Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to discuss the legislation before the Senate, the Energy bill. In order to secure our country's economic and national security, we need to have a balanced energy plan that protects the environment, supports the needs of our growing economy, and reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Balance has been my guiding light as I worked legislation through the Finance Committee, which I chair, for tax incentives for energy. I wanted to make sure we had a very balanced piece of legislation. By balanced, I mean balanced between fossil fuels, conservation, and renewable fuels. We do have in the finance provisions of this Energy bill very balanced provisions for fossil fuels, for near-term energy needs, but we also legislate for the future as we have emphasis upon renewable fuels, wind energy, biomass, biodiesel, ethanol, and things of that nature. We have tax incentives for that. Then we also have tax incentives for conservation. It is my belief that a well-balanced piece of energy legislation, with tax incentives for fossil fuels, for renewable fuels, and for conservation, is not only good for such policy, but I have come to the conclusion that is the sort of legislation we have to have to get the bipartisanship it takes to get a bill through the Senate. Now, the other body, in writing similar legislation out of their finance committee--over there it is called the Ways and Means Committee--it seemed to me it was very tilted toward fossil fuels. It was my job, representing the Senate, to make sure from the conference with the House of Representatives we came out with a balance. I think we did come out with that balance. I commend that balance to this body, to think about that as you vote on cloture tomorrow. Give us an opportunity to vote this bill up or down, and consider that my committee, in bringing this balance--for conservation, for renewable fuels, and for fossil fuels--tried to do what we could to get a majority vote in this body. Now, of course, we need a supermajority vote, and that supermajority vote is to stop a Democrat filibuster against this bill. In a time like this, when the energy needs of our country are so great, and we are in a crisis situation, we should not tolerate a filibuster against this bill. Every man, woman, and child in the United States is a stakeholder when it comes to developing a responsible, balanced, stable, and long- term energy policy. The events of September 11 have made very clear to Americans how important it is to enhance our energy independence. We can no longer afford to allow our dangerous reliance on foreign sources of oil to continue. But somehow we can wait; and we do wait. We should not wait, but we seem to wait in a way that causes that wait to make ``too good of an impact.'' It has been over 10 years since we passed energy legislation in this body. But if we wait until we get that perfect piece of legislation, we may be waiting forever. And by waiting forever, we will suffer the consequences of less supply and higher prices. I do not know about folks in all parts of the country, but I know I was brought up in the State of Iowa just to have dependence upon our sources of energy. When you go to the gas pump, you put the hose in your car, you move the lever, you expect to get gasoline. When you flip the light switch, you expect the lights to come on. In order for that to happen, and for the price to be stable, just a small percentage at the margins of supply is necessary in order for us to have that stability and that certainty. Some people in this country believe that one way to change American lifestyle is to force down the supply of energy. I happen to believe that Americans ought to have a massive amount of choice; that we do not need a bunch of bureaucrats or interest groups in Washington dictating to us that somehow, through an energy policy, by cutting back on the amounts of energy, they are going to bring about their ``perfect'' society. This bill is obviously not perfect. And to those who complain about various provisions, I just remind them, if they drafted a ``perfect'' bill--and there probably would never be one--it would not pass the House or the Senate. Some say the process has not been perfect. But if the process had been perfect for some, it would not have been perfect in the view of others. And that is fairly common in any legislating process. While we are talking about process, I would like to clarify the role the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, played in this bill. We have heard a lot about Republicans shutting Democrats out of the conference process. Well, that is not the way I operate as chairman. That is not the way my Democrat counterpart, Senator Baucus, operated when he was chairman of this committee when the Democrats were in the majority in the last Congress. With respect to the tax provisions of the bill, the process was open. Senator Baucus attended conference committee meetings. Finance Committee Democratic staff worked side by side with my Republican staff in the conference negotiations. I might add, they were a key asset for us in the protracted negotiations with the House Ways and Means Committee. Conferee staff on both sides of the aisle was informed as the process moved forward. If it is ``perfection'' you are insisting upon, then you are in the wrong business. Legislating is neither a perfect process nor does it produce perfect products. The Energy Security Act of 1992--the last one that Congress passed-- was not perfect. That quickly became clear. In 1995, after extensive interagency review and analysis, under provisions of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Clinton administration concluded that oil imports threatened our national security. Such a finding, under this law, gave him the authority to impose quotas and import fees on oil. But he chose to do nothing because he believed that import adjustments would be too harmful to the economy. Within 3 years of passing what was called an Energy Security Act, the fact is, our national security only worsened. When national security is not in good shape, it is probably because our economic security has worsened. So what do we do? Do we do nothing? Do we wait for a perfect piece of legislation? Do we wait for market forces to save us? We heard earlier today criticism of this Energy bill because it fails, in so many words, to allow the free market to work its magic. The bill is not perfect, it has been argued, because it favors one energy source over another. You can go on and on and on. I would like to talk about that favoritism, and I would like to talk about the marketplace. During the debate on the 1992 Energy Security Act, the chairman of the Energy Committee at that time, former Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, stated that each barrel of imported oil was subsidized by the taxpayers to the tune of $200 per barrel. That is outrageous. Anybody listening to that says I had to misquote something. But again, let me explain from this leading Senate expert on energy, as Senator Johnston was, he is telling us that imported oil is subsidized $200 for each and every barrel. Is that favoritism, when we subsidize imported oil at $200 a barrel? Are we picking winners and losers? What does that tell us about the so-called free market system? How can our domestic energy producers compete with that? It makes a mockery of the argument that we must sit idly by and let the marketplace control our energy policy. How absurd can we be? On one hand, we subsidize imported oil, and we do that through the military expense it takes to protect the trail of oil from the Middle East to our shore or what we are doing in the Middle East now to preserve peace over there, cutting down on terrorism as part of that. But on the one hand we subsidize imported oil, and then we wonder why we become dangerously dependent upon that foreign oil. The Government, through a massive interagency review, declares that our national security is at risk because of imported oil but then declines to do anything about it because we might disrupt our domestic economy. So any way you look at it, we are in a box that we need not be in, if we can get this legislation passed. The marketplace won't save us because we stacked the deck in favor of foreign oil. Again, I ask: What do we do in response to this imperfect world in which we find ourselves? Pass a bill that picks winners and losers? The answer is a definite yes. The winners we pick in this bill are all Americans, all of whom have a stake in reducing our dependence upon foreign sources of oil. We do this by favoring domestic producers over foreign producers. That is true of oil and natural gas, but it is also true of our supply of renewable fuels. It is well past time that we get serious about implementing energy efficiency and conservation efforts, investing in alternative renewable fuels, and improving domestic production of traditional resources. I support a comprehensive energy policy consisting of conservation efforts on the one hand, the development of renewable and alternative energy sources on the other hand, and on the third hand, domestic production of traditional sources of energy. As my colleagues well know, I have long been a supporter of alternative and renewable sources of energy as a way of protecting our environment, increasing our energy independence. That started with my work with former Senator Robert Dole on legislation for tax incentives for ethanol. It was my own work in 1992, developing the wind energy tax credit, that has increased our production of electricity by wind. My State of Iowa, for instance, is third of the 50 States in the production of wind energy, as an example. So obviously, you know I strongly support the production of renewable domestic fuels. I