Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a heroic American, SPC Daryl Davis, a fellow Iowan originally from Spencer, IA. A member of the 144th Transportation Company of the Florida Army National Guard, Specialist Davis was killed November 29, 2004 when his Humvee was involved in an accident traveling between military camps in Iraq. Specialist Davis was serving as a gunner when the accident occurred. Daryl Davis graduated from Spencer High school and enlisted in the Iowa National Guard at age 17 before transferring to Florida earlier this year. Specialist Davis is survived by his mother and father, Dana Davis and Richard Rosado, as well as two brothers. I know that he will be deeply missed by his family and friends. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate and my fellow Americans to join me in remembering Specialist Davis and the enormous sacrifice he made for his country. Many people thought very highly of Specialist Davis and he will always be remembered for his willingness to serve others. The United States owes its continued prosperity to Specialist Davis and others like him who are willing to advance our ideals at great personal cost. Daryl Davis will be remembered as a great patriot and it is fitting that we honor him today.

Marine Sergeant Nick Nolte

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a fine Iowan and American. Tim Turner, formerly of Iowa, has been selected for his photographic skills to represent the United States in the First International Culinary Competition. This competition brings together professional culinary photographers from around the globe to bring to life the elements of wine and food in unique settings. The artists will be judged by professional chefs, members of the press, and the general public.

Mr. Turner began his interest in photography while at Heelen High School in Sioux City, IA, and pursued it further at the University of Iowa and the Brooks Institute of Photography. By combining his passion for cuisine with his keen eye for photography he has received major recognition for his work. His photographs have appeared in over 40 cookbooks and he has been nominated three times for the prestigious Beard Award and received a Beard Award for best food photography in a cookbook.

Commenting about his photograph selected for the competition, Turner stated:

The human touch is vital to the authenticity of the food we

eat, the wines we drink and the heirlooms we treasure. These

are the connections to the heart and soul of mankind. This

photograph, uses a patchwork (quilt) as a metaphor for the

connection between food and wine, all are united by

tradition, in methods, techniques, knowledge and cultural

influences, passed through the generations. The patchwork

(quilt), sewn for the occasion, was created from scraps of

old fabric, clothes and my photographs reproduced on fabric.

Set in a timeless space, the chair invites the viewer to

explore and enjoy.

The competition is being organized by the Beaujolais winemaking region of France and competitors from 12 countries including Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Finland, Great Britain, and France are displaying their artistic photographs.

I want to encourage my colleagues to log on to the website at http:// lauriers.beaujolais.com/en to learn more about the competition and to vote for the United States contestant Tim Turner. The winner will be decided on February 1, 2005. I ask that you please join me in supporting Mr. Turner.

Mr. President, I speak in strong opposition to a very troubling provision in this bill that will potentially take away American taxpayers' right to privacy regarding their personal income tax return.

The section I refer to is Section 222 of the bill. This section will allow any agent designated by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee access to tax returns and tax return information.

Section 222 provides this sweeping new authority while at the same time it throws aside years of detailed strict statutory protections for taxpayers that also ensure the privacy of taxpayer information.

Given that the language in this section can be interpreted to eliminate all restrictions on access to taxpayer information and publication of taxpayer information, there is nothing to prohibit the Appropriations Committee from obtaining taxpayer information, information about a corporation, information about an individual and releasing it to the press without fear of penalty.

There is no reason that the Appropriations Committee cannot obtain taxpayer information, your 1040, and just posting it on the Web.

This poorly drafted and even more poorly conceived legislation will bring us back to the doorstep of the days of Nixon, Truman and similar dark periods in our tax history when tax return information was used as a club against political enemies.

My colleagues may find these concerns over the top but I can assure you that when it comes to protection of taxpayer information the history has been a very troubling one and it is only through constant vigilance that we have been able to give Americans confidence that their tax return information will be protected and private.

I find it especially troubling that this language which will harm the volunteer tax system and make the work of the IRS harder comes in an appropriations bill that fails to even provide the the full funding requested for the IRS by President Bush.

What is more important, providing more money to the IRS to combat tax shelters, or allowing Appropriations staffers the right to dance through private citizens' tax returns at will? This is an outrage.

Just so my colleagues understand the claim for this language is that it is to allow the appropriations committee with access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the ability to examine individual tax returns, data or information.

This is the statement that was made in colloquy between the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the other body.

The statement between the two members further states that it is the intent of the Appropriations Committees that all access to taxpayer information remains governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.

For my colleagues information, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally governs and protects taxpayer information.

What is particularly frustrating is that Section 6103 already provides the Appropriations Committee a means to have access to taxpayer information--within the protections and limitations provided by law to protect taxpayer privacy.

The Appropriations Committee can seek permission for access to taxpayer information from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or myself, in the Senate, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I have received no request for access to taxpayer information from the Appropriations Committee during my time as chairman.

However, I would say that my colleagues know my reputation for oversight and encouraging oversight and I have been very open minded about granting such requests. In addition, any committee can appeal for such authority to the House or Senate for authority--that also has never taken place by the Appropriations Committee to my knowledge. Again, if that authority is granted the protections provided under Section 6103 are still in place.

This provision in the omnibus bill reflects a mindset that Members or, more likely, their staff--don't want to be bothered with such longstanding successful mechanisms to provide access for legitimate congressional oversight and have instead opted for the ``easy way out.''

And let me be clear, the ``easy way out'' contained in this bill will jeopardize taxpayer privacy and taxpayer information.

Let me make a final point. This section places the Commissioner of the IRS in the position of possibly forcing him to violate the law under Section 6103. The Commissioner of the IRS is still covered by Section 6103 and the penalties for improper disclosure.

It is my early review of this language that this Section 222 will put the Commissioner in the position of an improper release of tax information in violation of 6103. In such a case it is my view that the Commissioner should not release any tax information under this Section 222.

They say haste makes waste. In this case, with Section 222, haste has made a hash of years of efforts to protect taxpayer information and ensuring that taxpayer information is kept private. It is disgraceful that all this is being done because some Members of the Congress can't be bothered with following the simple rules in place to protect taxpayer information. Now, I have been satisfied since this has come to our attention that this goes much further than what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has desired, or even more so, that he was not aware of the sweep of this legislation and that it will be corrected shortly in other action taken by this body under the leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and presumably, I am also told, with the adherence of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. So this may no longer be an issue.

I yield.

Yes.

To the Senator from Arizona, I cannot disagree with what he says. But we do have a bill before us. And the fact is, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has assured me--and he is a man of his word--that he is going to take action to get this out of here. That does not detract anything from what the Senator from Arizona said about the bill, but I am satisfied as far as this egregious provision being taken care of.

Yes, I do. But I want to say thank you.

