Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am very happy to be on the floor with my colleague Senator Specter on something we have worked on together over a long period of time, and it falls very much into the category of congressional oversight. I am not going to go into the details now because I have a statement I want to use as a basis for our cooperation, and then you will hear from Senator Specter. I want to say how great it was to work with Senator Specter.

We are here to update the Senate on the interim Finance Committee findings of the joint investigation into the Securities and Exchange Commission that was conducted by the Finance Committee on the one hand, and the Judiciary Committee on the other, during the 109th Congress.

Before I go into details, there is another person I would thank for his cooperation. I want to take this opportunity to thank Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox for his cooperation in providing access to thousands of pages of documents, as well as interviews with the staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chairman Cox's cooperation was very essential to our ability to conduct our constitutionally mandated oversight of Federal agencies.

That said, I hope Chairman Cox takes today's findings to heart and will work to implement recommendations Senator Specter and I plan to put forth into the forthcoming final report.

Today, we want to update the Senate on some of the details of our investigation, which began early last year when allegations were presented to our staffs by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre. Mr. Aguirre described the roadblocks he faced in pursuing an insider trading investigation while he was employed as a senior enforcement attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, he alleged his supervisor prevented him from taking the testimony of a prominent Wall Street figure because of his ``political clout,'' which obviously should not be ignored if an agency is doing the job they should be doing.

Well, after Mr. Aguirre complained about that sort of preferential treatment given to somebody with ``political clout,'' his supervisors terminated him from the SEC while he was on vacation.

The interim findings we released today outlined the three primary concerns shared by Senator Specter and me. First, the SEC's investigation into Pequot Capital Management was plagued with problems from its beginning to its abrupt conclusion. Second, the termination of Mr. Aguirre by the SEC was highly suspect given the timing and the circumstances. Thirdly, the original investigation conducted by the SEC Office of Inspector General was both seriously and fatally flawed. The inspector general's failure required our committees to take a more thorough look at Mr. Aguirre's allegations and examine this matter closely. Taken together, these findings paint a picture of a troubled agency that faces serious questions about public confidence, the integrity of its investigations, and its ability to protect all investors, large and small, with an even hand.

The SEC should have taken Mr. Aguirre's allegations more seriously and very seriously. Instead, it does like too many agencies do when under fire: it circled the wagons and it shot a whistleblower--an all too familiar practice in Washington, DC. As we know, whistleblowers are about as welcome as a skunk at a picnic.

There is more information to follow and more details that need to come to light. Senator Specter and I together plan on releasing a comprehensive report in the near future. For now, I hope these interim findings will spur the SEC to consider meaningful reforms. I urge all my colleagues to read these important interim findings and to read the final report when it is made available.

I yield the floor.

You didn't leave anything out, but we did ask unanimous consent that this be put in.

It was $30 a day but no expenses.

It was.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I have always said: Thank God we only have to have one Philadelphia lawyer in the Senate.

But I say that complimentary.

Thank you.

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

Madam President, I am pleased to have bipartisan sponsorship of two very important bills with Senator Dodd of Connecticut that are being introduced today, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 and the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2007.

These bills are part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety program and to make sure the agency does all it can to protect the public.

Enactment of those two bills would provide doctors and patients with more information about the risks and benefits of their medicines and bring about greater transparency and accountability of the Food and Drug Administration.

I am sure my colleagues realize I have been involved in oversight of the Food and Drug Administration for now at least 3 years, and it has been in response to concerns about the reluctance of the Food and Drug Administration to provide information to the public about the increased suicide risks for young people taking antidepressants.

In November 2004, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety involving the Food and Drug Administration and the drug Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns that have come to light since then highlight the need for comprehensive and systematic reforms as well as more stringent oversight of the Food and Drug Administration.

Over the past 3 years, it has become increasingly apparent that the Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly failed to protect the public from an industry that focuses all too often on profits, even when those profits come at the expense of ``John Q. Public.''

In 2005, then, and because of this, Senator Dodd and I introduced almost identical companion bills to advance serious reforms at the Food and Drug Administration. In the 2 years following the introduction of those bills, however, the Food and Drug Administration failed to take comprehensive and systematic steps toward restoring public confidence in that agency, as well as the necessity of strengthening public safety.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration released its response to the Institute of Medicine's 2006 report on drug safety. The two safety bills introduced today are not intended to supplant the plans articulated in the Food and Drug Administration's response but, rather, to augment those plans and to provide the FDA with additional enforcement tools, something they now lack.

In fact, one of our bills is intended to specifically address a serious problem that was also identified by the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Alta Charo, a member of the Institute of Medicine committee that wrote the report on drug safety, stated in the newspaper USA Today:

I have to confess I'm disappointed that they--

Meaning the FDA--

ignored one of our most critical recommendations.

According to the USA Today article, she was referring to the Institute of Medicine's recommendation that the Food and Drug Administration give more clout to the office that monitors drugs after they go to market. I want you to know I agree with Dr. Charo.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 would then establish an independent center within the Food and Drug Administration. The name of the center would be the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics. The director of this center would report directly to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner and would be responsible for conducting risk assessments for approved drugs and biological products.

The new center would also be responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs once they are on the market. Unfortunately, the problem we are trying to solve is that now at the FDA, the office that reviews drug safety postmarketing is a mere consultant and under the thumb of the office that puts the drugs on the market in the first place.

Even more troubling is the fact that those who speak out of line are targeted. Whistleblowers, as we call them, are targeted. They are very helpful to Congress in ferreting out wrongdoing, that laws are not being faithfully executed, that money is not being spent according to congressional intent. So they speak out at the FDA and point out a lot of things that are wrong. And what do they get for it? They are treated like a skunk at a picnic. They are targeted.

So this legislation we put before us would provide the new center with the independence and authority to promptly identify serious safety risks and take necessary actions to protect the public, and I hope eliminate some of the intimidation against whistleblowers.

At the same time, the intra-agency communication is essential in addressing drug safety. So this legislation would encourage communication between the center and other centers and offices, or let's say subagencies at the Food and Drug Administration that handle drugs and biological products, to do what is best for the consumer and not have big PhRMA having undue influence.

The second bill we are introducing would expand an existing Web site, www.clinicaltrials.gov, to create a publicly accessible national databank of clinical trial information. The databank would be comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trials so that everything is out there for the public to consider, not letting somebody choose: Well, if this is a little negative toward our drug, we will not make that public. All the positive stuff, of course, we will make public.

So I think this legislation is going to foster transparency. But it is going to bring about a great deal of accountability in health research and development and ensure that the scientific community and, most importantly, the general public whom we are trying to protect have access to basic information about clinical trials, about new drugs going out on the market.

The legislation would also create an environment that would encourage companies from withholding clinically important information about their products from the Food and Drug Administration and from the public.

