Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, here we are again. Today's discussion, as the famous words go, is deja vu all over again. First of all, we heard the words ``sweetheart deal'' for drug companies. If drug companies had their way, they would want no formularies, which is what the Wyden amendment would require. These drug companies would want all drugs covered regardless of cost. So don't tell me this is a sweetheart deal. If we didn't have formularies like we would have if the Wyden amendment is adopted, then all drugs would be covered regardless of cost. Then they would not have to compete. But this legislation requires competition building upon the practices that we have used for the Federal employee health plan for 40 years. We patterned this legislation after that because that is what saves money. I am beginning to lose count of the number of times that this issue has come before us. So I have to keep repeating--but it doesn't seem to sink in--that the Medicare Modernization Act does not prohibit negotiations with drug companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. But hearing the last speech, one couldn't come to that conclusion. In fact, the law requires Medicare plans to negotiate with drugmakers for better prices. These negotiations are at the heart of the Medicare drug program. It is an absurd claim that the Government will not be negotiating with drugmakers comes from the noninterference clause in the Medicare law. The noninterference clause does not prohibit Medicare from negotiating with drugmakers. What it does is it prohibits the Center for Medicare Services from interfering with these negotiations. To be clear, the noninterference clause is at the heart of the bill's structure for delivering prescription drug coverage. This clause ensures those savings will result from market competition rather than through Government price fixing. The average beneficiary premium is $25. That is $12 less than the $37 that was estimated less than 12 months ago, going back to July of last year. That clearly demonstrates that the law's structure is accomplishing that objective and then some; otherwise, we would have $37-a-month premiums or more instead of the average $25 premiums that we have. This year's cost to the Government then is $8 billion less than what we thought it would be last July. The 10- year cost has dropped by $180 billion, as we tried to estimate ahead what programs might cost 10 years into the future. The Center for Medicare Services and the Consumers Union have reported that beneficiaries are getting substantial savings under this drug benefit. These plain and simple facts ought to take the wind out of the sails of the argument that private companies can't deliver an affordable benefit for our beneficiaries and even for the taxpayers. These plans can deliver, and they are delivering. That is competition, not something that they set out to do. That is the market forces bringing down prices. Some might say: Well, if the plans can do that, imagine what the big bureaucracy of the Federal Government can do. To those folks, I urge a word of caution. First, the Government doesn't have such a great track record when it comes to price negotiation. When we considered the Medicare Modernization Act, the Center for Medicare Services' actuary reported that drugs in Part B: Were reimbursed at rates that, in many instances, were substantially greater than the prevailing price levels. Even The Washington Post editorial of February 17, 2004, said: Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the medical realm. My second point is beneficiaries don't have one-size-fits-all prescription drug needs. They need choices. Forty-four million different Americans have 44 million different solutions--or you can't have one plan fits all, I guess is what I should say. The companies offering the drug benefit must offer coverage for a wide array of brand and generic drugs. The companies also are offering plans with lower or even no deductible. Many are offering additional coverage so that there is no doughnut hole. The bottom line is the approach taken in the Medicare Modernization Act has resulted in affordable choices for beneficiaries while saving the taxpayers money. When we crafted this act, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the market-based approach would result in better prescription drug cost management for Medicare than any other approach that was being considered at that time by the Congress. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said about eliminating the noninterference clause in a letter last year: The Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce Federal spending to a significant degree. The Congressional Budget Office went on to say: CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans. That estimate is now a reality. We also had an analysis from the chief actuary for the Medicare program. The chief actuary for the Medicare program, who is required by law to provide independent actuarial analysis on issues facing Medicare, concluded that he does not: believe that the current Administration or future ones would be willing and able to impose price concessions that significantly exceed those that can be achieved in a competitive market. In fact, more astonishingly, the chief actuary pointed out that if Medicare establishes drug price levels it will reduce competition not increase it. The report stated that the establishment of drug price levels for Medicare by the Federal government would eliminate the largest factor that prescription drug plans could otherwise use to compete against each other. So let's be clear, direct Government negotiation is not the answer. The Government does not negotiate drug prices. The Government sets prices and it does not do a very good job at it. The law's entire approach is to get beneficiaries the best deal through vigorous market competition, not price controls. The new Medicare drug benefit creates consumer choices among competing, at-risk private plans. It is abundantly clear that Medicare plans have leveraged the buying power of millions of beneficiaries to lower drug prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to change the law and oppose efforts to get the Government involved in setting drug prices. It is a prescription for higher costs and fewer choices for beneficiaries.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, two speakers ago, the Senate heard the Senator from North Dakota say that the drug bill says that the Secretary cannot negotiate. It doesn't say that anywhere in the law. It doesn't say it anyplace. They made that up. I don't know what sort of political points they want to make, but keeping the speeches to what the law says, and not what somebody thinks it says, seems to be very important to intellectually honest debate. To the Senator from Oregon, drug companies want cash-paying customers with no coverage because those people, as we all know, pay the highest prices. The drug companies don't have to negotiate with anyone when seniors don't have any drug coverage, such as they didn't have before this law went into effect. Part D provides that drug coverage, and now the drug companies have to compete to offer lower prices and to get plans to put their drugs on their preferred drug list. It is very necessary. They would like to have the environment that you want: No formulary. Then they have everything the way they want it. That is how negotiations work, to drive down prices, to get your plan approved, and that is how competition works to reduce prices, and that is what we see after 2\1/2\ months of the operation of this legislation. Don't give the drug companies what they want: no formulary.

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is the alternative minimum tax hold harmless, so that 22 million more Americans do not get hit by the alternative minimum income tax. Middle-income people who were never intended to pay it will if we don't get this bill out of conference with these offsets in it. Everybody on the other side of the aisle doesn't want an alternative minimum tax to hit middle-income people, so they are going to take those revenue raisers, those tax loophole closers that we are using for this to use for something such as Amtrak, now before us, as an example. There are other provisions. The reconciliation number covers these items. Yet this amendment would tear away the revenue offsets needed to pay for these items. You can't say you are for these items and not provide room for the tax cut that is in the reconciliation bill in conference. You can't use the offsets for something else without providing for those items. You can't have it both ways, in other words. What is the loophole closer you would use, I ask them. There are none of them identified. Will it be taken from the $30 billion reconciliation already accounted for in that bill or is there a new issue we haven't seen? If you have a secret revenue loophole closer out there, I want to know about it. A loophole closer actually has to raise money. Members need to know that some of the leftover items from last year may not raise any money in the current year when they want to spend it. You can't rely on raisers that were done in the past. We also need to remember that many of these leftover offsets were rejected by the House. It is not enough to call for ``more loophole closers.'' The amendment's sponsor needs to tell us where the money is coming from; otherwise the call for offsets is just a call for ``funny money,'' in a sense. Members need to know that the till is empty. A fictitious offset will not suffice. We have a lot of heavy lifting to do under this resolution as written. If you want to add more weight to the problem, you need to tell us where the money is going to come from. I ask you to vote against these amendments because they are not identifying loophole closers.