Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think I can be done in 10 minutes, but if I can't be, I would like to have a little bit longer because I am going to talk about a very good Iowan who was murdered 2 weeks ago today. This is the purpose for which I rise. This is coach Ed Thomas. I will get to that in a minute. But before I leave that up there for Senators to view, I wish to tell them, this is not any ordinary high school football coach. This is obviously an old picture because it only goes to 1998. He coached 37 years at this high school. It says here ``championship.'' I know he had a recent State championship as well. He is no ordinary high school football coach. Because in this small town of Parkersburg, IA, the high school is in two towns, Aplington- Parkersburg, IA. It only has 2,000 people in it. But this football coach has taken four of his former players now presently playing in the NFL. At least three and maybe all four of these returned to be pallbearers at his funeral. We can see this record of the previous decade, and that record would be as good for the last decade. I am only sorry I don't have a more recent picture showing Ed Thomas. Two weeks ago today, at 10:30 in the morning, a former student, a former football player and the brother of a football player who would have been playing this fall at this high school, came into the weight room at Parkersburg High School. This coach was always there because he wanted to encourage his players to work out and to be healthy. He was there with them. This former student came in and killed him with a gun. Didn't bother anybody else. That was it. He was rushed to the hospital but probably dead on arrival. I say how outstanding he was and how well liked he was. About 12 months before that, a tornado went through Parkersburg destroying about a third of the town. This is a town of only 2,000. This coach had his house blown away, but he didn't worry about himself. He headed for his high school, which was also destroyed, to do immediately what he could to help turn things around. I have prepared remarks where I will refer to this so colleagues will be hearing it twice. His goal from that Memorial Day weekend to the opening of the football season, the first Friday night in August, was to have that football field ready to go so they could play football as they have. They had a very outstanding season. This is a person who led a community. He was not just a football coach. My home of 75 years is 10 miles from that high school. They were our competitors. There is very fierce competition between football teams in these small towns of the Midwest. I went Sunday afternoon. The viewing of the body was from 3 to 8. The next day the funeral had 2,500 people at it. But at the time--I get there at 3 o'clock--the line was 3 blocks long. I stood in line 3 hours to get to say my condolences to the family and to view. This family was so strong that they probably gave more comfort to the people who were there to view than each of us gave to the family. Three hours, and I thought: How long is the line? By 6:30, the line was 4 blocks long. That family stood there until 11 o'clock that night to greet all the friends of this beloved Iowa coach. With that as background, I came to the floor to give this statement. I thought I ought to put it in some context. I come before the Senate with the heavy heart of an entire community and in humble recognition of a man who, by all accounts, was a servant of God in every sense, a person who put his faith to work by mentoring the young people of his community as a teacher and a football coach, a person who put his faith to work by providing a guiding hand as the community recovered from the tragedy of a tornado just a little over a year ago, a person who put his faith to work as a father, a husband, and an elder in the church. Parenthetically, I wish to say this about the close-knit families we have in the small communities of Iowa. It happens that Coach Thomas and the family of the murderer go to the same church. The person who did the murdering had, I assume from the newspaper, a drug problem. The Sunday before the murder, so the newspapers tell me, the family of the person with the drug problem who did the murder asked in the church, would they pray for their son. Coach Ed Thomas led the prayer for that son, as it was reported in the newspaper. It was barely a year ago when news reports came across the wires about a small Iowa farming town that was devastated by an F-5 tornado that tore across the community and leveled hundreds of homes and businesses--with eight people dying--the school and what locals call the Sacred Acre or, to the rest of us the famous Parkersburg Falcon football field. Just last week, this same town was hit with possibly a more crushing blow than a tornado could ever take from a town. The caretaker of the Sacred Acre, the beloved football coach and town leader, Coach Ed Thomas, was senselessly murdered in front of his very own students. In our area of the State, it is not hard to know Coach Thomas. He was a pillar of the community. His success on the football field made him an icon in his profession--two State championships and four players currently in the NFL. But the people who knew him will remember him most for his leadership off the field. It was his leadership that helped pull up the community that was knocked off its feet by the F-5 tornado. His declaration in the aftermath of the tornado that the Aplington-Parkersburg boys would play football on their home field in just a couple months gave the town of Parkersburg, IA, purpose in the most difficult of times. It was the Sacred Acre that brought everyone in town together, and it was the whole town that put the Sacred Acre back together so they could start the football season on time in that home game, the last Friday of August. Coach Thomas and his Sacred Acre brought out the best in the community, just as he brought out the best in his team with what Coach Thomas called, ``strength in togetherness.'' His impact reached the people of this community long before that fateful day in May 2008. For nearly four decades, Coach Thomas led young men in more than just the game of football. He led them in the lessons of life. His current and former players have been seen and heard everywhere--each of them now sharing lessons that will be passed on yet to another generation. Most of us can remember that one coach or that one teacher who had the greatest impact on each of us. For many in the Parkersburg community, that one person was Coach Thomas. He was well known for getting the best out of his players and students. He was always providing motivation to his kids. But those who knew Coach Thomas best say his No. 1 talent was friendship. His friend, Al Kerns, said: He only saw the best in others, and I guess that's why he got all this back. ``This'' being the outpouring of compassion from people across Iowa. It may be best demonstrated by the scene in Parkersburg last week at the funeral. As the hearse traveled from the funeral to the nearby cemetery, the streets were lined four or five deep with myriads of color. It has been a true testament to the reach of this icon, not only because of the sheer numbers of people but the myriad of colors that came from high school football teams from all across Iowa that came in their game jerseys to honor a selfless man who shared his playbook as well as his heart. The tributes made since that tragic morning show that even after his death, Ed Thomas is teaching us to be better people by the way he lived his life. It has been obvious that his two sons have taken his life lessons to heart, just like many others. I continue to be struck by the poise of his sons who have performed the most monumental task by asking us to pray for the family of the man who killed their father. I cannot think of a greater tribute to their dad than the actions they have performed and the words they have spoken over the last 10 days. There is no question in my mind that these two young men possess the same qualities as their father and that these two boys will continue his legacy. Aaron Thomas, the oldest of Ed and Jan's two boys, said this at the funeral. He actually said more than I am going to quote, but this is a very important part: You can be sad the rest of the day, but come tomorrow, once you wake up, it's time to get going . . . there's a lot of work to be done in this town. While this community's heart is heavy, they will move forward to see the brightness of another day and of another game, just as Coach Thomas would have wanted. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 2010 legislative branch appropriations bill, S. 1294, I would like to raise a concern I have with a provision related to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, CAA. As the author of the Congressional Accountability Act, I have long believed that Congress needs to practice what it preaches by applying certain laws Congress passes to the legislative branch. The CAA did this by incorporating a number of laws including the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Senator Murkowski, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, is here and I would like to ask about the provision in the bill related to the CAA. I am concerned that the provision striking a section of the CAA related to the compliance date for OSHA violations may go further than necessary. As the author of the CAA, this provision was included to ensure that OSHA violations that are found in legislative branch buildings are remedied in a timely fashion. I understand that some concerns have arisen regarding the requirement that compliance occur by the next fiscal year, which prompted this revision, is that correct?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that this provision should not lead to unnecessary expenditures and that we should examine this provision. However, I'm concerned the current revision in S. 1294 goes a bit too far by completely striking the compliance date. In fact I am informed the Office of Compliance, the entity in charge of enforcing the CAA has expressed concerns with completely striking this provision and instead recommends a selective amendment. Out of the interest of saving time on the Senate floor, I will withhold an amendment to strike or modify this provision if the distinguished ranking member is willing to commit to working with me on this provision to make sure the revision is as narrow as possible as recommended by the Office of Compliance.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the distinguished ranking member and look forward to working with her and the chairman to narrow this provision and address the concerns expressed by the Office of Compliance.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, President Obama, in his press briefing this past Tuesday, June 23, 2009, made the following statement regarding his assessment of the first four months of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: ``I am not satisfied with the progress that we've made.'' I could not agree more with President Obama's assessment. Thus far, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has fallen short on virtually every one of its advertised effects. In the abbreviated debate leading up to the consideration of this bill, we constantly heard the mantra from my friends on the other side: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! This stimulus bill was supposed to create jobs, jobs, jobs, but in the four months since the bill's passage, there are still no jobs in sight. The architects of this bill made several bold claims in projecting the job effects of the $787 billion stimulus bill. First, they said that its passage would keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Second, they said it was going to create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. And third, they said that 90 percent of the new jobs created would be in the private sector. So far, in all three of these areas, the actual effects of the stimulus bill have not lived up to the hype. Let us examine each of these areas one by one. First, the stimulus bill was supposed to keep unemployment at or below 8 percent. In fact, the administration projected that in the absence of stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at around 8.8 percent. However, four months into this program, the unemployment rate stands at 9.4 percent and rising--higher than the administration projected it would be in the absence of stimulus. Just listen to President Obama's comments from his June 23rd press briefing to see which direction the unemployment rate is headed: ``I think it's pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we're still not at actual recovery yet. So I anticipate that this is going to be a difficult, difficult year, a difficult period.'' When asked how high he thought the unemployment rate would go, President Obama responded, ``I am not suggesting that I have a crystal ball. Since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let's not