Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer from California be recognized for 15 minutes, obviously as the next Democratic speaker following my presentation.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about the underlying bill that is being considered, a piece of legislation to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to reauthorize and amend the prescription drug user fee provisions and so on. It may be that there will be an agreement by which I and some others who will offer legislation or an amendment to deal with the issue of prescription drug prices will do that at another time and not on this bill. If that is the case, I am fine with that. I understand there are discussions underway now. I would be perfectly amenable to not offering an amendment on this legislation and instead having an opportunity to offer it at a different time. That amendment is about the reimportation of prescription drugs.

Let me talk just a little about this issue. This is an issue which is getting a gray beard these days because it has been around so long with so many promises to be able to take it up here in the Congress. We have 33 cosponsors on a piece of legislation that would try to break the back of the pricing monopoly that exists with the pharmaceutical industry for prescription drugs in our country. The fact is, the American consumers are charged the highest prices for prescription drugs anywhere in the world. The highest prices for prescription drugs are charged to the American consumer. It is not right. It is not fair. It ought to stop. We do have price controls on prescription drugs in our country; they are just controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. That is why we have the highest prices in the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show a couple of bottles of medicine.

Mr. President, these two bottles of medicine are Lipitor. Lipitor is a very common prescription drug used by many Americans to reduce cholesterol. As you can see, this drug, Lipitor, is made in Ireland, as a matter of fact, and then imported into this country by the pharmaceutical industry. From Ireland it is sent many places, but in this case the bottle in my left hand was sent to Canada, and the bottle in my right hand was sent to the United States. Same bottle, same pill, slightly different color on the front of it. It is an FDA- approved medicine produced in an FDA-approved plant in Ireland and then sent to Canada and the United States.

The difference? No difference--same plastic in the bottle, same medicine inside--except the price. The Canadian pays $1.83 per tablet, and the American pays $3.57--96 percent more. Let me say that again: No difference, same medicine, same bottle, same price, made in the same plant, FDA approved. Difference? The American consumer is told: Guess what, we have a special deal for you, you get to pay 96 percent more for the same medicine.

Is this unusual? No, it is not. I sat on a hay bale one day at a farm with an old codger. He was in his eighties. This is in North Dakota. He said: You know, my wife has been fighting breast cancer. She has fought this now for 3 years. We have gone to Canada. We had to go to Canada to get the medicine, to buy Tamoxifen, and the reason we had to drive to Canada every 3 months or so to get the medicine is we save 80 percent by buying it in Canada. We cannot afford the price in the United States. We can't afford the price to have my wife fight this breast cancer.

The question is, Is it just Canada? No, not at all, but let me at least describe the situation with the United States and Canada. I could put up the chart with Italy, Spain, Germany, France, England--I could put up this chart with virtually every country because the U.S. consumer pays the highest prices in the world.

Lipitor, I just described it; Plavix, we pay 46 percent more; Prevacid we pay 97 percent more; Zocor, 31 percent more, Nexium, 55 percent; Zoloft, 52 percent more. The list goes on and on, as you might imagine.

We have a population that receives a lot of benefit from miracle drugs. There are prescription drugs that allow you to manage your disease without having to go to an acute care bed in a hospital. It is a wonderful thing.

A substantial portion of the research to develop those drugs is done in the National Institutes of Health, paid for by us. We turn that research over to the prescription drug industry, they produce medicine from it, and then they sell us the medicine.

Another body of research is done by the prescription drug industry themselves. They spend a lot of money on that. They also spend a lot of money on advertising and promotion. Now, anyone who was standing in front of a mirror this morning brushing their teeth, shaving, perhaps getting ready for work and had their television on, one of those little television sets, if they have one, anyone who was engaged in doing that probably saw a television commercial. It said this: You should go ask your doctor whether the purple pill is right for you. It didn't necessarily tell you what the purple pill was for; it just says you need to talk to your doctor to see if you should have the purple pill.

It also makes you want to run out and say: Hey, what is this purple pill? Maybe I should have some of those purple pills, without knowing what they are for. It goes on all day, every day, advertising directly to consumers for medicines that can only be prescribed by a doctor for a prescription saying: Go talk to your doctor. Wouldn't you like some of these pills? We have an unbelievable amount of promotion and advertising with respect to prescription drugs. That is another issue. I believe there is only one other industrialized country that allows that; that is New Zealand. But that is another issue for another time.

The issue is pricing. I have described what is happening with respect to pricing. This is Canada, but I can describe it for other countries as well. The percent of adults, ages 19 to 64, not filling a prescription because of cost, 43 percent of the uninsured in this country--that is 45, 46 million--do not take their medicine because they do not have the money. They say it costs too much.

The result? Well, often many of them will end up in the priciest kind of health care, some kind of an acute care bed through an emergency room in a hospital.

The legislation we have developed in Congress is bipartisan. It stretches from--I shouldn't say stretches because I am not describing the polls in Congress. But we have Ted Kennedy, Democrat; Chuck Grassley, Republican; Debbie Stabenow, Democrat; John McCain, Republican; back and forth. Bipartisan support for a piece of legislation we have crafted very carefully that says: Why shouldn't the American people be able to take advantage of FDA-approved drugs by reimporting them from another country where that same drug is sold for a fraction of the price? Why shouldn't the global economy work for consumers as well? This is bipartisan legislation that has substantial areas of safety built into it, so there is no safety issue. This is from Dr. David Kessler, who was head of the FDA for 8 years, 1990 to 1997. ``The Dorgan-Snowe bill''--Olympia Snowe is the principal cosponsor, along with me and many others who have worked on this-- Senator Stabenow and Senator McCain and others for a long time, Senator Kennedy.

The Dorgan-Snowe bill provides a sound framework for

assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most

notably, it provides additional resources to the agency to

run such a program, oversight by the FDA of the chain of

custody of imported drugs back to the FDA-inspected plants, a

mechanism to review imported drugs to ensure that they meet

FDA's approval standards, and the registration and oversight

of importers and exporters to assure that the imported drugs

meet these standards and are not counterfeit.

Let me show you where your prescription drugs come from. The pharmaceutical industry is engaged in a full court press with Members of this Chamber. They have a fair number of friends in this Chamber who would want to help them derail this legislation and continue to be able to charge the highest prices to the American consumer.

Lipitor comes from Dublin, Ireland. Nexium comes from France. Of course, these are all imported by the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves. Any one of these--Vytorin, Singapore, Italy, the United Kingdom; Actos comes from Osaka, Japan. All of these are made in other countries, brought back to this country, and, by the way, sold in every other country in most cases for a lower price than when they are sent back to this country by the manufacturer.

The legislation we have introduced is very simple. It gives the American consumer the opportunity to take advantage of lower prices for an FDA-approved drug; in many cases, by the way, a drug that was created with the very research that the American people paid for through the National Institutes of Health.

Some have said, as a result of the pharmaceutical industry's entreaties here, well, this can't be done safely. It cannot be done safely. Well, apparently, they do it safely. The chain of custody, for example, in Canada is virtually identical. I had a quote that I do not have here. I had a quote from Dr. McClelland, the former head of the FDA, virtually identical chain of custody from Canada as opposed to the United States between the pharmaceutical manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer.

So is the chain of custody in Canada safe with respect to prescription drugs being sold to Canadian consumers? The answer is yes. So why would you not be able to establish a regime, just as they have in Europe for many years, called parallel trading? This is not new. If you are in Europe and you are living in Germany and want to buy a prescription from Spain, or living in Italy and find a prescription drug priced lower in France through a parallel trading system, you can easily do that.

To my knowledge, we have testimony from one of the people involved. To my knowledge, there have been no issues of safety at all. They have done it for 20 years. Are those who oppose this saying, well, the Europeans are smarter than we are, they can do it but we can't? I don't understand that. That is not the case. I don't understand that.

This is a very simple case. We propose an amendment that would allow drug reimportation and would make it safe. That is the fact.

We understand that the pharmaceutical industry does not like it. That is a fact, too. I understand why they don't like it.

Suppose I were running a pharmaceutical company and had the ability to price however I wanted to price inside the United States, one of the most important markets in the world, perhaps the most important market in the world, and I would have no competition from lower prices because I was able to keep that out. I understand why they would like to keep that deal working for them, but it does not work for the American people. It is not fair for the American people; it just isn't.

That is why we have put together a bipartisan piece of legislation, the Dorgan-Snowe bill, that is supported by Republicans and Democrats, which now has 33 cosponsors. It is one that should pass in the Senate. The House has already passed a similar piece of legislation in the last session. I believe, finally, given a fair opportunity--and I believe we will be given that fair opportunity whether it is on this bill or perhaps with some consent to do it on another bill, I believe we will get this done.

This is important. There are some things we do that are not very important at all. My criticism--it is a great privilege to serve here. My criticism of this place is from time to time we treat the light way too seriously, and we treat the serious far too lightly. This is a serious issue that deserves to be treated seriously.

It has been around for a long time. We have not had a vote on it only because we have been blocked by, I would say, Senator Frist, the majority leader, for a long time, despite what I thought and my colleagues thought was a representation by him that he would allow us to have this on the Senate floor. He continued to block it.

I understand the pharmaceutical industry is pulling out all of the stops. They have a full court press, trying to find as many Members of the Senate as they can who will stand up for their current pricing strategy. And they will find a few, no question about that. I think there are some Members of the Congress who like the pricing strategy of saying let's price drugs so that the American people pay the highest prices in the world. But I am very anxious to get them here to the floor to debate them on that subject because they are wrong. It is just wrong. It is wrong to do this to the American people.

