Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Using a modified grading system to reflect the good quality of this audit, it would have earned a higher score were it not for an excessively long completion time. In this particular case, however, the impact of the audit was apparently felt while the audit was still in progress, so the timeliness rule may not apply here and probably should be set aside. There are three other audits containing savings and inefficiencies that I would like to discuss. The next one is entitled ``Implementation of the Predator/Sky Warrior Acquisition Decision Memorandum,'' No. 2010-082, dated September 10, 2010. The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Air Force and Army had complied with the Department of Defense directives and law to combine the Predator and Sky Warrior drone programs. The Defense Department estimated that $400 million could be saved by merging the two programs. While the audit was in progress, the Department of Defense pulled the rug out from under the auditor. A new directive was issued stating that the two programs did not have to be combined. To counter this move, the auditors recommended administrative action against those who failed to comply with the original directive. The Department of Defense nonconcurred and tossed the auditors a bone. The Department of Defense wiggled out of harm's way by offering to do a meaningless lessons- learned exercise. In the end, the auditors caved in, agreeing that the Department of Defense plan was responsive and backed off. Despite what appeared to be an unsuccessful outcome, the Office of Inspector General still claimed that this audit produced $60 million in savings. The audit itself indicates that the $60 million was, in fact, ``reprogrammed to meet higher priority operations.'' That means it was reallocated to other Department of Defense accounts and thus not saved. Since this audit was all about an opportunity to save $400 million and the Department of Defense balked, maybe these so-called savings might be better characterized as lost savings. In my report card, this audit earned low scores mainly because it failed to verify actual costs of two drone contracts using primary source accounting records, and it failed to assess the validity of the Department of Defense estimated savings of $400 million. I am not convinced this audit deserves a higher score, especially since it took 22\1/2\ months to complete, and the recommendations, though initially tough, were watered down in the end. The last one I wish to report on is entitled ``Deferred Maintenance and Carryover on the Army Abrams Tank,'' No. 2010-43, dated March 2, 2010. This report concluded that contrary to the Army's claim, depot maintenance on M-1 tanks was not deferred in fiscal year 2008. All planned overhauls were, in fact, completed, but a large sum of money was left over. The Army requested and received a formal, written waiver to carry over $346 million in unneeded and unused fiscal year 2008 M-1 maintenance funds for use in 2009 and beyond. The reason given was inadequate capacity at the Lima, OH, tank plant. Without the waiver, this money would have been canceled and lost. The report concluded that the Army documents contained ``inaccurate, misleading'' information that may have caused a violation of the Antideficiency Act. It recommended that the waiver be rescinded and $275 million in fiscal year 2008 money be canceled and reprogrammed or reduced. The Army appeared to agree with the recommendations to disclose the $275 million carryover to Congress but did not concur with other recommendations. This report does not point to any real savings. This report probably deserves higher scores except for the timeliness and strength of the recommendations. It was untimely, taking 22 months to complete. In addition, there were unresolved issues about the waiver document. Did the official who signed the waiver know that the document may have allegedly contained false and misleading information? And was he questioned about its truthfulness? If so, the report should have recommended that he be held accountable. The last of four reports uncovered $2.2 million in purported savings, but this one appears to be more about helping the Army spend--not save--money. It is entitled ``Controls Over Unliquidated Obligations for Department of the Army Contracts,'' number 2010-073, dated July 19, 2010. This report deserves high scores for hitting most of the dots on the money trail, including verification of exact dollar amounts using primary source accounting records. Such nitty gritty accounting work is highly commendable. Unfortunately, the objective of this audit appears to be questionable. The report finds that sloppy Army accounting work ``could increase the risk that funds are unavailable for other needs because funds available for de-obligation are not identified in a timely manner.'' Now what does that really mean? It means the money in question is no longer needed and is at risk of being ``lost'' because it is about to expire. Having un-needed money lying around in the Pentagon is almost always a recipe for more waste. In the Pentagon, there is no such thing as un- needed money. Every dollar has a mission. This report is all about managing money to make sure every cent is spent before it expires. Avoiding the loss of appropriations is the primary responsibility of the Army Comptroller or Chief Financial Officer--not the IG. In this scenario, the IG's primary focus should be to ensure that ``lost'' appropriations are not used illegally--or that un-needed monies are not wasted by being shifted to another questionable project. Money that is not needed should be reported to Congress and returned to the Treasury. Although this audit deserves high scores in several categories, its long completion time--16 months--and questionable focus lowers its overall score. To summarize, there are two main problems with these four reports on savings and collections. The fourth one I am not going to go into now to save time, but I will include that for the Record. None was timely, No. 1. No. 2, reported savings are unverified and elusive. First, these four reports took an average of 19 months to complete. Two took a total of 45 months, or almost 4 years, to finish. That does not include the 4 to 6 months it takes, I am told, to get an audit rolling. As I have said on other occasions, the power of top quality audit work is greatly weakened by stale information. Secondly, these four reports supposedly produced $4.2 billion in collected savings. But all of that money appears to have been shifted to other Department of Defense accounts and spent. To the best of my knowledge, not one cent was saved or redeposited in the taxpayers' bank account. Only in government could all the money be spent and still claim savings. What we are talking about here is lost savings that grew out of waste that was thankfully discovered and avoided. Waste that is avoided surely has monetary benefits. In closing, I wish to share a simple observation with my colleagues. For some reason, auditors in the Office of Inspector General show a great reluctance to use the word ``waste''--w-a-s-t-e--in their reports. That word rarely, if ever, appears in their audits. At the same time, auditors seem overly eager to tout savings and efficiency. Why would that be? Could it be that their superiors in the Pentagon take a dim view of the word ``waste''? Savings may be nothing more than the flip side of waste. Auditors detect and verify potential waste and then convert it to potential savings by proposing remedies to eliminate the waste. Maybe the auditors need to start calling it what it is--call it waste--and then talk about savings. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to extend some remarks I made on the Senate floor on June 6. The report I was reporting on on June 6 evaluated audits produced by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2010. I called that report a report card because that is exactly what it was. Each of the 113 unclassified reports published in fiscal year 2010 was reviewed and evaluated and graded in five categories. My report was produced by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2010. After each report was graded individually, all the scores for each report in each category were added up and averaged to create a composite score for all 113 reports. Although 15 top-quality audits were highlighted in the report, the overall score awarded to the 113 was basically D-minus. That is low, I know. Maybe the score should have been a little higher. Clearly, none reflected any of the reforms Inspector General Heddell, DOD, put in place in December of 2010, as all were published well in advance of that date. My oversight staff read these reports as educated consumers. We expected these reports to provide leverage in the monumental day-to-day Department of Defense oversight task. We want them to provide assurance that the Defense Department is spending taxpayers' money wisely. Some reports did that but most did not. This report, prepared by this Senator from Iowa, is sure of one thing: The audits which are the subject of my report card are not somehow exempt from oversight and public scrutiny. In other words, these audits should just not sit on the shelf and collect dust; they need, as well, to be put under the public microscope, especially when they cost almost $1 million apiece to produce. Mr. President, $1 million for an audit report is a heck of a lot of money. So that is exactly what we did in the report card--put these reports in the public spotlight, and I will keep them there until I see sustained improvement at the inspector general of the Department of Defense. As the report states and as I explained in my speech on June 6, this grading system was subjective and imperfect. However, as subjective and inexact as it may be, I believe it provided a reasonable and rough measure of audit quality. Following my speech, Defense Department Inspector General Heddell pounced on my report. He expressed strong opposition to the low score. He complained that it did not adequately reflect $4.2 billion in what he called ``achieved monetary benefits,'' identified in fiscal year 2010 reports. To address IG Heddell's concerns, my staff asked the audit department to prepare an information paper that linked the $4.2 billion in savings to the audit where those savings were reported. That information was provided to me on June 20. I call it a crosswalk. It takes me to the exact page in each report where the savings were discussed. This document listed $4.4 billion in identified potential monetary benefits and collections of $4.2 billion. After reviewing the crosswalk, I have concluded that Inspector General Heddell had a legitimate gripe about my report card. He is right. It should have included a section that addressed potential savings. So I will address those issues right now, focusing on four reports that contain almost all of the $4.2 billion in savings listed in the collections column. In grading these reports, we did not give sufficient credit for potential savings and inefficiencies. They were a casualty of the grading system for one simple reason: If the exact dollar amounts of the alleged fraud and waste were not verified using primary source accounting records--and using primary source accounting records is very important--then they did not pop up on my oversight radar screen. My staff is attempting to work with the audit office to develop a mutually agreed upon set of standards for grading audits. The purpose of these discussions would be to create a grading process that would accurately capture the true quality of all reports, including policy reviews that uncover real savings and efficiency. From the beginning, I have been very critical of the audit office for producing far too many policy reviews and far too few hardcore contract and payment audits. For the most part, the policy audits have no measurable monetary impact whatsoever. However, I have learned recently that at least a few are important for other reasons. I am told that some of these reports are a real value in the work of our Armed Services Committee here in the Senate. Contract and payment audits are also very important and I would say most important. They go right to the heart of the IG's core mission: to root out and deter fraud, waste, and theft. If done right, they, too, can produce big payoffs. Those audits earned top scores in my report card. I am not saying the audit office should do nothing but contract and payment audits. What I am saying is this: The current mix of audits creates a huge imbalance in favor of policy reviews as opposed to monetary reviews. So a better balance needs to be established by the Inspector General's Office. That said, I have an admission to make to my colleagues. I finally found a policy audit that I like. This report is entitled ``Recapitalization and Acquisition of Light Tactical Wheel Vehicles.'' That audit report is No. 2010-039, dated January 29, 2010. It identified potential savings of $3.84 billion. That is 90 percent of the savings uncovered in all the fiscal year 2010 audits. In my report card, I gave this audit a low grade. This audit failed to connect the dots on the money trail and verify dollar amounts using primary source contracts and payment records, plus it took 16 months to complete. When you add the 4 to 6 months of planning that often precedes an audit start date, you are probably looking at 2 years to complete the audit, and that is far too long. But this report had other important qualities that were overlooked. It uncovered gross violation of applicable procurement regulations, including the use of sole-source contracting arrangements. It also determined that the proposed vehicle might duplicate the capabilities of existing vehicles. In the midst of this audit, for reasons that remain unclear, the project manager decided to stop the program ``and put the $3.84 billion in funding to better use in fiscal years 2010-2013.'' This language suggests that all of the money was reallocated within Army accounts for other purposes. Clearly, the audit may have helped to stop $3.84 billion in potential waste. That is excellent. But this does not constitute savings in the classical sense, as all the money was shifted to other Army projects. Waste could have happened in those other projects as well. It reminds me, while we are here in session in what normally would be a recess and I am reporting that the inspector general found $3.84 billion in potential waste, now that they are trying to find trillions to cut down on the budget deficit, it might be a time to look at the Defense Department and stop the reprogramming of money. If it is going to be saved, it ought to be saved, and that means it will cut down on the deficit.