Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act of 2005

Mr. President, this week, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on the Federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 325 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany them, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to a 2002 study conducted by the Tax Foundation, American taxpayers, including businesses, spend more than 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion each year in complying with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,400 per U.S. household. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to over 6.9 million words in 2000. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words.

The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2004 Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 35 minutes to complete. Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions, which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, shows an estimated preparation time of 6 hours, 10 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. Just from 2000 to 2004 the estimated time to prepare Form 1040 jumped 34 minutes.

It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 56 percent according to a recent survey, now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only about 30 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made about 9,500 tax code changes in the past thirteen years. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--isn't there a better way?

My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth.

My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the 6.9 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard- sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations.

My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:

Simplicity: A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.8 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

Cuts Government: The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of approximately 117,000 employees, creating opportunities to put their expertise to use elsewhere in the government or in private industry.

Promotes Economic Growth: Economists estimate a growth due to a flat tax of over $2 trillion in national wealth over seven years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.

Increases Efficiency: Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax

avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion.

Reduces Interest Rates: Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.

Lowers compliance costs: Americans would be able to save or invert up to $194 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

Decreases fraud: As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually.

Reduces IRS costs: Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $10 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service.

The most dramatic way to illustrate the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10- line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out.

At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, there is considerable public support for fundamental tax reform.

This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2004 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,850 for a single taxpayer, $7,150 for a head of household and $9,700 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,100. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $22,100--that is personal exemptions of$12,400 and a standard deduction of $9,700. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $30,000, and would pay tax on only income over that amount.

The tax loopholes enable write-offs of some $393 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the Tax Code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what they owe.

This bill is modeled after a proposal organized and written by two very distinguished professors of law from Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, Senate bill 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced my legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation-adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I re-reintroduced the bill on April 15, 1999--income tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. I then introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill; the amendment was not adopted. During the 108th Congress, I introduced my flat tax legislation once again on April 11, 2003. On May 14, 2003, I offered an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation legislation urging the Senate to hold hearings and consider legislation providing for a flat tax; this amendment passed by a vote of 70 to 30 on May 15, 2003. I then testified on this issue at a subsequent hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee on November 5, 2003.

Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.''

The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible.

In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality ofthe Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19 percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts.

Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my flat tax postcard, a variety of specific cases that illustrate the fairness and simplicity of this flat tax, and an example flat tax table be printed in the Record following my statement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS15AP05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS15AP05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS15AP05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS15AP05.004

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2005 to reduce the high prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. I introduced a similar version of this bill in the 108th Congress, S. 2766. To increase the likelihood that this bill may become law this bill does not include a costly provision which would have closed the gap in prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 45 million uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription drugs and daily necessities.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2004 per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12 percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs. However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component.

High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an average annual rate of nearly 19 percent between 1998 and 2002. Until lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze public programs at both the State and Federal level.

To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high prices of prescription drugs to seniors by repealing the prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive prescription drugs at a significant cost savings. According to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash cost'' of a prescription in 2001 was $40.22. The average cost in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system in fiscal year 2001 was $22.87.

In the 108th Congress, in my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153, which was reported out of committee, but was not considered before the full Senate. In the 109th Congress, I have again introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 614.

This legislation will broaden the ability of veterans to access the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. Under my bill, all Medicare-eligible veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price reduction through the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In many cases, this will save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up to 50 percent on the cost of prescribed medications, a significant savings for veterans. Similar savings may be available to America's seniors from the savings achieved using the HHS bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs bargaining power for the benefit of veterans. These savings may provide America's seniors with fiscal relief from the increasing costs of prescription drugs.

I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues to move this legislation forward promptly.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and fellow Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to introduce legislation concerning a complex issue, the Quality Bank that is used to facilitate payments between shippers using the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System to reflect variations in the value of different crude oil streams that are injected into the pipeline.

Since its opening in June 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, has carried crude oil from Alaska's North Slope to Valdez where the oil is shipped to market. The pipeline carries crude oil from various sources and of varying quality--the oil injected into the line before the pipeline's Pump Station One near Deadhorse, AK, and commingled as the blended stream of oil travels south to Valdez. The TAPS Quality Bank was established to compensate producers of higher quality crude oil for the difference in the value of the crude injected at the North Slope and that of the lower-quality commingled stream received in Valdez, since each shipper receives a quantity of the blended stream equivalent to the amount it injected into the line.