I think the Senate should be assured.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the House and Senate are considering whether to approve the conference report to H.R. 4818. H.R. 4818 is what is commonly called in the Congress an omnibus appropriations bill. Basically, an omnibus bill rolls a number of other bills into a single legislative vehicle for an up-or-down vote on the final package. It is a method frequently used by the Appropriations Committee at the end of the legislative session after the committee has failed to complete its work in regular order. It enables the Appropriations Committee to appropriate funds at the end of the year. Without this appropriation, the Government would shut down. So, it is must pass legislation.

Work on this bill was completed last night around midnight. Since that time, my Finance Committee staff has been scouring the package to determine whether there are any provisions within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee in the bill. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee often includes authorizing language on matters within the jurisdiction of my committee, but fails to notify us. The result is usually poorly drafted and short-sighted provisions, many of which have unintended effects. Unfortunately, this year is no different.

Let's just take one area--international trade. A few years ago, the Appropriations Committee included an amendment which required that monies collected as countervailing duties and antidumping duties be distributed to the petitioners who filed the underlying cases. Many of our trading partners thought this provision violated our international obligations because it enables petitioning industries to not only have duties placed against competing imports, but to also receive these duties. The World Trade Organization agreed and found the amendment to be contrary to our trade obligations. Nevertheless, the law is still on the books. As a result, many of our export industries may face retaliatory sanctions.

As I said, this amendment was slipped into an appropriations conference report without full debate in the Senate. The Finance Committee, as the committee of jurisdiction and the committee with expertise in international trade, never had a chance to review the amendment. Now, I'm not surprised that a bill that was never considered by the committee of expertise or even the full Senate was found to violate our international commitments.

But, even aside from the WTO ruling, there are a number of other problems with the way the amendment operates. For example, earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in which it found that, regardless of the economic harm which can be caused by retaliation, the amendment is detrimental to the overall economic welfare of the United States. An earlier report issued by the Department of Treasury Inspector General found that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection made $25 million in overpayments when disbursing funds. The report also faulted the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection because qualifying expenditures claimed by domestic producers are not verified on a routine basis. So, there are a lot of problems with the way this program functions that are totally independent from our WTO obligations.

But because the Finance Committee never had an opportunity to review the amendment, these problems were never addressed. Instead of working with the Committee to address these problems, they took a different tack. In this year's omnibus appropriations bill they decided to require our United States Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce to negotiate the right for WTO members to distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing duty measures. In short, they are directing our trade negotiators to go back to the negotiating table and try to negotiate for something which we have already lost. I doubt our trading partners will be sympathetic.

The Appropriations Committee also required the Office of the United States Trade Representative to create a new position of Chief Negotiator for Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement. Now, this may be good idea--but, again the Finance Committee has not had an opportunity to review this provision so we do not know if this is an appropriate use of government resources or not. We do know that the decision about whether to create new trade negotiating positions is up to the Finance Committee, not the Appropriations Committee.

Unfortunately Mr. President, these provisions are just exemplary. There are many other provisions in the bill dealing with international trade that, frankly, should not be in there. Whatever position you may take on the merits of these provisions, international trade negotiations and antidumping and countervailing duty laws are plainly matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance. The vast trade implications of these provisions were not carefully weighed by the Committee on Finance. This is bad precedent--and I sincerely hope we will not see similar actions in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Iowan, Marine Cpl Jarrod Maher, who gave his life for his country in Iraq, and to express my heartfelt sympathy to his family. A native of Imogene, IA, Corporal Maher was serving in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib as a member of the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force stationed in Camp Pendleton, CA. Only 2 weeks after his graduation from Shenandoah High School, Maher became a marine. Corporal Maher is survived by his father and mother, Kevin and Jacque Maher, as well as numerous siblings.

Jarrod Maher will be missed by a great many people. His service and sacrifice represent Iowa at its best. In describing him, his father, Kevin Maher said, ``He loved being a Marine, but he also loved coming home. He loved the farm. He loved to help.'' In honor of Jarrod's spirit of selflessness, I ask my colleagues in the Senate and my fellow Americans to join me in paying respect to Marine Cpl Jarrod Maher.

Mr. President, as I listen to the debate tonight about Section 222, which invades the privacy rights of taxpayers, I would like to point out an important lesson in all of this.

The lesson is that tax measures should be left to the tax writing committees. Only the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have the jurisdiction and the technical expertise to write our Nation's tax laws. And tax laws are technical. As Section 222 in this bill shows, one had better know what they are doing when they write a tax provision. They had better understand the history of the measure and all of its ramifications. In the Finance Committee, we use great care in drafting our tax provisions, and we do it in an open manner. All members can see what we are doing and have a chance to understand why we are doing it, and to comment on it. But frequently the Finance Committee has to go through a rite of scrubbing appropriations bills to remove poorly conceived and poorly drafted tax provisions that try to sneak in at the dark of night. It is not just appropriations bill where this occurs. It happens on many other bills as well. Often, these provisions have been rejected by the Finance Committees as bad policy, only to turn up in an unseen attack on our committee's jurisdiction. As the bill shows tonight, it is not necessarily Members that do this. It is sometimes staff who add an idea. This allows staff to bypass the scrutiny of the entire Finance Committee; 21 senior Members of the Senate are deprived of their right to pass judgment on a tax measure. Let me give some examples of what we have had to fend off lately. Last week, we had to defeat an appropriations proposal that would have cut off funding for Federal agencies that help the IRS obtain information about Americans investing in foreign countries.

That measure would have undercut U.S. tax law enforcement and damaged our initiatives to combat tax shelters. It would have damaged our international competitiveness and undermined our Nation's efforts to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing.

I am confident that the proponents of this measure never knew about its broader ramifications. But that is what happens when tax proposals evade the scrutiny of the Finance Committee.

Here is another example. Recently, the Armed Services Committee sought to create a charity for assisting servicemen and their families. On its face, this is certainly a good cause that we can all support.Unfortunately, the statutory language drafted by the Armed Services Committee had very serious flaws and was unworkable under the Tax Code. It was only after significant time and energy by the Finance Committee, exerted after the fact, that we fixed something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place. If Members will learn to work with the Finance Committee, instead of bypassing it, we can usually achieve the results they seek.

Here is an example. The House Appropriations Committee tried to expand the definition of census areas for determining eligibility for a certain tax program. This provision was not agreed to by the Senate Appropriators. The provision was later passed in the JOBS bill. This highlights that we try in good faith to work with Members who will work with the committee. So let me send a very clear message. The controversy around this appropriations bill should serve as a warning to all who would bypass the jurisdiction and expertise of the congressional tax writing committees. We work to defeat stealth tax measures not just to protect our committee's jurisdiction, but to protect the American people from bad ideas.

In the Senate it is the Finance Committee, and only the Finance Committee, that has the experience, expertise, and seasoned resources to process tax laws for our Nation.

Members and staff should remember today's events the next time they are approached to insert a ``harmless'' tax measure into an unrelated bill.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, commonly called the miscellaneous tariff bill.

