Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam President. Out of $1 that you, as a consumer, spend for food, the farmer gets 19 cents. Look at a $5 box of corn flakes. For an interview here, I bought a $5 box of corn flakes. I think I had to pay a little bit more because I bought it on the Hill. But the family farmer's share of that $5 box of corn flakes--and it happened to be a little bigger box than normal-- was about less than 10 cents. I think the real figure is about 8 cents. That is what the farmer gets out of a box of corn flakes. Yet the farmer is being blamed for the high price of food because we grow some corn to make ethanol because the American people, 30 years ago, were demanding that we go to a renewable, clean-burning fuel instead of depending upon dirty-burning petroleum, putting more CO2 into the air. The value of corn in a pound of beef or pork is about 20 or 30 cents. Yet some have suggested we should suspend our policies that promote the use of renewable fuels to help drive down food prices. If all the evidence suggests that biofuels have little, if any, impact on the rising cost of food, what good can come from lifting our biofuels policies? If people look at the facts, how can a public relations firm of former Clinton employees get a $300,000 contract from a very respectable organization such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose Members need an excuse to raise the price of food? How do they get away with it? Well, they get away with it because nobody is looking at the facts. I was pleased to join 15 of my colleagues in signing a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, expressing our opposition to this misguided idea. We had about that same number of Senators in this body--some of them even voting for ethanol in the past years--sending a letter down to the same EPA, saying we have to stop ethanol, probably some of the very same people who are complaining about the dirty air we have or the global warming. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.

Mr. GRASSLEY. An investment researcher with UBS recently said that lifting the biofuels mandate will not ease corn or food prices because energy costs and commodity speculation--speculation--are greater factors. Lifting the renewable fuels mandate will not drive down the cost of corn or the price of groceries. But it will increase our demand for crude oil--dirty-burning crude oil. Big oil wins. A Merrill Lynch analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices would be up 15 percent higher without biofuels. I have already spoken to the Iowa State University study: 30 or 40 cents higher for gasoline without having the ethanol industry. Another economist estimated an even higher price, that gas would go up $1.40 if we removed 50 percent of the ethanol scheduled to be used this year--as these letters from my colleagues suggest that we do away with half the mandate. It is clear, then, reducing the amount of ethanol in our Nation's fuel mix will have little, if any, impact on food prices and will actually increase prices at the pump for all Americans. So to the critics, let me say loudly and clearly: Ethanol is not the cause of all that ails you. While it is easy to blame, it is intellectually dishonest to make these claims. It is time for critics to take an independent look at the facts. They have a responsibility to brush aside this sort of ``herd mentality'' that is being encouraged by the Grocery Manufacturers Association. It eventually gets taken over by the pundits and talking heads on TV who claim that everything about ethanol is bad. And it is getting louder. It is not only bad, but it is bad, bad, bad. I wish to tell you what is good, good, good about ethanol because the truth is, ethanol is reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. Ethanol has a significant net energy balance. The same cannot be said for gasoline. Ethanol is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol is not the culprit behind rising food and feed prices here at home or abroad. Ethanol is lowering the price of crude oil and lowering the price of gasoline. Ethanol is increasing our national security, helping our balance of trade, reducing our dependence upon Middle East oil and the whims of big oil. It is time we clear the air, look at the facts, and recognize, once again, that everything about our domestic renewable fuels is good, good, good--good for agriculture; good for the refinery business, providing jobs in rural America; good for the environment; good for national defense; good for the balance of payments--good, good, good. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that ``Ethanol Myths and Facts'' from the U.S. Department of Energy be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Would you give me 1 more minute added to what I had?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been given 1 additional minute, so I have 5 minutes left at this point?

Mr. GRASSLEY. The bottom line is that it is about time we start treating spending and taxes the same, under pay-go. So the Kyl motion to instruct treats expiring tax relief the same as expiring spending. That reason alone, aside from the merits of the AMT patch and extenders, should be enough to get the support from all of us on the Kyl motion to instruct. The bottom line is that pay-go has a bias toward tax increases and increased spending. We ought to have the same rules apply to the expenditure side as to the tax side. Presently, they do not. But this would make it possible for that to be the case. The chairman of the Budget Committee continues to say he is going to bring in all this money from shutting down abusive tax shelters, which I also favor. Some examples are cross-border leases of foreign sewer systems, which he mentioned, or shutting down tax havens, which he mentioned. I would support him in every one of those efforts. But Congress has done a great deal already, shutting down abusive leasing deals. We did that in 2004. The Senate has tried to shut off tax benefits from older deals, but the House Democrats have rejected closing those loopholes. So I do not see how the distinguished chairman can count on this revenue even though he keeps saying this is the answer to all of our offset problems--in other words, getting enough new revenue to offset tax cuts someplace else. The chairman also continues to say we can get $100 billion per year from shutting down offshore tax havens, according to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The fact is, there are no legislative proposals out there that the Joint Tax Committee has scored to bring in anywhere close to the $100 billion we are led by the other side, by the majority, to believe we are going to be able to do. The 12,748 companies the chairman says are in the Ugland House in the Cayman Islands are not claiming to be doing business there. It is simply their registered address, just like an address in Nevada or Delaware is a registered address of many more thousands of companies. Does the chairman have a picture of an office building in Wilmington, DE, or Reno, NV? I assume the chairman is just as willing to go after onshore tax evasion facilities by State corporate law as offshore tax evasion, and he would want to do so in a way that does not put our information exchange network at risk. The chairman knows that it is the Joint Committee on Taxation that provides Congress with revenue scores, not the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Anything that would raise the kind of money assumed in this budget would involve a significant change in tax policy, which is the last thing the chairman says he wants to do. Again, I do not see how the distinguished chairman can count on all this revenue without assuming substantial tax increases when the Joint Committee on Taxation, the ``god'' of assuming revenue coming in under tax law changes--if that ``god'' cannot score it. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this farm bill has been a very long process. Last fall the Senate Agriculture Committee asked the Senate Finance Committee to help make up a budget shortfall we faced, and the Finance Committee on which I serve stepped up to the plate. With eight members of the Finance Committee also being members of the Agriculture Committee, we had a real desire to make sure rural America had the best farm bill possible. So following on what Senator Conrad said about fellow Senators deserving compliments for their hard work, I am only going to single out my colleague from Iowa Senator Harkin and my colleague from Georgia Senator Chambliss, the top two members of the committee, thanking them for the countless hours and weekends they put into this bill for a long period of time; for some, over a period of a year. This was as difficult a farm bill to write and conference as I have ever seen. My colleagues so far have given a good overview of what this bill contains and what it does for those who are hungry, those who are living in rural America, and those who are still involved in family farm operations. But I wanted to take a minute to highlight a few of the items that were most important to me and, obviously, to my home State of Iowa. I think I have some experience to talk about because I still sharecrop with my son Robin. This isn't a blanket approval of the bill. I did have some reservations about the bill because I didn't think it went far enough in two true farm bill areas--payment limits and competition reform. First, the ban on packer ownership that had been a part of the Senate bill when it passed the Senate failed in an amendment I offered in conference committee. This is unfortunate because the livestock industry continues to become more vertically integrated and consolidated. I think that is bad for the independent producer. The recent announcement, for instance, that JBS Swift plans to acquire Smithfield Beef Group, National Beef, and Five Rivers Feedlot should be alarming to us as legislators. I continually have to wonder if when we get down to just one single slaughterhouse, one single packinghouse, will the Department of Justice and Congress begin to raise questions about the trend we have had for consolidation? This is a trend that continues to make it more difficult for independent producers to have choice in to whom they sell their livestock and making it more difficult to get a fair price for their livestock as the cash market continues to shrink. We were able to include some reforms in the livestock title, regardless of not doing what I think should have been done. The Senate version of the farm bill included my language which banned mandatory arbitration clauses in production contracts. I drafted this bill after hearing about problems where producers were being forced to enter into expensive arbitration proceedings, thus giving up all their rights to have disputes finally resolved through the independent judiciary. While we weren't able to have the arbitration language from my bill included, we did reform production contracts to give growers a true choice in selecting dispute resolution, ending the practice of forced mandatory arbitration in binding contracts. The farm bill conference report requires that contracts provide a clear statement of choice to producers upfront as to which track of dispute resolution they might want to use--arbitration or the court process. It also prohibits the integrators from pressuring growers to make one choice or the other. Any interference with the choice would constitute a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Further, the language states that if a grower declines arbitration upfront, that grower can still choose arbitration at the time the dispute arises, if both parties consent to the use of arbitration. Together these provisions constitute significant reforms and will help level the playing field for our growers. Secondly, I don't think the payment limitation reform goes far enough, and Senator Conrad recognized that in the final part of his remarks, that that is a concern I had. He did give me credit for pushing and pushing and pushing and bringing it to the point where it is. I believe it doesn't go far enough. Because on this Senate floor, we had 57 votes to reduce the cap on all three forms of commodity payments--direct payments, countercyclical and market loan benefits, and loan deficiency payments. But we ended up having a fight in conference just to keep those levels of current law. That is the good news. The bad news is we didn't go as far as what those 57 votes on the floor of the Senate thought we should do, a hard cap of $250,000. So what did we do in its place? Senator Conrad explained some of this, but I wish to emphasize it because it is a lot better than if we did what the President asked us to do today, that we not pass this bill. There is indication it will be vetoed and that we ought to extend the existing farm bill for 1 year or 2 years. Well, when