Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007, which will extend whistleblower protections currently available to certain executive branch employees to legislative branch employees. Presently, executive branch employees are shielded from retaliation for exposing waste, fraud, or abuse by the Whistleblower Protection Act. The bill I'm introducing today simply extends those same protections to legislative branch employees. A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as the elections this past November, is accountability and responsibility in Washington. I have fought hard for whistleblowers over the years because they are key in our efforts to ensure government accountability to the people we are sent here to serve. In most instances, the only reason we discover waste or fraud is because employees are brave enough to stand up to the wrongdoers and expose their offenses. Without these whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot the bill. The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill. We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the executive branch. It doesn't make sense not to extend these same protections to whistleblowers in our own backyard. My bill will, very simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers in the other branches of government already possess. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill to ensure that those who help us in the fight to hold government accountable are not punished for their efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Speaking as in morning business?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor the distinguished civil service career of a particularly remarkable Iowan. Mr. Robert ``Bob'' Crawford will be retiring shortly from his civilian service to the Department of the Army and in doing so will leave behind a legacy of exceptional support and dedication to his work and to his country. Over the years, Bob Crawford has amassed a series of professional accomplishments that are truly outstanding. His commitment to his work has earned him a Commander's Award for Civilian Service and he has twice been awarded the Superior Civilian Service Award. Bob's hard work, honesty, and leadership have become defining characteristics of his career and he has earned the respect of his colleagues and peers for his many years of expertise. Bob Crawford currently works as the Deputy to the commander for the U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command, JMC, where he is entrusted to maintain the development and production of the ammunition supply for our brave service men and women overseas. Before serving in this capacity, Bob worked in a number of different roles within the ammunition production industry, ranging from a production engineer, to a production director, to a deputy for operations, and finally to his current position. While his responsibilities have shifted and grown over the years, Bob Crawford's commitment to the values of the Department of the Army has remained as steadfast and unwavering as ever. As early as his time at the University of Illinois and then at St. Ambrose University, Bob has been distinguishing himself within his field and I am glad to be able to congratulate him and honor his magnificent career as it now comes to a close. I wish Bob and his wife Sharon and their children in Bettendorf, IA, the very best of luck for the future and I thank him for his 25 years of public service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak about two issues that have been much in the news lately: the tax gap and the minimum wage bill. We had on the front page of the Times today the discussion about the tax gap. In addition, with the release of the President's budget today, the administration has provided Congress substantive proposals to deal with the tax gap. It is now Congress's responsibility to consider these proposals, review them, and hear from the public and also see what more is possible in terms of addressing the tax gap. But the good news is we have already taken steps in this Congress to deal with the tax gap. We have very important tax reforms and tax gap measures included in the minimum wage bill. So Congress is effectively killing two birds with one stone. First, we are providing needed tax relief for small businesses that could be harmed by the increase in the minimum wage--and I voted for an increase in the minimum wage. Second, in the minimum wage bill we are going after the tax gap and those who engage in the tax scams. Two things: No. 1, we are dealing with efforts to help small business and, No. 2, we are at the very same time bringing more money into the Federal Treasury by closing tax scams and reducing the tax gap. I would say, as a sidenote to my colleagues, particularly the new leaders on the Budget Committee, that these tax provisions are only the latest example of the Finance Committee producing additional revenues by changes in the Tax Code. Unfortunately, I feel as though I need to put on a Sherlock Holmes hat and hire a bloodhound to go out and try to find any savings that the Budget Committee makes and had enacted into law when it comes to the spending side of the ledger. We have more than done our job on the tax side. I say it is time for the Budget Committee to deliver savings on the spending side. But let me turn back to the tax gap and turn back to the minimum wage bill. I am very pleased that in working with Senator Baucus we have, as part of the tax provisions contained in the minimum wage package, a new provision--a number of provisions, in fact--that will go after those engaged in tax shelters and tax scams and take steps, then, in the process, to address the tax gap--in other words, money that is owed but not paid. I would like to highlight just a few of these provisions that are in the minimum wage bill that are closing the tax gap and shutting down tax scams. We shut down the SILO scheme. That is an acronym. U.S. corporations cut their tax bills by purchasing and leasing back overseas government facilities such as sewer plants and subways in the country of Germany. We take additional steps to go after corporations that move to the Bahamas and have just a mailbox, not any people, and use the gimmick to cut their taxes. I can't tell you how many times I have heard speeches about that issue from Senators on the other side of the aisle. We can end the talking and we can start doing something about it with these very provisions contained in the minimum wage bill if we do not let suceed people who are talking about separating the tax provisions of the wage bill just to get a minimum wage bill passed. We also tightened the rules on individuals who expatriate to avoid taxes legally owed in the United States--and we have that happen. We end the fast and loose ways that corporations account for fines and penalties, so if a corporation gets a penalty for, let's say, polluting the environment, they do not get to deduct that from their income tax. We also increase penalties for those who underpay taxes due to fraud. I think everybody would agree with that. We double the fines and the penalties for those who use offshore financial arrangements to avoid taxes. The Finance Committee views that as a growing problem and a major reason that there is such a tax gap. We expand and improve the whistleblower program which will provide the Internal Revenue Service a roadmap for corporate tax fraud. We modify the collection due process rules to protect the tax protesters from abusing the system. This is something that the administration proposed in its budget today to help deal with the tax gap. This collection due process provision contained in the minimum wage bill only emphasizes my point that we can start dealing with a tax gap today, right now. And then a final provision I will make reference to is one provision that closes a loophole in section 162(m), the $1 million limitation for corporate executives. The provisions provide that a CEO can't avoid the effects of 162(m) by not being on the job at the end of the year. Mr. President, forests have been sacrificed to print the speeches that politicians make decrying excessive CEO pay. Yes, we have a provision in the minimum wage bill that tightens the deduction that can be taken for higher CEO pay. So I get down to the basics, and I get down to the basics because I have been hearing some rumors from Senators--but more importantly from the leadership of the other body--that in order to get a minimum wage bill passed, we ought to drop the tax provisions and pass the minimum wage bill. But I have always been hearing over the years from those people who are saying: We need to do something about the tax gap; we need to do something about the tax scams; we need to do something about people going offshore to avoid the payment of taxes, and on and on. So I have to ask the Democratic leadership if they are going to put the provisions I am talking about--closing the tax gap, closing down the tax scams--if they want to put those provisions in the trash can. If they do, I would also like to put into the trash all the speeches made on the other side then about CEO pay. I say this because the time for speeches is over. We can take steps right now with the tax provisions in the minimum wage bill to deal with the tax gap and CEO pay. I have listed these provisions, and as my colleagues know, while many of them are good common sense, these provisions are also not at all popular downtown on K Street or up the eastern coast on Wall Street. While the debate has focused on the tax breaks for small business in the minimum wage bill--and those are important because