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't think I am going to use more time than has been allotted on this amendment, but just in case, I hope the manager would give me a minute or two off the bill. Madam President, I wish to speak through the Chair to the Senator from West Virginia. I am going to speak not specifically against your amendment, but you have identified closing corporate tax loopholes as one way of raising revenue to offset yours. I am going to take advantage of my time against your amendment to speak because Members on your side of the aisle have used this approach in the past, and I want to say how there are some problems doing that. Virtually all Democratic Members had a common theme in their amendments--raising taxes for more spending. The purported offset for each of these amendments--several yesterday and more today--would close tax loopholes to pay for whatever popular spending program is proposed. The Senate tax relief reconciliation bill that is now in conference between the House and Senate--and that is a reconciliation bill left over from last year's budget resolution, some of the unfinished business of last year that we have to get worked out this spring--this conference's bills already include $20 to $30 billion of loophole closers. Ironically, many of the proponents of these amendments that have been offered on the other side of the aisle, using tax loophole closers, were among the small minority of Members who opposed the tax relief reconciliation bill that contained offsets. In some cases, the proponents have acknowledged that the Finance Committee, which I chair, has already used these loophole closers. The Finance Committee will be responsible, then, if these amendments are adopted, for creating new loophole closers. That is not a problem. I don't consider that a problem because I am looking to close abusive uses of the Tax Code. My Finance Committee staff has proven itself quite effective in the past in identifying offsets. Just in the period of time since 2001, our committee has raised around $200 billion in new revenues by shutting down tax shelters, by closing inversions, and other abusive tax schemes. In the year 2004 alone, the Finance Committee fully offset a $137 billion tax bill at no expense to the American taxpayers. This was what was known at that time as the FSC-ETI repeal bill. So I think the Finance Committee, since 2001--or using the year 2004 alone--has a pretty good handle on what is possible in the ``raisers'' category. So, implied, do the Democrats who are proposing closing tax loopholes know it is not necessarily an easy job, a job we have been working on, a job we have been successful at, but the more of this you do, the less there is to take care of what they are trying to bring us to do, closing tax loopholes? I might imply that maybe they are taking the easy way out because of using the term ``loophole closers.'' That may not be such an easy way out for those of us who have to do it. This brings me then to the amendments that have been proposed. The sponsors say they have offset the costs of the amendments by closing tax loopholes. I wish to know what loopholes they have in mind. If we use the inventory of Senate-acceptable offsets, we can raise about $11 billion over 5 years. But that $11 billion, even if we accomplish it, is a far cry from the cumulative demands of the amendments that have already been offered from the other side and probably will be offered yet today and tomorrow. We are probably going to have to find more revenue raisers just to cover the items that Members say they support in the tax relief agenda that is out there that everybody wants me to get passed. The Finance Committee staff hopes to use the full $30 billion that is already in conference in the Senate tax relief reconciliation bill. Some have referred to the recent ``tax gap'' report of the Joint Committee. But this is also going to be a heavy lift. When Members try to use some unidentified loophole closers--and these have all been unidentified--to pay for their amendments, what they are saying is that we should use something out of the $30 billion that has been set by the Finance Committee staff that we are considering in conference committee right now. So, in fact, the proponents' amendment is going to displace something covered by the resolution. That point has to be made crystal clear, because this is the crux of the problem. If you use a loophole closer that is already called for in the tax relief package that is in conference, it means that something in the tax cut package will have to be taken out. What do my colleagues, who are using loophole closers, suggest that we take out that most of them think ought to be law because they voted for it in the first place? The tax relief reconciliation bill covers a number of items that Members on the other side do support. For example, it covers, through the year 2010, provisions that they support such as tuition deduction, such as low-income savers credit, small business expensing. These are sunsetted. They have to be reenacted to keep existing tax policy. You have to have offsets for them. Also covered are 1-year provisions that they say they support, such as business extenders like research and development. Several States have sales taxes that will not be deductible anymore if we don't pass this bill. The alternative minimum tax hold harmless----

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is there any time left on my side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what the Secretary said was that this was a decision by the Congress. We are involved in that decision, a decision today to give the Secretary authority to do it if it needs to be done, and do it not until it needs to be done, rather than sending a signal that you can procrastinate again for another 6 months.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Nelson amendment is the wrong idea at the wrong time. The amendment doesn't even provide the resources for enrolling people afterwards. We did in the amendment just adopted. How are we going to get people to enroll if the administration doesn't have the resources to do it? It is too early to make a decision, when we don't have final enrollment numbers yet. Right now enrollment is going very well. A quarter of a million people sign up every week. Many who are calling for delay in the enrollment deadline didn't support the legislation 2 or 3 years ago. They have admitted that. They have been encouraging citizens not to enroll. Extending the deadline until the end of the year is a cynical attempt to tell seniors not to enroll this year. The other side says May 15 is an arbitrary deadline. Americans live with deadlines every day.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the things on this issue that is so misleading is the impression that this legislation does not allow Medicare to negotiate. The opposite is true. This legislation requires negotiation. That is what the plans are doing all the time to drive down the price of drugs--what it does to drive down the price of the premium way below what we thought it would be. Again, everything is backward when they talk about this. In the real world, there are choices. Wherever you want to go for any consumer products, those stores negotiate prices to get good prices. It is just a way to get the job done. Statistics that have come in on this show that competition is driving down the price of drugs--the 25 leading drugs--by 35 percent on average this ought to show that this process is working.