Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to point out, as I did in my debate, that we have a much larger False Claims Act bill pending in the Judiciary Committee. I think what the Senator from Arizona brought up is a legitimate subject for discussion, but it ought to be discussed in the wider global issue of the False Claims Act and not in a fraud bill where we are just trying to make some very short changes in the False Claims Act. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will speak on a provisions of the bill dealing with money laundering. This section of the bill that I am referring to would amend the criminal money laundering statute to make clear that the proceeds of specified unlawful activity include the gross receipts of illegal activity and not just the profits of that illegal activity. The money laundering statutes make it an offense to conduct financial transactions involving the ``proceeds'' of a crime, sometimes referred to as ``specific unlawful activity'' in the statutes. These statutes, however, do not define what the term ``proceeds'' amounts to. Instead, the term has been left to definition by our courts. For 22 years, since the money laundering statute was enacted in 1986, courts have construed ``proceeds'' to mean ``gross receipts'' and not ``net profits'' of illegal activities consistent with the original intent of Congress. However, last year, the Supreme Court entered into it and, of course, reverses the definition in a case called United States v. Santos. The Supreme Court suggested that the term ``proceeds'' was ``ambiguous''--that is their word--and as a result, under the rule of lenity, the Court gave the term a much narrower definition. In this decision, the Court mistakenly limited the term ``proceeds'' to the ``profits'' of a crime, not the more global word ``receipts.'' As a result, the Court's decision has limited the money laundering statutes to only profitable crimes. It gives criminal defendants an argument against their criminal conduct by forcing the Government to prove that they actually made a profit, regardless of the criminal activity. This decision of the Court is contrary to the intent of Congress in passing the money laundering statutes and weakens one of the Federal Government's primary tools used to recover the proceeds of illegal activity, including mortgages and securities fraud. For example, these are some of the problems created by the Santos decision. If a drug dealer committed a financial transaction with the proceeds of illegal drug dealing but the money was only used to purchase drugs, then they could not be prosecuted for money laundering. I know, everybody hears that, and they say common sense dictates otherwise. But the Supreme Court interpretation puts us in that sense that is contrary to common opinion. Another example: If a fraudulent broker, such as a mortgage broker, intentionally overvalued the fair market of a home for purposes of a mortgage, that broker could only be charged for money laundering related to any fees or potential profit made in the fraudulent transaction, not based on the full value of the house. Another example: An executive who committed security fraud could not be charged with money laundering if the fraud were unsuccessful in making a profit even though there was a fully completed financial transaction. Those are just three of many examples I could give about how Santos very narrowly construes the possible prosecution and limits the prosecution of certain unlawful activity in the area of money laundering. This legislation corrects the Santos decision and moves us forward so that profit or not, there is money laundering actually going on, we will have an opportunity to prosecute and hopefully succeed in the prosecution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Thomas Edwards, a Secret Service detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Would the Chair please inform me as to the time allotted on this side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership in this area. I very much enjoy working with him. We may come from different political parties, but he has been very cooperative in a lot of the efforts I wanted to make on individual pieces of legislation. On this one, he and I are working together very closely. I thank him for the opportunity to work with him and thank him very much for including within this legislation some things both he and I have an interest in dealing with the False Claims Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act. This is a timely piece of legislation, given the current economic downturn and the unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars that are being expended to shore up banks and financial institutions, corporations, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, et cetera. When taxpayer money is being injected into these corporations, there is more opportunity for fraud, and we ought to stay on top of it. We have a responsibility as Senators, as guardians of taxpayer money, to make sure fraud does not occur anytime but, more importantly, when there is taxpayer money keeping a lot of these organizations afloat that would not otherwise be there. There can be honest differences between Senators about whether this taxpayer money should have been used in the first place. Some of that I have voted against using. But the fact is, we were in the minority. The money is being used to sustain some of these institutions and corporations and, consequently, we have every responsibility to make sure taxpayer money is protected. That is what this piece of legislation is all about. For instance, the economic stimulus package handed out nearly $1 trillion in new spending. Whether a Member supported or opposed these expenditures, he or she must agree we simply cannot allow unscrupulous individuals defrauding the Government and ripping off the taxpayers. This legislation ensures that our law enforcement officials as well as prosecutors have the tools necessary to enforce our laws and also the resources to hunt down bad actors. It makes minor revisions to our criminal fraud laws to ensure that bad actors are not outside the scope of Federal jurisdiction. Further, it amends the civil False Claims Act to ensure that taxpayer money lost to fraud, waste, and abuse can be recovered. These changes will deter potential defrauders from attempting to scam the Government. In addition, this legislation will help instill confidence back into the housing and financial markets. Over the last few years, unscrupulous individuals found housing and financial markets that were lax in oversight enforcement and regulation. As a result, it was easy for these unscrupulous individuals to commit fraud against homeowners, lenders, and businesses across the country. For example, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, referred to as FinCEN, released an updated report outlining filing trends in mortgage loan fraud suspicious activity reports. This report showed that SARs have continued to increase and for the last year ending in June 2008, there were more than 62,000 suspicious activity reports, SARs, filed related to mortgage fraud alone. While this raw data simply represents investigative leads, it represents a 44-percent increase in suspicious activity from the preceding year. We need to act now to stamp out new fraud claims, to send a message that American taxpayers will not be taken for a ride. This rise in the number of suspicious activity reports has also increased the need to investigate leads that come in these reports. As a result, we need to make sure there are resources available so that law enforcement agencies can follow these leads. During the height of the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the FBI had over 1,000 agents and experts working mortgage fraud cases. Today, it is a lot less, compared to a much bigger amount of money that is at stake. Today the FBI has 180 agents dedicated to mortgage fraud investigations, a significant decrease compared to the 1,000 agents and experts during the S&L crisis. While this number represents an effort to combat fraud, it is a significant decrease when we consider the hundreds of millions of dollars in write-downs during the S&L crisis--in other words, small-- compared to the estimated $1 trillion in write-downs that may occur as a result of the financial and housing crisis. This bill enables law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Secret Service, the Housing and Urban Development inspector general, and the Postal Inspection Service to procure the funding necessary to make sure this fraud doesn't happen because you need this sort of joint effort to combat what will be complex financial crimes. It is important to note this bill recognizes the important work of a number of Federal law enforcement agencies that work to combat and prevent financial crimes. You don't often think of the Secret Service when you think of mortgage fraud, but the dedicated men and women at the Secret Service have been on the front lines in combating mortgage fraud since the S&L crisis and continue to unravel complex financial crimes. The Postal Inspection Service and the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development also continue to make significant contributions to stamping out mortgage fraud that abuses Federal Government programs and utilizes the mail to commit this fraud. In addition to authorizing funding for law enforcement prosecutors so we get the number of people to get the job done, the bill also makes some necessary changes in Federal criminal law. The bill redefines ``financial institution'' to include mortgage lending businesses, a category currently missing in that definition. It also amends the statute to make it illegal to make false statements on mortgage applications and appraisals. It might surprise Members since common sense ought to dictate that, but common sense has not prevailed in that instance, so we will make that a crime. Further, it ensures that economic relief funds and TARP funds are included in criminal laws prohibiting fraud against the Government. It adds commodities futures to the securities fraud statute. The bill also makes two important clarifications to the antimoney laundering laws; first, by defining the term ``proceeds'' so that a recent Supreme Court decision doesn't limit the ability to go after criminals and drug dealers who launder the proceeds of their ill-gotten gain. This is an incredibly important provision, especially given the recent concerns about the outbound bulk cash smuggling going across the border with Mexico. Second, the bill amends the international money laundering statute to make it a crime to transport or transfer money out of the country to evade taxes. This provision is also timely given the recent efforts by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to clamp down on tax cheats and evaders who move money offshore for the sole purpose of avoiding paying taxes with no economic rationale behind it. Finally and most importantly, the legislation makes important changes to the Federal False Claims Act. The False Claims Act is the Government's premier tool to recover Government money lost to fraud and abuse. The Government has used the False Claims Act to recover over $22 billion since 1986 when I introduced legislation that amended the previous False Claims Act. This legislation will ensure that the law adheres to the original intent of the False Claims Act. I think I have some expertise in that area, being the author of this legislation and finding the Supreme Court's ruling contrary to congressional intent, albeit their motivation may be to interpret the law and that is the way they interpret it, but it does not keep us from going back to what we think is the original intent and saying to the courts: You got it wrong. Specifically, these amendments address a loophole that was created in the False Claims Act by the Supreme Court decision in the Allison Engine case which could be used by fraudfeasors to evade liability by hiring subcontractors to perform work on Government contracts. Some defendants are already filing briefs in court seeking to have the false claims cases dismissed because of that decision. It needs to be addressed to protect taxpayer dollars. This legislation could not come at a more important time. It will send a message to those who have defrauded homeowners and mortgage lenders and will send an even stronger message to those thinking about committing a future crime. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting the legislation to make sure that taxpayer dollars are protected. I want to add a little editorial comment outside of this piece of legislation we have before us. There will be a lot of new Members coming to the Senate, maybe not understanding the motivation behind the False Claims Act of 1986. There was tremendous fraud, particularly in defense contracting, that caused me at that time, as a first-term Senator, to be concerned about it. We got proper amendments to the False Claims Act to protect whistleblowers and to use the information that whistleblowers give us to bring cases. The motivation behind the False Claims Act is that maybe for philosophical reasons, the Justice Department might want to pursue something or maybe their workload is such that a certain case might have a lower priority. It gives the individual citizen in qui tam type suits the ability to bring cases in a sense as a citizen prosecutor. Of course, if a person is not a lawyer, they will have to hire lawyers to do that for them. But as a motivation for doing it, they get a percent of what is recovered. Remember, $22 billion has been recovered since this law was passed. That may not be a lot of money over the period of years, but it sure is one big hunk of money that we wouldn't have access to if it wasn't for whistleblowers and people who were willing to pursue it to the nth degree to make sure that the case is made and to bring back the taxpayer money at the same time. Consequently, I am sure somebody is going to try to make a case that when some whistleblower gets $1 million, well, isn't that an awful lot of money for information that has brought back maybe tens of millions of dollars or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars? But the point is, we would not have the case if it was not for the information from the whistleblower. A lot of people will make a judgment: Well, if you are a public employee or connected to a government program, it is your duty to report that. Well, that is exactly what a lot of people have done without even knowing the false claims law exists. A lot of people whom I have met as whistleblowers have brought to the attention of people higher up in the Government attempts at fraud or actual fraud and got nowhere, and then everybody assumes the only reason they brought it up is because they knew: Well, I can make a case out of this, and I can get a large award for bringing this to people's attention. Most of the whistleblowers whom I know about did not even know about whistleblower protection laws, did not even know about false claims laws until they got into it. Then they find out there is some law that protects them, there is some law that encourages them to move forward. The point I am trying to make is that when Government cannot do its job of recovering fraud or does not know about it, it seems to me both the $22 billion that has come back to the Federal Treasury as well as the nature of preventing fraud that is behind it--and that probably does much more good, but you cannot measure it, than what is evidenced by the $22 billion--should not be challenged. Defense contractors during the late 1980s into the 1990s tried to gut this legislation through amendments on appropriations bills or through other attempts. When the defense contractors could not do it, they got people in the health care industry to front for them to try to gut it. In almost every respect, in 20 years, we have stopped various special interests in this town from gutting this legislation. But as we brought this bill forward with Senator Leahy, we have found those people kind of coming to the surface once again. I say to my colleagues--and particularly I would like my new colleagues to be aware of this--you are going to find those same special interests that have been around for over a period of the last 20 years trying to gut this legislation because it is one of the most effective tools against fraud. You are going to find them surfacing, not necessarily in amendments that are very transparent that there is a special interest behind it. But let me tell you from the experience I have had defending this legislation over the last 20 years, they are there. They do not like the False Claims Act. I do not mean these interests are about doing fraud, but they do not want the overseer the False Claims Act is, and they do not want the encouragement to whistleblowers that if something is wrong, it might be reported. I hope my colleagues--as the False Claims Act provisions of this bill might be countered by some of our colleagues--think in terms of this not being a new attack, this is just a return of a constant attack this legislation had on it from maybe 1986 for about 10 years. I have not heard it surface a whole lot since then. But it is there. Remember, this was a piece of legislation that was originally intended to go after military contract fraud. But let me tell you, now it is one of the best tools to get at health care fraud. That is sometimes the impetus for some of these crippling amendments. So please keep that in the back of your mind as we consider this legislation, or at least this part of this bill dealing with the False Claims Act. I surely thank Senator Leahy for including this in the bill, bringing this back to its original intent, so it can be even a more forceful tool to be used against false claims, since it has been weakened by some court decisions. It will help us ferret out fraud. I am sure happy we have a President who is also interested in doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to call attention to a fallen hero. Cpl Jason G. Pautsch, a 20- year-old soldier from Davenport, Iowa, died on April 10, 2009 in Mosque, Iraq, of injuries sustained when an explosive device detonated near his vehicle. My thoughts and prayers go out to his parents, David Pautsch and Teri Johnson, his siblings Jared, Jacob, Josef, and Jenna, and all his friends and family. Jason was the squadron leader in the Army's 4th Infantry Division and a graduate of Davenport North High School. Graduating a semester early so he could join the Army, Jason was deployed to Iraq last September. His family has a history of military service and his older brother Jacob is currently serving in the Army's 82nd Airborne. Always a thrill-seeker, Jason enjoyed hunting and racing BMX bikes in his free time. His high school football coach describes him as a strong young man who was passionate about everything he did. Jason had an excellent sense of humor, was a tremendous competitor, and showed dedication in all he did. Jason told his father David, he ``believed in what he was doing'' and his sense of patriotic duty is inspirational. I express the greatest respect and sincere gratitude on behalf of all Americans for Jason's commitment to our country. His is a true hero, and his sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do you know what, so many of you stayed around. I do not know how many times I have heard of other Senators having voted 10,000 or 12,000 times and I probably did not stay around, and I probably have not earned what you have said about me because I did not pay that much attention to the rest of you who have gone before. So let me apologize for that, and I will bet next time I will stay around. So I am not flying under false colors, I would like to say a couple things. One person spoke about my being a farmer, and that is absolutely right. I am. But I can tell you this, that when you get a 25-year-old grandson, grandfathers are not as important in the farming operation as you would like to be. So I consider myself now more of a hired man for Robin Grassley and Pat Grassley than I am a family farmer. But I still am a crop sharer with my son, and I market my own crops, and I am there to help put the crop in when they need me--and wish they needed me more--and help get the crop out, and wish they needed me more. So I do appreciate that. As much as I would like to be called Dr. Grassley--you can get that impression maybe because I did do 2 years of graduate work beyond my master's degree, but I did not quite finish it because I was elected to the State legislature and I never went back to the University of Iowa to finish it, and I kind of regret that. But I did not get back.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, it is one of these cases where I passed the French test, and I was ready to write a dissertation, and I never quite got around to it. One other thing I would like to say is, obviously, thank you for the recognition. I enjoy my job in the Senate very much. I guess if you vote 10,000 times, you are just doing what we are paid to do. It is a wonderful experience serving here in the Senate. And I think I can say--as Senator Baucus has inferred, I hope I am liked by everybody. I like every one of you. I do not know any of you who consider me an enemy. And if you do, I do not want to know who you are. (Laughter.) If you wonder why there is some emphasis upon voting, people in this country are very cynical about those of us in elected office. I think: What can you do to reduce cynicism? And I thought a long time ago, sitting in a restaurant one time--and probably nobody at that time knew who I was. I overheard them saying something like: Well, it must be election time; the politicians are in town. I heard that 30 years ago, and I made up my mind that at least one way I was going to try to overcome that for politicians generally was to make sure the process of representive government works. So when I was elected to the Senate, it was not something I promised the people of Iowa, it was just something I promised myself: that I am going to go to every county every year to hold at least one town meeting so that person who was griping about only seeing a politician at election time could not say that about Chuck Grassley, and I hope in the process it has raised the respect people have for those of us who are elected. The other thing about voting as often as I do here in the Senate, it is an opportunity to let people know when you are in session, you are here working. And when we are not in session, I am back in Iowa with my people. It is an opportunity to kind of quantify what our job is all about and to get over this business of people who, I think, think we are only here in Washington sitting around with our feet up on our desk waiting to take a phone call from somebody--that we are actually doing something. This is one way--maybe a very elementary way, but sometimes that is the way you have to explain government to the American people-- that we are on the job, doing our job, and when we are not here, we are at home making the process of representative government work. So I very much appreciate the kind words that have been said. And I did not record them, but if I did, I would play them back during election time. Thank you very much for the honor. I would yield to the Senator--oh, the Senator from Illinois said something nice about me one time, and I did use it in my literature. And some people of his party got on him: Why are you doing that? Well, I think he said: It was true. And he came to me one time and he said: Will you say something nice about me? I could put it in my literature. And I gave him a slip of paper that said: He is not as bad as you think he is. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit neutral fund in order to provide for reform of the current foster care system. The foster care system is broken tremendously overburdened and needs to be fixed. The system is understaffed and under trained. Children linger too long before securing a safe and permanent home. More funding could be available for family reunification services. Administrative funds could be used more efficiently. Data collection is insufficient. The foster care financing structure is antiquated and inflexible and prevents states from responding to a variety of challenges. We need to replace the old system with one that improves the foster care payment structure to support children rather than programs, promotes and improves family preservation and ensures that public funds are used effectively. Our amendment sets us on a course to make these vital improvements to the foster care system. I urge my colleagues to support the Landrieu-Grassley amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the chairman's resolution patches the AMT for 2010 through 2012. Now, that is good, but it is not good enough. Since we have a 5-year window, we should patch AMT for all 5 years. My amendment is to make sure that AMT is patched 2013 and 2014 so that the entire 5-year period has an AMT patch. This would provide tax relief to 18 million families at a cost of $114 billion. This patch is essential to honest budgeting because we all know that the AMT will eventually pass without being patched. This amendment also helps families plan their financial affairs properly, rather than leave them guessing as to what their future tax burden will be. Also, by giving greater stability to this area of the tax law, tax professionals will administer the law better, leading to better compliance and a smaller tax gap. I ask support for this amendment to patch AMT for 2013 and 2014, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the Dorgan-Snow amendment No. 881. The IRA rollover was first enacted as temporary provision in the Pension Protection Act which I championed in 2006. Rollovers to grant- making charitable organizations with some element of donor control, such as private foundations, donor advised funds, and supporting organizations, were specifically prohibited. These entities were specifically prohibited from receiving rollover funds because I wanted to make sure that the money would actually get to charities doing work on the frontlines rather than sit in a donor-controlled account. The provision has become one of the annual ``tax extender'' provisions. So under current law, which expires December 31, 2009, an individual may rollover up to $100,000 from their IRA to a public charity but not to one of the prohibited entities. Amendment No. 881 to the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13, promotes the extension of current-law regarding IRA rollovers to charity, which I also support. However, the amendment also promotes an expansion of the provision by allowing split-interest trusts to receive IRA rollover contributions. Split-interest trusts are more worrisome than those that are currently prohibited from receiving IRA rollover contributions. These trusts allow donors to retain an income stream from the contributed assets for a defined period. So, just like with donor-advised funds and supporting organizations, the contribution does not result in an immediate benefit to a charity actually providing services while the donor receives significant tax benefits at the time of the contribution. The cost of extending current law through 2009 was almost $1 billion--expanding the IRA rollover provision to allow more entities to receive them would increase the cost. Before we do that, I believe we should make sure that grant-making entities, including split-interest trusts, are accountable for paying out minimum amounts to actual charities before we allow them to receive IRA rollovers. I understand that Senator Dorgan is willing to work with me and my staff if and when Senator Baucus and I consider an expansion of the IRA rollover provision in the Finance Committee. In light of this good faith offer, I will not object to the unanimous consent request for this amendment today and look forward to working with Senator Dorgan to resolve our differences. Amendment No. 876

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, my friend, Senator Reid quoted me by name in his remarks in opposition to the Lincoln-Kyl amendment. The distinguished leader quoted me as describing death tax relief legislation as ``unseemly.'' Since that quote was used to argue against Senator Lincoln's amendment, which I support, I thought it important to respond to the distinguished leader and set the record straight. The distinguished leader is correct. I did say, at that time shortly after the Katrina hurricane hit, that proceeding to death tax relief would be ``unseemly.'' It is important for everyone to understand the context of that statement. It was made shortly after the terrible hurricane hit the gulf states. At that time, the Senate was about to reconvene after the August recess. The pending business was a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to a House bill that provided death tax relief. The majority leader, Senator Frist, had filed the cloture motion before the Senate departed for the August recess. Of course, that procedural action occurred weeks before the hurricane hit. When asked about the Senate schedule, I responded that proceeding to the death tax bill, and, thereby not dealing with the hurricane victims, would be unseemly. The distinguished leader's comments caused me to recall how the finance Committee, which I chaired at the time, dealt with Katrina. Senator Frist did the right thing and set the Senate in motion to deal with the hurricane victims. The Finance Committee acted with lightning speed on a bipartisan basis, and in concert with the House, to deliver relief to hurricane victims. I was quite proud of our efforts to help people in need. That was the first Katrina tax relief bill. The second Katrina tax relief bill, unfortunately, took a lot longer to do. Some on the other side saw the Katrina bill as a chance to enact a National agenda of greatly enhancing social programs. I did not question their motives at the time and do not now. But, the bottom line was that this attempt to leverage a crisis for a National agenda, significantly delayed our efforts to rebuild the hard-hit gulf zone. As the distinguished leader will recall, the gulf state Senators, led by Senator Lott, forced the Senate to focus on helping their states rebuild and recover. A similar effort was underway in the House. Fortunately, the efforts of the bipartisan group of gulf state Senators caused the leadership on the other side to abandon their efforts to leverage the hurricane disaster for a National agenda. No one accused the leadership on the other side of being unseemly. Senator Frist did the right thing and focused on the hurricane victims. The leadership on the other side did the right thing and focused on bipartisan hurricane relief efforts. There is a lesson in this history for all of us. Do not try to leverage a crisis for unrelated purposes. Senator Lincoln's amendment was not ``unseemly.'' To use my reaction to a question about the Senate schedule is to miss the point I was making The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is a reasonable effort to find a bipartisan compromise on a time-sensitive tax issue. It is an effort to enable a solution to a problem that vexes family farmers and small businesses. The amendment's purpose and substance are the opposite of unseemly. The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is ``decorous.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, everyone in this body knows that small businesses are an extremely important dynamic part of the U.S. economy. I like to say that small business is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. President Obama agrees that small businesses have generated 70 percent of net new jobs over the past decade. I was pleased to see that Senator Cornyn's small business amendment passed earlier tonight by an overwhelming vote of 82 to 16. America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. Big banks have been cranking down lending to small businesses. In addition, job losses for small businesses have been staggering. A national employment report released today by Automatic Data Processing shows that 742,000 nonfarm private sector jobs were lost from February to March 2009. Of those 742,000 lost jobs, 614,000, or 83 percent, were from small businesses. Let me repeat that. From February to March, small businesses lost 614,000 jobs, or 83 percent of all nonfarm private sector job losses. The President's recent efforts to increase lending to the small business sector are commendable. The centerpiece of his small business plan will allow the Federal Government to spend up to $15 billion to purchase the small-business loans that are now hindering community banks and lenders. However, the positives that will come to small businesses from these 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. The President's Budget proposes to raise the top two marginal rates from 33 percent and 35 percent to 40 percent and 41 percent respectively, when PEP and Pease are fully reinstated. President Obama's marginal rate increase would mean an approximately 20 percent marginal tax rate increase on small business owners in the top two brackets. Many of my friends on the other side will say that while they agree that successful small businesses are vital to the success of the U.S. economy, the marginal tax increases for the top two brackets will not have a significant negative impact on small businesses. Proponents of these tax increases seek to minimize their impact by referring to Tax Policy Center data that indicate about 2 percent of small business filers pay taxes in the top two brackets. They argue that a minimal amount of small business activity is affected. However, there are two faulty assumptions to this small business filer argument. The first faulty assumption is that the percentage of small business filers is static. In fact, small businesses move in and out of gain and loss status depending on the nature of the business and business cycle. Also, the 2 percent figure from the Tax Policy Center is well below the percentage actually reported by the Government. For example, a 2007 Treasury study states that, for flow-through businesses in 2006, 7 percent to 9 percent of small business owners paid the top two marginal rates. The second faulty assumption is that the level of small business activity, including employment, is proportionate to the filer percentage. According to NFIB survey data, 50 percent of owners of small businesses that employ 20 to 249 workers would fall in the top two brackets. According to the Small Business Administration, about two- thirds of the Nation's small business workers are employed by small businesses with 20 to 500 employees. Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that create jobs and employ two-thirds of all small business workers? With these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch, do we really think it is wise to hit them with the double-whammy of a 20- percent increase in their marginal tax rates? Newly released data from the Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates that in 2006, the last year for which data is available, 65 percent of the flow-through business income was earned by those making over $250,000. That flow-through business income will be subject to this budget's tax increases. 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 employee 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. Madam President, today is April 1. It is known as April Fools Day. It is a day when folks play jokes on one another. But the state of our job-creating machinery, small business America, is no joke. Sadly, Senators Kerry and Snowe found out in a Small Business Committee hearing a short time ago that small business is getting the short end of the stick from the big banks. I suspect the treatment is even worse when the big banks getting the bailout money is considered. I put that question to the TARP oversight team the other day in a Finance Committee TARP oversight hearing. I told one of the witnesses, Professor Warren from Harvard, that we Senators need to stand behind the oversight committee, so that we can get answers from the Treasury. In any event, it seems to me that we need to step back from the big pieces of recent economic policy and take a look at the big picture. We need to look at what we are doing. The three pieces I am referring to are the TARP program, the stimulus bill, and this budget. All of these efforts involve trillions of taxpayer dollars. If our goal is doing the best we can to get jobs to every American who wants a job, then we need to recalibrate our actions. We ought to focus, as President Clinton once said, like a laser beam on job creation. President Obama and all of us agree at least 70 percent of new jobs come from small business. Let's take a look at how each of these three major pieces of legislation affects small business. On TARP, it looks like we need to make sure that the TARP recipients are providing credit to small business. On stimulus, less than one-half of 1 percent of the $787 billion went to small business tax relief. Less than one-half of 1 percent. Now, on the budget, 82 Senators, a big bipartisan margin, agreed with Senator Cornyn that we ought to not raise taxes on small business. Senator Snowe, likewise, will be pressing the case for small business in a separate amendment. It may be April Fools Day, but this is no joke. We need to keep our eye on the job creation ball. Rather than hitting a foul ball with taxes on small business, we can hit a home run if we leave their taxes low. Future jobs depend on it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of Iowa wrestling team for their national championship victory two weekends ago. On March 21, 2009 wrestling fans all across the country were treated to an exceptional match in St. Louis, MO, while watching the University of Iowa clinch the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship. Throughout the year, the Hawkeyes maintained an overall No. 1 ranking in the Nation. This year's wrestling team finished the season with a perfect record for the 12th time in the school's history. The outstanding grapplers and coaches produced a great season, winning numerous awards and praise throughout the country. I also want to take a special moment and congratulate the University of Iowa wrestling head coach Tom Brands, who has led the team to two straight national championships in only 3 years at the helm of the Hawkeye wrestling team. The University of Iowa students, alumni, faculty and fans are committed to keeping alive the tradition of wrestling in Iowa and bringing pride to the state, as well as the University of Iowa. I want to congratulate the University of Iowa Hawkeyes for winning the 2009 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship and recognize the achievements and efforts of the wrestlers, coaches, fans and staff who helped the team achieve this significant victory. I also want to speak to congratulate the Morningside College women's basketball team for winning the 2009 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics--NAIA--Division II national championship. On March 27, 2009, the Morningside College Mustangs won the national title game over the Hastings College Broncos in Sioux City. Just a day before, the Mustangs captured the Great Plains Athletic Conference-- GPAC--championship title and finished with a perfect 18-0 record. A couple of individual congratulations are in order here today also. Head Coach Jamie Sale was named NAIA Division II National Coach of the Year, senior Autumn Bartel was named Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the NAIA Division II national championship, and senior Dani Gass was also named NAIA Division II Player of the Year. Of special recognition are the seven members of the Mustangs team who were named 2009 Daktronics-NAIA Scholar-Athletes for maintaining a minimum grade point average of 3.5. These members included Cara Anderson, Autumn Bartel, Emily Christen, Sarah Culp, Mackenzi Mendlik, Roni Miller, and Brittany Williamson. The Morningside College Mustangs received a unanimous number one ranking in the final NAIA Division II Women's Basketball Coaches Top 25 Poll while finishing the season with a perfect 38-0 record, only the second team in NAIA Division II women's basketball history to do so. I want to congratulate these athletes on demonstrating exceptional accomplishments both in the classroom and on the court.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of whether we should apply more or less budget discipline to record debts and deficits that my President, President Obama, inherited when he came into office January 20 of this year. Last week, we heard a lot of revisionist fiscal history or it might best be described as heavy editing of recent budget history. Our President has alluded to it several times. I agree with the President there is a lot of revisionism in this debate. The revisionist history basically boils down to two conclusions: The first is that all the good fiscal history of the 1990s was derived somehow from a partisan tax increase bill that passed in 1993; and that, two, all the bad fiscal history of this decade to date is attributable to the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and later. Not surprisingly, nearly all the revisionists who speak generally oppose tax relief and support tax increases. The same crew generally supports spending increases and opposes spending cuts. In the debate so far, many on this side of the aisle have pointed out some key and undeniable facts. It might surprise you, but we happen to agree with President Obama on one key fact. This President did inherit a big deficit and a lot of debt. During the last quarter of 2008, the antirecessionary spending, together with lower tax receipts because of the recession, and the TARP activities has set a fiscal table of a deficit of $1.2 trillion. That was, in fact, on the President's desk when he took over the Oval Office on January 20 of this year. That is the highest deficit as a percentage of the economy in post-World War II history inherited by any of the Presidents since World War II. Quite obviously, this is not a pretty fiscal picture. I have a chart that shows the history of that fiscal time, through the last administration and the big deficit at this point about which President Obama speaks. As predicted a couple months ago, that fiscal picture got a lot uglier with the stimulus bill. For the folks who saw that bill as an opportunity to recover America, with Government taking a larger share of the economy over the long term, I say congratulations because you got what you wanted. For those Senators who voted for the stimulus bill, those Senators put us on a path to a bigger role in Government. So let me make it clear. Those Senators who voted for the stimulus bill, you put us on a path to a bigger role in Government. Over a trillion dollars of new deficit spending was hidden in that bill. It caused some of the extra ink on this chart for the year we are in. This is what was inherited by January 20, but legislation passed since January 20 adds that much. Supporters of that bill, then, as far as I am concerned, need to own up to the fiscal course that has been charted by actions of this Congress and this President since January 20. Now, to be sure, after the other side pushed through the stimulus bill and the second $350 billion of TARP money, the Congressional Budget Office reestimated the baseline. A portion of this new red ink upfront is due to that reestimate. The bottom line, however, is that the reestimate occurred several weeks after the President and a robust Democratic majority took over the Government. Decisions were made, and the fiscal consequences followed. Those fiscal consequences are in these red figures, above what would have been if Bush's budget had stayed in place during this period of time. That is where we would be. Some on the other side raise this point about the March CBO reestimate. Of course, that is fine, but if they were to be consistent and intellectually honest, then they would have to acknowledge the CBO reestimate that occurred in 2001, after President Bush took office. The surplus went south because of what? Because of economic conditions. The $5.6 trillion number--so often quoted by those on the other side--was illusory. And I will say more about that in just a few minutes. Here is where the revisionist history comes from. It is a strategy to divert, through a twisted blame game, from the facts before us. How is the history revisionist? Well, I would like to take each conclusion one by one. The first conclusion is that all of the good fiscal history was derived from the 1993 tax increase. To knock down that falsehood, all you have to do is take a look at this chart. And this chart