engage in another one.'' Once again, I have to agree with President Obama's assessment. As the unemployment rate continues to go up, that means job numbers continue to go down, which brings me to my next point: The administration projected that the stimulus bill would create--or save-- between 3 and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. While we've got a long way to go before the end of 2010, the prospects of the stimulus bill living up to this job creation estimate seem very unlikely. Before we look at the actual job numbers for the past few months from the Department of Labor, let me discuss the source of the administration's projections. In January, Christina Romer, who is now Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who is now the Chief Economist for the Vice President, released a 14-page paper titled ``The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.'' In this document, Romer and Bernstein repeatedly asserted that a package of the size discussed by the President-Elect would be expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010, which would more than meet the President-Elect's goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. In a follow-up report in May, the Council of Economic Advisers attempted to explain how the administration planned on measuring the number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus. This document articulated that all recipients of stimulus funds for government investment will be required to provide ``recipient reports'' estimating the number of jobs retained or created directly by the funds. Then, to arrive at the total estimate of jobs created or saved by the stimulus, the job numbers from the recipient reports will be added to the administration's estimate of jobs created or saved through tax cuts, State fiscal relief and transfer payments. These estimates will be derived from administration-produced multipliers and macro-economic modeling. Sounds pretty simple, don't you think? Unfortunately, there are some problems. The first problem is that the most accurate part of these job estimates will be from the recipient reports, and since the stimulus bill included approximately $271 billion in government investment spending, these reporting requirements cover just over a third of the $787 billion of stimulus funding. While the job estimates from these recipient reports should be an accurate representation of actual jobs created by the stimulus, the administration even admits that ``there will likely be inconsistencies and measurement error across the individual reports.'' This leads us to the second problem: for the other \2/3\ of the bill, in the administration's own words, ``There is no mechanism available for collecting data on actual job creation from these parts of the Act.'' So, for \2/3\ of the bill, the job estimates are basically going to be guesswork from the administration based on mathematical formulas. Since President Obama's ``First 100 Days'' address on April 29, 2009, we have heard plenty about the 150,000 jobs that have been created or saved so far by the stimulus. As I have pointed out, it is impossible to verify these numbers with any degree of certainty, and the administration can not even give an estimate of how many of the 150,000 jobs were created and how many were saved. What we can verify are the actual job numbers produced on a monthly basis by the Department of Labor. According to the Department of Labor, in the 3 full months March, April, and May, following the enactment of the stimulus bill, the U.S. economy has lost over 1.5 million jobs. In the first 5 months of 2009, the U.S. economy has lost 2.9 million jobs. These are the painful numbers that really matter. As Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President, said on June 8, 2009, ``Most importantly from the perspective of American families, the nation's employers are still shedding jobs on net.'' So, the advertised effect of the stimulus on unemployment was clearly wrong, and the job claims resulting from the stimulus are unverifiable. Now, how about the claim suggesting that 90 percent of the jobs created by the stimulus will be in the private sector? To be clear, this claim was first made in Romer and Bernstein's January report, and the President himself has repeated this assertion. Unfortunately, this projection--like the first two--is missing the mark by a long shot. Let's look at the actual data from the Department of Labor once again. In the first three months since the stimulus bill has been the law of the land, the private sector has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs. In those same 3 months, government payrolls have actually expanded by 81,000 jobs. Similarly, in the first 5 months of 2009, while the private sector has lost over 3 million jobs, the government has gained 96,000 jobs. While I am encouraged to see at least one sector of the economy experiencing job gains, I don't expect that the administration's projection of 90 percent of stimulus jobs being in the private sector will be realized. The administration has promised that 600,000 additional public sector jobs will be created or saved this summer. While an increase of 600,000 government jobs would certainly be a positive development if it comes to pass, it does raise concerns as to whether the government will be the only winner from the stimulus bill. My point today, Mr. President, is not to berate the administration or those who voted for this bill. My point is, first, to note the conspicuous absence of job gains in our economy following the stimulus, and second, to bring our focus back to the source of 70 percent of net new jobs over the past decade--the engine that drives the U.S. economy. Of course, I am talking about America's small businesses. America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. If you go back to your States frequently, like I do, you'll hear about it directly. A few months ago, Senators Landrieu and Snowe held a hearing on the credit crunch hitting small business. They found that big banks have been cracking down on lending to small businesses. Another very good source of answers about the environment of small business is found in the monthly survey of small business. This survey is published by the National Federation of Independent Business ``NFIB''. NFIB is the largest small business organization. NFIB has been conducting these surveys for 35 years. NFIB's membership includes hundreds of thousands of small businesses all across America. You can find the survey on NFIB's website at http:/ /www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet200906.pdf. I would encourage every member to check out the June 2009 survey. The survey shows some extremely disturbing trends. On credit availability, small businesses are getting squeezed very hard. The availability of loans has fallen off a cliff since late 2007 and is at its lowest point since the recession period of 1980 to 1982. This credit crunch and other factors have contributed to NFIB's index of small business optimism falling well below average. According to the survey, small business owners have become extremely pessimistic in the last couple of years. What you see here is the attitude of the decision makers in small business America. Those are the decision makers for businesses that President Obama and Congress agree are the businesses most likely to grow or contract jobs. This data should concern every policy maker in this town. While those two sets of data are bad, it doesn't get any better when you look at small business hiring plans. Another question on the survey asks the small business owner whether he or she plans to expand or contract employment over the next three months. The survey results show small business activity contracting tremendously, and the overall small business employment numbers tell the same story. I must say that the President's recent efforts to increase lending to the small business sector are commendable. The center piece of his small business plan will allow the federal government to spend up to $25 billion to purchase the small-business loans that are now hindering community banks and lenders. Unfortunately, that is a drop in a very empty bucket. Remember, colleagues, that small business accounts for about half of the private sector. Moreover, the positives that will come to small businesses from this relatively small package of loans--which will ultimately have to be paid back--will be heavily outweighed by the negative impact of the President's proposed tax increases. Helping small businesses get loans just to take that money back in the form of tax hikes is not wise. I now want to turn to those aforementioned tax hikes on small businesses that President Obama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed. I certainly understand that small business is vital to the health of our economy. The President and I agree that 70 percent of new private sector jobs are created by small businesses. However, where we differ is that I believe small businesses' taxes should be lowered, not raised, to get our economy back on track. In 2001 and 2003, Congress enacted bipartisan tax relief designed to trigger economic growth and create jobs by reducing the tax burden on individuals and small businesses. This included an across-the-board income tax reduction, which reduced marginal tax rates for income earners of all levels, a reduction of the top dividends and capital gains tax rate to 15 percent, and a gradual phaseout of the estate tax. Unfortunately, like many of the other provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, these tax relief measures are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Some have referred to this bipartisan tax relief as ``the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'' and have suggested that the tax relief provided for higher-income earners should be allowed to expire. However, this tax relief was bipartisan and provides tax relief for all taxpayers. The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed increasing the top two marginal tax rates from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. They have also proposed increasing the tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent, and providing for an estate tax rate as high as 45 percent and an exemption amount of $3.5 million. Also, the President has called for fully reinstating the personal exemption phaseout, or PEP for short, and the limitation on itemized deductions, which is known as Pease. Under the 2001 tax law, PEP and Pease are scheduled to be completely phased out in 2010. However, like other provisions in the law, PEP and Pease are scheduled to come back in full force in 2011 should Congress fail to take further action. With PEP and Pease fully reinstated, individuals in the top two rates could see their marginal effective tax rate increased by 20 percent or more. For example, a family of four that is in the 33 percent tax bracket in 2010 could pay a marginal effective tax-rate of 41 percent after 2010--or even more if they had more children--because of PEP and Pease. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have defended this proposal by claiming they will only raise taxes on ``wealthy'' taxpayers who make over $200,000 a year. For the vast majority of people who earn less than $200,000, raising taxes on higher earners might not sound so bad. However, this means that many small businesses will be hit with a higher tax bill. These small businesses happen to at least 70 percent of all new private sector jobs in the U.S. These small businesses that are taxed as sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships--including LLCs--whose owners make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, would get hit with the President's proposal to raise the top two marginal tax rates. In addition, there are just under 2 million C corporations that are not publicly traded, and all C corporations are subject to double taxation. To the extent these C corporations' owners that make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, pay themselves a salary, they would get hit with the tax increase on the top two marginal tax rates proposed by the President. Also, any owners of C corporations that receive dividends or realize capital gains and make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, would pay a 20 percent rate on these dividends and capital gains after 2010 under the President's tax hike proposals, instead of paying the current law rate of 15 percent. According to NFIB survey data, 50 percent of owners of small businesses that employ 20-249 workers would fall in the top two brackets. According to the Small Business Administration, about \2/3\ of the Nation's small business workers are employed by small businesses with 20-500 employees. Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that create new jobs and employ \2/3\ of all small business workers? With these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch, do we really think it's wise to hit them with the double-whammy of a 20 percent increase in their marginal tax rates? Newly developed data from the Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates that 55 percent of the tax from the higher rates will be borne by small business owners with income over $250,000. This is a conservative number, because it doesn't include flow-through business owners making between $200,000 and $250,000 that will also be hit with the Budget's proposed tax hikes. If the proponents of the marginal rate increase on small business owners agree that a 20 percent tax increase for half of the small businesses that employ two-thirds of all small business workers is not wise, then they should either oppose these tax increases, or present data that show a different result. I will also fight for a lower estate tax rate and a higher estate tax exemption amount to protect successful small businesses and farmers. In a time when many businesses are struggling to stay afloat, it does not make sense to impose additional burdens on them by raising their taxes. Odds are, they will cut spending. They will cancel orders for new equipment, cut health insurance for their employees, stop hiring, and lay people off. Instead of seeking to raise taxes on those who create jobs in our economy, policies need to focus on reducing excessive tax and regulatory barriers that stand in the way of small businesses and the private sector making investments, expanding production, and creating sustainable jobs. As the current ranking member of the tax writing Finance Committee, you can be sure that I will continue to fight to prevent a dramatic tax increase on our nation's job engine--the small businesses of America. This includes working to protect small businesses from higher marginal tax rates, an increase in the capital gains and dividends tax rate, and an increase in the unfair estate tax rate that will penalize the success of small businesses and farmers who would like to pass on their gains to the next generation. In fact, today I have introduced a bill to lower taxes on these job- creating small businesses. My bill contains a number of provisions that will leave more money in the hands of these small businesses so that these businesses can hire more workers, continue to pay the salaries of their current employees, and make additional investments in these businesses. For instance, my bill would increase the amount of capital expenditures that small businesses can expense from $250,000 to $500,000. Also, my bill would allow more small C corporations to benefit from the lower graduated tax rates for smaller C corporations. Another provision takes the general business credits, which are listed in section 38, out of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, for those sole proprietorships, flow-throughs and non-publicly traded C- corps with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. This provision amends section 39 to extend the 1-year carryback for general business credits to a 5-year carryback. This applies to general business credits for those sole proprietorships, flow-through entities and non-publicly traded C-corps with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. Another provision in my bill amends section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code, which contains the deduction for manufacturing, to provide a 20 percent deduction for flow-through business income for all small businesses, which are defined as flow-through entities with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. Another provision in my bill deals with the situation where a C corporation becomes an S corporation. Under current law, there is no tax on built-in gains of assets within a C corporation that converts to an S corporation if those assets with built-in gain are held for 10 years by the S corporation. The stimulus bill reduced this 10-year period down to 7 years for sales of assets with built-in gain that occur within 2009 and 2010. My provision reduces this time period down to 5 years for all S corporations that have converted from a C corporation. Another provision in my bill expands the net operating loss provision contained in the stimulus bill. Current law provides that net operating losses from any size business may be carried back 2 taxable years before the year that the loss arises and carried forward 20 years. The stimulus bill amended the carryback provision by expanding the carryback from 2 years to 5 years if a small business had gross receipts of $15 million or less. This provision expands that $15 million gross receipt requirement to $50 million in gross receipts so that more small businesses can qualify for this benefit. Another provision in my bill amends section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the tax on capital gains for certain start-up C corporations. The stimulus bill reduced the capital gains tax to approximately 7 percent on stock qualifying under 1202. However, President Obama has called for eliminating, not simply reducing, the tax on capital gains for these start-up businesses, and that is exactly what my provision would do. The final provision in my bill permits a deduction for payments made under the Self-Employment Contribution Act, or SECA, at one-hundred percent of health insurance premiums that are paid by those who are self-employed. We all want to see the job numbers from the Department of Labor moving in a positive direction. We all want to see the unemployment rate plummet. I firmly believe that the best way for us to do that is to prime the job-creating engine of our economy, which is small businesses. Furthermore, increasing taxes on small businesses as President Obama has proposed will destroy even more jobs. My small business bill, if enacted, will lead to many new jobs. As opposed to the jobs President Obama argues that the stimulus bill has saved while our economy has been hemorrhaging jobs, my bill will create countable, verifiable, private sector jobs that will put people to work and get the economy moving in the right direction again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, President Obama, in his press briefing this past Tuesday, June 23, 2009, made the following statement regarding his assessment of the first four months of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: ``I am not satisfied with the progress that we've made.'' I could not agree more with President Obama's assessment. Thus far, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has fallen short on virtually every one of its advertised effects. In the abbreviated debate leading up to the consideration of this bill, we constantly heard the mantra from my friends on the other side: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! This stimulus bill was supposed to create jobs, jobs, jobs, but in the four months since the bill's passage, there are still no jobs in sight. The architects of this bill made several bold claims in projecting the job effects of the $787 billion stimulus bill. First, they said that its passage would keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Second, they said it was going to create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. And third, they said that 90 percent of the new jobs created would be in the private sector. So far, in all three of these areas, the actual effects of the stimulus bill have not lived up to the hype. Let us examine each of these areas one by one. First, the stimulus bill was supposed to keep unemployment at or below 8 percent. In fact, the administration projected that in the absence of stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at around 8.8 percent. However, four months into this program, the unemployment rate stands at 9.4 percent and rising--higher than the administration projected it would be in the absence of stimulus. Just listen to President Obama's comments from his June 23rd press briefing to see which direction the unemployment rate is headed: ``I think it's pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we're still not at actual recovery yet. So I anticipate that this is going to be a difficult, difficult year, a difficult period.'' When asked how high he thought the unemployment rate would go, President Obama responded, ``I am not suggesting that I have a crystal ball. Since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let's not engage in another one.'' Once again, I have to agree with President Obama's assessment. As the unemployment rate continues to go up, that means job numbers continue to go down, which brings me to my next point: The administration projected that the stimulus bill would create--or save-- between 3 and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. While we've got a long way to go before the end of 2010, the prospects of the stimulus bill living up to this job creation estimate seem very unlikely. Before we look at the actual job numbers for the past few months from the Department of Labor, let me discuss the source of the administration's projections. In January, Christina Romer, who is now Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who is now the Chief Economist for the Vice President, released a 14-page paper titled ``The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.'' In this document, Romer and Bernstein repeatedly asserted that a package of the size discussed by the President-Elect would be expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010, which would more than meet the President-Elect's goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. In a follow-up report in May, the Council of Economic Advisers attempted to explain how the administration planned on measuring the number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus. This document articulated that all recipients of stimulus funds for government investment will be required to provide ``recipient reports'' estimating the number of jobs retained or created directly by the funds. Then, to arrive at the total estimate of jobs created or saved by the stimulus, the job numbers from the recipient reports will be added to the administration's estimate of jobs created or saved through tax cuts, State fiscal relief and transfer payments. These estimates will be derived from administration-produced multipliers and macro-economic modeling. Sounds pretty simple, don't you think? Unfortunately, there are some problems. The first problem is that the most accurate part of these job estimates will be from the recipient reports, and since the stimulus bill included approximately $271 billion in government investment spending, these reporting requirements cover just over a third of the $787 billion of stimulus funding. While the job estimates from these recipient reports should be an accurate representation of actual jobs created by the stimulus, the administration even admits that ``there will likely be inconsistencies and measurement error across the individual reports.'' This leads us to the second problem: for the other \2/3\ of the bill, in the administration's own words, ``There is no mechanism available for collecting data on actual job creation from these parts of the Act.'' So, for \2/3\ of the bill, the job estimates are basically going to be guesswork from the administration based on mathematical formulas. Since President Obama's ``First 100 Days'' address on April 29, 2009, we have heard plenty about the 150,000 jobs that have been created or saved so far by the stimulus. As I have pointed out, it is impossible to verify these numbers with any degree of certainty, and the administration can not even give an estimate of how many of the 150,000 jobs were created and how many were saved. What we can verify are the actual job numbers produced on a monthly basis by the Department of Labor. According to the Department of Labor, in the 3 full months March, April, and May, following the enactment of the stimulus bill, the U.S. economy has lost over 1.5 million jobs. In the first 5 months of 2009, the U.S. economy has lost 2.9 million jobs. These are the painful numbers that really matter. As Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President, said on June 8, 2009, ``Most importantly from the perspective of American families, the nation's employers are still shedding jobs on net.'' So, the advertised effect of the stimulus on unemployment was clearly wrong, and the job claims resulting from the stimulus are unverifiable. Now, how about the claim suggesting that 90 percent of the jobs created by the stimulus will be in the private sector? To be clear, this claim was first made in Romer and Bernstein's January report, and the President himself has repeated this assertion. Unfortunately, this projection--like the first two--is missing the mark by a long shot. Let's look at the actual data from the Department of Labor once again. In the first three months since the stimulus bill has been the law of the land, the private sector has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs. In those same 3 months, government payrolls have actually expanded by 81,000 jobs. Similarly, in the first 