Companies injecting low-quality crude oil pay into the Quality Bank, while companies injecting high quality crude receive a payment from the Quality Bank. In addition, between the North Slope and Valdez, two refineries, Flint Hills and Petro Star, withdraw a portion of the common stream from TAPS, partially refine the crude oil into products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and reinject into TAPS the other components of crude left over after their refinery processes. Each fuel extracted from the crude is called a ``cut.'' To compensate producers for the loss in value of the crude oil because of what is removed by these refineries, refiners also pay into the Quality Bank. The objective of the Quality Bank is to make monetary adjustments so that each shipper is in the same economic position it would enjoy if it received the same oil in Valdez that it delivered to TAPS on the state's North Slope.

The methodology used to determine Quality Bank payments has been a subject of controversy since the Quality Bank's creation. The problem arises because there is no independent market for the crude injected on the North Slope and thus no way to objectively determine its value. The methodology is set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Since the early 1980s, FERC-approved methodologies have been challenged in court and revised multiple times. In 1993, the majority of North Slope shippers proposed and FERC approved a settlement calling for the use of a ``distillation'' methodology, which would value crude oil based on the market price of various cuts created when the components are separated based on different boiling points--the distillation process. This methodology replaced the former ``gravity'' methodology where oil was valued based on its relative gravity.

Since 1993, disputes have focused largely on the valuation of cuts at the highest boiling points--the ``Heavy Distillate'' cut that evaporates at temperatures between 350 and 650 degrees F. and the Resid, residual, cut, which includes the portion remaining after distillation of all other cuts at boiling points up to 1050 degrees F. Two additional cuts are also at issue, the VGO and Naptha cuts.

In 1997, responding to a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, FERC approved a settlement with a revised valuation methodology for Distillate and Resid. Under the FERC order, the new valuation methodologies were to be applied on a prospective basis only. Later, the D.C. Circuit in 1999 told FERC to revise some particular details of the Resid valuation and also held that FERC had ``failed to provide an adequate explanation'' as to why the new methodology should not be made retroactive to 1993.

Responding to the ruling, the Administrative Law Judge, who in 1997 had decided that all changes should only apply prospectively, reversed his position and released a decision in August 2004 calling for changes in the Resid and Heavy Distillate cuts to be applied retroactively, in the case of Resid to as far back as 1993. In addition, the administrative law judge decided to apply new valuations for VGO and Naptha, prospectively. Currently, the judge's decision is awaiting a final decision by the FERC on whether to impose the Initial Decision or alter it.

There are clearly major public policy implications resulting from this Quality Bank issue. While the bank is a ``zero sum'' game as far as money paid in and out of the bank is concerned, the impacts on the parties and thus on the citizens of Alaska are anything but equal.

For decades Alaskans suffered under the impacts of having to import all refined fuel products into the State from West Coast refineries. Besides higher prices caused by transportation, that left the State wholly dependent on fuel supplies that needed to travel at least 2,000 miles on average to reach Alaska consumers--sometimes through bad weather and difficult sea conditions. With the construction of in-State refineries, Alaskans finally saw greater security of supply, less dependence upon weather for shipment arrivals, and the possibility of lower fuel prices because of potentially reduced transportation costs. The greater dependability of fuel supplies improved aviation freight shipments at the Anchorage and Fairbanks international airports, helping create jobs in air freight and related industries.

But the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to apply new Quality Bank methodology assessments retroactively, places the economics of in- State refineries at risk. That in turn not only impacts the job security for the roughly 400 Alaskans who work at the refineries, but also threatens the State's energy and economic security.

The problem is that both of the refineries must make long- and short- term business decisions based on crude costs when they process crude oil into product. Refineries optimize their production slates based on current market realities. It is difficult for them to operate, given low profit margins, if oil values can change years later as a result of Quality Bank decisions. They simply have no way to make rational business decisions when the value of their products can be determined retroactively long after they can protect themselves for perceived mistakes in FERC-approved valuation methodologies. This certainly threatens the ability of the refineries to attract capital, money needed for them to modernize and meet new ultra-low sulfur diesel ``clean fuel'' requirements soon to go into effect.