is not produced by data I accumulated but data from the Clinton administration. So here we have a history put forth with data from the Clinton administration about the tax increase of 1993 and whether it did a lot of good or not so much good. Much of the ballyhooed partisan 1993 tax increase accounts for just 13 percent--just 13 percent--of the deficit reduction that took place during all of the 1990s--again, just 13 percent. Now let's look at what are the biggest sources of deficit reduction, because obviously it is not the tax increase. Thirty-five percent came from a reduction in defense expenditures. Of course, that fiscal benefit originated from President Reagan, who stared down the Communist regime in Russia. The same folks on that side who opposed President Reagan's buildup somehow want to take credit for the fiscal benefit of the peace dividend--that 35 percent. The next biggest source of deficit reduction--32 percent--came from other revenue. Basically, this was the fiscal benefit from progrowth policies, such as the bipartisan capital gains tax cut of 1997 and, of course, the free-trade agreements President Clinton, with Republican votes, established. That is the 32 percent that reduced the deficit from that point of view. The savings from the policies that I earlier mentioned translated, obviously, into interest savings, and that interest savings is this 15 percent right here. Now, for all the chest thumping about the 1990s, the chest thumpers who pushed for big social spending didn't bring much to the deficit reduction table of 1990. That amounted to a mere 5 percent. What is more, the fiscal revisionists in this body tend to forget who the players were. They are correct that there was a Democratic President in the White House, but they conveniently forget that the Republicans controlled the Congress for the period where the deficit came down and turned to surplus. They tend to forget that they fought the principle of balanced budgets, which was the centerpiece of the Republican fiscal policy that led, over a 4-year period of time in the late 1990s, to paying down $570 billion on the national debt. Now, you may remember the Government shutdowns of late 1995. Remember what that was all about? It was about a plan to balance the budget. Republicans paid a pretty high political price for forcing that issue. But in 1997, President Clinton agreed. You may recall all through the 1990s what those yearend battles were all about. On one side were congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration pushing for more spending, and on this side of the aisle congressional Republicans were pushing for tax relief. Well, what happens when you have that extreme-- more spending on the one end, less spending and tax decreases on the other? Both sides end up compromising. That is the real fiscal history of the 1990s. So now let's turn to the other conclusion of the fiscal revisionists. That conclusion happens to be that in this decade, since the year 2000, all fiscal problems are attributable to the widespread tax relief enacted in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006. In 2001, President Bush came into office. He inherited an economy that was careening downhill. You know, NASDAQ lost 50 percent of its value in the year 2000, not in the year 2001. That bubble burst. You may remember that starting in February 2000, we started on a 46-month decline in manufacturing, so we had a manufacturing recession already set in place. Then, of course, came the economic shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And, of course, you have to add in corporate scandals to that economic environment. You will remember Enron. It is true--very true--that as fiscal year 2001 came to a close, the projected surplus turned into a deficit, and the chart shows that right here in 2001. In just the right time, though, the 2001 tax relief plan kicked in. As the tax relief hit its full force in 2003, the deficit grew smaller. This pattern continued from 2003 through 2007. If my comments were meant to be a partisan shot, I could say that this favorable fiscal path from 2003 to 2007 was the only period--aside from the 6 months in 2001--where Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress. But, unlike fiscal history revisionists, I am not trying to make any partisan points. I am just trying to get to the fiscal facts. I have another chart that compares the tax receipts for 4 years after the much-ballyhooed 1993 tax increase and the 4-year period after the 2003 tax cuts. Observe this chart. On a year-to-year basis, this chart compares the change in revenues as a percentage of GDP. In 1993, the Clinton tax increase brought in more revenue as compared to the 2003 tax cut. You can see here, compared to here. That trend does reverse, as you see here, as both policies moved along. You can see how the extra revenue went up over time relative to the flat line of the 1993 tax increase. This is the 1993 tax increase bringing in revenue and then pretty much flat-lining out over a long period of time; whereas you can see the tax relief bill of 2001 went down and then very dramatically increased in revenue. This ought to disabuse people who think that every time you increase tax rates you bring in more revenue and when you decrease tax rates you bring in less revenue. This chart shows that you can decrease tax rates and bring in more revenue. So let's get the fiscal history right. The progrowth tax and trade policies of the 1990s, along with the peace dividend, had a lot more to do with deficit reduction in the 1990s than the 1993 tax increase. In this decade, deficits went down after tax relief plans were put into full effect. Now that is the past. We need to make sure we understand it. You have to understand the past because the past is going to be brought up the next 4 days of this week as we are on this budget resolution. And, by golly, people ought to be accurate when they state what the impact is of the 1993 tax increase versus all the blame that is given on this side of the aisle for actions taken in 2001 and beyond with those tax reductions. What is most important is the future. People in our States send us here to deal with future policy. This budget debate should not be about Democrats flogging Republicans and vice versa. The people don't send us here to flog one another like partisan cartoon cutout characters, and do it over past policies. They do not send us here to endlessly point fingers of blame. Let's focus on the fiscal consequences of the budget that is before the Senate over the next 4 days. President Obama rightly focused us on the future with his eloquence during his campaign. I would like to paraphrase a quote from the President's nomination acceptance speech: We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not grasping at the ideas of the past. Well, President Obama was right. We need a President--and I would add Congressmen and Senators--who can face the threats of the future. This budget as currently written poses considerable threats to the fiscal future. It taxes too much, it spends too much, and it borrows too much. Grasping at ideas of the past, or playing the partisan blame game, will not deal with the threats to our fiscal future. Let's face the honest fiscal facts. Let's not revise fiscal history as we start this critical debate about the fiscal choices ahead of us. The people who send us here have a right to expect nothing less of us. As I noted in remarks just completed a shorttime ago, a portion of the new deficits to the Congressional Budget Office March re-estimate. CBO revised the deficit downward by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The revision is attributable to much worse economic conditions. The bottomline, however, is that re-estimate occurred several weeks after the President and robust Democratic majorities took over the government. Decisions were made and the fiscal consequences followed. Some on the other side raise this point about the March CBO re- estimate. That's fine, but, if they were to be consistent and intellectually honest, then they would have to acknowledge the CBO re- estimate that occurred in 2001 after President Bush took office. The surplus went South because of economic conditions and new spending needed to deal with the consequences of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The $5.6 trillion number so often quoted by those on the other side was revised within a year of President George W. Bush's presidency. In January 2002, CBO revised the $5.6 trillion number downward to $1.6 trillion. To listen to folks on the other side, you would think all of that $4 trillion downward adjustment was attributable to the bipartisan tax relief of 2001. In fact, the tax relief accounted for 40 percent of the adjustment. Most of the balance, $2.6 trillion, was due to factors that had noting to do with the tax relief. I am talking about the reduced revenues, increased spending for the war on terror and homeland security and other factors. So, if folks on the other side want to be intellectually honest about the budget and fiscal history, they need to be consistent on how the CBO re-estimates are treated. If you are going to give President Obama $1.3 trillion for the post-January 20, 2009 re-estimates, then you have to give President George W. Bush credit for twice as much, $2.6 trillion. That's what CBO said in January 2002. we can't have different standards for different people and be intellectually honest. One other point that came up was the comparative corporate tax rates. As Senator Hatch pointed out, the U.S. statutory corporate rate is very high. The Chairman of the Budget Committee agreed but then stated that the U.S. effective corporate rate is relatively low. Business taxation occurs in corporate and non-corporate form, through S corporations, partnerships, and proprietorships. If you want to compare U.S. taxation with the rest of the developed world, it is best to look at comparative business tax rates on investment. If you do so, you will find the U.S. has a higher rate than the G-7 group of comparative economies. You will find this data in an analysis prepared by former Senior Treasury Economist Robert Carroll. This analysis is contained in an August 2008, Tax Foundation paper entitled ``Fiscal Fact Comparing International Corporate Tax Rates: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Increasingly Out of Line by Various Measures.