Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in my letters, I ask for an explanation of their policies that are seemingly used to block alternative fuels. I hope to get a thorough explanation as to why these CEOs led me, led the Senate Judiciary Committee members, and the American people to believe they support making E85 available to their customers when there is plenty of evidence that they do not practice what they preach, that they do not practice what they told our committee under oath. What I am afraid of is that these companies are not serious about expanding the availability and use of alternative fuels. I say this for a couple reasons. First, if one takes a close look at the E85 stations in my home State of Iowa, it is rather telling. I have a map. What might look like missiles are ears of corn because ethanol comes from corn. We have 65 stations in Iowa selling E85 today. Only one of those 65 stations selling is a major branded station, and it is down where the yellow arrow is--only one of 65. A second reason I am skeptical of big oil's claims comes straight from the words of their chief lobbyist, the head of the American Petroleum Institute. Red Cavaney recently stated that there is not enough ethanol or flex-fuel vehicles available to economically justify widespread installation of E85 pumps. For argument's sake, let's assume that is an accurate statement. Why, then, would big oil undertake such an effort to block independent station owners from deciding for themselves whether to invest in the infrastructure? Let the station owners make that decision. Let's not have, as this article in the Wall Street Journal implies, all these obstacles, particularly since we were led to believe when they testified under oath before our committee that they were fully cooperating with allowing the installation of E85 pumps. If big oil sees no competitive threat from E85 pumps, why not just let the independent-minded station owner decide if there is a demand for the product? The market will make that decision. Why erect all these discriminatory tactics if you believe there is no threat from alternative fuels? When I get answers to my letters--and I am going to wait until I get all the answers back before I draw any conclusions--maybe they will say the Wall Street Journal article is wrong. I hope that is what I find out and that they did not mislead us under oath when they testified before the committee. All I can say is, as I conclude, if our Nation is serious about reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and imported crude oil, more must be done to expand the infrastructure for ethanol and particularly E85. America's farmers are demonstrating daily their desire to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more corn in the United States. More acres of corn were planted this year than any time since 1944. And our ethanol industry has invested to make sure we can be less dependent on imported crude oil. So I look forward to hearing from big oil companies on what they are doing to help. I hope I get answers that are contrary to what the Wall Street Journal said. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak longer than 10 minutes. I don't intend to speak for more than 25 minutes and maybe not that long. I would at least like to have the freedom of going beyond 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I announce to the Senate today that SPC David W. Behrle has lost his life in Iraq. David Behrle died in the service of his country, and it is absolutely appropriate that we take this opportunity to salute his patriotism and his sacrifice. Specialist Behrle died Saturday night, May 19, 2007, after his patrol vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. My thoughts, prayers, and sincere condolences go out to his mother, Dixie Pelzer of Tipton, IA, and his father, John Behrle of Columbus, NE, as well as the Tipton community that is now dealing with the loss of their second native son in Iraq. While we try to prepare ourselves for the loss of life that comes with war, it is impossible to prepare for the very personal experience of losing a young life so close to home. David is best described by a former classmate as ``not only our class president, he's now our class hero.'' He served his country with vigor and enthusiasm, and his presence will be missed in both Tipton and our Armed Forces.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about another potential failure by the FDA that may have endangered the lives of millions of Americans. Avandia is a drug that was approved by the FDA in 1999. It is a diabetes drug and is used to lower blood sugar. This is important because lowering a diabetic's blood sugar can help prevent or at least postpone two of the biggest killers among diabetics: heart attacks and strokes. But today, Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and the immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, and his colleague, Ms. Kathy Wolski, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that there is a serious problem with Avandia. Avandia, according to Dr. Nissen and Ms. Wolski is increasing the likelihood that a diabetic will have a heart attack and maybe even die. I want everyone to pay attention to the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine accepted this analysis of Avandia on a ``fast track'' review. The New England Journal of Medicine did that because it was requested by the authors and because in its opinion, the analysis of adverse effects related to Avandia suggests serious patient health risks. Dr. Nissen and Ms. Wolski based their finding on an analysis of 42 clinical trials. FDA also decided to say something to the American people today in response to Dr. Nissen's analysis. Around 1 p.m. today, the FDA told the American people that they intend to call for an advisory board meeting to discuss Avandia and that they could not yet reach a ``firm conclusion'' on what to recommend to people taking Avandia. It was interesting to listen to the call because Dr. Dal Pan, who is the head of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, didn't say a word, although he is in charge of postmarketing surveillance. I guess the FDA thinks that the decision to go to an advisory committee meeting takes the heat off what looks like another failed decisionmaking process. We will see. Avandia has a long history. It has been on the market for about 8 years. Tens of millions of prescriptions have been written for Avandia, and Medicare and Medicaid have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for this drug. There have been many clinical trials involving Avandia over the years and there have been numerous postmarketing changes to Avandia's label. I also understand that FDA has known about the possibility of problems with this drug since about October 2005. That is about 19 months ago. The article appearing today in the New England Journal of Medicine raises a lot of serious questions for me about the real story behind the safety of Avandia. When I couple that article with the FDA conference call that ducked lots of questions I become very suspicious. Over the last 3 years, my investigations into the FDA showed that the agency was too cozy with the drug industry and did not always put safety of the American people first. The FDA is supposed to regulate the drug industry, but in the case of Vioxx, just to name one debacle, American lives were endangered unnecessarily. My question today is, Do we have another Vioxx on our hands with Avandia? I am not sure, but I intend to find out. In fact, today Senator Baucus and I sent out several document requests including one to the FDA and one to the drug sponsor. We want to understand what did FDA know about this drug, when did it know it, and what did it do about it? The authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article report a 43 percent increase in the risk of myocardial infarction/heart attack and potentially a 64 percent increase in the risk of cardiovascular death. I need the FDA to tell me why a diabetic would take a drug that may increase the risk of the very thing they are trying to avoid--a heart attack. I also want to know why the FDA did not require the drug sponsor to conduct long-term safety studies instead of small, short- term trials that resulted in few adverse cardiovascular events or death. I want to know what the FDA has been doing for the last 18 months. We want to know the same from the drug sponsor. Interestingly, in an editorial that accompanied the study, two other veterans of the Vioxx controversy--Dr. Bruce Psaty of the University of Washington and Dr. Furberg of Wake Forest University--write that: ``. . . the rationale for prescribing rosiglitazone at this time is unclear.'' Additionally they call for the FDA to take regulatory action and note that bigger and better long-term studies of long-term treatments for conditions such as diabetes should be completed as soon as possible after a drug is approved. Let me also say something else to all those FDA employees trying to do their job who probably know the answers to many of my questions: Please feel free to call the Finance Committee if you have any information about this drug and how the FDA handled the situation. You can also call or contact us anonymously if you want. If you want to fax information to me, here is my fax number: 202-228-2131. We welcome your help and insight because I know that many of you want to protect the American public first and foremost and sometimes that is not as easy as it should be at the FDA. You will also remember that just a few weeks ago I came before the Senate several times to talk about drug safety. I told everyone then-- as we were discussing S. 1082, a bill that was intended to dramatically improve postmarketing drug safety, that I was concerned that the bill would not do that. In my mind and in light of all the work I have done over the past 3 years on the FDA, I told everyone that the litmus test for me was whether or not the new drug safety bill would prevent another Vioxx. My position has consistently been that S. 1082 did not go far enough and would not prevent another Vioxx. That was why I proposed and insisted on a vote giving joint authority between the office that approves new drugs for the market and the office that is responsible for postmarket safety. Forty-six Senators listened to what I had to say, but I was one vote short and the amendment did not pass. Drs. Psaty and Furberg also said in their editorial, and I quote, ``On May 10, 2007, the Senate passed the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. Although the Senate bill has many strengths, including the allocation of new authority to the FDA, none of its provisions would necessarily have identified the cardiovascular risks of rofecoxib or rosiglitazone in a timely fashion.'' The drug industry has brought us miracle drugs. These drugs have vastly improved the lives of millions throughout the world. At the same time, we all know that drugs have risks and benefits. Each of us tries to consider those risks and benefits when we consult with our doctors to make the best decision for ourselves or our family members as to whether we will take a particular drug. But we can't do what is best for ourselves or our family members if we don't know all the relevant information in a timely manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, look up Senator Stevens' name in media reports and you will find a long list of adjectives: tenacious, temperamental, scrappy, gruff, hot-tempered, tireless. And you will come across a long list of nicknames: one of the Senate's ``old bulls'' for his institutional knowledge, ``Uncle Ted'' to the people of Alaska who are grateful for his aggressive advocacy for their interests, pioneer for flying Army Air Corps missions during World War II and migrating to our rugged 49th State after law school, a mentor to up- and-coming elected officials, reportedly by his wife, a nutrition enthusiast for his devoted consumption of greens and whole grains, in the case of his longtime friend, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, ``my brother.'' I would like to add a few adjectives of my own. First, Ted Stevens is an Alaskan. It is impossible to think of Alaska without thinking of its senior Senator. Alaska and Ted Stevens are inseparable. Anyone who knows Senator Stevens knows he wakes up every morning fighting for the people of Alaska and doesn't stop until he sleeps, which apparently isn't much. Their commercial industry, health care, electricity, water, transportation--even the cost of rural mail delivery--all earn his scrutiny. He has delivered again and again on policy to improve Alaskans' quality of life. Second, and just as important, Ted Stevens is loyal. He is loyal to the institution of the United States Senate. Bipartisanship is natural for him. He understands that the art of compromise is critical to getting things done. For example, he is known to have helped reach a bipartisan deal on how to conduct the impeachment trial of President Clinton to minimize the partisan bickering that would have sullied the Senate and made a tense time even more tense. He is more than willing to look across the aisle and find kinship with people of like interests. His friendship with Senator Inouye, a Democrat, is steadfast and legendary. They have found plenty of common ground in delivering good policy to the people of their uniquely situated States. Despite what seems like a gruff exterior sometimes, Senator Stevens has a reputation for extending generous kindness to his colleagues, such as flying across country to attend the funeral of a former Senator whose vote had once been helpful. Senator Stevens' approach to policymaking is guided by Rotary International's ``Four-Way Test,'' a copy of which is framed on his desk in the Senate Chamber. The test reads: ``Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?'' That four-way test was written in 1932, but like Senator Stevens--and here are more adjectives--it is common sense, inspirational, and timeless.