they are helping small business overcome some negative impact of the minimum wage increase--it is also critical we pass a much-needed tax gap and anti- abuse provisions contained in the minimum wage bill and pass them now. Delaying these reforms as some would argue--putting them on another tax bill--rewards tax cheats. These reforms are often date and time sensitive. Delay only benefits those who are playing fast and loose with our tax laws. I can't believe the House Democratic leadership wants the first action they take in the area of taxes to drop these reform provisions-- these provisions that would close the tax gap--and signal to the tax cheats that the door is wide open. Senator Baucus and I, working together over the years, have passed into law a good many reforms, and we have shut down a number of tax scams. However, we have been, at times, stymied in the other body--not by Democrats but by Republicans. We heard a lot of commentary during the elections and afterwards how it was no longer going to be business as usual. My hope is that given the rhetoric of the new House leadership, we could finally pass these anti-abuse tax reforms in the minimum wage bill. I worry, though, that with folks talking about stripping the tax provisions from the minimum wage bill, the House leadership may be singing a new song. But the results are the same. The House Democratic leadership needs to understand that kowtowing to K Street is not a new direction that was promised by a new majority in the last election. They can show it is not business as usual, as they were condemning Republicans of doing. They can show that by passing all the tax provisions contained in the Senate minimum wage bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, after great effort by many people, the Senate has adopted the Fair Minimum Wage Act as amended by the Baucus substitute amendment containing the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. This bipartisan small business package will help ensure that small businesses are able to cope with an increase in the minimum wage. Credit must go to the dedicated members of my staff, who spent many hours helping to put this package together. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Grant Menke, Stanford Swinton, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them. Of course this package could not have been put together without the efforts of Chairman Baucus and his staff. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Pat Heck, Judy Miller, Rebecca Baxter, Melissa Mueller, Pat Bousliman, and Ryan Abraham.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly on a revenue provision contained in the minimum wage bill. Senator Baucus and I worked closely on the tax bill, both on the provisions providing relief to small businesses affected by the minimum wage but also the offsets that made sure the package was in balance. One of the offsets, that dealing with limiting the amounts of annual deferrals under nonqualified deferred compensation plans, has attracted some concern and raised some questions. I thought it would be useful to my colleagues for me to provide a brief sketch of where we have been on this issue. The issue of nonqualified deferred compensation came to the attention of the Finance Committee in response to the Joint Committee on Taxation's investigation into Enron--done at the request of the Finance Committee. The Enron report highlighted a number of abuses by top executives involving nonqualified deferred compensation. In the American Jobs Creation Act that Congress passed in 2004, there were included provisions that limited deferred nonqualified compensation plans. In brief, the legislation limited when and under what circumstances distributions could be made. More recently, in the Pension bill passed last year, Congress restricted funding of nonqualified deferred compensation plans if the employer had underfunded certain other retirement plans. In addition, the Finance Committee last September had a hearing that looked closely at executive compensation that covered a wide range of pay issues involving top employees. As my colleagues can see, the issue of executive compensation and particularly nonqualified deferred compensation has been of long- standing interest for the Finance Committee. I expect that these matters will continue to command the attention of the committee this Congress. The majority of concerns that have been raised about this most recent provision contained in the minimum wage bill is its possible impact on middle management. I appreciate those calling for caution. The Finance Committee's Republican staff is reviewing the legislation and seeking to get more and better numbers about who is affected by this legislation. In addition, there have been bipartisan discussions at the staff level. In discussions with Joint Committee on Taxation I have asked them what would be the impact of eliminating the 5-year average compensation limitation so that the aggregate amounts deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan would be limited to $1 million annually. JCT informs me that this would reduce the current $806 million score by less than $100 million--so it would only be a small shave off the score. This suggests to me, that the vast majority of individuals--90 percent--who would be affected by this reform are among the wealthiest--i.e., those individuals receiving more than $1 million annually in nonqualified deferrals. I hope this information will help inform members as we discuss this matter in the near future. Finally, I think it is important for members to bear in mind that ERISA does not apply to so-called ``top hat'' plans, these top hat plans being those for top management. There is a concern that if a nonqualified plan is widely applicable, as widely applicable as some of the opponents of this provision contend, it raises other red flags. The issue raised is the fact that a widely applicable plan should be treated as an ERISA plan. If these widely applicable nonqualified deferred compensation plans are actually ERISA plans, they then should come under the protections that Congress has put in place under ERISA to provide workers retirement security. I will continue to look at this provision and bear in mind the issues raised by my colleagues. Madam President, we are finishing up debate on the Senate minimum wage/small business tax relief bill. The Senate invoked cloture on the Baucus substitute amendment. It contained two basic components. The first one is the proposed increase in the Federal minimum wage. The second component is tax incentives to assist workers and businesses burdened by the increased Federal minimum wage. That part of the package was approved, on a bipartisan basis, by the Finance Committee late last month. Now, by approving the Baucus substitute on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, the Senate has made its will clear: a minimum wage increase must be linked to small business tax relief package. In the normal course of events, after Senate passage, the amended House bill would either go into conference or go back to the House as amended. We call the latter procedure ``pingpong.'' Since tax matters were linked and the House bill doesn't have tax provisions, the House Democratic leadership and tax writers have threatened to send the Senate bill back to the Senate. They will claim that they are protecting prerogatives of the House. We find ourselves stuck on minimum wage because the House Democrats have threatened to use the ``blue slip'' procedure. So, no one should be mistaken. It is House Democrats, not Senate Republicans, who are delaying passage of the minimum wage. If House Democrats send us a suitable revenue bill, Senate Republicans will be ready to move expeditiously to the next step. Right now, we can not move. Now, if the House Democrats send us a minimum wage-related revenue bill, what happens next? That is up to our Democratic and Republican leaders. There are two basic avenues to take. One is a conference. The other is to amend the House revenue bill back with the Senate-passed bill and send it to the House. On tax bills, we have used both approaches over the last few years. For instance, the Hurricane Katrina tax relief measures never went to conference. On the other hand, we had conferences on the tax relief reconciliation bill and the pension bill. Still another approach would be for the House to combine its minimum wage bill with the Senate tax relief package and send it over here. That route, though unusual, has also worked. In this case, I have indicated to my Republican leadership that I am wary about the conference option. The Senate Democratic leadership only came to linking minimum wage with small business tax relief after Chairman Baucus relayed the Republican position to them. It took a cloture vote to prove Chairman Baucus right. So, if we go to conference, the Senate Democratic leadership and House Democratic leadership might be perfectly willing to scrap the Senate's position. Apparently, at a pen and pad session with reporters today, the majority leader indicated as much. He told reporters he wanted a ``clean'' minimum wage bill to come out of conference. Now, I am told the majority leader's press operation has attempted to change the impression those remarks left. Let's just say I am reasonably suspicious of those kinds of ``clarifications.'' Apparently, the majority leader also said he would be prepared to dare Republicans to filibuster a clean minimum wage conference report. By ``clean,'' he appears to be referring to the term used by House and Senate Democratic leadership to mean no linked small business tax relief. Make no mistake--the easiest and quickest way to send a minimum wage bill to the President would be for the House to send the Senate a bill identical to the Senate-passed bill. An alternative quick option would be for the House to send us a revenue bill and the Senate would amend the bill and send it to the House. The House could then send the bill to the President's desk. The conference option could be troublesome. It could be drawn out. Or, it could be a way for the House and Senate Democratic leadership to subvert the Senate position. That would not be a good way to start out the new session. In a conference setting, it would mean the Senate Democratic leadership acting in a manner that is at odds with how it said it was going to conduct business. I counsel my leadership and the Democratic leadership to consider my concerns about the next step.