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a native son of Iowa as he prepares to leave the nest he has diligently feathered for more than three decades. A journalist who has earned his keep for 34 years at the Des Moines Register, David Yepsen honed his skills as a fair and balanced reporter upon whom his readers grew to depend to separate the wheat from the chaff. With a few strokes of the keyboard, David Yepsen cut through layers of political posturing to identify stalemates at the statehouse or expose stonewalling from Terrace Hill. A no-nonsense newspaperman, David built a reputation for his astute understanding of Iowa politics and policymaking on the local, State, and Federal levels of government. From local boards of education to county seats of government, statehouse politics, and the Presidential campaign trail, David Yepsen knew how to boil down an issue and size up a candidate's prospects. Like most Iowans, pomp and circumstance isn't his style. The genius of his political commentary is his ability to cut off grandstanding and get down to brass tacks. If the political leadership got bogged down in partisan gridlock, David would simply explain to voters in his next column how their elected representatives were baling political hay on the public's dime instead of ironing out the looming State budget deficit. A shrewd journalist, David Yepsen understood how to cultivate contacts and build a reputation built on trust and truth. Cut from the gold standard cloth of journalism, David exercised independence and discovered that loyalty, like representative government, is a two-way street. No doubt the mutual agreement or lively disagreement with his subjects, readers, and publishers made his job all the more satisfying. Although schooled decades before the Internet, blogs, and other tools delivered news to our laptops and cell phones, this seasoned reporter embraced the 24-hours news cycle. His profession bears the responsibility and privileges granted by the freedom of the press in American society. He upheld his end of the bargain by holding officeholders, public officials, and candidates accountable to the people. But he didn't fall victim to the ``gotcha'' style of ambush journalism that adds to public cynicism about the media and politics. Instead, David fell back on his commitment to fairness and evenhandedness. That is the legacy David Yepsen will leave behind as he pursues the next chapter in his professional career. Next month, he will hang up his press credentials to assume leadership of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. As I mentioned earlier, David Yepsen for more than 30 years has earned his paycheck and served the public as a reporter and political columnist at the Des Moines Register. For more than three decades, he immersed himself whole hog into politics, issues, and campaigns that have colored Iowa's landscape from the Missouri to the Mississippi Rivers. David earned a scholarly grasp of public policy that will prepare him well for his new position. Hot-button issues in recent times have included regulating hog lots; legalizing gambling; preparing for natural disasters and flood control; consolidating government from the courthouse to the schoolhouse; harmonizing Iowa's production agriculture heritage with sustainable stewardship of our natural resources; investing in renewable energy; bringing 21st century technology to rural areas; developing tourism, parks, and trails; balancing needs of an aging society; addressing Iowa's ``brain drain'', handling immigration; and juggling interests of labor and business or rural and urban. Instead of treating these issues as lightning rods that polarize people, David took the opportunity to challenge Iowans, whether newcomers or oldtimers, to find common ground that would make our State an even better place to work, raise a family, enjoy a vacation, earn a world-class education, and retire. David could slice through the debate with a lucid and logical reminder about just why it matters to taxpayers if the gas tax is raised during a recession or why Iowa lawmakers should seize the opportunity to take bold steps to restore and improve crumbling infrastructure projects. He provoked Iowans to think outside the box, choosing flattery or insult when necessary. David faced the relentless scrutiny of his readers and also enjoyed many personal and professional rewards. Iowa's David Yepsen was often called upon by national news organizations for his respected analysis of Presidential politics. His departure leaves behind a big set of footprints in the fields of Iowa journalism and politics. I will really miss seeing ``what Yepsen had to say in the Register'' but wish him all the best.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at 2:30 today, the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Health Care, held a hearing entitled The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform. In conjunction with the Subcommittee hearing, my colleagues Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009. Our Nation is graying. Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85 and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030. Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old-age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit. Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee does not pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax-free. Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium. An aging Nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than ever. I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and all of our Senate colleagues toward enacting the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at 2:30 today, the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Health Care, held a hearing entitled The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform. In conjunction with the Subcommittee hearing, my colleagues Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009. Our Nation is graying. Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85 and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030. Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old-age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit. Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee does not pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax-free. Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium. An aging Nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than ever. I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and all of our Senate colleagues toward enacting the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recent weeks and months, a new phrase has been born that has gained in popularity and support. The new phrase that is so in vogue in the Halls of Congress and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is ``green jobs.'' I have no fault with the term. Everyone wants to create green-collar jobs. Green jobs are believed to be a critical component of getting us out of the economic doldrums in which we find ourselves. A new White House middle-class task force recently focused on the creation of green jobs as a means of fueling our economy and creating jobs for the middle class. Vice President Biden has defined a green job as one that provides products and services that use renewable energy resources, reduces pollution, and conserves energy and natural resources. I don't disagree that the creation of these types of jobs is a very worthy ambition. This newfound desire for so-called green jobs has led me to remind my colleagues of an existing industry that is making great strides to reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and contribute significantly to our economy. The U.S. renewable fuels industry has been creating good paying jobs in rural America for years. It has been 30 years since a tax incentive for ethanol was passed and 17 years since I fathered the wind energy tax credit. These alternative energies have been producing a renewable resource right here at home that is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, and it has contributed to a cleaner environment. U.S. domestic renewable fuels have been doing all these things long before it was cool or in vogue. So don't be surprised that this is the nature of America's farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs. They do things because of the intrinsic value to our country and to our economy, whether it is a fad on the east coast or not. I happen to think it is great that there is a newfound zeal for creating renewable resources here at home. I have been supporting our domestic renewable fuels industry for nearly 30 years as a means to reduce our dependence on volatile nations for our energy, mostly for petroleum. I have been promoting clean wind energy since I fathered the wind energy tax credit back in 1992. I am pleased to see the success and the support wind energy now receives because of my tax incentive. I hope my colleagues who tout the benefits today of the so-called green jobs fully realize the contribution the domestic ethanol and biodiesel industries have been making for years in this area. Farmers across this country produced more than 9 billion gallons of homegrown renewable fuels last year. Ethanol production displaced 321 million barrels of oil last year. That is the equivalent of our imports from Venezuela for 10 months. The use of 9 billion gallons of ethanol saved American consumers $32 billion last year. Yet even with this success, our farmers and the biofuel industry have been under constant attack--at least constant attack over the last 2 years. In a high-priced public relations smear campaign, the food manufacturers and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have tried tirelessly to denigrate the efforts of our farmers. In a baseless campaign, they tried to blame the ethanol industry for raising food prices, even though corn makes up about a nickel of the cost of a box of Corn Flakes. The grocery manufacturers thought they found a weak link in the food chain that they could target and scapegoat as a culprit behind the rising cost of food. It was clearly proven that the cost of energy had a significantly greater impact on food prices than did other commodity costs. The fact is, the ones responsible for the high cost of food are the companies whose names stare back at us as we go through the grocery stores and supermarkets, and they have never hidden their motive during this smear campaign. It was stated clearly at the time the smear campaign was started that it was about ``protecting our bottom line.'' Consumers are still seeing the impact of that pocket lining by big food companies while commodity prices have dropped by half since their highs last summer. But food prices are still at record highs. Even the price of oil has dropped more than $100 a barrel. Yet food companies continue to keep prices high. You don't need to take my word for it because we have the grocery store chains themselves fighting back now. SuperValu, Safeway, and Wegmans are just a few chains that are speaking publicly against the price increases pushed on them by Kellogg's, General Mills, Kraft, Nestle, and others. An article in the Los Angeles Times as recently as March 2 stated: Our large grocery companies operating in Southern California have seen the wholesale price for a carton of Kellogg's Corn Pops rise about 17 percent since June, despite a 52 percent plunge in corn prices from their peak this month. The chief executive for Safeway was quoted as saying: It is disingenuous to consumers that all commodity costs are coming down, interest rates coming down, everything is coming down, and the national brands are taking their prices up. The chief executive of SuperValu described the situation as a ``battleground'' with manufacturers right now over prices. I am pleased to see others in the food chain call on these food producers to lower prices in light of the large drop in commodity prices, but this isn't the reason I came to speak today. I would like to take just a few more minutes to