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to express my concerns with S. 679, the Schumer/Alexander Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act. This bill would eliminate the Senate confirmation process for approximately 200 positions. Many of the positions proposed to be eliminated from the Senate process are officers dealing with transparency matters, such as positions dealing with public and congressional affairs, as well as officers dealing with budgetary matters, such as positions dealing with finances and grant administration. In general, I am concerned that the legislation will eliminate the Senate's ability to provide its constitutional duty of advice and consent for individuals tasked with performing important government functions, and would allow these positions to become more like czars that are unaccountable to the people. In addition, I am concerned that the legislation will impede the Senate's ability to conduct oversight of certain department programs, as well as reduce Senators' ability to compel executive department and agencies to testify before Congress or answer written questions. For example, DOJ has a policy of not allowing line attorneys to testify before Congress, and the Obama Administration will not allow its czars to testify--a policy that could potentially apply to these individuals. Further, often the only tactic a Senator has for compelling an agency to produce documents or provide answers to questions is to block a nominee until documents or answers are produced. This is especially true when the member seeking to conduct oversight is in the minority party. I have frequently employed this tactic to get documents/ information from agencies, and generally have been successful when I've used this method in helping me with my oversight efforts. As the current ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would like to address the positions under Judiciary Committee jurisdiction proposed to be eliminated. Specifically, S, 679 would eliminate the Senate confirmation process for these 10 positions under Judiciary Committee jurisdiction: Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, DOJ Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, DOJ Director, National Institute of Justice, DOJ Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, DOJ Director, Office for Victims of Crime, DOJ Deputy Director, National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP Deputy Director, Demand Reduction, National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP Deputy Director, Supply Reduction, National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP In addition, the Senate resolution would provide an expedited process for these positions under Judiciary Committee jurisdiction: Members (2), Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Members (11), Board of Directors, State Justice Institute I believe that all these positions be removed from the legislation. Specifically with respect to the Judiciary Committee positions, I am concerned that several of these positions deal with policy implementation, grant administration and funding, statistics and data collection, as well as transparency and accountability. The DOJ inspector general noted that grant management was one of the top 10 challenges at DOJ. Several of these DOJ and ONDCP positions administer millions of dollars in grants. In addition, several groups have raised concerns because some of these positions compile data that can be skewed and distorted to support policy goals. Prior nominees for some of these positions were opposed or withdrawn because they were not qualified. Further, I and others have blocked several of the nominees for these positions in the past to force agencies to comply with document production requests or to compel answers to my questions. In addition to my concerns with the positions under Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, there are other committee jurisdiction positions in this legislation that I have a problem relinquishing my ability to review. The bottom line is that S. 679 would hamper the Senate's ability to conduct effective oversight of the executive branch's programs. S. 679 would allow the Senate to relinquish its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent in filling Federal offices, diminish the Senate's oversight duties, and make the executive branch less transparent and accountable to the people. While a few positions have been struck from the bill as reported out of Committee, like the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at the DOJ, the other DOJ and ONDCP positions remain in the legislation and will now not be required to undergo Senate review. For the reasons I have just discussed, I will oppose this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I assume that we are now on the Cole nomination?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, earlier this year the Senate expressed its opposition to proceeding to Mr. Cole's nomination when it failed to invoke cloture. I was a strong advocate against the Senate invoking cloture on Mr. Cole's nomination because the Justice Department had failed to respond to a legitimate oversight request that both Senator Chambliss and I made relating to two separate topics. The Justice Department was withholding vital documents related to my inquiry of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm's Operation Fast and Furious and to an inquiry by Senator Chambliss in his capacity as vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been seeking and still seek documents, information, and access to witness interviews to determine who approved Operation Fast and Furious. This was an operation that you have heard me talk about often where ATF agents were ordered to knowingly allow straw buyers to obtain weapons on behalf of criminals and traffickers intent on smuggling those weapons into Mexico. The courageous agents who blew the whistle and testified about their efforts to warn supervisors about the dangers referred to this practice as ``walking guns.'' Of the more than 1,800 weapons allowed to ``walk,'' hundreds have been recovered in connection with crimes in the United States and Mexico, including two such weapons in connection with the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. After seeking information from the Justice Department, I was repeatedly told that the ATF did not knowingly allow these sales. Working with Congressman Issa, who is chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, we released information that showed that the initial denials were false. This risky policy was, in fact, implemented at ATF and the Justice Department. Despite the seriousness of the whistleblowers' allegations and my repeated inquiries, the Justice Department continued to deny me access to the documents. As a result, I urged my colleagues to oppose cloture on James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General. Well, that cloture opposition worked. We have since reached an agreement with the Justice Department and Senator Leahy that will guarantee my access to vital document information and witnesses regarding this ATF operation. I also understand that Senator Chambliss has reached an agreement on obtaining the information he has sought on behalf of the Intelligence Committee. Accordingly, I now lift my opposition to the Senate holding a vote on Mr. Cole's nomination. However, I want to explain that I am going to vote against his nomination for many reasons. I oppose the nomination of James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice because I have serious concerns regarding Mr. Cole's qualifications. In addition, I am troubled by President Obama's recess appointment of Mr. Cole to this position. I have been consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years on committees where I have been chairman or ranking member. Whenever the President bypasses the Senate; in other words, bypasses our confirmation of a person, by making a recess appointment, such nominees will not receive my support where I have been lead on my side responsible for reviewing such nominees. We have a process in place for nominations, and if the President is not willing to work with Senators to clear nominations, the nominee should not get a second bite at the apple. The Deputy Attorney General is second in command at the Justice Department and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Department. Managing this vast bureaucracy is a difficult task that requires a serious commitment to protecting our national security, enforcing our criminal laws, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars. We need a qualified leader who has the smarts, the capability, and the willingness to manage Department programs and root out inefficiencies and abuse in those programs. After reviewing all of his responses and his hearing testimony, I concluded that I could not support Mr. Cole's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. In particular, I am seriously concerned about Mr. Cole's views on national security and on terrorism. Back in 2002, Mr. Cole was author of an opinion piece in the Legal Times. In that piece he stated: For all the rhetoric about war, the September 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population, much like terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade Center. The criminals responsible for those horrible acts were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal justice system without the need for procedures that altered traditional due process rights. But I want to quote further. The acts of September 11th were horrible, but so are . . . other things. The other things he referred to were the drug trade, organized crime, rape, child abuse and murder. Mr. Cole's opinion piece argued that notwithstanding the involvement of foreign organizations such as al- Qaida, we have never treated criminal acts influenced by foreign nationals or governments as a basis for ``ignoring the core constitutional protections engrained in our criminal justice system.'' Mr. Cole concluded his opinion piece by arguing that in addition to stopping future terrorist attacks, the Attorney General is a criminal prosecutor and that he has a special duty to apply constitutional protections ingrained in our criminal justice system to even including terrorists captured on foreign battlefields. Mr. Cole wrote this opinion piece 2 days short of the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Given the close proximity in time to the September 11 attacks, we must accept this opinion piece as Mr. Cole's true beliefs about the application of the civilian criminal justice system to terrorism cases, including those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. From the opinion piece and his responses to our inquiry, it appears that if given a choice of prosecuting high-ranking terrorists in civilian courts or military commissions, Mr. Cole would likely favor civilian courts based upon his longstanding belief in the role that the Attorney General plays in protecting the principles of the criminal justice system. Absent a clear statement from Mr. Cole about what factors would warrant selecting a civilian or a military forum, it is hard to look at his entire record of past opinion, his testimony and responses to our questions, and reach any different conclusion. In fact, my concerns about the individuals at the Justice Department supporting prosecution of terrorists in civilian criminal court have been validated by recent events surrounding the arrest of two Iraqi nationals at Bowling Green, KY. These Iraqi nationals have admitted targeting American troops in Iraq, plotting to equip foreign fighters in Iraq with weapons such as grenades and missile launchers. They made their way to our country and somehow got past the Department of Homeland Security. After they were identified, the Justice Department is seeking to try them in civilian court even though their activities regarded terrorist activities and took a very military approach. Attorney General Holder has been steadfast in supporting their prosecution in civilian court. It appears to me that no one in the Justice Department, including Mr. Cole, has objected to prosecuting these individuals in civilian court. This is despite the clear nexus to the battlefield in Iraq. So it now appears the Justice Department, where Mr. Cole currently serves as a recess-appointed Deputy Attorney General, rewards terrorists who are smart enough to evade Homeland Security's determination on whether they can come to this country, and at the same time make their way from the battlefield with the same rights and privileges as American citizens. All of this occurred on Mr. Cole's watch as Deputy Attorney General. Military tribunals have many advantages to civilian criminal courts and are better equipped to deal with dangerous terrorists and classified evidence while preserving due process. I am troubled that Mr. Cole does not appear to share this belief. Because of his responses and testimony, I have serious concerns about his support for civilian trials for terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield. This is of particular concern, given that the Deputy Attorney General oversees the National Security Division at the Justice Department. Now for a second reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities relative to oversight of government programs. We asked about oversight of the Department of Justice's grant programs. When he was asked, Mr. Cole failed to commit to a top-to-bottom review of the programs, nor has he undertaken such a review since he was recess appointed. Given the enormous Federal deficits and enough examples of the tremendous inefficiencies, duplications, and waste in these programs, one would assume the Deputy Attorney General would be looking for cost savings in the Department. I am disappointed Mr. Cole has failed to recognize that there is a need for a comprehensive review of Justice's grant programs--not only for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars at a time when we face skyrocketing fiscal deficits but also to ensure that grant objectives are being met in the most efficient and effective manner possible. A third reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities based on his performance as an independent consultant tasked with overseeing the insurance firm AIG. By way of background, the Justice Department provided copies of the reports Mr. Cole issued when he was overseeing AIG, but they were labeled ``Committee Confidential.'' As a result of their being labeled ``Committee Confidential,'' I cannot discuss with specificity the contents of those documents publicly. Nevertheless, when taken into context with the public responses provided by Mr. Cole to my questions, a troubling picture develops about Mr. Cole's performance in his role as independent consultant. The responses and reports do not dispel the serious questions raised about Mr. Cole's independence or his completeness. Further, they reveal what appears to be a level of deference to AIG management one would not expect to see from someone tasked with the responsibility of being an ``independent'' monitor. In order to clarify a number of questions on this matter, Senator Coburn and I sent a followup letter seeking additional answers from Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole's reply clarified that the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York Attorney General's Office were aware of his practice of seeking input from AIG and making modifications to the reports. He indicated that the changes AIG made were often factual changes, such as AIG employee names, dates of materials, and events. He also indicated that some of the changes requested by AIG were included in a section of the report entitled ``AIG Response.'' However, he added that ``on a few occasions'' AIG would ``suggest a stylistic change of phrasing in the analytical section of the report.'' He stated that while he included the edits made by AIG, he ``did not believe that a detailed presentation of this factual review process was necessary to an understanding of each party's position.'' As a result, the reports did not necessarily show which edits AIG made that were incorporated. Instead, he said those changes were available in working papers that were ``available to the SEC, the DOJ, and the New York Attorney General's Office.'' Unfortunately, he added, ``the agencies--which were aware of this practice--did not request such documents.'' While I appreciate Mr. Cole's responses to these clarifying questions, they raise concerns about how independent his monitoring was, what changes were ultimately requested by AIG, what changes were included, and how much the SEC and the Department of Justice knew about edits AIG was making to the ``independent'' reports. In addition, I have serious concerns about Mr. Cole's decision to suspend compliance review at AIG's financial products division following the government bailout of AIG. In his testimony, Mr. Cole acknowledged that subsequent to the government bailout of AIG, he scaled back his efforts until the future of AIG as a corporation was determined. After Mr. Cole suspended his monitoring, AIG restructured its compliance office and terminated a number of staff overseeing the company's compliance with SEC regulations. Mr. Cole said after it was determined that AIG's financial products division would not be dissolved, the compliance and monitoring were ``revived and are being reviewed and implemented where applicable.'' Under Mr. Cole's watch, AIG not only got $182 billion of taxpayer dollars for a bailout, but was able to talk the independent consultant--Mr. Cole--out of monitoring what the company was doing. I am concerned about Mr. Cole's ability to perform the duties required of a Deputy Attorney General. In that role, he would be in a position to potentially influence future compliance monitors appointed under settlements with the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other corporations that have