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am introducing today, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2007. The life-blood of any criminal organization or enterprise is money. Whether engaged in drug dealing or terrorism, criminals cannot operate without money. The targeting of efforts by criminals to hide illegitimate funds in legitimate financial institutions has long been a focus of law enforcement. Yet like all other aspects of criminal activity, money laundering continues to evolve into newer and more complex forms. This is particularly true in the funding of terrorist organizations and operations. Therefore, money laundering remains not only a criminal racket but also poses a grave threat to our national security. Tracking how terrorists obtain, store, and move illicit funds is among the most critical aspects of stopping their efforts. Among its recommendations, the 9/11 Commission report stated that, ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counterterrorism efforts.'' We have made some significant strides in identifying how terrorists accumulate and move money, but more remains to be done. Terrorists and criminal networks continually evolve new ways of using legitimate means to launder illegally obtained funds. We must not underestimate the intelligence or resolve of these groups. Many have already utilized loopholes in current law to hide funds or circumvent required reporting to U.S. Customs officials. Work must continue so that terrorists and other criminals are left without the ability to hide illegally obtained funds inside or in concert with legitimate means. We should commit to increasing pressure on these organizations to make money laundering as difficult and unprofitable as possible. And ultimately, we must give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to effectively deal with criminals' ever- changing tactics. The legislation that I am introducing today will strengthen our current money laundering statutes by streamlining those laws, closing those loopholes in the laws exploited by criminal organizations, and creating more efficient means for dealing with violators of money laundering laws. My bill goes about doing this in several ways. First, my bill deals with the problem of ``specified unlawful activities'' or ``SUAs.'' SUAs are predicate offenses required for current money laundering statutes to apply, and there are currently over 200 of them. As criminals continue to change methods of laundering money, the list of SUAs will continue to grow. This legislation will prevent criminals from turning to other means not designated as an SUA, and will consolidate the ever growing list of SUAs by including all federal and state offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Also, criminals will no longer be able to hide behind borders, as this legislation would subject violations in foreign countries that have an effect on the U.S. to the same penalties as if they had occurred in the United States. Currently, most circuit courts must charge each violation of money laundering statutes separately. My bill will allow, at the election of the government, prosecutors to charge multiple acts under one count in an indictment. This will significantly reduce the time and expense incurred by the courts in these cases, versus the current method of charging each and every violation separately. Criminals have realized that the movement of large sums of money through traditional financial institutions will result in increased scrutiny and investigation. Therefore, many have turned to smuggling large quantities of money via a courier or bulk cash smuggling. They have developed techniques to avoid having to declare property with a value greater than $10,000 and to protect those couriers who are caught. My legislation will remove the criminal's ability to get around current laws, and remove protections for the smuggler. For example, current law requires that couriers know specifics about the illegal activities that produced the monies they carry before they may be prosecuted under money laundering statutes. As a result, many claim ignorance about the illegal origins of the money and are released. With my bill, couriers will now be held responsible for their actions, even if they try to claim ignorance. Therefore, law enforcement can get both the courier and the money off the street. This bill also would stiffen the penalty for bulk cash smuggling to 10 years. Another tactic now being used by criminals is to have couriers carry blank checks in bearer form. The couriers argue that the check has no amount, so it is not subject to declaration. Once the courier arrives at his destination, he merely has to fill in the amount, whatever it may be. My legislation would remove this loophole by setting the value of any blank check in bearer form equal to the highest amount in that account during the time period it was being transported, or when it is cashed. My bill also seeks to mitigate the tactics of ``commingling funds'' and ``structured transactions.'' The ``commingling funds'' tactic involves depositing illegal money in an account with legitimate funds. Under current law, criminals can argue that money withdrawn from the account was from the legitimate sources. The language in this bill would clarify that transactions on accounts containing more than $10,000 in illegally obtained funds will be considered a transaction involving more than $10,000 in criminally derived property, regardless of how the other money in the account was obtained. Nor will criminals be allowed to avoid the law by structuring smaller transactions below the $10,000 reporting requirement. Under my bill, individual but related transactions will be considered at their aggregate value. Finally, this bill will provide the United States Secret Service with the legislative and financial resources it needs to combat counterfeiters and other criminals seeking to harm our financial systems. The U.S. Federal Reserve Note is the most identifiable currency in the world and the backbone of many other nations' economies. To help ensure continued stability of the Greenback worldwide, my bill will make illegal the possession of any materials used to make counterfeit currency. This is necessary because technology has evolved far beyond the old days of printing plates, stones, and digital images. Like the evolving tactics used by those in money laundering operations, the counterfeiter constantly changes his tactics and technologies. Furthermore, the crime of counterfeiting is becoming more and more international in scope every day. The Secret Service has identified counterfeiting operations in Colombia, Nigeria, Italy, Iraq, and North Korea. This is apparent in the use of bleached notes. Bleached notes are simply bills with low denominations being bleached with chemicals. This produces a blank canvas of genuine currency paper for counterfeiters to work with, to which they can add higher denominations. My bill will make it illegal to possess these bleached or otherwise altered notes, and give the Secret Service the authorization it needs to pursue these criminals outside the United States. Additionally, this bill gives the Secret Service the authorization to use funds seized from criminals to pay for ongoing undercover investigations. This seems like common sense, and indeed, every other federal investigative agency has this authority. Tasked with protecting our financial systems, the Secret Service should be provided with all the resources necessary to fund its undercover operations. This makes even more sense, considering it's the criminals themselves who would be paying those bills. My bill provides that authority to the Secret Service and will allow them to continue the important work of protecting our financial infrastructure. As I said, money is essential for the operation of any criminal or terrorist organization. The ability to get, move, and hide these funds is critical to the operations of both. We have had some success in thwarting this ability, as is evident by the constantly changing techniques for laundering money. We must continue to apply pressure on these groups, and do everything we can to identify and stop their financing operations. This bill is designed to do just that, and put these organizations out of business for good. I urge my colleagues to join me and my cosponsors, Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Graham, in supporting this legislation to combat the financing of criminal and terrorist activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am introducing today, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2007. The life-blood of any criminal organization or enterprise is money. Whether engaged in drug dealing or terrorism, criminals cannot operate without