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the last 26 years, the budget resolution provided the necessary resources to allow the committee that I used to chair and now am ranking member on, the Finance Committee, jurisdiction over taxes. It provided us the necessary resources, usually in a bipartisan manner, to realistically address the demands of tax, trade, health and welfare policies--all things within the jurisdiction of our committee. So reading this budget compromise, I am very disappointed to say that this year is very much different than over the last few years. Now, I know the people spoke in November, and for the first time in 12 years the Democrats are in the majority and in control of the congressional budget process. As ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, I was not consulted at any point by our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee on this year's budget resolution. Unfortunately, after reviewing the resolution conference agreement, the agreement that is before us now, it is clear it does not realistically address the needs of the very important work of the Finance Committee. Despite claims to the contrary, this budget does not provide for even 1 year, not even 1 year of alternative minimum tax relief, the tax that is going to hit 23 million Americans this very year, right now, who were not paying that AMT last year. Now, that is even for 1 year, let alone 2 years or even a 1-year extension of the provisions that will expire this year. So this budget puts the burden on the Finance Committee, the tax-writing committee, to come up with the offsets to pay for the alternative minimum tax relief and for other extenders that it is necessary for us to pass. On these immediate needs, on the AMT and other extenders, the Democratic Budget Committee's press release says: AMT relief. The conference agreement prevents the spread of the alternative minimum tax so that it does not impose a higher tax on middle income families. It ensures that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will not be allowed to increase in 2007, protecting some 20 million middle class taxpayers from being subject to that tax. Now, if that were really happening, I would applaud it. I have looked over the resolution, I have looked over the statement of managers, and I cannot find the basis for what is in the press release. If you look at the numbers, unlike the past 6 years of Republican budgets, you will not find tax relief room to accommodate the alternative minimum tax. You will not find any tax relief room for anything, including very important extenders which are popular around here which everyone wants to extend from year to year. The chairman, I am sure, will respond that the Finance Committee tax tab will find revenue-raising offsets. More on that in a few minutes. Without question, however, this resolution does not provide the tax- writing committees of both Houses with the resources to prevent the spread of the alternative minimum tax for this year or next year to those more than 23 million middle-income taxpayers who were never supposed to be paying the alternative minimum tax. It is simply not in the black-and-white print of this resolution, regardless of what the press releases say. Let's turn to the offset point. As a farmer, I would like to think we country folks can teach people in the city a lesson or two. The first chart involves the method a lot of us farmers use to get water. It is a well. Here is the top of the well. I am pointing to the top of the well. You can see it is a long well, and there is some water way down at the bottom of the well, but you will see the well is almost dry. Now, as I indicated a few months ago, the budget resolution does not contain tax relief room sufficient to cover the revenue loss of the alternative minimum tax and other time-sensitive tax extenders. What we are told by those who drew up this budget is that the tax-writing committees will find the money. The offset well shows about $44 billion in known, identified, and scored revenue-raisers which the Senate Democratic caucus has supported in the past. I used this chart about 2 months ago. Now I have updated it to account for $2 billion in new revenue-raisers developed by the Finance Committee tax tab. That figure of $1 billion a month is in line with historical averaging. How reliable is that average, and can we count on it? As a farmer, I know something about the predictability of well water. You hope you will get rain and it will give you a decent level of well water. As a former chairman and now ranking member of the committee, I know something about revenue-raisers. I have been here, done that, been through all of that. When I was chairman, I aggressively led efforts to identify and enact sensible revenue-raisers aimed at closing the tax gap and shutting down tax shelters. As ranking member, I continue to look for ways to shut off unintended tax benefits. So I consider myself to be credible on what is realistic when it comes to revenue-raisers. From 2001 through 2006, Congress extended over 100 offsets with combined revenue scores of $1.7 billion over 1 year, $51 billion over 5 years, and $157 billion over 10 years. That figure is reflected in this chart. It is reflected in that $51 billion figure you have up there at the top. So if you look at the recent history, we can realistically figure the tax tab will find about $1 billion a month. Right now, all we can find that is specified, drafted and scored by the scorers of the Joint Tax Committee is a big amount of money, but compared to what is needed, a mere $44 billion. The revenue-raising well shows about $44 billion in available, defined, and scored offsets at the waterline there. The defenders of this resolution now will say a virtual cornucopia of revenue-raisers is there in this well from the tax gap and shutting down offshore tax scams. I take a backseat to no one on reducing the tax gap and shutting down offshore tax shelters. I have the scars to show for those efforts over the past few years. But the defined and scored tax gap proposals are already included. That is that figure of $6 billion up there on the chart. Likewise, a proposal targeting tax- haven countries and other offshore activities is included at $2 billion. The well has, then, about $44 billion of offset water. This budget anticipates a Congress which will be thirsty for this limited group of offsets. On the thirst or demand side, you will see the bucket will be very busy. On the demand side, I have talked about the alternative minimum tax fix. There is $115 billion for that fix for this year and next year. That is what it is going to take to get that job done, the $115 billion there. That is the biggest sum of money which is going to be demanded. There is $20 billion for other extenders that run out at the end of the year. Then there is $15 billion for Children's Health Insurance Program expansion, and there is another $30 billion for the rest of the so-called reserve funds. Here is a chart that lists the other 20-some- odd reserve funds. You can see there is a massive demand for revenue out there. Each of these reserve funds are an arena for popular new spending and maybe new taxes. I will not take the time to read them all, but veterans, affordable housing, Indian claims settlement, childcare--all have a basis in this budget. Every one of those would be popular expenditures. Since we know from almost a decade of fiscal history that the Democratic leadership can't propose spending cuts, we know the new reserve fund spending will be paid for with tax increases. These figures reflect only the demands of the first year of a 5-year budget. If you add them up, they add up to $180 billion in demand on the spending and tax side. As you can see, there is about $44 billion in revenue offsets. If you assume the tax staff will follow the historical average of $1 billion per month, then figure about $15 billion more at best. So if we assume, in a manner most favorable to the proponents of the resolution, that there will be $59 billion, then this budget is short by $121 billion for the first year of the 5-year budget. The demands on the tax-and-spending side then exceed projected offsets by $121 billion for the first year of the resolution. It is time for all of us to get real about what the proposed spending is in this budget, the needs for tax policy that is promised in this budget, and the small amount of offsets that are available. So what is going to happen? How do we bridge that $121 billion gap? Either the tax relief and new spending is not going to happen or we will add that to the deficit. That is a frightening proposition, adding it to the deficit. Let's take a look at the rest of the agenda to those numbers. Over the 5-year budget, going out to the year 2012, keeping existing policies in place will have a revenue effect of $916 billion. This includes AMT relief, if they are serious about not having those 23 million middle-income people paying taxes that they were never supposed to pay in the first place, and extending other broadly supported expiring positions. In the aggregate, this budget appears to provide $180 billion in new resources for extending these policies over the 5- year window. Look further and you will find a trigger. It is the very trigger I talked about last week. Senator Gregg described in great detail how the trigger will work. Suffice it to say the trigger conditions the $180 billion in tax relief targeted for 2011 on no future spending. Is that the real world, no future spending? Does anyone believe this Democratic majority will not spend future tax increases if given a chance? If your answer is yes, then you are buying a pig in a poke. A pig in a poke is what you are going to get, if you believe that. If you think you are going to get a pig, you are going to get cheated. And I have grown a few pigs in my day, so I know the difference between a pig and a pig in a poke. This trigger mechanism is a pig in a poke. Don't buy it. You will regret it. So we have a situation where we have $736 billion that we have to figure out what to do about. It is not done about in this budget. You have to deal with tax realities, if you are going to give this sort of tax relief. The answer is that we are going to have to find this money, and it is not here. So it is not a real budget.