Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with my colleague and note the same. However, since it is merely a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and is not binding in any way, I think it is sufficient to note our objections for the record at this time. The provision is not worth objecting to any more than that. We have already established a principal point of oversight and review for homeland security in the U.S. Senate. The current balance reflected in S. Res. 445 has been proven to work and need not be disturbed.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Indeed. The enactment of that legislation demonstrates that the retention of Finance Committee jurisdiction over customs revenue functions and commercial operations does not in any way diminish the effective oversight of other functions within the Department of Homeland Security by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, nor does it detract from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as the principal point of oversight and review for homeland security matters in the U.S. Senate. In fact, by drawing on the focus and expertise of both committees, we improve overall Senate oversight of the homeland security interests and economic security interests of the United States.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is right. In fact, we can point to the enactment of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, otherwise known as the SAFE Port Act, as an example of that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. And I believe we can both agree that our efforts were successful in preserving the revenue functions, commercial functions, and commercial operations of the Customs Service within the Department of Homeland Security, including oversight of those functions and commercial operations within the Committee on Finance.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Indeed, I do. This is an issue that goes back to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Finance Committee held a hearing in July 2002, followed by a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We stressed the importance of preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moved into the Department of Homeland Security with an added national security focus.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Indeed, we have. Near the end of the 108th Congress we passed S. Res. 445, which created the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as the principal point of oversight and review for homeland security in the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as I did a couple days last week, I continue with my discussion on the issues the Senate will face as the Democratic leadership draws up its budget resolution, and that is going to be 2 days next week in the Budget Committee and then I think the week after next, depending on what the Democratic leader decides to do, we generally will have a whole week of debate on the budget and adoption of the budget. We face an important milestone because the Democratic leadership controls the Senate for the first time since the 2002 election. Over the past 4 years, there has been a lot of passionate debate over the fiscal policies the Republican leadership proposed and implemented over the last 4 years. In November, the voters sent a Democratic majority to Congress. The budget debate we are about to enter provides Democrats with their opportunity to chart a fiscal policy path for the Nation. Before the budget arrives, I have taken to the floor to recap and evaluate some of the consistent themes we have heard from the Democratic leadership over the past 4 years. Since the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over nearly all of the revenue side of the budget, I focused on the issues on that side of the ledger, the revenue side. Since the position of the Democratic leadership has been to let the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003 expire, I talked about the effects of that automatic tax increase--yes, automatic tax increase-- that happens without even a vote of the Congress if we don't continue this tax policy that was adopted in 2001 and 2003 beyond the year of 2010. It is a very important consideration. For the last 4 years, Republican budgets on Capitol Hill have made it clear that our priority was to ensure that virtually every American taxpayer would not see that automatic tax increase come in their earnings of 2011, and that still is our policy. That is a policy reflected in the budget the President of the United States has sent to the Congress. So the year 2011 is the year the bipartisan tax relief sunsets. I emphasize that 2001 was the year of bipartisan tax relief. I had the good fortune of working that year, 2001, with Senator Max Baucus helping me get that bipartisan tax relief passed. He is now chairman of the committee, being that the Democrats are in the majority. I have the good fortune of maintaining a close working relationship with him. The President's budget, as I already said, maintains the assurance that these tax policies of the last 7 years will continue in place beyond the year 2010. During the 4-year period 2003 to 2006, the Democratic leadership was harshly critical of this policy which was passed in 2001 and 2003; that is, the Democratic leadership opposed the fiscal policies of preventing a tax increase on virtually every American taxpayer automatically because Congress wouldn't even have to vote on it. My first speech defined the tax increases built into that fiscal policy. My second speech highlighted some of the macroeconomic risks of that widespread automatic tax increase. Last week, I remarked to the Senate and discussed with the Senate potential omissions in the Democratic leadership's budget; that is, the discussion was about fiscal policy that was present in prior budgets. If the Democratic leadership's past criticisms of those budgets were carried out, the fiscal policy of continuing tax relief would end. This week, I am going to focus on the track record of the Democratic leadership and discuss potential problems from proposals that might be contained in that budget. You could say, from our standpoint, I am examining errors of commission this week, whereas last week I examined errors of omission. Today, I wish to refer to the use of revenue-raising offsets in the budget context. As any budgeteer can tell you, the budget resolution is not a law. It doesn't amend the Internal Revenue Code or Medicare law or appropriations. The budget resolution is like a blueprint for a building. The actual construction of tax and spending policies will occur later on this year. The budget resolution is, however, critical to actual tax, actual spending, and actual deficit decisions the Congress will undertake. The matter of offsets is critical in this respect: If additional spending is proposed in the resolution without real offsets, then deficits are more likely. Likewise, if popular tax relief is proposed but not offset with real proposals, then deficits could appear and be larger--though, on this last point, the track record of the last 4 years shows tax relief grew the economy and record levels of Federal revenue came into the Treasury as a direct result. My basic point is that if a proposed offset is not realistic and the proponents succeed, budget discipline could be undermined. In other words, phony offsets, if incorporated into the budget, can lead to deficits. Today, I am just going to follow the numbers. Just follow the numbers. I am not going to make any judgments or make any assumptions about the revenue-raising proposals. I am going to analyze these proposals strictly from a fiscal standpoint. I analyze two categories of offsets from the standpoint of whether the budget arithmetic adds up, and I am going to examine last year's record of the Democratic leadership on offsets but look at it as if they were in control at the time. It is not a pretty picture. I am going to take a look at proposed offsets from a series of amendments, real amendments that were debated here on the floor of the Senate during last year's budget resolution debate. During that debate, virtually all Democratic members had a common theme in their purported offsets for their amendments to this resolution. That purported theme was that they would close tax loopholes to pay for whatever popular spending program they wanted to propose. Closing corporate tax loopholes was the common refrain to pay for spending. I will list the amendments and the popular spending proposals: Senator Kennedy, Vocational Education and Pell Grants; Senator Akaka, Veterans Medical Services; Senator Murray, Community Block Grants; Senator Stabenow, Emergency Responders; Senator Menendez, Port Security; Senator Byrd, Amtrak; Senator Reed of Rhode Island, LIHEAP; Senator Sarbanes, Corps of Engineers and other Federal services; Senator Dorgan, Native American programs; Senator Stabenow, Veterans' Health Care; Senator Akaka, Title I Education Grants; and Senator Lincoln, Agriculture. These are all here, and more than what I gave are here. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that a list of these amendments by vote and by amendment number, so that they are there for people who aren't listening to what I am saying to consider, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as you can see, the proposed spending is popular and has a nice political edge. Democrats could record themselves as voting for the amendment, and they could criticize Republicans for voting against those amendments. From a political calculation perspective, these were profitable efforts on the part of the Democratic leadership. The fiscal consequences, however, were another story. If Democrats had been in the majority, as they are now, the fiscal effect of these amendments would have been a very big problem, and here is why. One-time spending increases, even if for 1 year, are built into the CBO baseline, and they are built in forever. This is explicitly the case for increases in discretionary spending. It is also implicitly the case with entitlement spending. If anyone disputes that point, I would ask them to show me the last time we reversed new entitlement spending. It just never happens around here is the best thing to say. Let's take a look at the Kennedy amendment on vocational education and Pell grants to which I have referred. The amendment was purported to be $6.3 billion, but that was for 1 fiscal year. That $6.3 billion, if adopted, would probably be extended in later years. It is in the baseline. So Senator Kennedy found his offset by closing $6.3 billion in what he referred to as corporate tax loopholes. I am not going to find fault with closing those tax loopholes. I have been involved in things like that for a long period of time, and successfully so. The fiscal and political effect, though, of Senator Kennedy's amendment was to identify specific popular spending and offset it with a nondefined tax increase. From a realistic standpoint, Senator Kennedy's amendment identified less than 10 percent of the gross spending burden it would have placed on future budgets to the extent the unspecified revenue offset was duplicative or not realistic. The real effect was that the $6.3 billion additional spending would have been added to the budget for that fiscal year. All 12 of these listed amendments used the same undefined offset. Several Members referred to revenue raisers in a Democratic substitute amendment to the 2005 Tax Relief Reconciliation bill, and they kept trying to spend the same money over and over again. Let's take a look at the list of revenue raisers in the substitute amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate of the revenue offsets to the 2005 substitute be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That substitute amendment is an overinclusive inventory of offsets. I say ``overinclusive'' because it included the universe of revenue raisers that the Democratic caucus supported. Republicans supported many, but not all, of these offsets. Joint Tax scored these revenue raisers during last year's budget debate. According to the Joint Tax experts, that universe of Senate offsets raised $53.6 billion over 5 years. That is this chart right here: $53.6 billion. At that time, I noted that the budget resolution assumed several billion in revenue raisers to cover part of the reconciliation bill. Indeed, in the reconciliation conference, we used eight of these revenue raisers. They accounted for about $9 billion-- and I should say only $9 billion over 5 years. I had hoped to use additional raisers accounting for about $7.5 billion over 5 years, but the House rejected that, and we then found some offsets someplace else. So we will take a look at them. If you account for the revenue offsets left over, you can subtract out another 10 revenue-raising proposals that are in the Senate's small business minimum wage bill. Those revenue raisers--and those are things which had just been before the Senate--those revenue raisers included $8.7 billion over 5 years. That is this figure here. Of the raisers in the 2005 substitute amendment, about $18 billion of those were enacted or are in play in discussions between the House and the Senate. So if we review the Senate Democratic inventory of identified as well as scored revenue raisers and net out current law and Senate-passed tax legislation, we find 18 revenue proposals available. These are proposals the Democratic caucus has advocated that are left over. They raise approximately $36 billion over 5 years. Everyone should know there are revenue raisers in that total I just recited that the administration doesn't support. You don't have to let that detract you from it, but those would be issues which would be subject to, I suppose, a Presidential veto. Let's forget that for the moment. There are many in this total that the House and Senate Republicans don't support. As we have found in the small business tax relief discussions, House Democrats aren't keen on some of these proposals either. Nevertheless, to bend over backward and to be fair to the Senate Democratic leadership, I am going to tally the proposals they have supported as a caucus. Let me repeat the total corporate loophole closers and other offsets Democrats have defined. It is $36 billion over 5 years. Put another way, I would like to say it is only $36 billion over 5 years, but I want you to see what they want to use that $36 billion for--presumably to cover a lot of other expenditures they can't do because the numbers don't allow it. That total of $36 billion, then, provides a ceiling of offsets to compare to the spending amendments. Let's go back and match the spending amendments with the universe of Democratic revenue raisers. The revenue raised is a far cry from the cumulative demand of the amendments that were filed. The amendments that have been filed that propose to use those tax loophole closers as offsets total $105 billion in new spending. So the Senate Democrats propose $36 billion in revenue raisers that were supposed to offset $105 billion in new spending, but it doesn't add up. That means the spending exceeded revenue raisers by $69 billion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the Democratic amendments to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this list was prepared by analysts and was based upon filed amendments printed in the Congressional Record. I think it is interesting that only one filed amendment on this list would decrease taxes over 5 years, and only one amendment would result in decreased spending over 5 years. The amendment decreasing spending was filed by New York's junior Senator and would reduce spending by $1 million. That is one-thousandth of a billion dollars. Put another way, if you subtract the $36 billion from the $105 billion in new spending proposed, it means the other side's amendments were short $69 billion--short $69 billion. Right here. This figure. This money proposed for offsets, add up all of the amendments put before the Senate, and you come out short. Revenue neutrality? No. Budget neutrality? No. Now, that $69 billion needs to come from someplace. If the other side had prevailed, it would have wiped out the tax relief of last year's budget, including what we do to keep more Americans from paying that horrible tax, the alternative minimum tax. You can't have it both ways. Either the other side, if they had prevailed, would have added $69 billion in deficit spending or they would have gutted the tax relief they claim to support. Budgets are about choices. In this case the choices are clear. If the Democratic leadership would have controlled the Senate last year, we would have no tax relief in that budget or we would have added $69 billion in deficit spending. Neither choice would be the right choice from the standpoint of the American people. Defining offsets is very important. It is very important because we need real numbers if we are going to have intellectually honest budgeting. My analysis of corporate loophole closers and other revenue- raising proposals shows the Democratic caucus has supported at most $36 billion in specific revenue-raising proposals. By the way, that is about the revenue loss for last year's AMT patch. So the alternative minimum tax would have hit another 7 or 8 million Americans. Using unspecified revenue-raising proposals is not realistic. If Democrats intend to live by pay-go, short for ``pay as you go,'' the Finance Committee will need those revenue-raising proposals to handle a portion--and just a portion--of the demand of the tax system. There are two other categories of revenue-raising proposals identified by the Democratic leadership. One is repealing tax relief for higher income taxpayers. The other is reducing or closing the tax gap. I will talk about the tax gap in a later speech. When folks in the Democratic leadership talk about raising taxes on higher income taxpayers, it sounds as if all fiscal problems can be solved as long as you want to look down the road. Liberal think tanks and sympathetic voices in the east coast media tend to echo that sentiment. As a matter of intellectual honesty in budget debates, we ought to have an idea of how much revenue is there. Since the most popular proposal is to repeal the bipartisan tax relief for higher income taxpayers, I have asked the Joint Tax Committee to provide updated estimates of those proposals--such as the corporate loophole closer. I do not expect the revenue would cover the spending demands. I was pleased to see the Budget Committee chairman make a public comment last week that seemed to address these proposals. According to the March 1, 2007 edition of Congress Daily AM, the chairman indicated he intended to put forward a budget with ``no tax rate increases.'' I will have to see the budget resolution and hear the chairman's explanation, but I read that comment to mean the Democratic leadership will not, at a minimum, propose to roll back current law tax rates. This would be especially interesting in light of the so-called millionaire's tax amendment put forward in the past by members of the chairman's party. The millionaire's tax amendment filed for the fiscal year 2007 budget would have increased taxes by about $105 billion. Of course, those same amendments spent that money, so deficit reduction would not have been received. Today I have examined the question of revenue-raising offsets. The inventory of available, defined, specific revenue-raising offsets is relatively small. Last year, Democratic amendments overspent the available revenue offsets by $69 billion. The Democratic leadership has indicated a desire to apply pay-go, pay as you go, to the current law tax relief. If pay-go is to be observed with respect to the alternative minimum tax and other popular expiring tax relief provisions, the Democratic leadership will need those revenue raisers and even more to offset the revenue lost from these time-sensitive provisions. When we start to examine and debate the budget resolution, we will need to use intellectually honest numbers. Using the undefined corporate loophole closer is fiscally dangerous. It enables even more spending at a time when Government is at record levels as far as real dollars. Runaway spending is at the root of our current or future fiscal problems. Using phony revenue-raising offsets sets up two negative fiscal outcomes, an undefined tax increase and/or deficit spending. All Members, whether Republican or Democrat, ought to agree to be transparent with all these numbers and all these figures in the amendments that are posed in the upcoming