money. The targeting of efforts by criminals to hide illegitimate funds in legitimate financial institutions has long been a focus of law enforcement. Yet like all other aspects of criminal activity, money laundering continues to evolve into newer and more complex forms. This is particularly true in the funding of terrorist organizations and operations. Therefore, money laundering remains not only a criminal racket but also poses a grave threat to our national security. Tracking how terrorists obtain, store, and move illicit funds is among the most critical aspects of stopping their efforts. Among its recommendations, the 9/11 Commission report stated that, ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counterterrorism efforts.'' We have made some significant strides in identifying how terrorists accumulate and move money, but more remains to be done. Terrorists and criminal networks continually evolve new ways of using legitimate means to launder illegally obtained funds. We must not underestimate the intelligence or resolve of these groups. Many have already utilized loopholes in current law to hide funds or circumvent required reporting to U.S. Customs officials. Work must continue so that terrorists and other criminals are left without the ability to hide illegally obtained funds inside or in concert with legitimate means. We should commit to increasing pressure on these organizations to make money laundering as difficult and unprofitable as possible. And ultimately, we must give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to effectively deal with criminals' ever- changing tactics. The legislation that I am introducing today will strengthen our current money laundering statutes by streamlining those laws, closing those loopholes in the laws exploited by criminal organizations, and creating more efficient means for dealing with violators of money laundering laws. My bill goes about doing this in several ways. First, my bill deals with the problem of ``specified unlawful activities'' or ``SUAs.'' SUAs are predicate offenses required for current money laundering statutes to apply, and there are currently over 200 of them. As criminals continue to change methods of laundering money, the list of SUAs will continue to grow. This legislation will prevent criminals from turning to other means not designated as an SUA, and will consolidate the ever growing list of SUAs by including all federal and state offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Also, criminals will no longer be able to hide behind borders, as this legislation would subject violations in foreign countries that have an effect on the U.S. to the same penalties as if they had occurred in the United States. Currently, most circuit courts must charge each violation of money laundering statutes separately. My bill will allow, at the election of the government, prosecutors to charge multiple acts under one count in an indictment. This will significantly reduce the time and expense incurred by the courts in these cases, versus the current method of charging each and every violation separately. Criminals have realized that the movement of large sums of money through traditional financial institutions will result in increased scrutiny and investigation. Therefore, many have turned to smuggling large quantities of money via a courier or bulk cash smuggling. They have developed techniques to avoid having to declare property with a value greater than $10,000 and to protect those couriers who are caught. My legislation will remove the criminal's ability to get around current laws, and remove protections for the smuggler. For example, current law requires that couriers know specifics about the illegal activities that produced the monies they carry before they may be prosecuted under money laundering statutes. As a result, many claim ignorance about the illegal origins of the money and are released. With my bill, couriers will now be held responsible for their actions, even if they try to claim ignorance. Therefore, law enforcement can get both the courier and the money off the street. This bill also would stiffen the penalty for bulk cash smuggling to 10 years. Another tactic now being used by criminals is to have couriers carry blank checks in bearer form. The couriers argue that the check has no amount, so it is not subject to declaration. Once the courier arrives at his destination, he merely has to fill in the amount, whatever it may be. My legislation would remove this loophole by setting the value of any blank check in bearer form equal to the highest amount in that account during the time period it was being transported, or when it is cashed. My bill also seeks to mitigate the tactics of ``commingling funds'' and ``structured transactions.'' The ``commingling funds'' tactic involves depositing illegal money in an account with legitimate funds. Under current law, criminals can argue that money withdrawn from the account was from the legitimate sources. The language in this bill would clarify that transactions on accounts containing more than $10,000 in illegally obtained funds will be considered a transaction involving more than $10,000 in criminally derived property, regardless of how the other money in the account was obtained. Nor will criminals be allowed to avoid the law by structuring smaller transactions below the $10,000 reporting requirement. Under my bill, individual but related transactions will be considered at their aggregate value. Finally, this bill will provide the United States Secret Service with the legislative and financial resources it needs to combat counterfeiters and other criminals seeking to harm our financial systems. The U.S. Federal Reserve Note is the most identifiable currency in the world and the backbone of many other nations' economies. To help ensure continued stability of the Greenback worldwide, my bill will make illegal the possession of any materials used to make counterfeit currency. This is necessary because technology has evolved far beyond the old days of printing plates, stones, and digital images. Like the evolving tactics used by those in money laundering operations, the counterfeiter constantly changes his tactics and technologies. Furthermore, the crime of counterfeiting is becoming more and more international in scope every day. The Secret Service has identified counterfeiting operations in Colombia, Nigeria, Italy, Iraq, and North Korea. This is apparent in the use of bleached notes. Bleached notes are simply bills with low denominations being bleached with chemicals. This produces a blank canvas of genuine currency paper for counterfeiters to work with, to which they can add higher denominations. My bill will make it illegal to possess these bleached or otherwise altered notes, and give the Secret Service the authorization it needs to pursue these criminals outside the United States. Additionally, this bill gives the Secret Service the authorization to use funds seized from criminals to pay for ongoing undercover investigations. This seems like common sense, and indeed, every other federal investigative agency has this authority. Tasked with protecting our financial systems, the Secret Service should be provided with all the resources necessary to fund its undercover operations. This makes even more sense, considering it's the criminals themselves who would be paying those bills. My bill provides that authority to the Secret Service and will allow them to continue the important work of protecting our financial infrastructure. As I said, money is essential for the operation of any criminal or terrorist organization. The ability to get, move, and hide these funds is critical to the operations of both. We have had some success in thwarting this ability, as is evident by the constantly changing techniques for laundering money. We must continue to apply pressure on these groups, and do everything we can to identify and stop their financing operations. This bill is designed to do just that, and put these organizations out of business for good. I urge my colleagues to join me and my cosponsors, Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Graham, in supporting this legislation to combat the financing of criminal and terrorist activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, next week the President's budget will come to Capitol Hill. In terms of tax issues, no issue is more pressing in the upcoming budget than resolving the alternative minimum tax issue for both the short term as well as the long term. As many Members know, the so-called patch--the temporary fix we did last year for the alternative minimum tax so no more people would be hit by it than are presently hit by it--ran out at the end of last year. So right now 23 million people in the year 2007 could be hit by the alternative minimum tax, if we do not do something about it. Since we have to offset things such as this, if we patch this up again, it is going to take $50 billion to offset or, if it isn't offset, that means $50 billion that would come into the Federal Treasury under existing law would not come in. Next week I will give a series of speeches in some detail. I am going to look at how we got where we are on the alternative minimum tax. I will examine the history of the alternative minimum tax and the origins of the current problem. In another speech, I am going to discuss the fiscal effects of maintaining, repealing, and replacing the alternative minimum tax. And in the third speech, I will talk about options to remedy the alternative minimum tax problem in the short term and over the long term. Today, on a preemptive basis, I want to counter a charge that I think is going to be repeated by Democratic-leaning think tanks, maybe by the leadership of the Congress, and, more importantly, by east coast media who tend to be sympathetic to the views of those political organizations. The charge will be that the alternative minimum tax problem we face is a result of the bipartisan tax relief legislation enacted in 2001 and 2003. I ask unanimous consent to maintain the floor and yield to the majority to make a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me ask the majority, would they like me to yield the floor for that debate?