The State's Congressional Delegation last fall in report language added to the Federal budget expressed its concern with the equity of long retroactive Quality Bank valuation adjustments. Last autumn we urged FERC to look carefully at the justice of the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this case and we encouraged all of the eight parties that includes the State of Alaska, to reach an out-of- court settlement of the 1993 case to bring finality to this complex case before it harms instate refinery capabilities. At the time we avoided a legislative solution to this purely Alaskan case. We are renewing our pleas for action in a letter sent to FERC on Thursday.

In the intervening six months, while one mediation session has occurred, the parties report little or no progress toward reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. While opinions may differ on whether Congress should intervene to settle the on-going case, there is little doubt that Congress should step forward to prevent such an arcane dispute from ever again threatening Alaska's energy industry.

For that reason prior to the next mediation session, today we introduce legislation to limit the ability of FERC in the future to make retroactive the impacts of future Quality Bank valuation methodology changes. By this legislation, after December 31, 2005, FERC still will be able to change the methodology for determining the value of oil flowing through the pipeline but will not be permitted to apply changes to Quality Bank valuation methodologies on anything other than a prospective basis.

We have proposed this provision to prevent this legal nightmare from happening again. This provision will first eliminate the perverse current incentive for all sides to promote further litigation regarding Quality Bank valuations based on the expectation of a retroactive application of changes that would result in a large economic windfall. The retroactive application of valuation methodology changes encourages the sides in a dispute to sue in hopes of gaining a larger benefit in the future. This is a ``lottery,'' however, that Alaskans are guaranteed to lose.

By setting December 31, 2005, as the date that FERC can no longer apply Quality Bank valuation methodologies on a retroactive basis, the legislation will put the FERC and the litigants on record that the current dispute must be resolved by the end of this year.

Requiring FERC to apply valuation methodology changes in connection with any future disputes on a prospective basis only will eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with the prospect of nearly unlimited retroactive application of Quality Bank payment methodology changes. That will allow all Quality Bank participants to be able to conduct business with the certainty of knowing that prices received and paid for oil today cannot be altered years down the road. In addition, this will eliminate the strong incentive that currently exists for some parties to engage in endless litigation, in hopes of gaining windfall benefits from retroactive application changes.

While we continue to call on all sides in the current dispute to compromise and settle this case now, this bill will discourage if not eliminate this type of dispute in the future--a benefit for all Alaskans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to expand the scope of the Equal Access Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to guarantee equal access for religious and other organizations to the facilities of public secondary schools that receive Federal funding.

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in two cases involving the right of State and local governments to erect a public display of the Ten Commandments. One of those cases, Van Orden v. Perry, involves the public display at the State capitol grounds of my home State, the great State of Texas. The other case, McCreary County v. ACLU, arises out of the State of Kentucky.

These two cases are reminiscent of the Supreme Court's consideration last year of the Pledge of Allegiance--which contains the words ``under god''--in the matter of Elk Grove Unified School District v., Newdow. The

Court rejected the challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance in that case, but strictly on procedural grounds. So the Pledge of Allegiance, like the Ten Commandments, remains under attack and under danger of forced removal from our public square by judicial fiat.

We examined these issues at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights I chaired on June 8, 2004. The hearing was entitled ``Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square.''

That hearing was important, because it reminded us of an even broader, more systemic problem caused by the Supreme Court's previous rulings, than just these disturbing attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments--an unjustifiable hostility to religious expression in public squares across America.

Just as there is bipartisan agreement on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, so should there be bipartisan agreement that government should never be hostile to expressions of faith. As President Ronald Reagan stated in 1983: ``When our founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.'' And as President Clinton noted in 1995: ``Americans feel that instead of celebrating their love for God in public, they're being forced to hide their faith behind closed doors. That's wrong. Americans should never have to hide their faith. but some Americans have been denied the right to express their religion and that has to stop. That has happened and it has to stop.''

At the hearing, we heard from citizen witnesses and legal experts alike, who recounted example after example after example of government discrimination against religious expression generally--including both discrimination against religious versus non-religious expression in government speech, as well as discrimination against purely private expressions of faith. Just consider this sample of incidents throughout the Nation--incidents of hostility to religious expression in the public square:

A 12-year-old elementary school student was reprimanded by a public school in St. Louis, MO for quietly saying a prayer before lunch in the school cafeteria, according to a federal lawsuit. The case was settled after the St. Louis School Board announced a new policy protecting the religious expression rights of students. St. Louis Post-dispatch, July 11, 1996.