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I was struck by the exchange between the Senators from North Dakota regarding abusive leasing transactions called SILOs and so-called corporate inversion transactions. They seemed to express dismay that this body can't shut down these deals. Listening to them, it seemed like they had no idea that: No. 1, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 stopped the SILO deals on a prospective basis--no new deals can be done after March 12, 2004. As enacted, JCT scored this provision as raising $7 billion over 5 years and $27 billion over 10 years. No. 2, the Senate-passed version of the JOBS bill, which received the vote of 92 Senators, would have shut off future tax benefits from foreign SILO deals, like the deals for European sewer systems and townhalls, that were entered into before March 12, 2004, but the Republican House conferees blocked it. No. 3, the American Jobs Creation Act also stopped corporate inversion transactions for deals done after March 4, 2003, raising $830 million over 10 years, according to JCT. No. 4, the Senate-passed JOBS bill would have applied the anti- inversion legislation back to March 20, 2002, when I put companies on notice that legislation would shut these deals down. No. 5, just this year, the Senate passed a minimum wage/small business bill, which had the vote of 94 Senators. One provision in that bill would shut off future tax benefits for foreign SILOs. That provision would raise about $4 billion over 5 and 10 years. Another provision would have denied prospective tax benefits for inversions entered into after March 20, 2002. That provision would have raised over $1 billion. But the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee refuses to agree with the Senate on these points. In fact, he held a hearing earlier this year to sympathize with lobbyists wanting to preserve these illicit tax benefits. So, in this body, there is near unanimous agreement that Congress should act to stop the future tax benefits from foreign SILOs no matter when they were entered into. So I am not sure what the Senators from North Dakota are complaining about. They should be complaining to their brethren across the Capitol, not this body. The North Dakota Senators are preaching to the choir when it comes to shutting down tax shelters. Look at my track record. Nobody has been more of a tax shelter hawk than me when it comes to Senate-passed and enacted legislation. I want to close the tax gap. I want to shut down tax shelters. My track record proves that. But we need to be realistic in looking at the amount of JCT scored revenue we can expect to get with sensible, effective legislation. But the assumptions in this budget are just not realistic. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman made a couple of comments on the charts I used a short time ago. The senior Senator from North Dakota stated first the chart incorrectly reflected the SCHIP number. The number used in the chart reflects an estimate of the first year, fiscal year 2008, of the Democratic SCHIP proposal. In addition, the senior Senator from North Dakota said the chart reflected 2 years of the AMT patch. He was correct. These are, however, 2 years of the patch, tax years 2007 and 2008, to consider with respect to fiscal year 2008.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke to my colleagues on fleshing out some of the options that may be circulating among the current Democratic majority in the other body, meaning the House of Representatives, for resolving the crescendo of the alternative minimum tax crisis that faces us right now in May of 2007, and for all the months before--and if we do not do something, all the months for the rest of this year, in which 23 million taxpayers who do not pay the alternative minimum tax, will be hit by it. These are 23 million people who were never intended to pay the alternative minimum tax because they are not considered the superwealthy. As I said earlier this week, I do not like what I am hearing about what is going on in the other body, what they may put on the table in terms of paying for the alternative minimum tax, and the solution for that problem that is a fact of tax law right now. However, I want to make perfectly clear a point on which I agree with the other party and the other body. I completely agree that dealing with the AMT is a priority issue and that Congress needs to address it. The alternative minimum tax is an absolutely maddening tax that has insidiously crept into the homes of more and more families each year. I have spoken on this floor about its repeal--about its repeal--because, No. 1, it is hitting people it was not intended to hit, and also there are thousands it was intended to hit who have found ways out of paying the alternative minimum tax. So then you get into the ridiculous situation of people paying it who are not superrich, and you have superrich people it was intended to hit in 1969, when it was first put in place, who have found ways around it. So if it ``ain't'' working, then it is obviously broken, and you need to fix it. The numbers of families paying the alternative minimum tax will rise from 4 million families, last year, to 23 million families in 2007-- unless we take legislative action. Chairman Baucus, my Democratic leader in our committee, and I introduced legislation on the first day of the 110th Congress to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax beginning in the 2007 tax year. But, of course, it does not appear that the Democratic leadership is eager to take up that legislation. In each of the past 6 years, Congress has, in fact, passed legislation which at least for a temporary period of time successfully kept more people from paying the alternative minimum tax by increasing the amount of income that is exempt from the alternative minimum tax. In other words, by increasing the exempt amount, additional people were not hit by the alternative minimum tax. These temporary exemptions that have happened over the last 6 years have prevented the alternative minimum tax from harming more and more middle-class Americans. Most recently, Congress acted to prevent millions of taxpayers from receiving a surprise on their 2006 tax returns by including an extension of this temporary AMT exemption increase in what is called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. In that 2005 bill, the exemption for married couples filing jointly was increased from $58,000 to $62,550 for the 2006 tax year. This week marks the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of that bill in 2005--well, actually, it was not signed by the President until 2006. Nearly 20 million American families who were exempt from the AMT because of the temporary exemption increase in 2006 knew at this time last year Congress was moving to not tax many more millions of people by the alternative minimum tax in last year's tax earnings season. This year, those families have no such assurance because the Democratic leadership--now in the majority as a result of the last election--in this Congress does not appear to be moving any legislation to address the alternative minimum tax. Some of you may wonder why this is a pressing issue. Maybe you take the view that you need not address this because the AMT is such a stealth tax that millions of Americans who are going to owe AMT for 2007 have not even thought of that issue yet. It is something for which you might get the rude awakening after the first of next year as you prepare your income tax, and all of a sudden--boom--23 million more Americans are hit by this tax. So you do not worry about it during this 12 months. But do not play the American people for a fool. I can understand why the taxpayers may not be thinking about it because for the past 6 years, as a second point, the Congress has addressed the issue on a timely basis, and the taxpayers did not miss a beat. When the Republicans were in the majority, American families could count on Congress to make sure this AMT issue was taken care of. Now, it is nearing the summertime under Democratic leadership, and there is no clear path to a credible temporary or permanent solution. We need to address this now for the folks who do not even know what is about to hit them in the year 2007. And some were hit in April already. I will explain that. That is why it cannot wait. It is here and now for some taxpayers. I hope, however, my colleagues have heard, then, from some of these constituents who are being hit by it. That happened through the estimated tax payment in April 2007, when at least some Americans were hit with paying this when they prepared that estimated tax payment you do four times a year. Those families have made that first payment and are painfully aware, then, of Congress's failure to act on the AMT this year, whereas 12 months ago we had already acted. Until recently, I had hoped the Senate was unified in not wanting to collect the AMT for this year or any year in the future. On March 23-- almost 2 months ago--I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Senate budget resolution that would have required Congress to stop spending amounts that are scheduled to come into Federal coffers through the alternative minimum tax. The legitimacy of that amendment was based on the proposition that the budget, which we just adopted today, the conference report--assumes these 23 million Americans are going to pay this tax they were never intended to pay. So get it out of the budget if you are taxing people who are not superrich and who were not supposed to pay it in the first place, and particularly when a few thousand of the superrich have even found ways to get legally around not paying a tax that was intended for them to pay. My amendment was not adopted because I think if my amendment had been adopted, we would have some honesty in the budgeting process. However, not a single one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted in its favor. On the House side, we hear the Ways and Means Committee is doing a lot of talking about the alternative minimum tax, but they have yet to move to action. It has been reported that House Democrats plan to exempt everyone who earns less than $250,000 from the AMT. Now, that is not eliminating it like I want to do, but it sounds to me as if that is a step in the right direction. However, the new Democratic majority has pledged to offset any tax cuts. Some staggering proposals are bouncing around to offset a $250,000 exemption from the AMT. I outlined two of them on Monday when I spoke to my colleagues. One option would raise the top marginal income tax rate to over 46 percent--a rate that we have not seen since it was 50 percent between 1963 and 1981. Now, that 46 percent is up from the 35-percent marginal tax rate under current law. There is another option the House may be considering, and that is to raise the top alternative minimum tax rate to 37 percent, up from 28 percent under current law. I have to believe that anyone would shy away from actually proposing a double-digit tax rate increase. So let's take a minute to explore another approach we have heard floated for alternative minimum tax relief--paying for it by raising marginal tax rates on the top three income tax brackets. Except for that 35 percent bracket, you are definitely talking about raising the tax on middle-income people to pay for or to offset the alternative minimum tax, now hitting those same middle-income people who were not intended to pay it in the first place. Raising the top three income tax brackets--I do not know why Congress would want to raise taxes on top income tax brackets, let alone on the top three brackets. However, if that idea is getting serious attention, then we need to look behind the lipstick and examine the pig. So I have a chart in the Chamber to show you how many taxpayers would be impacted. In 2004, there were nearly 6 million individuals and families in the top three tax brackets. If you go through an analysis to show what the grim scenario of raising taxes on the top three income tax brackets might look like, it is not a very good picture. There is another chart which lays out the numbers on an option prepared by the Tax Policy Center. I do not want you to think I am highlighting a partisan Republican analysis. The Tax Policy Center has undertaken an extensive analysis of multiple options on