it comes to limitations on farm income and who can participate in the farm program and who cannot, those limitations in present law at $2.5 million are laughable and, quite frankly, aren't even being enforced at that level presently. So I come to the conclusion that what we have is better than present law, not as good as what I want but, for the first time, having something that is fairly meaningful toward reform and limits on high- income people benefiting from the farm program. The adjusted gross income limit did come down substantially, so that is a step in the right direction. For the first time, we have a cap on farm income of $750,000. Previously, there was no cap on farm income. It will bring a $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap on nonfarm income down from that $2.5 million that I said is laughable and probably not enforced, down to a $500,000 cap on nonfarm income. But these adjusted gross income limits are still too high, frankly, as far as I am concerned. In some parts of the country, they may not be. I have to admit that even though I am a farmer, I may not understand agriculture in California, Texas, and the Southeast. But I sure understand agriculture in the States of the Plains and the Midwest. You go to almost any farmer and tell them that we put this limit of $500,000 in for nonfarm income or that we put in a $750,000 cap on farm income, they are going to kind of laugh at us and wonder if we haven't been in Washington too long. On the other hand, negotiation around here is the art of compromise, and so I am going to vote for this bill with these caps in it. I am going to thank my colleagues who negotiated for going a lot further the last few days than I ever thought they would go. Hopefully, this keeps some people who have the ability to withstand natural disaster, to withstand sometimes politics affecting farm income, sometimes war, sometimes international trade issues affecting farm income, people at this level have the ability to withstand that. Smaller and medium-size farmers don't have that ability. That is why we have a farm program. So there is some level of income where people ought to be able to withstand things that are beyond their control and still be in the business of farming. I am asking the people in the State of Iowa to look at these caps as being a step in the right direction, not satisfying me but still better than present law. That is why I think it is very necessary that we get this into law. Hopefully, down the road we can make things even better. I happened to have the Government Accountability Office pull data for me on how many folks are actually getting payments over these new income limits. Honestly, there aren't a lot. The conference committee took steps, though, in other areas of reform; for instance, in the right direction by eliminating the three-entity rule and going to a system of direct attribution. In this particular instance, we do away with the legal subterfuge of where there are limits in existing law, that people could split up into three different units and each unit get the limits that are presently allowed. So that legal subterfuge is done away with. Also, in the commodity title, the administration, the House, and the Senate all recognize the importance of including revenue protection programs for farmers. All three groups, however, took different approaches. I am pleased that an average crop revenue program was included in the final bill as an option for farmers and particularly because the hard work from this comes from a lot of corn producers in my State. Not only that, we were able to make the program a more viable option for producers and make it available to them in the next crop year, 2009. I am excited to see what type of participation we get in the program and the outcome of it, so that in the next farm bill debate, we can decide whether revenue protection works. The people who thought this up, those of us on the committee who went with the recommendations, have confidence in the people who thought it up. But there is nothing like the real world of seeing whether it works. So we have a few years to make that determination. I hope it does work. In addition, the White House has continued to say Congress can't use timing shifts to save money and somehow they didn't count. Well, they do count because farmers are going to have to make a judgment in the way they do things to accommodate. Farm program payments will come later in the year, but they will be expected to make crop insurance payments earlier. So in fact, these do count and will pinch the cashflow of a lot of independent producers, whether the White House wants to believe it or not. All that being said, I am pleased this farm bill is making significant investments in rural America. I would like to point out a program that I have named the Value-Added Producer Grant Program as one of those. It has had a bit of a facelift since I first worked on this. I bet it has been 6 or 7 years ago. But it is targeting funds directly to beginning farmers and to ranchers, which is critical to getting young farmers into business. I continue to hear good things about these dollars being invested right into rural communities, and so I am pleased we could get some mandatory money into the program, even though the farm bill dollars were very tight. I have also worked to give Black farmers, African-American farmers, applying for Farm Service Agency loans who were involved in the Pigford v. USDA discrimination lawsuit a chance to have their claims heard. That is why I introduced earlier in 2007 the Pigford Claims Remedy Act. There were circumstances out of these farmers' control, and they weren't able to get their claims filed timely. The conference report provides that these claimants who have not had their cases determined on the merits may, in civil action, obtain that determination. In other words, they are going to have their day in court that they feel they did not get with the administrative process. It is time justice was done for these African-American farmers. Civil rights at the U.S. Department of Agriculture has management problems that still need to be addressed, so I want that department to know I will be watching over the administration of this Pigford program very carefully. Last year, I called for a Government Accountability Office report on farm payments going to farmers who had already died. We even held a hearing on this issue before the Senate Finance Committee. The Farm Service Agency paying dead farmers was a classic example of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is a classic example of a department not doing its job. Now, I am not saying there might not be legitimate reasons to keep estates of dead people open for a few years. But there was something wrong with people who did not report that the structure of the farming operation had changed, that somebody had died, and continued to get farm program payments in a dead person's name. So the farm bill is proactive in requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to check payments against taxpayers' ID numbers at the Internal Revenue Service. I am cautiously optimistic, however. I requested a new Government Accountability Office report, and in preliminary briefings I have learned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not even enforce the current $2.5 million AGI limits. It makes me wonder how they are ever going to enforce the more complicated AGI limits we have put in place. I should also add that based on the two Government Accountability Office reports already released, we closed a fraudulent farm loss loophole that allows operations to evade payment limits. We also were able to shut down the generic certificate abuse with new Commodity Credit Corporation 1099 reporting that I had asked the Treasury Department to do something about way back in 2001, and, quite frankly, they have done nothing. Another issue I often hear from constituents about is the abuse of the rural broadband loans going into areas where service is either already provided by other capable entities or a high percentage of households already have service. I do not believe the Government should be in the business of subsidizing competition. We ought to be in the business of helping people who do not even have the service. Thus, we were able to include in the new farm bill a requirement that in order to be eligible for a loan, the provider needs to be applying for an area where 25 percent of the people do not have service and where not more than three incumbent service providers are already located. I want to shift gears a bit now from the Agriculture Committee's role to my role as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Through that role, I was able to secure even more reforms to agricultural policy while protecting the interests of farmers and ranchers. When the House passed this bill with a revenue offset for the extra agricultural spending, I raised a concern to the tax-writing committees. By yielding several billion dollars in new revenue for new spending, the Ways and Means Committee established, in my judgment, a very dangerous precedent. There is always great temptation for any committees in the Congress that have a veracious appetite for new spending to view the Ways and Means Committee on the other side of the Hill or the Finance Committee in the Senate--the tax-writing committees, in other words--as some sort of a cash register. From a fiscal disciplinary standpoint, this pressure, if unchecked, will lead to larger and larger government and higher and higher taxes. The hard-working American taxpayer is the loser because revenue offsets are diverted from the highest and best uses: tax policy and deficit reduction. The proliferation of reserve funds in budget resolutions under both parties--I want to say both parties; so my party is guilty of this as well--is very clear evidence of this pressure as well. Those reserve funds might as well be labeled as tax-and-spend funds because the committees that request them are not likely to cut any spending. So I raised concerns early in the farm bill deliberation about a very dangerous slippery slope that Congress or the tax-writing committees might be heading for. So I am pleased to say in the Senate process, Chairman Baucus listened to my concerns and agreed. We made it clear that we would hold the line, and we did hold the line. The Finance Committee marked up a bill that took care of agricultural priorities. But where we use Finance Committee resources, we kept the benefits and authority within the Finance Committee. Everyone knows the Finance Committee action made it possible for the Agriculture Committee to move forward to spend more money than was in the baseline. We took some of the policy pressure, then, off of the Agriculture Committee. The schedule and press stories bear out that basic point. We held the line between agricultural policy in the Agriculture Committee and agricultural policy in the Finance Committee when the farm bill was processed on the Senate floor. Remember, that passed, I think, with 77 votes. Now, the conference was quite a different matter. In the end, we kept a decent but much smaller package of agricultural tax relief offsets with agricultural tax reforms. We also split the baby, from the jurisdictional point of view. An extension of the Customs user fees, which is a tax-writing committee offset, was used to offset the $10 billion in new agricultural spending; in other words, meaning the $10 billion above baseline. About half of that, the part dealing with the new agricultural disaster relief trust fund, is in Finance Committee jurisdiction. The balance is going to pay for new agricultural spending above the budget baseline. In my view, this was an unfortunate and troubling compromise for the tax-writing committees. We mitigated some of the damage to the institutional structure of the tax-writing committees, but we also at the same time opened the door. It is a door I was glad to keep slammed shut during the years I chaired the Finance Committee. I worry greatly about the precedent that has been set here. Pressure will be brought to bear in the future for more nontax-writing committee spending to be offset with Finance Committee resources. I sincerely worry about the effect of this precedent on the power and resources of the two chairmen, my friends, Mr. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Other committees are loathe to cut their spending and to reform large programs in their jurisdictions. So the easy street for other committees is to assign their funding problems to the tax-writing committees and to blame the tax-writing committees for any funding problems. As my friends, the two chairmen, know better than anyone else, the demands within the tax-writing committees for offsets are a big challenge just to do the work the tax- writing committees have to do. I hope we all have learned a lesson. We should not use the tax- writing committees' resources as an easy way out for other committees that are reluctant to make the tough choices in the oversight and development of programs in their jurisdiction. There have been also some significant benefits, though, from the Senate Finance Committee's involvement in this bill. The farm bill also includes some customs and trade provisions that I want to address. First, it includes a compromise on expanding our existing trade preference program for Haiti. This was a priority for the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. In addition to expanding Haiti's trade preferences, the compromise calls upon the President to identify any textile or apparel producers in Haiti that fail to comply with core labor standards, as defined in the legislation, or the labor laws of Haiti that relate to the core labor standards. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report states very clearly that the Conferees recognize that the core labor standards defined in the legislation refer to the rights as listed in the 1998 International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow Up. We voted for the 1998 ILO Declaration. We respect, promote, and realize the labor standards stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration. Moreover, the legislation applies only with respect to labor practices in Haiti. It does not address and cannot impact our domestic labor practices in any way. Now, the legislation further calls upon the International Labor Organization to report periodically on the compliance of individual producers in Haiti with the core labor standards and the labor laws of Haiti. And the legislation directs that in identifying producers that fail to comply with core labor standards, the President shall consider these ILO reports. The President is free to consider any other information, and the final decision rests entirely with the President. Nothing in the legislation forces the President to make any particular determination. It just says that the President shall consider these reports. And if the President determines that a producer in Haiti is not in compliance and refuses to comply, the legislation directs the President to withdraw, suspend, or limit benefits to that producer under the trade preference program until the producer comes into compliance. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I am not making a blanket endorsement of the farm bill. I have my reservations. Had I written the Haiti provisions from scratch, they would have looked very different. But this issue was part of a broader negotiation, and compromises were necessary if we were going to produce a final product. The proponents compromised too. Originally they proposed requiring the President to withdraw trade benefits solely as a consequence of the ILO reports. That was never something I could accept. Ultimately, they dropped that demand and agreed to defer to the President's discretion. The compromise language that is in the bill is specific to Haiti and responds to the unique economic and political situation in that country. I accepted it based on that narrow context as part of an overall compromise to conclude these negotiations. Another issue that we addressed in the farm bill is a recent proposal by the Customs and Border Protection agency to change the way certain imports are valued for purposes of assessing duties. The agency proposed eliminating its current practice of allowing importers to base customs value on the first price paid in a series of transactions that culminate in the importation of a product into the United States. Customs has instead proposed a mandate that importers must use the last transaction price. This proposal has drawn significant concern from the business community and in Congress, for a number of reasons. First, it appears to counter an established practice that has been around since at least 1988. And some argue that it would lead to tariff increases of 8 to 15 percent. Moreover, Customs doesn't collect data on the extent to which the so- called first-sale option is used. Nor does the agency have a clear sense of the economic impact of the proposed change. Yet the agency did not consult Congress or the business community before proposing this change in administrative practice. Consequently, we included a provision that directs Customs to collect additional data for 1 year on the usage of the first-sale option. We further directed the International Trade Commission to submit a report to Congress analyzing the data to be collected by Customs. Finally, we included a sense of Congress that Customs shall not implement any change to disallow the first-sale option prior to January 1, 2011. After that date, Customs can implement a change but only if the agency consults with the committees of jurisdiction in Congress and the business community, and also receives approval for such a change from the Treasury Department. That is because the Treasury Department retains rulemaking authority over Customs regulations, though a portion of that authority has been delegated to the Department of Homeland Security. I do want to say some other things the Senate Finance Committee has done. We create a new, temporary cellulosic biofuels production tax credit. This provision will encourage the development of a new cutting edge alternative biofuel industry. Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from agricultural waste, wood chips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks. With an abundant and diverse source of feedstocks available, cellulosic biofuels hold tremendous promise as a home-grown alternative to fossil-based fuels. With cellulosic ethanol, and with the additional feedstocks from corn stover, from wood chips, from switchgrass, and other things that have cellulose in them, we are going to be able to move beyond just grain being used to make ethanol. Now, that is going to solve some problems. But one of the problems that it is going to solve, if people will be patient, are these demagogic statements that are going on now about the production of ethanol bringing up the high price of food. Ethanol is being blamed for everything right now. Ethanol is being blamed for rice going up. We do not make ethanol out of rice. Bread goes up. They have riots in Cairo, and corn ethanol is being blamed for it. There is a whole conspiracy on the part of the grocery manufacturers of America, hiring a public relations firm to put on a 6- month crusade against ethanol. It is a scapegoat. It is intellectually dishonest. In 1980, the people of this country asked Congress to put some incentives in because we ought to have renewable fuels, and ethanol was the direction to go. The farmers of America responded by growing more corn. Farmers invested, setting up ethanol plants. For 25 years, there have been incentives for ethanol production. Ethanol is becoming a major component now through renewable fuels and less dependence upon foreign sources of oil. For 25 years, everything about ethanol has been good, good, good, good--whether it was good for the farmers, good for the environment, good for jobs in rural America, or good for less dependence on foreign sources of energy. Then, all of a sudden, corn goes up to $4 a bushel a year ago, and then everybody gets on ethanol. It is an intellectually dishonest attack that irritates the heck out of me, and I think we ought to band together as we always have done. The farmers of this country responded when the country wanted renewable fuels, and for 25 years nothing bad was said about ethanol. Then, all of a sudden, the price of food goes up, and ethanol gets blamed for it. Ninety-five percent of the grain in the world is eaten; 95 percent of the grain is eaten. Last year the farmers of America planted more acres to corn than any year since 1944. The farmers of America produced 2.3 billion more bushels of corn last year. Only 600 million bushels of that 2.3 billion bushels of corn went into ethanol. The other 1.7 billion bushels are available for everything else anybody wants to use them for, including if they want to eat the same corn animals eat. Yet I am hearing people complain about ethanol being the reason that rice and wheat are high priced and somehow scarce. We have to wake up the people of this country to the fact that the farmers of America responded when they wanted alternative energy, and that alternative energy is not at fault. In fact, Iowa State University has studies showing that the price of gasoline would be 30 or 40 cents higher today if it had not been for what ethanol is producing. We have to get over it. Maybe this new program on biofuels from things other than grain will help calm that, I hope, because cellulosic biofuels is still science in the making, and scientists are telling us in 3 to 5 years it is going to be commercially viable. This bill, then, includes a new, temporary cellulosic biofuels production tax credit for up to $1 per gallon, available through December 31, 2012, as an incentive toward cellulosic ethanol, the same way we have since 1980 on a tax incentive for ethanol from grain. This provision is estimated to cost about $403 million over a 10-year period of years that the tax credit is available to American investors who are willing to take the risk of producing cellulosic ethanol. The new cellulosic biofuels production tax credit will be funded in part by a 2-year extension of the tariff on ethanol and reform in the current ethanol blenders' credit, which will be reduced from 51 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon on January 1, 2009, the first day the cellulosic producers' credit will be available. One other thought that came to my mind just now about an attack on ethanol. We have people who have voted for ethanol in this Senate. Twenty-two of them have sent a letter to the EPA saying that the mandate on ethanol ought to be lifted--the very same Senators who have complained because we aren't doing enough for renewable energy. The last tax title I wish to refer to--and then, for my colleagues, I am just about done--is the Conservation Reserve Program payments. We have had this situation where the IRS has been taxing cash payments that farmers receive from Conservation Reserve Program payments--CRP payments--with the Social Security tax, the payroll tax. If you are a farmer receiving cash payments, if you rent your land and you receive cash payments, you obviously don't pay Social Security tax on that money. But the IRS ruled that if you were getting cash payments on CRP, you had to pay Social Security on it. So we take care of that problem in this bill as well. That is something we have been working on since 1999, and I am glad to have the opportunity to correct something the IRS has done that is an injustice to landowners who receive cash payments. I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns over the extension of the ethanol tariff in the farm bill. I would like to point out that the United States already provides significant opportunities for countries to ship ethanol into our market duty-free. Numerous countries don't pay the U.S. ethanol tariff at all. Through our free trade agreements and trade preference programs, some 73 countries currently have duty-free access to the U.S. market for ethanol fully produced in those countries. For all other countries, including Brazil--the world's major exporter of ethanol--the United States provides duty-free access through a carve-out in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. So Brazilian ethanol exporters currently don't have to pay the U.S. tariff. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, ethanol produced in Brazil and other countries that is merely dehydrated in a Caribbean country can enter the United States duty-free up to 7 percent of the U.S. ethanol market. That is very generous access. Moreover, this duty-free access--as it captures 7 percent of U.S. ethanol consumption--grows every year. Yet Brazil and other countries have never come close to hitting this 7 percent cap. In fact, as of Monday, the 7 percent cap was filled only 23 percent for the year. So we are almost halfway into 2008, and foreign ethanol exporters haven't even filled by one-quarter the generous duty-free access that we give them. And it isn't that the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries don't have the capacity to dehydrate more Brazilian ethanol. They do. Current dehydration capacity in the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries is 580 million gallons, well above the over 452 million gallon duty-free allotment for 2008. Brazil isn't taking full advantage of the duty-free treatment currently available to it. I don't know why we should bend over backwards to provide yet more duty-free access for Brazil. This is especially the case given Brazil's stance in the Doha Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization. Brazil is resisting efforts to further open its market to imports of U.S. industrial goods and services. We shouldn't even discuss reducing or lifting the tariff until Brazil takes full advantage of its current ability to ship ethanol duty-free to the U.S. market. Finally, the ethanol tariff is a revenue-raiser for the farm bill. The cost of the new cellulosic biofuels production tax credit will be offset, in part, by an extension of this tariff. In this way, the ethanol tariff will help us move toward the development of a new cutting edge alternative biofuel industry that will produce fuels from agricultural waste, woodchips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all Americans, and that issue is crimes against children. We have all heard stories of children, our most innocent population, being victimized and abused by predatory criminals. While it is true we have made great strides passing Federal legislation against criminal predators, more work needs to be done. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill that I entitled the Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter who have cosponsored this bill with me. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and will send a strong signal to criminals that we as a society will not tolerate such behavior and that their predatory actions have real significant consequences. I wish to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my home State of Iowa, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta, a 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, Iowa law enforcement agents arrested a registered sex offender, Roger Bentley, for the crime. He had been previously convicted of committing lascivious acts with a minor. Regrettably, this criminal served just over a year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days after her disappearance, an AMBER Alert tip led officials to the location of her body. She was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. The autopsy revealed she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases such as this, but it is even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing. Last week, I honored two extraordinary law enforcement officers who helped put away another one of Jetseta's abusers: James Bentley. Unbelievably, James Bentley is the brother of Roger Bentley who was responsible for the rape and murder of Jetseta. A year prior to her murder, James Bentley took nude photos of 9-year-old Jetseta and her 13-month-old little sister Leonna. After the child abuse prosecution of James Bentley stalled in State court due to sixth amendment concerns, U.S. Postal Inspector Troy Raper and Cedar Rapids Police Department Investigator Charity Hansel followed up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to James Bentley's conviction on Federal child pornography charges. These investigators worked tirelessly to find nine previous victims of James Bentley. Only two of the nine victims testified, but their courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful. As a result, these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to use higher sentencing guidelines to put him away in Federal prison for 100 years. I am truly thankful for the public service that Inspector Troy Raper and Investigator Charity Hansel have done for Iowa's kids. In doing our part, we in Congress have not sat idly by. Two years ago we passed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. This important legislation made great strides in protecting America's children against violent sexual predators. Among its many components, this act standardized the National Sex Offender Registry, eliminated the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children, provided grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders and, lastly, established more severe criminal punishment for certain crimes committed by sex offenders. As part of the Adam Walsh Act, we were able to include the Jetseta Gage Assured Punishment for Violent Crimes Against Children amendment. The amendment created mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for criminals who commit murder, kidnapping, or serious bodily harm against children. We are on the right path, but I still say this is not enough--not enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crimes. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious issue. This bill I am introducing today will help change this by protecting children in four ways. It will increase mandatory minimum sentences, boost penalties for certain crimes against children, control the use of passports by convicted sex offenders, and strengthen the process for removing criminal aliens who commit sex offenses. The first section of the bill increases the penalties for child pornography offenses and elevates the mandatory minimum punishment for criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Booker case, something must be done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences appropriate for their crimes. In Booker, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus Federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. I am very worried judges are not doing their job to protect children. As a matter of fact, Deputy Attorney General Laurence E. Rothenberg testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that since the Booker decision, Federal judges have significantly increased the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of child pornography. To counter this trend, my bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for exploitation crimes against children: One, where a crime involves child pornography, the offender will receive 20 years to life; two, where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a parent or guardian, the offender will receive no less than 3 years to life. The second section of the bill increases penalties for child sex trafficking and child prostitution. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage that they do to children. The third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for criminals convicted of child sex offenses resulting in death, repeated child sex crimes, and forcible rape of children. These crimes involve the most violent types of sex offenders, and justice for these crimes should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences. The final section of the bill has to do with not permitting these sex offenders to travel outside the country. If we know someone is a convicted child molester, we have the responsibility to not allow them travel to Asia or Europe or anywhere to exploit and harm other kids in other lands. The bill provides for the following: When the sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense, the issuance of passports shall be refused. Secondly, if a passport has already been issued, the use of a passport may be restricted if the passport was used in the furtherance of a sex offense. Lastly, any alien convicted of a sex offense shall be placed immediately in removal proceedings. The provisions of this bill are designed to protect our children by locking up violent sexual predators. I doubt that the Members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls such as Jetseta Gage for a law with severe penalties to be proposed, but I strongly believe a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens, including our most vulnerable populations, and we have an obligation as adults to protect our young people. We have a commitment as parents to protect our children and ensure that they are given the opportunity to grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders pose. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter in strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat offender.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all Americans, and that issue is crimes against children. We have all heard stories of children, our most innocent population, being victimized and abused by predatory criminals. While it is true we have made great strides passing Federal legislation against criminal predators, more work needs to be done. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill that I entitled the Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter who have cosponsored this bill with me. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and will send a strong signal to criminals that we as a society will not tolerate such behavior and that their predatory actions have real significant consequences. I wish to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my home State of Iowa, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta, a 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, Iowa law enforcement agents arrested a registered sex offender, Roger Bentley, for the crime. He had been previously convicted of committing lascivious acts with a minor. Regrettably, this criminal served just over a year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days after her disappearance, an AMBER Alert tip led officials to the location of her body. She was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. The autopsy revealed she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases such as this, but it is even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing. Last week, I honored two extraordinary law enforcement officers who helped put away another one of Jetseta's abusers: James Bentley. Unbelievably, James Bentley is the brother of Roger Bentley who was responsible for the rape and murder of Jetseta. A year prior to her murder, James Bentley took nude photos of 9-year-old Jetseta and her 13-month-old little sister Leonna. After the child abuse prosecution of James Bentley stalled in State court due to sixth amendment concerns, U.S. Postal Inspector Troy Raper and Cedar Rapids Police Department Investigator Charity Hansel followed up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to James Bentley's conviction on Federal child pornography charges. These investigators worked tirelessly to find nine previous victims of James Bentley. Only two of the nine victims testified, but their courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful. As a result, these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to use higher sentencing guidelines to put him away in Federal prison for 100 years. I am truly thankful for the public service that Inspector Troy Raper and Investigator Charity Hansel have done for Iowa's kids. In doing our part, we in Congress have not sat idly by. Two years ago we passed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. This important legislation made great strides in protecting America's children against violent sexual predators. Among its many components, this act standardized the National Sex Offender Registry, eliminated the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children, provided grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders and, lastly, established more severe criminal punishment for certain crimes committed by sex offenders. As part of the Adam Walsh Act, we were able to include the Jetseta Gage Assured Punishment for Violent Crimes Against Children amendment. The amendment created mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for criminals who commit murder, kidnapping, or serious bodily harm against children. We are on the right path, but I still say this is not enough--not enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crimes. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious issue. This bill I am introducing today will help change this by protecting children in four ways. It will increase mandatory minimum sentences, boost penalties for certain crimes against children, control the use of passports by convicted sex offenders, and strengthen the process for removing criminal aliens who commit sex offenses. The first section of the bill increases the penalties for child pornography offenses and elevates the mandatory minimum punishment for criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Booker case, something must be done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences appropriate for their crimes. In Booker, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus Federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. I am very worried judges are not doing their job to protect children. As a matter of fact, Deputy Attorney General Laurence E. Rothenberg testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that since the Booker decision, Federal judges have significantly increased the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of child pornography. To counter this trend, my bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for exploitation crimes against children: One, where a crime involves child pornography, the offender will receive 20 years to life; two, where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a parent or guardian, the offender will receive no less than 3 years to life. The second section of the bill increases penalties for child sex trafficking and child prostitution. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage that they do to children. The third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for criminals convicted of child sex offenses resulting in death, repeated child sex crimes, and forcible rape of children. These crimes involve the most violent types of sex offenders, and justice for these crimes should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences. The final section of the bill has to do with not permitting these sex offenders to travel outside the country. If we know someone is a convicted child molester, we have the responsibility to not allow them travel to Asia or Europe or anywhere to exploit and harm other kids in other lands. The bill provides for the following: When the sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense, the issuance of passports shall be refused. Secondly, if a passport has already been issued, the use of a passport may be restricted if the passport was used in the furtherance of a sex offense. Lastly, any alien convicted of a sex offense shall be placed immediately in removal proceedings. The provisions of this bill are designed to protect our children by locking up violent sexual predators. I doubt that the Members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls such as Jetseta Gage for a law with severe penalties to be proposed, but I strongly believe a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens, including our most vulnerable populations, and we have an obligation as adults to protect our young people. We have a commitment as parents to protect our children and ensure that they are given the opportunity to grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders pose. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter in strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat offender.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that David Greenwald, of my Finance Committee staff, be granted the privileges of the floor during the month of May.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next Republican speaker be Senator Vitter.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in a situation where a couple hours from now we will have a vote. I am sure people across the country watching this debate might be wondering what is going on, on this Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. I would like to shed some light on where we are. As I shed some light, I wish to respond to some of the fiction that has taken the guise of debate. On Wednesday of last week, two Senators, one Republican and one Democrat--Senator Hutchison and Senator Durbin, respectively--offered an amendment to strike a provision in the substitute amendment then before the Senate. The substitute then pending was the product of extensive staff negotiations and Member discussions between two committees with jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation Administration program. The two committees were the Finance Committee, on which I serve, and the Commerce Committee, on which I do not serve. People who may not understand how the Senate works or does not may wonder what the situation is. I would like to explain there are certain elementary things about the Senate that are fundamental. First, nothing gets done in the Senate that is not somewhat bipartisan because of the benefit of debate for minorities to hold up legislation until things are accommodated--meaning compromise. It is often difficult to get one committee's Republicans and Democrats together to get agreement to bring something to the floor that can get passed. It is difficult to get Republicans and Democrats on one committee together, but then we have the added benefit of the Commerce Committee getting together for a compromise, and then working out compromises between the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee makes it doubly or, in a triple manner, difficult to get things done on the Senate floor. So we have two committees that reach accommodation bringing a bill to the floor. After it gets here, then it runs into trouble. The Finance Committee's involvement in this is determining the aviation excise taxes, and it controls the airport and airway trust fund. We have to raise revenue. Without that money, there would not be much the Federal aviation program could ever accomplish. On the other hand, the Commerce Committee develops all the policy and all the programs that involve airports and aviation. So that is how you get two committees working together to get a bill to the floor. The Finance Committee works out its differences between Republicans and Democrats on financing. The Commerce Committee works out its differences between Democrats and Republicans on the policy of airports and aviation. Then you have to get these two committees together to move things to the floor of the Senate. Last year, the Commerce Committee acted first. The Finance Committee acted a few weeks later. The Finance Committee, as part of its compromises, addressed airline pensions. We have heard many arguments pro and con about the merits of the Finance Committee provision. I addressed the merits myself at length last week so I will not repeat them now. But in a few moments I wish to respond to some of the points made by opponents of the Finance Committee provision. As I said earlier, the substitute that was before the Senate until last Thursday was a product of a compromise between the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee. Under that compromise, the Federal Aviation Subcommittee chairman and ranking Republican were managing the bill. They were, however, at a minimum, under the obligation to consult with the Finance Committee chairman who is Senator Baucus of Montana and the ranking member who happens to be this Senator with respect to Finance Committee matters in that substitute. That compromise and understanding was violated when the Democratic floor manager unilaterally modified the substitute. Under the rules of the Senate, he had that right. The modification was directly adverse to the interests of the Finance Committee members' compromise among themselves. So the managers breached that compromise, plain and simple. That compromise was breached. What matters worse is the Democratic leader backstopped the Democratic floor manager's violation of the Commerce-Finance Committee compromise by filling the amendment tree. Basically, for those watching, that means nothing is going to be brought to the Senate floor as an amendment without the unanimous consent of somebody who has that responsibility on the other side of the aisle. So with tremendous power in one person, what we call the amendment tree is filled. Now, we all know the proponent of the amendment, the Democratic whip, has a lot of power. That power was displayed when the offending narrow pension provision I have already referred to--the pension provision the Finance Committee was trying to correct--was airdropped into a conference report on Iraq spending last year. There were no hearings. There was no markup. There was no committee process. There was no transparency, just airdropped in a war supplemental conference committee report, something that everybody knew was going to pass and be signed by the President. So airdropped, wam, bam, here it is, take it or leave it, special interest provisions cooked up in the offices of leaders of the Democratic caucus. It is not the way we ought to legislate. We have been told that by people on the other side of the aisle many times. I wish to make reference to at least one of those times. I seem to recall a lot of outrage when these kinds of narrow provisions were airdropped into a conference report when we Republicans were in the majority. No one was louder than the proponent of the amendment that was last week on the Senate floor than the Democratic whip. If we had a C-SPAN checker, you could roll the tape back a few years. But I will have to settle because I am not going to roll C-SPAN back to demonstrate the inconsistency of what is going on here, for a New York Times article I wish to refer to. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is dated September 11, 1997. That article deals with a very successful effort on the part of the present Senate Democratic whip to remove any extraneous matter that had been airdropped into a conference report on a popular tax relief bill by the then-Republican majority of the Senate. The offensive measure was a tax credit for payments made by tobacco companies in the tobacco court settlement. The Democratic whip successfully repealed that airdropped provision. I happened to think he did the right thing then because I supported his efforts. The Democratic whip noted his victory by saying, quoting from the New York Times article of September 11, 1997: Don't try this type of backroom deal and deception in the future. It is really an example of the old school of politics, the old style of politics. That is a quote from the very same person who is involved in this effort we are speaking about now and that we will be voting on this afternoon. The distrust of the public for the old school of politics, the old style of politics, is something the junior Senator--not the senior Senator but the junior Senator from Illinois has eloquently raised on the Presidential campaign trail. To be bipartisan, I might say, the senior Senator from Arizona, also a candidate for the Presidency, has also touched a nerve about the old school of politics and the old style of politics as well. The Democratic whip was right 12 years ago. I agreed with him 12 years ago. I voted with him 12 years ago. Unfortunately, with respect to this airdrop pension provision, the old school of politics, the old style of politics was applied. Now, what do I mean? In this case, old school, old style power politics was at play. A powerful member of the Democratic leadership, a key member of the Appropriations Committee, did an end run around the Finance Committee and also the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Forget about the nearly yearlong conference negotiations that went on to get a pension bill passed in 2006 as well. It was bipartisan and involved the work of two committees, which I have spoken to--that it is often difficult to get one committee together without getting two committees going in the same direction. Forget about the nearly yearlong conference negotiations on that pension bill. Forget about all the hearings the House and Senate tax-writing and labor committees held on pension reform in the year 2006. Forget about the delicate compromise worked out on the way the funding rules affected airlines. All of a sudden none of that mattered. The Democratic whip noted his victory. None of that mattered. So, consequently, here we are: a person who 11 years ago found fault with the majority party airdropping something--in other words, stuffing something--in conference without debate, without hearings, without committee markup, doing the same thing 10 years later. What he was able to successfully correct in 1997, we are trying to correct now. We have obstacles put in the way: things such as having a very unusual compromise worked out, junked by the managers of the bill, and backed up by an amendment tree being filled so nobody can get a vote on issues that ought to be voted upon. Compromises that were worked out in 2006 ought to be maintained and backed up, as they overwhelmingly passed at that particular time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I take a view opposite what was just spoken by Senator Rockefeller on the amendment that is before the Senate, the Durbin amendment, No. 1, because of a very carefully crafted compromise that was worked out when the pension reform bill was passed, and No. 2, the purpose of that legislation was to protect the pensions of the workers of the corporations of America, including the workers who work for our airlines. What we are trying to do is stay within the realm of that compromise and the protection of workers' pensions. This effort detracts from it. I am trying to make sure workers' pensions are protected. I am going to ask my colleagues to be against the Durbin-Hutchison amendment. The amendment before us seeks to keep in place a policy that is wrong from a pension policy standpoint. The amendment also would preserve a process followed against two committees with jurisdiction over pension policy--the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. These two committees worked arm in arm for all of 2006 to get a pension reform bill together that would protect workers' pensions. If the proponents of this amendment succeed in their effort, it will taint the legislative process with respect to one of the most important policy challenges before