This legislation has traveled a long and difficult road to get to the floor today. In fact, the journey began over 2\1/2\ years ago when Senator Baucus chaired the Finance Committee. The Senate historically passes a miscellaneous tariff bill at the end of every Congress. The bill under consideration today was supposed to pass at the end of the 107th Congress. However, it was left as unfinished business for the current Congress. Upon resuming the chairmanship of the Finance Committee, my intention was to complete unfinished business from the 107th Congress as quickly as possible. To that end, we passed the bill out of Committee by voice vote on February 27, 2003.

We hoped that early passage of this bill would pave the way for consideration of another miscellaneous tariff bill in the 108th Congress. But that was not meant to be. Throughout the remainder of the Congress we faced significant delays and stall tactics. In March 2004, over a year after the bill was reported out of the Finance Committee, we reached agreement and passed the bill by unanimous consent. But quick conference consideration was not meant to be. We were forced to wait another 6 months before we could go to conference with the House. The conference committee quickly reached an agreement in October and the House passed the conference report shortly thereafter. However, Senate action was further delayed until today. Happily, it looks like the bill is finally near the end of its journey as we appear to be on the verge of passing this bill as one of the last orders of business for the 108th.

At this point, it might be interesting to reflect on what the Senate Finance Committee has been able to accomplish on trade during the time it took to pass this bill. During the first session of the 108th Congress, we were able to complete work on the Clean Diamond Trade Act, legislation designed to help thwart trade in conflict diamonds. We also implemented two free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. In addition, we enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which put in place an import ban on products from Burma in an effort to help stop human rights abuses and the repression of democracy in that country.

During the second session of the 108th Congress, we enacted the Africa Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act, which continues trade preferences for some of the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa. We also implemented two trade agreements with Australia and Morocco and brought the United States into compliance with an adverse WTO ruling in the FSC/ETI case through passage of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. There is no doubt that Senate passage of the conference report on the MTB will be a nice capstone to what has already been a highly successful Congress on trade.

This package contains many trade provisions, primarily duty suspensions, reductions and extensions, for products that are not produced domestically. This bill supports American factories and workers by allowing manufacturers to save money when they import these products.

Each of these provisions went through an extensive vetting process including a public notice and comment period to ensure that they did not compete with domestic manufacturers. The bill also contains a number of liquidations or reliquidations for certain entries.

The general rule for inclusion here is that the product entered the country under an incorrect duty rate due to Customs or other administrative error. These provisions allow those entries to enter the country at the correct duty rate.

There are several some other very important provisions in this bill. The bill grants the President the authority to provide permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, for Armenia. Armenia recently joined the World Trade Organization. But, in order to reap the benefits of their accession, the United States needs to extend PNTR to Armenia. This legislation provides the President with the authority to grant that extension. I also hope we will be able to consider similar treatment for Azerbaijan in the very near future.

The bill also extends normal trade relations to Laos. Last year the Bush administration signed a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with Laos, an agreement that was negotiated during the Clinton years. The agreement will promote U.S. interests by protecting U.S. intellectual property rights and opening the Laotian market to U.S. goods and services. It is a good agreement. But to enable the United States to benefit from it, we must extend normal trade relations to Laos. Doing so will also benefit the Laotian people. Laos is one of the poorest nations in Asia. Yet exports from Laos are subject to some of the highest tariffs when they enter the United States. This agreement will help alleviate poverty, help bring Laos out of the Vietnam War era, and further integrate Laos into the global marketplace.

We also included in this bill a provision that extends preferences under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, to allow duty-free treatment for hand-knotted and hand-woven carpets. This provision is designed primarily to help the citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe that allowing these products to be considered as eligible articles under GSP will help beneficiary countries that have joined the United States in the fight against global terrorism.

Further, H.R. 1047 corrects a mistake in the Trade Act of 2002 that inadvertently and temporarily raised duties on Andean originating handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves and leather wearing apparel under the Andean Trade and Preferences and Drug Eradication Act, ATPDEA. This provision retroactively reinstates the reduced duty treatment for eligible products that entered the U.S. from August 6, 2002, the date ATPDEA was signed, and the time in which these products met the import sensitivity test, several months later. It provides for continued duty-free treatment for these eligible products, which was the intent of the trade act.

I am also pleased that the bill includes the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act. I introduced the EPIC Antiquities Act to authorize the President to continue emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States.

If Congress does not act to ensure the continuing means for banning trade in antiquities that may have been stolen, the door could be opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in the United States.

Other important provisions in the bill include modifications to the cellar treatment of natural wine and repeal of the 1916 act. Repeal of the 1916 act will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations. We have also improved and extended the wool trust fund and added a provision that simplifies some processing U.S. Customs processing procedures, thereby resulting in increased efficiency and productivity for both the government and the trade community.

I also want to point out that the provisions I have covered are not the only important provisions contained in this bill. This bill makes a number of other technical yet meaningful changes to our trade laws.

I am very pleased that we are going to be able to pass this bill today. We would not be here today if not for the bipartisan efforts of a number of the Finance Committee staff, some of whom have long left the Senate. First, I want to thank Andy Harig who shepherded this bill through its first stages of development under Chairman Baucus' leadership during the 107th Congress. I also want to recognize Carrie Clark Phillips, for immersing herself in the tremendous complexities of this bill and her dedication to seeing the task done upon my resumption as chairman of the committee. Zach Paulsen and Sara Andrews also deserve recognition for their ability to pick up where Carrie and Andy left off and their hard work in bringing this bill to a successful conclusion. I also appreciate the hard work of Rohit Kumar, who was instrumental in helping us move this bill forward. Finally, Liese Wright, with the Washington International Business Council, has done an outstanding job bringing together, and holding intact, the Ad Hoc Coalition on Tariffs. In good times and bad, Liese remained ever hopeful and committed to getting this bill done. Her hard work and optimism is appreciated.

Let me also thank the rest of the Finance Committee international trade staff for their work not just on this bill, but for all we have been able to accomplish this Congress. On Senator Baucus's staff I would like to recognize Russ Sullivan and Bill Dauster, who provided the guidance necessary to help the Committee accomplish its goals, and Tim Punke, Brian Pomper, John Gilliland and Shara Aranoff for their technical expertise and policy advice which was so crucial to our success. On my staff, I would like to thank Kolan Davis, Everett Eissenstat, Stephen Schaefer, David Johanson, Tiffany Atwell McCullen, and detailees Nova Daly and Dan Shepherdson. Their knowledge, hard work, and ability to pull together as a team, enabled me to accomplish a number of important trade priorities in this Congress. And for that, I am grateful.