particularly emphasize, in addition to ethanol, biodiesel made from soybeans. As domestic renewable sources of energy, ethanol and biodiesel can increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence upon foreign oil, and increase our national economic security. For the first time we have a tax incentive in this legislation for production of virgin and recycled biodiesel. This is a new market for soybean farmers and yet another source of renewable energy. The renewable fuels standard, supported by a broad coalition, is good for America's farmers, obviously good for the environment, good for our consumers, good for creating jobs in our cities in the production of this fuel, and good for our national security, as we are less dependent upon foreign sources of oil. A key reform in this Senate bill deals with the treatment of ethanol- blended fuels for highway trust fund purposes. Tax incentives for ethanol are unique in terms of their treatment in the Tax Code. Unlike incentives for other energy sources such as oil and gas, the revenue for ethanol incentives comes out of the highway trust fund because it simply is not paid into the trust fund in the first place. This bill makes it clear that those incentives will be treated like all other energy incentives: The revenue will be made up to the highway fund from the general fund. We didn't get all of the Senate reform in this conference agreement. A gesture to the House was that we would defer repealing the partial tax exemption these fuels get until the next highway bill, which is early next year. The same is true with respect to the transfer of the 2.5 cents fuel tax that ethanol-blended fuels do pay. That highway bill will be before us early next year. The current highway trust fund spending authority runs out on February 29 next. So we have to get it passed early. My friend Senator Baucus has made this highway trust fund reform a priority of his. Together, he and I will ensure that the highway trust fund is made whole for the gap between now and February 29. I have the assurance of the leadership of both bodies that our deferral will not prejudice the highway community. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked closely with ranking member Senator Baucus to develop a tax title that strikes a good balance between conventional energy sources, alternative and renewable energy, and conservation. Among other things, it includes provisions for the development of renewable sources of energy such as wind and biomass, incentives for energy-efficient appliances in homes, and incentives as well for the production of nonconventional sources of traditional oil and gas. This bill reflects the broad diversity of energy resources in the United States. There are new benefits for clean coal technology. Our colleagues from the Rocky Mountains and the Ohio Valley produce and use this abundant source for the generation of electricity. Burning coal for electricity can lead to environmental problems. This bill goes a long way toward remedying the pollution problems associated with coal use. In the heartland, agriculture is a key part of our economy. Agricultural activities result in food that our people in the cities eat. There is also waste that results from farming. New technology has given us a twofer in the farm community. I am talking about equipment and processes that convert animal waste to energy. This technology needs a bit of a lift to get off the ground, so we have tax benefits to get these new technologies started. Now we have heard some big city folks and big city papers ridicule some of the tax benefits for this new technology. I guess I would ask these folks from the big cities just a couple questions: Do you think it is wise to address these environmental problems? Do you think it is wise to ignore a new source of energy? I believe the Senate Finance Committee did a good job in addressing our Nation's energy security in a balanced and comprehensive way. I believe the Congress has finally gotten to the point of addressing an issue with such a direct impact on our national economic security. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must implement conservation efforts, invest in alternative and renewable energy, and improve the development and production of domestic oil and natural gas resources. We must do it now. That is what this legislation does. Before we get to an up-or-down vote on this legislation, we have to face the issue of a Democrat filibuster against this legislation, and that filibuster is going to keep us from voting, if we don't get 60 votes tomorrow. We have to have those Senators of both parties that represent primarily the grain-growing regions of the country, from Ohio west to Nebraska, and from Arkansas north to the Canadian border, stick together tomorrow on what we call the cloture vote, to get 60 votes. We are going to lose six Republicans from the Northeast. We have to pick up about 15 Democrats to get this job done. I expect that we can, because most of the bulwark of support of the last 20 years for renewable fuels--meaning ethanol, biodiesel but also including wind energy, geothermal, things such as that--have come from people within the Democrat Party, but particularly from what I call the upper Midwest of the United States, the grain-producing regions of the country. If we all stick together, I think we can produce these votes. There is tremendous leadership from that part of the country. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, from South Dakota, has always been a leader in the production of renewable fuels, and particularly ethanol. He can claim a lot of credit for what we have done in that area over the past. I know he is not supporting cloture, but I also know, as Democrat leader, he has an opportunity to use a lot of muscle in his efforts as leader to produce the votes we need. We cannot afford to lose votes on this issue if we are going to get the job done. I think there are a lot of other people who ought to be concerned about it. Senators on the other side of the aisle are concerned about conservation of energy, and rightly so. I pointed out how I felt, that we need a balanced bill between fossil fuel, renewables, and conservation. There are a lot of conservation provisions in the tax provisions of my legislation that ought to get support from the other side. There has been some talk, particularly from the other side, that some people have tried to twist the arms of our colleagues to be against cloture, which means to keep the bill from coming to a final vote, arguing that we can refer this back to conference and get certain provisions taken out. That is not going to work under the Senate rules. This cannot be referred back to conference. Once it passed the other body, conference doesn't exist. There has been some talk, when it comes to the important provisions I have talked about and have been a part of--I even complimented Senator Daschle for being a proponent of these for a long period of time--what we call the renewable portions of it, or this part of our legislation that makes up for the road fund. The money lost to the road fund can be made up from the general fund. That is all in this bill. We have tax incentives for ethanol until the year 2010. We have an ethanol-like tax incentive for biodiesel. We have the renewable fuels standard, which mandates 5 billion gallons of ethanol to be used every year, phased in over a few years. That is 20 percent of our corn crop. Just think how that will benefit agriculture, cut down on taxpayers' subsidies to farmers over the long haul, and clean up the environment at the same time. But all of these provisions are in this bill. It was not something that was easy for me to get through conference. If it had not been for the intervention of the Vice President in offering a compromise that the House of Representatives did not want to accept, we would not have such a perfect piece of legislation for renewable fuels in this bill. As I started to say, there has been talk on the other side that somehow we can get this all done in a conference on transportation next year when the highway bill comes up. Well, all you have to do is sit in conference with members of the Ways and Means Committee and find out how they love fossil fuels. God only made so much fossil fuel; it is a finite quantity. But on the other side of this Capitol Building, the idea is there is no end to it. You don't need to worry about renewable fuels. So they come to conference with heavy emphasis upon fossil fuels, not wanting to give tax credits to biodiesel, and to wind and ethanol, and they don't like the renewable fuels standard mandate of 5 billion gallons. Some people are being told it is just a simple process of getting this done next February, so you can vote against cloture and kill this bill. If you knew how hard it is to negotiate this, this is the last train to leave town. If you want good provisions for biodiesel, good provisions for ethanol, good tax incentives for conservation, that is the wave of the future for energy. But if this bill is filibustered to death, don't count on me bringing back ideal provisions on renewables. I cannot guarantee that. Nobody else can guarantee it. We don't know what next January and February is going to be like. When we have a bird in the hand, it is worth two in the bush. I hope my colleagues, particularly the Democrats who are filibustering this, and particularly anybody from the grain-producing parts of the United States, where they benefit from renewable fuels, will work hard to produce the votes and help us to get the 60 votes so we can pass this bill in an overwhelming way. Don't tell me you are for ethanol, don't tell me you are for biodiesel, don't tell me you are for putting general fund money into the road fund to make up for lost revenue from ethanol--and this bill does that. Don't tell me those things if you are not going to help us fight hard to get the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 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 the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I object to proceeding to the consideration of executive nominee James Comey to be Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department. I have placed a hold on this person because I have been unable to resolve outstanding issues with the Justice Department. I have been working with the Justice Department to get a satisfactory promise to ensure there are no reprisals against certain Justice Department employees in connection with testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Although I support Mr. Comey's nomination, I intend to reserve my right to object to the Senate proceeding with this nominee of this legislation at this time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that we have to focus on the full range of adoption services. We have not improved the lives of abused and neglected children if they are adopted only to be returned to foster care because the families that adopted them didn't have the support they needed to care for them. This is not good for these kids.