Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my friend from Oregon has adequately spoken about the rationale behind what we are trying to do as well as the substance of it, so there is no point in my repeating that. But I think people ought to wake up to what is inevitable around here. When 3 or 4 years ago we had exactly the same substance up, it passed the Senate 84 to 13, I think, and through subterfuge, it was taken out in conference. The House doesn't conference a Senate procedure, so that is why I use the word ``subterfuge.'' So we ended up with something that has not worked in the last 3 or 4 years. Then we hear, particularly from the other side, about the holds, blaming this side for it. Every side has some guilt of misuse of holds. The fact is there is nothing in our amendment that changes the power of an individual Senator to hold up something. It is not as though we are trying to compromise this very significant power that an individual Senator has, but we are taking the adjective ``secret'' away from secret hold so that you know who the person is; so you can have dialogue with that person; so you can find out what their objections are; so you can reach compromises. That is the purpose of it. When things are secret, it is not only obnoxious to our principle of representative government; it violates the opportunity for an institution such as this to actually work. We should want to enhance the respect of this institution and one way to do that is to take the adjective out of secret hold, not to change anything else. It will enhance so much public understanding of what we are doing, because the public's business ought to be public. In our democracy, 99 percent of what we do--and maybe the only exception would be privacy of an individual or national security--of the public's business ought to be public, and that is what the people expect. But this word ``secret'' keeps from the public knowledge a lot of information that ought to be there to make this body work and to make sure we reduce the cynicism of the public toward government operation. As I said, first, it is inevitable that this is going to happen. Senator Wyden and I are going to pursue this, because this is the time to do it. The abuse of this power has gone on way too long. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and for working together with me and other Senators over a long period of time. I think he referred to maybe 10 years that we have been struggling to get to what we are finally getting to today. In the past, we thought we had victories and they turned out to be hollow victories--maybe a little more openness but largely ineffective. So maybe now we will finally be able to accomplish an effective openness in the Senate on one of the most powerful tools a Senator has. I think it gives hope to the fact that if you are right, eventually right wins out, even in the Senate. Long struggle does pay. I think we are bringing simply common sense to a process in the Senate. It is, as my friend from Oregon said, transparency, and with transparency we have accountability. The amendment Senator Wyden and I have offered would restore the prohibition on secret holds the Senate voted for overwhelmingly in a previous Congress--the 109th Congress--and make it even more robust. As I said, those turned out to be largely not very effective. At that time, in the 109th Congress, our measure passed as an amendment to the ethics reform bill by a vote of 84 to 13. That bill never became law, but the next Congress passed then what is referred in the title of the legislation as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Our provision was also originally included in that bill. Ironically, as I have alluded to, in a move that reflected neither honest leadership nor open government, our provisions were altered substantially--I might say too substantially--behind closed doors, before we had final passage. The current provisions essentially say it is OK to keep a hold anonymous until 6 days after someone asks unanimous consent to proceed to a bill or a nominee. I am not going to explain how that process works out, but it can be summed up in the words that it is a very ineffective sort of transparency, hardly doing any good whatsoever. The amendment that is before us says Senators must go public from the moment they place the hold. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to address what a hold is all about. A hold arises out of the right of all Senators to withhold their consent when unanimous consent is asked. It goes without saying that any Senator has a right to object to a unanimous consent request that the Senator does not support because it is not unanimous unless, obviously, we all support it. In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their daily business from their desk on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand and say, ``I object'' when necessary, and, of course, that Senator was immediately identified. Now, Since most Senators spend so much time off the Senate floor in committee hearings, meeting with constituents, and other sorts of obligations that we have, we have tended to rely upon the majority and minority leaders to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual Senators, asking them to object on our behalf. Just as any Senator has the right to stand on the Senate floor and say, ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested. By that same token, it would be illegitimate, not to mention impossible, for a Senator to stand on the floor and object anonymously. Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf and keep their identity secret. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or a nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly. I believe this is part of expanding the principle of open government. The public's business ought to be public. Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials and, quite honestly, less accountability. I maintain that the use of secret holds--with emphasis upon the adjective ``secret''--damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate. The public's business ought to be done in public, period. I have made it my practice to put a statement in the Record when I have placed a hold on a nominee or a bill for over a decade. I can tell you that is no burden whatsoever, and it hasn't hurt me in any way whatsoever to let my colleagues and the public know--for the last decade--that Senator Chuck Grassley had a hold on a bill and why I had that hold on a bill or nominee. Our amendment--the one before us--would make it crystal clear that holds are to be public. Senators placing a hold must get a statement in the Record within 2 days, and they must give permission to their leaders at the time they place the hold to object in their name. Also, if a Senator objects, ostensibly on behalf of another Senator but refuses to name the Senator he is objecting for and that Senator doesn't come forward within those 2 days, the objecting Senator will be listed as having that hold, owning that hold. I wish to make it clear that we do not come to this lightly. We have tried other paths to accomplish our goal. I said those other paths have turned out to be largely ineffective. We sought the advice and assistance of several majority and minority leaders over the last decade, and we twice tried informal policies issued jointly by the two leaders, in 1999 and 2003, but those turned out to be as flimsy as the sheet of paper on which they were written. So working with two former majority leaders, Senators Lott and Byrd, we crafted the policy I mentioned earlier that the Senate adopted by a vote of 84 to 13, which was later gutted. It is this policy, with some improvements--in fact, some very needed improvements--that we are introducing today. It is important the Senate have the opportunity to speak on this issue as a body. I look forward to this vote and finally having a true victory against secrecy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1972, the Iowa Legislature created the Office of Citizens' Aide to address instances of dissatisfaction with government agencies In 1978, Bill Angrick became the State ombudsman at age 32, according to the Des Moines Register. Just a few weeks ago Bill Angrick announced he would take the State's early retirement incentives at age 64. As a member of the State house in 1972, I was enthusiastic about the creation of the ombudsman's office. I had gone from political science student to state legislator and was beginning to appreciate the value of government oversight in the practical world. It is one thing to study political theory and have a concept of how things should work. It is another thing to represent citizens as their elected representative and see how things really work. The Federal constitution Framers knew what they were doing when they built in checks and balances among the three branches of government. The decision to create a State ombudsman wasn't unanimous. The house vote was 70 to 28, the Senate vote 30 to 20. Then, as now, those who perform government oversight might have been seen as skunks at a picnic, fueling fears of those who might abuse their investigative powers or among agencies, rein in their power. Inspectors general and whistleblowers at Federal agencies are regularly eyed with suspicion or targeted for retaliation. I run into this at the Federal level all the time. Sometimes the executive branch tries to stifle inspectors general or Federal employees who have reports of wrongdoing. Yet those people are very often heroes who expose waste, fraud, and abuse, and by putting themselves on the line, get problems fixed and strengthen government. They deserve honor and protection, which I work to provide. And I conduct oversight of Federal agencies, just as the voters oversee my performance as their elected representative. By all accounts I have heard, Bill Angrick served his oversight role with the honor, diligence, and integrity envisioned by those of us who created the State ombudsman's office. His retirement provides a good opportunity to reflect on his work and on the role of an entity that exists to listen to citizens, investigate concerns, and render findings in the spirit of fixing shortcomings for public benefit. The office exists to perform oversight of State and local government agencies. Sometimes it initiates investigations upon a citizen phone call of concern or complaint. It receives thousands of inquiries every year. Occasionally, my staff in Iowa adds to the workload, referring cases to the ombudsman that deal exclusively with State and local government. I appreciate the careful consideration given in those instances. Other times, the ombudsman's staff sees the need for an investigation of an agency's interaction with a citizen over a particular case or multiple agencies' handling of a State matter that is either complex or has fallen through the cracks. As a third party, the ombudsman's office is charged with the responsibility of examining the facts as impartially and thoroughly as possible and rendering findings and recommendations in a thoughtful, constructive way. The office is removed from the emotions and biases of the people involved and proceeds without a predisposition toward a certain outcome. The workload can involve an issue with broad implications, such as State and local governments' treatment of prison inmates, and response to child abuse cases. Mr. Angrick's office reviewed whether inmates were held too long in restraining chairs and whether government procedures were adequate to protect children in violent circumstances. The office has given special attention over the years to State and local governments' treatment of mentally ill and disabled citizens. Mr. Angrick recognizes that some challenges are interwoven among segments of society and government and merit a comprehensive response. For example, he has given needed understanding of and exposure to the fact that State prisons have become de facto housing for mentally ill citizens in many cases. He is right that government has to address this situation and give appropriate treatment to those who can't advocate for themselves. The ombudsman's workload also involves cases with a more narrow focus. A recent investigation covered a city street superintendent accused of using city equipment on his own property and retaliating against a citizen who complained while local elected officials stood by. The resolution of that dispute might not resonate statewide, but it is meaningful for the residents of a community who expect their city employees to function aboveboard and expect their elected officials to enforce city rules and regulations. The office serves as a check-and- balance backstop on potential abuse of power. However, the ombudsman's office doesn't only conclude that the government is wrong. Sometimes it affirms that government agencies acted properly, as in 2004 when it concluded that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' investigation of three Asian markets for unlawful fish sales was fair and reasonable. The citizens aide office is open to everyone, regardless of position and station in life. That equal voice for everyone is critical to its purpose and its success. Under Mr. Angrick's leadership, a prison inmate's call is taken respectfully and with care for the facts, the same as a mayor's call. Mr. Angrick recognizes that a prisoner should not be abused and is entitled to humane, compassionate treatment