Congress, and this is strengthening retirement security. The provision the proponents seek to strike is not only justified from a policy perspective--but the way in which the original provision of the Pension Protection Act was modified should raise the eyebrows of some of my Senate colleagues. I would first like to walk my Senate colleagues through the yearlong conference negotiations of the Pension Act which occurred less than 2 years ago. But let me first remind my colleagues that the underlying intent of the Pension Act is to require defined benefit plan sponsors to fully fund their pension plans; in other words, keep their promise to their employees. In nontechnical terms, the Pension Act makes sure plan sponsors are not digging a deeper hole by requiring plans to pay off their unfunded liabilities. The Pension Act requires defined benefit plan sponsors to make contributions, one, to cover benefits accrued in the current year and, two, to pay off any unfunded pension liabilities or past liabilities over a 7-year period of time. A lot of people think we were not doing justice to the workers of America by giving these companies 7 years to pay off these past liabilities, but at least we have a plan in place that two committees of this Senate worked on that was a compromise that would bring us to the point where even after 7 years, workers' pensions would be protected. There is an interest rate issue with a lot of pensions--the interest rate used to determine these past liabilities based on the yield curve of high-quality corporate bond rates. Currently, the corporate bond yield curve rate is approximately 6 percent. The Pension Act provided two exceptions to this general rule. The exceptions were specifically provided for certain commercial airline carriers that may have had difficulty meeting the general requirements within the bill. In other words, we were taking into consideration 2 years ago the very critical and--how would I say it--very unpredictable future of airlines. That is something that was legitimate at the time. There were exceptions for these commercial airline carriers. Under the first exception, carriers that froze their pension plans were permitted to pay off any past pension liabilities over 17 years--that is instead of 7 years--and use in the process an 8.85-percent interest rate to calculate past liabilities. And that would be instead of current law, which is a 6-percent rate. Under the second exception, carriers that did not freeze their pension plans were permitted to pay off liabilities over 10 years instead of 17 years, if they chose the other course, and use the current 6-percent rate instead of the 8.85- percent interest rate. During the Pension Act negotiations, those airline carriers freezing their plans were permitted to take advantage of the first exception. We were aware at that time that these carriers pledged to make new 401(k) contributions on behalf of current and new employees in their union negotiations. Those airline carriers that did not freeze their plans did not need to make the same pledge for a 401(k)-type retirement because these carriers continued their pension plans. The workers for these carriers continued to accrue benefits under the pension plan. The opponents of section 808 do not understand or maybe they choose to ignore that this was a carefully crafted compromise which was intended to place workers of each of these carriers in a similar position from a retirement perspective. Workers of carriers that did not freeze their plans continued to accrue their usual pension benefits. Workers of carriers that froze their plans received retirement benefits under 401(k) plans. Under each approach, the carriers remain obligated to pay their retirement benefits that accrue in the current year. This was a proworker, proparticipant approach that recognized the financial distress the airline industry was experiencing. It also recognized the differences in the financial health of the carriers that froze their pension plans and the financial health of carriers that did not freeze their retirement plans. The amendment's proponents are now saying they want the same set of rules that were offered to carriers that froze their plans. What is on the books that we in the Finance Committee are trying to correct in this legislation is that we gave maximum flexibility to airlines to choose one plan or another, the one that fit, whether they wanted to freeze their pension plans or not freeze their pension plans. And if they froze their pension plans, they chose a future 401(k) for their employees. It was maximum flexibility because these union agreements were much different among the airlines and the financial conditions of the airlines were very much different. We wanted to give choice for flexibility for the financial management of the corporations to keep their promise to their workers, and we wanted to keep our promise that Congress made under our laws that workers' retirement ought to be protected. So there was maximum flexibility. OK, everybody agreed to this, and then later on, people wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit one airline over another airline. So the proponents of the present law, the present distraction from our compromise that was made less than 2 years ago, will tell you that just before passage of the Pension Act, an agreement was reached with Senate leadership that the Senate would take the first available opportunity in the next Congress to offer the same set of rules to carriers who do not freeze their pension plans. If that is true, then why did we worry and try to make this compromise over a period of 7 months during 2006? We wouldn't have had to spend the time to do that. On January 4, 2007, Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn introduced a bill that loosened the rules for those carriers that did not freeze their plans. The bill increased the current interest rate of 6 percent to 8.25 percent, which, in their view, is closer to the 8.85-percent rate given to frozen plans. The bill was referred to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I don't recall Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi considering the Hutchison-Cornyn bill in the normal course of the committee process. I know for a fact that neither Chairman Baucus nor I considered the Hutchison-Cornyn bill in the Finance Committee. Language that was identical to Hutchison-Cornyn was slipped into the war supplemental conference agreement. This action was taken without consideration by the two committees of jurisdiction over pensions, the very same two committees that worked for several months during 2006 to work out this carefully crafted compromise that took into consideration the financial conditions of the various airlines, the desire of some airlines to freeze their pensions and substitute 401(k)s and those airlines that wanted to keep their pension system going as was, without any consideration to the people who worked on this for so long. It was slipped into the conference agreement of an appropriations bill. Isn't that the process we here in the Senate are trying to put an end to? No promises were broken. The promise to make the rules the same was taken up in this Congress. Specifically, the Senate Finance Committee included the provision we are debating today and the modification of the chairman's mark of the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill. The mark was considered by the full Senate Finance Committee in September of last year. The full committee overwhelmingly supported that provision and favorably reported it out of committee. Proponents of this amendment cannot stand on the Senate floor and cannot in good conscience argue that promises made to them were not kept. Let me remind my colleagues that we here in the Senate have a committee process which enables Members to debate and dispense with issues in an orderly process. Without this orderly process, the democratic process our Founding Fathers gave us breaks down. I didn't serve as chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee to let an orderly and democratic process break down, particularly considering the months of compromise the House and Senate took to work out what that pension bill was all about. For my Senate colleagues to suggest that a provision that was not considered during the normal course of the committee process is making good on a promise that was made to them--I think that is not acceptable. For my Senate colleagues who, alternately, contend that the promises that were made to them were not kept, I ask them why they did not speak up during the full and open deliberation that occurred in the Finance Committee in September. Why are they now opposing a provision that was out there in the clear light of day for over 7 months and, if they had problems with the provisions, not speak to us about them? Or is it that the airline carriers that oppose this provision finally woke up? I don't know. Did they wake up to the fact that their blatant end run around the committee process would not go unnoticed and they wanted to find some way to undo the careful compromise of 2006? I am skeptical, of course. ``Skeptical'' is an understatement. But let me turn to the policy in the Finance Committee bill. As we have established, opponents of that provision successfully increased the interest rate for nonfrozen plans to 8.25 percent. They say the 8.25-percent rate levels the playing field. I admit that and agree with them. But it only levels the playing field in the context of calculating past liabilities. So I agree it is equitable to allow all the carriers to use the more favorable interest rate to calculate past liabilities, but it is not equitable to allow carriers that did not freeze their plans to underfund benefits earned in the future and maybe get us back to the position we are still in somewhat, even regardless of the law that is now on the books. This is what is going to happen if we do not do something about it right now. I would like to correct the manner in which my distinguished colleague from Illinois--and he is here on the floor--refers to the now infamous 8.25 percent, versus the 8.85 percent. These are not ``earnings rates.'' The rates are not used to determine the value of plan assets. Instead, the rates are discount rates that actuaries use to determine the present value of pension liabilities. Basically, the rates are used to determine how much a company has to contribute today to make good on the promised pension payments that would be due when an employee retires. This is an important distinction because when a company uses a higher interest to project the present value, the company is able to understate--or I would use the word ``mask''--the promised pension payments. This understatement allows the company to contribute less money to the plan. Less money to the plan is an important distinction because we are talking about protecting workers and their pension rights. Why would a worker support a policy that places the full value of their promised pension payments in jeopardy? My colleague from Illinois contends that the workers of the carriers in question support this practice and, of course, the Durbin-Hutchison amendment. Most workers I know ask for bigger payments or at least want to make sure they are secure in retirement. It is usually management that wants to short the worker. That is why we get into the trouble we are in and why the Pension Act of 2006 was necessary. But let me get back to what the war supplemental actually accomplished. Carriers that are currently using the 8.25-percent interest rate are now permitted, No. 1, to mask the pension plan's unfunded liabilities and, No. 2, contribute less money to a pension plan. The greater extent to which a pension plan is underfunded, the greater the risks to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal insurer of the pension plans. Then, obviously, if that comes up short, the taxpayers pick up the bill. Opponents of the Finance Committee provision argue that the most important risk factor for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is the financial health of a plan sponsor. This is not entirely true. Whether a plan is underfunded is an equally important risk factor. Specifically, if the company goes into bankruptcy and pushes the pension liabilities onto the PBGC, guess who is holding the bag for those unfunded liabilities--it is the PBGC. In the most extreme cases, then the taxpayers might be left holding the bag. My opponents cannot tell half of the story. Yes, the financial health of the plan sponsor is important, but so is the funding status of the plan. What we have here is an issue of underfunding. I told you that from an actuarial perspective, higher interest rates mean lower plan liabilities. When a plan's sponsor uses a higher interest rate to determine its liability, the sponsor is effectively masking the plan's liabilities. In other