5 months of 2009, while the private sector has lost over 3 million jobs, the government has gained 96,000 jobs. While I am encouraged to see at least one sector of the economy experiencing job gains, I don't expect that the administration's projection of 90 percent of stimulus jobs being in the private sector will be realized. The administration has promised that 600,000 additional public sector jobs will be created or saved this summer. While an increase of 600,000 government jobs would certainly be a positive development if it comes to pass, it does raise concerns as to whether the government will be the only winner from the stimulus bill. My point today, Mr. President, is not to berate the administration or those who voted for this bill. My point is, first, to note the conspicuous absence of job gains in our economy following the stimulus, and second, to bring our focus back to the source of 70 percent of net new jobs over the past decade--the engine that drives the U.S. economy. Of course, I am talking about America's small businesses. America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. If you go back to your States frequently, like I do, you'll hear about it directly. A few months ago, Senators Landrieu and Snowe held a hearing on the credit crunch hitting small business. They found that big banks have been cracking down on lending to small businesses. Another very good source of answers about the environment of small business is found in the monthly survey of small business. This survey is published by the National Federation of Independent Business ``NFIB''. NFIB is the largest small business organization. NFIB has been conducting these surveys for 35 years. NFIB's membership includes hundreds of thousands of small businesses all across America. You can find the survey on NFIB's website at http:/ /www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet200906.pdf. I would encourage every member to check out the June 2009 survey. The survey shows some extremely disturbing trends. On credit availability, small businesses are getting squeezed very hard. The availability of loans has fallen off a cliff since late 2007 and is at its lowest point since the recession period of 1980 to 1982. This credit crunch and other factors have contributed to NFIB's index of small business optimism falling well below average. According to the survey, small business owners have become extremely pessimistic in the last couple of years. What you see here is the attitude of the decision makers in small business America. Those are the decision makers for businesses that President Obama and Congress agree are the businesses most likely to grow or contract jobs. This data should concern every policy maker in this town. While those two sets of data are bad, it doesn't get any better when you look at small business hiring plans. Another question on the survey asks the small business owner whether he or she plans to expand or contract employment over the next three months. The survey results show small business activity contracting tremendously, and the overall small business employment numbers tell the same story. I must say that the President's recent efforts to increase lending to the small business sector are commendable. The center piece of his small business plan will allow the federal government to spend up to $25 billion to purchase the small-business loans that are now hindering community banks and lenders. Unfortunately, that is a drop in a very empty bucket. Remember, colleagues, that small business accounts for about half of the private sector. Moreover, the positives that will come to small businesses from this relatively small package of loans--which will ultimately have to be paid back--will be heavily outweighed by the negative impact of the President's proposed tax increases. Helping small businesses get loans just to take that money back in the form of tax hikes is not wise. I now want to turn to those aforementioned tax hikes on small businesses that President Obama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed. I certainly understand that small business is vital to the health of our economy. The President and I agree that 70 percent of new private sector jobs are created by small businesses. However, where we differ is that I believe small businesses' taxes should be lowered, not raised, to get our economy back on track. In 2001 and 2003, Congress enacted bipartisan tax relief designed to trigger economic growth and create jobs by reducing the tax burden on individuals and small businesses. This included an across-the-board income tax reduction, which reduced marginal tax rates for income earners of all levels, a reduction of the top dividends and capital gains tax rate to 15 percent, and a gradual phaseout of the estate tax. Unfortunately, like many of the other provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, these tax relief measures are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Some have referred to this bipartisan tax relief as ``the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'' and have suggested that the tax relief provided for higher-income earners should be allowed to expire. However, this tax relief was bipartisan and provides tax relief for all taxpayers. The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed increasing the top two marginal tax rates from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. They have also proposed increasing the tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent, and providing for an estate tax rate as high as 45 percent and an exemption amount of $3.5 million. Also, the President has called for fully reinstating the personal exemption phaseout, or PEP for short, and the limitation on itemized deductions, which is known as Pease. Under the 2001 tax law, PEP and Pease are scheduled to be completely phased out in 2010. However, like other provisions in the law, PEP and Pease are scheduled to come back in full force in 2011 should Congress fail to take further action. With PEP and Pease fully reinstated, individuals in the top two rates could see their marginal effective tax rate increased by 20 percent or more. For example, a family of four that is in the 33 percent tax bracket in 2010 could pay a marginal effective tax-rate of 41 percent after 2010--or even more if they had more children--because of PEP and Pease. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have defended this proposal by claiming they will only raise taxes on ``wealthy'' taxpayers who make over $200,000 a year. For the vast majority of people who earn less than $200,000, raising taxes on higher earners might not sound so bad. However, this means that many small businesses will be hit with a higher tax bill. These small businesses happen to at least 70 percent of all new private sector jobs in the U.S. These small businesses that are taxed as sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships--including LLCs--whose owners make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, would get hit with the President's proposal to raise the top two marginal tax rates. In addition, there are just under 2 million C corporations that are not publicly traded, and all C corporations are subject to double taxation. To the extent these C corporations' owners that make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, pay themselves a salary, they would get hit with the tax increase on the top two marginal tax rates proposed by the President. Also, any owners of C corporations that receive dividends or realize capital gains and make over $200,000, or $250,000 if married, would pay a 20 percent rate on these dividends and capital gains after 2010 under the President's tax hike proposals, instead of paying the current law rate of 15 percent. According to NFIB survey data, 50 percent of owners of small businesses that employ 20-249 workers would fall in the top two brackets. According to the Small Business Administration, about \2/3\ of the Nation's small business workers are employed by small businesses with 20-500 employees. Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that create new jobs and employ \2/3\ of all small business workers? With these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch, do we really think it's wise to hit them with the double-whammy of a 20 percent increase in their marginal tax rates? Newly developed data from the Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates that 55 percent of the tax from the higher rates will be borne by small business owners with income over $250,000. This is a conservative number, because it doesn't include flow-through business owners making between $200,000 and $250,000 that will also be hit with the Budget's proposed tax hikes. If the proponents of the marginal rate increase on small business owners agree that a 20 percent tax increase for half of the small businesses that employ two-thirds of all small business workers is not wise, then they should either oppose these tax increases, or present data that show a different result. I will also fight for a lower estate tax rate and a higher estate tax exemption amount to protect successful small businesses and farmers. In a time when many businesses are struggling to stay afloat, it does not make sense to impose additional burdens on them by raising their taxes. Odds are, they will cut spending. They will cancel orders for new equipment, cut health insurance for their employees, stop hiring, and lay people off. Instead of seeking to raise taxes on those who create jobs in our economy, policies need to focus on reducing excessive tax and regulatory barriers that stand in the way of small businesses and the private sector making investments, expanding production, and creating sustainable jobs. As the current ranking member of the tax writing Finance Committee, you can be sure that I will continue to fight to prevent a dramatic tax increase on our nation's job engine--the small businesses of America. This includes working to protect small businesses from higher marginal tax rates, an increase in the capital gains and dividends tax rate, and an increase in the unfair estate tax rate that will penalize the success of small businesses and farmers who would like to pass on their gains to the next generation. In fact, today I have introduced a bill to lower taxes on these job- creating small businesses. My bill contains a number of provisions that will leave more money in the hands of these small businesses so that these businesses can hire more workers, continue to pay the salaries of their current employees, and make additional investments in these businesses. For instance, my bill would increase the amount of capital expenditures that small businesses can expense from $250,000 to $500,000. Also, my bill would allow more small C corporations to benefit from the lower graduated tax rates for smaller C corporations. Another provision takes the general business credits, which are listed in section 38, out of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, for those sole proprietorships, flow-throughs and non-publicly traded C- corps with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. This provision amends section 39 to extend the 1-year carryback for general business credits to a 5-year carryback. This applies to general business credits for those sole proprietorships, flow-through entities and non-publicly traded C-corps with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. Another provision in my bill amends section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code, which contains the deduction for manufacturing, to provide a 20 percent deduction for flow-through business income for all small businesses, which are defined as flow-through entities with 50 million or less in annual gross receipts. Another provision in my bill deals with the situation where a C corporation becomes an S corporation. Under current law, there is no tax on built-in gains of assets within a C corporation that converts to an S corporation if those assets with built-in gain are held for 10 years by the S corporation. The stimulus bill reduced this 10-year period down to 7 years for sales of assets with built-in gain that occur within 2009 and 2010. My provision reduces this time period down to 5 years for all S corporations that have converted from a C corporation. Another provision in my bill expands the net operating loss provision contained in the stimulus bill. Current law provides that net operating losses from any size business may be carried back 2 taxable years before the year that the loss arises and carried forward 20 years. The stimulus bill amended the carryback provision by expanding the carryback from 2 years to 5 years if a small business had gross receipts of $15 million or less. This provision expands that $15 million gross receipt requirement to $50 million in gross receipts so that more small businesses can qualify for this benefit. Another provision in my bill amends section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the tax