One final point. I don't disrespect the pharmaceutical industry. I say good for you when you produce a miracle drug, a lifesaving drug. But miracle drugs offer no miracles to people who can't afford to buy them. My problem with the pharmaceutical industry is the pricing strategy, the pricing strategy which says to the American people: You pay the highest prices in the world, and there is nothing we will let you do that can alter that. That is wrong. That is why I and others come to the floor of the Senate to say let's fix this. Not later, let's fix this now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Landrieu amendment be set aside and that I may be able to offer an amendment.

I have amendment No. 990 at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe and other cosponsors, including Senator Stabenow, Senator Grassley, Senator McCain, Senator Pryor, Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator McCaskill.

This amendment comes from a piece of legislation we have previously introduced dealing with the reimportation of prescription drugs, FDA- approved, lower priced prescription drugs that are sold in other parts of the world for much lower prices than they are priced in the United States. There are 33 cosponsors on the bill as it was introduced in the Senate. It seems clear to me that the best approach to advancing this legislation is to offer it as an amendment to the legislation that reauthorizes the Food and Drug Administration. Inasmuch as this subject deals with the FDA, it would provide funding for the FDA, guidelines for the FDA on reimportation of drugs. I am not going to speak at length today. I spoke earlier today. I intend to come back tomorrow morning to speak at some greater length.

I know my colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Grassley and Senator Stabenow and Senator Sanders--I have talked to him--I know others will wish to come and speak as well. But suffice it to say, we have a situation in this country today in which the U.S. consumer is charged the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. That is just a fact. Today I held up two pill bottles on the floor of the Senate, identical bottles that contained the same prescription drug medicine made in Ireland. It was called Lipitor, for controlling cholesterol. The tablets were made in a manufacturing plant, FDA-approved plant in Ireland. The two bottles I held up today were different only in that one was sent to Canada and one was sent to the United States.

The one sent to the United States was priced nearly double the price of the medicine sent to Canada. But that is not unusual. The same thing would be true with respect to medicine that was sold in Germany or Italy or France or Spain or England. They all pay much lower prices for the same prescription drug, the identical drug made in the identical plant--FDA-approved, sold all around the world, except the U.S. consumer is given the privilege of paying the highest prices in the world, in some cases 80 or 90 percent higher, in some cases 120 percent higher than others pay for the identical prescription drug.

Our point with this amendment simply is that if the global economy is going to work, why doesn't it work for everybody? How about the little guy who is buying prescription drugs and is paying the highest prices in the world.

We have put together a piece of legislation with very significant safety precautions so that there are no safety issues at all. I mentioned today that Europe does this routinely. They have a parallel trading system in Europe. They have had it for a couple of decades. If you are in Germany and want to buy a prescription drug from France, no problem. If you are in Italy and want to buy it from Germany, no problem.

They have a parallel trading system that allows the consumers to access the best prices. It is only the American consumer that is disadvantaged by a sweetheart deal that allows the prescription drug industry to engage their own price controls, which means that we pay the highest prices in the world.

We have offered an amendment. We have 33 cosponsors on the underlying legislation. The amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe, bipartisan legislation, as I indicated--Senators Grassley and McCain, Stabenow, Pryor, Sanders, Whitehouse, McCaskill.

This is a good amendment. It is good public policy. I know the prescription drug industry, the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like it. I understand that. I do not come here with a grievance against that industry. I just do not like their pricing policy. I do not like the fact that they say to the American people: You pay the highest prices in the world.

That is not fair. It ought to change. Our amendment is aiming to change it.

Mr. President, I will speak at greater length on the subject tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

My friend from Utah did not mean to suggest those of us who are offering this amendment on a bipartisan basis are doing so for the purpose of politics, as he said. My expectation is, he would think this would be a serious and thoughtful amendment that he disagrees strongly with, but I hope he would not suggest the motive is politics. CBO has suggested this bill will save $50 billion for the American consumer, $5 billion of which is for the Federal Government. This is a serious issue and a thoughtful issue. One might disagree, but I hope that one would not ascribe motives of politics to those of us on a bipartisan basis who are offering this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be recognized following me for a period of 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, there is a lot of discussion today, and has been in the last week or two, and perhaps there will continue to be discussions about the funding for our troops in Iraq. I think it is important to say that the Congress has passed legislation that will go to the President that actually requests more funding than the President requested for the troops in Iraq. It also establishes a goal of hoping that perhaps we will be able to extract our troops from Iraq in a year. There is not a requirement that American troops be pulled out of Iraq. It establishes a goal. But what I wish to talk about today is the part of the bill that provides a higher level of funding for the troops than the President requested.

It is regrettable that in this country we have gone to war in Iraq and to war in Afghanistan. We have asked very much of our soldiers to go into harm's way--3,300 plus of them have been killed in Iraq--but we have not asked for similar circumstances from the American people. We have not asked for a commitment from the American people. In fact, the very funding the President has requested, once again, as emergency funding is not paid for. The President says: Let's have emergency funding and add it to the debt.

We have not asked the American people to pay for the war. We sent the soldiers to war with the understanding that when they come back, they will inherit the debt and pay for this war. That doesn't make sense to me.

Even more than that, the President says one can contribute to this country by going shopping, going to the mall. So we send soldiers to war, and we go to the mall. Where is the national commitment? Where is it that we have asked the American people to go to war against terrorism, to go to war in Iraq with the American soldiers?

I remind everyone that what we did in the Second World War--and by the way, this war has now lasted longer than the Second World War. But in the Second World War, our country mobilized. There was Rosie the Riveter. There were three shifts at the manufacturing plants. We had our capability humming in this country producing everything we needed for that war. We had rationing. We had factory lights on 24 hours a day.

William Manchester wrote a book, ``The Glory and the Dream.'' He describes what we did. He said this:

From an initial keel-to-delivery time of over 200 days,

Henry Kaiser cut the average work time on a liberty ship to

40 days. In 1944, he was launching a new escort aircraft

carrier every week, and they were turning out entire cargo

ships in 17 days. During the first 212 days of 1945, they

completed 247 cargo ships, better than one a day.

We had this country's productive capacity revved up full speed. When Stalin met with FDR and Churchill in the mid-1940s before the end of the war, he said: Thank God for America's productive capability, America's manufacturing capability.

Here is what they did. Manchester, in ``The Glory and the Dream,'' described this. I want us to think about this just for a moment: From 1941 to 1945, We turned out 296,000 warplanes, 102,000 tanks, 2.4 million trucks, 8,700 warships, and 5,400 cargo ships. America went to war. In the last year of the Second World War, we were producing 4,000 warplanes a month in our factories. Contrast that with what is happening today.

The reason I ask these questions, the reason I come to the floor to ask those questions is because of this picture. This is a picture of something called an MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, which is much safer than the humvee. This version of the MRAP is what the Commandant of the Marine Corps said we need in Iraq, 6,700 of them.

There have been 300 IED attacks in Iraq against this version of the MRAP. Not one death. Let me say that again. There have been 300 attacks by an IED against this vehicle in Iraq; not one death in those attacks.

We have had 3,342 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, 70 percent of them caused by IEDs, improvised explosive devices. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says this vehicle will save three-fourths of the lives that are being lost. Eighty percent of the casualties from IEDs will be saved with this safer vehicle.

Why do I raise this question in the context of what we did in the Second World War? Because we have been producing about 45 of these vehicles a month. At a time when the Commandant of the Marine Corps says we need 6,700 in Iraq to safeguard the soldiers going on patrol in Iraq, with the capability that this vehicle will save three-fourths of the lives that are now being lost, we are producing 45 a month. They say they want 6,700 in Iraq, and the President has requested less than a third of that amount. We wrote money in this appropriations bill, $1.2 billion, to substantially increase the number of MRAP vehicles that must be produced and must be sent to Iraq to save lives.

Let me read, if I might, James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, understanding I am talking about this MRAP:

The MRAP vehicle has a dramatically better record of

preventing fatal and serious injuries from attacks by IEDs.

The Commander of Multinational Force West estimates that the

use of MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to

IED attacks by as much as 80 percent.

This is from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Why is it we could produce 4,000 warplanes a month at the end of the Second World War in support of our fighting men and women, and we produce 45 MRAPs a month in this country? Why is it we surge our troops to Iraq but don't surge our production of the MRAP vehicle, just as one example, that would provide dramatic increased protection against the lost of life from IEDs? Why will we not surge this? Why is this less important? I don't understand this at all. We go to war, but it is just the troops, not the country?

There was a story in USA Today, April 19:

In more than 300 attacks since last year, no Marines have

died while riding in the new fortified armored vehicles the

Pentagon would like to rush to Iraq, the Marine Commander in

Anbar Province said. Attacks on other vehicles cause more

than two casualties per attack, including deaths.

IEDs are responsible for 70 percent of the casualties in Iraq. Yet, while this country has sent its soldiers to war, it has not mobilized the country. We do not have third shifts with the lights on 24 hours a day. We don't have Henry Kaiser producing 1 ship a day, 4,000 warplanes a month. In fact, this relates to something else I have talked a lot about on the floor of the Senate. Only two U.S. steel mills are qualified to produce the special armored steel for the Defense Department at this point--two. Both have been acquired by foreign companies in the past year and a half.

Let me say that again: Only two U.S. steel mills are qualified to produce armored steel for the Defense Department. Both have been acquired by foreign companies in the past year and a half. Oregon Steel is now owned by Evraz Group S.A. of Russia. The International Steel Group was acquired by the Dutch conglomerate Arcelor Mittal.