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I too want to thank Senator Landrieu, and I would like to recognize Senator Bunning's efforts on this legislation. Today we are passing the Adoption Incentives Reauthorization Act of 2003. It is particularly appropriate that we are doing so during National Adoption Month. Since the original Adoption Incentives Act was passed in 1997, the number of adoptions has doubled in 33 states. I am proud of this achievement and pleased that we are today continuing the authorization of this effective program.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am pleased that this bill focuses on older children, thanks to the leadership of President Bush, and I hope when we revisit this legislation during the next reauthorization we will have seen the same remarkable results that we have seen over the past 5 years.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that funds appropriated for the Adoption Incentives Program should be spent on child welfare. While we may disagree about how exactly those funds should be spent, we are in agreement that they should be used to improve the lives of abused and neglected children. I know that there is interest among members of the Finance Committee to see that these unspent funds are used to improve the lives of children and I hope we can all work together to address this in the future.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am aware that that method has been put on the table. However by adjusting the base year to 2002 and adding a new category of older children, we made it much easier for states to qualify for an adoption incentive bonus. Throughout the course of this reauthorization we talked to child welfare advocates and listened to their concerns about the way the incentives are awarded. The method we arrived at was reached through consensus and we have received very strong bi-partisan, bi-cameral support for the bill before us today. In fact, the House has already passed this legislation without opposition. By passing the same language here in the Senate, we are ensuring that President Bush will sign this important legislation into law sooner rather than later.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am also looking forward to a through study of this issue that can inform the next reauthorization.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have seen those reports and I disagree with their premise. The primary goal of the Adoption and Safe Families Act is to make the safety and well-being of children paramount in child welfare decisions. In addition, in order to receive funds under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, states must develop a plan to assure safety and permanency for children who enter the state's foster care system. Adoption assistance is minimal especially when you think about the cost of raising a child. Families who adopt are highly unlikely to adopt children for the financial benefit. Nationally payments made on behalf of an eight-year-old average only $14 per day. This is a fraction of what the Department of Agriculture suggests is needed to raise a child.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my comments to those of Senator Hatch and Senator Biden on the re-authorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug use in America may not be on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, but remains a deep concern for many people in small towns and local neighborhoods where the effects of drug abuse are painfully felt. Drugs pose an immediate threat to their lives, and the lives of their children. The re-authorization of ONDCP is about the leadership role we expect the Federal government to play in confronting the issue. I want to take a moment to highlight a few revisions we have proposed in an effort to strengthen the leadership role that ONDCP should play. The legislation we are introducing today will improve the capacities of the Office to coordinate our Federal efforts against drug use. We have strengthened the role of the Deputy Director of State and Local Affairs, because we recognize that the coordination of activities, information sharing, and resource allocations between Federal, State, and local law enforcement is increasingly critical. As everyone is this body knows, there isn't enough money to go around to fully fund all of the worthy causes that are out there, and part of our job is making these tough choices. By increasing the coordination between resources that are already deployed, we can increase the effectiveness of these efforts without having to reinvent how business gets done. ONDCP is an ideal place to play broker over these efforts and move this forward. We have also included provisions clarifying the authorities and responsibilities of the offices of Demand Reduction and Supply Reduction. Much of ONDCP's responsibilities involves coordinating the activities and focus of other Departments. There is no one simple solution to our drug problem, and ONDCP has a responsibility to ensure that Federal prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and interdiction initiatives cover the full spectrum of opportunities available. Accordingly, our bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the various Deputies at ONDCP to strengthen their ability to coordinate the counterdrug activities both within ONDCP and those of other Departments. The Office of National Drug Control Policy also has responsibility for the execution and effectiveness of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, or HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has proven to be an effective mechanism for getting multiple law enforcement agencies from multiple levels of government to work together. For a relatively modest amount, participating law enforcement agencies have benefited tremendously from the increased information sharing and coordination that HIDTAs generate. However, there was legitimate concern over the lack of performance measures for the HIDTA program. In addition, there seemed to be some confusion over what the overall purpose of a HIDTA designation was. finally, funding for the HIDTA program has been stifled because of a fear that ONDCP may cut the amount for one particular HIDTA in favor of another. Our legislation addresses these concerns in ways we believe will improve the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the program. First, this legislation establishes that the purpose of the HIDTA program is fourfold: facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and local law enforcement; enhancing intelligence sharing; providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies for the design of effective enforcement strategies and operations; and supporting coordinated strategies designed to reduce the supply of illegal drugs within a designated area. By focusing the purpose of a HIDTA on improving the capabilities and capacities of those within the HIDTA, we will strengthen the effectiveness of these designated areas to go after drugs. Second, the legislation creates an evaluation mechanism which requires ONDCP to first establish specific purposes and measures for each HIDTA, and then evaluate the performance of each HIDTA based on the purposes and measures that were established. Because threats each HIDTA faces are unique, the performance of each HIDTA will be evaluated against the goals which are established for that particular HIDTA, rather than an undefined National standard. Not only should this give Congress a better understanding of the performance of this program, but it should give ONDCP a mechanism to better evaluate and support the particular needs of individual HIDTAs. Third, this legislation requires ONDCP to itemize how much it believes each HIDTA should be funded when the budget request is submitted, rather than waiting until after the appropriations process is complete. Combined with the previous two changes, these changes will combine to give ONDCP the flexibility it needs and the HIDTA program the credibility it needs to expand its leadership and funding for the coordination of law enforcement counterdrug operations. The final section of this legislation that I would like to mention is the National Media Campaign. I will be honest: I am still not convinced that this program makes the best possible use of drug prevention dollars. But I am in the minority here. Almost everyone I've talked to believes our prevention efforts will be better with the campaign than without it--even if the evidence that the campaign makes a difference is questionable, at best. If the campaign is going to continue, and this legislation does extend the Campaign, I think it's important that it get back to the parameters that were established when it was initially pitched to and authorized by congress. I think what we have here is a good start in this direction, and I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to take my concerns into consideration. The legislation we have drafted refocuses the campaign toward its initial, buy-one-get-one-free hypothesis. We've proposed enhancing the capacity of the campaign to measure its effectiveness, in an effort to move beyond the 6-month time lag that has hampered past measurements of performance. We have also included a clearer outline of what should, and should not, be paid for by the campaign. And we have created a clear role for the Partnership for a Drug Free America, who has been working on this effort for much longer than Congress has funded it. All in all, I think we have a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a good bill. I look forward to continue working with the Committee, our colleagues in the House, and the Administration with the hope that we can re-authorize ONDCP expeditiously.