on capital gains for certain start-up C corporations. The stimulus bill reduced the capital gains tax to approximately 7 percent on stock qualifying under 1202. However, President Obama has called for eliminating, not simply reducing, the tax on capital gains for these start-up businesses, and that is exactly what my provision would do. The final provision in my bill permits a deduction for payments made under the Self-Employment Contribution Act, or SECA, at one-hundred percent of health insurance premiums that are paid by those who are self-employed. We all want to see the job numbers from the Department of Labor moving in a positive direction. We all want to see the unemployment rate plummet. I firmly believe that the best way for us to do that is to prime the job-creating engine of our economy, which is small businesses. Furthermore, increasing taxes on small businesses as President Obama has proposed will destroy even more jobs. My small business bill, if enacted, will lead to many new jobs. As opposed to the jobs President Obama argues that the stimulus bill has saved while our economy has been hemorrhaging jobs, my bill will create countable, verifiable, private sector jobs that will put people to work and get the economy moving in the right direction again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009. The abuse of prescription narcotics such as pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives is currently the fastest growing drug abuse trend in the country. According to the most recent National Survey of Drug Use and Health, NSDUH, nearly 7 million people have admitted to using controlled substances without a doctor's prescription. People between the ages of 12 and 25 are the most common group to abuse these drugs. However, more and more people are dying because of this abuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the unintentional deaths involving prescription narcotics increased 117 percent from the years 2001 to 2005. These are statistics that can no longer be ignored. Millions of Americans are prescribed controlled substances every year to treat a variety of symptoms due to injury, depression, insomnia, and other conditions. Many legitimate users of these drugs often do not finish their prescriptions. As a result, these drugs remain in the family medicine cabinet for months or years because people forget about them or do not know how to properly dispose of them. However, these drugs, when not properly used or administered, are just as addictive and deadly as street drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine. According to the NSDUH, more than half of the people who abuse prescription narcotics reported that they obtained controlled substances from a friend or relative or from the family medicine cabinet. As a result, most community anti-drug coalitions, public health officials, and law enforcement officials have been encouraging people within their communities to dispose of old or unused medications in an effort to combat this growing trend. Despite these ongoing efforts across the country to eliminate a primary source of prescription narcotics from within their communities, many people are finding the Controlled Substances Act, CSA, is making these efforts difficult. When the CSA was passed in the early 1970's many people did not anticipate the large amount of prescription narcotics that would be used today or the high potential for these drugs to be diverted and abused. Under the CSA, most people who legally possess controlled substances cannot legally transfer them to anyone for any purpose, including for the purpose of disposal. Because the legal method for disposal is unclear, communities interested in providing citizens with an easy process of disposal hesitate to do so or risk violation of the CSA to offer the service. We need to change the CSA so that unused controlled substances do not get diverted in to the stream of illicit drug use and to prevent potential environmental harms, as many people dispose of controlled substances by flushing them down the toilet or dumping them in unlined landfills. Accordingly, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009 to fix the CSA so these efforts to eradicate abuse are not impeded by federal law. This legislation will amend the CSA to allow a user to transfer unused controlled substances to a DEA sanctioned entity for disposal without mandating any specific method of disposal upon communities. This will enable communities to develop methods of disposal best suited for their areas while minimizing the pollution of water supplies or increasing the chances that these drugs will be diverted for abuse. Since most long-term care facilities store large amounts of prescription narcotics for their tenants but are unable to legally dispose of them the bill also enables these facilities to dispose of old medication on behalf of their past and current patients. This legislation will not cost the government any money to implement and would not place any financial burden on states or industries. It simp ives local communities the option to safely dispose of unused controlled substances. I am pleased that the Department of Justice has endorsed this legislation. They and many others out there know how serious the abuse of prescription narcotics has become in this country. Now is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Safe and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009. The abuse of prescription narcotics such as pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives is currently the fastest growing drug abuse trend in the country. According to the most recent National Survey of Drug Use and Health, NSDUH, nearly 7 million people have admitted to using controlled substances without a doctor's prescription. People between the ages of 12 and 25 are the most common group to abuse these drugs. However, more and more people are dying because of this abuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the unintentional deaths involving prescription narcotics increased 117 percent from the years 2001 to 2005. These are statistics that can no longer be ignored. Millions of Americans are prescribed controlled substances every year to treat a variety of symptoms due to injury, depression, insomnia, and other conditions. Many legitimate users of these drugs often do not finish their prescriptions. As a result, these drugs remain in the family medicine cabinet for months or years because people forget about them or do not know how to properly dispose of them. However, these drugs, when not properly used or administered, are just as addictive and deadly as street drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine. According to the NSDUH, more than half of the people who abuse prescription narcotics reported that they obtained controlled substances from a friend or relative or from the family medicine cabinet. As a result, most community anti-drug coalitions, public health officials, and law enforcement officials have been encouraging people within their communities to dispose of old or unused medications in an effort to combat this growing trend. Despite these ongoing efforts across the country to eliminate a primary source of prescription narcotics from within their communities, many people are finding the Controlled Substances Act, CSA, is making these efforts difficult. When the CSA was passed in the early 1970's many people did not anticipate the large amount of prescription narcotics that would be used today or the high potential for these drugs to be diverted and abused. Under the CSA, most people who legally possess controlled substances cannot legally transfer them to anyone for any purpose, including for the purpose of disposal. Because the legal method for disposal is unclear, communities interested in providing citizens with an easy process of disposal hesitate to do so or risk violation of the CSA to offer the service. We need to change the CSA so that unused controlled substances do not get diverted in to the stream of illicit drug use and to prevent potential environmental harms, as many people dispose of controlled substances by flushing them down the toilet or dumping them in unlined landfills. Accordingly, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009 to fix the CSA so these efforts to eradicate abuse are not impeded by federal law. This legislation will amend the CSA to allow a user to transfer unused controlled substances to a DEA sanctioned entity for disposal without mandating any specific method of disposal upon communities. This will enable communities to develop methods of disposal best suited for their areas while minimizing the pollution of water supplies or increasing the chances that these drugs will be diverted for abuse. Since most long-term care facilities store large amounts of prescription narcotics for their tenants but are unable to legally dispose of them the bill also enables these facilities to dispose of old medication on behalf of their past and current patients. This legislation will not cost the government any money to implement and would not place any financial burden on states or industries. It simp ives local communities the option to safely dispose of unused controlled substances. I am pleased that the Department of Justice has endorsed this legislation. They and many others out there know how serious the abuse of prescription narcotics has become in this country. Now is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Safe and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, there was a disturbing occurrence on the other side of the Capitol that I believe needs to be brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate. On Tuesday, June 9, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on allowance allocations policies in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. One of the witnesses who volunteered to testify before the subcommittee was David Sokol, chairman of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, based in my State of Iowa, in the capital city of Des Moines. We are all very well aware there are very divergent opinions on the so-called cap-and-trade program advocated by Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey. Hearing witnesses are typically invited to share different positions and offer different perspectives on prospective policies. That was the case with the MidAmerican CEO. His company supports the cap on emission reductions in the bill but strongly opposes the trading component. In Mr. Sokol's testimony, he made clear his position that the trading mechanism in the Waxman-Markey bill will impose huge costs on customers. The costs will come in two ways: First, to pay for emission allowances, which will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and then for the construction of new, low, and zero carbon powerplants that will actually reduce emissions. So in those two ways, customers pay. He indicated MidAmerican's customers would see an increase in electricity rates of somewhere between 12 percent at the low end and 28 percent at the high end under the climate bill now before the other body. It appears that Chairman Markey did not appreciate the criticism leveled at his bill by Mr. Sokol. During the hearing, a letter was sent by Chairman Markey's office to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting information about MidAmerican's investment and other activities since the 2005 repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act--the short term around here, or acronym, is PUHCA. The six-page letter also requested a reply from FERC within 2 days, ``in order to better inform the Subcommittee's deliberations on this matter.'' However, the 2005 repeal of PUHCA has absolutely nothing to do with Chairman Markey's climate change bill. It appears it is more than a coincidence that Chairman Markey was firing off a six-page letter concerning MidAmerican while the CEO was making critical comments on his bill before his committee. This appears to be a blatant use of power to intimidate a witness whose opinions differ from the chairman. It has recently been reported that Chairman Markey was unaware that the letter was being sent at the time, and I would accept his position on that. Once the letter was brought to his attention, Chairman Markey realized how inappropriate it was and subsequently sent another letter to FERC clarifying his inquiry. This seems to indicate that there are unnamed committee staff who are trying to intimidate and prevent detractors from speaking against their climate bill. These types of strong-arm tactics should not be tolerated. What lengths are proponents willing to go to if they are willing to intimidate people who disagree with them? Are they so unsure of their own position that they have resorted to apparent retribution to silence their critics? Quite frankly, those in the Senate should be skeptical of legislation that is advanced with such zeal that witnesses are being threatened with intimidation if they oppose it, whether that is by staff writing a letter or any other way. Policymaking is a very complicated process. It is one that depends on the honest and forthright input of outside experts and stakeholders to give information; obviously, not to twist arms. After this incident, it seems the process going on in the House of Representatives is not open and fair to those who are critical of the Waxman-Markey bill. We owe it to the American public to restore this process to a more dignified level and assure all witnesses before Congress that they will be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the chairman and/or staff. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today, Chairman Leahy announced July 13 as the start date for the Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am extremely disappointed with this unilateral decision on the part of my Democratic colleagues. In the past, the decision of when to start these Supreme Court hearings has been a bipartisan one. With the Roberts and Alito nominations, Republicans worked with our colleagues to accommodate Democrat concerns about the timing of the hearings for the highest court in the land. Senators Leahy and Specter held joint press conferences announcing the Roberts and Alito hearings. I would have hoped that Ranking Member Sessions and Judiciary Committee Republicans would have gotten the same courtesy for President Obama's nominee. Yet I understand that Ranking Member Sessions had no idea that Chairman Leahy was going to the floor to make this July 13 announcement, and that he was not consulted about this decision. Clearly the July 13 date is not a bipartisan decision. Moreover, July 13 is just not enough time to prepare for a thorough and careful review of Judge Sotomayor's record and qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. First, July 13 is a mere 48 days from the nomination announcement to the hearing, which is shorter than the timeframe for Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, Justice Roberts had just a few hundred decisions for the Judiciary Committee to analyze. Judge Sotomayor has over 3,000 cases over a 17-year period on the Federal bench for us to study. The Alito confirmation hearing timeframe is probably a better comparison since Justice Alito had a similar large number of decisions. With respect to concerns that criticisms have been lodged against the nominee, we don't control what outside groups say, but I do I know that Senate Republican members have treated Judge Sotomayor fairly and have not engaged in personal attacks. So the idea that Judge Sotomayor needs a hearing scheduled as soon as possible to respond to criticisms by outside groups just doesn't hold water. In addition, the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive everything we need from Judge Sotomayor. I understand that her questionnaire is not complete, that we have yet to receive all her documentation, memos, speeches and unpublished opinions, that we still don't have her ABA review and FBI background report. It seems like the rushed nature of the process has contributed to the deficiencies in the questionnaire and the number of documents that are still missing. We need all this stuff in order to fully vet the nominee. Judge Sotomayor has an extensive record, and the July 13 timetable that Chairman Leahy wants to impose will force us to consider a Supreme Court nominee with one of the lengthiest records in recent history in the shortest time in recent history. Republican members got no serious consideration to address concerns about timing, and no consultation or bipartisanship on setting the start date as has been done in the past. I and my Republican colleagues are committed to give Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing, but we need to thoroughly review her extensive legal record and that takes time. It is important that we do the job right because this is a lifetime appointment and we are talking about the highest court of the land. As my Democrat colleagues have said before, the Senate cannot be a rubberstamp. We have a constitutional responsibility to carefully vet Judge Sotomayor and not rush the process. We owe this to the American people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, please allow me to take a few minutes today to discuss childhood obesity, and one way in which we can prevent the most common diseases that face our country. Obesity is an issue that must be addressed--not just by the Federal Government, but by individuals, parents, schools, and health professionals across the country. Given the high cost of health care, we must all look at ways we can reduce the risks of obesity and the many diseases that come with it. I bring this up today because a constituent of mine made me realize that there is an easy and cost-effective way to address the problem. We all know that childhood obesity can be prevented if we motivate young people to eat better and exercise more. There are many fad diets, surgeries, strategies and pills that claim to help reduce obesity. Americans are always looking for the next big breakthrough, and they are willing to pay any price to do it easily and simply. But, nothing is as simple or as cost effective as helping kids learn and maintain the ability to do pull ups. Kids can immunize themselves against obesity, and they can do that by learning to do pull ups. It's been acknowledged that pull ups counteract a child's tendency to obesity. In the context of a of a four year study at Jefferson Elementary School in Davenport, Iowa, my constituent demonstrated that if you start children young, most young people can learn to do pull ups. And, as long as young people maintain the ability to do pull ups, most can naturally immunize themselves against obesity for a lifetime without ever having to resort to pills, shots, or special diets. Due to the rising prevalence of obesity in children and its many adverse health effects. Obesity has been recognized as a serious public health concern. The adverse health effects of obesity do not just include physical conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, sleep problems, and other life-threatening disorders. The threat of obesity includes emotional and psychological problems, depression and low self-esteem. Aside from doing pull-ups, we must also encourage other lessons for our youth. We must stress goal setting, diligence, diet, rest, and education. The goal is not only to beat physical obesity for life but also to overcome the psychological and emotional problems as a result of low self-esteem. Building confidence is at the heart of pulling people out of obesity. Childhood obesity is an issue we must all take seriously. I thank my constituent for bringing this simple solution to my attention and commend people like him who are concerned about the health of our future generations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about Regina McCarthy's nomination but not about the nominee or her qualifications. Rather, I will highlight a few concerns I have with the EPA and the burdens being placed on those in rural areas and agriculture because of EPA actions. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining President Obama for lunch. While the purpose of the lunch was to discuss health care reform, I took the opportunity to bring up a few concerns I have with EPA and agriculture. In particular, I raised four issues where EPA policies are causing tremendous concern and are burdening family farmers. The issues I raised to the President are indirect land use attributed to biofuels; second, fugitive dust; three, greenhouse gases and livestock producers; and, four, point source pollution permits. Since that meeting with the President, I have had follow-on meetings with Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and also the President's legislative staff. They heard me out. They seemed sympathetic to the concerns I raised. However, I am not sure the message is being relayed to the EPA bureaucrats. The first issue pertains to a component of the new Renewable Fuels Standard that requires various biofuels to meet specified lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions. The law specifies that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from indirect land use. In the proposed rule changes released by EPA last week, they rely on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels for so-called indirect land-use changes. The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of greenhouse gases is far from a perfect science. There is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. Because of this uncertainty, the EPA has committed to an open and transparent review by the public. The EPA compiled a system of models to analyze land-use impacts of U.S. biofuels policies. They have indicated that these models have been peer reviewed and that they stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is true for the models independently, but--and a big but--it is not true for the way the EPA has overlaid and integrated their models. In addition, the models are not publicly accessible. There is inadequate data in how the models and data have integrated. As it stands, stakeholders are unable to replicate the EPA's results. So this process is neither open nor is it transparent. Under the EPA's analysis, ethanol produced from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent compared to gasoline. However, if you remove the murky science of emissions from indirect land-use changes, corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 61 percent compared to the gasoline. So one can see that sound science plays a very important role in whether ethanol is more environmentally positive or less environmentally positive. The EPA's models conclude that international land use contributes more in greenhouse gases than the entire direct emissions of ethanol production and use--from the growing of their crops, the production of ethanol at the refinery, up to and including tailpipe emissions. The ripple effects are greater than the direct effects. Wouldn't you think you ought to take more into consideration for the direct effects? The fact is, the model the EPA has cobbled together to measure indirect land use is far from scientific. It is more like a guess. The rule indicates that itself by including the word ``uncertainty.'' Understand, this is an EPA rule that talks about the science of indirect land-use calculation, and it uses the word ``uncertainty'' more than 60 times. Even larger in this debate is the role of common sense. It defies logic that the EPA would try to blame a farmer in my State of Iowa for the actions of farmers or developers in Brazil. Do they think Brazilians are waiting to see what I am going to plant on my farm, for instance, before they plant their crops in Brazil? It does not pass the commonsense test. The facts do not support it either. During the past 5 years, when biodiesel and ethanol production in the United States ramped up, Brazilian soybean acres decreased and corn acres remained unchanged. See, there is no relationship. Amazon deforestation has also fallen in the past 5 years. A recent study indicated that the primary reason for land clearing was for timber production and land grabbing, followed by cattle farming, not because of ethanol production in the United States. So nowhere on the list--we are talking about a list from a study--was U.S. biofuel production. I think this debate comes down to a few simple questions: Do we want more production of green fuels or less production? Do we want greater dependency on Iran and Venezuela for energy needs or less dependence? Do we want to increase our national security by reducing foreign dependence on energy? I don't think the people at EPA get the big picture, and I am pretty sure they don't understand how American agriculture works. While the EPA's actions have a significant impact on the rural economy and the agriculture industry, it is clear the EPA has a lack of understanding of American agriculture. I know this to be the case regarding the indirect land use. Margo Oge, the Director of the office in charge of this rule, admitted during a committee hearing in the House of Representatives last month that she has never been on a farm in the United States. How can regulators with such a great impact on the agricultural industry have so little understanding of the industry they are regulating? We need to encourage some commonsense thinking in EPA. So I have invited Administrator Lisa Jackson and a number of EPA officials to come to Iowa to visit a farm, to see firsthand how the agricultural industry works. I have also invited Regina McCarthy, who should be confirmed by the Senate today. She will be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. I have also invited Margo Oge, the Director I referred to, the Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the office that wrote these regulations on indirect land-use changes. Another issue I brought up with the President that I am concerned about is EPA's attempt to regulate particulate matter. In 