I appreciate the Senator raising this issue with me. I am happy to work with the Senator from Kentucky and the Commerce Department to ensure that an appropriate and timely analysis is completed. I recognize that the duty suspensions in question take effect on January 1, 2005. If the results of this analysis demonstrate that the inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 1047 was inappropriate, I will gladly work with him to try and rectify the situation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, the Federal Government has a long- standing obligation to monitor the purity, safety, and effectiveness of the medicines that are available to the public. For this reason, I would like to express my opposition to S. 2989, the Truth in Trials Act. This legislation reverses almost 100 years of progress that we have made by undermining any scientific evidence about medicine and replacing it with popular referendums passed by slick ad campaigns.

There was a time in this country when individuals and businesses could market anything as a medicine and make any claim for its effectiveness. Because of this, a flood of narcotics and stimulants were freely marketed as nostrums sold over the counter and through the mail. Often these ``miracle cures'' were miscellaneous concoctions made from unknown ingredients. In addition, these nostrums were often accompanied by endless testimonials from satisfied customers on how well these products performed.

Thankfully, our grandparents and great-grandparents, who had to deal with these practices, woke up to the fraud that was being perpetrated on the public by these ``snake-oil salesmen.'' These dangerous drugs were creating a major addiction problem, and the unknown ingredients in these cures were actually doing a great deal of harm. In response to demands from the public, truth in labeling was born.

Consumers in the early 1900s took steps to ban dangerous drugs to determine what drugs had medical uses that could be demonstrated to be safe and effective. Based on this experience, the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDCA, of 1906 was passed, which required food and medicines be pure, and the contents of medicines be labeled. In 1938, the FDCA was amended to add the requirement that all medicines be safe, and the Food and Drug Administration was created to regulate this. In 1962, the FDCA was further amended by the Harris-Kefauver amendment, which added an additional requirement that any medicine must also be effective, and further required the FDA to establish efficacy standards.

Furthermore, a variety of laws were passed to deal with the distribution of dangerous drugs. The first of these was the Harrison Narcotics Control Act of 1914. The next major piece of legislation on drug control was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. These and other laws covering various types of drugs were replaced in 1970 when the Controlled Substances Act was signed into law. This Act further defined the process that a substance had to go through to become an acceptable medicine. In addition, a five-tier scheduling system for all pharmacological substances was established, allowing for the categorizing of all medicines and other pharmacological substances based on their abuse potential and accepted use as a medicine.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that we will no longer have unscrupulous business enterprises that promise salvation through snake- oil products. Over the past 60 years, the FDA has developed a careful, proven method for testing and approving drugs. This process is the standard by which the rest of the world measures the safety and effectiveness of their drug approval system.

Americans today have the world's safest, most effective system of medical practice, built on a process of scientific research, testing, and oversight that is unequaled. Every drug prescribed as medicine in this country must be tested according to scientifically rigorous protocols to ensure that it is safe and effective before it can be sold.

To this date, over 15,000 scientific, peer-reviewed studies into the medicinal value of marijuana have been published, and not one demonstrates that smoking marijuana has any medicinal value for any condition. In fact, there is medical evidence to suggest that marijuana may actually aggravate some of the conditions it is supposed treat.

On top of all that, there are legal, effective medicines that are already currently available and meet all of the guidelines that have been established by the FDA. This includes Marinol, which is a legally available, FDA-approved form of a marijuana extract that is currently being used as a treatment for nausea and AIDS wasting syndrome. In addition, there are many other medicines that have been developed and received FDA approval that do not have the hallucinogenic side effects that come with smoking marijuana. These are medicines that meet scientific standards and do not rely on anecdotes and testimony for validation.

Certainly, we all want to provide relief for people who are sick and dying, but smoking marijuana has not been scientifically proven to have any medicinal value. By allowing patients and caregivers to use and provide marijuana through the political process, we clearly bypass the safeguards established by the FDA to protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and other efforts to legalize marijuana.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi- annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the United States.

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., is the Government's single most effective program for recouping money improperly obtained from the United States by false claims and fraud. Initially passed during the Civil War at President Abraham Lincoln's request to suppress fraud against the Union Army, the FCA was modernized and updated in 1986. Since President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amendments into law, settlements and judgments in FCA cases have exceeded $13 billion. No other antifraud program of the federal government can match this result.

Despite the significance of these results, the Congress does not have a way to evaluate the performance of the FCA program. While the program, which is overseen by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, appears to be doing well, it is not known at this time how the program is performing as compared to its potential. What percentage of the various frauds perpetrated against the United States is recouped in False Claims Act cases? How effectively does DoJ capture the multiple damages and penalties provided for by the act? How quickly does DoJ move FCA cases? How effectively does DoJ use the tools provided to it by the FCA, such as civil investigative demands? How effectively does DoJ use relators and how well does it reward them?

The purpose of this bill is to require the submission of the information that will allow Congress to evaluate of DoJ's performance in managing FCA cases. Thus, under this bill the Department of Justice will be required to describe its settlements of FCA cases. The report to Congress shall include a description of the estimated damages suffered by the United States, the amount recouped, the multiplier used to calculate the settlement amount, the criminal fines collected and whether the defendants were held liable in previous cases. The report will also inform Congress as to whether the defendants have been required to enter into corporate integrity agreements.

In addition, in order to understand how the program is working, the Department of Justice will be required to inform Congress as to whether civil investigative demands were issued. The Department will also be required to provide certain information about the conduct of qui tam cases initiated by whistleblowers. For example, Congress will receive information about the length of time cases are under seal, whether whistleblowers (technically termed ``relators'') sought a fairness hearing regarding a settlement and what share of the settlement they received. The Congress would also receive information about whether the agency that suffered from the fraud involved participated in the settlement.

In regard to cases involving Medicaid Fraud, the report will provide Congress with the details of how much money was returned to each state participating in the settlement. In a time when many States are struggling with their Medicaid budgets, the Congress needs to know how effectively DoJ is in suppressing Medicaid fraud and returning money to the States.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi- annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the United States.

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., is the Government's single most effective program for recouping money improperly obtained from the United States by false claims and fraud. Initially passed during the Civil War at President Abraham Lincoln's request to suppress fraud against the Union Army, the FCA was modernized and updated in 1986. Since President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amendments into law, settlements and judgments in FCA cases have exceeded $13 billion. No other antifraud program of the federal government can match this result.

Despite the significance of these results, the Congress does not have a way to evaluate the performance of the FCA program. While the program, which is overseen by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, appears to be doing well, it is not known at this time how the program is performing as compared to its potential. What percentage of the various frauds perpetrated against the United States is recouped in False Claims Act cases? How effectively does DoJ capture the multiple damages and penalties provided for by the act? How quickly does DoJ move FCA cases? How effectively does DoJ use the tools provided to it by the FCA, such as civil investigative demands? How effectively does DoJ use relators and how well does it reward them?

The purpose of this bill is to require the submission of the information that will allow Congress to evaluate of DoJ's performance in managing FCA cases. Thus, under this bill the Department of Justice will be required to describe its settlements of FCA cases. The report to Congress shall include a description of the estimated damages suffered by the United States, the amount recouped, the multiplier used to calculate the settlement amount, the criminal fines collected and whether the defendants were held liable in previous cases. The report will also inform Congress as to whether the defendants have been required to enter into corporate integrity agreements.