By the way, the information that is coming out now about Vioxx in the newspapers today will even tell you that a long time before Vioxx went on the market there were scientists within the company who were raising questions about whether it was going to cause harm to the heart. All of this information should be out there. The public ought to know it. Your doctor ought to know it. Transparency and accountability should not hurt anybody in an open society such as we have in

America. Oh, there might be some legitimate reasons for intellectual property privacy, but nothing beyond that.

If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that the Food and Drug Administration is a troubled agency that lost sight of its fundamental function. That fundamental function is to protect the safety and the efficacy of new prescription drugs.

Two very important things for them to answer: Are the drugs safe for you? Are they effective?

Unfortunately, the public has good reason to doubt the Food and Drug Administration's ability to do its job. And experts from all over the country have expressed concern. These two bills, then, that Senator Dodd and I are introducing--and let me parenthetically say for the public, people are always thinking that Democrats are hitting on Republicans and Republicans are hitting on Democrats. There is a lot going on around here you never see on evening television that is bipartisan because there is not controversy about it, or at least there is no controversy between Republicans and Democrats. But what they want to put in the news media every night is when some Republican is fighting some Democrat. So our constituents get a view about this Congress that is very distorted.

I would like to have people read on a regular basis about how Senator Baucus and I meet on a regular basis to determine the agenda for the Finance Committee. I would like to have them read about how he and I have put out bipartisan bills for the last 6 years--whether he was chairman or I was chairman--and that every one of them got to the President to be signed. But you do not hear those things.

So I want to emphasize, this is a Dodd--and Senator Dodd is a Democrat from Connecticut--and a Grassley bill--and Grassley is a Republican Senator from Iowa. So this bill is being introduced to ensure the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, not to do something new for the FDA, just to give them the tools to do what they have had a responsibility to do for several decades.

So the public has doubts about the FDA's ability to do it. These two bills will help put the FDA back on the path to fulfilling its mission and, most importantly, put the American consumer first.

So, Madam President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that my statement in the Record that I give today be coupled with the statement of Senator Dodd, which will be given later today, regarding the introduction of these important bills.

By giving me this unanimous consent, it will assure the public, when they read about these bills, knows that Dodd is a Democrat, Grassley is a Republican, and they are bipartisan bills.

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

Madam President, I am pleased to have bipartisan sponsorship of two very important bills with Senator Dodd of Connecticut that are being introduced today, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 and the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2007.

These bills are part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety program and to make sure the agency does all it can to protect the public.

Enactment of those two bills would provide doctors and patients with more information about the risks and benefits of their medicines and bring about greater transparency and accountability of the Food and Drug Administration.

I am sure my colleagues realize I have been involved in oversight of the Food and Drug Administration for now at least 3 years, and it has been in response to concerns about the reluctance of the Food and Drug Administration to provide information to the public about the increased suicide risks for young people taking antidepressants.

In November 2004, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety involving the Food and Drug Administration and the drug Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns that have come to light since then highlight the need for comprehensive and systematic reforms as well as more stringent oversight of the Food and Drug Administration.

Over the past 3 years, it has become increasingly apparent that the Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly failed to protect the public from an industry that focuses all too often on profits, even when those profits come at the expense of ``John Q. Public.''

In 2005, then, and because of this, Senator Dodd and I introduced almost identical companion bills to advance serious reforms at the Food and Drug Administration. In the 2 years following the introduction of those bills, however, the Food and Drug Administration failed to take comprehensive and systematic steps toward restoring public confidence in that agency, as well as the necessity of strengthening public safety.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration released its response to the Institute of Medicine's 2006 report on drug safety. The two safety bills introduced today are not intended to supplant the plans articulated in the Food and Drug Administration's response but, rather, to augment those plans and to provide the FDA with additional enforcement tools, something they now lack.

In fact, one of our bills is intended to specifically address a serious problem that was also identified by the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Alta Charo, a member of the Institute of Medicine committee that wrote the report on drug safety, stated in the newspaper USA Today:

I have to confess I'm disappointed that they--

Meaning the FDA--

ignored one of our most critical recommendations.

According to the USA Today article, she was referring to the Institute of Medicine's recommendation that the Food and Drug Administration give more clout to the office that monitors drugs after they go to market. I want you to know I agree with Dr. Charo.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 would then establish an independent center within the Food and Drug Administration. The name of the center would be the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics. The director of this center would report directly to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner and would be responsible for conducting risk assessments for approved drugs and biological products.

The new center would also be responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs once they are on the market. Unfortunately, the problem we are trying to solve is that now at the FDA, the office that reviews drug safety postmarketing is a mere consultant and under the thumb of the office that puts the drugs on the market in the first place.

Even more troubling is the fact that those who speak out of line are targeted. Whistleblowers, as we call them, are targeted. They are very helpful to Congress in ferreting out wrongdoing, that laws are not being faithfully executed, that money is not being spent according to congressional intent. So they speak out at the FDA and point out a lot of things that are wrong. And what do they get for it? They are treated like a skunk at a picnic. They are targeted.

So this legislation we put before us would provide the new center with the independence and authority to promptly identify serious safety risks and take necessary actions to protect the public, and I hope eliminate some of the intimidation against whistleblowers.

At the same time, the intra-agency communication is essential in addressing drug safety. So this legislation would encourage communication between the center and other centers and offices, or let's say subagencies at the Food and Drug Administration that handle drugs and biological products, to do what is best for the consumer and not have big PhRMA having undue influence.

The second bill we are introducing would expand an existing Web site, www.clinicaltrials.gov, to create a publicly accessible national databank of clinical trial information. The databank would be comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trials so that everything is out there for the public to consider, not letting somebody choose: Well, if this is a little negative toward our drug, we will not make that public. All the positive stuff, of course, we will make public.

So I think this legislation is going to foster transparency. But it is going to bring about a great deal of accountability in health research and development and ensure that the scientific community and, most importantly, the general public whom we are trying to protect have access to basic information about clinical trials, about new drugs going out on the market.

The legislation would also create an environment that would encourage companies from withholding clinically important information about their products from the Food and Drug Administration and from the public.

By the way, the information that is coming out now about Vioxx in the newspapers today will even tell you that a long time before Vioxx went on the market there were scientists within the company who were raising questions about whether it was going to cause harm to the heart. All of this information should be out there. The public ought to know it. Your doctor ought to know it. Transparency and accountability should not hurt anybody in an open society such as we have in

America. Oh, there might be some legitimate reasons for intellectual property privacy, but nothing beyond that.

If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that the Food and Drug Administration is a troubled agency that lost sight of its fundamental function. That fundamental function is to protect the safety and the efficacy of new prescription drugs.

Two very important things for them to answer: Are the drugs safe for you? Are they effective?

Unfortunately, the public has good reason to doubt the Food and Drug Administration's ability to do its job. And experts from all over the country have expressed concern. These two bills, then, that Senator Dodd and I are introducing--and let me parenthetically say for the public, people are always thinking that Democrats are hitting on Republicans and Republicans are hitting on Democrats. There is a lot going on around here you never see on evening television that is bipartisan because there is not controversy about it, or at least there is no controversy between Republicans and Democrats. But what they want to put in the news media every night is when some Republican is fighting some Democrat. So our constituents get a view about this Congress that is very distorted.