words, the plan's liabilities are artificially understated. I want to emphasize the word ``artificial'' because what we have here is a case where the carriers that oppose the Finance Committee provision are trying to take advantage of a special funding rule based on an artificial funding status. I went to great lengths to say to my colleagues during 2006 how we tried to take into consideration--between the two committees, the Labor Committee and the Finance Committee--considerations of the different financial conditions of the various air carriers and to give them some choice. Specifically, if a plan sponsor using the normal 6-percent rate is 100 percent funded, the plan sponsor is only required to contribute money to cover the current year's costs. If the plan is, say, 115 percent funded, the plan sponsor may use the excess to cover the current year liabilities. In some cases, the plan sponsor will not have to contribute any money because the excess would cover the current year costs. Carriers that are using the 8.25-percent are contending that, because their plan is 116 percent funded, they do not have to make the current year contribution. The problem here is that the 116-percent funding status is artificial. It is artificial because the 8.25 rate effectively masks the underfunding of the plan. So I ask my Senate colleagues, should a plan that is artificially funded be permitted to avail itself of a rule that is only available to plans that are adequately funded? Or put another way--this is fuzzy funding math. It is fuzzy in the way it puts the plan at risk. Should plans that are artificially funded be allowed to skip making their current year contributions? In that case, are they not just digging the hole deeper? The Finance Committee provision says that if these carriers use the 8.25-percent rate, which results in an artificial funding level, these carriers cannot skip their current year's contributions. So the Finance Committee provision makes good on the promise that was made to Senators during the year 2006; that is, that we are allowing carriers that did not freeze their plans to use a more favorable interest rate to determine their past liabilities--the same deal that was given to frozen plans. What we are also saying, however, is that if you are using the more favorable rate, you have to contribute the current year's cost. That is the grand compromise of 2006. Again, the same deal was given to the other set of airlines and/or other corporations--to freeze their plan. To do otherwise would, No. 1, adversely affect active workers and, No. 2, allow these carriers to dig a deeper hole by allowing pension liabilities to continue to grow. Moreover, taxpayers can end up being on the hook for these unfunded liabilities. It all comes down to this bottom line: Workers, retirees, and taxpayers are in better shape if there is more money in the retirement plans. Workers, retirees, and taxpayers are in worse shape if there is less money in the retirement plans. Management wins if the company puts less money into the plan and workers, retirees, and taxpayers lose. A vote for this amendment is a vote to put less money in the retirement plan. A vote against this amendment is a vote to put more money in. Let me make sure I said that right. A vote for the amendment is a vote to put less money in the retirement plan. A vote against the amendment is a vote to put more money into the retirement plan. If you vote for the amendment, you are putting workers and retirees--and you ought to be concerned about taxpayers, most of all--at risk. I hope my colleagues join me in opposing this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wasn't present on the floor when the maneuvering that just took place happened that puts this Senate in a very difficult position, but it gets us into a very bad and dangerous situation. The maneuvering of the Democratic leader and floor manager that was just done is not used very often in the Senate. In fact, substituting-- putting a modification of a substitute that was agreed to by two separate committees that jointly brought this to the floor is something that I think is very unprecedented. This process of filling the tree so that only the majority party can decide what amendments can come up is not only dangerous and can keep this very important piece of legislation from being passed, but it is dangerous for the whole process of the Senate's comity in getting the job done. As I said, this substitute was the product of two committees--not one committee but two committees--and by the overwhelming support of people on those committees that we needed to not only reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and do everything we can to improve airport safety, as well as airport facilities, but also the financing of it, to make sure there is plenty of money available to get the job done. On safety at the airports, we have the Commerce Committee doing their work. On financing it, we have the tax-writing Finance Committee making sure the money is available. These two committees do their work almost in a unanimous way, and it comes to the Senate floor. That ought to be a procedure that gets this bill through this body quickly, without a lot of controversy, and by an overwhelming vote that reflects the comity that went into it and that reflects the need of the airline industry, both for commerce and for the passenger. These joint deals should not be taken lightly, and because one amendment is offered that a few powerful Senators do not like, and their unwillingness to set it aside so we could work on other amendments as we tried to work out a compromise was not accepted, they take this extraordinary measure that only a manager of a bill can do to ask to modify an amendment by taking out the provision of the bill which dealt with the Durbin amendment that was before the Senate. That is nothing else, just blatant political power to get around something that people did not want to deal with. This was something that was agreed to between the two committees. That move breaches the deal. What is more, the Democratic leader has backstopped the breach of the deal by this procedure we call ``filling the tree'' so that only amendments can be offered that can get unanimous consent to offer them, and that is very difficult to do and is only done for the sole purpose of keeping the issue dealing with the Durbin amendment from debate and finality on the floor of the Senate. All day long the floor managers could have set aside the Durbin amendment, as I said, and moved along to other business. That is what the Finance Committee does in similar situations. We have already heard speakers before me say there are very real possibilities of working out compromises on that amendment that the majority manager did not like. Let it be clear that we could have processed other business if Senator Durbin would have deferred action on his amendment, and we would have been moving along. We would not be in this position that is dangerous from two standpoints: dangerous whether or not this important legislation can be passed, and dangerous from the standpoint of working together on other legislation that needs to be done in future weeks. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to a remarkable teacher who has touched the lives of countless students in Davenport, IA. Miss Barb Hess is retiring after 46 years teaching various social studies courses at Davenport Central High School. Many of us can think back to one favorite teacher who stands out amongst all the rest; who because of a unique combination of personality and teaching skills, was able to spark an interest in a certain subject or learning in general. Miss Hess has been such a teacher for an extraordinary number of students. Her profound impact on her students and on Central High is attested to by her colleagues who wrote me an impassioned letter recounting her impressive career, as well as by a great many of her former students, including a member of my staff. In the classroom, Miss Hess commands respect and maintains discipline with only a few softly spoken but firm words, making clear that appropriate behavior is expected. She holds high academic expectations for her students, challenging them to achieve their potential. Her courses, many of which she developed herself, push students to think deeply and critically. Her students know that she expects papers to demonstrate clear writing with well reasoned arguments backed by solid research. In a time of much discussion about lack of rigor in high school coursework, Miss Hess's classes stand out as an example of rigorous preparation for higher education and other life-enriching opportunities. Her high expectations for her students are a natural outgrowth of the high expectations she sets for herself. Although Miss Hess holds both a bachelor's and a master's degree from Drake University, she has never ceased to enhance her own knowledge of the subjects she teaches. She can always spot plagiarism, often because she is intimately familiar with the original source. Outside the classroom, Miss Hess has been the adviser for the student council starting in 1974 and has advised numerous other student groups and organizations. In fact, she has organized, advised, or assisted with more functions at Davenport Central over the years than can be tallied. Barb Hess has been a loyal ``Blue Devil'' since her student days, consistently supporting sports teams, fine arts events, and other extracurricular activities over the years. Barb Hess is a fixture at Davenport Central High School, having achieved near legendary status among those familiar with the school. Her imprint on the institution will continue to be felt very strongly. Her imprint on the lives of her students will be even more enduring. The best teachers combine extensive content knowledge with a certain intangible ability to connect with students and to inspire them to excel in school and life. Miss Hess's ability to care about each student as an individual, and unique talent for bringing out the best in students of all kinds, places her among the best of the best. She will be missed in her classroom at Central High, but her legacy of improving the lives of generations of students will last forever. I thank Barb Hess for her years of service to Iowa's youth and I wish her the very best in her retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. As I told the Senator, I have to be upstairs in 5 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, transportation is an important part of the American economy. It is vital to all rural and urban communities that people are able to travel in a timely, safe, and cost efficient manner. Whether it is the businesswoman traveling to meet her clients or visit her company's plants, the tourist who wants to experience the beauty and uniqueness of our country, or the grandparents visiting their grandchildren; efficient, affordable, and safe travel is imperative. For several years we have been working on reauthorizing the aviation bill. While this process has not always been easy, I am pleased that we reached a bipartisan agreement and have a good bill before the Senate. All of us have a vested interest in ensuring a stable, dependable, and predictable revenue flow to the airport and airways trust fund. Aviation has changed since the last time Congress considered aviation legislation. This bill reshapes our system to better reflect today's realities. It provides more funding to further modernize our air traffic control systems, airports, and facilities. It also provides for more efficient and safe travel to reduce delays and ease congestion in our skies. While the United States has one of the best records for aviation safety, we need to continue to do better. We are back to the level of air traffic that we saw before 9/11 and we will likely see this number grow tremendously. In light of these capacity issues and the 1950s equipment being used to manage our skies, our Nation needs to move as quickly and prudently towards the next generation of air traffic control systems. This bill provides more funding towards this project. Now is the right time to replace the old radar technology with real time GPS technology. The American people deserve our investment in this new system. This bill also takes an honest look at the diversity of our airport system. It structures funding for the safety and fairness of every airport in America. Rural States, like Iowa, have many communities that rely on our elaborate air transportation system. People who live near hub airports have the opportunity to take advantage of air travel somewhat efficiently and at a reasonable price. However, those in rural areas have more difficulties. This challenge has become even more difficult after 9/11 when most small communities were reduced to one air carrier with less frequent flights. Commercial carriers only fly into approximately 500 airports, although