let me give a little background about what this legislation is intended to correct.

As all of us know, this last year we passed a major revision, a major amendment to the Medicare Act. The Medicare Act was passed in 1965. In this last year, the prescription drug bill has been added to it. That was a controversial piece of legislation which I wound up opposing in its final form. I supported the version we passed through the Senate initially. I opposed the version that finally came from the conference and was sent to the President for signature.

But there was one part of that prescription drug legislation that contained a very real benefit for a lot of low-income Americans. That is the $600 subsidy that was made available this year and again next year for Medicare recipients with incomes in this category that allowed them to take advantage of the benefit.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide simply that CMS automatically enroll many of these low-income Medicare seniors and people with disabilities into this prescription drug card in order that they get the benefit of the discount card. Of course, that benefit is hard to quantify. They would get that benefit, but more importantly, they would get access to

this $600 subsidy this year and another $600 subsidy next year, which would go against the cost of prescription drugs they incur during those 2 years.

Underscoring the need for this legislation, yesterday Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging that only 1 million of the more than 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the $600 subsidy under the Medicare prescription drug card are currently enrolled.

This chart makes that point very clearly. The title of this chart is ``Low Enrollment Plagues Prescription Drug Plan.'' This first bullet states that 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for this $600 subsidy. The number of low-income beneficiaries that CMS projected would actually enroll would be 5 million. So 5 million of the 7 million were supposed to enroll. In fact, the number of low-income beneficiaries who have enrolled turns out to be 1 million.

So there are 6 million Americans eligible for the $600 transition assistance under the Medicare prescription drug bill who are not receiving any help. In other words, 14 percent of those who are eligible for this $600 subsidy are actually getting assistance at the present time. Unfortunately, many of those seniors who are eligible live in my home State of New Mexico, and I am very anxious that we provide this benefit to them since it is a part of the law.

The President and the leadership in the Senate have vowed to bottle up any legislation that would reopen the Medicare prescription drug bill at this time, or before the end of this Congress. Unfortunately, that would include bills such as the one I am reintroducing today, which is really intended to ensure that the people who are eligible for the limited benefit provided under this bill actually receive that benefit.

If we are serious about trying to provide assistance to our Nation's most vulnerable low-income seniors and people with disabilities, then we should undertake the rather straightforward but significant step that is called for in this legislation, and that is automatically enrolling those who are eligible for the $600 subsidy into the discount drug card program.

Considering that it is unclear whether the savings offered by the drug discount card itself will amount to much, and that is just hard to quantify, frankly, the main benefit is not the discount card itself; it is the $600 credit which is available to low-income individuals.

Specifically, the $600 is available to any individual whose income is less than $12,569 per year or any married couple whose income is less than $16,862 per year. For those Medicare savings program beneficiaries who get cost-sharing assistance through Medicaid because they have incomes below 135 percent of poverty but are not receiving prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to ensure they will receive the $600 subsidy that those of us in Congress intended they receive.

In fact, when the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 transitional assistance would actually be enrolled.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expected 5 million people of the 7 million--again, as is stated on this chart--including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in my home State of New Mexico, would actually enroll. Under the CMS assumptions, those beneficiaries combined would save $5 billion nationally, or $35 million in my home State of New Mexico, over this 2- year period.

Much of that savings is not going to be realized by those seniors unless we pass the legislation I am introducing today.

Part of the explanation for the low enrollment is the poor advertising campaign that the General Accounting Office has criticized and with which we are generally familiar. This poor advertising campaign included running ads in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and the Hill. Unfortunately, most of the low-income seniors in my State do not subscribe to either Roll Call or the Hill. In fact, they do not know those publications exist.

According to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are even aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the prescription drug bill. So it is hard to believe that 65 percent of those who are eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know the program exists.

Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for this automatic enrollment. Two months ago, the agency issued guidance for how State pharmacy assistance programs can automatically enroll their members who have incomes below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance benefit. Those enrollees continue to represent the bulk of those who have enrolled and they remain the model for how to ensure that low- income beneficiaries get the prescription drug assistance they need.

CMS can take this additional step, which I am calling for in this legislation, to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. I believe CMS has the authority to take the step on its own right now, but the legislation I have reintroduced today would clarify the law in this regard and would ensure that low- income seniors and people with disabilities actually receive this transitional assistance as promised by the administration and the Congress.

As the Medicare Rights Center has asked: Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the Government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?

That is exactly the right question to be asked. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are very sick, who have cognitive and mental illnesses and do not have access to or feel comfortable with the use of the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that could benefit them substantially this year and next year. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what choice automatic enrollment would take away at that point.

It is not enough to say, look, we believe these seniors have a choice of a great many discount cards and we do not want to prejudge that for them. The truth is, most of the people I am talking about are completely unaware that there is such a thing as a drug discount card or that there is such a thing as a $600 subsidy for which they could qualify. This lack of knowledge on their part is through no fault of their own and we should do all we can, and CMS should do all it can, to get them enrolled so they can benefit from this $600 subsidy. Either CMS or the States should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling these individuals in the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not the choice that they might have between one card or another but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they do today qualify for and that they should be receiving.

As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forgo needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the low-income beneficiaries would sign up for the $600 subsidy, by any measure signing up just 14 percent of these beneficiaries can only be viewed as a major failure. It has not been viewed as that so far either by the administration or by the Congress.

Once again, I call on the administration to take this important step on its own and enroll these individuals for this benefit. In light of the fact they have failed to do so, despite several calls from me and other Members of Congress for them to do so, I am reintroducing this bill, and I hope the Senate leadership will bring it to the floor for immediate action.

There is over $1 billion of prescription drug assistance for over 1 million of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicare Assurance of Prescription Transition Assistance Act of 2004. It is my hope that this will be put on the Senate Calendar so it can be considered under rule XIV.