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my comments to those of Senator Hatch and Senator Biden on the re-authorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug use in America may not be on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, but remains a deep concern for many people in small towns and local neighborhoods where the effects of drug abuse are painfully felt. Drugs pose an immediate threat to their lives, and the lives of their children. The re-authorization of ONDCP is about the leadership role we expect the Federal government to play in confronting the issue. I want to take a moment to highlight a few revisions we have proposed in an effort to strengthen the leadership role that ONDCP should play. The legislation we are introducing today will improve the capacities of the Office to coordinate our Federal efforts against drug use. We have strengthened the role of the Deputy Director of State and Local Affairs, because we recognize that the coordination of activities, information sharing, and resource allocations between Federal, State, and local law enforcement is increasingly critical. As everyone is this body knows, there isn't enough money to go around to fully fund all of the worthy causes that are out there, and part of our job is making these tough choices. By increasing the coordination between resources that are already deployed, we can increase the effectiveness of these efforts without having to reinvent how business gets done. ONDCP is an ideal place to play broker over these efforts and move this forward. We have also included provisions clarifying the authorities and responsibilities of the offices of Demand Reduction and Supply Reduction. Much of ONDCP's responsibilities involves coordinating the activities and focus of other Departments. There is no one simple solution to our drug problem, and ONDCP has a responsibility to ensure that Federal prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and interdiction initiatives cover the full spectrum of opportunities available. Accordingly, our bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the various Deputies at ONDCP to strengthen their ability to coordinate the counterdrug activities both within ONDCP and those of other Departments. The Office of National Drug Control Policy also has responsibility for the execution and effectiveness of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, or HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has proven to be an effective mechanism for getting multiple law enforcement agencies from multiple levels of government to work together. For a relatively modest amount, participating law enforcement agencies have benefited tremendously from the increased information sharing and coordination that HIDTAs generate. However, there was legitimate concern over the lack of performance measures for the HIDTA program. In addition, there seemed to be some confusion over what the overall purpose of a HIDTA designation was. finally, funding for the HIDTA program has been stifled because of a fear that ONDCP may cut the amount for one particular HIDTA in favor of another. Our legislation addresses these concerns in ways we believe will improve the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the program. First, this legislation establishes that the purpose of the HIDTA program is fourfold: facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and local law enforcement; enhancing intelligence sharing; providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies for the design of effective enforcement strategies and operations; and supporting coordinated strategies designed to reduce the supply of illegal drugs within a designated area. By focusing the purpose of a HIDTA on improving the capabilities and capacities of those within the HIDTA, we will strengthen the effectiveness of these designated areas to go after drugs. Second, the legislation creates an evaluation mechanism which requires ONDCP to first establish specific purposes and measures for each HIDTA, and then evaluate the performance of each HIDTA based on the purposes and measures that were established. Because threats each HIDTA faces are unique, the performance of each HIDTA will be evaluated against the goals which are established for that particular HIDTA, rather than an undefined National standard. Not only should this give Congress a better understanding of the performance of this program, but it should give ONDCP a mechanism to better evaluate and support the particular needs of individual HIDTAs. Third, this legislation requires ONDCP to itemize how much it believes each HIDTA should be funded when the budget request is submitted, rather than waiting until after the appropriations process is complete. Combined with the previous two changes, these changes will combine to give ONDCP the flexibility it needs and the HIDTA program the credibility it needs to expand its leadership and funding for the coordination of law enforcement counterdrug operations. The final section of this legislation that I would like to mention is the National Media Campaign. I will be honest: I am still not convinced that this program makes the best possible use of drug prevention dollars. But I am in the minority here. Almost everyone I've talked to believes our prevention efforts will be better with the campaign than without it--even if the evidence that the campaign makes a difference is questionable, at best. If the campaign is going to continue, and this legislation does extend the Campaign, I think it's important that it get back to the parameters that were established when it was initially pitched to and authorized by congress. I think what we have here is a good start in this direction, and I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to take my concerns into consideration. The legislation we have drafted refocuses the campaign toward its initial, buy-one-get-one-free hypothesis. We've proposed enhancing the capacity of the campaign to measure its effectiveness, in an effort to move beyond the 6-month time lag that has hampered past measurements of performance. We have also included a clearer outline of what should, and should not, be paid for by the campaign. And we have created a clear role for the Partnership for a Drug Free America, who has been working on this effort for much longer than Congress has funded it. All in all, I think we have a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a good bill. I look forward to continue working with the Committee, our colleagues in the House, and the Administration with the hope that we can re-authorize ONDCP expeditiously.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Democrats' filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees. The Senate Democrats still think it is Halloween and are trying to spook us into believing that President Bush has nominated a bunch of extremist individuals that cannot be good judges. The Democrats are claiming that these nominees are ``outside of the mainstream''. The truth is that these individuals will not implement a liberal agenda on the bench. The truth is that these individuals will follow the law, rather than bend to the will of the political left. But these inside the Beltway, left wing groups have gotten the Democrats to do their bidding. They have hijacked the judicial confirmation process in an unprecedented filibuster of judicial nominees, and they are denying these good men and women an up or down vote. Federal judicial seats will remain unfilled, and litigants seeking justice from those courts can expect further delays. The reality is that the Constitution of the United States gives the President the power to appoint individuals to seats on the Federal judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise the President in this process. And the Constitution requires the Senate, by a simple majority NOTICE If the 108th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 21, 2003, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 108th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Monday, December 15, 2003, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-410A of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 12, 2003. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 15, 2003, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov/ forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60 of the Capitol. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman. vote, to give its consent to the President's choices for Federal judgeships, or to withhold that consent. But through an unjust abuse of the filibuster, a minority of Senators is preventing the majority of the Senate from taking an up or down vote on President Bush's judicial nominee. That is not right. I have always been of the position that judicial nominees should be carefully scrutinized by the Judiciary Committee because they are life- time appointments. It is my opinion that judicial nominees should have intellect, experience, character and integrity. They should also have the right judgment and temperament for the job. But most importantly, they should understand their role on the bench, which is to interpret the law and to follow the law, not to make the law and legislate from the bench. That is the most important credential in my book. And I take that job of looking at judicial nominees very seriously. However, once the Senate Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to review these candidates and to approve them, these individuals should get an up or down vote by the full Senate. This is the right process. This is a fair process. During my tenure with the United States Senate, I haven't always agreed with a sitting President's choices for the Federal bench. I have voted against a number of judicial nominees because I didn't believe they were qualified to be a judge, or because I didn't believe that a seat needed to be filled. But I have never filibustered a judicial nominee. But that is just what is happening right now. We are seeing the unprecedented use of the filibuster rule to stop judicial nominees from being confirmed. An exceptional group of men and women are being used for political gain by this minority group of Senators. The nominees that the Senate is considering right now, Janice Rogers Brown, Carolyn Kuhl, and Priscilla Owen, as well as Bill Pryor and Charles Pickering, two nominees that have been filibustered, they all are distinguished individuals that deserve an up or down vote. They all deserve to be confirmed. Let me say a few words about the men and woman that are being filibustered. These men and women are being characterized as outside of the mainstream, extremist people. They are being characterized as ``bad judges'' that have to be stopped. Nothing is further than the truth. The reality is that some left-wing interest groups are skewering these nominees' reputations with baseless allegations because they don't have a liberal ideology. And the Senate Democrats are more than happy to do the bidding of these racial outside groups. And our nation will suffer dearly for it. Priscilla Owen is currently a judge on the Texas Supreme Court. She was unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA and enjoys a steller reputation in her home state. She's been repeatedly reelected to the Texas Supreme Court by wide margins and has served that court admirably. Judge Owen enjoys the support of her two home state Senators and has been endorsed over and over again by elected officials, fellow jurists, and attorneys alike. Janice Rogers Brown, the daughter of a share cropper who attended segregated schools, put herself through California State University and eventually law school at UCLA. She did all this while raising two children as a single mother. She served her state in a variety of legal roles, including Deputy Attorney General and then later as a legal affairs secretary to the Governor. Judge Brown has served on the California Supreme Court since 1996. Carolyn Kuhl has been a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 1995. She served in a variety of positions in the Justice Department, and then was a partner at a prominent Los Angeles law firm. Judge Kurl received a well qualified rating by the ABA, and enjoys bipartisan support. Three other highly respectable nominees have already been filibustered. Bill Pryor has earned the reputation as one of the most experienced states attorneys general in the country. He graduated from law school magna cum laude, and clerked for Fifth Circuit Judge Wisdom. We have seen that he enforces the law regardless of his personal convictions. General Pryor also has overwhelming support from across the political spectrum. Judge Charles Pickering has been a lawyer and county prosecutor, and has served as a distinguished federal district court judge for the past 11 years. He received the ABA's highest rating, ``well qualified.'' He stood up against the Ku Klux Klan, and has been a leader for equal rights, integration and inclusion in his community. The people that know Judge Pickering best support him without hesitation. Finally we have Miguel Estrada, who was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He become so frustrated with the process that he withdrew his nomination after waiting over 2 years for an up of down vote. Yet he is the true American inspiration story. Born in Honduras, he came to America as a young boy and through determination and hard work, elevated to the top echelons of the law profession. He was an Assistant Solicitor General of the United States in the Clinton Administration, and was a partner in a prominent law firm. Mr. Estrada received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, and is well respected by colleagues and friends alike. It is a real shame that this fine man felt he had to withdraw his nomination from consideration because of the guerilla smear tactics of the far left and because of the guerilla smear tactics of the far left and because of the Democrats' unprecedented filibuster tactic. And it is a real shame that these other fine men and women, and their families, have to go through this same miserable saga. As I think about these nominees with their stellar reputations, outstanding intellects, and their compelling life stories, it saddens me to know that the Democrats have been so ready and willing to stomp all over their good names and to deny the American people quality jurists--all this in the name of carrying the sword for special left wing interest groups. I have served in this body for many years. And I have seen the filibuster used to leverage a better bargaining position on legislative matters. But it hasn't been used to block a judicial nominee, and especially not where that nominee enjoys majority support by the Senate. This is the first time in history that the filibuster has been used to prevent a judicial confirmation, even though my colleagues on the other aisle say that isn't the case. It is wrong and probably unconstitional. It is an abuse of the process. The Senate is supposed to provide advice and consent. The Democrats are denying the rest of the Senate our responsibility under the Constitution to give our consent--or even to withhold our consent. It is a terrible disgrace and ought not to continue. The Democrats are leading us down a path that is just going to make matters worse. The judicial confirmation process is already in an unhealthy state of repair--we don't need to destroy it altogether. The Democrats need to stop playing politics with the judiciary. They need to stop spooking people about the qualifications and ability of these nominees to be good federal judges. They need to stop spooking away qualified nominees like Miguel Estrada. We need to stop this unjust filibuster and give these worthy nominees what they deserve--an up or down vote. I yield the floor. I yield whatever time the Senator from Virginia needs.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the Senator whatever time he wants.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator whatever time he needs.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to honor this day and the men and women for whom it was established. On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the armistice was signed ending the first modern global conflict. World War I was an exceptionally bloody conflict that required tremendous sacrifices. It was therefore appropriate for President Wilson to establish Armistice Day as a time to recognize those who served in that war. Unfortunately, the hope for a new, more peaceful world after the Great War was shattered as we found ourselves embroiled in a life or death struggle against tyranny. Americans again rose to the challenge. Over 405,000 American soldiers lost their lives and over 671,000 were wounded. That's over three times the casualties of World War I. Still, the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform showed the world the extent to which the United States of America was prepared to go to preserve liberty. Then, after our soldiers and sailors were called upon again to fight aggression in Korea, it became evident that it was necessary to set aside a day to recognize all American veterans. To encourage Americans to pay respects to all those who have served in America's Armed Forces, President Eisenhower signed into law a proclamation in 1954 changing the name of the November 11 holiday to Veterans Day. Today, we thank all those who have risked life and limb in service to their country, including those who served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf war, as well as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other smaller conflicts. It is particularly appropriate today to pay tribute to the new generation of veterans who are serving their country so bravely in the global war on terrorism. Americans have never hesitated to answer the call of duty and this generation is no exception. America continues to owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who respond to the call of duty. Following in the footsteps of those who served in the 20th century, our men and women in uniform are living up to a heritage of service, loyalty, honor, sacrifice, and patriotism passed down for generations. Members of the active duty military, National Guard, and Reserves selflessly put their country first. They serve to protect the American people, defend national security, preserve freedom and safeguard our way of life. This Veterans Day, let's remember the patriots who are putting their lives on hold while they put their lives on the line. Their sacrifices guarantee America's promise for generations to come. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the Armed Forces. Their irreplaceable loss of life reminds us that freedom isn't free. It is important for younger generations to appreciate the service and sacrifice made by those serving their country. Awareness and appreciation for veterans has decreased in recent times as fewer individuals and families in America have a personal connection with the Armed Forces. Now that family members, friends, neighbors, and other fellow citizens are again putting themselves in harm's way in service to their country, I hope all Americans will take the opportunity this Veterans Day to remember and honor all veterans, to whom we owe our freedom. Today I salute the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice of all American veterans who have answered their country's call in times of need.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I honor and congratulate the Drug Enforcement Agency on its 30th Anniversary. This is an important milestone for the DEA and for our country. Over the last thirty years the men and women of the DEA have worked in communities around the Nation to improve the quality of life for all Americans. The Drug Enforcement Agency was established on October 4, 1973, soon after John R. Bartles, Jr., was confirmed by the Senate as the DEA's first Administrator. Since then, the men and women of the DEA have continued to serve our Nation with courage and dedication in the face of great odds. In recognition of this thirty year milestone, it is fitting that we pay tribute to the work and sacrifices of the men and women of the DEA and also acknowledge the organizations many accomplishments. Currently the DEA operates 173 domestic offices and 78 overseas offices with over 8,800 employees. The DEA continues to lead task forces throughout our Nation's communities in a cooperative effort to control both the consumption and flow of illegal drugs. Between 1986 and 2002, DEA agents seized over 10,000 kilograms of heroin, 900,000 kilograms of cocaine, 4,600,000 kilograms of marijuana, 113,000,000 dosage units of hallucinogens, and 1,500,000,000 dosage unites of methamphetamine, and made over 443,000 arrests of drug traffickers. Let me also express my deepest thanks to the DEA for their work and commitment to protecting the communities of Iowa. Although Interstates 80 and 35 cross Iowa providing a ready smuggling route for many drug trafficking organizations, their work has had a tremendous effect on our efforts to squeeze the flow of illegal narcotics through the state. During 2002 the DEA participated in 28 highway interdictions in Iowa, leading to the seizure of approximately 56 kilograms of cocaine, 40.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 2,075 pounds of marijuana, and nearly $1.9 million in cash. Additionally they assisted in the seizure of 871 clandestine laboratories. Throughout its history, the DEA has proven steadfast in their commitment to bringing drug traffickers to justice. Their service to our country has indeed made a tremendous difference in our nation's communities. However, these accomplishments did not come without a price. Many men and women of the DEA have given their lives and many others wounded and injured in the defense of our Nation. I am pleased to submit a resolution honoring the men and women of the DEA on their 30th anniversary for their efforts to defend the American people from illegal drugs. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in congratulating and honoring the men and women of the DEA for their many accomplishments and sacrifices throughout their first thirty years. I have every confidence that these men and women will continue in that same tradition of excellence. To those in the DEA both past and present, I offer my sincerest gratitude for your courage, dedication, and service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, prior to the 1996 farm bill, the annual cost-share assistance payment limitation for the Agricultural Conservation Program, ACP, was $3,500. With the advent of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, in 1996, the annual cost-share assistance payment limit was increased to $10,000 per year. EQIP also instituted another change, rather than single year agreements, conservation agreements under EQIP were set at a minimum of 5 years to improve conservation benefits and increase farm payments. Hence, the 1996 law set a 5-year payment limitation of $50,000 for those rare instances in which a participant received the maximum $10,000 annual payment each of 5 years. Between 1996 and 2002, the national average EQIP cost share amount per farm per 5-year contract was less than $10,000, or less than 20 percent of the $50,000 payment limitation. Between 1996 and 2002, for animal waste storage structures, one of the most expensive practices eligible for EQIP assistance, the national average per farm per 5-year contract amount has been $13,573, also considerably below the $50,000 payment limitation at that time. The 2002 farm bill increased the payment limitation nine-fold to $450,000 over the 6-year life of the farm bill. The $450,000 limit was arrived at in the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate version of the farm bill had a 5-year $150,000 limitation. The House bill had a $200,000 limitation. Amazingly, on the very last day of the farm bill conference the payment limit was increased to $450,000, three times greater than what the Senate had approved. This new number showed up out of nowhere, with virtually no discussion or debate in public. The Senate bill contained an important provision related to the payment limit. All payments were made directly attributable to real persons by Social Security number. This direct attribution provision was intended to prevent participants from forming dummy corporations and partnerships for the purpose of getting around the payment limit and collecting multiple payments. This provision was retained in the conference committee, so that at least the $450,000 limit was to apply to an individual or an entity regardless of the number of farming sites in an operation or the number or type of business arrangements the EQIP operator was engaged in. In promulgating rules and guidance for the implementation of EQIP, however, USDA has decided to allow the $450,000 to be multiplied by the number of partners in a single farming operation. This essentially makes the limitation meaningless, since it allows business structures to be arranged to collect multiple payments. While no single person could collect more than $450,000, relatives, employees, farmhands and others could be made partners that each could collect up to the maximum amount. Farmer demand for EQIP remained very high throughout the 1996 farm bill period and its $50,000 multi-year limitation. Demand outstripped funding. Congress responded in 2002 by increasing total funding for EQIP five fold, and I was heavily involved with that effort. However, by simultaneously increasing the payment limit nine fold, the new $1 billion per year funding level may not result in more farmers being served, which was Congress' intention. The ranking systems in many States being put in place to determine who wins EQIP contracts and who goes on the waiting list appears to be favoring the large farm/large contract applicants. My amendment would scale the payment limit back to $300,000. This is still double the amount passed by the Senate in 2002, and more than adequate for 97.8 percent of EQIP participants. My amendment does not scale back funding for EQIP. Rather, it provides that dollars appropriated by this bill cannot be used to pay USDA salaries and expenses to operate the EQIP program with payments greater than $300,000 per agricultural operation. Adoption of this amendment will allow more farmers to participate in the program in the coming year. Adoption of the amendment will result in a fairer distribution of dollars within the program. Adoption of this amendment will prevent EQIP resources from being gobbled up by a few large contracts to mega farms. This is a fair compromise, a good compromise. It provides access to the program by all types of farms and all sizes of farms, but it puts a limit on the amount of taxpayer support any one operation can receive. If we do not pass this amendment, I think by the time of the next farm bill there will be lots of media attention focused on how this environmental quality cost share program has become a new subsidy program, paying out six and seven figure checks, for the Nation's biggest operations. And there will be questions about why an environmental program is leading to concentration and consolidation. A $450,000 payment limit has no effect on 98.9 percent of all livestock operations. A $300,000 payment limit has no effect on 97.8 percent of all livestock operations. That means my amendment only affects 1.1 percent of livestock operations. The 1.1 percent of mega-operations will still be eligible for $300,000. They just will not be able to take such a big piece of such a small pie. I do not think it is unreasonable to reduce full funding for the largest 1.1 percent of livestock operations so that more family farmers can participate. So what I am saying is let's be careful. Let's be balanced. Let's increase the payment limitation, and avoid a ``sky's the limit'' approach.