In addition, in order to understand how the program is working, the Department of Justice will be required to inform Congress as to whether civil investigative demands were issued. The Department will also be required to provide certain information about the conduct of qui tam cases initiated by whistleblowers. For example, Congress will receive information about the length of time cases are under seal, whether whistleblowers (technically termed ``relators'') sought a fairness hearing regarding a settlement and what share of the settlement they received. The Congress would also receive information about whether the agency that suffered from the fraud involved participated in the settlement.

In regard to cases involving Medicaid Fraud, the report will provide Congress with the details of how much money was returned to each state participating in the settlement. In a time when many States are struggling with their Medicaid budgets, the Congress needs to know how effectively DoJ is in suppressing Medicaid fraud and returning money to the States.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2986, a bill to increase the Federal debt limit.

I support this increase because it is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

Without an increase in the debt limit, our Government will face a choice between breaking the law by exceeding the statutory debt limit, or breaking faith with the public by defaulting on our debt. Neither choice is acceptable.

To understand why we are here today seeking to increase the debt limit, it is

necessary to explain a few things about the Federal debt.

Under current law, there is a statutory limit on the amount of debt that can be issued by the Federal Government. This limit which now stands at $7.384 trillion applies to virtually all of the debt issued by the U.S. Government.

There is only one debt limit, but there are two types of debt--debt held by the public and debt held by the various Government trust funds.

The amount of Federal debt held by the public is determined by the Government's annual cash-flow. When total spending exceeds total taxes, the Government has a budget deficit.

To finance this deficit, the Government borrows from the public by selling debt, such as Treasury bills, notes, and bonds.

We will hear a lot of criticism that President Bush's tax cuts are responsible for our rising public debt. But the facts show otherwise.

When President Bush took office in 2001, the Federal debt limit was $5.95 trillion.

The debt limit was increased to $6.4 trillion in 2002 and to $7.384 trillion in 2003.

Assuming we increase the debt limit again today, it will be $8.184 trillion.

Thus, the Federal debt limit will have increased $2.234 trillion since President Bush took office in 2001.

However, the tax cuts that have been enacted since 2001 total less than $700 billion through the end of the most recent fiscal year, and that includes the interest cost as well.

Thus, the President's tax cuts account for less than 30 percent of the increase in the Federal debt limit.

The rest of the increase in public debt is due to the recession, the war in Iraq, and homeland security.

In addition to the debt held by the public, the Federal debt limit also applies to the debt held by various Government trust funds--such as Social Security and Medicare.

Whenever a trust fund program collects more than it spends, the surplus is invested in special issue Treasury securities. These special securities count toward the debt limit.

However, it is important to understand the amount of debt held by the trust funds does not reflect the Government's unfunded obligations.

For example, the Treasury Department reports that the total amount of Federal debt held by all of the trust fund programs is just over $3 trillion.

However, the Social Security and Medicare trustees report that the unfunded obligation of Social Security and Medicare is more than $72 trillion.

Given these facts, it should be obvious to everyone that the Federal debt limit provides a misleading and inaccurate picture of the Government's future liabilities.

Efforts to use the statutory debt limit to control Government debt and deficits cannot succeed because it ignores the long-term budget problem.

Indeed, even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested the debt limit has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with a more accurate and useful alternative.

I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to develop such an alternative.

However, pending the outcome of such an effort, I would strongly urge every Senator to support this bill.

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan in the Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, February 11, 2003:

In the Congress's review of the mechanisms governing the

budget process, you may want to reconsider whether the

statutory limit on the public debt is a useful device. As a

matter of arithmetic, the debt ceiling is either redundant or

inconsistent with the paths of revenues and outlays you

specify when you legislate a budget.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Emerson, IA native Spc. James C. Kearney, III, who lost his life when the military vehicle he was traveling in was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire near Sharan, Afghanistan. Spc. Kearney was assigned to the Iowa Army National Guard Company B, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry, Air Assault, based in Shenandoah, IA. Spc. Kearney enlisted as an infantryman in 1999 and was mobilized for Operation Enduring Freedom in March 2004. My prayers go out to James's mother and father, Theresa and James Kearney, Jr., as well as his brothers and sister.

In paying tribute to Spc. Kearney, we recognize the efforts of an extraordinary young man who worked to make the world a safer place. The Rev. Ken Gross, a friend of James, describes him as ``. . . a person of character with great determination. He was adventurous, fearless and enjoyed taking risks.'' Spc. Kearney will always be remembered for the good work that he did for his community and for his country. As a soldier and patriot, Spc.

James C. Kearney, III has given us a model of true dedication and virtue.

Specialist Raymond L. White

Mr. President, I rise today to pay a tribute to Vee Burke, specialist in income maintenance, Domestic Social Policy Division, a dedicated and gifted employee at the Congressional Research Service, who will be retiring from CRS at the end of this month.

Mrs. Burke is a graduate of the University of Chicago. She has four grown children and is the widow of Vincent Burke with whom she wrote Nixon's Good Deed, a book about Nixon's welfare reform proposals.

When Mrs. Burke joined CRS more than 30 years ago, she was already a recognized expert in the field of public welfare. During her tenure at CRS, she became a leading expert on the history, evolution and interaction of welfare and public assistance programs for low-income individuals and families.

Because of her stature as one of the leading authorities in the country in this policy area, Mrs. Burke's advice and assistance has often been required by the Congress. Over three decades, Mrs. Burke has contributed to major congressional deliberations affecting AFDC and related public assistance programs, including the sweeping welfare reforms enacted in 1996 that replaced AFDC with TANF.

During the consideration of the reauthorization of the 1996 welfare reform legislation in both the 107th and the 108th Congress, Mrs. Burke provided invaluable assistance to the Senate Finance Committee. In the 108th Congress, Mrs. Burke was especially helpful to myself, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and to my staff. She assisted in the drafting of the committee mark and legislation, providing technical assistance as well as continuously analyzing state data. Because of her vast knowledge, Mrs. Burke also functioned as an impromptu tutor to Senate Finance Committee staff on this history of welfare.

The work of the Congress is detailed and complex--in order to do our work members and our staffs need to be well versed in policy in order for us to make the best decisions. For this expertise, we often rely on the analysis of the Congressional Research Service. CRS provides a unique service to the Congress in that they are truly nonpartisan. The specialists from CRS provide non-biased, research based analysis that helps guide us, as policymakers, to make the best decisions.

Mrs. Burke, throughout her long and admirable career, has embodied the very best of what CRS provides for the Congress. Those of us who care deeply about programs affecting the poor thank her for her efforts, will miss her and wish her well.

Mr. President, I am glad that Senator Frist and other Senators were able to work out the parliamentary maneuvering that it takes to get us to finality on this JOBS bill.