A second grade school girl in Wisconsin was forbidden from distributing valentines during a Valentine's Day Exchange because her valentines happened to contain religious themes. After a Federal lawsuit was filed, the school district settled the suit by publishing an apology to the student in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and issuing a new policy protecting the religious freedoms of its students. Capital Times, Madison, August 29, 2001.

A kindergartener in Dayton, OH was forbidden by her public school teacher from distributing bags of jellybeans with an attached prayer to her classmates, according to a Federal lawsuit. Associated Press, February 8, 2004.

Public high school students in Massachusetts started a Bible club and tried to hand out candy canes with a Biblical passage attached. The school suspended the students for distributing the candy canes. A federal district court issued a temporary injunction against the school. Westfield High Sch. L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp. 2d 98 D. Mass. 2003.

A public school sixth grader in Boulder, CO tried to complete her book report assignment by presenting the Bible, but was forbidden from doing so by her teacher. She was also forbidden from bringing the Bible to school. Only after a lawsuit was threatened did the school eventually back down. Denver Post, December 13, 2002.

According to a Federal lawsuit, a public school teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School in Houston, TX, punished two sisters for carrying Bibles, confiscated and threw the Bibles into the trash, and threatened to call Child Protective Services, while another teacher forbade a third student from reading the Bible during free reading time and forced him to remove a Ten Commandments book cover from another book. The suit was ultimately resolved out of court. Houston Chronicle, May 24, 2000.

As explained in her Senate testimony, Nashala Hearn, a 12-year-old girl in Muskogee, OK, was suspended for three days by her public middle school for wearing a hijab, a headscarf required by her Islamic faith. The school eventually backed down after intervention by the Justice Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.

A Texas school district refused to hire a public school teacher for the position of assistant principal, because her children attended a private Christian school, in violation of the district's policy that the children of all principals and administrators attend public school. The district's policy was upheld by the Federal district court but subsequently rejected on appeal. Barrow V. Greenville Ind. Sch. Dist., 332 F.3d 844 5th Cir. 2003.

A Vietnam veteran and member of an honor guard at a New Jersey veterans' cemetery was fired for saying ``God bless you and this family'' to the family of a deceased veteran, even though the family had consented to the blessing beforehand. Winston-Salem Journal, April 26, 2003.

A public library employee in Logan County, KY, was fired for refusing to remove her cross-pendant necklace while at work. A Federal district court subsequently ruled that the library violated her constitutional rights. American Libraries, October 1, 2003.

According to another federal lawsuit, an employee of the Minnesota State Department of Revenue is barred from parking his car in the employee parking lot, because his car displays religious messages such as ``God is a loving and caring God.'' Other employees are allowed to display nonreligious messages on their cars. The employee is similarly barred from displaying religious messages in his office cubicle, even though other employees are allowed to display nonreligious messages in their cubicles. Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), July 2, 2004.

As he explained in his Senate testimony, Barney Clark and other members of the Balch Springs Senior Center in Balch Springs, Texas, were forbidden from singing religious songs and appointing someone to bless their food at the city-owned senior center. The city eventually backed down, but only after a federal lawsuit and intervention by the Justice Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.

I'm grateful to the Liberty Legal Institute, which has been an active champion of religious liberty, and which followed up on their testimony at the hearing last year by filing a 51-page report with the subcommittee last October. The Institute's report documented additional cases of hostility to religion in the public square, and noted the existence of a nationwide campaign to remove religious expressions from the public square--namely, liberal organizations in Washington that actively litigate against equal access for religious organizations in public schools, against school choice programs that give needy students equal access to parochial and nonsectarian schools alike, and against voluntary, student-led religious expression.

Thankfully, and despite the efforts of these organizations, we are starting to win the battle for religious liberty and against hostility to religious expression. The Court has upheld equal access for religious organizations on a number of recent occasions--albeit frequently by narrow, 5-4 majorities--including cases like Rosenberger, Good News Club, Zelman, and Mitchell. And thankfully, the Equal Access Act of 1984 has been affirmed, upheld, and enforced.