I would like to have people read on a regular basis about how Senator Baucus and I meet on a regular basis to determine the agenda for the Finance Committee. I would like to have them read about how he and I have put out bipartisan bills for the last 6 years--whether he was chairman or I was chairman--and that every one of them got to the President to be signed. But you do not hear those things.

So I want to emphasize, this is a Dodd--and Senator Dodd is a Democrat from Connecticut--and a Grassley bill--and Grassley is a Republican Senator from Iowa. So this bill is being introduced to ensure the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, not to do something new for the FDA, just to give them the tools to do what they have had a responsibility to do for several decades.

So the public has doubts about the FDA's ability to do it. These two bills will help put the FDA back on the path to fulfilling its mission and, most importantly, put the American consumer first.

So, Madam President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that my statement in the Record that I give today be coupled with the statement of Senator Dodd, which will be given later today, regarding the introduction of these important bills.

By giving me this unanimous consent, it will assure the public, when they read about these bills, knows that Dodd is a Democrat, Grassley is a Republican, and they are bipartisan bills.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for Stanford Swinton, Anne Freeman, Lynda Simmons, Bess Ullman, Ann Thomas, and Eric Slack of my staff to be given privileges of the floor during the deliberation of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the U.S. trade agenda. There are a number of important items on this year's trade agenda, including reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority for the President and reauthorizing our trade adjustment assistance programs for workers who are displaced by trade. I will speak on those priorities another day.

Today I want to focus on our trade relations with our neighbors in Central and South America. During my chairmanship of the Finance Committee, Congress passed implementing bills for trade agreements covering 12 countries. Out of these 12 countries, over half--7--are located in Latin America. I am pleased that Congress acted to strengthen our economic relations with Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, by implementing our trade agreements with these neighbors to the south. And I think we should all be pleased that these seven countries made it a priority to develop closer economic ties with us and to further commit themselves to transparency and the rule of law.

I hope that the current Congress will continue working to strengthen economic relations between the United States and Latin America. Fortunately, we already have a roadmap for doing so. We have concluded free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, and we are about to sign an agreement with Panama. It is up to this Congress to pass implementing legislation for these agreements. Failure to do so would only damage our relations with these important allies and embolden other southern neighbors who are increasingly hostile to the United States.

Moreover, by implementing our trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, and Panama, we would provide an important boost for U.S. exporters. During my time in the Senate, I have heard many of my colleagues complain that the global trade situation reflects an uneven playing field. To some extent, I agree. In too many cases, the duties imposed on U.S. exports by our trading partners are much higher than our duties. That is certainly the situation with Peru, Colombia, and Panama. Right now, almost all imports from those three countries enter the United States duty free. Ninety percent of the value of our imports from Colombia enter duty-free. With respect to Panama, it is over 95 percent, and with respect to Peru it is 97 percent.

On the other hand, our exports to these countries face significant duties. Colombia's tariffs generally range from 10 to 20 percent, while those of Peru range from 12 to 25 percent. After Panama acceded to the World Trade Organization in 1997 its tariffs averaged 8 percent, but since then Panama has raised tariffs on certain agricultural products. For example, Panama's tariff on pork--a major Iowa product--is currently 74 percent, while its tariff on chicken imports is 273 percent. Now that is what I call a one-way street.

This imbalance is largely the result of unilateral trade benefits that we extend to these nations. Panama gets duty-free access to our markets under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, while Peru and Colombia are eligible under the Andean Trade Preference Act. And all three are eligible under our Generalized System of Preferences.

The nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, analyzed our trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. The ITC concluded that these agreements will help to level the playing field that is currently tilted against U.S. exporters.

Here is what the ITC has to say about our trade promotion agreement with Peru:

Given the substantially larger tariffs faced by U.S.

exporters to Peru than Peruvian exporters to the United

States, the TPA is likely to result in a much larger increase

in U.S. exports than in U.S. imports.

The ITC goes on to state that the agreement will likely increase U.S. exports to Peru by 25 percent, while Peruvian exports to the United States will grow by 8 percent.

The ITC's analysis of our trade promotion agreement with Colombia draws similar conclusions. The ITC report states that:

Colombian exporters generally face substantially lower

tariffs in the U.S. market

than do U.S. exporters in the Colombian market. . . . The TPA

is likely to result in a much larger increase in U.S. exports

to Colombia than in U.S. imports from Colombia.

The ITC predicts that after implementing the agreement, U.S. exports to Colombia will be $1.1 billion higher than today, and U.S. imports from Colombia will be $487 million higher.

The ITC has not yet completed its analysis of our trade agreement with Panama. But given the disparity in tariff levels between the United States and Panama, I think it is safe to assume that the ITC will reach similar conclusions regarding the likely economic impact of that agreement as well. And the benefits of these three trade agreements will be spread across all major sectors of our economy. U.S. agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service providers all stand to gain.

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, our trade agreement with Peru could increase U.S. agricultural exports by over $705 million annually. With respect to Colombia, the Farm Bureau predicts that full implementation of our trade agreement will have an annual net benefit of over $660 million for the U.S. agricultural sector. The Farm Bureau hasn't finished its analysis of the impact of our trade agreement with Panama, but I am confident that it will find major benefits for U.S. farmers.

Our manufacturers stand to gain as well. According to the International Trade Commission, U.S. producers of machinery, chemicals, rubber, and plastic products will be among the biggest beneficiaries of these agreements. And Panama will eliminate tariffs on manufactured products within 10 years of implementing our trade agreement.

U.S. service providers will also gain from increased trade with Peru, Colombia, and Panama. Under their respective agreements, each of those countries agree to exceed the commitments they made on services in the World Trade Organization.

In addition, Panama is scheduled to initiate a $5.25 billion expansion project for the Panama Canal in 2008. Our trade agreement with Panama will help ensure market access for U.S. service providers for this major project.

So to those of my colleagues who complain that the current world trading situation is unfair, here is a chance to help fix the problem. By implementing trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, and Panama, Congress will level the playing field for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service providers in these important markets. These agreements will boost U.S. exports and help create jobs. I think it is ironic that some of my colleagues oppose these free trade agreements and yet at the same time complain the loudest about the trade deficit and how the deck is stacked against U.S. exporters.

These agreements level the playing field. It is beyond me as to how someone could oppose that. Now, I understand that there is rising protectionism in Congress. But let's look at the facts. Take as an example the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as CAFTA.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, our exports to the CAFTA countries were up 17 percent in the period January through November 2006, while our imports from the CAFTA countries were up 3 percent. As a result, our trade balance swung from a $1.2 billion deficit 2 years ago to an annualized surplus of $1 billion last year. That is what happens when you level the playing field.