that is a business choice and there are other airports they could serve. It is more expensive to do business in rural America. This bill will continue the vital programs that our rural communities rely on to keep competitive in the worldwide marketplace. Over the past decade, a new prong has developed in the aviation industry. Traditionally, the focus has been on just two main categories, commercial aviation and the private airplanes for individual or corporate use. Today, we have a growing new class of business aviation, which includes the new dynamic of fractional jet ownerships. The new business class is anticipated to grow at a faster rate than other segments of the industry. This new prong is providing valuable opportunities for businesses to enhance efficiencies and productivity, and is also a potential way for rural areas to have more transportation opportunities. While business aviation is good for and may be a saving grace for struggling rural economies, the growth of business aviation is creating more stress on our national air traffic system. This bill provides more equity by having the business sector contribute more to the funding of our aviation system. This bill not only addresses important aviation policy, it also provides the needed funding for Congress to meet the funding commitments made in the 2005 highway bill. Currently, we fund highway infrastructure through fuel and other excise taxes. With record high gas prices and more fuel efficient vehicles, the highway trust fund has not had the receipts that were anticipated in 2005. Therefore, a shortfall is anticipated for fiscal year 2009 and for future years. It is vital that the highway trust fund is kept whole through the life of the current authorization, SAFETEA-LU, so Congress can look to long-term financing solutions to meet our surface transportation needs. We need to have an important national dialogue in the next year so Congress can act in a prudent and expeditious manner on the next highway bill. Provisions included in this bill will fill the funding shortfall for fiscal year 2009. Offsets are provided so this funding will not add to the overall budget deficit. Our States need to have the certainty that this funding will be in place so they can continue with vital projects to improve safety on our Nation's bridges and roadways. In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees in working together to bring this important bill to the Senate floor. This bill is good for Iowa and the Nation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request that Michael Engel, a detailee to the Commerce Committee from the Federal Communications Commission; John Hennigan, a detailee to the Commerce Committee from the FAA; Pamela Friedmann, a detailee to the Commerce Committee from the Transportation Safety Administration; Harl Romine, a detailee to the Commerce Committee from the Coast Guard; and Charlotte Heike, a fellow for the Commerce Committee from the Sea Grant Fellowship, be granted the privilege of the floor on this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, for 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the House Energy and Commerce Committee is taking up--or maybe has already taken up--consideration of a bill, H.R. 5613. This bill seeks to place a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations until the next administration. I know some people have concerns, because I have discussed those concerns, with these CMS Medicaid regulations. So let me be very clear that I am not unsympathetic with those concerns. I am not here to argue the regulations put forth by the administration are perfect. I have issues with some of them that I wish to see addressed. However, the regulations do address areas where there are real problems with Medicaid. CMS is taking care of those problems, and we ought to let them move forward instead of delaying all of these Medicaid regulations at once. As everyone knows, Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership that provides a crucial health care safety net for some very vulnerable populations, people whom we all agree we have a social responsibility to look out for--low-income seniors, the disabled, pregnant women, and children. These classes of people depend on Medicaid, and it does generally serve them well. Medicaid is also a program with a checkered history of financial challenges that we, as fiscal conservatives--and we all brag about fiscal conservatism--ought to be concerned about, these financial challenges coming from Medicaid, sometimes not being administered the way it should be. Quite frankly, using the term ``fiscal challenges'' is a gentle way of putting it sometimes. A more severe way of putting it would be that Medicaid has a history in our respective States--not every State but a lot of States--of abusively pushing the limits of what should be allowed to maximize Federal dollars that we send to them under various formulas. I am not going to devote time in my remarks today to issues of fraud and abuse in Medicaid, but that is legitimate to talk about. I will be back with that at another time. Instead, I want to focus on a very simple concept, and that simple concept is that Medicaid program integrity depends upon the setter for Medicaid services and the States and providers and ultimately beneficiaries having a clear understanding of the rules of the road. That is what we ought to expect out of any government program, that everybody knows how that program operates. In this instance, States have not had clear guidance. In that case, they could be inappropriately spending taxpayers' dollars. Improper payments, wasteful spending--what does it do? It only increases the financial pressure on a very worthwhile safety net. The Medicaid regulations that H.R. 5613 attempts to halt would halt all efforts by CMS to provide clear rules, rules of the road in very critical areas where there have been well-documented problems and most of those problems costing the taxpayers more money. During the recent debate on the budget resolution, I entered into the Record a Congressional Research Service memo that showed some of the issues that exist under current law. I am not going to go into all of those issues today in detail because they are in the Record, but when CMS does not know how a State is billing for a service and States do not have clear guidance for how they should bill, neither Medicaid beneficiaries nor the taxpayers at the Federal or State levels are well served. We should be, in fact, talking about fixing the regulations so that they better address real problems in Medicaid. But instead, the House of Representatives is trying to kick this can down the road to next year. What does that mean for the taxpayers? H.R. 5613 spends $1.7 billion to place a short moratorium on these regulations. This is only to delay the regulations until March of next year--$1.7 billion to delay the regulations for 1 year. I know supporters hope the next administration, whichever party that might be, whichever of the three candidates still in the race might be, will completely cancel the regulations. If these regulations were canceled, what would it cost if we tried to completely prevent these regulations from ever taking effect? It would not cost just this $1.7 billion that is going to be spent between now and next March. It would actually cost the taxpayers almost $20 billion over the next 5 years and almost $50 billion over the next 10 years. It is absolutely a farce for anyone to argue that all of those dollars are being appropriately spent and that Congress ought to walk away from these issues. But that is what this bill, H.R. 5613, does; it walks away. Let's say it another way. It kicks the can down the road hoping the next President might walk away. I know supporters of that bill will say they need more time. They say they have not had enough time to study the regulations and to respond. That argument is starting to strain credibility. The public provider rule was proposed well over a year ago to study and react. The rehabilitation services rule was proposed 9 months ago for people in the House of Representatives to respond to and react. Supporters of that bill have had plenty of time; that is, plenty of time if they wanted to make new policy. But it is obvious by these actions that their only real interest is in making these regulations go away. This is very unfortunate because finding solutions is what we should be doing instead of kicking the can down the road. When we start talking about the integrity of the Medicaid Program, it is clarity of the rules that is most needed between the Center for Medicaid Services and our 50 States. So if you do not like the rules, that is fine, but there are tens of billions of dollars involved in this delay. I say to my colleagues: Roll up your sleeves, or maybe I should say roll up our sleeves and let us all get to work to solve a problem that the regulations try to solve instead of kicking the can down the road. That is what we should be doing for the taxpayers. That is what we should be doing for the credibility of the Medicaid Program, a Medicaid Program that is needed, a Medicaid Program, for the most part, that serves people well. Contrariwise, putting moratoriums on all the Medicaid regulations issued by the Center for Medicaid Services is not the right answer. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues on this side of the aisle have spoken today about tax issues because today is the day for filing income tax. I think it is appropriate that we remind each other about a lot of tax issues that are very important that we have to decide this year, next year, and the following, or we are going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. We are taking the opportunity on April 15 to talk about those. When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked to get through a narrowly divided Senate the biggest tax cut in a generation. We reduced income tax rates for individual taxpayers. We created the first ever 10-percent bracket for lower income workers so they didn't have to pay as much tax as they would at the 15-percent bracket on their first dollars earned. We reduced the marriage penalty because we don't think one ought to pay more taxes because they are married. We created a deduction for college tuition. We also passed a deduction for schoolteachers buying supplies for their classrooms. I could go on with a lot of other provisions in those tax bills, but they have all had good economic consequences. We ought to consider that they should not sunset. Now I and others are at work to make sure this tax relief is extended. If it is allowed to expire, Americans will be hit with the biggest tax increase in history. That is one thing. But it is quite another thing that this is going to happen without a vote of Congress. In other words, on that magic date of sunset, we go back to levels of taxation as they were before January 1, 2001, and we automatically, without a vote of Congress, end up with the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. People say: Well, we are going to continue existing tax law. They need to be intellectually honest and tell people that when they are doing that, they are going to allow the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. We can intervene. We need to intervene. It is my goal to intervene. The last thing families need, the last thing small businesses need, the last thing investors need is a tax increase. But that is what will happen this year and in 2010, if Congress doesn't act. Last week the Senate demonstrated support for extending current law tax relief without offsets, when it voted on energy tax incentives, things that are meant to make the United States more energy efficient and less dependent upon foreign sources of energy. That same approach demonstrated last week, extending current tax law relief without offsets, should rightfully apply to other expiring tax provisions, including the research and development tax credit and the individual tax provisions I have already mentioned. I will be working hard to see that that does happen so taxpayers don't get hit with even higher taxes. I learned a long time ago that you can't raise taxes high enough to satisfy the appetite of Congress to spend money. Stopping the tax increases that people say we are not voting for, we are only allowing present law, which means the biggest tax increase in the history of the country will happen without a vote of the people, we can do something about it. We ought to do something about it. Stopping these tax increases ought to be a major goal. Maybe taxes should not be lowered. Nobody is talking about lowering taxes. But we ought to keep the present level of taxation, because it has been good for the economy. It has been good for the taxpayers, because we do not see a revolt going on by taxpayers as we have seen in recent years in the Congress. I yield the floor.