the alternative minimum tax. I think it would be more than fair to say they are a group that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often look to for reasoned analysis of policy issues. In fact, I believe they recently testified at the Ways and Means Committee in the other body on precisely this point. They outlined many options in their study, and this is just one that I want to walk through for illustration purposes. This option--they call it the ``broad reform and increase top income tax rates'' option--would reduce the number of AMT taxpayers by almost 90 percent in the year 2007. So that would mean you would have 300,000 people paying the alternative minimum tax instead of the 23 million middle-income taxpayers who are being hit with it right now, as I speak. Only 100,000 taxpayers with incomes below $200,000 would owe the alternative minimum tax under their plan. Again, I think this is a step in the right direction, until you take a look at their plan to offset it, to offset this AMT relief. The plan would raise income tax rates on 6 million families in the top three income tax brackets. This chart shows then where the ordinary tax rates would go as a result of this suggestion. For taxpayers in the current 28 percent bracket, and that includes single taxpayers earning $74,000 and married families earning $124,000, their tax rates would increase from 28 percent to 35.4 percent. That is higher than the current tax rate for the wealthiest Americans under present law. The current 33-percent bracket would go up to 41 percent, and the top tax bracket would go from the current 35 percent up to 45 percent. So again we would be facing another option that requires a double-digit, marginal tax rate increase. So while I applaud the efforts of many to analyze potential AMT solutions, I urge my colleagues to be aware of anyone bearing marginal tax rate increases in their basket of goodies to solve this horrendous problem of 23 million middle-income taxpayers paying the alternative minimum tax. It was never supposed to be paid by middle-income people because it was a tax reserved for the superwealthy in 1969, numbering about 155 people. So how do you get from 155 people to 23 million people, if the tax policies are working the way they were intended to work? Now, there is another alternative, and that is something Congress isn't apt to do and something in the budget that was adopted shows that the majority is not inclined to do. But Congress should control spending and stop budgeting with revenues flowing in on the ledger from the AMT instead of increasing taxes to solve the problem. AMT tax relief that relies on increases in ordinary tax rates to move the ball turns out to be no tax relief at all. I think we have the issue of whether we want to keep this economy going, and I speak of Chairman Greenspan. Maybe he was beyond his chairmanship when he said that the tax policies of 2001 and 2003 were responsible for the 7.8 million jobs, the growth in the economy that we have now, and bringing in three-quarters of a trillion dollars of revenue that nobody anticipated would be coming in when we gave those tax reductions. So why would you want to raise the marginal tax rates when Chairman Greenspan says the lower rates are responsible for the revitalization of the economy and kill the goose that laid the golden egg? It doesn't make sense. Those are the ideas that are floating around this Hill to solve the problem of 23 million Americans being hit by a tax they were never intended to pay, counting revenue coming in from people who were never intended to pay it to show that the budget is balanced. Intellectually dishonest? Yes. Fraudulent? Yes. It is something that is unexplainable. Yet we are stuck with it and it ought to end. It is not going to end until we repeal a tax that shouldn't be on the books in the first place because it isn't hitting all of the superwealthy the way it was intended to, and it is beginning to hit 23 million middle-income people, and in the process, when you start raising taxes like that on that group of people, pretty soon you are going to ruin the middle class. The middle class is the stability of any society in the world, but particularly in the last 150 years, it has been the stability of America's society. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to introduce an important piece of legislation aimed at closing a loophole in our securities laws. This bill, The Hedge Fund Registration Act, is pretty simple. It's only two pages long. All it does is clarify that the Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority to require hedge funds to register, so the government knows who they are and what they're doing. Technically speaking, this bill would amend section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. It would narrow the current exemption from registration for certain investment advisers. This exemption is used by large, private pooled investment vehicles, commonly referred to as ``hedge funds.'' Hedge funds are operated by advisers who manage billions of dollars for groups of wealthy investors in total secrecy. They should at least have to register with the SEC, like other investment advisors do. Currently, the exemption applies to any investment adviser who had fewer than 15 clients in the preceding year and who does not hold himself out to the public as an investment adviser. The Hedge Fund Registration Act narrows this exemption and closes a loophole in the securities laws these hedge funds use to avoid registering with the SEC and operate in secret. Much has been reported during the last few years regarding hedge funds and the market power they yield because of the large amounts of capital they invest. In fact, some estimates are that these pooled investment vehicles account for nearly 30 percent of the daily trades in U.S. financial markets. The power and influence of that amount of volume is not some passing fad. It represents a new element in our financial markets. Congress needs to ensure that the SEC knows who is controlling these massive pools of money to ensure the integrity and security of the markets. The failure of Amaranth and the increasing interest in hedge funds as investment vehicles for public pension money means that this is not just a high stakes game for the super rich. Hedge funds affect regular investors. They affect the markets as a whole. My recent oversight of the SEC has convinced me that the Commission and the Self-Regulatory Organizations, SROs, need much more information about the activities of hedge funds in order to protect the markets from institutional insider trading and other potential abuses. This legislation is one small, simple step toward greater transparency. All it does is require that hedge funds register and tell the regulators who they are. This is not a burden. It is just common sense. Organizations that wield hundreds of billions of dollars in market power every day need to register with the agency that Americans rely on to regulate the financial markets. The SEC has already attempted to do this by regulation. Congress needs to act because of a decision made last year by a Federal appeals court. In 2006, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an SEC administrative rule that required registration of hedge funds. That decision effectively ended all registration of hedge funds with the SEC, unless and until Congress takes action. The Hedge Fund Registration Act would respond to that court decision by narrowing the current registration exemption and bring much needed transparency to hedge funds. Most people say the devil is in the details. Well here they are. This bill would authorize the SEC to require all investment advisers, including hedge fund managers, to register with the SEC. Only those that meet all four of the following criteria would be exempt: 1. managed less than $50 million, 2. had fewer than 15 clients, 3. did not hold himself out to the public as an investment advisor, and 4. managed the assets for fewer than 15 investors, regardless of whether investment is direct or through a pooled investment vehicle, such as a hedge fund. The Hedge Fund Registration Act is a first step in ensuring that the SEC simply has clear authority to do what it already tried to do. Congress must act to ensure that our laws are kept up to date as new types of investments appear. That said, this legislation didn't have many friends the last time I introduced it as an amendment. These funds don't want people to know what they do and have fought hard to keep it that way. Well, I think that is all the more reason to shed some sunlight on them to see what they're up to. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, as we work to protect all investors, large and small.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have addressed my colleagues many times over the past few months to advocate for the American families who will pay the alternative minimum tax in 2007. You have all heard me say the AMT is an absolutely maddening tax that has insidiously crept into the homes of more and more families each year and that it should be repealed. The AMT was first installed by Congress in 1969. It created a two- tiered tax system, and that tax system still exists. It essentially pieced together a backup tax to ensure that the wealthiest taxpayers among us did not evade income taxes altogether through the use of tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions--albeit all legal--in the labyrinth of the Federal Tax Code. The road to tax fairness is paved with good intentions, but this one--the AMT--has created a giant-sized pothole that is going to drive middle-income taxpayers batty. Unlike the Federal income tax, the AMT is not indexed for inflation. That means more and more middle-income taxpayers are being slapped with higher tax rates and fewer exemptions, credits, and deductions as they fall under the creeping shadow of this 36-year-old stealth tax. On top of the unfair tax burden is its mind-boggling complexity. No wonder the AMT is causing major heartburn among more and more families across America, especially those who live in high-tax States and have three or four children. That is because the AMT causes taxpayers to lose standard deductions for State and local tax payments and for personal exemptions, even including spouses and children. In 2004, about 3 million taxpayers--about 2 percent of all taxpayers--were subject to the AMT. But without congressional action, up to 23 million taxpayers are, right now, subjected to the AMT during this 2007 tax year. In order to prevent this, my friend and chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, and I introduced legislation on the first day of the 110th Congress to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax beginning in the 2007 tax year. My colleagues have also heard me say the AMT has expanded beyond its original intent and that it is now a tax that Congress never intended to collect--meaning they never intended to collect it from 23 million taxpayers who are right now hit with it, who would not have been hit with it before, and were never intended to be hit with it. Over the past 6 years, Congress has had to enact a series of what I call ``patches'' to prevent the AMT from hitting more and more middle- class Americans--a class of taxpayers never intended to be taxed by it. More recently, Congress acted to prevent millions of taxpayers from receiving this surprise on their 2006 tax returns by including an extension of AMT relief in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. This provision extended the AMT exemption that was initiated in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 through the year 2006 but at a higher level. The exemption for married couples filing jointly was increased from $58,000 to $62,550. This week, in fact, marks the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of the conference agreement of that last act. That act contained the AMT ``patch'' for 2006. Nearly 20 million American families who were exempt from the AMT before that because of the 2006 patch knew at this time last year that Congress was moving to relieve the AMT burden for the whole year of 2006. This year, those very families, plus several million