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in a debate earlier today, the senior Senator from North Dakota responded to my challenge to point out a new corporate loophole closer that is not included in the tax relief reconciliation conference. The ranking Democratic member of the Budget Committee discussed a proposal developed by the Finance Committee Democratic staff that would repeal ``deferral'' for controlled foreign corporations doing business in tax haven countries. I share the senior Senator from North Dakota's concerns about the ability of large corporations to manipulate the Tax Code to shift large amounts of profits offshore. But this provision isn't the right way to address those concerns. It is both overbroad and inadequate. It is overbroad because it would harm the competitiveness of U.S. multinationals by repealing deferral for holding company structures that allow them to efficiently allocate active foreign-generated resources among their foreign operations without incurring U.S. tax on entirely foreign transactions. It is inadequate because it applies only to subsidiaries in black- listed countries. Companies that use tax havens for abusive purposes could easily avoid this rule by locating in a low-tax country that is not on the list, like Ireland, where we have read press reports that companies are shifting huge profits. Treasury would have authority to add countries to the list, but does anyone think Ireland, with whom we have a tax treaty, would be added to a black list? The way to deal with those cases is through effective transfer pricing policy and enforcement, not by curtailing deferral. This proposal was included in the Democratic alternative to the Finance Committee bipartisan tax relief plan. When we considered the House tax relief reconciliation bill, the Democratic alternative was defeated. Even if the tax haven proposal were viable in the Senate, it would yield only a fraction of the revenue needed to offset the cumulative effect of the many Democratic amendments to increase spending. The effect of using such proposals, which aren't viable in the Senate, even if successful, would be to drive down the tax relief number. The result of a lower net tax relief number is that we would lack the necessary tax relief in the budget to accommodate tax relief proposals supported on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the issue of the increase in the debt limit has come before the Senate as an agreement between the two leaders, and as the committee of jurisdiction, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I speak in support of House Joint Resolution 47, a bill that increases the Federal debt limit. I support this increase because it is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the Government. Without an increase in the debt limit, our Government will face a choice that we should not make and we would not want to make: a choice between breaking the law by exceeding the statutory debt limit or breaking faith with the public by defaulting on our debt. I hope everyone would agree that neither choice is acceptable. To understand why we are here today seeking to increase the debt limit, it is necessary to explain a few points about the Federal debt. Under current law, there is a statutory limit on the amount of debt that can be issued by the Federal Government. This limit, which now stands at $8.184 trillion, applies to virtually all the debt issued by the Government. There is only one debt limit, but there are, in fact, two types of debt within that figure: debt held by the public--meaning you and I as private citizens buying Government bonds, owning Treasury bills--and then, of course, on the other hand, the debt held by various Government trust funds. An example would be the surplus that is invested in the Social Security surplus payroll that is not being paid out for benefits, being invested in Government debt with that debt owed to the trust fund with the interest accumulating to the trust fund. The amount of Federal debt held by the public is determined by the Government's annual cash flow. When total spending exceeds total taxes, the Government has a budget deficit. To finance this deficit, the Government borrows from the public by selling debt, such as Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. We will hear a lot of criticism that President Bush's tax cuts are responsible for our rising public debt, but the facts show otherwise. When President Bush took office in 2001, the Federal debt limit was $5.95 trillion, almost $6 trillion. The debt limit was increased to $6.4 trillion in 2002, $7.3 trillion in 2003, and now the present $8.1 trillion in 2005. Assuming we increase the debt limit today, it will be $8.965 trillion. Thus, the Federal debt limit will have increased by $3.015 trillion since President Bush took office in 2001. However, the tax cuts that have been enacted since 2001 total roughly $900 billion through the end of the most recent fiscal year. That includes interest costs as well. Thus, the President's tax cuts account for about 30 percent of the increase in the Federal debt. The rest of this increase in the public debt is due to the recession, the war in Iraq, and the increased spending on homeland security, also related to the war on terror. In addition to the debt held by the public, the Federal debt limit also applies, as I said before, to the debt held by various Government trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare. Whenever a trust fund program collects more than it spends, the surplus is invested in special issue Treasury securities. These special securities count toward the debt limit. However, it is important to understand that the amount of debt held by the trust funds does not reflect the Government's unfunded obligations. For example, the Treasury Department reports that the total amount of Federal debt held by all the trust fund programs is about $3.5 trillion. However, the Social Security and Medicare trustees report that the unfunded obligation of Social Security and Medicare is more than $81 trillion. Given these facts, it should be obvious to everyone that the Federal debt provides a misleading and inaccurate picture of the Government's future liabilities. Efforts to use the statutory debt limit to control Government debt and deficits cannot succeed because it ignores the long-term budget problems. Indeed, even former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has suggested the debt limit has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with a more accurate and useful alternative. I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to develop such an alternative. It may never happen, but it ought to happen. This is not quite a very intellectual way to decide what the Government is doing in a fiscal way because, quite obviously, every day Congress is appropriating money and every day we are spending money and every day if that exceeds the taxes that are coming in and we get to the debt limit, the debt is going to increase or is going to shut down the Government. As a Republican, that was part of our strategy during the Clinton administration. But let me tell you, it didn't work. It didn't work because it wasn't good policy, and it ended up not being very good politics. I hope we do not have an extended debate and a lot of breast beating about the issue of increasing the national debt because, quite frankly, if we spend and we spend up to that limit, we are not going to shut down the Government, if we learned the lesson, as I hope I learned the lesson, and we move on. It ought to be very pro forma. There will be a lot of debate about it, a lot of political points trying to be made, but the point is we have to keep the business of Government going. I would relish the opportunities to have those days when we paid down $550 billion on the national debt during the fiscal years of, I think, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, I believe it was. It was about $558 billion I believe that we paid down on the national debt. I am glad we did. But now we have the war on terror, we had 3,000 Americans killed in New York City because of terrorist attacks, and we are fighting a war to make sure terrorism doesn't happen again, at least on the soil in the United States of America. The No. 1 obligation of our Government under the Constitution is for the national defense. Protecting our people from further terrorist attacks is very basic to it. We voted, in a bipartisan way, to send men and women to the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if we do that, we have an obligation to appropriate the money to give them the tools to do the job when they put their life on the line for our freedom and our liberty and to make sure that 3,000 Americans don't get killed again. These all create situations wherein we have annual debt or annual deficits, and you increase the national debt on a cumulative basis when you do that. So there will probably be almost 50 votes, maybe, against this resolution when we vote on it tomorrow. I would ask the people who vote against it, do you want to shut down Government? Or if you don't want to shut down Government, you don't want to increase the national debt, why did you vote for the money we spent that brings us to the point of a necessity of increasing the national debt? We should pass this resolution for the sound operation of our Government. Shutting down Government, we found out, ended up costing the taxpayers more than if Government had operated. There are a lot of conservatives listening who see a conservative like Chuck Grassley saying that, and they say: Grassley, what planet did you come from? If we shut down Government, you ought to save money. But we didn't end up saving money. So you learn from history, or you are destined to repeat it. That is why this ought to pass unanimously. It won't, but it ought to. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill introduced by me today that may be cited as the ``Alternative Energy Extender Act'' 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 2006. I first introduced the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act in 2003 to address what I saw as a significant threat to the security of our Nation. Money laundering is an issue of profound importance to our national security because it undermines financial stability by infiltrating and using legitimate financial institutions to hide the illegitimate source of these funds. Money laundering also affects our national security simply because money is the motivating factor for so much of the criminal activities that affect our daily lives, from shoplifting and petty theft to drug trafficking and multi- million dollar stock frauds. We also know that money laundering is a key tool for terrorist groups because it fuels their ability to spread murder, fear and destruction throughout the world. One of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations stated that, ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.'' The Commission expressed its concerns about terrorist financing and ``the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their funding.'' I strongly share the Commission's concerns and support their recommendations that they provided in their final report. However, I am very concerned about the 9/11 Commission's Final Report Card, released on December 5, 2005, which gave the U.S. Government an A- for our ``vigorous efforts against terror financing.'' After the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and nearly 4 years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our Government is still too ill-equipped and fraught with in-fighting to rate an A- for its efforts. While we have made significant strides in identifying the methods used to earn, store and move this money, we are still far behind the curve on shutting down the flow of illicit financing permanently. Billions of dollars continue to be funneled to terrorist and criminal organizations after being laundered for these organizations around the world. Therefore, we must continue to increase the pressure we put on these organizations until we reach the point where their ever-changing money laundering methods are no longer convenient, profitable or effective. The legislation I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering laws by streamlining a number of statutes, clarifying language in the current law and closing loopholes that are often exploited by criminal organizations. As our new anti-money laundering laws have proven to be effective and make money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are forced to shift methods to launder their illegally gained funds. As these criminals change their tactics, so must we. Allow me to tell you about some of the key changes that this bill includes to meet these challenges. To begin with, under current law there are over 200 ``specified unlawful activities'' or ``SUA's'' that serve as predicate offenses for money laundering charges. As criminals continue to alter their methods of laundering illegal funds, this list of required ``SUA's'' is sure to grow. My legislation will eliminate the need to continually update the statutes by consolidating the growing list of ``specified unlawful activities'' to include all offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year. This legislation also recognizes the global aspect of money laundering by including foreign offenses that would be illegal money laundering offenses had they occurred within U.S. jurisdiction. This bill also simplifies current law by allowing the government to charge money laundering acts as a ``course of conduct.'' Currently, in most circuits, courts are required to charge each money laundering transaction as a separate count. This legislation allows, but does not require, courts to charge a series of money laundering offenses as a ``course of conduct.'' This change would reduce the time and expense currently incurred by courts that are required to charge and prosecute each separate violation of the money laundering laws. As new laws have made money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are turning to riskier methods of moving their money. One growing area is bulk cash smuggling, and as such, this bill increases the penalty for bulk cash smuggling to 10 years. In addition, many ``money service businesses,'' or ``MSB's'' have also come under increased scrutiny because of their suspected role in moving funds from the United States to terrorist organizations throughout the world. Another provision of my legislation amends Section 373 of the USA PATRIOT Act regarding money service businesses to read ``illegal'' instead of ``unlicensed'' to ensure that the law covers any money service business that promotes unlawful activity as a course of business. Another money laundering technique is for couriers to carry checks that are complete except for the dollar amount. Under this approach the couriers attempt to avoid U.S. Customs reporting requirements through the movement of monetary instruments that are in bearer form and are worth over $10,000. Even though the blank checks are in bearer form, they argue that the value being left blank is not over $10,000 and does not need to be reported. Once they and the blank check reach their destination, all they need to do is to fill in the amount, whatever that may be, and have it negotiated. This legislation removes any confusion as to whether this act is a violation of the reporting requirement. This bill would resolve this issue by clarifying that a check in bearer form, with an amount left blank shall be deemed to have a value equal to the highest amount in the bank account that it is drawn upon while the check was being transported, or when the blank check is cashed or intended to be cashed. My legislation eliminates confusion or ambiguity about the definition of ``commingled funds,'' and structured transactions. ``Commingling of funds'' is a method often used by criminals to disguise illegal money from legal money by mixing the funds together in one account. ``Structured transactions'' is a method used to circumvent our monetary transaction reporting requirements by breaking monetary transactions into several smaller dollar amounts so as to avoid a Government reporting requirement if the transaction had been only one transaction with a value over $10,000. Plus, this legislation clarifies extraterritorial jurisdiction to include money laundering acts that have an effect in the United States. Often, money couriers are intercepted before they reach the collection point but are released because they claim that they didn't know that the money was derived illegally. My bill ensures that the courier can no longer be released from responsibility in the money laundering chain by claiming ignorance about how the money was derived, which means the law enforcement agency can get both the courier and the money off the street. Finally, this bill updates counterfeiting statutes to keep them current with new technology and devices, such as holograms, that are used to produce counterfeits of U.S. obligations and securities. The battle against terrorism and organized criminal groups must be fought on many fronts--including the financial front. We know that we have made strides in this area as evidenced by the money launderers' use of different techniques. As important as it is to learn what techniques these criminals use, it is just as important to act upon this knowledge. If we can shut down the flow of illegal money, whether generated by drug sales or in support of terrorist activities, I believe we will make a significant impact on the demise of these criminal and terrorist groups. This bill is important to identifying particular criminal and terrorist financing operations and putting them out of business. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and strengthen our national efforts against the continued threat of terrorist financing and financial crimes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill introduced by me today that may be cited as the ``Alternative Energy Extender Act'' be printed in the Record.