And we are not the only ones who stand to benefit. Peru, Colombia, and Panama will also benefit from implementing our trade agreements. The leaders of these countries are to be commended. By pursuing trade agreements with the United States, they have demonstrated a commitment to locking in economic reforms, increasing economic freedoms, and enhancing transparency and respect for the rule of law.

That leadership and foresight will be rewarded once our trade agreements are implemented. I read recently in the Wall Street Journal of a joint study conducted by the Journal and the Heritage Foundation. According to the article, their study found that ``economically free countries enjoy significantly greater prosperity than those burdened by heavy government intervention.''

We certainly see examples of heavy-handed government intervention in some other Latin American countries. Instead of fostering individual and economic liberty, these governments are embracing the failed policy of statism. Chief among them is the Government of Venezuela.

President Chavez has announced plans to turn Venezuela into a ``socialist republic.'' To that end, he announced this month that he plans to nationalize Venezuela's telecommunications and electricity industries. That decision will directly impact U.S. companies with investments in those sectors of the Venezuelan economy.

President Chavez also might nationalize Venezuela's mining sector, and he intends to increase state control over the oil industry as well. Significantly, President Chavez is demonstrating that those who withdraw economic rights often seek to withdraw political rights, and that those who centralize economic power tend to centralize political power. For example, he has stated that he plans to pull the broadcasting license of one of Venezuela's oldest television broadcasters, which also happens to be one of his major critics. President Chavez is also proposing changes in Venezuelan laws that will enable him to rule by decree for 18 months, permit his indefinite reelection as President, and reduce the power of state governors and mayors.

Unfortunately, President Chavez is not alone. Two other countries in the region are moving toward increased state control of their economies. Bolivia and Ecuador each currently enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preference Act. Yet last year Bolivia undertook a de facto nationalization of its natural gas industries, forcing companies to renegotiate their contracts with the state. Bolivian President Morales is also considering nationalizing the country's mining, electricity, and telecommunications sectors. In the case of Ecuador, last year the government revoked the operating license of a U.S. oil company and seized $1 billion of the company's assets.

So Latin America is clearly divided. Some countries, led by Venezuela, are consolidating economic power in the state. President Chavez is also clearly seeking to centralize political power, and has demonstrated an active hostility to the United States.

That stands in stark contrast to our allies and trading partners, Peru, Colombia, and Panama. The governments of these three countries have gone out on a limb. They have demonstrated they want closer economic ties with the United States. They appreciate that, by working with us, by building more links between businesses in their countries and ours, they can better improve the lives of their citizens. We need to reward that leadership. We should do so by implementing our respective trade agreements as soon as possible. If we don't, we will be turning our backs on allies in the region. We will be sending a signal to Latin America that we don't really care about opening markets and enhancing the rule of law. Instead, we'd help build the clout of Chavez and other leaders in the region who see the failed policy of statism as Latin America's future. And we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by giving up a chance to level the playing field. Why would we want to do that?

Before concluding, I would like to address two other sets of issues that have arisen with respect to our trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, and Panama. First are the labor and environment chapters of the agreements, and second is the Andean Trade Preference Act.

I understand that some in Congress would like to see the labor and environment chapters of these agreements renegotiated. I disagree. I believe that the provisions on labor and the environment are strong. And I note that renegotiation would effectively preclude implementation of these agreements under the current Trade Promotion Authority, which is set to expire on July 1.

I question whether those who would insist on renegotiation aren't really trying to kill the agreements outright. In my view, the best thing we can do to advance labor rights and environmental protections in these countries is to implement our trade agreements with them. Implementation will increase the rate of economic growth and

prosperity in these countries. It will increase business activity and awareness of labor rights. It will create new bodies for more active oversight of labor and the environment.

As important as labor and the environment are to some of my colleagues, I don't see how they can justify holding back these trade agreements that are so good for the United States. They should be embarrassed for holding them up. The sooner we implement these agreements, the sooner our farmers, manufacturers, and service providers will benefit from them. That being said, I understand that U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab is in discussions with some of my colleagues to explore ways to address their concerns regarding labor and the environment. I am willing to listen to any constructive proposals that are put forward.

Separately, I note that the Andean Trade Preference Act has been extended until June 30. That leaves Congress sufficient time to implement our trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, so that their preferential access to the U.S. market does not terminate.

But with respect to Bolivia and Ecuador, their preferential access to the U.S. market will terminate after June 30 because we don't have comprehensive trade agreements lined up with those two countries.

Some of my colleagues are already talking about extending the Andean Trade Preference Act beyond June 30. I see no reason to do so. If Congress acts responsibly and implements our trade agreements with Peru and Colombia by June 30, neither of those countries will need unilateral preferential trade benefits.

As far as Bolivia and Ecuador go, I see no reason to extend preferential trade benefits to them. Not only are they withholding market access from U.S. exporters, they are actively engaged in nationalizing industries and expropriating foreign assets.

It wouldn't be right to treat imports from Bolivia and Ecuador the same as products from Peru and Colombia. Why should Congress be in the business of rewarding bad behavior? So I disagree with my colleagues who favor extending the Andean Trade Preference Act past June 30.

In sum, Mr. President, I hope that the administration will soon be in a position to send implementing legislation for the U.S-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement to Congress. And I urge my colleagues to work with me to implement not only that agreement, but also our agreements with Colombia and Peru as soon as possible. Our agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service providers are counting on us. Our allies are counting on us. It is in our economic interest, and it is in our national interest. Now it is up to Congress. We have to execute our responsibilities without delay. We cannot let the opportunities embodied in these trade agreements slip us by.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SMA Marilyn Gabbard of the Iowa Army National Guard. The first woman ever promoted to the rank of Command Sargent Major in the Iowa Army National Guard, Sergeant Major Gabbard was deployed to Iraq on December 16, 2006, and died in a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter crash on January 20, 2007, at 2:45 pm local Iraq time. Her colleagues said of her that she was a role model for other women in the Iowa National Guard, and her rise through the enlisted ranks was inspirational. She is remembered as a respected soldier and caring leader who always put her soldiers first. Her military decorations include three awards of the Meritorious Service Medal. My prayers go out to Marilyn's husband Edward and her seven children and stepchildren, her mother Mary Van Cannon, as well as her grandchildren and all her family and friends. SMA Marilyn Gabbard will be greatly missed. She leaves behind her a legacy of military achievement, immense compassion, and patriotic service. I hope that those who have been touched by her loss will find some comfort in the knowledge that her memory will live on like those countless other heroes throughout American history who have given their lives for our country.