The Defense Department has requested that the armor steel made by both firms be categorized with what is called a ``DX'' rating for the MRAP program. DX stands for the highest national urgency. Under the 1950 Defense Production Act, any item with a DX rating gets top priority and must be furnished to the U.S. Government in advance of any other customers. Several other items that are critical to the MRAP vehicles--ballistic glass, transmissions, and Mack Truck chasses--are also supposed to receive the DX rating.

I am told Defense officials are in negotiations with both the steel mills I mentioned, that are foreign owned, to make sure there will be enough steel available for the various kits they need for the MRAP vehicle.

The point I want to make is simple: In the Second World War, we had some unbelievably brave soldiers, men and women who went halfway around the world to fight because their country asked them to fight for this country's freedom. But it was more than just soldiers; it was in virtually every manufacturing plant in this country and with virtually every citizen, through rationing, through production, through the capability to produce what the soldiers needed.

Contrast what we did in the Second World War with what we do today. We decide to send the soldiers to Iraq, but we make only a few of the MRAP vehicles that would save so many of those lives that are now being lost to IED explosions. We can't do this. This ought not be acceptable to anybody in this country. If we are going to war, the country needs to go to war with the soldiers. When the President sends us an appropriations request and says, Oh, by the way, the MRAP is a lower priority, we are not going to fund it, we are not going to ask for what the Marine Corps Commandant says is necessary in the field, we will ask for slightly less than a third of that number of vehicles--this Congress fortunately has said no, Mr. President, that is not what we are going to accept. We decided to invest in these vehicles as quickly as we can and move them to Iraq so when soldiers are on patrol and they are hit with an IED, they have better armor and a better opportunity to protect their lives.

There will be a lot of discussion in the coming days about who is right and who is wrong on all the funding issues with respect to Iraq. I want my colleagues to understand a couple of things. First, we have actually increased the funding requested by the President. We have increased the funding for couple of reasons. No. 1, we added funds for safer vehicles that the President did not request enough of will save the lives of troops; No. 2, we had to add funds for military and VA medical care because the President did not request enough money to care for the injured soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. We increased the funding for both. We have actually increased the funding for the troops.

I understand there is a disagreement about the language with respect to Iraq. Ours establishes a ``goal,'' not a requirement, a goal, hoping we can extract our soldiers from the middle of a civil war in Iraq within a year. That is a goal. I know the President and others suggest that somehow fully funding the troops and even adding more where it was necessary and establishing such a goal is pulling the rug out from under the troops, but nothing could be further from the truth. What I think injures our troops is to decide we are going to surge the troops but we will not surge the equipment necessary to protect them. That is wrong. This Congress has said it is wrong in the legislation we have passed.

I hope in the coming days and in the coming conflicts, whether it is dealing with Iraq or dealing with the terrorist threat around the world, we will decide in the future never again to send our soldiers in a manner that allows us not to use the full impact, the full capability of the American people to produce that which the soldiers need to do their jobs. That has been the case, regrettably, here.

Early in the Iraq war I received e-mails where people would send me pictures that illustrated what they were trying to do to protect themselves. Their humvees were not armored, so soldiers had welded patches of various kinds of metal to make them stronger. But now we have a new vehicle that can save a dramatic number of lives. The President's budget did not request nearly the money for it that should have been requested. So Congress added to it. I hope this is the first step to do what we should do with America's capacity to say to the soldiers: You have not gone to war alone. This country goes to war with you, with every capability we have to protect you.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tester be recognized following my presentation.

Mr. President, the Senate has passed a piece of legislation that includes funding for our troops who are committed to action in Iraq and other parts of the world, especially Iraq and Afghanistan. I expect there will be no controversy about the issue of funding, although we have provided more funding for the soldiers than requested by the President, but there are other portions of the legislation that are controversial. I understand that. But I wish to talk about something that has not been talked about nearly enough as we send our soldiers to war.

William Manchester wrote a book called ``The Glory and the Dream.'' I remember, when I read that book, thinking about what an unbelievable commitment this country made during the Second World War. We have now been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war in the Second World War.

Let me take a couple of brief comments from ``The Glory and the Dream,'' written by Manchester, about what this country did during the Second World War.

This country geared up. Its factories were humming. Rosie the Riveter was riveting, and we had output from our factories that was nearly unbelievable in support of the war effort. There was rationing. There were all kinds of things happening in which the country supported the war effort and supported the soldiers.

Let me quote:

From an initial keel-to-delivery time of over 200 days,

Henry Kaiser cut the average work time on a liberty ship to

40 days. In 1944, he was launching a new escort aircraft

carrier every week, and they were turning out entire cargo

ships in 17 days. During the first 212 days of 1945, they

completed 247 cargo ships, better than 1 a day.

That is what this country mobilized to do during the Second World War.

From the same book, ``The Glory and the Dream,'' quote:

In the 5 years following the French collapse, America

turned out: 296,000 warplanes, 102,000 tanks, 2.4 million

trucks, 8,700 warships, and 5,400 cargo ships.

Now, why did that happen? Because this country mobilized. This country's factories were humming.

At a meeting, Joseph Stalin observed to the American President--the American President, FDR, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill. Stalin said: We couldn't win this war without America's production.

This country mobilized.

Now, let me read something. Just understanding that in 1944, we were producing 4,000 warplanes a month, 50,000 warplanes a year, let me read something. Colonel Hammes came and testified last year at a policy committee hearing I chaired, and here is what he said:

Since the improvised explosive devices exploded in Iraq in

the summer of 2003, we as a country have known--

I am quoting him--

we have known there are better and safer vehicles available

than the armored HUMVEE--for instance, the M-1117 armored

security vehicle. Yet in 3 years, the Pentagon has purchased

less than 1,000 of them. I find it remarkable that a Nation

that could produce 4,000 warplanes a month during World War

II can produce 45 armored vehicles per month today.

Continuing to quote:

We didn't ask soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the

inferior equipment they had in 1941. Why are we asking our

soldiers and Marines to use the same armor that was

insufficient in 2003? It's simple. The administration has

refused to dedicate the resources necessary to make it

happen. It is content to let our troops ride in inferior

vehicles.

Continuing to quote:

The administration has failed to replace and maintain the

equipment necessary for the units to be ready for other

potential operations, although our units lack equipment to

train, our repair depots are working single shifts and 5 days

a week. The American people haven't refused to provide what

our people need in the battlefield, the administration has

refused to ask for the funding. The failure to provide our

best equipment is a serious moral failure on the part of our

leadership.

Now, why do I raise this question today? In the Second World War, in 1944, we were producing 4,000 warplanes a month, and yet we have not mobilized. We have sent troops abroad to go to war, but the message here at home is to go shopping. Troops go to the war, we go to the mall. We haven't mobilized.

Let me read to you a letter dated 1 March 2007. This is from the Marine Commandant about a vehicle called the MRAP vehicle, the mine- resistent ambush-protected vehicle, a vehicle that is much stronger than the humvee, much safer than the humvee our soldiers are now riding in in Iraq on patrol.

This is from the Marine Corps Commandant, in his memorandum to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

The MRAP vehicle has a dramatically better record of

preventing fatal and serious injuries from attacks by

improvised explosive devices. We estimate that the use of the

MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED

attacks by as much as 80 percent.

Now, think of that, 3,325 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, and 70 percent of those casualties have come as a result of IEDs. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says the MRAP vehicle would save 80 percent of those casualties. Eighty percent. No marines have died in 300 separate attacks on MRAP vehicles by IEDs, according to BG John Allen, deputy commander of coalition forces in Anbar Province--300 attacks on MRAP vehicles and no marines have died.

Now, why do I raise all this? Well, we need about 6,700 of these MRAP vehicles if this country is intending to provide the best equipment for our troops who are on patrol in Iraq. Until recent months, we were producing about 45 a month. Let me say that again. We are sending soldiers to war, and there is a vehicle that the Commandant of the Marine Corps says will save 80 percent of the lives now being lost in these IED explosions because this is a much safer vehicle than the humvee. It is called the MRAP. But we are not mobilized to produce the MRAP. No one has said: This is urgent, let's provide the best equipment for these soldiers.

So what did we do? Well, in the 2007 Omnibus appropriations bill, we added money. Yes, we in Congress added money for it. In the bill we just voted for today, we added money for it because the President wasn't requesting sufficient money. We have a need for 6,700 of them. The administration, with all of their requests, would fund less than a third of that. In their 2008 budget request, which would take effect next October, once again it is underfunded.

Let me show a picture, if I might, a photograph of what is called the MRAP vehicle. Three versions of the MRAP. The Defense Department experts say that soldiers on patrol, riding in this version of the MRAP 80 percent of the soldiers who would otherwise lose their lives from IED explosives will be saved. Think of that. With 300 attacks against this vehicle, not 1 life has been lost. Yet we have soldiers patrolling in Iraq with vehicles much less safe, and 70 percent of the 3,325 troops who have been killed have been killed as a result of IEDs, riding in vehicles that are not as safe as this vehicle, and until recently we were producing 45 a month. That is unbelievable. A country that could send everyone into its factories and have those factories humming three shifts a day and produce 4,000 warplanes a month and a liberty ship a day, every single day, the country that won the Second World War with its prodigious productions, supporting its wonderful troops, that country can't mobilize? This President can't ask that country to mobilize? We have to stick money in this supplemental bill above the President's request in order to say that this is a priority, this is urgent, this is about saving the lives of soldiers?

Again, I raise the question because we are at war. Yet you would hardly know it, with respect to the daily lives most of us lead. In the Second World War, it wasn't that way. Yet we have been at this war longer than the Second World War. In the Second World War, here is what we produced--the might of American production, in which a nation came together to say that we are going to support our troops and beat back the forces of fascism and defeat Adolf Hitler and where we produced 296,000 warplanes--think of it--and 8,762 warships. We didn't do that working one shift a day. We didn't do that making 45 MRAPs a month. This country mobilized then, but it is not mobilized now.