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue as in morning business for, I would say, roughly 10 or 12 minutes on an issue unrelated to what is on the Senate floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let's go back to the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis. If we then assume that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are repealed, alternative minimum tax revenue falls by an additional $302 billion, from $472 billion to $169 billion. That second drop attributable to the repeal of the Bush tax cuts reduces Federal revenue by only 27 percent. Thus, one should argue that failure to index is a greater cause of the alternative minimum tax problem--in other words, 59 percent versus 27 percent. If we had indexed, we wouldn't have this problem. Using logic similar to that undertaken above would also cause us to conclude that failure to index is responsible for 59 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem or, alternatively, that failure to index also nearly triples the size of the AMT problem. But simple logic suggests that the bipartisan tax relief cannot be responsible for 65 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem and failure to index responsible for 59 percent of the problem. The anomaly arises because there is overlap between variables being analyzed. Although the analysis fairly demonstrates the amount of alternative minimum tax revenue saved by making a particular change to the Federal tax system, it is inappropriate to represent that such analysis accurately isolates causation of the alternative minimum tax. Because there is overlap in the variables being analyzed in these examples, indexing and the bipartisan tax relief packages, the order of analysis of those variables is crucial to whatever outcome we have. The Joint Committee on Taxation acknowledges this point to us in a letter dated October 3, from which I will quote: There is, however, interaction between these two contributing factors to the AMT effect. In order to avoid double counting of interactions, a stacking order is imposed. The apportionment of effects to each contributing factor will vary depending on the stacking order, even though the total effect remains constant. To this point in time, I have not seen anything that accurately suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have worsened the alternative minimum tax problem to date. It is my intention to ensure we continue to honor that commitment. Proponents of this charge fail to recognize that we addressed the problem for 2001 through 2005 in legislation that most of these organizations opposed. By the way, those hold-harmless alternative minimum tax provisions were the first significant legislative efforts to stem the rise of the alternative minimum tax tide, meaning affecting millions more people who were never intended to be affected by it. It was, in fact, the Finance Committee that put its money where its mouth was on the alternative minimum tax. Last year's bipartisan tax relief reconciliation did the same thing for the year 2006--in other words, to make sure that the alternative minute tax problem is not worsened. Once again, it was the bipartisan leadership of the Finance Committee that ensured millions of families would not face the alternative minimum tax problem in the tax-filing season this year. I might say that Republicans, last year, when we were controlling, were willing to add millions of people to it because they didn't want to hold harmless completely, just to some extent. But we in the Senate stuck to our guns, and we got the hold harmless kept in place, as it had been since 2001. I reiterate the importance of the last sentence in my remarks, where I said that the Finance Committee ensured that millions of families would not face the alternative minimum tax in this tax-filing season that we are in right now. Everyone who supported the tax relief reconciliation bill walked the walk on the alternative minimum tax. A lot of the critics I am referring to have talked that walk on the alternative minimum tax, but if you look at their voting records, they have not walked the walk on the alternative minimum tax. Thank goodness, then, 15 million families were put above politics, or you might say a bipartisan solution saw that they were not harmed because, otherwise, 15 million families would be dealing right now, as they file last year's income tax, with the AMT in their tax returns--in other words, paying the alternative minimum tax because we did not hold harmless. If they had to deal with that, you know how complex they think the tax forms are already and the tax system is already. Well, if you have to go through that alternative minimum tax exercise, it almost doubles the complexity. Every Member who voted against the bipartisan tax relief reconciliation bill ought to think about that bottom-line reality. If that group, led by--because it tended to be very partisan-- the Democratic leadership had prevailed, 15 million families concentrated in the so-called blue States would have been dealing with the alternative minute tax now. It is a fact--because higher income people tend to live in the so-called blue States, according to the results of the last two Presidential elections--they are paying more of this alternative minimum tax. They happen to be represented by people of the other political party who thought that the hold harmless provisions should not have been there. So 15 million people--most of them in those States--would be hit again. The clock is ticking on the alternative minimum tax problem for this year. In other words, we have to do something before the end of the year or we are going to have 23 million people hit by it. A year from now then, those 23 million people will be working with the complexities of the AMT and paying the alternative minimum tax. They are people who come from those high-income States, more so than the State I come from, although we have people who are hurt by it--or would be hurt by it--but not to the extent of some of the high-income States. On October 15, a taxpayer's first quarter estimated tax payments will be due, and they will have to take this into consideration. Twenty-three million families will have to start dealing with the AMT yet this year on these quarterly estimates. Last year, Congress acted a few weeks after April 15. Hopefully, this Congress will act before April 15. Mr. President, next week, Congress will be facing the AMT problem as the budget process moves forward. That is what is going to start this demagoguery about the AMT. To get a grip on that problem, we need to examine its history, assess its fiscal impact, and carefully consider our short-term and long-term options. I look forward to these discussions on these three topics next week. Let's use correct data when we discuss the alternative minimum tax. Let's be intellectually honest. Let's discard the partisan fuzzy math and partisan revisionist history. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, previous to Senator Baucus speaking, we heard my friend from Massachusetts harangue about minimum wage not being considered for the last 10 years and that it is about time we get the job done. I am going to be one of those to vote yes to get the job done, to increase the minimum wage. But I think it is legitimate to ask a couple of questions. One, there was a period of time during that 10 years that Senator Kennedy's party was in the majority and controlled the Senate. I don't recall them bringing up the minimum wage issue at that particular time. If it was so important that it be done before this period of time has elapsed, I would have thought they would be voicing concern about raising the minimum wage as much and have a responsibility to do it when they were in the majority, as it is now; and we are accused because we want to amend some tax provisions to it, which are very directly related to some of the negative impacts of increasing the minimum wage on small business, and it is a very legitimate point to bring up. The second point I will bring up to the Senator from Massachusetts is, when he talks about adding tax provisions to the minimum wage, has he forgotten that during the signing ceremony of the last increase in the minimum wage bill by President Clinton Senator Kennedy was praised for bringing a bill to the President that had tax provisions that were very beneficial to small business and also other provisions that were very beneficial to minimum wage workers by increasing the minimum wage? I read from President Clinton's statement last week during the debate. I know Senator Kennedy heard me say that. And yet it seems like it went in one ear and out the other because here he is saying it is wrong now, that when we are increasing the minimum wage, we have a small business tax provision included with the minimum wage increase. It makes me wonder if there is a double standard: It is okay to have tax bills connected with a minimum wage increase when there is a Democratic President, but when there is a Republican President, it is not okay. I don't