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 2006. I first introduced the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act in 2003 to address what I saw as a significant threat to the security of our Nation. Money laundering is an issue of profound importance to our national security because it undermines financial stability by infiltrating and using legitimate financial institutions to hide the illegitimate source of these funds. Money laundering also affects our national security simply because money is the motivating factor for so much of the criminal activities that affect our daily lives, from shoplifting and petty theft to drug trafficking and multi- million dollar stock frauds. We also know that money laundering is a key tool for terrorist groups because it fuels their ability to spread murder, fear and destruction throughout the world. One of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations stated that, ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.'' The Commission expressed its concerns about terrorist financing and ``the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their funding.'' I strongly share the Commission's concerns and support their recommendations that they provided in their final report. However, I am very concerned about the 9/11 Commission's Final Report Card, released on December 5, 2005, which gave the U.S. Government an A- for our ``vigorous efforts against terror financing.'' After the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and nearly 4 years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our Government is still too ill-equipped and fraught with in-fighting to rate an A- for its efforts. While we have made significant strides in identifying the methods used to earn, store and move this money, we are still far behind the curve on shutting down the flow of illicit financing permanently. Billions of dollars continue to be funneled to terrorist and criminal organizations after being laundered for these organizations around the world. Therefore, we must continue to increase the pressure we put on these organizations until we reach the point where their ever-changing money laundering methods are no longer convenient, profitable or effective. The legislation I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering laws by streamlining a number of statutes, clarifying language in the current law and closing loopholes that are often exploited by criminal organizations. As our new anti-money laundering laws have proven to be effective and make money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are forced to shift methods to launder their illegally gained funds. As these criminals change their tactics, so must we. Allow me to tell you about some of the key changes that this bill includes to meet these challenges. To begin with, under current law there are over 200 ``specified unlawful activities'' or ``SUA's'' that serve as predicate offenses for money laundering charges. As criminals continue to alter their methods of laundering illegal funds, this list of required ``SUA's'' is sure to grow. My legislation will eliminate the need to continually update the statutes by consolidating the growing list of ``specified unlawful activities'' to include all offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year. This legislation also recognizes the global aspect of money laundering by including foreign offenses that would be illegal money laundering offenses had they occurred within U.S. jurisdiction. This bill also simplifies current law by allowing the government to charge money laundering acts as a ``course of conduct.'' Currently, in most circuits, courts are required to charge each money laundering transaction as a separate count. This legislation allows, but does not require, courts to charge a series of money laundering offenses as a ``course of conduct.'' This change would reduce the time and expense currently incurred by courts that are required to charge and prosecute each separate violation of the money laundering laws. As new laws have made money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are turning to riskier methods of moving their money. One growing area is bulk cash smuggling, and as such, this bill increases the penalty for bulk cash smuggling to 10 years. In addition, many ``money service businesses,'' or ``MSB's'' have also come under increased scrutiny because of their suspected role in moving funds from the United States to terrorist organizations throughout the world. Another provision of my legislation amends Section 373 of the USA PATRIOT Act regarding money service businesses to read ``illegal'' instead of ``unlicensed'' to ensure that the law covers any money service business that promotes unlawful activity as a course of business. Another money laundering technique is for couriers to carry checks that are complete except for the dollar amount. Under this approach the couriers attempt to avoid U.S. Customs reporting requirements through the movement of monetary instruments that are in bearer form and are worth over $10,000. Even though the blank checks are in bearer form, they argue that the value being left blank is not over $10,000 and does not need to be reported. Once they and the blank check reach their destination, all they need to do is to fill in the amount, whatever that may be, and have it negotiated. This legislation removes any confusion as to whether this act is a violation of the reporting requirement. This bill would resolve this issue by clarifying that a check in bearer form, with an amount left blank shall be deemed to have a value equal to the highest amount in the bank account that it is drawn upon while the check was being transported, or when the blank check is cashed or intended to be cashed. My legislation eliminates confusion or ambiguity about the definition of ``commingled funds,'' and structured transactions. ``Commingling of funds'' is a method often used by criminals to disguise illegal money from legal money by mixing the funds together in one account. ``Structured transactions'' is a method used to circumvent our monetary transaction reporting requirements by breaking monetary transactions into several smaller dollar amounts so as to avoid a Government reporting requirement if the transaction had been only one transaction with a value over $10,000. Plus, this legislation clarifies extraterritorial jurisdiction to include money laundering acts that have an effect in the United States. Often, money couriers are intercepted before they reach the collection point but are released because they claim that they didn't know that the money was derived illegally. My bill ensures that the courier can no longer be released from responsibility in the money laundering chain by claiming ignorance about how the money was derived, which means the law enforcement agency can get both the courier and the money off the street. Finally, this bill updates counterfeiting statutes to keep them current with new technology and devices, such as holograms, that are used to produce counterfeits of U.S. obligations and securities. The battle against terrorism and organized criminal groups must be fought on many fronts--including the financial front. We know that we have made strides in this area as evidenced by the money launderers' use of different techniques. As important as it is to learn what techniques these criminals use, it is just as important to act upon this knowledge. If we can shut down the flow of illegal money, whether generated by drug sales or in support of terrorist activities, I believe we will make a significant impact on the demise of these criminal and terrorist groups. This bill is important to identifying particular criminal and terrorist financing operations and putting them out of business. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and strengthen our national efforts against the continued threat of terrorist financing and financial crimes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I rise to introduce legislation that would address the concerns related to the shipping of live birds through the United States Postal Service. I introduced a similar bill during the 107th Congress with bi-partisan support. It was included in Public Law 107-67. This bill should close some loopholes that some of the airlines are using to avoid the timely shipping of day-old baby chicks. Some members of the airline industry stated that they commonly and regularly refuse to transport shipments of some species of live animals for its regularly scheduled cargo service and, therefore, can refuse to carry any live animals by mail under existing law. My bill will make the law apply to ``any air carrier that commonly and regularly carries any live animals as cargo,'' thus making sure that if the air carrier does ship any live animals as cargo, it will be required to ship animals as mail. There have been accusations that the shipping of day-old poultry could spread avian influenza. I have received information from Avian Health Veterinarians and they have informed me that avian influenza is not an egg transmitted disease. There are no reports of day-old poultry from infected breeders being infected with avian influenza when they hatch. Poultry health specialists have been examining the vertical transmission, or parents-to-chicks via the egg of avian influenza, for more than 30 years. Studies looking at the avian influenza have consistently failed to reveal evidence of avian influenza virus infections in newly hatched chicks from infected parent flocks. This clearly shows that day-old poultry are not likely to be naturally infected. So the risk of transmitting avian influenza through shipment of day-old poultry is not an issue. This bill would also address two other problems that have caused an adverse economic impact to bird shippers. First, the bill requires air carriers that take poultry as mail, to transfer such shipments so that the shipper is guaranteed that the shipment will reach its ultimate destination. Second, it requires an air carrier to take shipments of poultry as air mail when the outside temperature is between 0 degrees Fahrenheit -17 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.77 degrees Celsius from point of origin of the shipment through the point of destination. These temperature parameters are accepted by avian veterinarians as safe and humane. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I rise to introduce legislation that would address the concerns related to the shipping of live birds through the United States Postal Service. I introduced a similar bill during the 107th Congress with bi-partisan support. It was included in Public Law 107-67. This bill should close some loopholes that some of the airlines are using to avoid the timely shipping of day-old baby chicks. Some members of the airline industry stated that they commonly and regularly refuse to transport shipments of some species of live animals for its regularly scheduled cargo service and, therefore, can refuse to carry any live animals by mail under existing law. My bill will make the law apply to ``any air carrier that commonly and regularly carries any live animals as cargo,'' thus making sure that if the air carrier does ship any live animals as cargo, it will be required to ship animals as mail. There have been accusations that the shipping of day-old poultry could spread avian influenza. I have received information from Avian Health Veterinarians and they have informed me that avian influenza is not an egg transmitted disease. There are no reports of day-old poultry from infected breeders being infected with avian influenza when they hatch. Poultry health specialists have been examining the vertical transmission, or parents-to-chicks via the egg of avian influenza, for more than 30 years. Studies looking at the avian influenza have consistently failed to reveal evidence of avian influenza virus infections in newly hatched chicks from infected parent flocks. This clearly shows that day-old poultry are not likely to be naturally infected. So the risk of transmitting avian influenza through shipment of day-old poultry is not an issue. This bill would also address two other problems that have caused an adverse economic impact to bird shippers. First, the bill requires air carriers that take poultry as mail, to transfer such shipments so that the shipper is guaranteed that the shipment will reach its ultimate destination. Second, it requires an air carrier to take shipments of poultry as air mail when the outside temperature is between 0 degrees Fahrenheit -17 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.77 degrees Celsius from point of origin of the shipment through the point of destination. These temperature parameters are accepted by avian veterinarians as safe and humane. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I put a hold on the President's nominee for the Export-Import Bank. I don't usually issue a press release when I do that, but I did that because it is in relationship to a problem we are having with the Export-Import Bank on an ethanol issue, and I want the people to know that it is broader than just some of the small reasons you do holds around here. But I have had a practice, as this amendment would mandate--I have had a practice over the last 7 or 8 years of putting a statement in the Congressional Record when I use a hold. I believe I use a hold a little less often than some of my colleagues do, but I agree. A lot of people maybe use a hold because they do not want to put up with the fuss that goes on when you make public why you are holding up a bill and who you are. But I want to assure you, I have been in the Senate for 25 years, and I have not lost one ounce of blood. I have not had one black and blue mark. I don't believe I have had any fight with any colleague over the practice when they know who I am. Of course, if they were secret and they never knew I was doing it, I wouldn't have to worry about any of these things. But I believe, as my colleague from Oregon does, that the people's business is the people's business, and the people's business ought to be public. I believe if you have guts enough to put a special hold on legislation, you ought to have guts enough to say who you are and why you are doing it. I think your constituents ought to know that. But more importantly, just to get things done around here, your colleagues ought to know who it is because if you have a gripe, let's get the gripe out in the open and let's talk about it. What is wrong in America that we do not want to talk about some things? I don't know how often my constituents brag about: ``There are two things I never talk about, religion and politics.'' There are no things that you ought to talk about more than religion and politics because they have more influence on your life than anything else that we do in American society. But somehow you can't think that you can do it in a civil way when you ought to be able to do it in a civil way. In the U.S. Senate you ought to be able to do all this stuff in a civil way. I hope my experiences of not having any harm done to me in any way for putting a hold on, that people will back this amendment and get the public's business out. There is nothing wrong with the word ``hold,'' but there is something wrong with the word ``secret.'' When you read it in the newspapers you never hear the word ``hold'' unless the word ``secret'' is connected with it. The people around the countryside of America, at least in my State of Iowa, think what is wrong with American Government is that there is too much secrecy, too much behind-the-scenes dealing, too much money in politics--all those things that give us kind of a black eye with the public. This is not going to solve these problems, just taking the word ``secret'' out of the hold. But at least the newspapers won't be able to use the word ``secret'' anymore. And maybe when bit by bit we do some of these things around here we will be able to elevate public service to be the honorable profession that it ought to be. This is a small effort on the part of my colleague and myself and now Senator Inhofe to do that. How do you eat 10,000 marshmallows? You eat one at a time. How are you going to raise public respect for the Senate? You are going to do it a little bit at a time. This may be too little for some people. But the way caucuses are being held around here on this very subject in the last hour, you know this is a big deal--and it should be a big deal. This is the public's business. Having expressed those views, I would like to go to a statement I have that maybe will make more sense. The time has come for the Senate as a body to rid itself of a serious blemish. And, of course, I am talking about the practice I just spoke about of placing anonymous holds on legislation or nominations. The power of the hold is to stop a bill or a nomination in its tracks, which each Senator possesses. It was never authorized or even intended. It is just a practice. It is not in the books. I do not object to the use of this powerful tool, so long as it is accompanied with some public accountability. However, the current lack of transparency in the process is an affront to the principle of open government, and I think it is an embarrassment to this body. The amendment by Senator Wyden and myself and Senator Inhofe which we proposed today would establish a standing order requiring that holds be made public. We believe it is time to have the Senate consider our proposed standing order and then decide as a body whether to end this secret process. For my colleagues who might be apprehensive about this change in doing business, I ask you to just give it a try. I should point out that this measure is a standing order which, while binding on Senators, does not formally amend the Senate rules and can more easily be changed if it turns out to be unworkable. I have no doubt that once instituted this reform will be found to be very sound and no reason will be found why it should not be continued for a long period of time. For years, I have made it my practice to publicly disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place along with a short explanation. It is quick, it is easy, and it is painless. I want to assure my colleagues of that. Our proposed standing order would provide that a simple form be filled out, much like we do when we add cosponsors to a bill. Senators would have a full 3 session days from placing the hold to submit the form. The hold would then be published in the Congressional Record and the Senate Calendar. It is just as simple as that. This amendment is essentially the same as S. Res. 216 in the 108th Congress, which was a collaborative effort between myself, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Wyden, Senator Lott, and Senator Byrd. In the last Congress, Chairman Lott held a hearing in the Rules Committee on the issue that is before us. Since that time, I have worked with Senators Wyden, Lott, and Byrd to come up with what I think is a very well thought out proposal to require public disclosure of holds on legislation or nominations in the Senate. It says a lot that this proposal was written with