So we passed a piece of legislation here today. It has some areas the President says will persuade him to veto it. I assume this is not one of those areas. The President didn't request this funding for MRAPs. He should have. He didn't request enough funding in the coming fiscal year. He should have. If this country is going to send its soldiers to war, then we, all of us in this country, have an obligation to send them to war with the very finest equipment available to protect them and to help them. Regrettably, that is not now the case.

Early on in this war, I received e-mail pictures, photographs from Iraq, from soldiers showing me their humvees with welded pieces of metal on the doors, metal they pulled out of a scrap heap and welded to a door to try to strengthen it because those humvees weren't up- armored. Even now, much later, when all of the humvees on patrol are up-armored, we know there is a much safer vehicle that will save, we think, 80 percent of the fatalities that now exist through IEDs. There is no excuse--no excuse, in my judgment--for our not having three shifts at every plant available to produce these vehicles and get them to our soldiers in Iraq and save these lives. That is what we did in this supplemental appropriations bill.

When anyone talks about undercutting or undermining soldiers, I refer them to this. This was the first time, today, in which this Congress said to the President and said to the country we are going to mobilize. We insist that if we send soldiers to war, we want them to go to war with the finest equipment available with the potential to save their lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a piece of legislation called the ``Social Security Account Number Protection Act'' that would restrict the ability of companies to sell or purchase Social Security numbers.

Let me describe why this legislation is so necessary.

On February 15, 2005, Georgia-based data warehouser ChoicePoint disclosed that it had compromised the private customer data of 145,000 individuals. Criminals posing as legitimate small business people had purchased files on about 145,000 people, some of whom were later defrauded.

One of the critical pieces of information that ChoicePoint sold to these criminals was Social Security numbers. That's Social Security numbers of 145,000 people in all 50 states.

Here is a statistic that I found incredible: Choice Point has 17,000 business ``customers'' for such information. Can you imagine your Social Security number potentially being sold to 117,000 businesses? And that's just one of the companies that was selling databases that included Social Security numbers at the time.

I bet that most Americans were surprised to find out that it was perfectly legal for companies to sell their Social Security numbers to tens of thousands of other companies. If you took a national survey and asked Americans this question: ``Do you think that private companies should have the ability to purchase and sell your Social Security number?'' I assure you that the answer would overwhelmingly be ``no.''

In the 109th Congress, when the Senate Commerce Committee marked up S. 1408, the ID Theft Protection Act, I offered an amendment that very simply said that it should be illegal to sell or purchase Social Security numbers.

This as a commonsense amendment, and it passed unanimously. The ID Theft Protection Act was reported by the Commerce Committee in December 2005, but the bill did not make it to the Senate floor.

But the problem of ID theft has not gone away. In its most recent survey, the Better Business Bureau estimated that approximately 8.9 million Americans were victims of identity theft in 2006. The total U.S. annual identity fraud cost is an estimated $52.6 billion per year.

We will shortly be marking up another ID theft bill in the 110th Congress, through the Commerce Committee. The bill the Commerce Committee is considering now does not have provisions restricting the sale or purchase of Social Security numbers, and I intend to offset an amendment to fix that, with the language that I am introducing as standalone legislation today.

I should note that the FTC issued a report on ID theft just this month, which emphasized the importance of protecting Social Security numbers.

The FTC report said the following about Social Security numbers: ``Consumer information is the currency of identity theft, and perhaps the most valuable piece of information for the thief is the SSN. The SSN and a name can be used in many cases to open an account and obtain credit or other benefits in the victim's name.''

In fact elsewhere in the report, the FTC underscored that Social Security numbers are ``the most valuable commodity for an identity thief.''

One of the FTC's top recommendations was that federal agencies should reduce the unnecessary use of Social Security numbers.

And it's clear that the FTC heard from many Americans who were unhappy with the widespread overuse of Social Security numbers. Indeed, the FTC report notes that one of the main concerns that Americans have in protecting their identity is ``the overuse of Social Security numbers as identifiers.''

It stands to reason that the more that Social Security numbers are sold from one business to another for marketing and other commercial purposes, the greater the chance that the numbers will be lost, misplaced, stolen, leaked, or otherwise fall into the wrong hands.

Now, I'll be the first to recognize that there are some instances where the use of Social security numbers is appropriate. So my amendment has a number of reasonable exceptions to the prohibition on the sale of Social Security numbers, for purposes such as national security, public health, law enforcement, administration of federal or state tax laws, credit reporting agencies, prevention and investigation of ID theft, and tracking of missing and abducted children.

What's more, my bill allows an ``opt-in'' clause. That is, it allows individuals, if they so choose, to agree in writing to have their Social Security number sold or purchased by others--provided the individual provides his affirmative consent, and the individual is not obligated to provide the Social Security number as a condition for conducting a transaction.

I think these are reasonable exemptions.

I should add that in the 109th Congress, Senators Specter and Leahy also introduced S. 1332, a bill that similarly restricts the sale of Social Security numbers.

So this is a bipartisan concept, and I hope that my legislation will have bipartisan support when it reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a piece of legislation called the ``Social Security Account Number Protection Act'' that would restrict the ability of companies to sell or purchase Social Security numbers.

Let me describe why this legislation is so necessary.

On February 15, 2005, Georgia-based data warehouser ChoicePoint disclosed that it had compromised the private customer data of 145,000 individuals. Criminals posing as legitimate small business people had purchased files on about 145,000 people, some of whom were later defrauded.

One of the critical pieces of information that ChoicePoint sold to these criminals was Social Security numbers. That's Social Security numbers of 145,000 people in all 50 states.

Here is a statistic that I found incredible: Choice Point has 17,000 business ``customers'' for such information. Can you imagine your Social Security number potentially being sold to 117,000 businesses? And that's just one of the companies that was selling databases that included Social Security numbers at the time.

I bet that most Americans were surprised to find out that it was perfectly legal for companies to sell their Social Security numbers to tens of thousands of other companies. If you took a national survey and asked Americans this question: ``Do you think that private companies should have the ability to purchase and sell your Social Security number?'' I assure you that the answer would overwhelmingly be ``no.''

In the 109th Congress, when the Senate Commerce Committee marked up S. 1408, the ID Theft Protection Act, I offered an amendment that very simply said that it should be illegal to sell or purchase Social Security numbers.

This as a commonsense amendment, and it passed unanimously. The ID Theft Protection Act was reported by the Commerce Committee in December 2005, but the bill did not make it to the Senate floor.

But the problem of ID theft has not gone away. In its most recent survey, the Better Business Bureau estimated that approximately 8.9 million Americans were victims of identity theft in 2006. The total U.S. annual identity fraud cost is an estimated $52.6 billion per year.

We will shortly be marking up another ID theft bill in the 110th Congress, through the Commerce Committee. The bill the Commerce Committee is considering now does not have provisions restricting the sale or purchase of Social Security numbers, and I intend to offset an amendment to fix that, with the language that I am introducing as standalone legislation today.

I should note that the FTC issued a report on ID theft just this month, which emphasized the importance of protecting Social Security numbers.

The FTC report said the following about Social Security numbers: ``Consumer information is the currency of identity theft, and perhaps the most valuable piece of information for the thief is the SSN. The SSN and a name can be used in many cases to open an account and obtain credit or other benefits in the victim's name.''

In fact elsewhere in the report, the FTC underscored that Social Security numbers are ``the most valuable commodity for an identity thief.''

One of the FTC's top recommendations was that federal agencies should reduce the unnecessary use of Social Security numbers.

And it's clear that the FTC heard from many Americans who were unhappy with the widespread overuse of Social Security numbers. Indeed, the FTC report notes that one of the main concerns that Americans have in protecting their identity is ``the overuse of Social Security numbers as identifiers.''

It stands to reason that the more that Social Security numbers are sold from one business to another for marketing and other commercial purposes, the greater the chance that the numbers will be lost, misplaced, stolen, leaked, or otherwise fall into the wrong hands.

Now, I'll be the first to recognize that there are some instances where the use of Social security numbers is appropriate. So my amendment has a number of reasonable exceptions to the prohibition on the sale of Social Security numbers, for purposes such as national security, public health, law enforcement, administration of federal or state tax laws, credit reporting agencies, prevention and investigation of ID theft, and tracking of missing and abducted children.

What's more, my bill allows an ``opt-in'' clause. That is, it allows individuals, if they so choose, to agree in writing to have their Social Security number sold or purchased by others--provided the individual provides his affirmative consent, and the individual is not obligated to provide the Social Security number as a condition for conducting a transaction.

I think these are reasonable exemptions.

I should add that in the 109th Congress, Senators Specter and Leahy also introduced S. 1332, a bill that similarly restricts the sale of Social Security numbers.

So this is a bipartisan concept, and I hope that my legislation will have bipartisan support when it reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate.

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

Mr. President, North Dakota has long maintained strong ties with our Nation's military.

My State is home to two Air Force bases and the Nation's best Air National Guard unit. More of our young people volunteer to serve their country in the military than nearly any other State.

In North Dakota, our commitment to our troops does not end when we welcome them home from war. We also

have a strong tradition of honoring our veterans. In fact, when I started a North Dakota Veterans History Project 5 years ago to record the stories of our veterans for future generations, the outpouring of interest resulted in more than 1,500 interviews.