violated the law. Independent monitors need to be truly independent and, of course, completely transparent. They are selected and appointed to ensure the interests of the American people are protected. For these reasons, I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to alert my colleagues that I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement for the consideration of S. 1145, the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. While I joined in supporting a vote to report S. 1145 out of the Judiciary Committee, my vote does not signal my support for the legislation in its current form. Unless changes are made to address my concerns with the legislation, I will continue to object. I oppose S. 1145 in its current form because it does not include a sufficient carve-out for intelligence, law enforcement, or protective assignments by U.S. Government employees abroad. The current version of S. 1145 does include a carve-out for intelligence activities, but the current version of the intelligence carve-out is problematic. There is repetition in the language and extraneous language is unnecessary. Further, under the current carve-out an intelligence agent may not be protected from prosecution, even though he was authorized to undertake an operation. The current provision in the bill would require that a supervisor's directive be authorized and also be ``consistent with applicable U.S. law.'' This extra requirement opens up a world of questions. How should an agent in the field know his supervisor's instruction was ``consistent with applicable U.S. law''? Will this provision now require agents to obtain a legal opinion before they take action? This is not the message we should be sending to the agents in the field. Instead, I proposed a carve-out in the Judiciary Committee that would exclude government employees performing intelligence, law enforcement, and protective assignments abroad. This version was based upon existing U.S. law that some members of the Judiciary Committee previously supported. If the carve-out I proposed is good enough for employees operating inside the United States, it should be good enough for those operating abroad. Why would we give agents operating in the U.S. more protections than those operating in foreign lands? Further, the current carve-out in S. 1145 is not the preferred language that the intelligence community proposed at the beginning of negotiations. If past is any prologue, this appears to be yet another instance where the intelligence community is settling for language it can ``live with'' as opposed to the optimal language it should be seeking. This same problem occurred in negotiations during consideration of legislation extending the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Ultimately, extraneous language that would have restricted the ability of law enforcement and the intelligence community was removed from the extension of the PATRIOT Act authorities and a similar outcome should occur on CEJA. I also oppose S. 1145 in its current form because the legislation does not currently include the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, UVVA, in the list of covered offenses that would apply to crime victims abroad. The UVVA applies to violent Federal crimes in the United States, and to employees and contractors of the Department of Defense abroad under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. There is no reason that extending the long arm of Federal criminal law expanded under CEJA should exclude the UVVA. No one would dispute the importance of holding government employees and contractors accountable abroad. I support the idea of this legislation because we should never have government employees or contractors committing serious crimes like rape or murder abroad with impunity. However, we need to think long and hard about the consequences of our actions if we legislate criminal extraterritorial jurisdiction too broadly absent a sufficient carve-out for authorized intelligence, law enforcement, and protective activities. Until these concerns are addressed and further changes are included in the bill, I support holding this legislation on the Senate floor. No one should take my support for reporting this bill out of committee to mean anything more than an expression of my willingness to work with the sponsors on this topic to address these concerns going forward.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill on an issue that is very important to me and many of my colleagues here in the Senate. I have long been a passionate supporter of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, especially the thousands of our Nation's foster youth. Currently, there are over 420,000 children living in foster care. Each one of these foster youth deserves a safe, loving and permanent home. But, each year, these children face a declining number of foster homes, and must also deal with the widespread negative misperceptions attached to the foster care system. Many of them have to cope with parents that struggle with substance abuse problems. Parental substance abuse is one of the leading, if not the primary, reasons forcing children into the foster care system. According to the Congressional Research Service, in a nationally representative study, caseworkers investigating allegations of abuse or neglect noted active drug abuse by the 37 percent of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed to out-of-home care. The same report also noted active alcohol abuse among 29 percent of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed. The percentage of children who remain in care due to issues related to substance abuse is believed to be even larger because, among other reasons, accessing and successfully completing treatment services is often time consuming and children may not be able to safely return to their homes until treatment is successfully completed. An additional troubling statistic comes from a 2005 report by the RAND Corporation, which revealed that more than 300,000 children entered the foster-care system due to methamphetamine abuse. I would like to take a moment to share a story about one foster youth who is currently serving as an intern in my Washington, DC office thanks to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Her name is Taatianna and her story is a reminder of the challenges that many foster youth face. When Taatianna turned three, she opened the front door of her home to a caseworker who removed her and her two siblings from their home. Taatianna was placed in the foster care system at very young age because of her parent's substance abuse. She has lived many years with shame and guilt, believing she was responsible for splitting apart her family. However, she now knows that drug and alcohol were the reasons she was neglected and forced into foster care. Fortunately, Taatianna and her siblings were able to live together and be raised by their biological grandmother, Ruby, in Relative Kinship Care. Ruby played the role of mom, dad, and grandma to these three children. While growing up, Taatianna and her siblings faced emotional and mental anxieties, trying hard not to succumb to the curse of substance abuse addiction that ran in their family. But more importantly, the kids longed to be with their mom and dad again, hoping they could get clean, hold a job, and be a family. Taatianna's mother struggled, and continues to struggle with, addiction. Drugs and alcohol have torn this family apart, and have destroyed any sense of normalcy or permanency they so desperately yearned for. Taatianna witnessed first-hand the traumatic effects of substance abuse in both her parents and many other family members. Taatianna, and many other foster youth in this country, could be helped if parents were treated or had better access to treatment for their substance abuse problems. Foster care shouldn't be a destination. It should be a temporary detour for children while their parents are treated and are ready to be parents. So, today, on behalf of many youth in foster care, I introduce the Partners for Stable Families and Foster Youth Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse Act. This bill will reauthorize the Regional Partnership Grants that were created in 2006 as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act. The passage of this legislation was a tremendous step forward in our efforts to help the youth in the foster care system. The funds from these grants address a variety of challenges that are barriers to optimal family outcomes. The mission of the Regional Partnership Grants is to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are in an out-of-home placement or are at-risk of such placement because of a parent or caretaker's abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. In September 2007, following the authorization of the Regional Partnership Grants, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded multiyear grants to 53 regional partnerships representing 29 states and 6 tribes. The first round of grants supported the creation or expansion of family treatment drug courts, improvement of system-wide collaboration, expanded access to comprehensive family centered treatment, use of evidence-based practice approaches such as motivational enhancement therapy, parent advocates, and recovery management approaches to drug treatment monitoring. The groups receiving these grants were split almost evenly between the public and private sectors, and they represent a great example of how both can assist the many youth and families that are a part of the foster care system. Allow me an opportunity to tell you about the grantees in my home state of Iowa. One grantee, Upper Des Moines Opportunity Inc., is undertaking the Parent Partner Program in 9 counties in rural Northwest Iowa. This program primarily assists individuals addicted to meth, and is unique because parents are matched to Parent Partners who serve as mentors, assisting clients to navigate the child welfare and substance abuse systems. The goal of these Parent Partners is to support and mentor parents who have trouble keeping their families together and are at risk of incarceration or permanently losing custody of their children. This program is more personal than stand alone drug treatment programs because Parent Partners have been through the same situations. One outcome is that clients are developing a trusting relationship with professionals in the child welfare and substance abuse systems; thereby increasing their chances for success and becoming more engaged in substance abuse treatment and recovery. The Parent Partner understands the client's situation, allowing them to bond and build trust with the goal of regaining custody of their children more quickly. The Parent Partners serve as the critical link between the Department of Human Services, the parent, and other experts. Another grantee, the Parents and Children Together, PACT, is a family drug court initiative implementing a community based approach to substance abuse treatment. The program supports the family to remain the primary permanency option for their children. PACT is a partnership of the courts, the state child welfare agency, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and five community pilot sites with the State Court taking the lead. Through this program, family treatment courts were implemented in each pilot site. The program is focused on increasing the safety, permanency and well-being of children by addressing the substance abuse treatment programming and service gaps through a community collaborative planning approach. The partnership has worked hard over the years to establish family drug courts in their pilot sites that support families as they navigate the foster care system and substance abuse treatment. With the knowledge they are gaining on what works and what doesn't, they have provided two family treatment court forums for other interested community court led teams. They presently serve 6 sites and have 6 other court led teams that are interested in learning more. According to a forthcoming report from the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, over 8,000 adults and 12,000 children have been served by the Regional Partnership Grants. Bryan Samuels, the Commissioner of the Administration, has said that children are discharged from foster care at a faster rate because of the grants and that families are more likely to be reunited within 12 months and are more likely to stay that way after 12 months. The efforts to help at-risk youth must continue. We know that substance abuse issues will continue to push kids into foster care. In Iowa alone, from 2005-2009, the Iowa Department of Human Services classified 5,330 children victims of abuse due to the presence of an illegal drug in their body. Meth continues to be a huge concern. In fact, meth lab incidents in Iowa have dropped dramatically since their peak in 2004, but have risen in each of the past three years. The resurgence in meth lab incidents coincides with a rise in drug-related prison admissions, meth treatment admissions, and child abuse cases. In my original version of the Regional Partnership Grants in 2006, I envisioned $40 million per year to be available for grants to improve the outcomes of those affected by meth or other substance abuse. Unfortunately this amount was reduced during conference committee negotiations. In the bill I am introducing today, I am again calling for the amount to be set at $40 million per year. This will allow new grantees to start programs while giving short two-year extensions to existing grantees. The goal is to encourage new collaborations throughout the country, while giving time to existing collaborations to institute best practices and educate other entities about what works and what does not. The reauthorization of the Regional Partnership Grants will also include several measures aimed at improving the original legislation. The bill will allow more dollars to be available for activities and collaborative efforts by instituting a 5 percent administrative fee cap on the amount that can be retained by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families for technical assistance or contract services. Finally, the bill will require more evaluation of regional partnerships, and require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the new grantees and issue a report on the best practices implemented by their programs no later than December 1, 2012, with a follow-up report due in 2017. These reports will prove useful in efforts to improve our foster-care system. The improvement of the lives of families and youth that are involved in the foster care system is one of the most important issue I have undertaken in the U.S. Senate. The Regional Partnership Grants have not only helped youth in search of permanent, loving families, but have brought back together families that were torn apart by substance abuse. As a founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have been a witness to the many successes that have occurred thanks to our support of these children and young adults; however, I am also still painfully aware of the amount of work that remains. We can take another significant step forward in this area by passing the Partners for Stable Families and Foster Youth Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse Act and reauthorizing the Regional Partnership Grants.