budget debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Judge John Jarvey, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. The Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Judge Jarvey some time ago, and I am glad that now we are moving expeditiously on his nomination. I would like to give my colleagues a little background on this stellar nominee. Judge Jarvey comes from Cedar Rapids, IA. Since 1987, he has been the chief U.S. magistrate judge for the U.S. district court, Northern District of Iowa. He also has been a trial advocacy instructor at the University of Iowa Law School since 1993. I received many letters from the Iowa legal community praising Judge Jarvey's judicial temperament, courteousness to litigants, and respect for and commitment to our judicial system. He has been praised for his judicial ethics and abilities as an administrator. Many letters commented on Judge Jarvey's intelligence, command of the law and rules of evidence, and his fairness. Judge Jarvey has been given a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' by the ABA. I am confident that this man possesses the skill, integrity, commitment, intellect, and temperament that we expect of all good judges. So I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Judge Jarvey's nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it's time we put a stop to wasteful, abusive, and fraudulent use of government credit cards. In fact, it's overdue. For several years, I have been working with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate misuse of government credit cards and the lack of internal controls in agencies that breeds such activity. We have found shockingly flagrant abuses like $2,443 in taxpayers' money going to pay for a down payment on a sapphire ring at a place called E-Z Pawn and $1,935 in taxpayers' money used to purchase two LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs with full lumbar support and vibrator-massage features, all using government purchase cards. Government travel cards, which are only to be used for legitimate travel-related expenditures, have been used to pay for everything from women's lingerie from Frederick's of Hollywood to tickets to the Phantom of the Opera to a seven night Alaskan cruise for two. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. Our oversight work has helped shine a light on this problem and has led to some improvements. Some agencies have moved to fix the specific shortcomings highlighted by the GAO, and the Office of Management and Budget has issued a circular to agencies that seeks to bring about an improved control environment. However, I believe a more comprehensive approach is needed. There is considerable commonality between the control breakdowns the GAO found in the agencies it investigated. The same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. The OMB circular does not address many of these recommendations and it makes no sense for the GAO to visit every agency and bureau in the Federal Government to point out where they fall short. We know what is needed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of government credit cards and we must ensure that these internal controls are implemented consistently across the federal bureaucracy. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act, along with Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Coleman. I should also mention that Representative Joe Wilson will be reintroducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives and I appreciate his help and assistance as we've worked together on this legislation. Based primarily on the recommendations of the GAO in numerous reports, as well the work of agency inspectors general and my own oversight work, my bill seeks to curtail waste, fraud, and abuse of government purchase cards, government travel cards, and centrally billed accounts. By way of background, government purchase cards are essentially credit cards held by an agency that authorized individuals use to purchase items necessary for the work of the agency. Since the agency pays the bills directly, the American taxpayer is on the hook when improper purchases slip through the cracks. That means hard working American citizens are paying for someone else's Christmas shopping, or at the very least items with little or no legitimate public interest. Just like the parents' credit card in the hands of an undisciplined teenager, government purchase cards in the hands of poorly trained bureaucrats with inadequate oversight can lead to rash and ill-considered impulse buys. Take for instance an incident uncovered by the GAO when an individual at the Air Force Academy found a dead deer alongside the road and decided to use a government purchase card to pay for mounting the mule deer head to hang on the wall at the office. Centrally billed accounts are another credit product that federal agencies use, primarily for purchasing transportation services. Like purchase cards, the bill is sent to the government so it's the taxpayer who pays when the bureaucrats let things slip through the cracks. For instance, we've had repeated cases where government employees had airplane tickets purchased on their behalf directly from a centrally billed account, and then they sought and received reimbursement as though they had paid for the ticket. In other words, the ticket was paid for twice with the employee pocketing the cost the second time, and no one would be the wiser if it weren't for the GAO. The GAO has also found millions of dollars worth of fully refundable, unused airline tickets that no one bothered to cash in. I was pleased to work with Senator Coleman, then the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to bring these issues with centrally billed accounts to light, as well as Senator Collins, who was at the time the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee. In addition to being co-requesters of the GAO reports, they held hearings in their respective committees and were kind enough to invite me to testify about our work. Government travel cards, on the other hand, are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards and centrally billed accounts, but they are only supposed to be used to pay for legitimate expense while on official government travel. Failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else. Nevertheless, government travel cards with high credit limits have been handed out like candy at a parade to individuals with abysmal credit ratings who ordinarily would never be issued that kind of credit. It's no surprise then when we learn that certain government employees have abused their government travel cards to buy jewelry, take in a New York Yankees game, or to fuel an internet gambling habit. Such abusive charges often occur when the cardholder is not even on travel at all. In fact, government travel cards have been used to provide cash advances in employees' hometowns. There are even examples of charges at so called ``gentleman's clubs'' like Cheetah's Lounge and Deja Vu Showgirls, and even at legalized brothels. Suffice it to say that the GAO was able to determine that these charges were not for food or other approved travel expenses. It also comes as no surprise when the GAO found that employees issued government travel cards despite bad credit often bounce checks when their bill comes due, sometimes repeatedly and fraudulently. Common sense then leads us to the same conclusion that the GAO came to through empirical analysis, namely that a significant relationship exists between potential travel card fraud, abuse, and delinquencies and individuals with substantial credit history problems. That is why my legislation requires agencies to perform credit checks for travel card holders and issue only restricted cards for those with poor or no credit to reduce the potential for misuse. My bill would also require a series of common sense internal controls, which the GAO has found to be lacking in many cases, to be implemented in every federal agency. These include: maintaining a record of each cardholder, including single transaction limits and total credit limits so agencies can effectively manage their cardholders; implementing periodic reviews to determine if cardholders have a need for a card; properly recording rebates to the government based on prompt payment; providing training for cardholders and managers; utilizing available technologies to prevent or catch fraudulent purchases; establishing specific policies about the number of cards to be issued, the credit limits for certain categories of cardholders, and categories of employees eligible to be issued cards; invalidating cards when employees leave the agency or transfer; establishing an approving official other than the purchase card holder so employees cannot approve their own purchases; reconciling purchase card charges on the bill with receipts and supporting documentation; submitting disputed purchase card charges to the bank according to the proper procedure; making purchase card payments promptly to avoid interest penalties; retaining records of purchase card transactions in accordance with standard government record keeping polices; utilizing mandatory split disbursements when reimbursing employees for travel card purchases to ensure that travel card bills get paid; comparing items submitted on travel vouchers with items already paid for with centrally billed accounts to avoid reimbursing employees for items already paid for by the agency; and submitting refund requests for unused airline tickets so the taxpayers don't pay for tickets that were not used. My bill would also provide that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse government charge cards will not get away scot free. In fact, in cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. Attorney for prosecution under federal anti-fraud laws. It is essential that we send a clear message that misuse and fraudulent use of government credit cards will not be tolerated. The lack of consistency in the past in applying punishments to those caught abusing government charge cards has sent the wrong message and led to an environment where misuse of government charge cards is more likely. My bill will change that. The American people expect us to be good stewards of their money and their cynicism about government only builds when they read about bureaucrats saying, ``Just put it on plastic'' willy nilly with their hard earned dollars. Unfortunately, such incidents persist. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress hastily passed a supplemental spending bill containing an ill-advised provision to dramatically raise the micro-purchase threshold for purchase cards. I worked with Senators Collins and Lieberman, the leaders of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to reverse what amounted to an invitation to misuse government purchase cards. Then, because of our concerns and the concerns of other members of Congress about the potential for fraud and abuse of purchase cards in the response to the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region, the GAO conducted an investigation of purchase cards at the Department of Homeland Security. Just last September, the GAO issued its report finding instances of abusive or questionable government charge card transactions, including the purchase of a beer brewing kit, a 63-inch plasma television with a price tag of $8,000 that was found unused in its original box 6 months later, and tens of thousands of dollars for training at golf and tennis resorts. Clearly the abuse of government credit cards remains a problem and Congress needs to act. My bill will establish the discipline needed in government agencies to keep those credit cards in the wallet unless needed. I am particularly glad to be joined in introducing this bill by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins as well as Senator Coleman. Their leadership on this issue will continue to be invaluable. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this effort and put a stop to the bureaucratic shopping spree. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it's time we put a stop to wasteful, abusive, and fraudulent use of government credit cards. In fact, it's overdue. For several years, I have been working with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate misuse of government credit cards and the lack of internal controls in agencies that breeds such activity. We have found shockingly flagrant abuses like $2,443 in taxpayers' money going to pay for a down payment on a sapphire ring at a place called E-Z Pawn and $1,935 in taxpayers' money used to purchase two LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs with full lumbar support and vibrator-massage features, all using government purchase cards. Government travel cards, which are only to be used for legitimate travel-related expenditures, have been used to pay for everything from women's lingerie from Frederick's of Hollywood to tickets to the Phantom of the Opera to a seven night Alaskan cruise for two. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. Our oversight work has helped shine a light on this problem and has led to some improvements. Some agencies have moved to fix the specific shortcomings highlighted by the GAO, and the Office of Management and Budget has issued a circular to agencies that seeks to bring about an improved control environment. However, I believe a more comprehensive approach is needed. There is considerable commonality between the control breakdowns the GAO found in the agencies it investigated. The same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. The OMB circular does not address many of these recommendations and it makes no sense for the GAO to visit every agency and bureau in the Federal Government to point out where they fall short. We know what is needed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of government credit cards and we must ensure that these internal controls are implemented consistently across the federal bureaucracy. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act, along with Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Coleman. I should also mention that Representative Joe Wilson will be reintroducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives and I appreciate his help and assistance as we've worked together on this legislation. Based primarily on the recommendations of the GAO in numerous reports, as well the work of agency inspectors general and my own oversight work, my bill seeks to curtail waste, fraud, and abuse of government purchase cards, government travel cards, and centrally billed accounts. By way of background, government purchase cards are essentially credit cards held by an agency that authorized individuals use to purchase items necessary for the work of the agency. Since the agency pays the bills directly, the American taxpayer is on the hook when improper purchases slip through the cracks. That means hard working American citizens are paying for someone else's Christmas shopping, or at the very least items with little or no legitimate public interest. Just like the parents' credit card in the hands of an undisciplined teenager, government purchase cards in the hands of poorly trained bureaucrats with inadequate oversight can lead to rash and ill-considered impulse buys. Take for instance an incident uncovered by the GAO when an individual at the Air Force Academy found a dead deer alongside the road and decided to use a government purchase card to pay for mounting the mule deer head to hang on the wall at the office. Centrally billed accounts are another credit product that federal agencies use, primarily for purchasing transportation services. Like purchase cards, the bill is sent to the government so it's the taxpayer who pays when the bureaucrats let things slip through the cracks. For instance, we've had repeated cases where government employees had airplane tickets purchased on their behalf directly from a centrally billed account, and then they sought and received reimbursement as though they had paid for the ticket. In other words, the ticket was paid for twice with the employee pocketing the cost the second time, and no one would be the wiser if it weren't for the GAO. The GAO has also found millions of dollars worth of fully refundable, unused airline tickets that no one bothered to cash in. I was pleased to work with Senator Coleman, then the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to bring these issues with centrally billed accounts to light, as well as Senator Collins, who was at the time the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee. In addition to being co-requesters of the GAO reports, they held hearings in their respective committees and were kind enough to invite me to testify about our work. Government travel cards, on the other hand, are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards and centrally billed accounts, but they are only supposed to be used to pay for legitimate expense while on official government travel. Failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else. Nevertheless, government travel cards with high credit limits have been handed out like candy at a parade to individuals with abysmal credit ratings who ordinarily would never be issued that kind of credit. It's no surprise then when we learn that certain government employees have abused their government travel cards to buy jewelry, take in a New York Yankees game, or to fuel an internet gambling habit. Such abusive charges often occur when the cardholder is not even on travel at all. In fact, government travel cards have been used to provide cash advances in employees' hometowns. There are even examples of charges at so called ``gentleman's clubs'' like Cheetah's Lounge and Deja Vu Showgirls, and even at legalized brothels. Suffice it to say that the GAO was able to determine that these charges were not for food or other approved travel expenses. It also comes as no surprise when the GAO found that employees issued government travel cards despite bad credit often bounce checks when their bill comes due, sometimes repeatedly and fraudulently. Common sense then leads us to the same conclusion that the GAO came to through empirical analysis, namely that a significant relationship exists between potential travel card fraud, abuse, and delinquencies and individuals with substantial credit history problems. That is why my legislation requires agencies to perform credit checks for travel card holders and issue only restricted cards for those with poor or no credit to reduce the potential for misuse. My bill would also require a series of common sense internal controls, which the GAO has found to be lacking in many cases, to be implemented in every federal agency. These include: maintaining a record of each cardholder, including single transaction limits and total credit limits so agencies can effectively manage their cardholders; implementing periodic reviews to determine if cardholders have a need for a card; properly recording rebates to the government based on prompt payment; providing training for cardholders and managers; utilizing available technologies to prevent or catch fraudulent purchases; establishing specific policies about the number of cards to be issued, the credit limits for certain categories of cardholders, and categories of employees eligible to be issued cards; invalidating cards when employees leave the agency or transfer; establishing an approving official other than the purchase card holder so employees cannot approve their own purchases; reconciling purchase card charges on the bill with receipts and supporting documentation; submitting disputed purchase card charges to the bank according to the proper procedure; making purchase card payments promptly to avoid interest penalties; retaining records of purchase card transactions in accordance with standard government record keeping polices; utilizing mandatory split disbursements when reimbursing employees for travel card purchases to ensure that travel card bills get paid; comparing items submitted on travel vouchers with items already paid for with centrally billed accounts to avoid reimbursing employees for items already paid for by the agency; and submitting refund requests for unused airline tickets so the taxpayers don't pay for tickets that were not used. My bill would also provide that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potentially fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse government charge cards will not get away scot free. In fact, in cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. Attorney for prosecution under federal anti-fraud laws. It is essential that we send a clear message that misuse and fraudulent use of government credit cards will not be tolerated. The lack of consistency in the past in applying punishments to those caught abusing government charge cards has sent the wrong message and led to an environment where misuse of government charge cards is more likely. My bill will change that. The American people expect us to be good stewards of their money and their cynicism about government only builds when they read about bureaucrats saying, ``Just put it on plastic'' willy nilly with their hard earned dollars. Unfortunately, such incidents persist. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress hastily passed a supplemental spending bill containing an ill-advised provision to dramatically raise the micro-purchase threshold for purchase cards. I worked with Senators Collins and Lieberman, the leaders of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to reverse what amounted to an invitation to misuse government purchase cards. Then, because of our concerns and the concerns of other members of Congress about the potential for fraud and abuse of purchase cards in the response to the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region, the GAO conducted an investigation of purchase cards at the Department of Homeland Security. Just last September, the GAO issued its report finding instances of abusive or questionable government charge card transactions, including the purchase of a beer brewing kit, a 63-inch plasma television with a price tag of $8,000 that was found unused in its original box 6 months later, and tens of thousands of dollars for training at golf and tennis resorts. Clearly the abuse of government credit cards remains a problem and Congress needs to act. My bill will establish the discipline needed in government agencies to keep those credit cards in the wallet unless needed. I am particularly glad to be joined in introducing this bill by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins as well as Senator Coleman. Their leadership on this issue will continue to be invaluable. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this effort and put a stop to the bureaucratic shopping spree. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to offer another amendment to S. 4 that seeks to strengthen our Nation's homeland security by closing a loophole in our securities laws. My amendment would amend section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and would narrow an exemption from registration for certain investment advisers. There is a homeland security element to this fix because it can sometimes be important to know who is managing large sums of money for wealthy foreign investors. For example, it was recently reported that a Boston-based private equity firm, Overland Capital Group, Inc, is under investigation by the IRS and DOJ counterterrorism division. Such firms, which manage hundreds of millions of dollars for wealthy investors in total secrecy, ought to have to at least register with the SEC. Currently, section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act provides a statutory exemption from registration for any investment adviser who had fewer than 15 clients in the preceding 12-month period and who does not hold himself out to the public as an investment adviser. This amendment would narrow this exemption, which is currently used by large, private pooled investment vehicles, commonly referred to as hedge funds. These hedge funds use this section of the securities laws to avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission--SEC. 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 are trading nearly 30 percent of the daily trades in U.S. financial markets. The power this amount of volume has is not some passing fad, but instead represents a new element in our financial markets. Congress needs to ensure that we know who is running these large vehicles to ensure the security of those 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. It affects regular investors. Indeed, it affects 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 is one small and simple step toward greater transparency--to require that hedge funds register and tell the regulators who they are. This is not a burden, but rather a simple, common sense requirement for organizations that wield hundreds of billions of dollars in market power every day. 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, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2006, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a SEC administrative rule that required registration of hedge funds. This decision effectively ended all registration of hedge funds with the SEC. My amendment would narrow the statutory exemption from registration and bring much needed transparency to hedge funds. The amendment would authorize the SEC to require investment advisers to register unless the adviser: No. 1, had $50 million or less in assets under management, No. 2, had fewer than 15 clients, No. 3, did not hold himself out to the public as an investment adviser, and No. 4, managed the assets of fewer than 15 investors, regardless of whether the investors participate directly or through a pooled investment vehicle, such as a hedge fund. This amendment is a first step in ensuring that the SEC has the needed statutory authority to do what it attempted to do for the last 2 years. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as we work to protect investors large and small. I am not surprised by the objection today. For the record, I want everyone to know that this morning when I said I intended to offer this amendment, my phones started ringing off the hook. Lots of powerful people don't want to see an amendment like this, but Americans want their Government to know who is running these funds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I have in the past sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act.'' Today we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to reintroduce this important legislation. My sponsorship of the packer ban this Congress is based on the belief that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their livestock. Over the years we have seen widespread consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets. The past CEO of a major packer in 1994 explained that the reason packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer. This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent producers have a share in the marketplace while assisting the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement. The packers required to comply would be the same packers required to report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 lambs annually, over a 5 year average. Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair prices for contracts based on that data. It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that information is wrong, the contract producers suffer. This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I have in the past sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act.'' Today we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to reintroduce this important legislation. My sponsorship of the packer ban this Congress is based on the belief that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their livestock. Over the years we have seen widespread consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets. The past CEO of a major packer in 1994 explained that the reason packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer. This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent producers have a share in the marketplace while assisting the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement. The packers required to comply would be the same packers required to report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 lambs annually, over a 5 year average. Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair prices for contracts based on that data. It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that information is wrong, the contract producers suffer. This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a bill that would further expand the definition of anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act to include DHEA. I am pleased to be joined in this bi-partisan effort by my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Durbin. Eight years ago, baseball fans everywhere were witness to history as Roger Maris' 37 year old single season record of 61 home-runs was finally broken. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa captivated the public as their chase for the home-run record unfolded in living rooms everywhere. Three years later, Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants set a new record when he hit an unthinkable 73 home-runs in just one season. Now, with another Major League Baseball season just around the corner, the 42 year old Barry Bonds is on the brink of breaking the all time home-run record held by the great Hank Aaron. A lot has changed since that historic 1998 season though. We now know that Mark McGwire had been taking an over the counter testosterone boosting supplement known as ``Andro'' at the time he broke the home- run record. A few years later, an anonymous phone call sparked what has since become the largest doping scandal in professional sports history. The BALCO scandal as it is famously known today, has exposed numerous top athletes across a wide range of sports and continues to this day. In fact, just this week, we learned that investigators found evidence that testosterone and other performance enhancing drugs may have been illegally purchased over the internet by current and former Major League Baseball and NFL players, college athletes, high school coaches, a former Mr. Olympia champion, and another top contender in the body building competition. The publicity generated from these doping scandals even spurred Congress into action. In 2004, we passed legislation expanding the list from 23 to 59 anabolic steroids that are now regulated by the DEA, including ``Andro''. Legislation has also been introduced that