Sergeant Tommy Rieman

Mr. President, I am committed to the core package that we have a bipartisan agreement for, but within the committee we have had an understanding that if there is an add-on and if it is revenue neutral, they would be considered. So we are improving this package, the small business portions of it that nobody has any dispute ought to be done. There is some dispute over the offset. I wish to concentrate on that offset. It is fully offset. It comes from a proposal that comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation, not from the Republican side or the Democratic side but a nonpartisan side, that there is an inequity in provisions for payment. For instance, if you work for Principal Financial in Des Moines and they pay for your college, it is going to be taxed, but if you work for a university and you send your kids to college, it is tax free. So Joint Tax sees that as an inequity. We use that as a good offset. It is a good offset. I believe Senator Kyl has worked hard to develop an amendment that will make the small business depreciation much better and more meaningful. I hope Members will support Senator Kyl.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I want to address two aspects of this legislation because they are necessarily connected. One is, obviously, the increase in the minimum wage. The other one is the small business tax provisions that have come out of the committee Senator Baucus chairs and on which I am the ranking member, the Finance Committee. I want to deal with the minimum wage part of this issue first.

Popular support for raising the minimum wage is based on a number of widely held beliefs: First, that no one can support a family at $5.15 an hour; second, minimum wage earners will not get a pay raise unless Congress gives them one; and third, raising the minimum wage helps millions of poor workers and hurts no one.

Unfortunately, these popular beliefs are in some cases misleading and in some cases outright wrong. First, minimum wage earners are not trying to support a family--or you might argue a small percentage of them are trying to support a family, but I want to say why most are not. Those who are, of course, can get additional benefits through Government programs to supplement family income; thus, no one has to rely solely on the minimum wage to support a family.

Second, minimum wage jobs are generally entry level jobs. Most workers who start at the minimum wage quickly earn more. Few workers remain stuck at the minimum wage for very long and, unfortunately, those who do are most at risk of losing their jobs from a minimum wage increase.

Third, the benefits of a minimum wage increase do not go exclusively to poor families. Only 15 percent of the proposed minimum wage increase would go to those living below the poverty level, as an example. Increasing the minimum wage would result in higher prices for consumers of minimum wage products, higher unemployment among the least skilled minimum wage workers--and that particularly affects minority groups within our country--increased poverty among minimum wage families, and in some cases it could be a combination of these three things I mentioned.

Much of the popular support for the minimum wage is based on a fallacy, that the Government can help the poor without hurting anyone else. But if the Government can increase wages with no ill effects, then why stop at $7.25, as is currently proposed? Why not make it $10.25? Why not make it $20.25, or even more? The fact is, this does have limited impact and it does have some negative consequences, so that is why these occasional increases are justified.

Popular support for increasing the minimum wage is tempered by the fact that virtually everyone agrees that there is some level at which the minimum wage would produce obvious negative effects. In the past, policymakers have attempted to mitigate any negative effects by limiting the size of the minimum wage increase, providing tax credits to employers who hire at-risk workers, and providing tax or regulatory relief to business generally, particularly small businesses.

However, additional research in recent years has cast some doubt on the effectiveness of these previous efforts. First, research suggests raising the minimum wage does not reduce poverty among minimum wage earners. Instead, it most likely increases poverty.

Second, legislative action by various States to adopt their own higher minimum wage has led to significant differences within our 50 States.

Third, research shows that the earned income tax credit could provide a cost-effective way to help poorest workers and be more effective than even increasing the minimum wage.

I am pleased that over the last few years we have enhanced the earned income credit for many families by making the child tax credit refundable. That is through the work of the Senate Finance Committee.

Before I go on to my next point I would say parenthetically there are studies that have been updated quite frequently over the last 20 or 25 years, where economists have followed people in quintiles: the lowest, the second, you know, for five quintiles from the lowest income up to the highest income. Following people over a period of years, they have been able to study the mobility of the American worker. In other words, once you are in the workforce, most people work themselves up the economic ladder--some way up, some part way up. But we find that only about 2 percent of our population seems to be stuck in the lowest quintile of income for long periods of time--a very small percentage. But other people go from the second quintile--from the first to the second to the third, and we also find that there is a larger percentage of our population that moves up from the lower two quintiles into the third or the fourth quintiles--a lot more rapidly and with a lot more mobility than we find people moving from the fourth to the top. While there are some people moving down from the highest to a lower quintile, history proves the mobility of the workforce in America is very much upward.

Despite some serious policy concerns, public support for increasing the minimum wage remains strong. That is why the Senate is taking up a minimum wage increase. The political reality is a majority of Senators support a minimum wage increase.

So a lot of economists would make an argument that you should not have any increase in the minimum wage at all and that the mistakes, going back to the 1930s, were mistakes; that you should not interfere with the marketplace. But Congress has decided for 70 years to do that. We are in the process for doing it. Regardless of the economic arguments, as long as this is a

political issue, without a doubt, from time to time it is going to be raised and I suppose you could make an argument that, as long as it is political it ought to be raised, or else you should not even have a minimum wage.

Now I would go to the tax incentive portions we hope stay in this bill when it goes to the other body. Tax incentives targeted to small business and other businesses impacted by a minimum wage increase have been linked to the minimum wage legislation. We have done this in the past decade. Democrats have at times joined Republicans supporting this language.

I would quote from two former chairmen on this committee in their opening remarks on the conference agreement on the last piece of legislation that went through this body to raise the minimum wage. Senator Roth, then the chairman of the committee, described taxes as the sand that grinds the gears of small business. So he saw merit in small business tax relief as a separate matter. Senator Roth went on to say:

[We will] proceed to the legislation on the minimum wage

and small business taxes. We're anxious to move ahead on the

small business tax legislation.

Senator Moynihan, who at times was chairman of the committee and at times the ranking Democrat, said, at the same time Senator Roth was speaking:

My distinguished chairman, as always, has so stated the

facts. But there is a small semantic issue here. Some call

this a small business relief act; others on this side call it

the minimum wage bill. But we will not resolve that tonight,

nor need we.

Now, the next time the Senate deals with this, about 8 or 9 years since we last dealt with it, it is still the same issue. Senators Roth and Moynihan were right then, and if they were still living today, I would tell them they are right now.

To different groups of Senators, these topics carry their own benefits or burdens. Many on my side don't like the idea of second- guessing the labor market with a federally mandated minimum wage. I pointed out some of the related issues that should give us pause, arguments put forth by economists when considering this legislation, that it is not all positive.

Many on the Democratic side want a straight minimum wage hike and refuse to consider the burden that policy puts on employers and workers. Those Members do not want any linkage between the minimum wage policy and small business tax relief. As Senator Moynihan said, however, we don't have to agree now whether the upcoming legislation will be a minimum wage or a small business tax relief bill.

Some, mostly Democrats, will call it a minimum wage bill. Some, mostly Republicans, will call it a small business tax relief bill. Still others will call it both a minimum wage and small business tax relief bill. President Bush, like President Clinton, the last President who signed an increase in the minimum wage bill years ago, will recognize both parts of the package. If my friends on the other side review the statement made by President Clinton, they will see that he saw merit in small business tax relief.