We obviously want to encourage the creation of jobs and manufacturing in America. We want to reduce reasons for outsourcing. This bill deals with all of those and some others as well.

Throughout this debate, I feel as though I was whipsawed in arguments trotted out by opponents of this bill. They complain about accommodations we have made to Members. Some of these accomplishments and accommodations have even helped folks in States of the critics. Then they complain about what is not in this bill that should have been included in this bill.

First of all, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I think it

needs to be continually said. This bill is revenue neutral. Yes, we decrease taxes for partnerships, family-owned businesses, and corporations that are involved in manufacturing, reducing that from 35 to 32 percent. Obviously, that brings in less revenue, but that does not mean the deficit of the United States is going to be increased. We pay for it by raising revenue from businesses, by closing corporate tax loopholes, and we collect that new revenue coming in to small businesses, especially to any size business that manufactures--large or small.

This bill is basically about manufacturing jobs. That is where the revenue in this bill goes.

There are those who talk about this bill as somewhat of a giveaway to business. You have some businesses not paying taxes because they are abusing the Tax Code through corporate loophole abuse, and they pay more money. Then you have the socially good provisions such as encouraging manufacturing in the United States to create jobs in the United States. I don't think people are correct in saying this is a giveaway to business because it balances out within the business sector of our country--some paying more and some not paying more. Because we are taxing them more, they are paying more because they can't cheat anymore. We are giving some benefits from that same revenue to create jobs in the United States.

Those who call this a giveaway for business need to put on their reading glasses and take a look at revenue tables produced by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. These people aren't Republican or Democrat. They are professionals who decide how many changes are in the Tax Code, where revenue comes from. These tables show that this bill is revenue neutral; that financial reductions are paid for in new revenue coming in from the closing of corporate loophole abuse.

For those who are talking about this bill being a giveaway for business, I want them to stop using that argument. One statement was made last night that was egregiously in error. One of the hard-line opponents of this bill claimed that the tobacco buyout was paid for by the taxpayers.

I don't support the tobacco buyout but realize it was necessary to get this bill through the other body. I insisted on one of the Senate's positions in the tobacco buyout, and that position is that tobacco companies pay for this buyout. Opponents need to read this bill and the revenue tables. If they bother to do so they will see the buyout is paid for not by the taxpayers of America but by the companies that produce tobacco.

Now, let's put in context the mischaracterization of this bill as somewhat of a special interest bill. In part, the bill receives such widespread support because many Member items were accommodated. Literally dozens of tax benefits were adopted in committee and on the floor.

Let me define ``Member items.'' Constituents of one State came to their Senator and said: This part of the Tax Code is wrong, it is hurtful; or they said: We think the Tax Code ought to be changed this way. Maybe they do not come to me. Maybe they do not go to the other 99 Senators; they go to 1 Senator. That Senator is a representative of his people. It is his responsibility to bring that issue to the Senate. He does not have to. He can say: I don't agree with you, I will not do that. If he feels his constituents are justified in what they are requesting, then the matter is brought to the committee that has jurisdiction. That is the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair. Somehow there is something negative or derogatory about a Member bringing forth an item for all to consider. If we think that Member is crazy, we do not have to do it. If we think there is some justification to what that Member brings before the Senate, we ought to consider that. That is how our representative system of government works.

Literally dozens of tax changes were adopted in committee or in the Chamber. Before the conference, Senator Baucus and I received letters from virtually every Member of the Senate. In some cases those letters asked for items from the Senate to be retained. In other cases those letters asked for the Senate to accept items from the House bill, and in still other cases Members wrote asking for items that were not in either bill. Finally, some Members asked us to not accept certain provisions not in either bill.

I have a stack of letters with me. These letters are not all the letters, of course. There is no sense carrying a pile of letters out here. But Members representing the interests of their State bring these issues for our consideration.

I will go to the first category and follow up items from the Senate bill.

National care scholarships for nurses--Senator Murray and Cantwell asked for that. It is in the bill.

Sickle cell disease and Medicaid, consideration of sickle cell disease, which is not covered by Medicaid--Senators Talent, Schumer, Campbell, Dayton, Cochran, Bond, Specter, Mikulski, Cantwell, Landrieu, Stabenow, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Murkowski. It is in the bill.

Some are going to say that Members' provision brought to us under the leadership of Senator Talent should not be considered by this body, and I will explain why this is all in one bill. People watching might think if you have a sickle cell disease issue come before the Senate, maybe it ought to come up as a separate issue. On the next item up is a life insurance taxation issue; maybe it ought to come as a separate bill. Why doesn't it? Because under the rules of the Senate every little bill that comes out here could be amended by anything that is in the Tax Code. Eventually you have a little life insurance bill that becomes a vehicle for every member to bring up any bill they want to bring up.

So we saved the Senate from going through that exercise. That is what committees are about. We consider these issues--not always in committee; sometimes they are discussed when the bill comes to the Senate floor. Most of the time we give them a thorough study in the Senate Finance Committee. Sometimes we reject them and sometimes we include them. If we do not include them, maybe when they come to the Senate Chamber, that Senator is irritated with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and they add it on the Senate floor. They always end up in one bill.

Somehow that makes all of our journalists concerned, those who seem to not have an understanding of how the Senate works, pointing out that this bill is full of a lot of little things in it that are unrelated to the underlying bill. That is true, but that is how the Senate works.

The House of Representatives does not work that way. They put a bill together, they adopt a rule, and there is never an amendment. I shouldn't say never, but very seldom is a Member allowed to offer an amendment to a Ways and Means bill on the floor of the House. That is why the House of Representatives is like the House of Lords. That is why the Senate is like a House of Representatives. We allow the people of this country to bring anything they want to the floor of the Senate.

Another item is suspension of section 815, a life insurance company taxation issue. That was brought to us by Senator Specter. It is in the bill.

New York City revitalization tax benefits directly related to the attack of September 11, 2001, and the rebuilding of New York was brought to us by Senators Schumer and Clinton--most of that, but not all of it, is in the bill.

Brownfields, unrelated business income tax relief--Senators Lautenberg, Reed, Jeffords, Stabenow, Specter, Sarbanes Dole, Akaka, Chafee, Inhofe--is in the bill. The use of green bonds for economic development in certain areas is something I was not for, but it is in the bill to satisfy Senators Allard, Schumer, Miller, Clinton, and Chambliss.

We have IRS private debt collection. Senator Allen was pushing this. That is something I very definitely favor because this is one way of getting the private sector bringing in money from people who are tax cheats and are not paying their taxes.

Tribal government bonds--Senator Campbell, very active in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs--was also a matter of importance to Senator Baucus and others, but it is not in the bill despite being raised in conference.