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill on an issue that is very important to me and many of my colleagues here in the Senate. I have long been a passionate supporter of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, especially the thousands of our Nation's foster youth. Currently, there are over 420,000 children living in foster care. Each one of these foster youth deserves a safe, loving and permanent home. But, each year, these children face a declining number of foster homes, and must also deal with the widespread negative misperceptions attached to the foster care system. Many of them have to cope with parents that struggle with substance abuse problems. Parental substance abuse is one of the leading, if not the primary, reasons forcing children into the foster care system. According to the Congressional Research Service, in a nationally representative study, caseworkers investigating allegations of abuse or neglect noted active drug abuse by the 37 percent of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed to out-of-home care. The same report also noted active alcohol abuse among 29 percent of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed. The percentage of children who remain in care due to issues related to substance abuse is believed to be even larger because, among other reasons, accessing and successfully completing treatment services is often time consuming and children may not be able to safely return to their homes until treatment is successfully completed. An additional troubling statistic comes from a 2005 report by the RAND Corporation, which revealed that more than 300,000 children entered the foster-care system due to methamphetamine abuse. I would like to take a moment to share a story about one foster youth who is currently serving as an intern in my Washington, DC office thanks to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Her name is Taatianna and her story is a reminder of the challenges that many foster youth face. When Taatianna turned three, she opened the front door of her home to a caseworker who removed her and her two siblings from their home. Taatianna was placed in the foster care system at very young age because of her parent's substance abuse. She has lived many years with shame and guilt, believing she was responsible for splitting apart her family. However, she now knows that drug and alcohol were the reasons she was neglected and forced into foster care. Fortunately, Taatianna and her siblings were able to live together and be raised by their biological grandmother, Ruby, in Relative Kinship Care. Ruby played the role of mom, dad, and grandma to these three children. While growing up, Taatianna and her siblings faced emotional and mental anxieties, trying hard not to succumb to the curse of substance abuse addiction that ran in their family. But more importantly, the kids longed to be with their mom and dad again, hoping they could get clean, hold a job, and be a family. Taatianna's mother struggled, and continues to struggle with, addiction. Drugs and alcohol have torn this family apart, and have destroyed any sense of normalcy or permanency they so desperately yearned for. Taatianna witnessed first-hand the traumatic effects of substance abuse in both her parents and many other family members. Taatianna, and many other foster youth in this country, could be helped if parents were treated or had better access to treatment for their substance abuse problems. Foster care shouldn't be a destination. It should be a temporary detour for children while their parents are treated and are ready to be parents. So, today, on behalf of many youth in foster care, I introduce the Partners for Stable Families and Foster Youth Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse Act. This bill will reauthorize the Regional Partnership Grants that were created in 2006 as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act. The passage of this legislation was a tremendous step forward in our efforts to help the youth in the foster care system. The funds from these grants address a variety of challenges that are barriers to optimal family outcomes. The mission of the Regional Partnership Grants is to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are in an out-of-home placement or are at-risk of such placement because of a parent or caretaker's abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. In September 2007, following the authorization of the Regional Partnership Grants, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded multiyear grants to 53 regional partnerships representing 29 states and 6 tribes. The first round of grants supported the creation or expansion of family treatment drug courts, improvement of system-wide collaboration, expanded access to comprehensive family centered treatment, use of evidence-based practice approaches such as motivational enhancement therapy, parent advocates, and recovery management approaches to drug treatment monitoring. The groups receiving these grants were split almost evenly between the public and private sectors, and they represent a great example of how both can assist the many youth and families that are a part of the foster care system. Allow me an opportunity to tell you about the grantees in my home state of Iowa. One grantee, Upper Des Moines Opportunity Inc., is undertaking the Parent Partner Program in 9 counties in rural Northwest Iowa. This program primarily assists individuals addicted to meth, and is unique because parents are matched to Parent Partners who serve as mentors, assisting clients to navigate the child welfare and substance abuse systems. The goal of these Parent Partners is to support and mentor parents who have trouble keeping their families together and are at risk of incarceration or permanently losing custody of their children. This program is more personal than stand alone drug treatment programs because Parent Partners have been through the same situations. One outcome is that clients are developing a trusting relationship with professionals in the child welfare and substance abuse systems; thereby increasing their chances for success and becoming more engaged in substance abuse treatment and recovery. The Parent Partner understands the client's situation, allowing them to bond and build trust with the goal of regaining custody of their children more quickly. The Parent Partners serve as the critical link between the Department of Human Services, the parent, and other experts. Another grantee, the Parents and Children Together, PACT, is a family drug court initiative implementing a community based approach to substance abuse treatment. The program supports the family to remain the primary permanency option for their children. PACT is a partnership of the courts, the state child welfare agency, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and five community pilot sites with the State Court taking the lead. Through this program, family treatment courts were implemented in each pilot site. The program is focused on increasing the safety, permanency and well-being of children by addressing the substance abuse treatment programming and service gaps through a community collaborative planning approach. The partnership has worked hard over the years to establish family drug courts in their pilot sites that support families as they navigate the foster care system and substance abuse treatment. With the knowledge they are gaining on what works and what doesn't, they have provided two family treatment court forums for other interested community court led teams. They presently serve 6 sites and have 6 other court led teams that are interested in learning more. According to a forthcoming report from the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, over 8,000 adults and 12,000 children have been served by the Regional Partnership Grants. Bryan Samuels, the Commissioner of the Administration, has said that children are discharged from foster care at a faster rate because of the grants and that families are more likely to be reunited within 12 months and are more likely to stay that way after 12 months. The efforts to help at-risk youth must continue. We know that substance abuse issues will continue to push kids into foster care. In Iowa alone, from 2005-2009, the Iowa Department of Human Services classified 5,330 children victims of abuse due to the presence of an illegal drug in their body. Meth continues to be a huge concern. In fact, meth lab incidents in Iowa have dropped dramatically since their peak in 2004, but have risen in each of the past three years. The resurgence in meth lab incidents coincides with a rise in drug-related prison admissions, meth treatment admissions, and child abuse cases. In my original version of the Regional Partnership Grants in 2006, I envisioned $40 million per year to be available for grants to improve the outcomes of those affected by meth or other substance abuse. Unfortunately this amount was reduced during conference committee negotiations. In the bill I am introducing today, I am again calling for the amount to be set at $40 million per year. This will allow new grantees to start programs while giving short two-year extensions to existing grantees. The goal is to encourage new collaborations throughout the country, while giving time to existing collaborations to institute best practices and educate other entities about what works and what does not. The reauthorization of the Regional Partnership Grants will also include several measures aimed at improving the original legislation. The bill will allow more dollars to be available for activities and collaborative efforts by instituting a 5 percent administrative fee cap on the amount that can be retained by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families for technical assistance or contract services. Finally, the bill will require more evaluation of regional partnerships, and require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the new grantees and issue a report on the best practices implemented by their programs no later than December 1, 2012, with a follow-up report due in 2017. These reports will prove useful in efforts to improve our foster-care system. The improvement of the lives of families and youth that are involved in the foster care system is one of the most important issue I have undertaken in the U.S. Senate. The Regional Partnership Grants have not only helped youth in search of permanent, loving families, but have brought back together families that were torn apart by substance abuse. As a founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have been a witness to the many successes that have occurred thanks to our support of these children and young adults; however, I am also still painfully aware of the amount of work that remains. We can take another significant step forward in this area by passing the Partners for Stable Families and Foster Youth Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse Act and reauthorizing the Regional Partnership Grants.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I compliment Senator Klobuchar on her leadership in trying to find, first of all, leadership in supporting biofuels and alternative energy but also working very hard for the last few weeks to find a compromise on this issue that is a very difficult issue and very divisive here within the Senate. So we are voting at 2:00 today on these amendments to which Senator Klobuchar has already referred. The first is an amendment by Senators Feinstein and Coburn repealing the incentive for domestically produced ethanol. I emphasize ``domestically produced'' because we do not have to worry about oil sheiks robbing us of all of our resources when you burn ethanol the way you do when you burn imported gasoline. The second amendment is offered by Senator McCain, prohibiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using funds for the installation of blender pumps. These amendments won't lower the price of gasoline at the pump. That is what people today are concerned about--the price of gas at the pump. These amendments won't lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We spend $835 million every day importing oil. And these amendments won't create a single job in the United States. In fact, they will do just the opposite. They will raise the price of gasoline, make us more dependent on foreign oil, and they won't create a single job. Most importantly, these amendments also won't save the taxpayers any money because they stand little chance of being enacted. Even if the amendments were to pass today, they won't get out of this Chamber because of our Constitution that says that revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. So when this bill, if it passes the Senate, goes to the House, they are going to reject it, or they use the term ``blue slip'' this bill, and it is going to come back to the Senate. So this bill, with these amendments, is dead on arrival in the other body. It is also dead on arrival at the White House. We have had indications in a statement that President Obama opposes repealing the incentives and is open to new approaches that meet today's challenges and save taxpayers money. I remember one of the first policy discussions I had with then-new Senator Obama. I was chairman of the Finance Committee. He came up, and we talked about what we could do working together to promote ethanol as an alternative energy. His idea was incorporated into a piece of legislation that became law. I was glad to work with him on it. So I thank President Obama for the statement he recently gave--again, now, as President of the United States--supporting alternative energies, biofuels, and, in this case, specifically ethanol. The votes at 2 o'clock, then, are a fruitless exercise. So in a sense we are in political theater here as we debate these issues. We have already had this vote, and it was defeated 40 to 59. Everybody knows oil is now hovering near $100 a barrel, and everybody knows, as we hear once a month or maybe are reminded every day, unemployment is 9.1 percent. So why has the Senate taken a full week, voting twice, on the same amendment that will increase prices at the pump, increase dependence upon foreign oil, and lead to job loss, or at least do nothing about the unemployment rate? We should be having this debate in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate should include a review of the subsidies for all energy production, not just singling out ethanol. Nearly every type of energy gets some market-distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. An honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and probably a lot of other alternative energies I don't think of right now. By discussing it in the context of an overall energy policy instead of singling out ethanol right now, we would be able to then make sure we have a level playing field for all forms of energy because the government shouldn't be choosing between petroleum and alternative energy, as an example. When the oil and gas subsidies were targeted, as the ethanol subsidies are being targeted right now and oil and gas subsidies were targeted last month, the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association had this to say: Targeting a specific industry, or even a segment of that industry, is what we would consider punitive and unfair tax policy. It is not going to get us increased energy security, increased employment, and it is certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline. Well, those very same words could be said about the ethanol debate we are having right now because it would surely increase our energy insecurity, it would increase unemployment, and it is certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline. So it seems to me that the old saying about what is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander applies. So what is good for a subsidy on petroleum and the people who defend that--why would we want the inconsistency we are demonstrating here? Because that gets back to how I voted on that provision about a month ago. I voted that we ought to deal with oil and gas and ethanol and all of those things in the same context and make sure they fit into an overall national energy policy. In December 2010, Congress enacted this 1-year extension of VEETC, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, also known as a blenders' credit. We extended it for 1 year. That is what is being repealed in the Coburn amendment. This 1-year extension has allowed Congress and the domestic biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for Federal support of biofuels and for the phasing out of that subsidy. As a result of these discussions, Senator Conrad and I introduced bipartisan legislation on May 4 that is a serious, responsible first step to reducing and redirecting Federal tax incentives for ethanol. Our bill will reduce and phase out VEETC over a period of a few years. It also would extend through 2016 the alternative-fuel refueling property credit, the cellulosic producers' tax credit that deals with a second generation of ethanol from things other than grain, and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuels plant property. Earlier this week, I joined Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar in introducing another bipartisan bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax incentive. It includes many of