and certain rights as he pays his debt to society. This is not only the right way to treat our fellow human beings, but it also contributes to a stronger civic structure. If the prison inmate feels heard, he may leave his service with a greater regard for society and the rule of law than he did going into prison. He might not commit a crime the second time. By holding the government accountable, the ombudsman's office builds faith in State and local civic institutions. A well-functioning government in which citizens have a voice, are heard, and affect change is the best antidote to cynicism about government. My strong impression is that Bill Angrick and his staff accomplished the simple slogan of their office: ``Dedicated to Making Good Government Better.'' I thank Bill Angrick for his 32 years of service to the people of Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, you have heard me say many times to my colleagues that the public's business ought to be public. I don't know why that does not apply to the Federal Reserve, at least on its regulatory activities when it gives out money. There are all kinds of reasons it should not apply to monetary policy. But for everything else, the Federal Reserve is acting at the behest of Congress through a law going way back to 1913 giving them certain powers. If Congress exercised these same powers--and under the Constitution we have the authority to do that--it would be the public's business; in fact, even more than what this amendment does. So the public's business ought to be public. With transparency, and that is what this amendment is all about, you get accountability--it seems to me, with what has happened over the last 10 years, more transparency leading to accountability. If we had that transparency we probably would not have had the bubble in the first place that broke in 2008, which brought us to this recession. So I rise not hesitantly but forthrightly to support the pending amendment by the Senator from Vermont. I appreciate all of his hard work on making the Federal Reserve more accountable to the people of this country. I am a cosponsor of his stand-alone bill, so I am glad to be a cosponsor of this amendment, to bring sunshine to the Fed. During the last 2\1/2\ years, the Fed has gone well beyond what was viewed as its historical authority. It has taken on more and more risk, in complicated and unprecedented ways. It intervened in the market to prop up certain firms. It intervened in the market to protect these firms from failing, using an unlimited source of taxpayers' dollars to, in effect, pick winners and losers. The risks they have taken will ultimately be borne by the American taxpayers. So in the interest of accountability, the taxpayers deserve to have answers on who got money and how it was spent. Under law, the Federal Reserve has lending authority for unusual and exigent circumstances. Under section 13(c) of the Federal Reserve Act, the Reserve can ``discount for any individual, partnership or corporation, notes, drafts and bills of exchange when such notes, drafts and bills of exchange are endorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank.'' Essentially, this means the Fed can lend to any entity or person when it believes there is an emergency. This is an extraordinary amount of power and discretion, and it should be exercised in the light of day. Transparency, accountability--the public's business ought to be public. Trillions of dollars were provided to financial institutions and corporations since the financial crisis began. The Fed helped rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed propped up Bear Stearns and AIG when they were on the brink of failure. They intervened in the business efforts of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last Tuesday, President Obama traveled to Iowa. He visited counties and towns that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn. While Iowa's average unemployment rate stands at 6.8 percent, Lee County's unemployment rate stands near 11 percent. Wapello County's unemployment rate is at 9.5 percent. These were the counties that President Obama visited. Over 1,000 jobs have been lost in each of the 3 counties he visited since the recession began. The visit to Iowa was billed as an effort to highlight the steps taken to achieve long-term growth and prosperity by creating a new, clean energy economy. During his trip, the President visited a Siemens wind blade manufacturing facility in Fort Madison. I had the opportunity to visit there about a year and a half ago. The President touted Iowa's leadership in the production of wind energy. This Siemens facility is a great facility. I recall just a few years ago speaking to Siemens manufacturing when they were looking for a site for their first wind production facility in the United States. I told the executives at Siemens they would not be disappointed if they chose Fort Madison for their facility because Iowans are some of the hardest working and honest people in the country. I am particularly proud of the second-in-the-Nation status of Iowa's wind production. I first authored and won enactment of the wind production tax credit in 1992. This incentive has led to the exponential growth in the production of wind across our entire United States. It has also helped my State of Iowa to become a leader in the production of wind energy component manufacturing. The emerging wind industry has created thousands of jobs in recent years in the cities of Newton, West Branch, Cedar Rapids, and Fort Madison. When President Obama says energy security should be a top priority, I agree with our President. When he says we need to rely more on homegrown fuels and clean energy, I agree with our President. When he says our security and our economy depend on making America more energy independent, I agree with our President. During a subsequent visit to an ethanol facility in Missouri, President Obama stated unequivocally that his administration would ensure the domestic biofuel industry would be successful. The President and I are in strong agreement that renewable biofuels are a key part of our future. Unfortunately, I believe President Obama missed an important opportunity to make a push for the message of the biodiesel tax credit. While the President was in Iowa touting green jobs, this Democratic Congress has, in effect, sent pink slips to about 18,000 people who depend on the production of biodiesel for their livelihood. On December 31, 2009, the biodiesel tax credit, which is essential to keep a young bioindustry competitive, expired. In anticipation of the expiration of the tax credit, Senator Cantwell and I introduced a long- term extension in August of 2009. That bill was never considered last