the help of such outstanding Senators as Senator Lott and Senator Byrd. As chairman of the Rules Committee and as former majority leader, Senator Lott brings valuable perspective and experience. It is also a great honor to be able to work on this issue with Senator Byrd, who is also a former majority leader and an expert on Senate rules and procedures. I can think of no reason a single Senator should be able to kill a bill or a nomination in complete secrecy. Despite recent attempts by the leadership to curb abuses of holds, the secret hold remains a stain on the fabric of the Senate. It is time for the whole Senate to consider our proposed standing order and speak as a body on this issue. If any Senator believes I am misguided in this, I welcome their discussion. I have yet to hear a single good reason we should allow secrecy to creep into what ought to be a very public legislative process. In fact, public discussion on this matter is long overdue. If this practice that is in the shadows of legislation is to continue, let us at least say so publicly. I can think of no better time to consider this long overdue measure than in the context of a bill titled the ``Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act.'' If we don't end this in a bill with this title, we are missing a chance that we have been waiting for for 10 years. I thank the chairman of the committee for that opportunity. That is why this measure is all about transparency and accountability. The purpose of the underlying bill is to restore public confidence in Congress by making our actions transparent and accountable. Secret holds run contrary to both principles. They are done in complete secrecy and allow Senators to avoid public accountability for action. The underlying bill requires disclosure of earmarks in advance of conference negotiations and increased disclosure of trips and employment negotiations. I ask my colleagues to support the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment so that we can use this one small step to restore confidence and have more public accountability.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am placing a hold on the nomination of James Lambright to serve as President of the Export- Import Bank of the United States. I am placing this hold on Mr. Lambright's nomination as I have major concerns regarding the issuance of taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank for an ethanol project in Trinidad and Tobago. Specifically, the approval of this credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank appeared to violate the Bank's authorizing statute. Let me explain. In March 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty-free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative trade preference program. But section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute-- the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and that the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity. The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production.'' As of 2004, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly exceeded the 1-percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. So it appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export-Import Bank was less than $10 million, no detailed economic impact analysis was conducted by the bank. I note that the amount approved by the Export-Import Bank $9.87 million was conveniently just below this $10 million threshold amount. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension would cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. In January of last year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank avoided the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank avoided the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil. However, despite the semantics of the Export-Import Bank, the Angostura plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol. Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol. While the Export-Import Bank currently does not have an inspector general, the conference report for the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 directs the Export-Import Bank's inspector general--once appointed to look into this credit insurance approval. Specifically, the conference report provides that the inspector general shall provide a written analysis to the Finance Committee and the Committee on Appropriations, within 90 days of appointment, as to whether the loan guarantees provided to the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago met the provisions of the Export-Import Bank's charter. The analysis shall include whether ``value added'' methodology is routinely used by the bank to determine whether a proposed loan guarantee or export credit meets the statutory test regarding the definition of substantial injury found in the bank's authorizing statute. The inspector general shall also make recommendations as to whether it is appropriate to use such methodology in making a determination of substantial injury. As the Export-Import Bank currently does not have an inspector general, I am placing a hold on Mr. Lambert's nomination until such time that I receive assurances from him that, first, the Export-Import Bank will act quickly to appoint an inspector general, and second, that Mr. Lambert will see that the inspector general will indeed provide a written analysis on the credit insurance approval within 90 days of appointment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a patriotic civil servant is going home. Mr. A. Ernest Fitzgerald has finally called it quits. His 42-year career, including Navy service in World War II, came to a close on Friday, March 3. He has walked out of the Pentagon for the last time. He has retired. Although Mr. Fitzgerald's first name is Arthur, most of us know him fondly under the name of Ernie. Ernie is probably the most famous whistleblower of all time, and I think of him as the father of all whistleblowers, the chief whistleblower. He set an example for all of the whistleblowers who have followed in his footsteps. Ernie is a man of great courage and integrity. I dreamed for a long time that someday some duly certified whistleblower would be honored by a President, even this President, at a Rose Garden ceremony. Ernie is a perfect candidate for such a Rose Garden ceremony, but I don't think that he is going to get that honor. It may never happen. At least it may not happen in my lifetime. But of course I believe it should happen because that would be the right thing to do, to send a signal from the highest levels of Government all the way to the bowels of the bureaucracy that patriotic people who are willing to blow the whistle on something that is wrong in Government would be honored for being that patriotic person. Courageous souls such as Ernie Fitzgerald make our Nation and our Government stronger and better. They help to strengthen and keep the public trust. They help to make the Government transparent and accountable, and that is exactly what the citizens of this country want and what the citizens of this country ought to expect. That is why we must always help whistleblowers such as Ernie Fitzgerald. Being a whistleblower is a tough business. They need our constant support and protection because within the bureaucracy they are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Those, such as Ernie, who have stepped forward and put their careers and reputations on the line in the defense of truth in Government deserve the highest honor. Ernie did not make it to the Rose Garden, but he got pretty close. He got the next best thing. He left the Pentagon with his dignity and honor intact. In a moment I want to explain how that happened. But first I wish to speak briefly about what Ernie did because he was always a source of inspiration to this Senator. Early in my Senate career, I heard about Ernie Fitzgerald. His work convinced me that I needed to get involved in oversight, generally, and at that time specifically oversight of the Defense Department, oversight of the Pentagon. Ernie's work, along with that of a person by the name of Chuck Spinney, was a huge contribution. They were the inspiration behind my historic amendment to freeze the Defense budget that was approved by the Senate in May of 1985. Ernie was the inspiration behind my efforts to put the brakes on the spare parts overpricing. Ernie was also the inspiration behind my efforts to expose and clean up the Department of Defense books of account and broken accounting practices. Ernie was the inspiration behind so many whistleblower protection laws that are now on the books. Ernie's unwavering devotion to saving the taxpayers' money has always been an inspiration to this Senator. Ernie never lost sight of this lofty and honorable goal, not for one second. And he would pursue it to the end of the Earth, if that is where it took him. To Ernie, saving the taxpayers' money was never just a goal. It was much more than that. It was more like a calling to him. It was a matter of faith to him, keeping faith with the taxpayers, stopping waste of taxpayers; money