would force Major League Baseball and other professional sports leagues, to strengthen their testing procedures and set new minimum penalties for any violations of the policy. While all this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal performance enhancing drugs, much work remains to be done. Some recent studies appear to indicate that the use of illegal steroids among adolescents is beginning to decline. While this is good news, an alarming number of young people are still turning to these dangerous drugs to improve performance, appearance, or their self image. Even more widespread however, is the use of over the counter supplements. Many young people turn to these ``supplements'' as an alternative to already illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. Yet, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids, some even become steroids in the blood stream. In the year following Mark McGwire's record breaking 70 home-run season, sales of andro surged by more than 1000 percent. In 2004, we took action to control sales of these dangerous drugs and protect the unsuspecting public. Yet as I speak today, one anabolic steroid remains on the shelves of health stores around the country. This potentially harmful steroid can be bought by anyone, at any age and without consulting a physician first. DHEA, is a steroid hormone that when ingested in the body, is converted into other more powerful steroid hormones including Andro and Testosterone. Both Andro and Testosterone are already controlled by the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long-term physical and psychological effects. Women could experience facial hair growth, scalp hair loss, deepening of the voice, and increased girth. Men could experience increased blood pressure or breast enlargement. Unfortunately, side effects associated with hormones don't always appear right away. While these effects may be mild at low doses, according to many experts high levels of DHEA might promote liver damage and cancer of the breast or prostate over time. The truth is we know very little about DHEA's long term effects. In addition, because DHEA is marketed as a dietary supplement rather than a medicine, companies distributing DHEA products are not required to prove their safety and effectiveness to the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if these products are 100 percent pure or whether you are getting the same amount of DHEA the label claims. In fact, in 2000, the Good Housekeeping Research Group examined 8 popular DHEA products with ``antiaging'' claims and found that 5 of the 8 brands sent to an independent lab for testing, failed to accurately state the level of DHEA labeled on their product. While often cited as an anti-aging pill, some advertisements do specifically target athletes. Take for example this advertisement on www.bodybuilding.com: DHEA is HOT, and you will see why. As a pre-cursor hormone, it leads to the production of other hormones. When this compound is supplemented, it has shown to have awesome effects. Here is another advertisement found on AST Sports Sciences, If you're a bodybuilder, and want to increase lean body mass at the expense of body fat, actual studies show this supplement may significantly alter body composition, favoring lean mass accrual. DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and minor league baseball, yet under current Federal law it enjoys special protections. In 2005, as Major League Baseball and their steroid policy were coming under increasingly heavy fire, the top medical advisor to the League turned the tables on us as lawmakers, referring to DHEA and accusing us of failing to write a zero tolerance steroids policy into Federal law. With that in mind, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, which would put these potentially dangerous steroids behind the counter where they belong. We must make every effort to keep ALL steroids out of the hands of children and protect unsuspecting consumers. DHEA is not a food supplement, and should be treated as every other testosterone boosting substance in the steroid family. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I send the draft of this legislation to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a bill that would further expand the definition of anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act to include DHEA. I am pleased to be joined in this bi-partisan effort by my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Durbin. Eight years ago, baseball fans everywhere were witness to history as Roger Maris' 37 year old single season record of 61 home-runs was finally broken. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa captivated the public as their chase for the home-run record unfolded in living rooms everywhere. Three years later, Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants set a new record when he hit an unthinkable 73 home-runs in just one season. Now, with another Major League Baseball season just around the corner, the 42 year old Barry Bonds is on the brink of breaking the all time home-run record held by the great Hank Aaron. A lot has changed since that historic 1998 season though. We now know that Mark McGwire had been taking an over the counter testosterone boosting supplement known as ``Andro'' at the time he broke the home- run record. A few years later, an anonymous phone call sparked what has since become the largest doping scandal in professional sports history. The BALCO scandal as it is famously known today, has exposed numerous top athletes across a wide range of sports and continues to this day. In fact, just this week, we learned that investigators found evidence that testosterone and other performance enhancing drugs may have been illegally purchased over the internet by current and former Major League Baseball and NFL players, college athletes, high school coaches, a former Mr. Olympia champion, and another top contender in the body building competition. The publicity generated from these doping scandals even spurred Congress into action. In 2004, we passed legislation expanding the list from 23 to 59 anabolic steroids that are now regulated by the DEA, including ``Andro''. Legislation has also been introduced that would force Major League Baseball and other professional sports leagues, to strengthen their testing procedures and set new minimum penalties for any violations of the policy. While all this publicity has helped to raise public awareness about the dangers of illegal performance enhancing drugs, much work remains to be done. Some recent studies appear to indicate that the use of illegal steroids among adolescents is beginning to decline. While this is good news, an alarming number of young people are still turning to these dangerous drugs to improve performance, appearance, or their self image. Even more widespread however, is the use of over the counter supplements. Many young people turn to these ``supplements'' as an alternative to already illegal steroids, mistakenly believing that because they are sold over the counter, they must be safe. Yet, many of these over the counter ``supplements'' actually produce the same dangerous effects on the body as illegal steroids, some even become steroids in the blood stream. In the year following Mark McGwire's record breaking 70 home-run season, sales of andro surged by more than 1000 percent. In 2004, we took action to control sales of these dangerous drugs and protect the unsuspecting public. Yet as I speak today, one anabolic steroid remains on the shelves of health stores around the country. This potentially harmful steroid can be bought by anyone, at any age and without consulting a physician first. DHEA, is a steroid hormone that when ingested in the body, is converted into other more powerful steroid hormones including Andro and Testosterone. Both Andro and Testosterone are already controlled by the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act. DHEA like all other steroids, may cause a number of long-term physical and psychological effects. Women could experience facial hair growth, scalp hair loss, deepening of the voice, and increased girth. Men could experience increased blood pressure or breast enlargement. Unfortunately, side effects associated with hormones don't always appear right away. While these effects may be mild at low doses, according to many experts high levels of DHEA might promote liver damage and cancer of the breast or prostate over time. The truth is we know very little about DHEA's long term effects. In addition, because DHEA is marketed as a dietary supplement rather than a medicine, companies distributing DHEA products are not required to prove their safety and effectiveness to the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if these products are 100 percent pure or whether you are getting the same amount of DHEA the label claims. In fact, in 2000, the Good Housekeeping Research Group examined 8 popular DHEA products with ``antiaging'' claims and found that 5 of the 8 brands sent to an independent lab for testing, failed to accurately state the level of DHEA labeled on their product. While often cited as an anti-aging pill, some advertisements do specifically target athletes. Take for example this advertisement on www.bodybuilding.com: DHEA is HOT, and you will see why. As a pre-cursor hormone, it leads to the production of other hormones. When this compound is supplemented, it has shown to have awesome effects. Here is another advertisement found on AST Sports Sciences, If you're a bodybuilder, and want to increase lean body mass at the expense of body fat, actual studies show this supplement may significantly alter body composition, favoring lean mass accrual. DHEA is already banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and minor league baseball, yet under current Federal law it enjoys special protections. In 2005, as Major League Baseball and their steroid policy were coming under increasingly heavy fire, the top medical advisor to the League turned the tables on us as lawmakers, referring to DHEA and accusing us of failing to write a zero tolerance steroids policy into Federal law. With that in mind, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, which would put these potentially dangerous steroids behind the counter where they