Our Committee on Finance chairman, Senator Baucus, recognizes the linkage. I told him Republicans will insist on a small business tax relief package. He, in his cooperative way, as I hope I have been cooperative with him in the past, has heard us. Some in his caucus, their labor union friends and sympathetic ears of the east coast media, attacked Senator Baucus--which I don't understand--for recognizing a basic reality, as Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth worked together a decade ago to do, to see that there is some negative impact on small business from an increase in the minimum wage so you ought to offset that with some benefit to small business through the tax portions of the legislation.

Those folks who are criticizing Senator Baucus don't have the responsibility to find the middle ground and evidently think we can get a bill through the Senate that can get the votes without finding the middle ground. It can't be done.

Now, if I were chairman--and I am not chairman, and I am not crying about that--I would have tilted this package a little bit more toward the depreciation incentive and less toward the work opportunity tax credits. The reality is, Republicans don't have a majority on the Committee on Finance or in the full Senate, so chairman Baucus has struck a balance between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.

I will assist Senator Baucus in defending the tax relief package that goes for the offsets and the revenue-losing provisions. We should not disturb the core structure of this package. I am hopeful, however, that we will improve the package by enhancing the package on the depreciation side, as Senator Kyl has suggested. It is important these incentives coincide with the time when the minimum wage increase will take effect. In seeking this objective we will need to find appropriate offsets, obviously. There may be other improvements.

The bottom line is the Committee on Finance package is a well-known set of small business tax relief measures, things we have done before-- extending, mostly. These proposals have merit by themselves, but a minimum wage increase is not likely to pass the Senate without them. I hope everyone understands that.

As many know, I am a working family farmer. For farmers, fields look familiar because we work our fields every year. This linkage, then, to put a commonsense touch on it, is that the linkage between minimum wage and small business relief is a familiar feel. I can quote Roth and Moynihan ad infinitum to prove it. It is not something new that is coming up with Baucus and Grassley. We have plowed this ground before. This is well-known common ground.

I referred to President Clinton in a signing ceremony about 10 years ago. That legislation was founded on a small business tax relief package twice this size. I emphasize it was twice the size of what people are complaining about now that we are presenting to the Senate. It was supported at that time by many seeking cloture on the bill that is before the Senate.

President Clinton singled out the work opportunity tax credit and the depreciation proposals in his remarks. My friend, Senator Kennedy, attended the signing ceremony and was recognized by President Clinton for the great product they brought to President Clinton. And John Sweeney was recognized, the head of the AFL-CIO.

I ask unanimous consent the remarks be printed in the Record.

President Clinton said in the signing ceremony:

I want to thank all the Members of Congress who are here,

especially Senator Kennedy who, himself, probably broke the

wage in hour laws by working so hard to pass this bill.

And then in another place:

There are a lot of people who worked hard on this bill who

aren't here--Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt--

He went on to name other Members--

led by truly tireless John Sweeney.

And there was applause. Now, some of the same people are objecting to what we are doing now.

Another quote:

I would also like a very special word of thanks to the

business owners, especially the small business owners who

supported this bill. Many of the minimum wage employers I

talked to wanted to pay their employees more than $4.25 an

hour and would be happy to do so as long as they can do it

without hurting their businesses, and that means their

competitors have to do the same thing. This bill will allow

them to compete and win, to have happier, more productive

employees, and to know they are doing the right thing. For

all those small businesses, I am very, very appreciative.

Continuing:

I would also say that this bill does a remarkable number of

things for small businesses. . . .[a]nd we know that most of

the new jobs in America are being created by small- and

medium-sized businesses. In 1993 I--

Meaning President Clinton--

proposed a $15,000 increase in the amount of capital a small

business can expense, to spark the kind of investment that

they need to create jobs.

As the Vice President said--

Meaning at that time Mr. Gore--

this bill also includes a Work Opportunity Tax Credit to

provide jobs for the most economically disadvantaged working

Americans, including people who want to move from welfare to

work. Now, there will be a tightly drawn economic incentive

for people to hire those folks and give them a chance to

enter the workforce, as well.

Well, if Senators who were on the stage at that time thought that the work opportunity tax credit was a good thing to have, why isn't it a good thing to have it here, to extend it? Why not?

This is a win-win situation. There is a win for the workers, a win for small business. Why should we chortle over a little thing such as increasing the minimum wage or having a tax provision in it?

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on Federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. It is the best way to maintain confidence and accountability in the system and help judges do a better job.

For decades, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms, with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; fifteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining sixteen allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I'm introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and eight other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors.

We need to bring the Federal judiciary into the 21st Century. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our States have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on Federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. It is the best way to maintain confidence and accountability in the system and help judges do a better job.

For decades, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms, with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; fifteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining sixteen allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I'm introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and eight other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors.

We need to bring the Federal judiciary into the 21st Century. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our States have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about energy, and I start by reminding people, as well as my fellow Senators, that in August 2005, the President signed an energy bill that was very comprehensive-- probably tilted toward renewable fuels, such as ethanol, and toward conservation, such as fuel cell cars, but also a small part of it was some incentives for domestic fuel, petroleum production, for refining and for distribution and for things of that nature.

It was a very comprehensive bill because we were concerned about the price of gasoline. We were concerned about what working men and women of America were having to pay. We were concerned about national security. There were a lot of reasons for passing that bill.

But then you get into an election year, 2006, and the impression you get from the election rhetoric is that we never had an energy policy, never passed a bill, or what we did pass was only for the big oil companies, and that there was no concern whatsoever about national security, there was no concern on the part of the Senate, when we passed that Energy Policy Act in 2005, about what many working men and women were paying for gasoline and things of that nature.

And all of this rhetoric against it--or what was said about it, if anybody wanted to admit we had an energy policy passed by Congress--was that it was all for big oil. I wish to remind people that bill was overwhelmingly bipartisan. But yet during the last campaign, one political party talked all about giveaways to big oil, never talked about ethanol, never talked about conservation, that it was an energy bill that was just for big oil and for big corporations, making the other political party out to be nothing but for big corporations, as opposed to what our incentive was: to drive down the price of gasoline and to have an adequate supply of gasoline and not be dependent so much upon foreign sources of oil, which was our motivation.

So I am here, now that the House of Representatives is working on a bill that deals with energy policy, and particularly to repeal what was referred to in the last election as ``sweetheart tax deals for big oil'' that were included in that Energy Policy Act of 2005, to say this bill that we passed was very well balanced for ethanol, alternative energy, conservation, with a small part of it for domestic oil production, and how intellectually dishonest it is to refer to this bill as a giveaway to big oil.

I will use some statistics to back up what I am referring to. At the time we considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee because my party was in the majority. So I played a central role in developing the tax title, along with my colleague, Senator Baucus. So, in fact, it was a very bipartisan bill. In fact, Senator Baucus and I produced, on a bipartisan basis, this comprehensive tax package that included provisions to increase domestic energy production, increase energy efficiency, and increase the development of alternative and renewable energies.

On the whole, I think the effort was a success. All you have to do to know it was a success is to look at the explosion in the building of ethanol plants throughout the country--most of them in the Midwest but throughout the country--as people are going to alternative energies, renewable fuels now because ethanol is made from crops that are growing from year to year. So I think the effort was very much a success, and that is one small part of it being a success.