year. In December, as the expiration loomed, I came to the Senate floor to implore my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and pass a clean extension of the biodiesel tax credit because, without an extension, I knew the industry would come to a grinding halt, and it has. For whatever reason, the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate have never considered this extension a priority. Now the industry is experiencing the dire situation I predicted. On January 1 of this year, about 23,000 people were employed in the biodiesel industry. Because of the lapse in the credit, nearly every biodiesel facility in the country is idle or operating at a fraction of capacity. Nearly all of Iowa's 15 biodiesel refineries have completely halted production. This has led to the loss of about 2,000 jobs in Iowa alone. The thousands of jobs created by the wind industry in Iowa have essentially been offset by the thousands of jobs lost in the biodiesel industry. You do not have to take my word for the dire state of the industry. A $50 million biodiesel facility in Farley, IA--that is in northeast Iowa--announced that they just laid off 23 workers and cut the pay of the rest of the staff. Renewable Energy Group laid off 9 employees in a facility in Ralston, IA, and 13 in Newton, IA. Ironically, the Newton biodiesel facility is 1 mile down the road from a wind manufacturing facility that President Obama visited on Earth Day just last year. During President Obama's trip to Iowa, he was within a few miles of three biodiesel facilities that are idle: one in Keokuk, IA, one in Washington, IA, and another in Crawfordsville, IA. According to a press release from the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, an Iowan affiliated with biodiesel industry was able to speak to President Obama very briefly following a townhall session in Ottumwa, IA. Mr. Albin, vice president at Renewable Energy Group, told President Obama that plants are idle and 90 percent of the biodiesel employees have been laid off simply as a result of the tax credit lapse. According to Mr. Albin, President Obama assured him that he would not let the biodiesel industry die. He recalls the President saying something like this--and I want to quote what I suppose was a paraphrase by Mr. Albin: I'm the President and I promise I will do whatever I can. Look, I'm on your side, but I've got a Congress to deal with. Well, I can understand what the President would say. I happen to believe that in my 4 years of serving with then-Senator Obama, that Senator Obama, now President Obama, is very sincere about the promotion of ethanol and biodiesel or biofuels--whatever you want to call it. In fact, I had the good occasion of working with then-Senator Obama on a Senate bill when I was still chairman of the Finance Committee to promote the tax credit that is now in place so that filling stations can get a tax credit for putting in for E85 ethanol, as an example. So I don't question President Obama's response to Mr. Albin. Of course, we do have checks and balances in government and the President has Congress to deal with. But I hope President Obama will take strong action to insert himself into this debate in the Congress. It seems that even President Obama, from this quote, is frustrated by the lack of action by the Democratic congressional leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this press release from Iowa RFA at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The board president of Western Iowa Energy in Wall Lake, IA, recently stated: Due to the continued lapse of the biodiesel tax credit, Western Iowa Energy continues to suffer from significantly limited sales and reduced sales forecasts. Due to these market conditions, we have made the difficult decision to idle our facility. Today we are laying off 15 full-time employees. This represents more than 50 percent of our staff. On February 10, Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, and I worked in a bipartisan fashion to develop an $84 billion jobs package that included a 1-year extension of several energy tax credits, including the biodiesel tax incentive. Before the ink was even dry on the paper, Majority Leader Reid scuttled our bipartisan package in favor of a partisan approach. That delayed passage of an extension in the Senate for well over a month, until the month of March. Now it has been languishing for 6 weeks. Where is the urgency? This Congress jammed through a stimulus bill that spent $800 billion to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent, and of course it didn't stay below 8 percent. Yet we can't find the time to pass a simple tax extension that will likely reinstate 20,000 jobs overnight. We are 4 months delinquent in our obligation to these biofuel producers with no end game in sight. The lack of action on this issue defies logic or common sense. So while the Democratic leadership talks about creating green jobs, their action has led to job cuts. Americans are unemployed today because of the action--or more aptly the inaction--of the Democratic congressional leadership, particularly on this biodiesel issue. The United States is more dependent upon foreign oil because of the inaction of the Congress. Automobiles are producing more pollution because we have essentially eliminated this renewable, cleaner-burning biofuel. Rural economies are being stripped of the economic gain of this value-added agricultural product. So I urge the Senate to take immediate action to extend this tax incentive and reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and save green jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 President Obama Gets Biodiesel Message in Ottumwa IRFA Secretary Albin Uses 90 Seconds with the President to Share Urgency of Tax Credit Ottumwa, IA.