2007, the EPA published the ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' in which the EPA inappropriately opted for the administrative convenience of regulating all particles that fall within the fine PM size range the same, including dust. Instead they should have appropriately based the regulation on particle composition. Essentially, this rule treats dust as though it were cigarette smoke, causing the same adverse health issues. There are no scientific studies that show this to be the fact. Controlling dust from combining soybeans, gravel roads, and feedlots is impossible. When it comes to a rule in the EPA that you have to keep dust on your farm within the property lines of your farm, think how nonsensical that approach is. Only God determines when the wind blows and only God determines when soybeans have 13 percent moisture and they have to be harvested immediately. We cannot make decisions based on EPA rules of when the wind blows or doesn't. God makes that decision. Compliance with the more stringent fine PM standard will be unattainable for many farmers and ranchers. The fine PM standard is health-based and must be met at the property line of each individual operation regardless of cost. This could essentially require farmers to sell some of their cattle, combine wet crops, or wall in their roads and driveways. This would be a ridiculous way to regulate agriculture. The next concern I have with the EPA is their decision not to appeal a Sixth Circuit decision which vacated an EPA rule that exempted pesticides applied under the Clean Water Act. The EPA rule in question had exempted pesticides applied near or into waters of the United States from obtaining permits when applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In vacating the rule, the court issued an opinion declaring that agricultural sprayers and nozzles are point-source conveyances and that all residues and excesses of chemical pesticides that remain in water after the beneficial use is completed are ``pollutants'' under the Clean Water Act. I share concerns of many who represent agricultural states as to how the EPA is going to implement the new permitting process without creating a burden on our farmers. Producers could face legal liability if a permit is not issued quickly, yet the farmer needs to spray immediately. I urge the EPA to draft a flexible rule that does not impede a producer's ability to apply pesticides and allows emergency application to be done expeditiously. If they don't, we are going to have major problems on our farms when bugs, weeds, and disease show up. The final issue is related to some of Senator Barrasso's concerns with the nominee we are considering. That is, the direction the EPA is heading toward regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this could have wide ranging, unforeseen effects on all sorts of small businesses, I want to talk about how agriculture could be affected. The Clean Air Act was designed for more traditional types of pollution that can have a direct negative effect on human health and the environment in relatively small quantities. Given the emissions thresholds in the law, a family farm cattle operation, for example, could be considered an emitter just like a factory smokestack, with all the red tape and costs that entails. And, at the end of the day, how are you going to get cows to stop passing gas? Nancy Sutley assured me that EPA has no desire to regulate livestock emissions in this way. However, Senator Barrasso raises some good points about what would happen should environmental groups follow through on their threats to sue EPA to force them to regulate sources as small as family farms. Rather than rely on EPA's assurances, I would like these questions answered before EPA goes any further down this road. I am hoping that a visit to the heartland will help them better understand the real world implications of some of their decisions. They owe it to the hardworking farmers and ranchers to get a better understanding of how U.S. agriculture works. Hopefully, they will realize a little common sense will go a long way when making broad policy decisions that affect the farmers who put food on their table.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today in introducing commonsense legislation with Senators McCaskill and Bond. The Renewable Fuel Standard Improvement Act, seeks to improve a number of provisions included in the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard that was enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. Just a week ago, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Collin Peterson, introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. It now has more than 44 bipartisan cosponsors. Because Chairman Peterson crafted such thoughtful modifications to the Renewable Fuel Standard, I want to give my Senate colleagues an opportunity to consider the bill. So, today I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate. A component of the new Renewable Fuels Standard was a requirement that various biofuels meet specified life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The law specified that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from indirect land use changes. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, the EPA relies on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels for so-called ``indirect land use changes.'' So, this bill ensures that the greenhouse gas calculations are based on proven science by removing the requirement to include indirect land use changes. The bill also includes a number of other commonsense fixes to the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard. Under EISA, the life-cycle greenhouse gas reduction requirements do not apply to corn ethanol plants that were in operation or under construction prior to the date of enactment. This grandfather provision does not apply to biodiesel facilities, however. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same grandfathered treatment to biodiesel facilities. Finally, the bill includes a more inclusive definition of renewable biomass, and it expands the role of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy in administering the program. This bill goes a long way to rectifying a few provisions that are undermining and harming our efforts toward energy independence. I do not think it makes sense to impose hurdles on our domestic renewable fuels industry, particularly if it prolongs our dependence on dirtier fossil fuels, or increases our dependence on energy from countries like Iran and Venezuela. I would like to thank the cosponsors for their support. I look forward to Senate consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today in introducing commonsense legislation with Senators McCaskill and Bond. The Renewable Fuel Standard Improvement Act, seeks to improve a number of provisions included in the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard that was enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. Just a week ago, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Collin Peterson, introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. It now has more than 44 bipartisan cosponsors. Because Chairman Peterson crafted such thoughtful modifications to the Renewable Fuel Standard, I want to give my Senate colleagues an opportunity to consider the bill. So, today I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate. A component of the new Renewable Fuels Standard was a requirement that various biofuels meet specified life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The law specified that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from indirect land use changes. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, the EPA relies on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels for so-called ``indirect land use changes.'' So, this bill ensures that the greenhouse gas calculations are based on proven science by removing the requirement to include indirect land use changes. The bill also includes a number of other commonsense fixes to the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard. Under EISA, the life-cycle greenhouse gas reduction requirements do not apply to corn ethanol plants that were in operation or under construction prior to the date of enactment. This grandfather provision does not apply to biodiesel facilities, however. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the same grandfathered treatment to biodiesel facilities. Finally, the bill includes a more inclusive definition of renewable biomass, and it expands the role of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy in administering the program. This bill goes a long way to rectifying a few provisions that are undermining and harming our efforts toward energy independence. I do not think it makes sense to impose hurdles on our domestic renewable fuels industry, particularly if it prolongs our dependence on dirtier fossil fuels, or increases our dependence on energy from countries like Iran and Venezuela. I would like to thank the cosponsors for their support. I look forward to Senate consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter dated May 18, 2009, to Medtronic, Inc. be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will only be speaking about 11 minutes or so. I will proceed. Yesterday--no, it was not yesterday, 2 days ago--the Medicare trustees announced that Medicare's Part A hospital trust fund will be insolvent in 2017. That is 2 years sooner than last year's estimate. This announcement shines a spotlight on an issue Congress cannot ignore. Our largest Federal health program is on an unsustainable course. Medicare, according to the trustees, is going broke. We have all heard the reasons over and over: People are living longer, health care costs are increasing, and most seniors are developing chronic and very costly conditions. All this leaves the Federal Government with a $35 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years because the trustees always look ahead 75 years. That is updated annually. Some in Congress recognize the financial black hole that is looming before us. I hope my colleagues know I am working with Senator Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee to reform the way the Government pays for health care. Our options for delivery reform will bring the Medicare Program into the 21st century by improving quality and reducing costs. We desperately need to retake control of the costs of the Medicare Program, obviously, so it can be around for future generations. Yet in the face of that reality, some people think the best way to accomplish health care reform is to create another entitlement program. In the face of Medicare's pending insolvency, some people want to create a new public program, a government-run health insurance program. I am one of the most vocal supporters of health care reform. We need to improve quality, access, and affordability. But we need to understand by adding another unsustainable government-run health insurance plan into our health care system, it cannot be the answer. We cannot afford what we already have, so let's add more. Put that against the commonsense test. It does not make much sense. As the saying goes: History is a vast early warning system. Today, debate over health care reform is eerily similar to the debate in 1965, before Medicare was created. Let's look at that history. Before the bill became law, doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers were concerned about this new government-run health care program that was passed back then. We call it Medicare. Much like today, way back then, they were worried the Government would use this program to ration care and cut payments. To deal with these concerns, Congress and the President actually promised back then to doctors and others that they would continue to be paid, as the law says, the usual and customary rates. That is why, to this very date, the Medicare legislation still states this: Nothing in this title shall authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or compensation of any person providing health care services. That was written in 1965. It is still in the law. But--and a big ``but''--we all know that the cost and the political pressure has increased. As a result, this section that I quoted, written in 1965, has become meaningless. Time and time again, Congress has intervened in medical decisions and cut reimbursement rates. Legislation in the late 1980s placed limits on what doctors could charge and put in place a government-mandated fee schedule. One American Medical Association trustee recounted the AMA's original concern about Medicare by stating it this way: ``Many of the things we feared have come to pass.'' Surprise. Surprise. Despite the promise to pay ``reasonable rates'' when Medicare was created, today the Government pays between 60 and 70 percent of what private insurers pay. By setting payment rates well below costs, it is becoming more and more difficult for seniors to find a doctor who