So I did not find it surprising that when the WDAY television station based in Fargo, ND, organized an ``Honor Flight'' to bring veterans of World War II to Washington, D.C., it had an overabundance of donors and too few seats to accommodate all the veterans. But WDAY has chartered a flight to Washington next month and will bring 100 veterans of World War II to see the memorial on our National Mall that was built in their honor. My colleagues, Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy, and I will host a reception for them in the historic Russell Caucus Room.

I can't think of a better way to pay tribute to these heroes than this trip to our Nation's Capital. Many of them will visit for the first time the World War II Memorial that is a powerful symbol of the sacrifice they made for the safety and freedom of our country and the world.

This is a group of Americans who were appropriately labeled ``the greatest generation'' by Tom Brokaw. I remember reading his book some years ago and marveling again at the dedication those young men, and some young women, expressed to this country. They dedicated their lives to defeating the fascism and Nazism that threatened the peace and prosperity of the world. They kept the free world free. Many paid for it with the ultimate sacrifice--their lives.

Several years ago, I was reminded just how important their sacrifice was when I was part of a congressional delegation involved in discussions with members of the European Parliament. We had been discussing some differences between the United States and the Europeans for some time. It was at this point that a European delegate stopped me and said, ``Mr. Senator, I want you to understand how I feel about your country.''

He said, ``In 1944, I was 14 years old and standing on a street corner in Paris, France, when the U.S. Liberation Army marched in and freed my country from the Nazis.''

He said, ``A young American soldier reached out his hand and gave that 14-year-old boy an apple. I will go to my grave remembering that moment. You should understand what your country means to me, to us, to my country.''

To me, this man's story is a testament to the respect and admiration people around the world feel for our country. And this is because the ``greatest generation''--those same men and women who will visit Washington next month--were willing to leave their homes so many years ago and travel around the world to fight an enemy that threatened our freedom. They did it without complaint and without question. They loved their country.

There is a verse that goes, ``When the night is full of knives, and the lightning is seen, and the drums are heard, the patriots are always there, ready to fight and ready to die, if necessary, for freedom.''

The men and women who will travel to Washington next month are patriots who answered when duty called. The Honor Flight is an expression of our thanks for the sacrifice they made that is too large to ever fully repay.

Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor several times last year, and have already again this year in the 110th Congress, to talk about the need for Congress to pass legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Legislation to amend and reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been considered by the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, and today, my colleagues and I put forward a new version of the bill in the 110th Congress.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 builds on the work of prior Congresses, work done not only by the Indian Affairs Committee, but also by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance Committees. These committees gave us their recommendations on provisions in the legislation which are within their jurisdiction. I thank my colleagues for their collaboration on the Indian health reauthorization.

I have added new provisions to this year's Indian health bill that seek to address the lack of access to health care services that exists in so many tribal communities, which may be due to limited hours of operation at existing health care facilities or other factors. The bill would allow grants for demonstration projects which include a convenient care services program as an additional means of health care delivery.

This bill also addresses an issue that has been of particular concern to me: Indian youth suicide. The bill would authorize additional resources for Indian communities to confront this issue and seek to prevent, intervene in and treat Native American youth who have lost hope and are contemplating or have attempted suicide.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. It is my highest priority as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee.

I wish to note that title II of this bill sets forth amendments to the Social Security Act, addressing payments under Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and other provisions which are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The Indian Affairs and Finance Committees worked very closely together during last year's session on the provisions that are contained in this bill. I appreciate the efforts of both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley in drafting these important provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007, and I look forward to their committee's approval of these provisions as the Indian Affairs Committee considers the provisions under our jurisdiction.

Eight years is too long to wait to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I intend to move aggressively to seek approval of this legislation by the Indian Affairs Committee, and to bring this bill to the Senate floor so that all my colleagues will have an opportunity to address the very fundamental need for--and right of--American Indians and Alaska Natives to adequate and innovative health care.

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

Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor several times last year, and have already again this year in the 110th Congress, to talk about the need for Congress to pass legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Legislation to amend and reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been considered by the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, and today, my colleagues and I put forward a new version of the bill in the 110th Congress.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 builds on the work of prior Congresses, work done not only by the Indian Affairs Committee, but also by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance Committees. These committees gave us their recommendations on provisions in the legislation which are within their jurisdiction. I thank my colleagues for their collaboration on the Indian health reauthorization.

I have added new provisions to this year's Indian health bill that seek to address the lack of access to health care services that exists in so many tribal communities, which may be due to limited hours of operation at existing health care facilities or other factors. The bill would allow grants for demonstration projects which include a convenient care services program as an additional means of health care delivery.

This bill also addresses an issue that has been of particular concern to me: Indian youth suicide. The bill would authorize additional resources for Indian communities to confront this issue and seek to prevent, intervene in and treat Native American youth who have lost hope and are contemplating or have attempted suicide.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. It is my highest priority as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee.

I wish to note that title II of this bill sets forth amendments to the Social Security Act, addressing payments under Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and other provisions which are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The Indian Affairs and Finance Committees worked very closely together during last year's session on the provisions that are contained in this bill. I appreciate the efforts of both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley in drafting these important provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007, and I look forward to their committee's approval of these provisions as the Indian Affairs Committee considers the provisions under our jurisdiction.

Eight years is too long to wait to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I intend to move aggressively to seek approval of this legislation by the Indian Affairs Committee, and to bring this bill to the Senate floor so that all my colleagues will have an opportunity to address the very fundamental need for--and right of--American Indians and Alaska Natives to adequate and innovative health care.

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

Madam President, April 22 marks the beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, an annual commemoration that has been observed since the early 1980s to honor crime victims and call attention to their plight.

We have an opportunity to provide full justice to many victims of federal crime by passing legislation that will help federal criminal justice officials more fully recover court-order restitution that is owed to innocent crime victims. By ensuring victims receive the restitution they are entitled to, our proposal truly reflects the theme of this year's Crime Victims' Rights Week--Victim's Rights: Every Victim, Every Time.

I intend to offer an amendment with Senator Grassley today that would improve the collection of federal criminal debt. Our amendment is being sent over to the floor at this point. I will describe it and the reason for offering it.

The amendment will be one in the form of a bill, S. 973, which I authored with my colleague, Senator Grassley. We introduced it with Senators Durbin and Collins. It is called the Restitution for Victims Of Crime Act. This piece of legislation will give Justice Department officials the tools they say are needed to help them do a better job of collecting court-ordered Federal restitution and fines.

In our court system in this country, there are, in many cases, fines that are levied against defendants who are found guilty of a crime. They are adjudged to be guilty and, therefore, are levied a fine by the court. In many cases, they are required to make restitution through orders of the court system. For some long while, I have been working on this issue because I have discovered that in the Federal court system, Justice Department data shows that the amount of uncollected criminal debt--that is, fines and restitution--is growing out of control. Believe it or not, the uncollected Federal criminal debt is nearly $46 billion. Think of that. It is almost $46 billion. These are fines that have been levied in our Federal court system against defendants adjudged to have been guilty. Restitution orders have been made that require someone to make financial restitution; yet some $46 billion is the amount of criminal debt that is unpaid. It is spiraling upward. It was $41 billion just a year ago. When I first called attention to this problem, it was well less than half of that. Yet very little has been done.

In my State of North Dakota, the Federal courts have about $18.7 million of uncollected criminal debt. That is up some $4 million from the preceding year. In my judgment, crime victims should not have to worry if those in charge of collecting the restitution on their behalf are making every effort to do so. We would expect that to be happening. Yet it is not. In some cases, it is because the tools don't exist. In some cases, it is because collecting the criminal debt has become kind of the backwater of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

At my request, GAO reviewed five white-collar financial fraud cases. What they have found is that certain offenders, those judged guilty, had taken expensive trips abroad, traveled overseas; had fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in assets and converted those assets to personal use. GAO also found offenders who had established businesses for their children; held homes and lived in homes worth millions of dollars that were located in upscale neighborhoods. So here we have a circumstance where we have people who have been judged guilty of certain things by the Federal court system. They have been told you have to pay a fine or you have to pay restitution. Yet despite the fact that they have not made restitution or paid their fine, according to the GAO evaluation at my request, some of them have decided we are not going to pay those things, we are going to take a trip overseas, live in multimillion dollar houses, we are going to transfer a business to the children so federal justice officials cannot get at it.

All of this is going on at a time when victims are waiting for restitution that has been ordered by the court. The proposal that Senator Grassley and I have authored is a proposal based on a set of recommendations, some from the Justice Department, some from the task force on improving the collection of criminal debt. Justice Department officials believe the changes we suggest will remove many of the current impediments to better debt collection.

Our legislation offers the tools that we think are necessary, having worked with Justice officials and others and victims' rights organizations, to deal with these issues. Justice Department officials describe, for example, a circumstance where they were prevented by a court from accessing $400,000 in a criminal offender's 401(k) plan to pay a $4 million restitution debt to a victim. Let me say that again. This is an offender who was judged to be guilty and who had $400,000 in a 401(k) plan. He has been ordered to pay a $4 million restitution debt to a victim. The court said: No, you cannot take the $400,000 in the 401(k) plan because the defendant was complying with a $250 minimum monthly payment plan, and that precluded any other enforcement actions. So he is sitting there with nearly half a million dollars in liquid assets, and the victim is sitting over here having been defrauded. The court said you must pay restitution, and this person with nearly half a million dollars in assets is paying $250 a month, and the court says that is it, you cannot get the 401(k) funds from the victim. That is not fair. Our proposal would remove impediments like this in the future.

This legislation will address another major problem identified by the GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection. Many years can pass between the date a crime occurs and the date that a court will order restitution. That gives criminal defendants an ample opportunity to hide their ill-gotten gains. This bill sets up preconviction procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. We set up those preconviction circumstances--no, not to take the assets but at least be sure they are going to be preserved in the event they are needed for restitution.