Let me give a little background about what this legislation is intended to correct.

As all of us know, this last year we passed a major revision, a major amendment to the Medicare Act. The Medicare Act was passed in 1965. In this last year, the prescription drug bill has been added to it. That was a controversial piece of legislation which I wound up opposing in its final form. I supported the version we passed through the Senate initially. I opposed the version that finally came from the conference and was sent to the President for signature.

But there was one part of that prescription drug legislation that contained a very real benefit for a lot of low-income Americans. That is the $600 subsidy that was made available this year and again next year for Medicare recipients with incomes in this category that allowed them to take advantage of the benefit.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide simply that CMS automatically enroll many of these low-income Medicare seniors and people with disabilities into this prescription drug card in order that they get the benefit of the discount card. Of course, that benefit is hard to quantify. They would get that benefit, but more importantly, they would get access to

this $600 subsidy this year and another $600 subsidy next year, which would go against the cost of prescription drugs they incur during those 2 years.

Underscoring the need for this legislation, yesterday Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging that only 1 million of the more than 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the $600 subsidy under the Medicare prescription drug card are currently enrolled.

This chart makes that point very clearly. The title of this chart is ``Low Enrollment Plagues Prescription Drug Plan.'' This first bullet states that 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for this $600 subsidy. The number of low-income beneficiaries that CMS projected would actually enroll would be 5 million. So 5 million of the 7 million were supposed to enroll. In fact, the number of low-income beneficiaries who have enrolled turns out to be 1 million.

So there are 6 million Americans eligible for the $600 transition assistance under the Medicare prescription drug bill who are not receiving any help. In other words, 14 percent of those who are eligible for this $600 subsidy are actually getting assistance at the present time. Unfortunately, many of those seniors who are eligible live in my home State of New Mexico, and I am very anxious that we provide this benefit to them since it is a part of the law.

The President and the leadership in the Senate have vowed to bottle up any legislation that would reopen the Medicare prescription drug bill at this time, or before the end of this Congress. Unfortunately, that would include bills such as the one I am reintroducing today, which is really intended to ensure that the people who are eligible for the limited benefit provided under this bill actually receive that benefit.

If we are serious about trying to provide assistance to our Nation's most vulnerable low-income seniors and people with disabilities, then we should undertake the rather straightforward but significant step that is called for in this legislation, and that is automatically enrolling those who are eligible for the $600 subsidy into the discount drug card program.

Considering that it is unclear whether the savings offered by the drug discount card itself will amount to much, and that is just hard to quantify, frankly, the main benefit is not the discount card itself; it is the $600 credit which is available to low-income individuals.

Specifically, the $600 is available to any individual whose income is less than $12,569 per year or any married couple whose income is less than $16,862 per year. For those Medicare savings program beneficiaries who get cost-sharing assistance through Medicaid because they have incomes below 135 percent of poverty but are not receiving prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to ensure they will receive the $600 subsidy that those of us in Congress intended they receive.

In fact, when the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 transitional assistance would actually be enrolled.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expected 5 million people of the 7 million--again, as is stated on this chart--including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in my home State of New Mexico, would actually enroll. Under the CMS assumptions, those beneficiaries combined would save $5 billion nationally, or $35 million in my home State of New Mexico, over this 2- year period.

Much of that savings is not going to be realized by those seniors unless we pass the legislation I am introducing today.

Part of the explanation for the low enrollment is the poor advertising campaign that the General Accounting Office has criticized and with which we are generally familiar. This poor advertising campaign included running ads in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and the Hill. Unfortunately, most of the low-income seniors in my State do not subscribe to either Roll Call or the Hill. In fact, they do not know those publications exist.

According to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are even aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the prescription drug bill. So it is hard to believe that 65 percent of those who are eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know the program exists.

Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for this automatic enrollment. Two months ago, the agency issued guidance for how State pharmacy assistance programs can automatically enroll their members who have incomes below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance benefit. Those enrollees continue to represent the bulk of those who have enrolled and they remain the model for how to ensure that low- income beneficiaries get the prescription drug assistance they need.

CMS can take this additional step, which I am calling for in this legislation, to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. I believe CMS has the authority to take the step on its own right now, but the legislation I have reintroduced today would clarify the law in this regard and would ensure that low- income seniors and people with disabilities actually receive this transitional assistance as promised by the administration and the Congress.

As the Medicare Rights Center has asked: Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the Government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?

That is exactly the right question to be asked. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are very sick, who have cognitive and mental illnesses and do not have access to or feel comfortable with the use of the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that could benefit them substantially this year and next year. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what choice automatic enrollment would take away at that point.

It is not enough to say, look, we believe these seniors have a choice of a great many discount cards and we do not want to prejudge that for them. The truth is, most of the people I am talking about are completely unaware that there is such a thing as a drug discount card or that there is such a thing as a $600 subsidy for which they could qualify. This lack of knowledge on their part is through no fault of their own and we should do all we can, and CMS should do all it can, to get them enrolled so they can benefit from this $600 subsidy. Either CMS or the States should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling these individuals in the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not the choice that they might have between one card or another but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they do today qualify for and that they should be receiving.

As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forgo needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the low-income beneficiaries would sign up for the $600 subsidy, by any measure signing up just 14 percent of these beneficiaries can only be viewed as a major failure. It has not been viewed as that so far either by the administration or by the Congress.

Once again, I call on the administration to take this important step on its own and enroll these individuals for this benefit. In light of the fact they have failed to do so, despite several calls from me and other Members of Congress for them to do so, I am reintroducing this bill, and I hope the Senate leadership will bring it to the floor for immediate action.

There is over $1 billion of prescription drug assistance for over 1 million of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.