share with my colleagues another assault that is taking place on biofuels. In the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, Congress enacted and expanded a renewable fuels standard to greatly increase the production and use of biofuels. A component of that renewable fuels standard was a requirement that various biofuels meet specified life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The law specified that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significantly indirect emissions from indirect land use changes. This means that the emissions from planting, growing, and harvesting the feedstock to the production of biofuels must be included in the calculation. It also means that the Environmental Protection Agency must determine and must measure the greenhouse gas impacts if there is a significant conversion of forest or prairie-to-tillable land because of our biofuel policies. For the past few months, the Environmental Protection Agency has been working on what we call a rulemaking--notice of proposed rulemaking--to implement the updated renewable fuels standard. While it hasn't been finalized or made public, there are great concerns about this rule within the biofuels industry surrounding the science behind indirect land use changes. And, of course, when you think of the Environmental Protection Agency, isn't science what EPA is all about? President Obama, during his Presidential campaign and as President now, has stated that his administration will return to decisions and actions based on ``sound science.'' In January, he said: Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Well, I would encourage President Obama and his staff to take a close look at what the EPA is doing in this rulemaking process called a notice of proposed rulemaking on renewable fuels standards. There are a couple of people in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation who firmly believe--do you believe this?--they can quantify the indirect land use changes that result from our biofuels policies. I am afraid that the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are going down a path of blaming our biofuel producers for land use changes around the globe, and specifically even outside of the United States. The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of greenhouse gas reduction is far from a perfect science, and dozens of credible scientists agree. There is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. One study last year claimed that biofuels, as a result of these indirect impacts, actually led to greater emissions and greenhouse gas emissions than did gasoline. This conclusion defies common sense. Under careful scrutiny, credible scientists on the other side disproved these conclusions, and I want to quote some. Dr. Wang of the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory replied to these assertions by stating: There has also been no indication that the United States corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land use changes in other countries, because U.S. corn exports have been maintained at about 2 billion bushels a year, and because U.S. distillers' grain exports have steadily increased in the past 10 years. May I add that really what EPA--through indirect land use--is talking about here, in the most common denominator, is they figure that because Iowa or Missouri or Minnesota or Illinois corn producers are growing corn, and some of it is going into ethanol, that someplace down in Brazil, farmers are just sitting around trying to calculate and are going to plow up acre for acre the amount of land that is maybe being used for production of ethanol at this point. Well, I think the practical matter is that just isn't happening, and that is exactly what Dr. Wang is saying here. And if that were the case, what can the farmers of our country do about it? Are we going to be at the point where something that happens in some other country is going to affect our policy here in the United States as to what we can grow and what we can use that crop for? I don't think that is a credible position to take. Now, I quoted one study, but there are a number of credible studies that have demonstrated that our biofuel policies will have little, if any, impact on international land use. A recent study by Air Improvement Resource found that the production of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by the year 2015 should not result in new forests or grassland conversion in the United States or abroad. Let's look at the University of Nebraska. A peer-review study conducted there and published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology found similar conclusions. They concluded that corn ethanol emits 51 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline. A third study, conducted by Global Insight, found that it is virtually impossible to accurately ascribe greenhouse gas impacts on indirect land use changes to biofuels. There are a number of assumptions that can affect the conclusion about indirect land use changes. With any model, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out, and I want to make sure the EPA isn't putting garbage in. I want to make sure they know yields per acre for corn have doubled between 1970 and today. I want EPA to know that nitrogen fertilizer used per acre has been declining since 1985. The Environmental Protection Agency also needs to know that the ethanol industry today is vastly more efficient than it was just a few years ago. Ethanol producers use one-fifth less energy today than they did just 8 years ago. More fuel is being produced from the same amount or even less land. The California Air Resource Board is also trying to grasp this issue. They are developing a low carbon fuel standard which is penalizing biofuels with an indirect land use change. On March 2, 2009, to counteract this, 111 scientists sent a letter to California Governor Schwarzenegger on this very matter. The scientists are from leading research labs such as Sandia, Lawrence Berkeley, and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as leading educational institutions, including MIT, UCLA, Michigan State, and Iowa State. Scientists criticized the California Air Resource Board for proposing a regulation that alleges an indirect price-induced land conversion effect around the globe caused by a demand for agricultural production and biofuels. In other words, they said in this official report what I just said: There isn't some Brazilian farmer just sitting around nervously awaiting whether he can plow up another acre of grassland in Brazil just because some more ethanol is being used out of products we grow here. The letter of these 111 scientists sent to Governor Schwarzenegger stated: The ability to predict this alleged effect depends on using an economic model to predict worldwide carbon effects, and the outcomes are unusually sensitive to the assumptions made by the researchers conducting the model run. In addition, this field of science is in its nascent stage, is controversial in much of the scientific community, and is only being enforced against biofuels. The two primary conclusions of these scientists are that science surrounding indirect land use changes is far too limited and uncertain for regulatory enforcement. Second, indirect effects are often misunderstood and should not be enforced selectively. Several of us in the Senate are trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency to wake up and reconsider some of their thoughts. Last week I had the opportunity to join my Iowa colleague, Senator Harkin, as well as 10 other Senators, in appealing to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to be cautious on this issue and as doctors would say about medicine: First do no harm. Because of the incomplete and limited science, we urge in our letter against any premature and, of course, inaccurate conclusions on indirect land use changes. Instead, the EPA should move forward by allowing for public review and refinement of the methodology that they have developed. I am afraid the climate folks at EPA are heading in the wrong direction on this issue. I do not think they are bad people, but I am afraid they do not understand much about American agriculture. I do not think they are aware of the significant crop yield improvements we have seen in recent years or the great potential for the next 20 years. I will just give my own farming operation as an example. In 1959, when I started farming, we were raising, on average, about 60 bushels of corn per acre. It happened that the first year I farmed I produced considerably less than that amount, but eventually, within 15 years, this farmer, as well as the Iowa average, had gone to about 90 bushels of corn per acre. Last year, in my county, we raised 175 bushels of corn per acre. During that period of time, we went from tilling the field probably six or seven times over to produce a crop to now a point where we are only tilling the field once or twice before harvest. In each of these processes, we are producing more corn, we are producing it more efficiently, and at the same time we have an abundance. When I started farming, farmers were producing about enough food for 44 other people. A family farmer today produces enough food for 140 other people. I think we have made great progress, but I am not sure EPA understands the efficiency of the American farmer today and for sure they do not understand that people in Brazil are not just sitting around, seeing how they can take advantage of the fact that American farmers might be producing some of their crop for sustainable energy production in this country as opposed to importing more oil. I also do not think these people fully understand the benefits of valuable ethanol byproducts, which further reduce the effective land used for fuel production. Along this line, do they understand that when you take a bushel of corn to make 3 gallons of ethanol that corn is not gone forever, that 18 pounds of the 56 pounds that is in a bushel of corn is left over for animal feed? So it is not all going to production of energy. To me, it defies common sense that the EPA would publish a proposed rulemaking with harmful conclusions about biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions and especially in light of President Obama's commitment to use sound science in decisionmaking by the bureaucracy carrying out the laws we pass. The Environmental Protection Agency's action, if based on erroneous land-use assumptions, could hinder biofuel development and extend America's dependence upon dirtier fossil fuels from parts of the world that are not very stable. Agricultural practices and land-use decisions in other countries are not driven by U.S. biofuel policies. In other words, there is no Brazilian farmer sitting around in Brazil, waiting to see what Iowa farmers are going to do with their corn--for food or export or for fuel. Even if they were, we have no accurate way to measure it scientifically and we need to ensure that in that measurement, biofuels get credit for these increased efficiencies of production--of the basic commodity as well as the increase in efficiency producing the ethanol. President Obama was, and as far as I know is still, a strong proponent of our domestic biofuels industry and he especially was during his time in the Senate. I know he recognizes the benefit of producing homegrown renewable fuels, and I doubt he would agree with the conclusion that biofuels emit the same or more lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as does gasoline. I hope the EPA will reconsider its conclusions on this or not hastily draw conclusions.