accepts Medicare. Access issues for Medicaid, as we all know, are even worse. But some say we can avoid these problems by putting the government-run plan on a level playing field with private insurers. They say Congress could set up a system so the government-run health insurance plan has to follow the same rules as private insurers. They say it would have to pay the same rates, form networks, be independently solvent, all sounding good. My question is this: When this new government-run health insurance plan starts to cost too much, then following the pattern since 1965 with Medicare, is Congress going to start breaking its promises? Will it change the rules? A recent Wall Street Journal article tried to answer this question this way: Any policy guardrails built this year can be dismantled once the basic public option architecture is in place . . . That is what has always-- And ``always'' is emphasized-- That is what has always happened with Government health programs. Maybe at first Congress somehow repeals the requirement that the government-run plan has to form a network. Next, Congress might allow the Government plan to start paying lower rates than private insurers, just like we have done with Medicare and Medicaid. At that point, Congress might let the government-run plan dip into the Treasury from time to time to keep the Government plan solvent. This, of course, would increase costs for everyone. As the Government takes more and more control over the plan, providers would get paid less and taxpayers would end up paying more. Rates for government-run health insurance plans would be lower than private insurers because Government can impose lower rates by law, also known--can you believe it--as price fixing. This is a common talking point for supporters of the government-run plan. They say the Government can use its numbers to lower costs. But as the Government cuts payments to providers, costs will go up for everyone who is left in the private market. Slowly but surely the Government plan takes over the market. Eventually, all the promises about creating a level playing field have been broken, and we would be left with a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan, such as Canada. Canada brags about having a single plan. But Canada does not have just a single plan. There is a second plan, and it is called the United States of America. So if you do not want to wait around 3 months for an MRI in Canada, you can come to the United States, if you have the money to do it and the time to do it, and get it right away. But what happens if you have such a plan in America? Where do Americans go for what the plan does not provide for our people when you have delay? Well, we will not go to Mexico, surely. Eventually, all the promises about creating a level playing field will have been broken, and we would be left with a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan. The simple truth is, supporters of a government plan absolutely intend for this to be the outcome. Independent analysis by the Lewin Group agrees. According to Lewin's work, 119 million people would lose their private insurance. In other words, they would be crowded out. They would end up where? On the Government plan. It also breaks one of the most important promises that President Obama made during his campaign, and I agree with this promise. What is it? If you like what you have now in the way of health insurance, you can keep it. Independent analysis has shown that a government-run insurance plan will drive up prices in the private market and force employees and employers to drop that coverage. So the President does not get his plan or his promise during the campaign kept. This, of course, will make our emergency rooms more crowded than they are today. It will limit access to high-quality care through rationing and price fixing. It will increase waiting time for lab results and lifesaving and life-enhancing procedures. It will add hundreds of billions of dollars of new Government spending. This is not the kind of change the American people are looking for. Instead of creating a government-run plan and making a bunch of promises Congress cannot keep, let's create stronger rules and regulations for the private insurance market. For instance, we should prohibit health plans from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions and provide tax credits to people who cannot afford coverage. Instead of introducing a government-run health insurance plan that would cost too much, limit choices, and lower quality, let's clean up the private market. Instead of introducing a government plan, let's help President Obama keep his promise that if you like what you have in the way of health insurance, you can keep it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the next Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, has a tough job ahead of him. The new drug czar will have to work hard to stem the rise in prescription and over-the-counter medicine abuse and the drug cartel violence crossing our southern borders, as well as the issues we have been combating for many years: traditional drug abuse. The U.S. has a major drug problem. While we are leveraging law enforcement resources for interdiction and drug crime reduction, we also face an active movement to legalize dangerous drugs. I have long been an opponent of the legalizing cause, as I hear all the time how dangerous drugs are to our youth and families. The new ONDCP Director must emphasize and invigorate the law enforcement community's efforts to stop illegal drug use. He must be a strong leader for all agencies and organizations that are stakeholders in the fight against illegal drugs. He must bring a respect to the office of ONDCP that has been lacking for some time. It is vital that the new Director is able to coordinate domestic and international drug strategy, including ensuring that the Merida Initiative is a success. The next Director must also be able to bring together and work with coalitions at the local level to combat meth, coordinate policy on the laws directed to eradicate meth and marijuana production, and be engaged in efforts to stop opium production in Afghanistan and Colombia. His drug strategy must produce results at the national and international level to address drug manufacturing, interdiction, prevention, and abuse. I have some concerns about Chief Kerlikowske's nomination, given his record. For instance, in 2003, Seattle voters passed Initiative 75, which made marijuana possession the lowest priority for the Seattle Police Department. During the debate, Chief Kerlikowske opposed the measure only because he disagreed with voters determining what laws a police force should enforce. In answers to my written questions, he merely noted marijuana was already low on the force's list. Chief Kerlikowske's lax record on marijuana enforcement concerns me because marijuana is still often the precursor to more dangerous drugs, and it only endangers those who use it. The next ONDCP Director must be a strong opponent of marijuana and all illegal drugs, as well as act as an aggressive enforcer of the laws regulating these harmful narcotics. Additionally, Chief Kerlikowske apparently has no experience on international supply interdiction. We need someone who understands international drug problems and can help formulate a successful long- term strategy to address them. Chief Kerlikowske's lack of this experience, along with his lax record on marijuana crimes, raise questions for me on his ability to act as an effective Director of ONDCP. However, several organizations, such as the Major Cities Chief Association, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, have expressed support for this nominee. While I will not hold up his nomination, I put Chief Kerlikowske on notice that I expect him to provide strong leadership in producing and coordinating drug control strategy and to aggressively work to enforce our drug laws. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to speak a few words about Demetrios Marantis, who was confirmed last night by the Senate to be a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Demetrios is well known to all of us on the Finance Committee. For 4 years, he has very ably served Chairman Baucus--most recently as the Democratic chief international trade counsel. So he has played a central role in all of the committee's efforts on trade policy during this time. Not only is Demetrios a very sharp trade lawyer and policy adviser, he is also a skilled negotiator. That will serve him well in his new position. I am grateful for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship that Demetrios brought to the Finance Committee, and I am sorry to see him depart. His energy and good nature will certainly be missed. At the same time, I am comforted by the fact that our Nation will continue to benefit from Demetrios' commitment to public service. He assumes a very important portfolio at the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as a trade Ambassador to Asia and Africa, and also with responsibility for the trade and development portfolio, as well as for labor and the environment. I therefore look forward to engaging Demetrios in efforts to open up new market opportunities for U.S. exporters in the Asian region. I also look forward to working with him on a reform of our unilateral trade preference programs. We must address these key trade priorities in the 111th Congress, so I expect that we'll continue to see Demetrios on a regular basis for some time to come. In closing, I commend Demetrios for his outstanding service to the Finance Committee, and I wish Ambassador Marantis every success in his new position.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before we do that, if the Senator is for it, can we adopt it on a voice vote?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will use my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, then let me speak off the cuff. What we have here is following on the President's promise for more transparency in Government--a promise to put everything dealing with bailouts on the Internet. There is more money involved with Federal Reserve and bailouts and stabilizing the economy than even in what we appropriate. So this is to bring transparency to what the Federal Reserve is doing, without affecting monetary policy whatsoever. I ask us to agree to this amendment to bring transparency because the public's business ought to be public, including taxpayers' money spent by the Federal Reserve. In March, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the progress and oversight of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP. At that hearing the Government Accountability Office--GAO--testified that it is not just firms that take taxpayer money under TARP who can say ``no'' to GAO's requests for information, prior to my other amendment on this bill. The Federal Reserve can also refuse to cooperate. The GAO's ability to audit the Federal Reserve is restricted by law. Perhaps those restrictions could be defended back when the Federal Reserve focused only on monetary policy. However, today it is routinely exercising extraordinary emergency powers to subsidize financial firms far above the levels Congress is willing to authorize through legislation. The Federal Reserve is taking on more and more risk in complicated and unprecedented ways. That risk is ultimately borne by the American taxpayer. Congress authorized $700 billion in funds under TARP. However, the total projected assistance in various initiatives by the Federal Reserve could be up to $3.4 trillion by GAO estimates. This modified version of the amendment does not give GAO authority to look at all of that additional taxpayer risk. It is much narrower than the one I originally filed, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction, and it does not threaten monetary policy independence. Although I would have preferred to include all of the Fed's emergency actions under 13(3), in consultation with Senator Shelby I agreed to limit my amendment to actions aimed at specific companies. I will ask to submit for the Record a list of those actions currently covered by the new language, according to Federal Reserve staff. Future actions of the same sort would also be subject to GAO audit. The goal of this amendment is extend GAO authority to cover the Federal Reserve's emergency actions that are most similar to the TARP-- in other words actions aimed at specific companies like Bear Stearns and AIG. I appreciate the support of Senators Shelby and Dorgan who are cosponsoring this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1021. Let's not give GAO an important mission to do with a blindfold on. Let's take off the blindfold get a good hard look at what the Federal Reserve is doing. I ask unanimous consent that the actions currently covered by the new language to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas----

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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