But the Equal Access Act applies only to postsecondary schools. It is time that equal access be extended to elementary schools as well, and that is why I introduce this legislation today. I know that Senators will be following closely the Supreme Court's consideration of the Ten Commandments cases and the people's right to display our nation's most revered documents in public squares across America. Regardless of the outcome of those cases. I hope that Senators will also support

this effort to extend equal access to all of our nation's public schools.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an employee's health care is $6,348. In my home State of Wisconsin it is even higher--the average cost there is $7,618. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health

care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 87,500 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

I am pleased that this bill is supported by the National Business Coalition on Health, an organization that already understands that allowing businesses to come together to increase their health care purchasing power can lead to an increase in health care quality, and a decrease in health care costs.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senators Graham and Bayh.

This bill would create an ambassador-level position within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative entitled: Special Trade Prosecutor. This individual would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements to protect our manufacturers against unfair trade practices.

In practical terms, this prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend prosecuting cases before the World Trade Organization and under trade agreements to which the United States is a party.

Why this bill? At this time?

We have an Executive Branch that is organized in such a way as to make prosecution of unfair trade cases unlikely at best. When you couple this with the fact that our government has sat idle as our domestic manufacturing base has eroded due to unfair trade practices, it becomes very clear that we have put our manufacturers in an impossible situation.

Under the current structure of the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, we are asking our Trade Representative to do too much. Quite simply, the office is not able to deliver.

The current structure demands that they negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations and simultaneously enforce other agreements with those same countries--all without damaging the U.S.'s ability to negotiate the next trade deal.

It's not working. And, while significant portions of our trade imbalances are not caused by lax enforcement, much of it is.

In February, the Department of Commerce reported that the merchandise trade deficit reached a record level of $666.2 billion in the 2004, a 21.7 percent increase since 2003.

If we can address any portion of this deficit we must do it. This bill represents a straight-forward, common-sense solution.

There are many U.S. industries facing unfair trade practices and this bill represents an institutional change that will allow the U.S. to thoroughly and vigorously investigate and prosecute these cases.

For instance, China is a textbook case of how a foreign government has used a network of illegal subsidies and government interventions in order to destroy foreign competition, both in the United States as well as in many other countries.

According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Commission, these actions have gone virtually unchallenged by the U.S. government, despite the fact that China's actions are in clear violations of both U.S. trade law and WTO rules.

These ``anti-competitive actions by China's government include currency manipulation (estimated to provide as much as a 40 percent subsidy for Chinese exporters), illegal direct government subsidies of its money losing state-owned textile and apparel sectors, illegal export tax rebates (13 percent) and the deliberate extension of

billions of dollars in non-performing (``free money'') loans by China's central banks in order to award a competitive advantage against foreign competition.''

The Commission goes on to say that ``in the case of China, the dramatic increase in subsidies has caused Chinese prices to drop by an average of 58 percent over the past two years in those product areas where quotas have been removed. As a result, China has gained a near monopoly share in these products over the last 24 months, taking 60 percent of the market.''

However, the U.S. government has failed to file any complaints at the WTO, despite the Chinese government's repeated and widespread violations of WTO rules.

Our government's inaction is costing us millions of American jobs, crippling our manufacturing sector, distorting trade and investment patterns globally, and leaving hundreds of millions of Chinese workers vulnerable and mistreated.

Let me give you a concrete example of the violations that are occurring.

Counterfeit automotive products are a big problem in my home State of Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap shoddy automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality.

The American automotive parts and components industry looses an estimated $12 billion in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting.

And, we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life.

As many have said, we should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods, has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in what they are buying. We can't let that happen.

In Michigan, we lost 51,000 manufacturing jobs between 1989 and 2003 due to China's unfair trade practices, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Unfortunately, the plant closings continue in Michigan and around the Nation. Over the past three months we see example after example of the damage a ``wait and see'' attitude has on workers in this country.

We should not be shirking our responsibilities to enforce trade rules. This Bill helps us reverse the course upon which we find ourselves--it helps us save American jobs.

I believe in trade and the benefits it can have for our manufacturers, farmers, and other industries. But, we need to have fair trade first and foremost.

A Special Trade Prosecutor would have the power to stand up for our manufacturers and farmers and make sure that other countries are holding up their end of their trade agreements.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.