These tools will ensure financial assets that are traceable to a crime are going to be available when a court imposes a final restitution order on behalf of a victim. These tools are similar to those already used in some states and by Federal officials in certain asset forfeiture cases. The Restitution for Victims Of Crime Act that I have introduced in the Senate as S. 973, with Senator Grassley and others, has been endorsed by a number of organizations that are concerned about the well-being of crime victims and the rights of victims to receive the restitution ordered by federal courts: National Center for Victims of Crime, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children, Justice Solutions, and many others.

The U.S. attorney in North Dakota has said this legislation ``represents important progress toward ensuring that victims of crime are one step closer to being made whole.''

I have mentioned S. 973, and that is what I intend to offer as an amendment to the court security bill. I recognize the legislation itself doesn't deal with the narrower issue of the security of the courts, but it certainly deals with the functioning of the courts and the ability of a court to decide they are going to levy a fine or impose a restitution order on a person judged guilty of a crime and then be able to feel, at some point, they are going to be able to make that happen.

I mentioned earlier U.S. Attorney's Offices, as most of us know, are about investigating and prosecuting. They are involved when given investigation capability or given the results of investigations. If they believe a criminal act has occurred, they are involved in preparing to go to court to prosecute criminal actions.

They have also been given the responsibility to collect fines and restitutions. But the fact is, many U.S.

attorneys will admit they have a U.S. Attorney's Office that, by and large, in the front of that office is engaged in prosecuting wrongdoing, and in the back of that office, the collection of fines and restitutions is not a high priority and, frankly, is difficult for many of them.

I don't come here with harsh criticism in those circumstances. But I do say we should not stand for it, the Justice Department should not stand for it, and certainly victims should not stand for a circumstance where some $46 billion in court-ordered fines and restitution remains uncollected, while at least some are taking trips to London and have $400,000 in 401(k) accounts, are hiding their assets by transferring businesses to children, living in multimillion-dollar homes and deciding they won't pay the fines, they won't pay the restitution, and nothing much is going to happen to them because we are not very aggressive on behalf of victims or on behalf of this country in getting those fines and restitutions paid.

That is not the right course for this country. I plan offer the amendment shortly to address this problem. I am checking with Senator Grassley for his cosponsorship. As I indicated, he was the primary cosponsor when we introduced the legislation earlier this year.

I hope that perhaps we can consider this legislation as an amendment that would be added to the court security bill.

Regarding the court security bill, I am pleased this bill is before the Senate. It is rather strange we had to have a recorded vote on whether we would have a motion to proceed to go to a court security bill, but I guess that is the strange, Byzantine circumstances of legislative activities these days in the Senate.

Now that it is before the Senate, this is important business, and we should proceed to consider amendments and then pass this legislation and move to the other issues that are before us.

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

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

Mr. President, we are considering the court security bill. At the moment, there is no one who wishes to speak on that legislation. I wish to speak about the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is now holding a hearing. I just finished testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I wish to talk about that testimony.

The Armed Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Carl Levin, is holding a hearing this morning on contracting abuses; that is, contracting abuses in Iraq especially under what is called the LOGCAP contract.

I testified that I chaired in the Democratic Policy Committee, over the last 3 years, 10 hearings on these issues of contract abuses. I suggested to the Armed Services Committee that they look into what is not only called the LOGCAP, which is a logistic contract which, in this case, Halliburton, or their subsidiary, KBR, provided certain logistics assistance to the Department of the Army under a contract worth billions of dollars, I suggested they also look into the RIO contract, which is Restore Iraqi Oil contract.

I pointed out to them that the woman who rose to become the highest contract official in the U.S. Corps of Engineers--she rose to become the highest civilian contract official in the Army Corps of Engineers-- she said the awarding of the RIO contract, the Restore Iraqi Oil contract--Restore Iraqi Oil is what RIO stands for--to Halliburton and KBR was ``the most blatant contracting abuse I have seen in my entire career.'' This is from the top civilian contracting officer.

What happened to her? She paid for that with her job. For that she was demoted. Before she said that publicly, she was given outstanding evaluations every year. Once she said publicly what she had told them privately, and they ignored, they began the process of giving her performance evaluations that were inferior for demotion.

A couple of nights ago, I called the general, now retired, who brought this contracting officer in as the top civilian contracting officer. I said: What's the story?

He said: She has been dealt an awful hand, and it has been very unfair to her. She is a straight-shooter, she is competent, she speaks the truth. The fact is, she is paying for telling the truth.

I suggested to the Armed Services Committee that this woman, named Bunnatine Greenhouse, who had the courage to speak out against contracting abuse, should be called to testify.

We ought to put a stop to this stuff that when someone in the Federal Government speaks out and says there is abuse occurring, the taxpayers are being abused, the soldiers are being disserved, that somehow they injure their career by telling the truth. But let me go on.

I suggested the committee look into the RIO contract. I sent the issues raised by Bunnatine Greenhouse, who paid for her honesty with her job: she was demoted. I sent all that material to the inspector general. Seventeen months ago, I got a letter from the inspector general saying they received it, they looked into all those allegations, it has now been referred to the Justice Department, it is for their action, and because it is a criminal matter, they would not comment further.

Obviously, they believed there was something that was serious. That is the RIO, the Restore Iraq Oil contract.

There is another contract, and that is the purpose of the hearing this morning, the LOGCAP contract, once again, given to Halliburton and their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root. What I told them this morning is what I found in 10 hearings. I held up a white towel, a white hand towel that most would recognize. It hangs in the bathrooms in most homes.

A man named Henry Bunting came to us. Henry Bunting was in Kuwait. He was actually buying supplies for the troops in Iraq. Henry Bunting was a purchaser for KBR in Kuwait. They said to Henry Bunting: Buy some towels for the troops. So Henry goes about buying towels for the troops. But then the supervisor said: No, you can't buy those towels. You have to buy towels that have the embroidered name of KBR on the towel, triple the cost. Henry said it would cost a lot of money. It doesn't matter, the taxpayers are paying for this, cost plus. Triple the price of the towels so you can put the embroidered initials of the company on the towels.

How about $45 for a case of Coca-Cola? How about $7,500 a month to lease an SUV? Henry Bunting told us about that as well.

I described the other issues. Rory Mayberry--Rory showed up at a hearing. He was a food service supervisor for KBR in Iraq at a cafeteria. He said he was told by his supervisor: Don't you dare talk to Government auditors when they show up. If you do, you will get fired or you will get sent to an active combat zone. Don't you dare talk to a Government auditor.

He said: We routinely provided food to the soldiers that had expired date stamps on it.

The supervisor said: It doesn't matter--the expired date stamps--feed the expired food to the troops.

We know from previous press accounts that at one point that company was charging for 42,000 meals a day to soldiers when they were actually only feeding 14,000 soldiers. Rory said the same thing. Rory Mayberry, a supervisor in one of the KBR food service situations in Iraq said they were charging for meals for soldiers who weren't there, and the supervisor said: We are doing that because we had lost money previously, so now we are charging for meals that aren't being served to soldiers.

How about an eyewitness to an $85,000 brand new truck left beside the road in a noncombat zone in Iraq to be torched because they didn't have the proper wrench to fix the tire? It doesn't matter, the American taxpayer is going to buy the new truck, cost plus.

The list is almost endless. It is unbelievable the stories we have heard from people who wish to come forward.

One company, the same company under the LOGCAP contract, was to provide water to the military bases in Iraq--all of the bases. A whistleblower came to me and said: I have something you should see. It is a 21-page internal report, and it is written by a man named Will Granger who is in charge of all water going to the bases in Iraq. He is the KBR employee, Halliburton employee in charge of all water that goes to the bases in Iraq.

He said instead of treating the water, nonpotable water which soldiers use to shower, shave, sometimes brush their teeth, and so on, instead of treating the water as it was supposed to have been treated under the contract, the water was more contaminated with E coli and bacteria than raw water from the Euphrates River.

He said: Here is the internal report. The internal report said this was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness or death.

That was from the internal report I had in my hand. The company said it never happened. This is the internal report made by the man in the company whose name is Will Granger, who said: Here is what we discovered.

Just after I held the hearing and described this situation, I received an e-mail from a young woman in Iraq who was an Army physician. She said: I read about this hearing about the water issue, the nonpotable water which was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River that was being used for nonpotable water for soldiers. She said: It has happened on my base as well. She said: I started seeing these illnesses, conditions with the soldiers, and I had a lieutenant follow the waterline back. It is exactly the same circumstance--untreated water. We were paying for it, and the company wasn't doing what the contract requires, putting at risk those soldiers. The company denied it happened, but it is in black and white. The evidence exists.

I described these issues and other issues this morning to the Armed Services Committee. I am pleased they are holding hearings. It is long past the time for them to hold these oversight hearings finding out what is happening and what we can do about it.

Mr. President, these are important issues. I commend Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and all members of the Armed Services Committee for taking a serious look at these issues. My interest is not in tarnishing any company or anything like that. My interest is in making sure the American taxpayers are not disserved, and they have been. And my interest is the American soldiers are treated properly, and they have not been. What I saw with the waste, fraud, and abuse with these contracts, in my judgment, is a disservice to the American taxpayer and a disservice to the country's soldiers, and the fact is, we can fix this.

I will describe at a later time the legislation I have introduced that deals with these contracting abuses so we can prevent them from ever happening again.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, this morning, in one of the newspapers that covers Capitol Hill, there was a story with some complaints by the minority and the leader of the minority that the majority is filing what are called cloture motions. We are, in fact, filing cloture motions, and the reason we are doing it is because the minority doesn't want to move to debate the issues.