was a religion to Ernie Fitzgerald. Ernie had fellowship with the taxpayers. He did everything in his power each day to ensure that not a penny was wasted and every cent was properly accounted for. Ernie followed his calling in a place called the Pentagon--not exactly what I would call a taxpayer-friendly environment. That is the place that the world's most powerful generals and admirals call home. And the generals and admirals never looked kindly on the likes of a whistleblower named Ernie Fitzgerald. But that didn't phase Ernie one bit. The Pentagon brass is praising him today as he leaves the Pentagon for good, but they hammered him relentlessly for what he was and for what he did. The Pentagon is the place where Ernie dug in his heels, took his stand, and kept the faith. The most fateful day in the life of Ernie Fitzgerald was November 13, 1968. That was the day Erie appeared before Senator Proxmire's Joint Economic Committee to testify on the C-5 transport aircraft program. He was an official witness of the U.S. Air Force. And Ernie did the unthinkable--he ``committed truth.'' He told the Congress about a $12 billion C-5 cost overrun. Back then, $2 billion was real money. Ernie's truthful testimony about the C-5 cost overrun created a firestorm of controversy, and that is what caused President Nixon to issue his famous order caught on those famous tapes. The quote was: ``Get rid of that SOB.'' For speaking the truth, Ernie paid the ultimate price: He got fired, he got blackballed, and he was put on the official hit list. His career was over. And that was November 13, 1968. For speaking the truth--that is what it was all about, just speak the truth--about a $2 billion cost overrun on an airplane that somehow people wanted to cover up. As most of us know, though, Ernie got his job back, but it took him 12 years to get his job back. That is how much whistleblowers are appreciated in the bureaucracy at the Pentagon, or anyplace else. And when he did get it back, it was not given back willingly; it had to be taken back. It took a court order signed by U.S. District Judge William B. Bryant on June 15, 1982. That is 14 years after he appeared to talk about the C-5 $2 billion cost overrun. Judge Bryant's order made Ernie the Management Systems Deputy of the Air Force. It was a high-sounding title with far-reaching responsibilities. On paper, it looked like a perfect fit. Unfortunately, Ernie was never given the authority to perform the job specified in the court order. The ``over-dogs,'' as Ernie Fitzgerald called them, effectively isolated him then and the 25 years since. As far as I know, the only time Ernie was able to do his job was when he was officially detailed to my staff for short periods of time. The last such project was 1997-1998 when Ernie worked with my staff on what we called the Joint Review of Internal Controls at the Defense Department. He and my staff examined several hundred invoices from an office in the Pentagon where fraud had occurred. They followed those invoices step by step through the entire cycle of transactions from purchase order to payment by the Treasury. They found overpayments, underpayments, erroneous payments, and even potentially fraudulent payments. No one payment had been done correctly. One of the biggest problems uncovered had to do with ``remit'' addresses. Remit addresses are so important because that is where the money goes. The staff found people who were handling invoices and paying bills also had authority to put addresses on checks going out the door. That was a major violation of the separation-of-duties principle. It left the door wide open to fraud. Ernie helped us close that door. Despite constant bureaucratic roadblocks, Ernie went to his cubbyhole- size office day in and day out for all those 25 years. Each day, he did what he could to keep the faith and honor his commitment to those taxpayers. Then came another fateful day: September 12, last year. That was the day Judge Bryant, after 25 years, pulled the plug on Ernie's court order, precipitating another crisis in Ernie's life and bringing us to this place in time. I feel like we have arrived at a very important point in time. We didn't make it to the Rose Garden this time, but we came pretty close. So we are making progress. Maybe next time. Earlier, I promised to explain how we came close to the Rose Garden. On Monday, February 27, this year, the inspector general at the Defense Department presented our most famous whistleblower, Ernie Fitzgerald, with the Distinguished Service Medal. I do not know if anything like this has ever happened before. As I said a moment ago, Ernie is retiring with honor and dignity. One person has made all this happen: Mr. Tom Gimble, acting inspector general at the Department of Defense. After Judge Bryant struck down Ernie's court order after those 25 years, it was readily apparent that Ernie was in another tight spot. However, Ernie was willing to retire under the right conditions. Tom Gimble, as acting inspector general, seized the initiative. He took charge of the negotiations between Ernie and the Air Force. He kept them moving in the right direction. He did everything he could to ensure that Ernie was treated fairly and given the full protection of the law. Under his able leadership, those negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion. Mr. Gimble effectively brought Ernie in under the protective umbrella provided by the Office of Inspector General. He gave Ernie a safe haven in the IG's building--a place to work. He had Ernie's entire collection of official records moved to that secure facility. With the help of a team of document specialists provided by Mr. Gimble, Ernie was able to get the job done. All of his records now have been shipped to the National Archives-- 400-plus boxes in all. In time, Ernie's papers will be open to the American people. They will be able to judge Ernie's work for themselves. From the beginning of this process to the very end, all sorts of little kinks kept popping up all along the way. But Mr. Gimble was always there ready to step in and help iron them out. Mr. Gimble is the first inspector general to personally reach out to Ernie and help him in such meaningful ways. Mr. Gimble, I stand before all my colleagues and say thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you did to help Ernie in these closing days of his career--after 42 years working for the Federal Government. I thank you for doing what inspector generals should do. You did that. And Ernie Fitzgerald, I thank you, too, for what you did and for your courage and dedication to make our Government stronger and better and to help restore the public trust. I salute you as a person who more Americans ought to follow, that one person determined to make a difference can, in fact, make a difference. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill I introduced today that may be cited as the ``America's Business Choice Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill I introduced today that may be cited as the ``America's Business Choice Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to say that I have recently discovered, almost literally in my own backyard, an Iowan who has received an honor of national significance. Mr. Edward Thomas, the head football coach at Aplington-Parkersburg High School, is the recipient of the 2005 NFL High School Coach of the Year award. He was honored with tickets to Super Bowl XL as well as monetary awards for himself and his football program. Coach Thomas has been coaching for 34 years, 31 of those at Aplington-Parkersburg. His overall record at Aplington-Parkersburg is 249 wins and 58 losses. He has guided his teams to the State playoffs 15 times, winning 2 State titles and has won 15 conference or district championships during that time. In his 34 years of coaching, he has won such awards as the National Federation High School Football Coach of the Year in 2004, Northeast Iowa Coach of the Year 5 times and was inducted into the Iowa High School Football Coaches' Association Hall of Fame in 1990. With an enrollment of almost 300 at Aplington- Parkersburg, Coach Thomas has produced 4 active NFL players--Detroit Lions defensive end Jared DeVries, Jacksonville Jaguars guard Brad Meester, Kansas City Chiefs center Casey Wiegmann and Green Bay Packers defensive end Aaron Kampman. Coach Thomas also teaches life lessons and Christian principles while emphasizing the adversity and teamwork of football as a reflection of life in the real world. As Aaron Kampman put it, ``He strives to make men better through the game of football.'' Kampman also stated, ``You get goosebumps playing for the guy, the essence of playing under the lights on Friday night he brought that to the forefront.'' While the Aplington-Parkersburg Falcons are rivals to my hometown team, the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines, I am very proud that an Iowan has been honored in this way. I offer my sincere congratulations to Coach Thomas on this most prestigious honor and wish him continued success.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor for my colleague.