more, have no such assurance by this Congress. Now, to the contrary, the Democratic leadership, now the majority in this Congress, doesn't appear to be moving any legislation to address the AMT. I would be happy for them to move the Baucus-Grassley repeal bill. I know our chairman, Senator Baucus, is like me, concerned about the uncertainty caused by the inaction of the leadership. The Tax Code has a thicket of problems requiring attention. But this one--the AMT--is the thorniest and must be addressed not later, but we must address it right now. Some of you may wonder why this is a pressing issue. Why can this not wait for an AMT patch at the end of the year? This is the reason: It is because 23 million American families who are subjected to the AMT in 2007 are dealing now with the uncertainty of whether, by hook or by crook, they must come up with the money to set aside to pay that tax in April of next year. Many of them--just check the instructions from the 2007 estimated tax payment forms--don't have the option of waiting until next April because they have to file their estimated tax payments quarterly this very year. So some of them filing, on April 15, a quarterly report had to figure in that alternative minimum tax and set money aside and send it into the Treasury because the here and now is here and now for those 23 million people, or the ones who have to file quarterly returns. Those families have already seen that first estimated tax payment come and go. Hopefully, they had some refund coming to them from last year they were able to offset against a portion of that first payment. Of course, we know many of them had to shell out the tax and send the Federal Government more of their hard-earned money with that first estimated tax payment last month. Unfortunately, as unpopular as the AMT is among taxpayers and policymakers, it is not easy to simply erase it from the books because of the massive amount of revenue that it is set to raise over the next decade. That is funny because this is coming from taxpayers never intended to be taxed by it in the first place. That is how idiotic this can get. Until recently, I had hoped the Senate was unified in not wanting to collect the AMT for this year or any future year. On March 23, I offered an amendment to the 2008 Senate budget resolution that would have required Congress to stop spending amounts that are scheduled to come into the Federal coffers through the AMT--from middle-income taxpayers who were never intended to pay it in the first place. This would have put some honesty back into our budgeting process. However, not a single colleague on the other side of the aisle voted in its favor. Repealing the AMT would put lawmakers on notice to either trim Federal spending by a like amount or be transparent about the revenue base. On the House side, we hear that the Ways and Means Committee is doing a lot of talking about the AMT, but they have yet to move to action. We are forced to wonder what their plans may be. To do that, we need only read what they have been saying and think through the conclusions on such proposals. It has been reported that some in the other body--the majority party, the Democrats--plan to exempt everybody who earns less than $250,000 a year from the AMT. It sounds to me as if they might be on the right track to full repeal when I hear that. However, we need to follow through on what exactly they would do if they insist on providing pay- fors to cover the lost revenue under the new pay-go rules that are being adopted. One option is reportedly being floated on the House side which is to pay for a $250,000 AMT exclusion by raising the top marginal income tax rate. Well, we have found some shocking numbers when we examine that issue further. In order to exempt folks who earn less than $250,000 from the AMT, if you insist on raising taxes to offset it, you would have to raise the top marginal tax rate to over 46 percent. Now, we have a chart showing the top marginal tax rate. Back in the 1970s, it was 70 percent, and it gradually went down to a low of 28 percent. Now it is back at 35 percent, and the red mark would have the highest marginal tax rates that we have had since 1980. I will take a few minutes to put that regular income tax rate into a historical perspective. In 1913, when less than 1 percent of the population was subject to the income tax, the rate ranged from 1 percent to 7 percent. Rates increased significantly during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, up to a top marginal tax rate of over 90 percent. The concept of deduction for home mortgages, interest, charitable contributions, State and local taxes, to name a few, became ingrained in the code during that period of stifling high tax rates. During the President Kennedy administration, tax rates were reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent on the highest income levels, and rates fell again during the Reagan administration, first from 70 percent to 50 percent, and then again the top marginal tax rate was 28 percent by the 1986 Tax Act. The top rate now stands at 35 percent. It is important to remember that when we look at those historical rates, the tax base was narrower prior to 1986 than it is today. Many phaseout and phasein concepts took hold in 1986, such as PEP and Pease limits. Today, substantially all individual tax incentives are phased out and capped, and the result of this base broadening is that if the Tax Code were to approach a tax rate similar to the highest marginal rate under the more narrow pre-1986 tax base, it would result in substantially higher effective tax rates than in the pre-1986 tax rates. A marginal regular income tax rate of over 46 percent may actually exceed the top effective rate that was in place before 1986 because of the increase in the tax base. Another option that may be working its way through the mill on the House side is to pay for that exemption by raising the top alternative minimum tax rate. Again, with that option, the tax rate increase is staggering. The top AMT rate would go up to nearly 37 percent. There is a popular misconception that Congress can sit on its hands on tax policy before the next election and that there will be no tax increase until 2011. While that view is comforting, it is uninformed. Just enacting the alternative minimum tax patch for 2007 will cost over $50 billion. That also means that without doing the patch, Americans then will pay the $50 billion higher alternative minimum tax, and it is coming from middle-income taxpayers who were never intended to be taxed when the alternative minimum tax was put in place back in 1969. So we must act to prevent such an unfair tax increase. The folks who voted against my amendment to take the AMT revenue off the table for the tax and spenders have some real explaining to do soon. It is possible that they will do nothing on the tax side. The result is a $50 billion tax increase on families, middle-income-tax families, who are going to be subject to the AMT for the first time and are subject to it right now, or they may propose some sort of exemption or relief that is paid for by other tax increases and face the music on proposing a massive tax increase on the neighbors of those who have been paying the AMT, or perhaps they may provide AMT relief but fiddle away the money in the budget anyway and increase the deficit. I suggest that the tax and spenders consider learning to hum a different tune and spend within their means soon or folks may just figure out that they planned to raise their tax rates all along. So the sad reality is that while it is the new congressional majority that needs to face the music, it is likely to be the American taxpayers who will end up singing the blues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I announced today the kickoff of whistleblower week in Washington. This week, and the events surrounding it, are designed to promote, to celebrate, and to educate Congress and the public about the courage and the patriotism of our whistleblowers. These individuals often risk their careers to expose fraud, waste, and abuse in an effort to protect not only the health and safety of the American people but also the Federal Treasury and taxpayer dollars. This week's events promoting and celebrating whistleblowers are important for all Members of Congress and for the public as well. By highlighting what whistleblowers do, we provide insight into what it means to be a whistleblower and the important role they play in Government and society. For over two decades, I have learned from, appreciated, and honored whistleblowers. Congress needs to make a special note of the role that whistleblowers play in helping us to fulfill our constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the executive branch of Government or what we learn in high school government classes called checks and balances. As a Senator, I have conducted extensive oversight into virtually all aspects of the Federal bureaucracy. Despite the differences in cases from agency to agency and from department to department, one constant remains: the need for information and the need for insight from whistleblowers. This information is vital to effective congressional oversight, the constitutional responsibility of Congress, in addition to legislating. Documents alone are insufficient when it comes to understanding a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Only whistleblowers can explain why something is wrong and provide the best evidence to prove it. Moreover, only whistleblowers can help us truly understand problems with the culture of Government agencies, because without changing the culture, business as usual is the rule. Whistleblowers have been instrumental in uncovering $700 being spent on toilet seats in the Department of Defense. These American heroes were also critical in our learning about how the Food and Drug Administration missed the boat and approved Vioxx, how Government contracts were inappropriately steered at the General Services Administration, and how the corporation Enron was cooking the books and ripping off investors. Courageous employees blew the whistle and shed much needed sunlight on the problems that would otherwise never see the light of day. Similar to all whistleblowers, each whistleblower in these cases demonstrated tremendous courage. They stuck their neck out for the good of all of us. They spoke the truth. They didn't take the easy way out by going along to get along or by looking the other way when they saw that things were wrong and that there was wrongdoing. The whistleblower whom I call the grandfather of all whistleblowers, Ernie Fitzgerald, of about 30 years of Department of Defense fame as an auditor, says that the only thing that whistleblowers commit--let me say it this way: The only thing that whistleblowers do, and it ends up getting them in trouble is, in his words, ``commit truth.'' For committing truth, then, they are about as welcome as a skunk at a Sunday afternoon picnic with the bureaucracies they are within. I have said it for many years without avail, and it probably will not be of avail, that I would like to see the President of the United States--and I have said this to four different Presidents--have a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. This would send a message from the very top of the bureaucracy, which is the Presidency of the United States, and to the bottom of the bureaucracy about the importance and value of whistleblowers. They deserve this attention, and we all ought to be grateful for what they do and appreciate the very difficult circumstances they often have to endure to do whistleblowing--or as Fitzgerald says, ``committing truth''--because in the end they sacrifice their family's finances, oftentimes their employability, and the attempts by powerful interest groups to actually smear their good names and good intentions. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to speak at a panel that gathered to discuss the plight of whistleblowers at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These individuals discussed the hurdles they face in exposing the truth--or, according to Fitzgerald, ``committing truth.'' Further, they discussed the lengths at which some bureaucrats will go to prevent the truth from getting out. Unfortunately, these former agents also discussed a culture that keeps problems internal and the circling of wagons within the bureaucracy when things go wrong. Oftentimes, this culture ``shoots'' the whistleblower instead of addressing the problem. Mr. President, retaliation against whistleblowers should not be tolerated. We have an obligation to ensure that those who retaliate are punished. Congress has recognized the need to protect whistleblowers, and I have used my experience working with whistleblowers to promote legislation that protects them from retaliation--legislation such as the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the False Claims Act. These acts all recognize the benefits of whistleblowers and offer protection to those seeking to uncover the truth. For example, whistleblowers have used the False Claims Act to help the Federal Government recover nearly $20 billion since Congress passed my amendments in 1986. I think the deterrent effect--if you can quantify it--would be many times the $20 billion of hard cash that has actually come back into the Federal Treasury. These laws I gave are a good step. However, our work in this field is unfinished and more can be done. The next step in protecting whistleblowers was filed in January and is currently pending before this body. It is S. 274, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which will provide much needed updates to Federal whistleblower protections. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 274 and believe the Senate should move this important legislation. Unfortunately, this bill was introduced but not addressed in the last Congress. It is my hope this Chamber will act on S. 274 and improve the protections for whistleblowers. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of S. 274 and swiftly move this important legislation to help protect whistleblowers further than present law does. I also urge all of my colleagues to attend the events that are occurring all week to help celebrate whistleblowers, point out that this is an important tool in the checks and balances of our Government, and all that whistleblowers have done to benefit the work of Congress and, more important, all they have done to make America safer, stronger, a better nation, and to make sure we get our dollars' worth for the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I announce to the Senate that one of Iowa's own, PFC Katie Soenksen of Davenport, has given her life in service to her country in Iraq. My thoughts and prayers are with her parents, Mary Ann and Ronald Soenksen, her brother and sister, and all her family and friends as they grieve her loss. Katie is one of many members of her extended family who have served their country in the military, and she felt a calling to military service. She even visited her former high school, Davenport North, to recruit for the Army. She joined the Army knowing full well what sacrifices she might be asked to make, but she believed in what she was doing and in her mission in Iraq. Katie kept in regular contact with her family and reported about the tremendous good she and her fellow soldiers were doing to make better the lives of everyday Iraqis. Certainly the Iraqi citizens whose lives she helped to improve, as well as all Americans, whose security she has helped ensure, owe her a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our Nation is truly blessed to have such citizens as Katie Soenksen who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, and I am proud to call her an Iowan. Words cannot adequately express the thanks owed to her and her family, who feel her loss so deeply. Her ashes will now rest alongside her fellow patriots at the National Cemetery on Arsenal Island, and her soul is no doubt in heaven.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to see this bill out here again as it was last year, passing the Senate, I think unanimously. I had thoughts that maybe we would never see this bill again in this new Congress, such a needed bill as it is. We have not passed a water resource development bill since 2000. Usually Congress, before that period of time, had been reauthorizing every 2 years or authorizing for the first time on a regular basis. This bill is important to the entire country, but we each represent our respective States. So I see the necessity of this bill from how it enhances the economy of the upper Midwest, Iowa being in the upper Midwest, benefiting very much from it, not only because of where we are geographically located, but we are such a breadbasket for the world as well. For Iowa, the Enhanced Navigation Capacity Improvement and Ecosystem Restoration plan for the upper Mississippi and the Illinois water systems being included in this Water Resources Development Act is vital to the economy and to the ecology of the upper Midwest and particularly to the Mississippi River, with its triple purpose of environment, recreation, and commerce. Of course, Iowa has the Mississippi River as our eastern boundary. Iowa and the Nation rely on the river to move many of our goods, both domestically and internationally, moving goods into our State that are needed for production as well as moving finished product and raw product out of Iowa, not only agricultural products, which maybe you think about most often, but other products beyond agriculture. For the United States as a whole, our inland waterway system plays a major role in our Nation's economy. More than a billion tons of commerce is moved domestically through our inland waterways with a value of $300 billion. Of the $300 billion, the upper Mississippi and the Illinois River system contribute significantly. The value of that part of our inland waterway system is $12 billion per year. Approximately 60 percent of that $12 billion a year is involved with bulk agricultural exports moving from the farms to the river, down the river, both upper Mississippi and Illinois River, out into international commerce. Navigation on these rivers supports over 400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production worldwide. My State of Iowa is the leading corn-producing State of the Nation. But the United States as a whole has a comparative advantage to the rest of the world. The per-ton cost for transporting corn in the United States is lower than in lots of other countries. That gives us a tremendous advantage beyond our productive capability. Our Nation must not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to deteriorate. I believe one of the most important reasons for this legislation, at least as it relates to the Mississippi and Illinois, is there has been deterioration of the system on the one hand and, on the other hand, it has not been expanded in the most efficient way handle the enhanced commerce, the enhanced tonnage that goes up and down the river today compared to decades ago when this system was first set up. Because of that, we have to be concerned not only with this deterioration and maintenance but with the expansion of it because our international competitors are making major investments in their transportation systems. I had the good fortune, a year ago about now, to travel to Brazil with a codel I headed, to look at the transportation of agricultural products from the inland of Brazil to the ocean into world commerce. As far as some of their infrastructure is concerned, it is very inferior to ours because when traveling in rural Brazil, last year, we ran over more potholes--and I suppose in that area, like in rural Iowa, you would call them mud holes--than you can count. But Brazil has made significant investments in river infrastructure as compared to their surface transportation. They are realizing they have to get the stuff to the river if they are going to get it into world commerce, so they are spending a lot in resources now on surface transportation to move it from the farm to the ocean. When that happens, I am telling you, we are really going to be at an economic disadvantage with Brazil because of what they are doing on the Amazon, because Brazil already has made significant investments in its river infrastructure. In the Chamber, I have a map of Brazil, and it happens that where the two arrows are depicted on the map is where we stopped--at those locations on the Amazon River. At the eastern location, you can see there is a city called Santarem. It is 400 miles in from the Atlantic Ocean, which is about the same distance from New Orleans to Memphis. They have a brandnew facility there for loading oceangoing ships--not using barges, the way we do, and then taking them out to the ocean and loading from the barges onto oceangoing ships. They have oceangoing ships going all the way up the Amazon River to that point--400 miles. They get the efficiency of loading right onto the oceangoing ships, to give them an advantage. It is a very modern loading facility. Now, there are also new facilities for barges farther up the river-- another 200 miles up the river--where they can load onto barges and move their production into the world commerce. Barges traveling that far into the mainland are going to help Brazil become very competitive with our own farmers. Then again, let me repeat, once they figure out how to get their railroad--they do not have much of a railroad system for commerce to move bulk--when they get railroads in place, when they get their highways in place, they are going to be a real challenge to us. Let me say, I ought to give them more credit than I have. From the standpoint of what they can produce, at least with soybeans, they are outproducing the United States, as of a couple years ago, when, for the first time, we were no longer the world's leading producer of soybeans. So they have that capacity to produce. Where we are more competitive at this point is getting our stuff to market. But you can see they are concentrating on that. That is why we need to concentrate on this legislation to get our dam-and-lock situation on the upper Mississippi and the Illinois River in a position so we can do that. Now, South America has more virgin land that has not been under production, and they are converting 17 million acres of virgin land into agricultural production. The long-term results of these efforts on producers in the United States, if we do not keep our transportation system on the Mississippi River and Illinois River up to date and expanded, would be to reduce farm income by $562 million a year, increase the foreign trade imbalance by $245 million, and to have a loss of sensitive global environmental habitat. Therefore, we must invest in major improvements to all of our transportation infrastructure. Currently, every mode of transportation is near or at maximum capacity. If we do not make these investments in our roads, in our rail, in our water, U.S. agriculture, U.S. industry, and the working men and women are going to pay the price. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2005, U.S. exports of goods and services totaled $1.2 trillion, compared to $1.1 trillion in 2004 and just a little over $1 trillion in 2003. Also, our Nation relies on many imported goods that come to the United States. Many of these goods travel by our inland waterways. It is also forecast that both our exports and imports will continue to grow in the coming years. We must be able, then, to efficiently and economically move these goods. Nearly two-thirds of all grain and soybean exports are moved through the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. According to one study, unless the Army Corps of Engineers modernizes the lock-and-dam system on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting corn would rise 17 cents per bushel. As a result, corn and soybean exports would decline by 68 million and 10 million bushels per year respectively. The decline in corn and soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 million. Loss from lower prices and decreased interstate corn demand would equal $316 million. So these figures highlight how important barge transportation is to farmers and to the overall U.S. economy. In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river transportation. According to the EPA, towboats emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of trucks and 40 percent the cost of trains, while releasing 20 times less nitrous oxide, 9 times less carbon monoxide, 7 times less hydrocarbons, and burning 10 times less fuel. And you can see this comparison right here, shown on this chart--with barges on the left, hopper cars or trains in the middle, and then trucks and semis on the right--you can see the massive number of semis it takes to do what one 15-barge tow would do. This chart shows 15 railcars or 58 semitrucks being needed to replace each barge loaded, diverted off the upper Mississippi river system. A 15-barge tow equates to 870 semitrucks. EPA also estimates that the Nation currently saves $100 million to $300 million in air pollution abatements by moving bulk commodities by barge on the upper Mississippi river system. In these times of high fuel prices, and with the need to conserve energy, 1 gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry 1 ton of freight 2\1/2\ times farther than rail and 9 times farther than trucks. The Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates shifting from barge to rail results in fuel usage, emissions, and probable accident increases of 331 percent, 470 percent, and 290 percent respectively-- for fuel usage, emissions, and probable accidents. Shifting traffic from barges to trucks increases fuel use by 826 percent, emissions by 709 percent, and probable accidents by almost 6,000 percent. Furthermore, shifting the 245 million tons from our rivers would add an additional 9.4 million trucks each year. That would add more than 169 million tires in our landfills. For these reasons, I have been working with several of my Senate colleagues for so many years now on getting the initial authorization for lock-and-dam modernization and enhanced environmental restoration on these rivers signed into law. So I am very pleased this committee included these important initiatives in the Water Resources Development Act and that a bipartisan group of Senators is advocating for this very important modernization. The lock system on the upper Mississippi River was built in the late 1930s. Many of the lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot accommodate 1,100-foot barge tows. These structures require modern tow configuration to ``double lock'' in order to make the pass-through. This adds up to mounting delay times, increased costs to shippers, increased harm to our environment by higher emissions and higher sediment suspension in the river channels, loss of jobs, and lower wages. By the year 2020, if we do not make the much needed improvements in these locks, $562 million will be lost in farm income per year. This amount does not even take into account the huge cost of increased delays and congestion on our rail system and our road system. Also, keep in mind that $1 invested in this navigation project yields $6 in national benefit. That is a pretty good return on the investment of taxpayers' money. We realize the authorization for the lock-and-dam improvements is just a first step in a lengthy process of improving the lock-and-dam system on the upper Mississippi, but it is an important and necessary project for our Nation. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this balanced legislation for the good of our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me verify, not only from the National Corn Growers Association, as you read from their letter, but I can tell you, from the town meetings I had during the Easter break and also during the February break, from the grassroots of my State, farmers, including members of the Corn Growers Association, came to my meetings and on an individual basis backed up what their national organization stands for. So I think it is very much a national consensus of an organization, but it is also an understanding with the family farmers as to the importance of this legislation. I thank the Senator for inserting those letters in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today along with Senator Johnson that will take a bold step in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil. It is the 10 by 10 Act. The 10 by 10 Act will require that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel sold beginning January 1, 2010, contain at least 10 percent renewable fuel. The 10 by 10 Act is a signal that Congress remains interested and adamant in seeking energy independence by promoting the development of renewable fuels in the United States. Because the U.S. imports more than 60 percent of the crude oil we need, we have become dangerously reliant on foreign sources of energy. It is a threat to our national security for the United States to be dependent upon countries like Iran and Venezuela for our energy needs. It's also a threat to our economic security to be dependent on foreign countries for the energy that drives our economy. It is up to our farmers and ranchers to help liberate our consumers and our economy from the stranglehold of OPEC and other foreign countries on our energy needs. I am here to say to America's agriculture community that we are serious and we are going to do something about it. This legislation will demonstrate to consumers, in a common sense way, that each and every gallon of gasoline will contain at least 10 percent of domestically produced renewable fuel. It'll show that we're serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and it will show in a tangible way that we're working to reduce that dependence. The 10 by 10 Act is a commitment to our constituents that we're working to lower that dependence, and reduce our consumption of foreign oil in every gallon of fuel they pump. With this legislation, Americans would know with certainty that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel was home-grown by farmers and ranchers right here in America. Today, ethanol, a renewable fuel produced primarily from corn, is blended in nearly 50 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States. There are currently 116 biorefineries producing nearly 6 billion gallons of ethanol annually. By the end of 2009, it is projected that we will have the capacity to produce over twelve billion gallons annually. It is important for consumers to recognize that for the vast majority of cars on the road today, no modifications are necessary to operate on a 10-percent renewable fuel blend. No significant changes are required to the fuel distribution network to allow for a 10-percent blend. The only thing standing in the way of reduced dependence on foreign oil is a signal from Congress that we recognize the virtue of home-grown alternatives to foreign oil. With this legislation, we would ensure the use of approximately 14 billion gallons of renewable fuels in our Nation's automobiles. The ethanol use would be distributed around the country in each gallon of gasoline. In this way, we will ensure the use of the fuel even if an extensive E-85 market is not yet in place. This effort could very well be a stepping stone if it's determined that ethanol could be blended in higher ratios, such as 15 or 20 percent. By blending in each gallon of gasoline, we ensure the benefits of homegrown, renewable fuels reach all consumers without the immediate need for additional fueling infrastructure or alternative fuel vehicles. We owe it to the American people to pursue aggressive policies to free our country from our foreign oil dependence. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to replace 10 percent of each gallon of gasoline with homegrown, environmentally friendly, renewable fuel. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today along with Senator Johnson that will take a bold step in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil. It is the 10 by 10 Act. The 10 by 10 Act will require that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel sold beginning January 1, 2010, contain at least 10 percent renewable fuel. The 10 by 10 Act is a signal that Congress remains interested and adamant in seeking energy independence by promoting the development of renewable fuels in the United States. Because the U.S. imports more than 60 percent of the crude oil we need, we have become dangerously reliant on foreign sources of energy. It is a threat to our national security for the United States to be dependent upon countries like Iran and Venezuela for our energy needs. It's also a threat to our economic security to be dependent on foreign countries for the energy that drives our economy. It is up to our farmers and ranchers to help liberate our consumers and our economy from the stranglehold of OPEC and other foreign countries on our energy needs. I am here to say to America's agriculture community that we are serious and we are going to do something about it. This legislation will demonstrate to consumers, in a common sense way, that each and every gallon of gasoline will contain at least 10 percent of domestically produced renewable fuel. It'll show that we're serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and it will show in a tangible way that we're working to reduce that dependence. The 10 by 10 Act is a commitment to our constituents that we're working to lower that dependence, and reduce our consumption of foreign oil in every gallon of fuel they pump. With this legislation, Americans would know with certainty that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel was home-grown by farmers and ranchers right here in America. Today, ethanol, a renewable fuel produced primarily from corn, is blended in nearly 50 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States. There are currently 116 biorefineries producing nearly 6 billion gallons of ethanol annually. By the end of 2009, it is projected that we will have the capacity to produce over twelve billion gallons annually. It is important for consumers to recognize that for the vast majority of cars on the road today, no modifications are necessary to operate on a 10-percent renewable fuel blend. No significant changes are required to the fuel distribution network to allow for a 10-percent blend. The only thing standing in the way of reduced dependence on foreign oil is a signal from Congress that we recognize the virtue of home-grown alternatives to foreign oil. With this legislation, we would ensure the use of approximately 14 billion gallons of renewable fuels in our Nation's automobiles. The ethanol use would be distributed around the country in each gallon of gasoline. In this way, we will ensure the use of the fuel even if an extensive E-85 market is not yet in place. This effort could very well be a stepping stone if it's determined that ethanol could be blended in higher ratios, such as 15 or 20 percent. By blending in each gallon of gasoline, we ensure the benefits of homegrown, renewable fuels reach all consumers without the immediate need for additional fueling infrastructure or alternative fuel vehicles. We owe it to the American people to pursue aggressive policies to free our country from our foreign oil dependence. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to replace 10 percent of each gallon of gasoline with homegrown, environmentally friendly, renewable fuel. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I consume on amendment No. 998. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dodd, Snowe, and Bingaman be added as cosponsors.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1034