belong. We must make every effort to keep ALL steroids out of the hands of children and protect unsuspecting consumers. DHEA is not a food supplement, and should be treated as every other testosterone boosting substance in the steroid family. I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I send the draft of this legislation to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Guaranteed Access to Medicaid for Newborns Act. This bill corrects a problem that has arisen during the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005. Through this act, we will guarantee that children born in America who are eligible for Medicaid can seamlessly get Medicaid coverage. For the last two decades, Medicaid recipients have been required to be a U.S. citizen or qualified alien who has been in the country for at least 5 years. In a July 2005 report, the HHS Office of Inspector General found that 47 States allowed individuals to ``self attest'' their citizenship status to qualify for Medicaid benefits. In short, the State simply asked a Medicaid applicant if they were a citizen. The applicant need only respond, ``Yes, I am an American.'' No documents necessary. And of those 47 States, 27 did no followup verification such as checking with the Social Security Administration. In response to this report, the DRA included a House-led provision that I supported to require States to more carefully document the citizenship of Medicaid recipients and applicants. Implementation of this provision, as is often the case with legislation, has not been without its challenges. The interim final rule that was issued by CMS effective July 6, 2006, did make many improvements so that the new statute could be implemented consistent with legislative intent. I think, on the whole, CMS did a good job. However, there was one specific provision in the interim final rule that I do not think is consistent with congressional intent: the provision that makes it more difficult for children born to undocumented mothers to gain Medicaid eligibility. In section 1903(v) of the Social Security Act, the Medicaid statute makes available payment to States for treatment of an alien who is not otherwise eligible for Medicaid in the case of an emergency medical condition. A woman who is undocumented or not otherwise eligible for Medicaid is covered under Medicaid for labor and delivery. Nothing in the DRA changed that nor was anything in the DRA intended to change that. Under section 1902(e)(4) of the Social Security Act, a child born to a woman receiving Medicaid at the time of the child's birth is deemed onto Medicaid for a year. States had been interpreting that to mean the child of a woman who was undocumented could be deemed onto Medicaid for a year since the mother, under 1903(v), was eligible for Medicaid at the time of the child's birth. The interim final rule now specifically prevents a State from deeming the child of an undocumented mother onto the State Medicaid program without properly documenting the child's citizenship first. In this case, I believe CMS has gone too far. A child born in the United States of America is a citizen. Before the DRA, children born to mothers on Medicaid were deemed onto Medicaid, and I think that is absolutely in the best interest of that newborn child. The DRA did not change two fundamental facts: First, the mother, regardless of documentation status, was eligible for Medicaid at the time of the child's birth and, second, the child is a citizen. In my mind, there is no reason then to have any new documentation requirement for the child. The legislation I am introducing today reinstitutes the pre-DRA policy with one notable exception. Under the old rule, a State could issue a temporary Medicaid identification number to the mother which served as the identification number for the child for up to a year. I don't think that it's necessary or appropriate for a State to provide a child Medicaid benefits by issuing the mother a Medicaid card. This especially problematic in cases where the mother may not be in the country legally nor eligible for Medicaid after delivery. My legislation changes the old policy by requiring the State to issue an identification number to the child of the undocumented mother. This does not in any way change the States' responsibility to provide the mother benefits when she comes to the emergency room in labor. The legislation makes one further change to the statute to benefit newborns. Under the interim final rule, all children born to mothers on Medicaid are required to document their citizenship within 1 year of birth. I do not think that is necessary. Medicaid paid for the birth of an American citizen. It is simple common sense that the child is a citizen and requiring any further documentation is redundant and counter-intuitive. I want to be clear that I support the requirement that a State more fully document the citizenship of applicants for Medicaid. Given what the Congressional Budget Office has told us would be the cost of making undocumented aliens eligible for public programs, the Deficit Reduction Act addressed a real concern by requiring documentation. I want the new statutory provision to go forward to ensure that the people getting the benefits are actually eligible for the benefits. However, CMS and the States should recognize what is to me, common sense: A child born in the United States whose birth was paid for by Medicaid is a citizen under current law. No further documentation necessary.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my remarks are in regard to amendment No. 309, which is my amendment, but it was offered, as a lot of other amendments on this side of the aisle were, by Senator McConnell, and so I am going to speak now on amendment No. 309. This amendment seeks to shut down terrorists and criminal organizations by attacking their most valuable resource, and that is their money. Terrorists and criminal organizations take many different forms, but there is one factor that they all have in common, and that is the need to obtain, transit, and store money to do their dirty work. In the past few years, we have made some significant advancements in identifying how these groups obtain and attempt to legitimize their illicit funds. Yet as we close one door, these criminals seek to open another to move their money around and to continue their dirty work. In fact, they continue to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies in our current law. We must continue to be vigilant in closing these loopholes, and we must not underestimate their capabilities or resolve. As we consider amendment No. 309, I think we have to consider that this will not necessarily be the last word. These terrorists are so sophisticated in their operation that they may find some way to get around what we are doing now. As long as we are constantly vigilant, as long as we are constantly throwing roadblocks in the way of legitimizing their money and transiting their money, we will curtail their dirty work to some extent. Any efforts that we make to improve America's security must then, without question, address how terrorists and criminals are funding and financing their operations. One of the main recommendations that have come from the 9/11 Commission Report was that, and I quote: Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counterterrorism effort. These groups know well that we are looking hard to determine sources of funding that they use. They also know that we must continually develop new tactics to avoid detection, prosecution, and ultimately to protect those sources of funding. This has become, as we say in the Midwest, a kind of cat and mouse game. Like the larger war on terror, we cannot afford to lose this cat and mouse enterprise. My amendment will close existing loopholes. My amendment will remove the inconsistencies that allow terrorists and criminals to hide illegal funds within legal institutions and then move those funds for profit or to fund their activities or, you might say, for both. Our law enforcement agencies and our prosecutors must have the resources they need to bring these criminals to justice and to shut down their operations and, hopefully, shut them down permanently. For example, my amendment simplifies the continual growing list of over 200 predicate crimes dedicated for Federal prosecutors to bring a money laundering charge. My amendment will allow U.S. attorneys to use any Federal or State felony as a predicate offense to bring a money laundering charge. My amendment will also greatly simplify how prosecutors may seek indictments for money laundering violations. It also closes many loopholes that have allowed the terrorists and criminals to move money into this country. Clever tricks, such as traveling with blank checks with bearer form or in bearer form and the commingling of illegal and legitimate money in bank accounts will no longer be available to these criminal organizations. Under my amendment cash smugglers will no longer be able to hide behind a claim of ignorance about the source of the money they carry. The amendment will also provide necessary changes to our antiquated counterfeiting statutes. The stability of our currency is paramount to not only our economy but also the economies of so many other countries that seem to follow the dollar. The dollar is the most recognizable currency in the world and an inescapable target for counterfeiters. For instance, U.S. currency counterfeiting operations have been identified in places such as Colombia, North Korea, and the Middle East, undoubtedly giving counterfeiting ties to drug cartels and to sponsors of terrorism. This crime has evolved and continues to evolve with the explosion of computer printing technology. This amendment will bring our counterfeiting statutes in line with these dramatic technological changes and give law enforcement agencies, especially the Secret Service, the resources to fight counterfeiting and other financial crimes on an international scale. Any effort we make to increase the security of this Nation must then strive to remove sources of funding available to the terrorists and to the criminals. Without financial resources, these groups will no longer be able to make profits or fund operations. Our Nation, for a long period of time, has been trying to shut off sources of funding. As I indicated earlier, we are up against a sophisticated enemy that always finds some way around our laws to legitimize what they do. Once again, I want to emphasize that it is a constant struggle to keep our laws so that the criminal element cannot find these loopholes and do something legally that finances their illegal activities. These criminals should not be allowed to hide behind loopholes in our laws, and we should give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to deal the ever-changing tactics of terrorists and criminals. In essence, our goal should be nothing less than putting these criminal organizations out of business, and putting them out of business for good. This amendment is critical to our homeland defense. It implements changes that the 9/11 Commission recommended in its report, which was a bipartisan commission and, consequently, a bipartisan report. We are dealing with something that should have support on both sides of the aisle. This amendment also has the support and backing of both the Department of Justice and the Secret Service. It has the support of the Secret Service because one of their many responsibilities--and maybe one of their original responsibilities--is to protect the integrity of American currency. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and improve America's security by combating terrorist financing and criminal money laundering. Amendment No. 300 Madam President, another amendment that was filed by our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, is No. 300, which I will also now discuss. That amendment to the underlying bill will revise current laws related to visa revocation for visa holders who are on U.S. soil. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers are nonreviewable and are deemed final. However, if a visa is approved but later revoked, and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the consular officer then becomes automatically reviewable in our U.S. courts. My amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is no longer valid. It is very important that we do this for these reasons: Consider visa revocations related to terrorism. From September 11, 2001, until the summer of 2003, the State Department revoked about 1,200 visas based upon terrorism links. I asked Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, about the problems with our current law on visa revocation. I will quote what he said to me on Wednesday when he was before the Judiciary Committee: The fact is that we can prevent someone who is coming in as a guest. We can say, you can't come in from overseas, but once they come in, if they abuse the terms and conditions of their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are admitted as guests, like guests in my house, if the guest misbehaves, I just tell them to leave. They don't get to go to court over it. That is the end of his quote, but he makes it very clear that he believes somebody who should not have been here in the first place shouldn't have the right of protection of our courts before they are removed. Following on the Secretary's analogy, I think we can equate the role of homeowner to that of consular officer. Currently and historically all decisions by consular officers with regard to the granting of visas are final and not subject to review. Revocations, then, should not be treated any differently than that original denial, when somebody did not have the right to come here in the first place. Let me explain how we got here. Back in 2003, a Government Accountability Office report revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of the revocation papers. This loophole came to light after the Government Accountability Office found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there was evidence the person had terrorism links and associations. The FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism in over 280 visa applications. The FBI did not share the information with our consular offices in time, so the consular officers actually granted the visa so somebody with terrorism connections could come here when they should not have been allowed into the country. When they got the derogatory information from the FBI, it was too late; they had access to our courts. The consular officer had to revoke the visas. What the Government Accountability Office found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn't do anything about it. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. In the end, it turned out OK, but it is an example of the mistakes that can be made. It is also an example of the loophole terrorists are smart enough to exploit. Why, then, are revoked visas such a problem? The short answer is that the person with the revoked visa can stay in the United States--a terrorist, then, can stay in the United States--and can appeal the consular officer's decision of whether they had a right to be here in the first place. Thanks to a small provision inserted during the consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004, the visa holder has more rights than he or she should have, considering the terrorist connection. If they were originally denied a visa by the consular officer, there would be no right to dispute it. I will give an example. If a consular officer grants a visa to a person and that person makes his or her way to the United States and after arriving in the United States the consular officer finds out that the foreign individual has ties to terrorism--maybe the consular officer found out that the visa holder attended a terrorist training camp or maybe the intelligence community just informed the consular officer that the visa holder was linked to the Taliban or maybe our Government just learned that the visa holder gave millions of dollars to a terrorist organization before they applied for a visa--whatever the case might be, the person should not have a visa, and the consular officer has to revoke it. This revocation should be a final determination--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It should not be reviewable and especially should not be reviewable in the U.S. courts. What are the ramifications, then, of where we are today with the law and why change the law? Deporting an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal that revocation. This exception has made the visa revocation ineffective as an antiterrorism tool. Allowing review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified intelligence that led to revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and the CIA to be hesitant to share information if it might get out within the environment of a court. Current law could be reversing our progress in information sharing. So why is this relevant, then, to the bill on the floor? The 9/11 Commission--again, I want to emphasize it is a bipartisan commission-- found flaws in our visa policies. Specifically, the staff report said that the 19 hijackers used--these are the 19 people who died on those airplanes that killed 3,000 Americans--these 19 hijackers used 364 aliases. Two of the hijackers may have obtained passports from family members working in the Saudi passport ministry. The 19 hijackers applied for 23 visas and obtained 22. The hijackers lied on their visa applications in detectable ways. The hijackers violated the terms of their visas, and they came and went at their very own convenience. The leaders of the Senate claim that the underlying bill will finish the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The floor manager on the other side of the aisle was quoted as saying: Every day that we don't act is another day in which we are not as secure here at home as we should be. The 9/11 Commission pointed out the obvious by stating: Terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter our country. The 9/11 Commission explicitly recommends, on page 385, that: The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility. So we are back to my amendment. The amendment, amendment No. 300, helps to achieve this goal. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and impede the mobility of terrorists throughout our country, wherever they want to do their dirty work. The Speaker of the House pointed out that: Implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations is supported by 62 percent of Americans. I think a higher percentage of Americans would agree that reforms to our immigration and visa policies should not be ignored, especially given the 9/11 Commission's recommended actions on these issues that then would make it easier to get these people with revoked visas out of the country and would not put them in an environment where, if they were going to be pursued through the courts to get them out of the country, that intelligence information or FBI sources would have to be disclosed in the courts. Unfortunately, our leaders have forgotten a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. In other words, this bill is not as complete as the authors of this legislation want us to think it is, and this amendment will make it more complete. This amendment would constrain terrorists' travel, and it should be accepted on this bill. Allowing aliens to remain on U.S. soil with revoked visa or petition is a national security concern and is something about which the 9/11 Commission would suggest correction is needed. We must encourage, as the 9/11 Commission recommended, a procedure in which our intelligence community can work with consular officers, who then cooperate with our Nation's law enforcement to keep terrorists from coming to the United States. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and to run to the courts and to seek relief from deportation. Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11--and I have laid this out, how you can get more visas than you even need, how you have hundreds of aliases, the tools they use--and proved how sophisticated they are and proved how they could carry out their dastardly acts on September 11. Enough is enough. They took advantage of our system before 9/11. We need to do everything we can to make sure they don't take further advantage of our system. I hope my colleagues will support amendment No. 300. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Vitter as a cosponsor of this amendment.