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during the height of the Presidential campaign, President Obama made a number of high profile statements and promises about what actions he would take once he was elected and sworn in. These promises outlined a number of important issues such as closing the revolving door for lobbyists in the executive branch, ending the use of no-bid contracts, and curbing the influence of special interests, to name just a few. Over the years, I have been an outspoken supporter of legislation that would make the Government more transparent and open. I have authored and supported a number of bills that would open the Government up and make it more accountable to the citizens. In particular I have been strong advocate for whistleblowers. Most importantly, I have always pushed the Government to be accountable by conducting vigorous oversight of the Federal bureaucracy regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. I have been an equal opportunity overseer and have given my Republican colleagues as many headaches as I have given Democrats. Given my background on oversight, I was supportive of some of the statements President Obama made as a candidate with respect to transparency and openness in Government. A document on the Obama campaign Web site titled, ``Restoring Trust in Government and Improving Transparency,'' outlined ethics and contracting reform, and included a statement that: Obama will sign legislation in the light of day without attaching signing statements that undermine legislative intent. Candidate Obama further discussed signing statements during a campaign speech where he said that his administration was ``not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.'' A video of that speech is available online for all to see. I was also encouraged by candidate Obama's promises to protect employees in the Federal Government who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. In yet another campaign document, candidate Obama stated that he would ``strengthen whistleblower laws to protect Federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.'' That statement was posted on the Change.gov Web site of the Obama Transition Team for all to see. It was a welcome message to the employees of the executive branch that risk their careers and stick their necks out to alert Congress, inspectors General, and the public about fraud, waste, and abuse in Government agencies and programs. These employees, also known as whistleblowers, often do nothing more than ``commit truth,'' and for it they are shunned by their agencies, coworkers, friends, and government. My colleagues have all heard me say time and again that whistleblowers are as welcome as a skunk at a Sunday picnic. These patriot individuals believe that Government can do better for its citizens. They risk everything to make sure that laws are faithfully executed as they were intended and let Congress know when something is not working and needs fixing. Some of the most important reforms to our laws have come from whistleblowers, be it reforming our national security and law enforcement coordination following the tragic events of 9/11, or ensuring we have clean water to drink. Given Candidate Obama's promise to not use signing statements to circumvent the legislative intent of Congress and his pledge to support whistleblowers, I was shocked to read the signing statement he issued on the Omnibus apprropriations bill that was signed into law on March 11. Not only did President Obama's action run contrary to his promise not to use signing statements to circumvent the intent of Congress, he also appears to have broken his promise to strengthen whistleblower laws by singling out an important whistleblower protection provision that Congres has included in every appropriations bill for the last decade. Sections 714(1) and (2) of the omnibus bill contains an appropriations rider that states that no appropriation shall be available to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government: Attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress. This rider was first included in appropriations bills in 1997 and has been included in appropriations bills since. It is a strong signal to all agencies that efforts to block federal employees from coming to Congress won't be tolerated. However, the applicability of this rider is now in question given the signing statement issued by President Obama. His signing statement, in pertinent part, stated that this provision does not: detract from [his] authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with Congress. This statement is shocking. It acknowledges that President Obama envisions a scenario where he would order a Cabinet Secretary to supervise, control, and correct statements made by employees to Congress. Worse yet, the signing statement goes further to add that this authority would be used when employee communications would be ``unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.'' I want to emphasize that word ``confidential,'' because you will hear about that in just a minute. While other Presidents have objected to this appropriations rider in the past, President Obama's signing statement is even more problematic than those because it states that he has the authority to not only restrict privileged material, but also ``confidential'' information. By failing to define ``confidential,'' President Obama has given a blank check to executive branch agencies to block communications with Congress related to an undefined, broad category of information. Understand, it is a constitutional power and responsibility of this Congress to oversee, as part of our checks and balances of our Constitution, the agencies of Government to make sure laws are faithfully executed, as the Constitution requires, and as money is spent according to Congress. Even the New York Times noted President Obama's signing statement includes ``one somewhat unclear objection'' that ``could be read as bumping up against the rights of executive branch whistle-blowers.'' Because, in our constitutional responsibility, we have to rely upon people in the executive branch to tell us when the job isn't being done according to the Constitution or according to law. So I want to go further than what the New York Times said and say: It does more than bump up against the rights of whistleblowers. It, in fact, is going to be a chill. It will chill executive branch employees from sharing information with Congress in our congressional obligation of oversight. It could also be construed to be an attempt to limit Members of Congress from conducting this constitutional duty. I wrote to President Obama last Friday raising my concerns with his signing statement, and, most importantly, the chilling effect that it will have on whistleblower communication with Congress. Today, I have not received a response. However, I read in the New York Times on March 16 that an unnamed administration official stated that President Obama is ``committed to whistleblower protections,'' and that the administration ``had no intention of going further than did Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush in signing statements concerning similar provisions.'' Then, what is that word ``confidential'' doing in there? However, that same official did not provide any detail on that additional term ``confidential.'' I would like President Obama to answer my letter soon and clarify exactly what he meant in this signing statement. Absent a more detailed response from President Obama, I cannot see how his signing statement can be reconciled with the pledges and promises made by Candidate Obama, nor can I reconcile the criticism issued by Candidate Obama about President Bush's use of signing statements with the statements made by that unnamed administration source in the New York Times. The unnamed source said President Obama ``had no intention of going further than did President Clinton or George Bush in signing statements.'' Candidate Obama stated he would not use signing statements in a manner similar to President Bush to circumvent the will of Congress. Now a member of the administration is telling the New York Times that President Obama means to do exactly the same thing as President Bush in issuing signing statements. It seems to me, if this is the case, Candidate Obama would have a problem with President Obama's use of signing statements to underline the intent of this appropriations rider on whistleblowers. Now, a number of my colleagues were quick to object to signing statements issued by President Bush but somehow have so far remained silent regarding President Obama's use of signing statements. Well, to those who had concerns in the past, I encourage you to take a close look at this signing statement and the potential harm it will cause for Members of Congress doing our constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Those who may believe my acts are motivated by partisan politics, I want you to look at my record and see that I have repeatedly objected to signing statements that hindered the rights of whistleblowers. Just one example: I objected to a signing statement issued by President Bush back in 2002 that restricted the application of whistleblower protection provisions included in Sarbanes-Oxley. I also, as another example, objected when a signing statement was issued by President Bush impacting specific reforms contained in the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. In closing, I call upon President Obama to revisit the March 11 signing statement and implement sections 714(1) and (2) in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of this legislation. As a former Senator, he must recognize the good that whistleblowers do by speaking out and by shedding light on fraud, waste, and abuse in Government agencies and programs. Candidate Obama supported whistleblowers, but based upon his recent signing statements, these campaign promises now ring hollow. I hope I have interpreted him wrongly and will give him an opportunity to set the record right because I hope he comes out the same way he did in the campaign: strictly in support of whistleblowers, who are an essential element of the process of our checks and balances of government as Congress does its constitutional job of oversight. We do not know where all of the skeletons are in the closet. We do not know all of the abuses of law. We do not know of all of the fraudulent things that are going on in government. We need that information from whistleblowers, and the best evidence I can give you of that is the $22 billion that has been brought back into the Federal Treasury since I got the False Claims Act of 1986 passed. Most of that information would not have been available without the information from whistleblowers. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.