Comprehensive energy tax relief package--Senator Hutchison--is not in the bill despite being raised in conference because the House of Representatives took the position that

there shouldn't be anything on energy in this bill because they think energy items need to be put together in a bill that ought to be dealt with separately, next session. Quite frankly, the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive energy bill last fall, and we were two votes short in the Senate because of a Democrat filibuster against the bill. They say that instead of doing the energy provisions in this bill before us now, the Senate ought to take up the bill that we obviously have a majority for--but because of a Democrat filibuster we are two votes short--and do the energy stuff there, not in bill before the Senate.

So I cannot blame the House of Representatives because they worked hard to get an energy bill passed, and it comes over here and you get a Democrat filibuster.

By the way, those two votes could be supplied by Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards because now they think we ought to have a national energy policy, and they did not vote last November. If they come in here before we go home and cast the 59th and 60th vote, we would have the comprehensive energy policy, not just little slivers of it that we get in a bill here and a bill there, but we would have a very comprehensive energy policy. They would be fulfilling what they are saying out there on the campaign trail we need to get done: have a national energy policy. We have 58 votes for it. We need a 59th and 60th vote, and they could be that. But at least I am telling you why we do not have the energy provisions in here that a Republican Senator, Senator Hutchison, wanted.

We have a request from Senators Crapo, Bingaman, Voinovich, Biden, Pryor, Talent, Enzi, Chafee, Carper, Clinton, Allard, Bond, Coleman, Sununu, Bennett, Chambliss, Hutchison, Hagel, Nelson of Florida, Dayton, Dole, Reed of Rhode Island, Dodd, Kennedy, and Levin for mortgage revenue bonds liberalization. It is not in the bill, but it was raised in conference.

We have heard a lot about Senator Landrieu's Guard and Ready Reserve amendment. That was raised by Senators Landrieu, Bond, Pryor, Murray, Dodd, Akaka, Cantwell, Dorgan, Schumer, Mikulski, Nelson of Florida, Lautenberg, Johnson, Feingold, Leahy, Dayton, Levin, Sarbanes, Wyden, and Durbin. We discussed that provision a lot, and like the three items above, this item was raised at conference and rejected by the other body.

Mr. President, the letters I have cited reflect items Members raised. On some items we were able to reach agreement with the House, other items the House of Representatives rejected.

Let me point out that I offered three amendments that I filed. I won one and lost two. The House accepted an amendment I put in for rural letter carriers. The House rejected an amendment I had dealing with energy-efficient home appliances. The House rejected another amendment dealing with elderly housing connected to the Warrior Hotel in Sioux City, IA.

As the list above shows, a lot of Members of this body are satisfied because their items are in here; other Members are not satisfied. But that is not an unusual situation when you reach compromise. It also shows that for all of the unfair carping about this bill being a special interest bill, nearly every Member raised narrow-interest provisions. So if there is some fault about different provisions coming up, we all share that. We all do it. There is an old saying. It is: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We have a group of Members throwing stones at this JOBS bill. A lot of them are living in glass houses.

I will continue the discussion of Member items. We had the State sales tax deduction. Senators Cantwell and Hutchison wrote Senator Baucus and me asking us to include the House sales tax deduction provision in the conference agreement. We also received letters from delegations of other States where the State tax base is a sales tax base. The House sales tax deduction is in this bill because we decided for our Senators from several States that it ought to be included.

We had timber tax relief provisions: Senators Chambliss, Pryor, Cantwell, Sessions, Shelby, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Craig, Coleman, Graham of South Carolina, Wyden, Cornyn, Lugar, and Murray.

As many of these Senators know, the timber industry has been hard hit by the tax on our exports going to Europe. By the way, when this bill passes, those taxes go away. The industry is finally recovering from a long recession. Timber mills are reopening. Mill workers are returning to the mills. The House timber provisions are in this bill.

Charitable whaling activities. Senator Murkowski wrote, asking us to accept the House provision that allows a deduction for charitable whaling activities. Now, some will criticize this provision, but it is important to the Natives of Alaska. Senator Murkowski is looking out for the Natives of Alaska. She ought to be applauded for bringing that to our attention. This is in the bill. But it has also passed the Senate several times.

Senator Baucus and I received letters from Members asking us to take Senate provisions out of the conference agreement. One example is Senator Stabenow's letter regarding a revenue raiser involving donations of cars. As you heard yesterday, Senator Hatch shares Senator Stabenow's concerns. The conferees retained the Senate revenue raiser.

There is another category of letters that we received. An example is a letter from Senator McCain and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. In that letter they asked me to keep out a provision dealing with the church tax exemption and political activities. The provision was not in either bill. Chairman Thomas and I kept provisions that were outside the scope of the bill out of the conference entirely. No matter what the merits of that proposal were, we played fair by Senator McCain and Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

The final category of requests dealt with the opposite of the McCain and Reed of Rhode Island request; that is, we had requests for items to be included that were not in either bill. I will give you a couple of sympathetic examples: a liberalization of tax-exempt rules as applied to charitable hospitals. Senator Akaka raised this issue. Unfortunately, this provision was outside of scope.

Another example is penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for hurricane victims. Right now, if you are hit by four hurricanes in Florida, who is going to argue with Senator Nelson of Florida bringing that to our conference? He asked us to raise this item. It was not in either the House or Senate bill. It would have been an entirely new item that we could have put in in conference. However, there was no way to address the proposal without then opening the door for a lot of other items that were not in either bill that somebody would want included at the last minute.

So at this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have spent a little time going through a sample of the many items that Members weighed in with at the conference. This is a small sample of those items raised. Many others were brought to the attention of Senator Baucus and this Senator through letters or oral communications. It is safe to say, Senator Baucus and I can relate to what Senator Byrd and Chairman Stevens go through on the appropriations bills.

My point is, those who want to distort this bill by describing it as a special interest bill are ignoring a couple things. One, they are ignoring--perhaps conveniently, perhaps deliberately--their own efforts to advance their interests. Secondly, as I have said before, this bill is paid for by raising revenue, largely by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes.

Let the record be clear that this bill is fair, this bill is balanced. It is a balanced effort at resolving four objectives. One objective is ending the European tax on our exports going to Europe that are legal and legitimate, even though I disagree that it should have been done. I disagree with that decision. The United States lost a

World Trade Organization decision that our previous tax laws were violating the agreements that Congress had made with Europe, Congress made, because we passed these trade agreements as law.

If anybody thinks, well, it is wrong for Europe to levy a tax against us, we won a case against Europe on beef because they don't let our beef into Europe because we use hormones in the development of our beef, in the feed the cattle eat or that they are injected with, and Europe does not like that. But they are violating our right to send beef to Europe because they don't have a scientific basis for doing it. That is what the World Trade Organization said. But they still don't take our beef. So we put a tax on products coming from Europe to the United States to retaliate the same way they are retaliating for the reasons behind this bill.