The Senate tax title was supported unanimously--I wish to emphasize unanimously--because there, at that time, were 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats on the committee. It came out of our committee unanimously. This bill, which during the last election was talked about as a giveaway to big oil, came out of our committee unanimously and eventually passed the Senate 85 to 15. And the conference agreement, ironing out the differences between the House and the Senate, passed by a margin of 74 to 26.

So throughout the whole process it was bipartisan, that this was the answer to the energy problems facing the Nation--not that it was the end-all and be-all, but it was a very comprehensive effort and a successful effort to solve the energy problems of our Nation.

The entire tax package that was in this bill, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, had a budget score of $11.1 billion over 10 years.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, $2.6 billion or 18 percent of the package was for oil and gas production, refining, and distribution. Distribution isn't always by the big oil companies. So 18 percent--that is why I said our bill, passed in 2005, signed by the President, was overwhelmingly tilted toward renewable fuels and toward conservation, not toward domestic petroleum production. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax title of the Energy Policy Act actually raised taxes on oil and gas companies by at least $224 million.

Understand, this was described in the last election as a giveaway to big oil. Yet nonpartisan staff said that oil and gas companies ended up paying $224 million in new taxes. In the last election, the tax title was characterized as tax giveaways to big oil, anywhere from $9 billion to $14 billion. How do you get $14 billion, if you want to say it was 100 percent for big oil instead of 18 percent? How can you say a bill that was scored at $11.1 billion could end up being a giveaway of $14 billion? It doesn't add up. And figures don't lie.

At a time of record high gas prices last year, the other side accused the Republican majority of failure of leadership. They said it was time to rewrite the Energy bill and stop the billion dollar tax giveaways for big oil, the same kind of misleading insinuations I have been referring to on another issue they had in the last campaign, about the fact that we ought to negotiate with drug companies to get prescription drug prices down, when we are already doing that, as I pointed out in some speeches last week. For the 24 most-used drugs by seniors, the plans that are negotiating with the drug companies have negotiated prices down an average of 35 percent.

Getting back to energy, during the same campaign cycle, Members on the other side sold the taxpayers a bill of goods. They committed to repealing all the tax giveaways to big oil that the Republican Congress included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which ended up with $224 million more coming in from oil and gas. With the results of the November election, I presume they believe they were given a mandate from the voters to take away all of those ``tax giveaways''--the words they used--in that bill. We heard the arguments over and over, both here on the Senate floor and across the country on the campaign trail. But now that the debt has come due, it is time for the new Democratic majority to deliver on

their promises to the American people. So what have they come up with to repeal? How much money are they going to take back from big oil to alleviate consumer pain at the pump? Just one provision--that is right, one provision.

After all the demagoguery against our party and the Energy bill that passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, supposedly because of ties to big oil, are they accusing the Democrats who voted for it of ties to big oil as well? And they are going to repeal what? One single tax provision enacted in the Energy Policy Act signed by the President in August of 2005. Of course, that is only half the story. It turns out this outrageous ``tax giveaway'' to big oil is scored by the Congressional Budget Office to save the U.S. Treasury $104 million over 10 years, not the $14 billion that was the outside figure used during the campaign, not $1.4 billion but $104 million.

I am a family farmer from New Hartford, IA. I know $104 million is still a lot of money. But it turns out to be less than 1 percent of the entire package of the energy tax incentives included in that Energy Policy Act that came out of my committee on a unanimous vote, all Republicans and all Democrats, and passed the Senate in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner. So in a desperate attempt to increase the size of the tax penalty on domestic oil and gas producers, they have also included the repeal of the oil and gas industry's eligibility for the manufacturing income tax deduction. That is not just for oil and gas; that is for all manufacturing in America. This was another bill, in 2004, that passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority. The American JOBS Creation Act of 2004 was a new law supported by 69 Senators--that is bipartisan--that contained far-reaching measures to revive the manufacturing base in America because of outsourcing.

We did that by cutting taxes so that the cost of capital is competitive with the cost of capital overseas, so we don't lose jobs overseas. We also created incentives for people to invest in the United States instead of investing overseas. It devoted tax benefits to American manufacturers in the form of a 3-percentage-point rate cut subject to the payment of wages to their employees. If they didn't hire more people, they didn't get the benefit. Remember, it was called the Americans JOBS Creation Act. This manufacturing tax cut goes to large and small corporations, family-held S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietors, family farmers, and cooperatives. If you manufacture here, you get the tax cut here. If you manufacture overseas, you don't get the tax cut. It was only for manufacturing in the United States, and it was only for U.S. manufacturers that paid employees' wages. It was not for manufacturing offshore and it was not for folks who only manufacture and hire overseas.

In defining U.S. domestic manufacturing, Congress included in the definition all things that are extracted or grown, including what the family farmers grow. That means that all domestic minerals and the people who produce domestic minerals receive benefits. And that would include extraction of domestic--meaning here in America--oil and gas and the production of products made out of our own oil and gas.

It seems very strange to me that if you want to become less dependent upon foreign oil, the first thing you would do, in your first 100 days being in the majority for the first time in 12 years, is to increase the taxes by 3 percentage points on domestic production of oil and gas, which was part of the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004, which passed in a bipartisan majority in the Senate.

In addition, the House proposal also increases the taxes on all refinery products. That means your home heating oil and your farmer's diesel used to run the machines that harvest the crops. In addition, fertilizer is a primary product of natural gas, so midwestern family farmers are going to be hurt and not helped by any of this proposal. That is what is coming out of the other body to this body to consider. Maybe because it is represented by so many people from the big cities of America, they don't realize food grows on farms. It doesn't grow in a supermarket. Maybe they don't realize what they are doing to the American farmer. But we don't need the cost of our anhydrous ammonia, which last summer was $550 a ton compared to about $250 a ton 2 years ago--so we have fertilizer to grow our crops--to be driven up still more.

In the 100 days of the new majority, this is what they are doing to the American consumer, the American farmer. All of this in the new House majority so they can rewrite and adopt a campaign promise to cut tax benefits to big oil. It is an example of a problem they made up that now they have to deliver on. In the process, they are going to hurt the family farmers, hurt the consumers, and cut out one of the things this body adopted in the JOBS Creation Act of 2004, to create manufacturing jobs in America, incentives to invest in America so that we don't have outsourcing.

If they wanted to get back at Exxon--that is big oil, if there ever was big oil--they missed the mark. The people who produce here in the United States are the same people you go to church with and your kids see in school. If you want to become more dependent upon foreign oil, then you should be happy with this proposal coming out of the first 100 days of the new majority in the new House of Representatives. If you want to create incentives for the production of U.S. lower 48 domestic oil and gas, then this quite obviously is the wrong policy, all for a campaign gimmick, all for campaign pandering. That is not right, to teach the family farmers and the consumers of America, who are already paying enough for their prices and are suffering from high energy costs, to do more by taking away this 3-percent point tax incentive we gave for investment in America to create jobs in America. If it is made in America, you get the benefit of it. If it is made overseas, you don't get the benefit.