think we ought to have those sort of double standards. I think if it is okay in the case of a Democratic President, it ought to be okay in the case of a Republican President. Plus, I could raise the issue that if it is legitimate to have tax changes to benefit small business at the same time we are having increases in the minimum wage, this tax package is very meager compared to the one that was in the bill that President Clinton signed. At that time, I believe, there was about $20 billion worth of small business tax changes to benefit depreciation and other things that can offset the detrimental impact on a minimum wage increase on small business. We all know there is no detrimental impact on larger businesses that can pass along the cost. But for smaller businesses that can't, for struggling small businesses, in particular mom and pops, it has to be something we take into consideration not only for the benefit of the smaller business but also for the benefit of the workers who work for that small business that maybe will be more underemployed or unemployed because maybe the small business can't afford to keep the same number of workers as when the minimum wage was lower. So all of these things seem to me to be legitimately tied together. But in the case of a $20 billion tax package 10 years ago, compared to an $8 billion tax package in this bill, and considering inflation over the last 10 years, there isn't a single person listening to this debate who doesn't know that when there are complaints about connecting together a tax bill with a minimum wage increase, compared to the last time this was done in the Clinton administration, this tax package is peanuts compared to what we did for small business then--peanuts. Yet we are having this harangue about it, that somehow this debate is not legitimate. Well, if it was legitimate in the Clinton administration, why isn't this debate legitimate now, particularly considering the great lengths to which President Clinton went to compliment Senator Kennedy for delivering a bill to President Clinton that had provisions benefiting small business, as well as benefiting the minimum wage worker? We are going to get a bill passed. I don't know who is complaining. What is coming up when we get done? Well, of course, the debate, I suppose, on Iraq is going to come up. And it ought to come up. We know what is coming up. We know there is not going to be any more votes on that issue this week. So if we get this bill done today or tomorrow-- and I bet it will be done today--then we know that is probably going to be the last vote of the Senate this week. I think the people on the other side of the aisle who are managing this bill know that. They know when we get a couple of votes on a couple of other tax provisions, that it is limited. We know there is finality coming. There hasn't been any effort by anybody on this side of the aisle to hold up this bill, except to make sure that the impact of the minimum wage increase on small business is going to be considered the same way it was in the previous administration. I am very happy that yesterday cloture was invoked on the Baucus substitute amendment, and it contains these two very important components about which I have already talked. For summary, in case people are now beginning to pay attention to this debate after 1 week in the Senate, the first component proposed an increase in the minimum wage. You can make all sorts of arguments why maybe the minimum wage should not be increased. Economists can make that argument about some increase in unemployment. Some people would say you should never have passed the minimum wage in the first place in 1938. But forget those economic arguments. It is a political decision that we have had a minimum wage for the last 70 years, and it has to be a political consideration that it ought to be increased from time to time or you shouldn't have it. So let's get over that argument, as legitimate as the economic arguments might be. They are going to be put aside because we are not going to eliminate the minimum wage. It is a part of the safety net of American society. It is part of the fabric of our society, just as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. You can all argue about whether seven decades ago some of these decisions should have been made by Congress. But after a period of time, you accept it as a fact of life; they are part of the social fabric of America, and move on. It is a question now of how much. That decision has even been answered--$2.10. It is about the same decision that is being answered in several State legislatures around the Nation, including my own State of Iowa, which now has made a decision that it ought to be $2.10, albeit triggered a little quicker than is going to be done under this bill. So we move ahead and that is taken care of. The second component is not seven decades old, as I indicated. The Baucus substitute connects these efforts to assist small business with some changes in the tax law to benefit them. It has only been in the recent two decades that that has been an issue. But at least it recognizes something that maybe wasn't recognized before; that small business is the engine of employment in America and it ought to be recognized that, in some instances--and economists can back this up-- there is some underemployment or unemployment, particularly among young people, and most particularly among minority young people. I think it is legitimate to consider that because we make a great deal in this Congress about having programs for the unemployed, such as retraining. We make a big deal about education, vocational education, and preparing people for the workforce. But do we ever stop to think of something that doesn't cost the taxpayers one penny? And that is that vocational education goes along with a young person getting the first job that they have ever had so that they learn to get up in the morning, go to work, and be part of the workforce. If you are not in the workforce, you are never going to work your way up the economic ladder. So getting in the workforce, learning the rules of the workforce, treating people right, taking orders, being a productive citizen is very important vocational education. So if we are creating some unemployment, particularly among minority young people, because of a decision we are making, a political decision we are making, we ought to at least take that into consideration. But for two decades now we have considered that there is some negative impact. There is not going to be a one-for-one correlation between changes we make in depreciation schedules for small business that is going to guarantee Joe Blow or Mary Smith, teenagers working for a mom-and-pop grocery store, that they are going to be able to keep their jobs. But it is some relief across the board that is going to benefit small business, and there may be less unemployment of teenagers, less unemployment of minority teenagers so that they can get in the world of work and work themselves up the economic ladder. So the Baucus substitute is before us and will pass this body. Despite serious policy concerns about the efforts to raise the minimum wage, we all know that public support for increasing the minimum wage remains strong. And who can argue with that? Ten years? So there is a rationale for raising it. It is pretty hard to convince anybody that as long as Congress is setting a minimum wage, it shouldn't be adjusted from time to time. So it is quite obvious. That is why we are here for that debate. So the political reality is that a majority of Senators support a minimum wage increase, not based upon being trustees of the American people but based on the proposition of being representatives of the American people. And that message is coming very clearly from the grassroots. As predicted, the cloture vote last week showed there are not 60 votes for this minimum wage bill without the small business tax incentives. And for Senator Kennedy, who is haranguing about the fact this is not being passed fast enough, the members of his own party voted with us on that, and that seems to show it is bipartisan. As I said before, tax incentives targeted to small business and other businesses impacted by a minimum wage increase have been linked to minimum wage legislation over the past couple of decades. Democrats have, at times, joined Republicans in supporting that linkage. Once again, Republicans have asked for small business tax relief, if a minimum wage hike is going to happen. Based on an overwhelming cloture vote yesterday on this Baucus substitute, it looks as if we are going to get there. Democrats, in effect, agree--through that vote--with this linkage. To different groups of Senators, these topics carry their own benefits or burdens. Many on my side don't like the idea of second- guessing the labor market with a federally mandated minimum wage. In past statements, I pointed out some of the related issues that should give us pause when considering such legislation. Some, mostly Democrats, will call this bill before us nothing but a minimum wage increase bill. Some, mostly on my side of the aisle, will call it a small business tax relief bill. But isn't that how we get things done in the Senate? Doesn't almost everybody have to have a win? And in this aren't we having a win-win situation in a bipartisan way? I suppose some of our Members are going to have it both ways, it is going to be both a minimum wage increase and a small business tax relief bill. President Bush, similar to President Clinton, whom I have already quoted, will recognize both parts of this package. If my friends on the other side of the aisle would review that statement, as I led them to review it last week, they will note that President Clinton saw merit in the small business tax relief package. If I were chairman, I might have tilted the package a bit more toward depreciation and less toward, let's say, that portion that we call the worker opportunity tax credit. It is important these incentives coincide with the timing when the minimum wage increase will be taking effect. It has been proven that a minimum wage hike without tax relief for small business will not fly in a body where we have to move ahead in a bipartisan way or nothing gets done. Let's recognize that reality. Let's improve this bill and complete it in a timely manner. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for what time I might consume, and it will not be too long, on two bills I am going to introduce.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I do not think anybody else is seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Next week, when the President's budget comes out, there is going to be an awful lot of discussion about the alternative minimum tax. I am trying to preempt--in a sense counter--what I think are old arguments that are going to be repeated about that issue. They are going to be coming from leftwing think tanks, and maybe the Democratic leadership in the Congress will pick up on it. For sure, the east coast media, who tend to be sympathetic to the views of these political organizations, is going to be loudly speaking about it. I don't find anything wrong with it being discussed, but I am going to make sure it is discussed in an intellectually honest manner. The charge is going to be made that the alternative minimum tax problem we face now is a direct result of the bipartisan--I emphasize bipartisan--tax relief legislation that was enacted in 2001 and 2003, which, by the way, Chairman Greenspan has said, both before he left the Fed as well as a private citizen, that these tax relief packages we passed back then are the basis for the economy going very smoothly in the last 3 or 4 years, creating 7.2 million jobs. If that is the argument they are going to make--and I will bet you, although I am not a betting man, that that is what we are going to hear--it is a distortion, plain and simple. So I think I am going to try to correct the record in advance. Maybe next week, if I have done it adequately, there won't be any record to correct. I have been around here long enough to know what is going to be said. To the extent the Democratic leadership and allies suggest, like others who have looked at this issue, that the bipartisan tax relief packages are responsible for the alternative minimum tax problem, I respond in this way: Most who have reached that conclusion have done so by misusing data, data that is provided by the truly nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, an agency of Congress that you might say wears green eyeshades, looks at things as they are, without a Republican or Democratic bias. These figures of the Joint Committee on Taxation will be used to distort the record on the issue of the alternative minimum tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis suggests an alternative explanation for the alternative minimum tax problem, and that is the failure of Congress to index the alternative minimum tax for inflation when it was first established 35 years ago. The critics are going to charge that the bipartisan tax relief packages are responsible for this alternative minimum tax problem. This conclusion is reached in error because it is based upon faulty logic. Those who have done similar analyses have based their conclusions on the mistaken assumption that a reduction in Federal receipts should be interpreted as a percentage causation of the alternative minimum tax problem. The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to project Federal alternative minimum tax revenue, if the bipartisan tax relief provisions were extended but current law hold-harmless provisions were not extended. And what do we get, a $1.1 trillion issue, and a Federal alternative tax revenue, if neither the Bush tax cuts nor the hold-harmless provisions is extended, a $400 billion issue compared to the $1.1 trillion issue. From that data, some erroneously concluded and publicly represented that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are responsible for 65 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem. In other words, this $1.1 trillion minus the $4 billion divided by $1.1 trillion. And conversely then, that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 tripled the size of the alternative minimum tax problem; again, $1.1 trillion divided by $400 billion. The logic used to reach that conclusion is flawed. That is what I am about to show. This is because the many variables affecting the alternative minimum tax have overlapping results, and the order in which one analyzes those overlapping variables will directly impact the outcome of the analysis. In that way, we can use the same Joint Committee on Taxation data in the analysis above to suggest that the failure to index is actually the dominant cause of the alternative minimum tax problem. If one were to first index--and that wasn't done 35 years ago--the current tax system for inflation by permanently extending an indexed version of the current hold-harmless provisions, Federal alternative minimum tax revenue would be reduced from $1.1 trillion to $472 billion over the 10-year period we use to guesstimate taxes coming into the Federal Treasury. Thus, extending and indexing the current hold-harmless provision for future inflation would reduce the alternative minimum tax revenues by 59 percent over the same period referred to in the Joint Committee on Taxation letter dated October 3, 2005, as ``percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure to extend and index hold harmless provision.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of that entire letter in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. You didn't leave anything out, but we did ask unanimous consent that this be put in.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am very happy to be on the floor with my colleague Senator Specter on something we have worked on together over a long period of time, and it falls very much into the category of congressional oversight. I am not going to go into the details now because I have a statement I want to use as a basis for our cooperation, and then you will hear from Senator Specter. I want to say how great it was to work with Senator Specter. We are here to update the Senate on the interim Finance Committee findings of the joint investigation into the Securities and Exchange Commission that was conducted by the Finance Committee on the one hand, and the Judiciary Committee on the other, during the 109th Congress. Before I go into details, there is another person I would thank for his cooperation. I want to take this opportunity to thank Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox for his cooperation in providing access to thousands of pages of documents, as well as interviews with the staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chairman Cox's cooperation was very essential to our ability to conduct our constitutionally mandated oversight of Federal agencies. That said, I hope Chairman Cox takes today's findings to heart and will work to implement recommendations Senator Specter and I plan to put forth into the forthcoming final report. Today, we want to update the Senate on some of the details of our investigation, which began early last year when allegations were presented to our staffs by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre. Mr. Aguirre described the roadblocks he faced in pursuing an insider trading investigation while he was employed as a senior enforcement attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, he alleged his supervisor prevented him from taking the testimony of a prominent Wall Street figure because of his ``political clout,'' which obviously should not be ignored if an agency is doing the job they should be doing. Well, after Mr. Aguirre complained about that sort of preferential treatment given to somebody with ``political clout,'' his supervisors terminated him from the SEC while he was on vacation. The interim findings we released today outlined the three primary concerns shared by Senator Specter and me. First, the SEC's investigation into Pequot Capital Management was plagued with problems from its beginning to its abrupt conclusion. Second, the termination of Mr. Aguirre by the SEC was highly suspect given the timing and the circumstances. Thirdly, the original investigation conducted by the SEC Office of Inspector General was both seriously and fatally flawed. The inspector general's failure required our committees to take a more thorough look at Mr. Aguirre's allegations and examine this matter closely. Taken together, these findings paint a picture of a troubled agency that faces serious questions about public confidence, the integrity of its investigations, and its ability to protect all investors, large and small, with an even hand. The SEC should have taken Mr. Aguirre's allegations more seriously and very seriously. Instead, it does like too many agencies do when under fire: it circled the wagons and it shot a whistleblower--an all too familiar practice in Washington, DC. As we know, whistleblowers are about as welcome as a skunk at a picnic. There is more information to follow and more details that need to come to light. Senator Specter and I together plan on releasing a comprehensive report in the near future. For now, I hope these interim findings will spur the SEC to consider meaningful reforms. I urge all my colleagues to read these important interim findings and to read the final report when it is made available. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for Stanford Swinton, Anne Freeman, Lynda Simmons, Bess Ullman, Ann Thomas, and Eric Slack of my staff to be given privileges of the floor during the deliberation of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to have bipartisan sponsorship of two very important bills with Senator Dodd of Connecticut that are being introduced today, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 and the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2007. These bills are part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety program and to make sure the agency does all it can to protect the public. Enactment of those two bills would provide doctors and patients with more information about the risks and benefits of their medicines and bring about greater transparency and accountability of the Food and Drug Administration. I am sure my colleagues realize I have been involved in oversight of the Food and Drug Administration for now at least 3 years, and it has been in response to concerns about the reluctance of the Food and Drug Administration to provide information to the public about the increased suicide risks for young people taking antidepressants. In November 2004, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety involving the Food and Drug Administration and the drug Vioxx. That hearing and other critical drug safety concerns that have come to light since then highlight the need for comprehensive and systematic reforms as well as more stringent oversight of the Food and Drug Administration. Over the past 3 years, it has become increasingly apparent that the Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly failed to protect the public from an industry that focuses all too often on profits, even when those profits come at the expense of ``John Q. Public.'' In 2005, then, and because of this, Senator Dodd and I introduced almost identical companion bills to advance serious reforms at the Food and Drug Administration. In the 2 years following the introduction of those bills, however, the Food and Drug Administration failed to take comprehensive and systematic steps toward restoring public confidence in that agency, as well as the necessity of strengthening public safety. Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration released its response to the Institute of Medicine's 2006 report on drug safety. The two safety bills introduced today are not intended to supplant the plans articulated in the Food and Drug Administration's response but, rather, to augment those plans and to provide the FDA with additional enforcement tools, something they now lack. In fact, one of our bills is intended to specifically address a serious problem that was also identified by the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Alta Charo, a member of the Institute of Medicine committee that wrote the report on drug safety, stated in the newspaper USA Today: I have to confess I'm disappointed that they-- Meaning the FDA-- ignored one of our most critical recommendations. According to the USA Today article, she was referring to the Institute of Medicine's recommendation that the Food and Drug Administration give more clout to the office that monitors drugs after they go to market. I want you to know I agree with Dr. Charo. The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 would then establish an independent center within the Food and Drug Administration. The name of the center would be the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics. The director of this center would report directly to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner and would be responsible for conducting risk assessments for approved drugs and biological products. The new center would also be responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs once they are on the market. Unfortunately, the problem we are trying to solve is that now at the FDA, the office that reviews drug safety postmarketing is a mere consultant and under the thumb of the office that puts the drugs on the market in the first place. Even more troubling is the fact that those who speak out of line are targeted. Whistleblowers, as we call them, are targeted. They are very helpful to Congress in ferreting out wrongdoing, that laws are not being faithfully executed, that money is not being spent according to congressional intent. So they speak out at the FDA and point out a lot of things that are wrong. And what do they get for it? They are treated like a skunk at a picnic. They are targeted. So this legislation we put before us would provide the new center with the independence and authority to promptly identify serious safety risks and take necessary actions to protect the public, and I hope eliminate some of the intimidation against whistleblowers. At the same time, the intra-agency communication is essential in addressing drug safety. So this legislation would encourage communication between the center and other centers and offices, or let's say subagencies at the Food and Drug Administration that handle drugs and biological products, to do what is best for the consumer and not have big PhRMA having undue influence. The second bill we are introducing would expand an existing Web site, www.clinicaltrials.gov, to create a publicly accessible national databank of clinical trial information. The databank would be comprised of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database of all publicly and privately funded clinical trials so that everything is out there for the public to consider, not letting somebody choose: Well, if this is a little negative toward our drug, we will not make that public. All the positive stuff, of course, we will make public. So I think this legislation is going to foster transparency. But it is going to bring about a great deal of accountability in health research and development and ensure that the scientific community and, most importantly, the general public whom we are trying to protect have access to basic information about clinical trials, about new drugs going out on the market. The legislation would also create an environment that would encourage companies from withholding clinically important information about their products from the Food and Drug Administration and from the public. By the way, the information that is coming out now about Vioxx in the newspapers today will even tell you that a long time before Vioxx went on the market there were scientists within the company who were raising questions about whether it was going to cause harm to the heart. All of this information should be out there. The public ought to know it. Your doctor ought to know it. Transparency and accountability should not hurt anybody in an open society such as we have in America. Oh, there might be some legitimate reasons for intellectual property privacy, but nothing beyond that. If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that the Food and Drug Administration is a troubled agency that lost sight of its fundamental function. That fundamental function is to protect the safety and the efficacy of new prescription drugs. Two very important things for them to answer: Are the drugs safe for you? Are they effective? Unfortunately, the public has good reason to doubt the Food and Drug Administration's ability to do its job. And experts from all over the country have expressed concern. These two bills, then, that Senator Dodd and I are introducing--and let me parenthetically say for the public, people are always thinking that Democrats are hitting on Republicans and Republicans are hitting on Democrats. There is a lot going on around here you never see on evening television that is bipartisan because there is not controversy about it, or at least there is no controversy between Republicans and Democrats. But what they want to put in the news media every night is when some Republican is fighting some Democrat. So our constituents get a view about this Congress that is very distorted. I would like to have people read on a regular basis about how Senator Baucus and I meet on a regular basis to determine the agenda for the Finance Committee. I would like to have them read about how he and I have put out bipartisan bills for the last 6 years--whether he was chairman or I was chairman--and that every one of them got to the President to be signed. But you do not hear those things. So I want to emphasize, this is a Dodd--and Senator Dodd is a Democrat from Connecticut--and a Grassley bill--and Grassley is a Republican Senator from Iowa. So this bill is being introduced to ensure the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, not to do something new for the FDA, just to give them the tools to do what they have had a responsibility to do for several decades. So the public has doubts about the FDA's ability to do it. These two bills will help put the FDA back on the path to fulfilling its mission and, most importantly, put the American consumer first. So, Madam President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that my statement in the Record that I give today be coupled with the statement of Senator Dodd, which will be given later today, regarding the introduction of these important bills. By giving me this unanimous consent, it will assure the public, when they read about these bills, knows that Dodd is a Democrat, Grassley is a Republican, and they are bipartisan bills.