To give you an example, in recent days, we have had to file a cloture motion to have a vote on the Intelligence Authorization Bill. It turned out the minority, in nearly a unanimous vote, succeeded in blocking our ability to even debate the bill. That was the motion to proceed on the debate, not the debate itself. The question is: Shall we proceed to debate reauthorization of intelligence? The minority said we won't give you the permission to approve the motion to proceed. We are going to have to have you file cloture on that. We will then have a cloture vote and 40-plus will decide to march in against it. So you cannot proceed on the intelligence reauthorization.

On the issue of negotiating lower prescription drug prices, the minority says we won't allow you to go to the bill to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare. You have to vote on a motion to proceed. They come over and, by and large, oppose the motion to proceed so we cannot go to negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare.

About an hour or two ago, we had to have a vote on going to the issue of court security--security in our court system. They required us to file cloture and have a vote on the motion to proceed to going to security for America's court system. It is unbelievable.

Let me go back for a moment on this issue of intelligence. They required us to file cloture on the motion to proceed. If there is anything critically needed by this Congress and this country-- especially this country--it is to get this issue of intelligence right. Why is that important? We live in a very dangerous world. We face a lot of threats and challenges. We have been through the last half decade or more in a circumstance where the intelligence function in our Government has dramatically failed. The consequences of that have been life or death. Here are some examples:

We went to war with Iraq. We had many top secret briefings prior to the war given by our intelligence officials and top members of the administration. They told us, for example, that the country of Iraq threatened this country because it had mobile chemical weapons labs. They gave us substantial information about mobile chemical weapons labs in Iraq. It turns out now, much later, we discover that in fact those so-called laboratories didn't exist. The information our intelligence community gave Congress came from one source, a man who was named ``Curve Ball,'' who was largely considered to be a drunk and a fabricator. A single source--someone considered to have been a drunk and a fabricator--convinced our intelligence community and this administration to tell us and the American people that Iraq threatened this country because they had mobile chemical weapons labs. We now understand that wasn't true, but it was part of the foundation upon which a decision was made to go to war.

Aluminum tubes for the reconstruction of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq--we were told there was a nuclear weapons program, the reconstruction of which will threaten our country and threaten the world. It turns out the administration and the intelligence community told us a half truth. Some in the administration felt the aluminum tubes specifically ordered by Iraq were for the purpose of reconstructing a nuclear capability. Others in the administration felt equally strongly that there was no such thing involved, that it was for rocketry; it didn't have anything to do with the reconstruction of a nuclear weapons program. The intelligence community did not tell Congress about that portion of the debate.

Yellowcake from Niger. The President told the Congress in briefings and intelligence sources upstairs that Iraq was attempting to procure yellowcake from Niger for the purpose of reconstituting its nuclear capability. It turns out that was based on falsified documents, fraudulent documents. Based on a lot of information, including yellowcake from Niger, and allegations about Iraq trying to secure it, aluminum tubes purchased it was alleged for the purpose of reconstructing a nuclear capability, or mobile chemical weapons labs, reports of which came from apparently one source, a single source, a drunk and fabricator who used to drive a taxicab in Baghdad. That was the basis, at least in part, on which to build a foundation that told this country a threat exists against the United States and we must take military action against the country of Iraq.

We know what has happened in the interim. This war with Iraq has cost an unbelievable amount of money and lives. It has cost this country dearly around the world. Now we are in a situation where, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate that there is a civil war in Iraq. That is a combined judgment of all of the intelligence sources in our country and the top intelligence officers and folks in the administration.

It is not, as the President seems to suggest, the fight against al- Qaida in Iraq. Our National Intelligence Estimate tells us what it is. It is sectarian violence. There is some presence of al-Qaida in Anbar Province in Iraq, but principally what is happening in Iraq is not about al-Qaida and terrorists; it is about sectarian violence, committing acts of terror--Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni-- and the most unbelievable acts of terror you can imagine.

In fact, the head of our intelligence has since said this, that the greatest terrorist threat to our country is with al-Qaida and its leadership, which is in a secure hideaway in Pakistan. These are the people who boasted about murdering innocent Americans on 9/11/2001. No, they have not been brought to justice. They are, according to the head of our intelligence services, in a secure hideaway in Pakistan.

What, then, should be our greatest goal? What should be our priority? Continuing in a civil war in Iraq, having our troops in the middle of a civil

war in Iraq? Or deciding we are going to go after the terrorists who represent the greatest threat to our country, al-Qaida? That is not from me. The description of that comes from the head of our intelligence services in this country.

I have described the mistakes that were made. In fact, there was no oversight, of course, in the last few years in the Congress, none at all--no hearings, no oversight to talk about this. So I held oversight hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. One day, I had four people come before the committee who previously had worked for the CIA, and others. One of whom was COL Larry Wilkerson, who served 17 years as a top assistant to Colin Powell, including when he was Secretary of State. He was there when the presentation was made at the United Nations. He said later that was the perpetration of a hoax on the American people.

I cannot pretend to know what went wrong or how. I know in the aftermath that this Congress, with the majority that existed last year, held no oversight hearings and didn't seem to care, wanted to keep it behind the curtain. I know this, however: Going forward, this country's future and this country's security depends on good intelligence. It depends on our getting it right, and it depends on our knowing what is happening. Reauthorizing the intelligence functions of our Government is critical.

It undermines our soldiers, in my judgment, for us not to take action to provide the very finest intelligence that can be available to us through reauthorizing our intelligence functions. It should have been done before, but it wasn't. It is brought to the floor now, but it will not be allowed to be debated because the minority says they don't want to reauthorize the intelligence functions under these conditions. I don't understand that. I think that shortchanges the American people.

But it is not just intelligence. Earlier today, the minority said we will not allow you to move forward on a domestic issue, and that is having the American people feel as though their Government is giving them the best deal possible by negotiating decent prices with the pharmaceutical industry for drugs that are purchased under Medicare. We hoped to have a debate about that. In 2000, the drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, ran an advertising campaign in this country in support of creating a Medicare drug benefit. This is what they said: They touted a study that said private drug insurance will lower prices 30 to 39 percent. That is what they said.

We understand about prices. Mr. President, let me, if I might, show you two bottles that formerly contained medicine. This is Lipitor. The American people understand about drug pricing and the unfairness to the American people. This is a drug produced in Ireland. A lot of people take it to lower their cholesterol. These bottles are, as you can see, identical. They held tablets of Lipitor, made in the same plant, FDA approved--exactly the same medicine. The difference is this one was actually sent to Canada to be sold. This one was sent to the United States. Well, this one was twice as expensive to the U.S. consumer. The same pill made by the same company, made in the same manufacturing plant, sold in two different places--one in Canada and one in the United States--and Americans were told you pay double. And it is not just Canada. Almost any country I could name will be paying lower prices for the same drugs, because the American consumer is charged the highest prices.

We have legislation to try to respond to that. There is plenty of opposition in this Chamber. The first step in dealing with this is for the Government, as the institution that created the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, to be using its capability to buy in large quantities to reduce the price by negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry. But when the prescription drug plan for Medicare was put into place in this Chamber, then the Republicans in the majority said: We are going to prohibit the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry.

That is almost unbelievable, when you think about it. Can you think of anybody in your hometown doing that--saying we are going to do business with somebody, but we are going to be prohibited from negotiating the best price? Well, nonetheless, that was the law, and so now we are trying to change it to say, no, we believe the Federal Government ought to be allowed to negotiate better prices for quantity discounts. Yet, now the minority party will not even allow us to continue because they force a cloture vote on a motion to proceed--not the bill itself, but on a motion to proceed to the bill--and they block it.

Well, the pharmaceutical industry had said if we pass prescription drug benefits in the Medicare Program, it would lower prices 30 to 39 percent. Has it done that? Well, no. I will give you examples: From November 2005 to April 2006--that is a half year--the prices charged for the 20 drugs most frequently prescribed to senior citizens increased by 3.7 percent, or about four times the rate of inflation. In the first quarter of 2006, drug prices shot up 3.9 percent, the highest first quarter increase in drug pricing in 6 years.

Now, some of my colleagues will argue that private plans are doing a terrific job of negotiating with drug companies. Well, we recently did a study on this subject. We did a study of 53 stand-alone Part D plans that are available in my State. We looked at the prices these plans paid for the 25 drugs most frequently prescribed to senior citizens. If those senior citizens bought the drugs at average Part D prices, it was $829. If you walked into the pharmacy downtown, it was $845. At Costco, it was $814. Where is the 30 to 39-percent discount here because the Federal Government has now become a giant purchaser? We used to get discounts under Medicaid--still do, in fact, under Medicaid, but those low-income senior citizens who migrated from Medicaid to Medicare mean we now pay more because we don't negotiate for lower prices with the prescription drug industry under Medicare. And that is the problem.

If all Secretary Leavitt would do as Secretary of HHS is to buy part D prescription drugs from Main Street pharmacies, Medicare will save money. I don't understand why those who are self-labeled as conservative would not be on the side of having the Federal Government make the best deal it can to save money when it is making bulk purchases of prescription drugs.

I understand part of what is happening. Part of what is happening is the pharmaceutical industry has a great deal of clout, and there is support for them in this Chamber. I don't come to the floor denigrating the industry. I don't like their pricing policies. I have told them that. The pharmaceutical industry produces some lifesaving medicine, some of it with research paid for by the American taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health and other venues, and some of it through their own research investment. They produce lifesaving medicines, and good for them. But lifesaving prescription drugs offer no miracles to those who can't afford to buy them, and pricing is an issue for all Americans.