Granted, there were also three provisions relating to royalty relief that were included in their bill. Two were included in the bipartisan Energy Policy Act, and one seeks to remedy an error caused by the Clinton administration bureaucrats in the Interior Department of 10 years ago. I will leave those discussions to the people who are best prepared to answer those, my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who have jurisdiction and expertise in this area.

I also point out to my colleagues and constituents that I am not beholden to big oil or the energy industry. In the years I have been in the Senate, I have battled big oil, because they hate renewable fuels that we call ethanol. They don't want you burning anything in your gas tank that doesn't come out of their oil wells. They don't want you burning in your gas tank those things that come off the farmers' fields in the way of corn from which we make ethanol, also for all of the sorts of things that they don't like, what we call energy conservation and forcing electric utilities to use renewable portfolio standards within the industry. I have supported biodiesel. I have supported ethanol. I have supported renewable portfolio standards--all things that big corporations in America don't like. But we have been successful in doing it.

I have relentlessly chased the bad players in the petroleum industry at all levels, both legal and illegal. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we closed over $10 billion in tax provisions that the President signed into law, shutting down fuel fraud and folks stealing fuel excise taxes from the Highway Trust Fund. These are real provisions, collecting $10 billion of taxes that were evaded that will no longer be evaded.

So what are the facts concerning the track record of the previous Congress and the President of the United States on energy policy and promoting renewable and alternative energy, and what is wrong with the rhetoric of the last campaign that led people to believe it was something different than we ended up passing? We extended and expanded the production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas. We enacted tax credits for the purchase of hybrid fuel cells and advanced lean burn diesel vehicles. We enacted incentives for the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel and the infrastructure to dispense that fuel.

The distinguished Presiding Officer contributed the idea behind doing that, so we would set up more biodiesel pumps at stations through the 30-percent tax credit that the Senator from

Illinois thought of. I thank him for that idea. I was very happy to work with him on that. That is the distinguished Presiding Officer. We enacted the first ever renewable fuel standard for ethanol and biodiesel that has led to fantastic growth in the industry.

With regard to energy efficiency, we enacted incentives for efficiency improvement for new and existing homes and commercial buildings and for energy-efficient home appliances.

According to the clock in the other body, we are still somewhere within the first 100 days of the new Democratic majority, and again we see another example of legislative action not living up to campaign rhetoric. A word of caution to voters across America: Beware of the goods that you might be sold during an election. That applies to both Republicans and Democrats as far as I am concerned. In the case of repealing the ``big oil tax giveaways''--those are words used in the last election--from the Energy Policy Act, it turns out in fact to be a pig in a poke.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to a staff person, Ted Totman, who will retire this week after 23 years of public service as a professional staff member in the U.S. Senate. I didn't know it back then, but when Ted took a job for me in 1983 on the Subcommittee on Aging of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I had hired someone who would be one of my closest, most trusted, and longest serving advisers.

Ted was a professional staff member for the Subcommittee on Aging from May 1983 to February 1985. He was staff director during my chairmanship of that subcommittee from April 1985 to January 1987. Ted played a major role in developing and passing the 1984 Older Americans Act amendments and was a forward-looking, successful advocate for more attention to Alzheimer's disease, including expanding the number of Alzheimer's disease research centers, increasing funding for Alzheimer's disease research, and increasing funding for the care of people with Alzheimer's disease. Ted also worked to help obtain funding for two statistical centers on aging in the Census Bureau.

For the next 10 years, from January 1987 to January 1997, Ted served as a legislative assistant in my office, where he was responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security retirement and disability policy, private pensions, and veterans issues. He was the leading staff member in the Congress for rural health initiatives. He worked to call attention to regional disparities in Medicare provider reimbursement which disadvantage rural providers, requested and achieved a major Office of Technology Assessment study on the problems of delivering health care in rural areas, and supported the Medicare Dependent Hospital Program and the EACH/RPCH hospital program. Ted's staff leadership helped to secure landmark amendments in the 1995 Finance Committee reconciliation bill to ensure geographic equity in Medicare managed care and to reform Medicare's reimbursement for nonphysician primary care providers. In addition, Ted spent countless hours helping Iowans navigate the Federal health care programs.

In January 1997, I became, because of seniority, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I asked Ted to be staff director. For the next 3 years, Ted led the committee's work that focused on preparing for the retirement of the baby boom generation and rural health issues. The committee staff developed legislation on aging policy issues, including Medicare, Social Security retirement, and private pensions, most of which was referred to the Committee on Finance, where I was also a member. Legislative initiatives included bills on Medicare dependent hospitals, consumer protections for participants in Medicare managed-care plans, and the program of all- inclusive care for the elderly, and that comes under the acronym we all recognize as the PACE Program. Staff developed and helped enact the Balanced Budget Act in 1997, provisions that provided greater reimbursement equity to managed-care plans that operated in rural communities. As staff director, Ted also led the pursuit of an active oversight and investigative agenda, including a pivotal review of the quality of care in nursing homes and the management of the oversight of quality of care in the nursing homes by the Health Care Financing Administration. Let me say for the distinguished Presiding Officer, the previous administration helped us very much get that through so that we now are adequately enforcing overview of nursing homes, as one example.

Ted helped to raise the profile of many issues of importance not only to older Americans but to our society as a whole.

In January of 2001, I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, and Ted was there again to provide valuable leadership. When I asked him to stay on, at a time he was thinking of retiring, as deputy staff director, he was an integral part of the success of the committee's work during the next 6 years and oversaw staff work on major initiatives, including the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the health provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act, the PRIDE Act, and the authorization of the Safe and Stable Families legislation.

Once again, Ted helped to ensure an active oversight program that focused on fraud and abuse in the health care system, problems in the process by which the Food and Drug Administration approves medications and devices, the quality of care in nursing homes, and the management by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the survey and certification system for nursing homes. That was an ongoing issue back, as I referred to, when I was chairman of the Committee on Aging.

Ted's work on the staff of the Finance Committee is so highly respected that the members signed a resolution expressing gratitude and respect for Ted's service and dedication.

In addition to his 23 years of service in the U.S. Senate, Ted worked for 5 years for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and served 2 years in the military.

In the Senate, Ted's policy acumen and understanding of the complexities of the legislative process, insight into the executive branch of Government, political wit, as well as his strong work ethic and intellectual honesty and his evenhandedness and personal generosity have made him remarkably effective and universally regarded.

Ted is a true public servant who was committed in his work to the people of Iowa and of this great country. I am grateful for his loyalty and applaud his legacy of accomplishment. Ted has made a positive difference in the lives of so many Grassley staff members, and his daily presence will be greatly missed by all of us. We wish Ted well and look forward to continuing our friendship with him.

I yield the floor.