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am speaking on the issue of the sense- of-the-Senate resolution by Senators Daschle, Enzi, Johnson, and Thomas on the legislation that is now on the books called country-of-origin labeling. I believe the American consumer has a right to know the country of origin of the meat they are purchasing, just as consumers know the origin of their clothes, their cars, and their cameras. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture cites in its rule that recently came out that the survey findings show that country-of-origin labeling is of interest to the majority of consumers. I said even the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said this because I happen to believe, in observing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the last 12 months, that it has worked against the country-of- origin labeling legislation ever since it passed into law as part of the 2002 farm bill. The initial cost estimates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were outlandish, and thankfully the General Accounting Office called the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the basis of its claims. The U.S. Department of Agriculture then revised its cost estimates by lowering the potential cost of the program. This newly revised figure allowed for an overall cost range of between $582 million and $3.9 billion in the first years. Upon closer examination, even the revised cost estimates of the Department of Agriculture appear to consistently overestimate the costs involved in implementing the country-of-origin labeling law due to the estimate's reliance upon industry-provided sources of material--not independent but from industry. Clearly, the industry which is vehemently opposed to this legislation, it seems to me, would provide information which is self-serving. For that reason, I have a hard time accepting even the newest range of cost estimates even though it is far less than what came out last spring. I am not here to say that everything the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done on this legislation is bad. The recently published proposed rules allow for the potential use of self-certification through affidavits to transfer original origin information from one level of the supply chain to the next. That leniency on self- certification is a good decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Also, the Department estimates producers will have the least recordkeeping burden, with estimates that range between $180 to $443 per facility. The reason I am giving U.S. Department of Agriculture credit for in part doing the right thing is that I want this process to continue. Clearly, I don't agree with every aspect of the recently published mandatory country-of-origin labeling law proposed rule, but at least the Department of Agriculture has given us something on which to chew. It is a decent start. We now have a 60-day comment period to improve the proposed rule. I intend to not only do that myself but I intend to also let the Department know my views on it, and I am inviting Iowans--or let us say citizens from any State--to send in their information to the Department of Agriculture. They ought to even let their Congressmen and Senators know what they have told the Department about their view of this rule. This gives all of us a chance to get it even closer to the intent of the authors of the original legislation and to ensure that these rules and regulations aren't overly burdensome to the family farmer. I believe we need to let the process go forward. The only way to do it is to protect funding for the mandatory country-of-origin labeling. That funding is in dispute because of action taken by the House of Representatives. I hope through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we send a clear signal to the conferees that we should fund this program; in other words, funds going forward and the enforcement of the law that this Congress adopted in 2002 on the labeling of meat products. It will be an awfully serious situation if we don't fund these rules and move forward with the enforcement of this law. People who don't want to fund it do not like the law, but it puts our entire food chain into jeopardy, on the one hand having to meet a law that went into effect in September 2002, and then in the next 12 months not having money to provide for the regulations to be carried out and make sure everybody knows exactly how this law is going to be enforced. People who are opposed to this legislation ought to, if they do not like the law--obviously, I do like the law, and that is why I am for their sense-of-the-Senate resolution--introduce legislation and have it debated to see if they can repeal the old law. But they should not put the farmers, the processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, and eventually our consumers in jeopardy because of not having the money to move forward. Not funding this is--as the other body has not funded it--subterfuge for the legislation not moving forward. Yet everybody is going to be involved with having a law on the books that is going into effect next year. The law is still the law. It is our job, if we put a law on the books, to make sure that it is enforced. If we don't want to enforce that law, we ought to repeal the law. This issue of self-certification is very important. Originally, the idea from some people in the Department or the industry was that there ought to be third-party verification of the origin of the meat that the consumer is going to eat. Did it come from another country or did it come from America? Was it raised and processed here? If you have third-party verification, you can understand why it costs the economy billions and billions of dollars. But that isn't how the Federal Government deals with the family farmers of America. For all of the decades of farm programs we have had, the Federal Government has always dealt with the individual family farmer as an honest person. They would ask for certification from the farmer's point of view as to the law as he farmed, as he raised his crops, as he qualified for whatever help that might be involved from the Federal Treasury, and that the farmer was abiding by that law. There were always periodic and random audits that a farmer, including this farmer, would have to comply with, just as there might be a random audit of your income tax by the IRS. But the Federal Government has always assumed the farmer was honest when he certified something. If that principle has been good for farm programs for the last 60 or 70 years, why isn't it good enough for a farmer claiming that livestock was raised in America and processed in America or whether it came across the line from some other country? The last point I make is for the consumers of America and for the retailers of America. For all of the years I have been in Congress, I have never heard from Montgomery Ward, Sears & Roebuck, Kohl Department Stores, or from Wal- Mart--I have never heard from anybody in America who processes or sells retail products--saying that products which come into this country from some other country shouldn't be labeled. I have never heard those business people complain about that. But all of a sudden, there is something to protect food for the consumer--just as we do with the consumer and any other retail product, not just to protect the consumer but to inform the consumer. Where does this product come from? T-shirts from Taiwan, South Korea, and China--you know it; it is on the label. I have never heard any retailer or any wholesaler complain about that. But now that we are going to give the consumer the same knowledge about where their food comes from--from America or from some other country--somehow this is a big problem. You hear it from the packers, you hear it from the processors, and you hear it from the wholesaler and the retailer. For some ungodly reason, I am even hearing it from the national pork producers. I do not hear it from the Iowa pork producers. Are the national pork producers in bed with the big packers, the big processors, and the big retailers of America? Should the consumers of America not know whether that hog came from Canada or from a family farm in America? The consumers are entitled to the same knowledge about the origin of the products they eat as what they wear on their body or what they use for a tool in their workplace. I think we need to move ahead with this country-of-origin labeling. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for a law that is on the books--a law that is going to go into effect in September of next year. Why don't the people in the Congress of the United States who do not like that law and the interest groups outside that do not like that law have guts enough to come forward and repeal the law and have a clear- cut victory or a clear-cut defeat? Let us move on. Let us not have the subterfuge of not funding it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I think is coming up this afternoon. The reason I would like to have permission of the Senate to speak about it now is that I will not be able to be in the Chamber because of the Medicare conference. Amendment No. 2078