the same features as the bill I introduced last month with Senator Conrad, but it enacts these reforms this year, right now. Senator Thune's approach also leads to significant deficit reduction. The legislation we have introduced is a responsible approach that will reduce the existing blenders' credit and put those valuable resources into investing in alternative-fuel infrastructure, including alternative-fuel pumps or, as Senator Klobuchar used the term, blender pumps. It would also make significant investments in advanced and cellulosic ethanol. That is the second generation of ethanol. That is where we want to go so we are not using grain for fuel. It is a forward-looking bill that deserves widespread support. The Thune-Klobuchar bill of which I am a cosponsor will responsibly and predictably reduce the existing tax incentive and help get alternative-fuel infrastructure in place so consumers can decide which fuels they prefer. We shouldn't pull the rug out from under this industry that has made these enormous investments. We need to provide a transition. I know that when American consumers have the choice, they will choose domestically produced, clean, affordable, renewable fuel. They will choose fuel from America's farmers and ranchers, rather than from oil sheiks and foreign dictators. Both of the ethanol reform bills I mentioned are supported by the ethanol advocacy groups. In an almost unprecedented move, the ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their Federal incentives. No other energy industry has come to the table to reduce or eliminate subsidies. No other energy lobby has come to me with a plan to reduce their Federal support. For sure, Big Oil hasn't come forward with any suggestions on reducing their subsidies. The best way to get deficit reduction that gets to the President's desk with a Presidential signature is a responsible transition such as the one offered by Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar. Otherwise, this exercise today and these two votes today are a waste of time. This vote will simply put many Members of this body on record in support of a $2.4 billion tax increase. I would encourage those who wish to reduce incentives and save taxpayers' money to work with Senators Thune and Klobuchar and the rest of us on a responsible transition that has a chance of being enacted and, most importantly, signed by the President; therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose these two amendments. I have always said that ethanol shouldn't be singled out, that it ought to be talked about in the context of an overall energy policy. But one of the reasons it has been able to be separated from all of the rest of the alternative energy as well as from all the rest of our energy policies we have for this country is because there is a great deal of ignorance about ethanol. We can tell that in this town when we hear a lot of people mispronounce the word ``ethanol'' with a long ``e.'' So I want to refer to some of these things, and I am going to use statements from the sponsor of the bill and refute some of these things I think are really wrong. The first one: We can save $3 billion if we eliminate the VEETC blending subsidy. Well, there are a lot of numbers thrown around about how much this incentive costs and how much the Coburn amendment would save. I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation with a score of the Coburn amendment. The fact is, the amendment, if enacted on July 1, 2011, would increase revenue to the Federal Treasury by $2.4 billion, not $3 billion as the author stated. Again, the Coburn amendment, if enacted, would be saving $2.4 billion. That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation; that is not my estimation. That is the estimation of the people who score for the Congress of the United States what impact various tax bills have. Another statement: All the blenders of gasoline in the United States--all of them--have called and written and said: ``We do not want the $3 billion for the rest of the year.'' I have a letter from the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America--and they go by the acronym SIGMA--to the Senate majority and minority leaders opposing efforts to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the blenders' credit, contrary to the statement I just read that all the blenders want to do away with this. The letter states: As the leading marketers of ethanol-blended fuel at the retail level, SIGMA members and customers are the beneficiaries of VEETC. Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for future fuel and fuel-delivery costs. To end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in immediate spike in consumers' fuel costs. That is the end of the quote from the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America. So I hope somebody will put that in their pipe and smoke it because the fact that all of these people, we have been told here on the floor of the Senate, don't want this--well, that is an incorrect statement. Another statement: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 40 percent of last year's corn crop was utilized, converted to ethanol. It is true that almost 40 percent of the corn crop went into the ethanol plant to produce ethanol. But what it doesn't tell us is that out of a 56-pound bushel of corn, there are 18 pounds of animal feed left over that is more efficient in fattening animals than even the original corn. That is called dried distillers grain. So I do not want people of this body to come to me in their ignorance and tell me we are using too much corn and saying it is 40 percent of the corn crop when 18 pounds out of every 56-pound bushel of corn is for very efficient animal feed. So I am going to take credit for that 18 pounds and refute this statement that 40 percent of last year's corn crop was utilized and converted to ethanol. One bushel of corn produces nearly 3 gallons of ethanol and 18 pounds of high-value animal feed. In 2010, 4.65 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 13 billion gallons of ethanol. But ethanol production uses only the starch from the corn kernel. More than one-third, or 1.4 billion bushels of dry distillers grain, is left over available as a high-value livestock feed. On a net basis, ethanol production used only 23 percent of the U.S. corn crop--far less than the 40 percent that Senator Coburn claims. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, feed use consumed 37 percent of the U.S. corn supply, much more than the 23 percent consumed by the ethanol production. The next statement that is incorrect: The American people ought to take into consideration when they go buy a gallon of fuel today--you already have $1.72 worth of subsidy in there. It does not have anything to do with oil and gas drilling. I believe Senator Coburn is referring to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. For the record, that report relied on the questionable assumption that only a tiny fraction of ethanol consumption is attributable to the ethanol tax credit. Regardless, I am glad he raised this point about subsidies and oil and gas drilling. Our colleagues may be interested to learn of the hidden cost of our dependence upon foreign oil. And these are not my estimates. I am going to give you references for you to look up. A peer-reviewed paper published in Environment Magazine in July 2010 concluded that `` . . . $27 to $138 billion dollars is spent annually by the U.S. military for protection of Middle Eastern maritime oil transit routes and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion dollars per year.'' Isn't it convenient to forget those costs of our national defense, such as keeping oil lanes open so we can get oil to the United States that we spend $835 million every day to import oil? I wish to refer to another one. Milton Copulos, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, and head of the National Defense Council Foundation, testified before Congress in a recent year on the ``hidden costs'' of imported oil. Mr. Copulos stated that by calculating oil supply disruptions and military expenditures, the hidden costs of U.S. dependence on petroleum would total up to $825 billion per year. The military expenditure is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil. There is no hidden--this is important about ethanol--because there is no hidden U.S. military cost attributable to homegrown, renewable, environmentally good ethanol. Here is another statement I wish to refute: There is a big difference between a subsidy that is a tax credit and allowing someone to advance depreciation because they are going to write it off anyhow. The net effect to the Federal Government's revenue, if you take all of those away, is still zero. That statement wants you to believe that all the tax benefits the oil industry gets are just tax benefits; they are not a subsidy. Well, my response is, I have to refer to a September 2000 report by the Government Accountability Office. But that report concluded that the Federal Government has granted tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other support to the petroleum industry. They describe tax incentives as Federal tax provisions that grant special tax relief designed to encourage certain kinds of behavior by taxpayers or to aid taxpayers in special circumstances. According to the Government Accountability Office, the tax break allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1916. The percentage depletion allowance was enacted in 1926. The Government Accountability Office estimated that these two tax incentives led to a revenue loss of as much as $144 billion between the time studied by the Government Accountability Office, which goes from 1968, to when the report was given in the year 2000. I would say to my colleagues that those figures I just gave you are a far cry from the zero revenue effect that Senator Coburn claims for the oil industry. These are the Government Accountability Office's words and figures. They refer to them as tax incentives that resulted in the loss of revenue of more than $100 billion to the Federal Treasury over a 32-year period. I have heard Senator Coburn on the floor on many occasions talking about the dire fiscal situation our country is in. I find myself voting with Senator Coburn most of the time. But on this issue, I disagree. Yet on this issue, it sounds as though he is arguing about semantics. One is a ``subsidy,'' yet the other is a ``legitimate business expense.'' In other words, in the case of ethanol, it is a subsidy. In the case of Big Oil and their taxes, it is a legitimate business expense. I am not sure this argument over terminology will give our children and grandchildren much comfort when they are picking up the trillion- dollar tab over the next couple of decades. The last statement I wish to refute is this: Corn prices are at $7.65 a bushel. Well, that had to be a couple days ago because I get a report every day on corn prices at my local elevator in New Hartford, IA. They were $7.10 yesterday. But let me quote again. Corn prices are at $7.65 a bushel. They are 2\1/2\ times what they were 3\1/2\ years ago. [Ethanol] has been, this last year, the significant driver. Let me suggest, first of all, that he is right, 3\1/2\ years ago, corn was about $7 a bushel. But 6 months later, it was $3.58 a bushel. So anybody who thinks corn is going to stay at this historically high price is not very smart. And if farmers are spending money according to that, they better slow up because they are going to be caught off guard and out of business like they were in the 1980s. So this is my response, in addition to what I said about corn going down to $3.58: Grain used for ethanol accounts for approximately 3 percent of the world's coarse grain. Let me reflect on that statement for a minute, because you get the opinion, when they say 40 percent of U.S. corn is used in ethanol, that, ye gods, what are people going to eat? But worldwide--and the grain market is worldwide--the global marketplace decides the price of grain. And worldwide, only 3 percent of the coarse grain--and corn is one of the coarse grains--is used for fuel. Because of the increased corn production, the amount of grain available for non-ethanol use is growing. In the year 2000, there were 2.4 billion metric tons of grain available for uses other than for ethanol. Even with the growth of the ethanol industry, last year there were 2.6 billion metric tons of grain available for uses other than for ethanol. It is also important to review the cost of corn in retail food prices. The corn price today: The corn cost in a gallon of milk is about 46 cents. The cost of corn in a pound of chicken is 34 cents. One pound of beef takes 92 cents worth of corn. One pound of pork requires 39 cents. So you have all these excuses coming from the food manufacturers of the United States that ethanol is the cause of food prices rising. But you can see in the figures I just gave you that what the farmer gets out of a dollar's worth of retail food is about 21 cents. And you could cut this in half, and it will be cut in half, like it was 3\1/2\ years ago. But when the price of corn goes down, you are not going to see big food manufacturers reducing their cost of food by 20 percent because they need ethanol as a scapegoat to raise the price of food. That is all I have to say about ethanol. But I do have an amendment I am submitting to this bill that is before us that is unrelated to ethanol, but it also brings up the same point: that there are a lot of places in this budget we can save money. Senator Johnson of South Dakota and I are submitting this amendment that pertains to setting limits that any one farmer, including this farmer, can get from farm program payments. I have been pushing for reform of farm program payments for many years. Some folks from outside of Iowa unfamiliar with this issue may be surprised that I am the Member who keeps pushing these reforms. They may think: Iowa's economy relies heavily on agriculture. Why would a Senator from a farm State such as Iowa want a hard cap on farm payments? But Iowa farmers understand why I continue pushing for a hard cap. This is about making sure the farm programs provide what they are supposed to provide: a safety net for those who need it; basically, farmers who have the economic incapability of overcoming natural disasters and political issues and international politics that they have no control over that affects the impact of farm income. Those are small and medium-sized farmers. They are not these megafarmers that are 10 percent of farmers getting 70 percent of the benefits out of the farm program. These small and medium-sized farmers--as, of course, bigger farmers do--play a vital role in supplying our Nation and world with food. However, they are continually, as small farmers, faced with the challenge of rising land prices and cash rents. Many times, young and beginning farmers cannot compete because of high land prices and rents. There is no doubt the rise in commodity prices is part of the reason for higher land prices and cash rents. But, currently, farm program payments are also placing upward pressure on land prices. This is not how it is supposed to work. What I just said means we are subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. There is nothing wrong with big farmers getting bigger. I do not argue with that in any segment of our economy. But we should not be subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. The farm program was put in place to provide a safety net for farmers. It is meant to help them get through tough times. The farm program was not created to help big farmers get bigger. Let me repeat for you--because it cannot get enough emphasis--10 percent of this Nation's largest farmers receive 70 percent of the farm program payments. These large farms do not need these program payments to get through tough times. Small and medium-sized farmers do not need nonmarket factors driving up the land prices and cash rents. This amendment is a commonsense solution to this problem. Reform the farm program so it works as a true safety net for those it was intended for. We can do that by placing limits on how much a single farm operation can receive in program payments. The government should stay out of subsidizing the growth of large farms. In addition, this amendment tightens the requirements for people to be considered an actively engaged farmer. For too long, people have gamed the system and received farm payments that the law did not intend. There have been a number of amendments submitted to the EDA bill before us in the name of saving taxpayer dollars. The ethanol amendment--supposedly that is one of the motives behind it. By setting hard payment caps, and making these other reforms, we will save the U.S. Treasury approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years. The headlines around here are dominated by the problems of the budget. Many of my colleagues have come to this floor in recent weeks and discussed government spending and the big debt. If this body is going to be serious about cutting spending, then this amendment I am laying before you as a limitation on farm payments is a continuation of that effort. Instead of spending time debating the merits of programs that assist the renewable energy industry, an industry that, by the way, helps us wean ourselves off our need for foreign oil, why do we not agree to make cuts in areas we should be able to have an agreement? This is a simple and commonsense way for us to save money, while at the same time making sure the farm program accomplishes what it is supposed to. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will confirm two more of President Obama's judicial nominees. Both nominees are for seats in the District of New Jersey. With these confirmations today, the District of New Jersey will be fully staffed, with no vacancies. I have been working throughout this Congress to confirm consensus nominees. Yet we continue to hear complaints in the blogs and elsewhere on the lack of confirmations or on the slow pace of confirmations. I think the record demonstrates otherwise. We have taken positive action on more than 60 percent of President Obama's nominees in this Congress. We have reported out of committee more than half the nominees. Twenty- six nominees will have been confirmed after today. Even with this pace, I remind my colleagues that we continue to carefully review the qualifications of all nominees. This is not a pro forma process. We expect quality nominations from the President, not just quantity. Today, the Senate will consider two nominations, both to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey. Since 2006, both have been serving as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey. I congratulate these nominees. The first nominee is Claire Cecchi. Judge Cecchi received her bachelor's degree from Barnard College, Columbia University in 1986, and her juris doctorate from Fordham University School of Law in 1989. Upon graduation, Judge Cecchi worked for the Office of Corporation Counsel for the city of New York. In 1992 she became an associate with the firm of Robinson, St. John & Wayne and its successor firm, Robinson, Lapidus & Livelli. There she focused her work in general practice with an emphasis on securities litigation. In 1997 Judge Cecchi joined the firm of Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, where she handled general litigation, including products liability, employment, antitrust, and patent law cases. She became a partner in that firm in 2001. In 2004 she joined the firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpetner, as of counsel. She was a partner in that firm in 2005 to 2006. Judge Cecchi also served as a State-certified mediator for the New Jersey State courts system while in private practice. She was appointed a magistrate judge in 2006, where she presides over pretrial motions, mediations, and settlements. The American Bar Association has rated Judge Cecchi ``majority qualified, minority well qualified.'' The second nominee, Esther Salas, received both her bachelor's and juris doctorate from Rutgers University in 1991 and 1994, respectively. Judge Salas began her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Eugene Cody of the Superior Court of New Jersey. After her clerkship, Judge Salas worked at the firm of Garces & Grabler, where she handled criminal work and appellate matters. In 1997, she joined the Office of the Federal Public Defender as an assistant public defender, working for indigent criminals in Federal criminal matters. She was appointed as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey in 2006. The American Bar Association has rated Judge Salas unanimously ``well qualified.'' I support these two nominees and congratulate them for their achievement and public service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to expand the E-Verify program and enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring this commonsense bill titled Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act. Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. Unfortunately, since then, identity theft has soared and counterfeit documents have become a thriving industry. Because of this, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires employment authorization with more than 455 million Social Security Administration records, more than 122 million Department of State passport records, and more than 80 million Department of Homeland Security immigration records. This program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. In fact, it is currently used by 269,913 employers representing 903,358 hiring sites. More than 11.3 million queries have been made this year. During fiscal year 2010, more than 98.3 percent of those were verified almost instantly. Less than 1.7 percent of employees receive a tentative non- confirmation, and must sort out their records with the Social Security Administration. Many times, it is a simple misunderstanding relating from a typo to neglecting to update records after a name change. With the program set to expire in a little over a year, I see the need to continue its use, without an expiration date. E-Verify is a proven tool in combatting illegal immigration. With the unemployment rate hovering around 9.1 percent, can we afford not to use every instrument available to ensure Americans and legal workers are the ones obtaining employment? My legislation would make E-Verify a staple in the workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper labor. Should an employer refuse to participate, my bill increases the penalties currently used under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on visas. These visas have expiration dates, and it is imperative we do not allow employers to aide in the overstaying of any alien. A commonsense fix that is also included would require the Social Security Administration to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. You would think the Social Security Administration would already have this in place, but sadly they do not. This provision alone will save many from falling victim to identity theft. For those who do find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person. This is a commonsense and long overdue provision. Anyone who has had their identity stolen by an illegal alien would agree. We need to strengthen our laws to deter the robust black market for fraudulent documents. Another provision in the bill, which I know will benefit many rural areas such as small towns in Iowa, would help those businesses without internet capabilities to participate in E-Verify. Requiring the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to establish a demonstration project in these rural areas will greatly measure the needs of our rural employers and involve the small business community. Some may want to criticize the database used to check employees, but with continued enhancements, we are making great strides. For instance, just this past March, the Department of Homeland Security initiated the ``Self Check'' program to allow workers in five States and the District of Columbia to self-check employment eligibility. One of my staffers used Self Check and received confirmation of work authorization almost instantly. The entire process took her less than 90 seconds. Another development is the recent launch to include U.S. passport photo matching capabilities. This further enhances the integrity of the program by enabling E-Verify to automatically check the validity and authenticity of all U.S. passports and passport cards presented for employment verification checks. E-Verify is supported by many. Most notably by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano who has said, ``E-Verify is a smart, simple, and effective tool that allows us to work with employers to help them maintain a legal workforce.'' According to DHS, the ``E- Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification system.'' DHS has been preparing for such an occasion, and I'm pleased to put forward my proposal today. For those who were here during the 2007 immigration debate, you may remember that I, Senator Baucus and then-Senator Obama worked very closely on the issue of employment verification. I have kept many of the principles agreed upon in 2007 and included them in this bill. With that said, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues with any ideas they may have to strengthen this system. While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about illegal immigration and our struggling job market. People back home want employers to be held accountable. They want to see our government do more to make sure we are reducing the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to expand the E-Verify program and enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring this commonsense bill titled Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act. Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. Unfortunately, since then, identity theft has soared and counterfeit documents have become a thriving industry. Because of this, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires employment authorization with more than 455 million Social Security Administration records, more than 122 million Department of State passport records, and more than 80 million Department of Homeland Security immigration records. This program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. In fact, it is currently used by 269,913 employers representing 903,358 hiring sites. More than 11.3 million queries have been made this year. During fiscal year 2010, more than 98.3 percent of those were verified almost instantly. Less than 1.7 percent of employees receive a tentative non- confirmation, and must sort out their records with the Social Security Administration. Many times, it is a simple misunderstanding relating from a typo to neglecting to update records after a name change. With the program set to expire in a little over a year, I see the need to continue its use, without an expiration date. E-Verify is a proven tool in combatting illegal immigration. With the unemployment rate hovering around 9.1 percent, can we afford not to use every instrument available to ensure Americans and legal workers are the ones obtaining employment? My legislation would make E-Verify a staple in the workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper labor. Should an employer refuse to participate, my bill increases the penalties currently used under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on visas. These visas have expiration dates, and it is imperative we do not allow employers to aide in the overstaying of any alien. A commonsense fix that is also included would require the Social Security Administration to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. You would think the Social Security Administration would already have this in place, but sadly they do not. This provision alone will save many from falling victim to identity theft. For those who do find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person. This is a commonsense and long overdue provision. Anyone who has had their identity stolen by an illegal alien would agree. We need to strengthen our laws to deter the robust black market for fraudulent documents. Another provision in the bill, which I know will benefit many rural areas such as small towns in Iowa, would help those businesses without internet capabilities to participate in E-Verify. Requiring the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to establish a demonstration project in these rural areas will greatly measure the needs of our rural employers and involve the small business community. Some may want to criticize the database used to check employees, but with continued enhancements, we are making great strides. For instance, just this past March, the Department of Homeland Security initiated the ``Self Check'' program to allow workers in five States and the District of Columbia to self-check employment eligibility. One of my staffers used Self Check and received confirmation of work authorization almost instantly. The entire process took her less than 90 seconds. Another development is the recent launch to include U.S. passport photo matching capabilities. This further enhances the integrity of the program by enabling E-Verify to automatically check the validity and authenticity of all U.S. passports and passport cards presented for employment verification checks. E-Verify is supported by many. Most notably by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano who has said, ``E-Verify is a smart, simple, and effective tool that allows us to work with employers to help them maintain a legal workforce.'' According to DHS, the ``E- Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification system.'' DHS has been preparing for such an occasion, and I'm pleased to put forward my proposal today. For those who were here during the 2007 immigration debate, you may remember that I, Senator Baucus and then-Senator Obama worked very closely on the issue of employment verification. I have kept many of the principles agreed upon in 2007 and included them in this bill. With that said, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues with any ideas they may have to strengthen this system. While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about illegal immigration and our struggling job market. People back home want employers to be held accountable. They want to see our government do more to make sure we are reducing the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wanted to address the issue of patent reform--a bill the Senate has already passed by an overwhelming margin. It is my understanding the House of Representatives is expecting to pass a patent reform bill the House wants, and in the process the House wants the Senate to agree very soon thereafter and do it without a formal conference. I want my colleagues to understand why I hope the House-passed bill will contain a provision that was not in our Senate bill but passed unanimously out of the House Judiciary Committee. The House committee report recognized that the ``need to modernize patent laws has found expression in the courts'' but that ``the courts are constrained in their decisions by the text of statutes at issue.'' That is from the House committee report. The House Judiciary Committee amendment that passed unanimously resulted from a recent Federal court case that had as its genesis the difficulty that the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration--and the patent office face when deciding how to calculate Hatch-Waxman deadlines. The Hatch-Waxman law was a compromise between drug patent holders and the generic manufacturers. Under the Waxman-Hatch law, once a patent holder obtains market approval, the patent holder has 60 days to request the patent office to restore the patent term--time lost because of the FDA's long deliberating process eating up valuable patent rights. The citation for the case I am talking about is 731 F. Supp 2nd 470. The court case found: the FDA treats submissions to the FDA received after its normal business hours differently than it treats communications from the agency after normal hours . . . when notice of FDA approval is sent after normal business hours, the combination of the patent trade office's calendar day interpretation and its new counting method effectively deprives applicants of a portion of the 60-day filing period that Congress expressly granted them . . . an applicant could lose a substantial portion, if not all, of its time for filing a patent trademark extension application as a result of mistakes beyond its control . . . an interpretation that imposes such drastic consequences when the