With respect to the issue of senior citizens who are getting their prescription drugs now under the Medicare Program, pricing is an issue for the taxpayers because we are paying a much higher price than we should if we were to buy prescription drugs as we do in the veterans system, in the VA system. They are allowed to negotiate for lower prices in the VA system, and the result is dramatic.

We pay much lower prices for those prescription drugs because the Federal Government, as a very large producer, has the clout to negotiate lower prices. The Government is prevented specifically by law from doing the same thing with respect to the Medicare Part D Program, and it makes no sense at all.

I started by saying the minority party is now complaining in the newspapers this morning about the number of cloture motions that are filed in this Chamber. That is inconvenient, apparently, or they don't like it. I understand. But the fact is, the very party that complains about the cloture motions is objecting even to moving to a motion to proceed.

The motion is not shall we debate this issue, the motion is shall we proceed to the issue for a debate, and they are requiring that we file a cloture motion because they will not debate the motion to proceed, let alone the issue itself.

It was interesting that after the cloture motion failed on the motion to proceed because the minority blocked it, we had some people come to the floor to speak about the issue this morning to defend the pharmaceutical industry and say: No, the Federal Government shouldn't negotiate. It seems to me if they wanted to speak about the issue, why wouldn't they support the motion to proceed so we could actually get on the debate and they could debate on the issue rather than debate outside of what they have prevented?

I don't understand that. Maybe I shouldn't say that. I guess I do understand it. The complaint about our being required to file cloture motions comes from those who don't want to apparently go to intelligence reauthorization. They don't want to debate that bill, so they blocked it. They don't want to debate a provision that will allow us to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, so they blocked that bill. They forced us to have a vote on the motion to proceed on providing court security, for God's sake, in the shadow of the unspeakable tragedy and the heartbreak all of us feel with what has happened at Virginia Tech. The issue of court security ought not be controversial. Why on Earth should we be forced to file a cloture motion? Why should there be required a vote on the motion to proceed to something such as this issue? It doesn't make any sense.

The fact is, I have always said I think both political parties contribute something to this country. I believe that. We ought to get the best of what each can contribute to this country rather than what we often do, the worst of each. The best of what both parties can contribute to this country would give this country something to feel proud about. We ought to bring these issues to the floor of the Senate. Yes, reauthorize intelligence, yes, allow us to debate the issue of why shouldn't we negotiate lower priced prescription drugs on behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of the American citizens. I held a hearing this morning on international trade. Yes, let's have that debate on the floor of the Senate. Why are we drowning in an $832 billion trade deficit? Why are American jobs being shipped off to China?

Let's have these debates on the floor of the Senate. Let's bring the bills out and have these debates rather than have exercises to try to block anybody from getting anything done. That is what has been happening. Block people from getting anything done and then go complain to the press that nothing is getting done--that is a very self- fulfilling prophecy but not very genuine, in my judgment.

I hope in the coming days and weeks--we have 6 weeks or so before there is a period of a few days off during the Memorial Day break--my hope is that during this period of time, we can move forward on some of these issues on the floor of the Senate, have aggressive debates, and try to get the best ideas that could come from both Republicans and Democrats and put them in legislation that will advance this country's interests.

This country deserves that debate on fiscal policy, on trade policy, on foreign policy, on a whole range of issues. This country deserves that from this Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 2,403 American servicemembers lost their lives during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The men and women who survived that day of infamy led the United States, and our Allies, to victory in the Pacific during World War II.

Today I would like to specifically honor four of those survivors, the members of the North Dakota Pearl Harbor Survivor's Association. This group of four active members helps keep the memory of those who served so bravely alive: John Martin of Bismarck, ND; Clem Lonski of Jamestown, ND; Harold Bruchwein of Wahpeton, ND; and Agnes Shurr of Grand Forks, ND.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate, my fellow North Dakotans, and all Americans, I would like to commend and thank these four individuals not only for their bravery and valor in leading the fight over fascism 60 years ago, but also for their commitment and dedication to keep alive the memory of those who gave their lives in defense of freedom on December 7, 1941.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Brownback and ten of our colleagues in introducing the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This legislation clarifies once and for all that Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments received by active or retired farmers, or other landowners for that matter will be treated for Federal tax purposes as rental payments that are not subject to self-employment taxes.

Let me take a moment to describe this problem. For many years now, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been taking the erroneous position that CRP payments received by farmers are self-employment income derived from a trade or business and therefore are subject to Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes. Regrettably, the IRS and the Treasury Department proposed a new ruling late last year that not only requires active farmers to pay SECA taxes on CRP payments but expands similar tax treatment to CRP payments received by retired farmers and other landowners.

This latest ruling proposed by the IRS would impose a significant financial hardship on family farmers and others who have voluntarily agreed to take environmentally-sensitive lands out of farm production and place them in the Conservation Reserve Program in return for an annual rental payment from the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Today, North Dakota has some 3.4 million acres with about $112 million in rental payments in the CRP program. Left intact, the IRS's ruling would mean that farmers in North Dakota may owe an additional $16 million in Federal taxes this coming year. A typical North Dakota farmer with 160 acres of CRP would owe nearly $750 in new self- employment taxes because of the agency's ill-advised position.

If the IRS decides to pursue back taxes on returns filed by farmers in past years, the amount of taxes owed by individual farmers for CRP payments could amount to thousands of dollars. That would be devastating to many farmers and others who depend on CRP rental payments to make ends meet. As a result, the proposed change in our bill applies to CRP payments made in open tax years before, on, or after the date of its enactment.

We believe the IRS's position on the tax treatment of CRP payments is dead wrong. In our judgment, forcing CRP recipients to pay self- employment taxes on CRP payments is not what Congress intended, nor is it supportable in law. The U.S. Tax Court, the Federal court with the most expertise on tax issues, shares our view that the IRS position is improper. In fact, the U.S. Tax Court ruled in the late 1990's that CRP payments are properly treated by farmers as rental payments and, thus, not subject to self-employment taxes. Unfortunately, the IRS challenged the Tax Court decision and the Tax Court was later reversed by a Federal appellate court.

In February, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson sent a letter to me and a number of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue. In his letter, Commissioner Everson made clear that the IRS would not change its position that CRP payments are subject to self-employment tax as income derived from a trade or business--absent new statutory language passed by the Congress and enacted into law.

With the legislation we are introducing today, Congress will send a clear message to the IRS that its misguided effort to subject CRP payments to self-employment taxes is inappropriate and will not be allowed to stand. Our bill also makes sure that Federal trust funds that would have received SECA revenues but for the enactment of our bill are held harmless through the use of revenue transfers from the Treasury general fund.

Senator Brownback and I ask our colleagues to support this much- needed tax relief for family farmers and other CRP recipients by cosponsoring the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. And we hope you will work with us to get this legislation enacted into law without delay.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Brownback and ten of our colleagues in introducing the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This legislation clarifies once and for all that Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments received by active or retired farmers, or other landowners for that matter will be treated for Federal tax purposes as rental payments that are not subject to self-employment taxes.

Let me take a moment to describe this problem. For many years now, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been taking the erroneous position that CRP payments received by farmers are self-employment income derived from a trade or business and therefore are subject to Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes. Regrettably, the IRS and the Treasury Department proposed a new ruling late last year that not only requires active farmers to pay SECA taxes on CRP payments but expands similar tax treatment to CRP payments received by retired farmers and other landowners.

This latest ruling proposed by the IRS would impose a significant financial hardship on family farmers and others who have voluntarily agreed to take environmentally-sensitive lands out of farm production and place them in the Conservation Reserve Program in return for an annual rental payment from the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Today, North Dakota has some 3.4 million acres with about $112 million in rental payments in the CRP program. Left intact, the IRS's ruling would mean that farmers in North Dakota may owe an additional $16 million in Federal taxes this coming year. A typical North Dakota farmer with 160 acres of CRP would owe nearly $750 in new self- employment taxes because of the agency's ill-advised position.

If the IRS decides to pursue back taxes on returns filed by farmers in past years, the amount of taxes owed by individual farmers for CRP payments could amount to thousands of dollars. That would be devastating to many farmers and others who depend on CRP rental payments to make ends meet. As a result, the proposed change in our bill applies to CRP payments made in open tax years before, on, or after the date of its enactment.

We believe the IRS's position on the tax treatment of CRP payments is dead wrong. In our judgment, forcing CRP recipients to pay self- employment taxes on CRP payments is not what Congress intended, nor is it supportable in law. The U.S. Tax Court, the Federal court with the most expertise on tax issues, shares our view that the IRS position is improper. In fact, the U.S. Tax Court ruled in the late 1990's that CRP payments are properly treated by farmers as rental payments and, thus, not subject to self-employment taxes. Unfortunately, the IRS challenged the Tax Court decision and the Tax Court was later reversed by a Federal appellate court.

In February, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson sent a letter to me and a number of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue. In his letter, Commissioner Everson made clear that the IRS would not change its position that CRP payments are subject to self-employment tax as income derived from a trade or business--absent new statutory language passed by the Congress and enacted into law.

With the legislation we are introducing today, Congress will send a clear message to the IRS that its misguided effort to subject CRP payments to self-employment taxes is inappropriate and will not be allowed to stand. Our bill also makes sure that Federal trust funds that would have received SECA revenues but for the enactment of our bill are held harmless through the use of revenue transfers from the Treasury general fund.

Senator Brownback and I ask our colleagues to support this much- needed tax relief for family farmers and other CRP recipients by cosponsoring the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. And we hope you will work with us to get this legislation enacted into law without delay.