--During his Iowa visit on April 27, 2010, President Barack Obama heard firsthand of the urgency to reinstate the biodiesel tax credit from Brad Albin, Vice President at Renewable Energy Group and Secretary of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA). Following President Obama's speech and town hall session at Indian Hills Community College, Albin grabbed the President's attention. During a 90 second exchange, Albin shared the message of the biodiesel industry's state of disruption and uncertainty resulting from the lapse of the federal biodiesel blenders tax credit since January 1, 2010. ``I shook his hand and told him that we're losing jobs as we stand here, which seemed to get his attention,'' explained Albin, who had been sitting in the second row. ``I told him about plants idling and that more than 90 percent of manufacturing staff at U.S. biodiesel plants have been laid off as a result of the tax credit lapse.'' President Obama acknowledged that his biodiesel tax credit updates are coming through USDA Secretary Vilsack. The President continued to listen as Albin explained that for 20 years Americans have worked to meet the challenge of increasing energy independence, that farmers and families have invested billions, and that now companies are bleeding to death or bankrupt. Albin further explained that the five month lapse of the tax credit could not have come at a worse time as the Renewable Fuels Standard goes into effect July 1, 2010. ``We're going to die without this tax credit,'' Albin added even after the President's assurances. ``The President then responded, `We won't let you die.' '' ``Those that know me know I want to make sure my message is clearly understood; so as the President was walking away to shake another hand, I asked him if he could commit to the tax credit being in place by May 31,'' Albin said. May 31, 2010, the start of the Memorial Day recess, is the date Chairman Sander Levin of the House Ways and Means Committee promised as a reinstatement deadline for the biodiesel tax credit during an energy hearing earlier this month. ``The President heard me ask him again about the May 31 date. He turned back to me and said, `I'm the President and I promise I'll do whatever I can,' '' Albin recalled of the exchange. ``President Obama then assured me of his commitment to clean energy by saying, `Look, I'm on your side, but I've got a Congress to deal with.' '' ``I believe he now has our urgent message straight from the state where the tax credit lapse is having the most impact-- the nation's top biodiesel state,'' Albin said. ``It really was a miracle to be in that right spot at the right moment to be able to get the biodiesel message straight to the President of the United States of America.'' The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association was formed in 2002 to represent the state's ethanol and biodiesel producers. The trade group fosters the development and growth of the renewable fuels industry in Iowa through education, promotion, legislation and infrastructure development.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to recognize the passing of a mentor to me and many other political science students over the years. Russell Marion Ross was a professor of political science for more than 40 years at the University of Iowa. He died on Tuesday, April 27, at age 88. Dr. Ross was an Iowan through and through. Born in Washington, IA, he received his bachelor and master degrees, and Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He served as chairman of the department for many years. In 1987, he wrote a book on the department's history for the Iowa State Historical Society. Following his retirement, he continued to teach long-distance education classes until the time of his death. Dr. Ross began his association with long- distance education while serving in the Navy on the aircraft carrier USS Manilla Bay. He was an expert on local government and politics. He wrote several books in his field, served as executive assistant to Governor Norman Erbe in the 1960s, and was the mayor of University Heights for more than 10 years. Dr. Ross influenced numerous students over the years. Online condolences included postings by two city managers who said Dr. Ross guided their vocations. Other postings came from those with fond memories of Dr. Ross' friendliness, approachability, and honesty. As Joel and Sandy Barkan of Washington, DC, wrote: ``He was devoted to the University, a good steward, and a straight shooter in the Iowa tradition. He will be missed.'' That is exactly the sentiment I have about Dr. Ross. In 1957 and 1958, Dr. Ross was my professor at the University of Iowa when I was pursuing course work toward a doctorate in political science. As an authority on state and local government, he would have been my adviser on my dissertation topic, which was the reorganization of state government to save money. Professor Ross was an expert and very well-regarded in his field, sought after for decades by the news media for his sharp insight into Iowa politics. He combined his significant knowledge with a plain- spoken common sense that cut to the chase. For example, in assessing the Democratic Presidential caucus fight in 2000, Dr. Ross was quoted as saying of candidate Bill Bradley, who was slow to respond to attacks from Al Gore, ``He muffed it pretty badly.'' That was the bottom line in just five words. So Professor Ross was generous with his insight. He also was generous with his time. To a 23-year-old graduate student, as I was, an accomplished scholar can be intimidating and hard to approach. Dr. Ross was the opposite. He always had time for his students, and all of these years later, that's the first impression that comes to mind when I think of him. I didn't finish my doctoral program, but that had nothing to do with Dr. Ross. I ran for the State legislature instead. With his generosity of spirit and knowledge, Dr. Ross helped me to find my calling, as he excelled at his. Iowans are fortunate to have had such an outstanding person in our lives.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks some letters to which I will refer.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last Thursday, I wrote Secretary Geithner asking why the Treasury Department allowed General Motors to use TARP money from a Treasury escrow account to repay its multibillion-dollar TARP taxpayer loan. This afternoon, I received a response from Treasury. I would like to say a few words about the reply and the questions that remain unanswered. Last week, Treasury and GM announced with press releases and nationwide TV commercials that GM had repaid its TARP loans ``in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM vehicles].'' However, the hype does not match the reality. Taxpayers have not been repaid in full--far from it. Many billions of TARP dollars remain invested by Treasury in GM, and much of it will never be repaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will lose around $30 billion on GM. In addition, the payment that occurred last week did not come from revenue GM earned by selling cars, despite what was claimed. Instead, Treasury allowed GM to use funds in a separate escrow account to pay its TARP debt. The Treasury Department's response to me today makes a point of saying that GM ``owns'' the money in the escrow account, as if that somehow justifies all the hoopla about GM's so-called ``repayment.'' Well, let's look at how GM came to ``own'' those escrow funds in the first place. The escrow funds were part of the TARP money Treasury paid for GM stock coming out of the bankruptcy. The money was supposed to be used by GM for expenses, as Treasury concedes. Treasury