This bill ends that European tax because we are conforming our tax laws to the international trading agreements Congress passed 10 years ago. We are also going beyond doing away with an impediment to our exports so that we lose jobs here in America because of that tax. We are putting a replacement benefit to manufacturers in the United States so jobs will be created here by lowering the corporate rate from 35 to 32.

No. 3, we are providing international tax reforms that will aid domestic manufacturers so we can compete in the global marketplace.

And lastly, we achieve these policy ends in a revenue-neutral way through the curtailment of abusive corporate tax shelters and abusive corporate loopholes by closing them.

I hope everybody agrees this bill is a well-balanced bill, accomplishing a goal we should have accomplished a year and a half ago, at least no later than March when these European taxes started on our products. I apologize to any Americans who have been laid off because our products are not competitive in Europe because of that tax and why it takes Congress so long to wake up, particularly when there are Members of Congress always complaining about outsourcing.

We started on this bill in March. It took us 15 days, over a period of 3 months, to get this bill through the Senate. And then we were a long period of time before the minority party agreed we could go to conference. But once we got to conference, thanks to the good cooperative working relationship between Senator Baucus and me for the Senate and between Mr. Baucus and me and Congressman Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, we have this bill.

But for those laid-off workers, I am embarrassed this bill couldn't have been passed a long time ago and that we ran up against all of the impediments. Why? Because certain Members of this body don't want a Republican President signing a jobs bill a few days before the election.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Kentucky, our whip, 5 minutes.

Mr. President, today is a historic day in the world of tax policy. We are about to pass the most significant reform of American business taxation since 1986. I am not talking about large corporate reforms. This bill contains some of the most important small business reforms in years. This bill represents the most comprehensive agricultural, small business, rural community tax incentive package ever written by Congress. The bill contains far-reaching measures to revive the manufacturing base in America by cutting taxes and creating incentives to invest and create jobs in the United States. This manufacturing tax goes to large and small corporations, family-held S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, farmers, and co-ops.

This is the football season. With apologies to the Senate's chart expert, my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, I am going to use one last chart for this bill. This chart behind me is about the football. It is a chart that I used about 7 months ago. During that time, spring drills were about the only football activity. The chart shows several sets of goalposts. As this important bill has wound its way through the legislative process, at each stage the goalposts were moved and moved and moved. Sometimes we had to call timeout. But at each stage we held on to the ball. We had an overtime regulation goalpost. We had a trade adjustment assistance goalpost. We had an unemployment insurance goalpost. Those were Senate floor goalposts. We passed each goalpost. Then we got to conference. In conference we ran into the Food and Drug Administration tobacco buyout goalpost.

We have passed the final goalpost now. In this bill we had to go straight over the tackle, and we did, just like good old-fashioned Big Ten football. I will see the Senator from Minnesota the last Saturday of November. We are finally now in the end zone.

Now I would like to thank the team that got us over the goal line. The first is Senator Baucus. I am certain that we would not be here without his good work and cooperation. In addition, I thank all other members of the Senate Finance Committee for their time and energy in making this bill a reality.

I would like to point out a special thanks to a couple senior members of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Nickles and Senator John Breaux.

Senator Nickles has been a Finance Committee member since 1995. He has left a big impact on trade, tax, health care issues that have come before the committee. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on all issues, but he is a hard-working, tenacious Member of the Senate. He takes the work of the committee seriously.

Senator Breaux has been on the Senate Finance Committee since 1990. He succeeded Senator Long in the Senate. Senator Long was a legendary member of the Finance Committee, the longest serving chairman it has ever had, a major architect of much tax legislation. Senator Long left a legacy on the Finance Committee. Senator Breaux followed up on the legacy of Senator Long, taking the practical, constructive, and creative approach of Senator Long. Senator Breaux has blazed his own trail on the Senate Finance Committee.

In many cases, the Senate is paralyzed by partisan politics. I am proud that the Finance Committee is still a workshop of bipartisan problem-solving. Senator Breaux has been a key element at that continuing bipartisan tradition. Hopefully, the Democratic caucus, which has been steadily moving to the left over the years, will replace him with a like-kind pragmatist. The country will be better off for it.

Over the last couple of years, the States of Oklahoma and Louisiana have been well represented on the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, there will be a bit of a vacuum with the departure of Senators Nickles and Breaux. I am pleased that this bill contains many priorities of these two Senators. For Senator Nickles, there was the depreciation change that he has fought for over the years. For Senator Breaux, important priorities for his State of Louisiana included significant changes in the tax treatment of key Louisiana interests such as agriculture, aquaculture, energy production, shipbuilding, forestry, and shipping. It is a fitting tribute to these two members of the Finance Committee.

We are also saying goodbye to Senator Bob Graham of Florida. Senator

Graham has been on the Finance Committee since 1995. In the 1990s, Senator Graham was also a bipartisan bridge builder on tax and trade issues. Senator Graham faithfully attended to Florida's interests during his service on the committee.

I thank also Senator Frist for backing me all the way on this bill. He took months to get it to the Senate floor. At times many of our Republican caucus questioned whether it was worth the price of unrelated controversial amendments that were thrown our way. Our leader stayed the course. I appreciate that very much.

I would like to thank my staff on the Senate Finance Committee as well: Kolan Davis, our staff director; Mark Prater, chief tax counsel, and the other tax counsels--Ed McClellan, Elizabeth Paris, Dean Zerbe, Christy Mistr, and John O'Neill, as well as John's predecessor, Diann Howland. These individuals, along with Adam Freed, the staff assistant for the tax team, have been the workhorses for the committee--keeping the lights burning long into the night to make this bill possible.

Finally, thanks go to the hard-working interns and law clerks. I refer to Casey August, Grant Menke, and Peter Jordan. Grant took the summer off to call balls and strikes as an umpire in the New York-Penn league. Grant helped us with this bill in the spring and returned in time for the conference.

Let me extend my thanks also to George Yin and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for providing guidance in this effort. I want to particularly point out the good work of Ray Beeman, David Noren, and Gray Fontenot. The Finance Committee tax staff refers to this trio of specialists as the ``three amigos.'' The three amigos helped us find a lot of gold out there in corporate loophole land. Brian Meighan recently left the three amigos for the private sector.

I would like to thank the leadership staff for all their assistance. From Senator Frist's staff, I thank Lee Rawls, Eric Ueland, Ronit Kumar, and Libby Jarvis. I also thank our Senate leadership team and their staffs, especially our able whip, Senator McConnell.

Finally my thanks to go Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunable and their capable staff at legislative counsel for taking on our ideas and drafting them into statutory language. These talented lawyers are the true wizards of the legislative process. They handle enormous pressure with professionalism and amazing dexterity.

I invite everybody to relax a bit today. After the vote tonight, everyone should go home and get a good night's sleep. As for me, now we are getting ready to wrap up. I am looking forward to going home to Iowa. It is harvesttime in the fields. I have some work to do on the farm. We also have a bit of an election coming up. God willing, the good folks of Iowa will send me back here to continue to do the people's business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.