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 2003. Money laundering is a significant threat to our country because it undermines our national security, promotes corruption and funds terrorism. Money laundering operations as a whole include such mechanisms as structured transactions, wire fraud, over- and under- invoicing, and other activities designed to defraud and hide profits from illegal activities. All of these transactions undermine legitimate financial institutions by promoting corruption, funding criminal and terrorist operations, and by providing a method of profiting from illegal transactions such as drug trafficking and weapons sales. We know that money laundering is the functional equivalent of a war industry for terrorist groups. Terrorist groups do not function in a bubble but will use whatever means available to obtain funding for their cause. Our attention and rhetoric are focused on identifying and halting those mechanisms used specifically by terrorist organizations such as charitable organizations, money service businesses and alternative remittance systems which are often referred to as hawalas. Frankly, the tools used to launder and disguise funds for terrorist organizations are similar, and quite often identical to, those used by many drug traffickers and criminal organizations to clean their own dirty money. No matter how the funds are obtained and ultimately used, they are still dirty, and if we are ever going to get ahead of the curve, we must design a better way to identify and halt this flow of illegal funds. The bill I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering and terrorist financing laws to enhance our ability to identify and eliminate various avenues used to launder money, whether it be for drug traffickers, criminal organizations or terrorists. This bill adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities within the RICO statute that serve as predicates for the money laundering statute including: burglary and embezzlement, illegal money transmitting businesses, alien smuggling, child exploitation and obscenity. It would close a loophole on securities fraud by including the purchase of securities with the sale of securities as a money laundering offense, and adds the unlawful use of Social Security numbers to the list of money laundering offenses. It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture statute to include the forfeiture of property outside the U.S. territorial boundaries if it was used in the planning of the terrorist act that occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States and includes a parallel transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity. Our best response to money laundering and terrorist financing threats is a comprehensive and coordinated response which must be laid out in an effective strategy. This bill also reauthorizes the National Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act through 2006. This yearly strategy must identify the risks and threats we face. Without a comprehensive strategy, we cannot begin to implement laws and regulations that will effectively combat money laundering sources and shut down the system as a whole. Only when we have a systematic approach to money laundering will we be able to avoid the duplication and inconsistencies that currently plague our efforts. This legislation is important to identifying particular money laundering operations and putting them out of business. I encourage you to pass this legislation to ensure our national security against the continued threat posed by terrorist financing and financial crimes.

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 2003. Money laundering is a significant threat to our country because it undermines our national security, promotes corruption and funds terrorism. Money laundering operations as a whole include such mechanisms as structured transactions, wire fraud, over- and under- invoicing, and other activities designed to defraud and hide profits from illegal activities. All of these transactions undermine legitimate financial institutions by promoting corruption, funding criminal and terrorist operations, and by providing a method of profiting from illegal transactions such as drug trafficking and weapons sales. We know that money laundering is the functional equivalent of a war industry for terrorist groups. Terrorist groups do not function in a bubble but will use whatever means available to obtain funding for their cause. Our attention and rhetoric are focused on identifying and halting those mechanisms used specifically by terrorist organizations such as charitable organizations, money service businesses and alternative remittance systems which are often referred to as hawalas. Frankly, the tools used to launder and disguise funds for terrorist organizations are similar, and quite often identical to, those used by many drug traffickers and criminal organizations to clean their own dirty money. No matter how the funds are obtained and ultimately used, they are still dirty, and if we are ever going to get ahead of the curve, we must design a better way to identify and halt this flow of illegal funds. The bill I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering and terrorist financing laws to enhance our ability to identify and eliminate various avenues used to launder money, whether it be for drug traffickers, criminal organizations or terrorists. This bill adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities within the RICO statute that serve as predicates for the money laundering statute including: burglary and embezzlement, illegal money transmitting businesses, alien smuggling, child exploitation and obscenity. It would close a loophole on securities fraud by including the purchase of securities with the sale of securities as a money laundering offense, and adds the unlawful use of Social Security numbers to the list of money laundering offenses. It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture statute to include the forfeiture of property outside the U.S. territorial boundaries if it was used in the planning of the terrorist act that occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States and includes a parallel transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity. Our best response to money laundering and terrorist financing threats is a comprehensive and coordinated response which must be laid out in an effective strategy. This bill also reauthorizes the National Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act through 2006. This yearly strategy must identify the risks and threats we face. Without a comprehensive strategy, we cannot begin to implement laws and regulations that will effectively combat money laundering sources and shut down the system as a whole. Only when we have a systematic approach to money laundering will we be able to avoid the duplication and inconsistencies that currently plague our efforts. This legislation is important to identifying particular money laundering operations and putting them out of business. I encourage you to pass this legislation to ensure our national security against the continued threat posed by terrorist financing and financial crimes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the chairman for his interest in this issue. Additionally, I want to thank him for his concern regarding credit card abuse. Working together I'm confident we can help USDA remedy this issue. As Chairman Bennett knows, the Department's own Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated that USDA's travel card program is plagued with problems including fraud, abusive ATM usage, ``bounded'' check payments, and lack of specific travel card policies and penalties. Many of these problems still remain unchecked despite recommendations from an OIG audit over 5 years ago. USDA employees accumulated over $5.8 million in fraudulent charges in a six-month period. The majority of these charges were racked up when individuals were not even on travel. Purchases were made at The Gap, Bath and Body, Cigarettes for Less, Tatoo and More Ink, and an Oregon Liquor Store. They also included 900 trips to Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target; tickets to Ozzy Osbourne, and automotive payments including the purchase of a $6,000 vehicles. This is a clear abuse of government-issued cards and the trust embodied in these employees. Despite individuals signing an agreement acknowledging that the travel card is solely for work-related travel this abuse continues. The travel card is not meant to be a line of credit for employees, or to be used by individuals as a personal credit card. There is no excuse for this type of abuse. When I was first made aware of this abuse I asked how this was allowed to occur at USDA. What I found was outdated or non-existent internal controls that do nothing more than provide lip-service to the concept of accountability. USDA's travel card program is operating under 19-year old regulations. Nineteen years ago our banking infrastructure was fundamentally different than it is today. Nineteen years ago we didn't even have ATM's! In fact, ATM's pose the single most significant vulnerability to travel card misuse due to cash advances fees and other bank surcharges. During the six month review by the OIG, ATM transactions cost the government more than $137,000 in advance fees. There is chronic and intentional misuse with ATM withdrawals, for example, nearly $200,000 was withdrawn to pay personal debts during the six-month review period. If that isn't bad enough, when individuals leave the department they don't always surrender their travel card! So individuals are out using the travel card as a personal credit card. OIG found that 1,549 individuals still had cards that could be used despite their departure from the Department. One individual was using his travel card nearly 2 years after he left the department! OIG identified $650,000 in returned checks, stop payment fees and returned check fees in just a six-month period. A little diligence up front could prevent millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases. I would point out that USDA has made recent efforts to limit abuse. USDA has attempted to reduce the number of credit card holders, revised departmental regulations on purchase cards, and instituted new system alerts to catch abusive transactions. With Chairman Bennett's help I plan to monitor the new efforts being made by USDA to remedy these problems I'm cautiously optimistic that USDA will recognize that the reforms must be successful, or we will establish new, more stringent reforms for USDA next year.