government errs could not be what Congress intended. That is the end of the judge's statement on why he ruled as he did in this particular case. Congress did not intend those drastic consequences that happen as a result of a difference between whether you are making an application to or an application from an agency. In other words, there should not be any difference. Congress did not intend the consequences that come from such a different application of the law. So the court clarified the law so when FDA sends a notice of approval after normal business hours, the 60-day period requesting patent restoration begins the next business day. The House Judiciary Committee takes the court decision where common sense dictates: to protect all patent holders against losing patent extensions as a result of confused counting calculations. I want to quote Ranking Member Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee who sponsored the amendment and committee Chairmen Smith who supported Mr. Conyers. Ranking Member John Conyers stated during markup the amendment is needed to ``remove what amounts to a trap and would clarify the term `business day' . . . and so, our attempt here is to make the congressional effort at patent reform more clear, more efficient.'' Chairman Lamar Smith also advocated passage of this amendment during markup in the House Judiciary Committee. I will quote him. I will recognize myself in support of the amendment. Now, the gentleman's amendment-- Meaning the Conyers amendment-- clarifies the counting rules that are imposed on patent holders who must submit documents to the agency within statutory time limits. It has been established that the PTO has inconsistently applied these rules, which is not fair to various patent holders. The gentleman's amendment tracks the recent court case decided in favor of a patent holder that originally applied for an extension 10 years ago. My understanding is that there are not scoring problems with this provision and I support it. That is what Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee said. This is a commonsense amendment. It improves our patent system fairness through certainty and clarity, and I hope the House will leave that in their bill when it sends it over here to the Senate. My interest in this amendment is because I opposed it 2 or 3 years ago when it was first brought up. Because of the court decision, I am convinced the different application of the 60-day rule is very unfair. As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I want the House Judiciary Committee to know that several Republican and Democratic Senators have asked me to support the Conyers language as well. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow afternoon we will vote on Senator Coburn's amendment dealing with ethanol. I come to the floor at this time to express my strong opposition to that amendment. Senator Coburn's amendment would raise the tax on domestic energy production. It would do this by repealing an incentive for the use of a home-grown renewable fuel called ethanol. With conflicts in the Middle East and crude oil priced at $100 a barrel or more, we should be on the same side. Let me make that clear. We have Middle East problems. We have crude oil priced at over $100 a barrel. Oil interests and biofuels interests, if both are domestically produced, should be on the same side of the energy issue. Why would anyone prefer less domestic energy production? In other words, why would anyone prefer importing more oil over domestically produced energy, whether it is fossil fuel or renewable? We should all be on the same side of more domestically produced energy. The tremendous cost of America's dependence upon foreign oil has never been more clear. I support drilling here and drilling now. I support renewable energy. I support conservation. I support nuclear energy. The reason I support different forms of energy and why we have to support more energy is that if we are going to have an expanding economy and create more jobs, we are obviously going to use more energy. Remember, I included conservation in my energy program. So the attacks on domestic energy are quite a remarkable thing happening right now, when gasoline is $4 a gallon. We are spending $835 million a day imported oil. So whether it is oil or renewable energy, we should not be fighting each other over any source of domestic energy. We should be fighting together against OPEC and these foreign dictators and oil sheiks--some of them hate the United States--from holding our economy hostage. The author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean, home-grown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. It is important to remember that the incentive exists to help producers of ethanol to compete with the oil industry--in other words, to have a level playing field for all forms of energy. Remember, the oil industry has been well supported by the Federal Treasury for more than a century. The Senator from Oklahoma, the sponsor of the amendment, has touted with much fanfare a letter from oil companies that says they don't need or want the credit. It is my understanding that many of the oil refineries are no longer in the business of downstream ethanol blending and, subsequently, do not pay the excise tax on gasoline and do not benefit from the credit. Now, isn't it easy to be advocating repeal of something when you don't benefit from it? It is even easier to advocate for repeal when doing so would undercut your competition. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the oil refiners and Big Oil are advocating a position that would reduce the competitiveness of renewable ethanol. Refineries enjoy a cozy monopoly on our Nation's transportation fuel. They opposed the Renewable Fuels Standard because it cuts into their monopoly. Alternatively, if the members of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association say they don't want or don't need the credit, then it is pretty simple: Don't take it. It is a tax credit which they must apply for to the Internal Revenue Service. If they don't want it and they don't need it, they shouldn't file for that credit with the Internal Revenue Service. I would be glad to work with the Senator from Oklahoma in getting the members of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association to return the credit to the Federal Treasury. No one is forcing them to take the credit. Since they seem eager to return it, perhaps Senator Coburn and I can work together to get them to return it. If you like tight gasoline supplies and if you like $4 gasoline, join the campaign led by Big Oil and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. If you want less dependence on foreign oil and more use of homegrown, renewable fuels, support ethanol producers. The fact is, the portion of the industry that blends ethanol and sells it to the consumers supports maintaining this credit. The Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, or SIGMA, recently wrote to the Senate majority leader and minority leader opposing efforts to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the blender's credit: On behalf of our client, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, I write to you to oppose efforts in Congress to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the VEETC--that is the ethanol blenders credit. Increasing the tax paid on ethanol-blended gasoline makes no sense at a time when consumer fuel prices are already high and the need to maximize domestic energy sources is so very critical. Very true at the time when gasoline is $4 a gallon. SIGMA's members account for 37 percent of the petroleum retail market. SIGMA works to promote competition in the marketplace to help keep consumer fuel costs down. This is contrary to the position of oil refiners who prefer no competition. I have further words from that letter. This incentive has been an extremely useful tool in helping the Nation's fuel marketers and chain retailers deliver fuels to the market at a competitive price. By providing long-term price competitiveness for ethanol- blended fuels, VEETC also helps provide assurances to marketers and retailers that important infrastructure investments necessary to deliver these fuels will continue to provide returns, and not result in wasted improvements. Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for future fuel and fuel-delivery costs. To end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in an immediate spike in consumers' fuel costs. SIGMA believes that a policy that provides an effective transition for the industry from the current tax structure is a better alternative to the slash and cut budget strategy being promoted by some Members of Congress. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Oklahoma also mentioned the total cost of the blender's credit as a reason for supporting repeal of VEETC. He claimed the American people will have spent $32 billion on this credit over the past 30 years. That may be the case. Again, I don't believe we should be debating ethanol incentives by themselves or in a vacuum. For comparison's sake, I wish to inform my colleagues of the cost and duration of a few oil subsidies. The Senator from Oklahoma has derided the 30-year-old ethanol blender's credit, arguing that the industry is mature. Well, what about our century-old oil industry? Don't forget, oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859. We haven't had the incentives for that long, but according to the Government Accountability Office, the tax break allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1916, more than 95 years ago, and continues today. The percentage depletion allowance was enacted in 1926, 85 years ago, and it still exists today. After 95 years, is the domestic oil industry not mature? I know my colleagues will be interested in how much these two subsidies have cost the American people. A report issued by the General Accounting Office in the year 2000 looked at the subsidies for oil production. It reviewed the 32-year period between 1968 to 2000. During that timeframe, the intangible drilling subsidy cost the American people as much as $52 billion. The percentage depletion subsidy cost the American people $82 billion. So these two provisions, enacted nearly a century ago, cost the American people as much as $114 billion from 1968 through 2000. And this doesn't even include the subsidies during the past 11 years. Last month, we had a vote here in the Senate to repeal a number of these oil and gas tax provisions. Opponents of repealing oil and gas subsidies argued then, and I presume would argue today, that doing so would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on foreign oil. Opponents at that time also argued it would cost U.S. jobs, and increase prices at the pump for consumers. I happen to agree with those arguments. But if those arguments are good for oil, then they are good not just for ethanol but they are good for all sorts of green energy as well. Prices at the pump are nearly $4 a gallon. All of our constituents are crying out for action to lower these prices, so it makes sense that Congress would consider steps to address the rising energy costs and work to drive down the cost to consumers at the pump. That is not what the Coburn amendment would do. It would not drive down the cost at the pump at all. It would very likely lead to higher prices for consumers. It won't lead to the production of anymore energy. It won't create anymore jobs. It very well could lead to less domestic energy production and less employment in the U.S. energy sector; in other words, more unemployment and more dependence on foreign sources of energy. At a time of $4 gas and 9.1 percent unemployment, why would we in this body consider an amendment that will increase the cost of energy production, reduce domestic energy supply, and lead to job losses? Ethanol is reducing prices at the pump. A recent study by the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development found that ethanol is reducing the price at the pump by an average of 89 cents a gallon. The fact is, this amendment is not about reducing prices at the pump. The amendment before us is not about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This amendment is about raising taxes. And one thing is for certain: If you raise taxes on any activity, you get less of it. That is a common economic principle. A taxpayer watchdog group considers a repeal of this tax incentive to be what it is, a tax hike. Americans for Tax Reform said, ``Repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase.'' I agree. Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people. Now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol-related jobs. I know we all agree that we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during this time of economic uncertainty. What this Congress should be doing is increasing the domestic production of energy as a way to increase jobs, increase domestic investment, and lower prices at the pump. This amendment does none of those things, and actually it does exactly the opposite. A repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase that will surely be passed on to the American consumers. Repealing incentives for ethanol would have the same exact result as a repeal of the oil and gas subsidies. We will get less domestically produced energy. It will cost U.S. jobs. It will increase our dependence upon foreign oil. It will increase prices at the pump for the American consumer. So why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy independence when we can produce it right here at home? I wish to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing the oil and gas subsidies but support repealing incentives on renewable fuels, why the inconsistency? Interestingly, the same oil and gas association that is lobbying for repeal of the ethanol incentive led the charge against raising taxes on the oil and gas industry. The president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association stated: Targeting a specific industry or even a segment of that industry is what we would consider punitive and unfair tax policy, and it is not going to get us increased energy security, increased employment and certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline. That is the end of the quote from the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. The fact is, it is intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but that it is irresponsible to do so on oil and gas production. If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and to good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas important? It is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature but the oil and gas industry, now over 100 years old, is not. Regardless, I don't think we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly when we have a very weak economy. This amendment is a tax increase. The Senator from Oklahoma also insists that because the renewable fuel is required to be used, it does not need an incentive. But with oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. There is not a mandate to use oil but oil already has a 100-year-old monopoly on our transportation infrastructure. They want to maintain as much of that 100-year-old monopoly as they can right now. Right now, because 10 percent of the energy used in cars is ethanol, they may only have a 90-percent monopoly, but they sure have a lot to say about what goes into your gas tank without competition. When there is little competition to oil and it is enormously profitable, wouldn't that industry argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support? Oil essentially has a mandate today, and the economics of oil production are clearly in favor of producers. It is still unclear to me why we are having this debate on this bill. This is not an energy bill. It is not a tax bill. Its prospects in the Senate are uncertain. Maybe most important, if this amendment were attached to this bill, the entire bill would be blue-slipped by the House because revenue bills under our Constitution must originate in the House of Representatives, and this is not a House revenue bill we are working on. If we send it to the other body with this amendment, they will send it right back to us. It will be dead on arrival in the other body. So why are we having this debate on this bill? We should be debating this