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the issue is the level of civil and monetary penalties. If the fines are nothing more than the cost of doing business, you can't change behavior and you can't deter bad behavior. My feeling is the levels in this underlying bill are not high enough to get the attention of the drug companies. After all, if a company does what it is supposed to do, a drug company doesn't need to fear any penalties. It is that simple. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment so it has real teeth.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have 1 minute?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. So then why trigger tax increases when the current law tax levels are bringing plenty of revenue into the Federal Treasury? Why would you want to mess with a policy that is bringing in what would now have to add up to $750 billion more than what we anticipated would be coming into the Federal Treasury from that tax policy when we adopted it? And in the process, we would be punishing the American taxpayers, who are already working hard and paying additional revenue at a lower level of taxation, as we passed it in 2001 and 2003. The biggest problem I have with a trigger is that it creates yet another budget process bias for higher Federal spending. If Congress decides to spend more than planned, the trigger gives the American taxpayer the shaft. Spending taxpayers' money then trumps future promised tax relief if a trigger is in place. The American taxpayer need look no further than the budget resolution conference report that we are debating now to see triggered future tax relief's futility. After winning the November elections by claiming to enforce fiscal discipline, Democrats have done three things with the budget in conference: One, they have guaranteed new spending of at least $205 billion over the budget baseline. Secondly, with multiple reserve funds, they have set up many arenas of new spending and new taxes. Thirdly, for the first time in 6 years--I emphasize this--with a new majority in Congress, a tax hike on virtually every American taxpayer is built into the budget in future years. Now, did the American people know this was how the term ``fiscal discipline'' would be defined after the votes were counted last November? Higher taxes and higher spending. Did the American people vote for this definition of ``fiscal discipline'' after the last election? My guess is the answer is the American taxpayers didn't think ``fiscal discipline'' meant higher taxes and higher spending. If fiscal discipline were the real goal of the new Democratic leadership, they would employ a trigger, then, on the new spending they baked into this budget cake. How about that. The new spending in this budget would only be triggered if the Federal budget were in surplus. Do I have any takers among the Democratic budget negotiators on that issue? Before the Democratic leadership rolls out its budget, I challenge them to show a proposal with a single dollar of spending restraint dedicated to deficit reduction. It is a challenge I have issued for several years since bipartisan tax relief has been attacked on fiscal discipline grounds. My challenge has not been met. If you go back a decade, you will not find a proposal for spending restraint from the Democratic leadership. Check the record. You won't find anything on the spending side of the ledger. The use of a trigger is more evidence of this obsession with higher taxes and more spending. Instead of accepting the Baucus amendment, which is supported by a strong bipartisan vote in both bodies because it passed here with only one dissenting vote and it had more than two- thirds on a motion to instruct in the House of Representatives--so instead of accepting the Baucus amendment, which is supported strongly by bipartisan votes in both Houses, the Democratic negotiators are taking a different path, ignoring the overwhelming votes of both the Senate and the House. They want to use a trigger as cover. The trigger will mean that future Democratic spending proposals will gut future tax relief, thereby guaranteeing a tax increase on virtually every American taxpayer, without even a vote of the people, because it is automatically going to happen. I don't think it is too late. I suggest that if the Democratic budgeteers want to talk the talk of fiscal discipline, then walk the walk of fiscal discipline, apply the trigger to spending, but apply it to the $205 billion in brandnew spending. Don't build a wall of tax relief on the American people; build a wall of fiscal discipline against runaway Federal spending. In other words, we will tear down that wall of tax increases that are automatically going to happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak in favor of the motion by the Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, to make sure we continue existing tax policy throughout the period of time of this budget resolution. Considering the issue of taxes and this budget, press reports have indicated we may be in the ninth inning of this budget season. The President sent his budget to Capitol Hill 3 months ago. The Senate Budget Committee marked up a budget resolution. It passed the Senate. That resolution lays out the Democratic leadership's fiscal priorities for the next 5 years. As everyone knows, the American people spoke last November and as a result of that election, we have a new Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress. So for the first time in 12 years, Democrats have the privilege, but also the responsibility, for our budget. The Senate spoke very clearly in support of some tax relief. The voice came in the form of Senator Baucus and his amendment. My friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, secured $180 billion to prevent part of the big tax increase that will go into effect January 1, 2011. Although the Baucus amendment only provides 44 percent of the tax relief room that is actually needed to keep existing tax policy in place so there is no tax increase, it is, in fact, far superior, though, to the position on the same issue by the other body, because the House position is zero tax relief. That is right: zero tax relief. What does zero tax relief mean? It means a total tax increase of $936 billion over 5 years. That, in fact, is the largest tax increase in history, and it is a tax increase that will occur automatically without a vote of Congress. Of course, it is inconceivable that people say: Well, we aren't responsible for a tax increase. If you like the tax policy we have today and you don't do anything to stop it, and you automatically have a tax increase, then the people who let it automatically happen are responsible for increasing taxes--the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. That tax increase means real dollars out of the wallets of real middle-income families. I have a chart here. The chart shows a wall of tax increases. The chart shows a family of four at $40,000 a year average income--the national average--will face a tax increase of $2,052. Now, for a lot of my rich liberal friends, that may not seem like a lot of money, but for a hard-working family of four in my State of Iowa, a $2,052 increase in taxes without even a vote of the Congress happening on January 1, 2011 is a lot of money, and it matters. That is why that wall of tax increases ought to be clear to everybody, and we ought to do everything we can to bring down that wall. As a senior Republican member of the Budget Committee, I have not been consulted on the budget by our chairman, but I have made my views clear to our distinguished chairman. What I know about the budget I have learned from press reports. If those reports are true, I would encourage the chairman and the Senate leadership to stand strong for the Senate position, which is taking care of some of the tax increase that would have taken place--44 percent of it--not as good as it ought to be, but it is surely better than the other body. Press reports indicate that the Democratic Budget Committee chairmen are working on a compromise that would condition the tax relief on a surplus. That is, the Baucus amendment would be subject to a trigger. Now, what is a trigger? Well, I have another chart. This chart deals with perhaps the most famous trigger. The chart shows, as my colleagues can see, Trigger, the cowboy actor Roy Rogers' horse. You can see from the chart that Trigger is a pretty impressive looking horse. We would definitely like to have such a Trigger on my farm to help with the chores, and I am sure my grandkids would enjoy a ride with Trigger were he stabled on my farm. He is a beautiful horse. As western movie buffs know, Trigger is no longer with us. Trigger is stuffed and on display at the Roy Rogers-Dale Evans Museum in Branson, MO. Although Trigger was an impressive looking horse, this trigger device the Democrat leadership is looking at is far from impressive. The trigger notion is something that has a long history with Democratic leadership. Back in 1996, as an example, the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership argued for a trigger for the $500 per-child tax credit and other family tax relief issues. They took this position after President Clinton had vetoed the bill containing the family tax relief proposals. If the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership had prevailed, millions of American families would have received the $500 per-child tax credit perhaps in 1999 through 2001-- only in those years. If President Clinton and the Democratic leadership had won and the trigger were in place, then millions of families would have lost the child tax credit in the years 2002 until now. So why would anybody in Congress want to be so antifamily and put in a trigger policy, as the practice was at that time, that would deny families with children the child tax credit? It doesn't make sense, but that is the way triggers work. The same dynamic occurred in 2001. With surpluses, the Democratic leadership opposed broad-based, bipartisan tax relief, including a doubling of the $500 per-child tax credit. One of the ideas the Democratic leadership flirted with at that time was the trigger. There were a few Republicans attracted to the idea as well, I have to confess. The trigger was debated somewhat, but it was never found to be workable. It wasn't workable. So if it wasn't workable 6 years ago, why are they bringing it out of the attic now for consideration? Because a trigger is a complicated matter. It could be suggested that the mechanics of a broad-based tax trigger are a little bit like trigonometry. Trigonometry is a division of mathematics that deals with triangles. It is simple on its face, but you can see from this textbook, it can become pretty complicated pretty easily. Look at this. That is complicated. Interweaving the complexities and uncertainties of triggered tax relief with the vast American economy could lead to a new term. That new term would be ``trigonomics.'' As much as folks complain about the uncertainty and complexity of the tax policy, I don't think the Democratic negotiators should want us to take us to the land of trigonomics. To some degree, the current law sunset of 2001 and 2003 is a de facto trigger. If you look at those in opposition to permanence of the bipartisan tax relief, you will find that it is, with very few exceptions, the same folks who like triggers. The tax system is a very complex, very pervasive force in our society. It affects real Americans, all Americans, and it affects all economic activity. So creating conditional tax relief through a trigger mechanism would destabilize an already unwieldy tax system. How are families, how are businesses, how are investors supposed to plan their affairs with a trigger hanging over their current tax law rules that keeps taxes low? Think about that. What would we be doing to the hard- working American taxpayers? Now, as an aside, those taxpayers, by the way, are sending record amounts of revenue to the Treasury Department. This very day, it is reported in the Wall Street Journal that more taxes came in in April than we have ever had in the history of our country--because the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003 are growing the economy. They are the goose that laid the golden egg, for 3 years in a row, bringing in massive amounts of revenue into our Federal Treasury, to a point where, by the end of this fiscal year, the annual deficit will be less than 1 percent of gross national product. When you are dealing with a $13 trillion economy, 1 percent up or down is about as good as you can do 12 months ahead in planning a budget and tax policies for this great country of ours. So the American taxpayer is doing his or her part to reduce the deficit. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a couple of articles from the BNA Daily Report for Executives, one dated May 3, 2007, another dated May 7, 2007.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I can only speak for 1 minute? Is that what you are saying? There is no point in my speaking if I only have 1 minute.