had the power to approve or disapprove GM's use of the money to repay the TARP taxpayer loan. Treasury approved, and GM pretended it was paying the loan back from revenue because business had improved. Business may have improved, but that is not how they paid the loan. Taking TARP money out of one account to pay back TARP loans in another account is not at all the same as paying off a loan with earnings, as GM's TV commercials imply they have done. That is why I called it ``an elaborate TARP money shuffle'' and nothing in Treasury's reply today changes that. The public would know nothing about the TARP escrow money being the source of the supposed repayment from simply watching GM's TV commercials or reading Treasury's press release. Treasury's letter today says all these details are public knowledge and nothing new. Well, that may be technically correct, but it wasn't clearly communicated that way to the average citizen. Most Americans don't pore through SEC filings and special inspectors general reports. The GM commercial also did not mention that GM could have used the TARP escrow funds to repay a $2.5 billion 9 percent loan it received from its union health plan as part of the bankruptcy process. The union loan runs until 2017. The TARP loan was at 7 percent and ran until 2015. What sort of money manager would advise you to pay off a lower interest loan before a higher interest loan? GM and Treasury have still not explained that, and I have asked the TARP watchdog, Special Inspector Neil Barofsky, to get to the bottom of it. And to make matters worse, Treasury has admitted that it let GM take an additional 6.6 billion of TARP dollars out of the escrow fund last week with no strings attached. That money, too, could have been used to repay the high interest union loan. There are reports that GM also applied to the Department of Energy for a $10 billion 5 percent loan to retool its plants to meet fuel economy standards. GM seems to be using government money to pay back government money, and then asking for more government money at a lower interest rate. It sounds like a plan to refinance GM's government debt with more taxpayer money--not pay it back. GM had to ask permission from Treasury to use the taxpayers' stock investment to pay off the taxpayers' loan. Treasury's response to my letter says that ``Treasury retained approval rights over GM's use of funds from the escrow account in order to protect the taxpayer.'' Well, why didn't they protect the taxpayer then? Why would Treasury allow GM to use its equity investment to pay off the loan when it means giving up the legal right to 7 percent rate of return for the taxpayers in exchange for essentially nothing? Since the taxpayer has an equity stake in the company, it's true that future growth of GM could theoretically make taxpayers whole, but taxpayers already had that equity interest before this latest transaction and didn't get any more equity as a result of the transaction. Another key question is: Why would GM orchestrate a major media campaign to make the public think this all represents some big accomplishment by GM when the truth is that the taxpayers are still on the hook for billions that we may never recover? Using the taxpayers' stock investment in GM to reduce its debt to the taxpayers is not the same as repaying that debt from money actually earned by selling cars. Treasury's reply today does not explain why it approved this transaction. Maybe it is a step in the right direction, maybe not. But instead of misleading the American people, we should be clear and up front about what happened here. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Washington, DC, April 22, 2010. Hon. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Geithner: General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle. On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM's recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says ``The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.'' See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115. Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM's debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury--not from earnings. In the 8K filing GM acknowledged: Of the $42.6 billion in cash and marketable securities available to GM as of September, 30, 2009, $17.4 billion came from an escrow account with Treasury, $6.7 billion of the escrow account available to GM was allocable to the repayment of loans to Treasury, $5.6 billion in cash would remain in the Treasury escrow account following the repayment by GM of their loans, and Upon repaying Treasury, any balance of escrow funds would be released to GM. Therefore, it is unclear how GM and the Administration could have accurately announced yesterday that GM repaid its TARP loans in any meaningful way. In reality, it looks like GM merely used one source of TARP funds to repay another. The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government's ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment. I am also troubled by the timing of this latest maneuver. According to Mr. Barofsky, Treasury had supervisory authority over GM's use of these TARP escrow funds. Since GM's exit from bankruptcy court, Treasury had approved the use of the escrow funds for costs such as GM's obligations to its parts supplier Delphi. See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Additional Insight on Use of Troubled Asset Relief Program Fund (SIGTARP-10-004), dated December 10, 2009, at page 6. According to the GM 8K, GM had planned to use the TARP funds in escrow to pay back the TARP loans on a quarterly basis beginning in the fourth quarter of 2009. But following the April 20, 2010, hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, where Treasury's decision to exempt GM from the bank TARP excise tax was questioned and GM's refusal to testify was noted, it is odd that GM suddenly drew down on the TARP escrow and accelerated the repayment of the remaining balance of GM's outstanding TARP loans. The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were ``repaid'' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the Administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials. When these criticisms were put to GM's Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky in a television interview yesterday, he admitted that the criticisms were valid: Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money? Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we'd be able to pay this back. Mr. Girsky then said that GM originally planned to pay the loan over the next five years. So the question is why--other than a desire to justify excluding GM from the administration's TARP tax proposal--would Treasury and GM reduce GM's TARP debt with TARP equity and then mischaracterize it as a repayment from earnings? Accordingly, please explain: Your department's justification for allowing GM to use funds from the TARP escrow account to repay TARP loans, The amount of funds remaining in the TARP escrow account at Treasury that may be released to GM, and The date that you anticipate that the remaining funds in escrow will be released to GM. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please provide the requested information by April 30, 2010. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter please do not hesitate to contact Jason Foster. All formal correspondence should be sent electronically in PDF format to Brian_Downey@finance-rep.senate.gov. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about a bill that Senator Baucus and I have introduced today. It's called the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. The purpose of our bill is to help Haiti recover from the devastation it suffered in the massive earthquake that struck the country in January. How we respond to natural disasters says a lot about ourselves, whether it's flooding in Iowa or an earthquake in Haiti. The idea behind the bill is simple. First, we extend current trade preferences for Haiti through fiscal year 2020, to provide more certainty for companies doing business either in Haiti or with Haitian partners. Second, we grant additional duty-free access to the U.S. market for targeted categories of textile and apparel products. That will help to draw more investment into Haiti's economy and thereby promote long-term job creation, economic development, and political stability. Our bill is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. It is the product of 3 months of collaborative negotiations among the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees and with representatives of the U.S. textile industry and the Haitians themselves. We also reached out to members of Congress who have constituent textile and apparel interests, to ensure that their concerns were addressed. Our ability to reach agreement on the bill is a testament to the good will and good faith of all those involved in our negotiations. The result reflects a careful balancing of interests, including Haiti's interest in spurring more investment in its economy, the interests of our trading partners in Central America in maintaining existing trade relationships, and our own domestic textile interests. We took special care to address the sensitivities of our domestic producers. In fact, I have a letter here from the two leading U.S. textile industry organizations. Their letter expresses support for our bill and encourages the Senate to pass the bill in an expeditious manner by unanimous consent. Finally, I want to make special mention of my colleagues from states with textile interests, and to thank them for their constructive input in developing this legislation. Without their engagement and support, we would not have arrived at the compromise bill that is being introduced today in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is a balanced bill that addresses an urgent priority in the Western Hemisphere. I ask my colleagues to give the bill their unanimous support when it comes before the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about a bill that Senator Baucus and I have introduced today. It's called the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. The purpose of our bill is to help Haiti recover from the devastation it suffered in the massive earthquake that struck the country in January. How we respond to natural disasters says a lot about ourselves, whether it's flooding in Iowa or an earthquake in Haiti. The idea behind the bill is simple. First, we extend current trade preferences for Haiti through fiscal year 2020, to provide more certainty for companies doing business either in Haiti or with Haitian partners. Second, we grant additional duty-free access to the U.S. market for targeted categories of textile and apparel products. That will help to draw more investment into Haiti's economy and thereby promote long-term job creation, economic development, and political stability. Our bill is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. It is the product of 3 months of collaborative negotiations among the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees and with representatives of the U.S. textile industry and the Haitians themselves. We also reached out to members of Congress who have constituent textile and apparel interests, to ensure that their concerns were addressed. Our ability to reach agreement on the bill is a testament to the good will and good faith of all those involved in our negotiations. The result reflects a careful balancing of interests, including Haiti's interest in spurring more investment in its economy, the interests of our trading partners in Central America in maintaining existing trade relationships, and our own domestic textile interests. We took special care to address the sensitivities of our domestic producers. In fact, I have a letter here from the two leading U.S. textile industry organizations. Their letter expresses support for our bill and encourages the Senate to pass the bill in an expeditious manner by unanimous consent. Finally, I want to make special mention of my colleagues from states with textile interests, and to thank them for their constructive input in developing this legislation. Without their engagement and support, we would not have arrived at the compromise bill that is being introduced today in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is a balanced bill that addresses an urgent priority in the Western Hemisphere. I ask my colleagues to give the bill their unanimous support when it comes before the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have not listened to every speech on the Senate floor in the last week or so where there has been a lot of talk about secret holds and everything. But since I have been in the Senate working with Senator Wyden in a bipartisan way over the course of maybe a decade, not to do away with holds but to have a transparency of holds, and seeing those things compromised, and then particularly to see exception taken to what has happened when this side of the aisle has put on holds, and then considering when Senator Wyden and I did try to do something, that was gutted by people on the other side of the aisle. So I would appreciate it if Democratic Members of the Senate would listen while I explore some of the history so that they know this bipartisan effort, that if it had been done the way Senator Wyden and I did it before it was gutted, we would not have a lot of problems