amendment in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate should include a review of the subsidies for all energy production, not just for one of many renewable resources. I could ask: Why are we talking about this subsidy on ethanol when we are not talking about the subsidies on oil? Why should we be talking about this subsidy on one alternative energy, which is ethanol, but not talking about the subsidies for wind and solar and biomass and geothermal and I suppose a dozen other alternative energy sources that we have? It boils down to the fact that we should not be singling out ethanol. Nearly every type of energy gets some sort of market- distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. I have indicated that at least for 95 years on one oil subsidy. An honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and probably a lot of others that do not come to my mind at this particular time. In December, 2010, Congress enacted a 1-year extension of the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit--that, for short, goes by the acronym VEETC--but this is also known as the blenders' credit. This 1-year extension has allowed Congress and the domestic biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for Federal support of biofuels. As a result of these discussions, Senator Conrad and I introduced bipartisan legislation on May 4 that is a serious, responsible first step to reducing and redirecting Federal tax incentives for ethanol. Our bill will reduce VEETC to a fixed rate of 20 cents in 2012, and 15 cents in 2013. It will then convert to a variable tax incentive for the remaining 3 years based upon the price of crude oil. When crude oil is more than $90 a barrel, there will be no blenders credit. When crude oil is $50 a barrel or less, the blenders credit would be 30 cents. The rate will vary when the price of crude is between $50 and $90 a barrel. When oil prices are high, a natural incentive should exist in the market to drive ethanol use. The bill also would extend through the year 2016 the alternative fuel refueling property credit, the cellulosic producers tax credit, and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property. Today, Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar are introducing another bipartisan bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax incentive. It includes many of the same features as the bill I introduced last month, but it enacts the reforms this year. The approach of Senator Thune also leads to significant deficit reduction. The legislation we have introduced is a responsible approach that will reduce the existing blenders credit and put those valuable resources into investing in alternative fuel infrastructure, including alternative fuel pumps. It would responsibly and predictably reduce the existing tax incentive and help get alternative fuel infrastructure in place so consumers can decide at the pump which fuel they would prefer. I know that when the American consumers have their choice, they will choose domestic, clean, affordable renewable fuel. They will choose fuel from America's farmers and ranchers rather than from oil sheiks and foreign dictators. Both of the ethanol reform bills I mentioned are supported by the ethanol advocacy groups. In an almost unprecedented move, the ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their Federal incentives. No other energy industry, whether it is fossil fuels or renewables, has come to the table to reduce their subsidies. No other energy advocate has come to me with a plan to reduce their Federal support. In conclusion, I would like to address two points that ethanol opponents continue to make, despite facts to the contrary. First, ethanol and ethanol incentives are not a major factor in rising food and corn prices. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, recently stated: During the great run-up in food and commodity prices in 2007 and 2008, biofuel production played only a minor role, accounting for about 10 percent of the total increase in global prices. But going back to that time or even more recently, listening to the big food manufacturers that are part of this coalition attacking ethanol, you would think the entire blame for the increase in the price of food is because of ethanol, even though ethanol consumes only 3 percent of the coarse grain produced in the entire world. A recent report by the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development concluded that only 8 percent of the increase in corn prices from 2006 to 2009 was due to ethanol subsidies. Further, they concluded that because of this small impact, it ``. . . necessarily implies that the contribution of ethanol subsidies to food inflation is largely imperceptible in the United States.'' Second, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly compared to gasoline. The fact is, under the renewable fuels standard created in 2007, corn ethanol was required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline by at least 20 percent. The fact is, corn ethanol exceeded that threshold. If you remove EPA's use of the murky science surrounding emissions from indirect land use changes, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 percent compared to gasoline. A recent peer-review study published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology found that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline. Ethanol currently accounts for 10 percent of our gasoline fuel pool. A study found that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the Federal Treasury in 2009. That happens to be $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive. Today, the industry supports 400,000 U.S. jobs. That is why I support homegrown, renewable, reliable biofuels. I would rather our Nation be dependent upon renewable fuel producers across this country rather than relying on Middle Eastern oil sheiks or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. None of those people like us, and some of them are using our own money to train terrorists to kill us. Instead, I would prefer we support our renewable fuel producers based right here in the continental United States. I would prefer we decrease our dependence on Hugo Chavez and not increase it. I certainly don't support raising the tax on gasoline during a weak economy. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on the Coburn amendment. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, April 1, 2011. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: On behalf of our client, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, SIGMA, I write to urge you to oppose efforts in Congress to prematurely or abruptly eliminate the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit or VEETC. Increasing the tax paid on ethanol blended gasoline makes no sense at a time when consumer fuel prices are already high and the need to maximize domestic energy sources is so critical. As the national trade association representing America's independent fuel marketers and chain retailers, SIGMA represents an important and innovative part of the America's fuel marketing industry. SIGMA's approximately 270 corporate members command some 37 percent of the petroleum retail market, selling 64 billion gallons of motor fuel each year. For more than 50 years, SIGMA has supported the nation's fuel marketers by encouraging policies that promote growth, innovation, and fairness in the industry, and competition in the marketplace to help keep consumer fuel costs down. As the leading marketers of ethanol-blended fuel at the retail level, SIGMA's members and customers are the beneficiaries of VEETC. This incentive has been an extremely useful tool in helping the nation's fuel marketers and chain retailers deliver fuels to the market at a competitive price. By providing long term price competitiveness for ethanol blended fuels, VEETC also helps provide assurances to marketers and retailers that important infrastructure investments necessary to deliver these fuels will continue to provide returns, and not result in wasted improvements. Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for future fuel and fuel-delivery costs. To end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in an immediate spike in consumers' fuel costs. SIGMA believes that a policy that provides an effective transition for the industry from the current tax structure, is a better alternative to the slash and cut budget strategy being promoted by some Members of Congress. I thank you in advance for your support in this regard. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, R. Timothy Columbus, General Counsel to the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 1161 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce a piece of legislation that I have introduced many times in past Congresses. I have made some progress on the goals I seek but have not gotten 100 percent finality of the policies I want. I am always able to do this with a bipartisan piece of legislation. Today, I present this with Senator Johnson of South Dakota. I will let Senator Johnson speak for himself, but I want to give the reasons I am introducing this bill in my remarks. First, I want people to know this deals with farm policy, and on farm policy the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, and I agree on most everything. Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation that is probably going to come up not so much as a stand-alone, as when we discuss the reauthorization of the farm bill--which generally could start this year and probably go into next year--but as an effort that I am not going to give up on. It deals with the issue of how much one individual farmer should get from the farm program. My approach is to put what one might call a hard cap on the amount of money that one farmer can get, and my remarks will explain why. Also, though, at a time when we have great budget deficits, people might think I am introducing this bill just because I am concerned about the budget deficit. It is true this bill, if enacted, will save about $1.5 billion, but that is not my main purpose for doing it. My main purpose is to have the historical basis for a safety net for farmers; to espouse the principle that our safety net ought to be targeted toward small- and medium-sized farmers. So today, Senator Johnson and I are introducing the Rural America Preservation Act. America's farmers produce the food that feed our families. The bill helps ensure that our farmers are able to provide a safe, abundant, and inexpensive food supply for consumers around the world while maintaining the safety net that allows small- and medium-sized farmers to get through tough times. Everybody sees tough times that are out of their control, but the importance of the farm safety net can be seen no further than the dinner table each of us sits around, as recently as last night. Stop to think what you would do if you were unable to feed your children for 3 days. There is an old adage that says something like this: You are only nine meals away from a revolution. Maybe in those circumstances, if you love your children--and maybe you wouldn't think this could happen to you because we have such an abundance of food in America, but we are all aware of the fact a lot of countries do have food riots when there is a shortage of food--you might do just about anything--steal, riot, whatever it takes--to give your children the food you want them to have to keep them alive after not having food for 3 straight days. So the cohesion within our society, the social cohesion, that is one of the reasons it is vitally important we maintain a farm program that will make sure there is a readily available food supply. Another reason I am not going to go into in these remarks is that food is very essential to the national security of our country--in other words, the defense of our country. All we have to do is rely upon an old adage Napoleon used to use: An army marches on its belly. More recently, however, we can look at the farm programs in Germany and Japan where they recall the mistakes made in their war effort during World War II--and, thank God, they didn't succeed--when they did not have enough food for their military people. So I also want to think in terms of a sure supply of food not only for social cohesion but also for national security purposes. To ensure the family farmer remains able to produce a food supply for this cohesive and stable society that I have talked about, we need to get the farm safety net back to its original intent--to help small- and medium-sized farmers get over the ups and downs of farming that are out of their control. As an example, it could be a natural disaster, it could be grain embargoes such as those put on by the President of the United States, it could be the situation where President Nixon froze the price of beef and ruined the beef industry in the Midwest. The original intent of the Federal farm program was not to help a farmer get bigger and bigger. But the safety net has veered sharply off course, and that is why I talk about the necessity for a hard cap on any one farmer getting help from the farm program. We are now seeing 10 percent of the largest farmers actually getting nearly 70 percent of the total farm program payments coming out of the Treasury of the United States. There is no problem with a farmer growing larger in his operation. Let me make that clear. If you want to get bigger and bigger in America, that is an American right to do so. But the taxpayers should not have to subsidize that effort, and that is what is happening today. There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on their own. Smaller farmers do not have that same luxury, and these same small farmers play a pivotal role in producing the Nation's food. I have been approached time and time again by farmers concerned about where the next generation of farmers will come from when the price of farmland is shooting up or the price of cash rent is shooting up, particularly when the Federal taxpayers are subsidizing that effort. It is important that we keep young people on the farm so they can take the lead in producing our food when the older generation of farmers is ready to turn over the reins. But the current policies that allow 10 percent of the largest farmers to receive nearly 70 percent of the total farm program payments creates a real barrier for beginning and small farmers. The current system puts upward pressure on land prices, making it more difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy a farm or to afford the cash rent. This allows the big farmers to get even bigger, and this is not unique to my State of Iowa. I am sure it is not unique to the State of South Dakota, where my cosponsor friend, Senator Johnson, comes from. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in many States. It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a single farmer can receive in the farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it the most, and it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments can have on land prices and cash rent. Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for married couples. Now, people listening in the Senate, or people listening back home on television, probably think it is outrageous to have a figure that high and call it a hard cap. But this is something that is national policy and may not be applicable just to my State, so it is necessary to reach some sort of common ground in the Congress. I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, so this is a compromise. Just as important as setting the payment limits is the tightening of the meaning of ``actively engaged.'' I will not go in depth as to what actively engaged is about at this point, but it generally means, if you are a farmer, you ought to be a farmer and not a city slicker from New York City benefiting from the farm program. This will help make sure that farm payments only go to those who deserve them. In light of the current budget discussions, everyone should agree that we don't want money going to those who fail to meet the criteria set for the program. This bill will help do that. I hope my colleagues will agree this bill takes a common sense approach to improve our farm safety net, and a help to make sure the dollars spent go to those who need it most. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 30 minutes.