today that we have. So I wanted to go into my remarks, but I preface it with what I just said. There has been a lot of talk recently on the Senate floor about secret holds. For a practice with so much bipartisan guilt to go around, it is interesting that the discussion has taken on a partisan tone. Republicans are being accused of being particularly egregious offenders when it comes to circumventing disclosure requirements. Let me say that if any of my colleagues have holds on either side of the aisle, they ought to have the guts to go public and to go public the minute they put the hold on, not like the mysterious way it is done now, which amounts to nothing. It has been my policy for years to place a brief statement in the Congressional Record each time I placed a hold, with a short explanation of why I placed the hold. I did that before there was ever any Wyden-Grassley proposal. The current disclosure requirements for secret holds have been discussed quite a bit lately, as has bipartisan work with Senator Wyden to address the issue. It is important I give a little background about how we got where we are today. After many attempts to work with various leaders over the years on policy to make all holds public, Senator Wyden and I decided the only way to settle this matter once and for all was for the full Senate to adopt a very clear policy. In the 109th Congress, Senator Wyden and I were successful in passing an amendment to the ethics reform bill by a very wide vote of 84 to 13 to require public disclosure of holds. That bill was never enacted, but the identical provision was included in the ethics bill passed by the full Senate at the very beginning of the 110th Congress. Members may recall the Democrats had just secured a majority in both houses of Congress. Then, in a process that has become all too familiar under the past two Democratic Congresses, there was no conference committee. Instead, in a twist of irony, the so-called Honest Leadership and Open Government Act was rewritten behind closed doors by the Democratic leadership. Lo and behold, the public disclosure provision Senator Wyden and I had worked so hard on, which the Senate had overwhelmingly adopted on that 84 to 13 vote, had been altered, and altered significantly. Keep in mind, under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . That means that the House of Representatives has no say whatsoever about the Senate rules. When the full Senate speaks on a matter of Senate procedure, that should be the final word, particularly if it is 84 to 13. I want to be clear, the current weak disclosure requirements we now have are not the ones originally proposed by Senator Wyden and this Senator. In fact, at the time I came to the floor and criticized the specific changes, because I saw they would be ineffective. And ineffective they are. Let me reiterate some of those criticisms I initially aired to the Senate on two occasions: August 2, 2007, and September 19, 2007. In the version the Senate originally passed, we allowed 3 days for Senators to submit a simple public disclosure form for the record, just like adding oneself as a cosponsor to a bill. This was intended simply to give time to perform administrative functions of getting the disclosure form to the Senate floor, not to legitimize secrecy for the period of 3 days. The rewritten provision gives Senators 6 session days. That might not sound so bad but wait to see how that actually works out in practice. First, it doesn't take a week to send an intern down to the Senate floor with a simple form saying one is putting a hold on a bill. The change I find most troubling is that the 6 days until the disclosure requirement is triggered begins only after a unanimous consent request is made and objected to on the Senate floor. That is too late. I will explain how that is ineffective. By that point, a hold could have existed for quite some time, perhaps without the sponsor of the bill even realizing it. In fact, most holds never get to the point where an objection is made on the floor, because the threat of a hold prevents a unanimous consent request from being made in the first place. So maybe this 6 days is never even triggered. The original Wyden-Grassley provision required disclosure at the time the hold was placed. That is where it ought to be today. We have heard lately about how the minority party has used the weak disclosure requirements to avoid making holds public. However, this change made it far less likely that majority party holds would ever, in fact, become public. Since the majority leader controls the Senate schedule, he would hardly object to his own request to bring up a bill or nominee. He would simply not bring up a bill or nominee being held up by a member of his own party, and we might never know that there was a hold on it at all. Why were these provisions changed? Simply, I don't know. I don't know who does know, because I can't be sure who it was who rewrote these provisions in secrecy behind closed doors. The majority party should be careful now, as they complain about Republicans exploiting loopholes in the disclosure requirements for holds. Both parties are guilty of using secret holds. But we can't blame Republicans for the fact that the current disclosure requirements are weak and ineffective. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to using secret holds, but I am hopeful this recent attention to the problem can result in a bipartisan consensus to end secret holds once and for all. That is something we hope, Senator Wyden and I, other people will talk to us about. We would like to move in this direction. I, for one, am happy to work with anyone on either side of the aisle to that end. It should be stressed that this has been a bipartisan effort. Everybody in this body talks about bipartisanship. When this was watered down, it wasn't watered down in an environment that I know about where any Republicans were present.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Wyden is absolutely right. It is a very powerful tool.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Wyden is correct. I would add this point, that not only is it transparency that is essential--and it happens that way--but also a lot of times holds are put on because there is something wrong. We have to know what it is somebody believes is wrong, if we are going to work out some sort of a compromise.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The present rules are practically not much better than what we have always operated under. So there isn't transparency, and it isn't done soon enough.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 or 12 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 the text of the bill be printed in the Record.