Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. A viticulture technician would help new producers with the basic knowledge needed about the industry. Such assistance will enable growers to benefit from increased production, and in turn, produce more successful vineyard businesses in Iowa. This proposal has tremendous support from the Iowa Grape Growers Association, the Mississippi Valley Grape Growers Association, the Western Iowa Grape Growers Association, and the Iowa Wine and Grape Development Commission. study on north carolina horticulture industry

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the State of Iowa has a blossoming viticulture industry, but the demand for technical assistance far exceeds the State's current resources. I have discussed this problem with the Senator from Utah and I appreciate his interest in the issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I object to proceeding to the consideration of an executive nominee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The nominee is Joseph Timothy Kelliher, who is listed as a ``senior policy advisor'' to the Secretary of the Energy Department. I have an outstanding document request at the Energy Department, and I must be certain that it will be answered in a timely and complete manner. I am also concerned that some Department of Energy officials are, among other things, misconstruing an amendment that I offered to H.R. 2754. My amendment is section 316 of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, H.R. 2754, and it transfers claims processing responsibilities for ``Subtitle D'' of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor. I am trying to get some answers and straighten that out as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--first of all, we have advanced this bill according to the rules of the Senate with the provisions that are necessary to go to conference. I am disappointed we don't have that opportunity to go to conference. This will not be our last effort to try to get to conference. I appreciate the unanimous consent request by my friend from Nevada, the assistant minority leader, because I know he is sincere in proceeding along the lines he would like to proceed. But I think it does suggest that there is a nervousness on the other side as to the rightness of my original request and that we ought to get this to conference. The conference could be settled very quickly. We could get the bill back here and for charitable organizations and for military families, and also try to help low-income families with refundable tax credits, as has been the position of the Senate for a long period of time. I also suggest he may be legitimately concerned about how the other body handles conferences. I appreciate his understanding that I try to be fair. But in the process, comity dictates that what the other body does the other body does, and we have to work within the environment of what we can control. What we can control is what the Senate does. Along those lines, I have made my commitment that there be full Democrat participation, and that is about as far as I can go. So I object to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Nevada, the assistant minority leader.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the CARE Act. The CARE Act is the President's initiative to strengthen the work of charities in this country by providing greater incentives to give to nonprofits. Recent newspaper accounts have noted that charitable giving has declined in the recent year. Clearly, the President is right to seek additional tax benefits for charitable giving. I cannot improve upon the Democratic leader's own assessment at the time the CARE Act was passed by the Senate, when he said this: This legislation, the CARE Act, expands our Nation's capacity to respond to the needs of its citizens who need help. These are very fine words. Unfortunately, these words are not being translated into action. The Finance Committee passed the CARE Act on February 27 and it was passed by the full Senate on April 9. The other body passed the CARE Act earlier this fall. However, the Senate has been prevented from going to conference on this important legislation. The other side has repeatedly blocked efforts to take the traditional step of going to conference with the House to resolve outstanding matters and, in turn, then put the President's good goals into law. While there have been many arguments and claims made by the other side about why we cannot go to conference on the CARE Act, they seem to have settled now on one, that the CARE Act is not going forward because of concerns that Democrat conferees from the Senate will not be able to meaningfully participate in this conference. I think, at least in the case of any legislation coming out of the Finance Committee, that sort of argument is pure nonsense. There is nothing in the history of this specific act, the CARE Act, or my dealings with the other side, that would give the other side cause to suggest that they have justification to be concerned they would be shut out. The CARE Act has at all times been a bipartisan effort, beginning with Senators Santorum and Lieberman as the prime sponsors of this CARE Act. In addition, I have worked closely with Senator Baucus on this matter as well as other members of the Democratic side of the aisle. Many of the provisions of this bill are due to priorities and concerns voiced by the minority. I think it is fair to say that, as chairman, no one has gone further in working with and listening to the other side on matters that are of concern, not only in the CARE Act but in all legislation considered by the Finance Committee. The relationship between Senator Baucus and I working cooperatively is too well known for the leadership on the other side to ignore. I intend that tradition of bipartisanship to continue in conference on the CARE Act. In fact, let me make it very clear. I give my word at this time, as at other times, that all conferees from the Senate will be meaningfully participating in the conference, and I am confident we will come back from conference with a bill that will enjoy similar strong bipartisan support enjoyed by the CARE Act when it first passed the Senate. I cannot make a stronger statement or commitment. To reject it is to suggest that the Democratic leadership does not think that I and Senator Baucus will continue our tradition of working in a bipartisan spirit on this bill. I cannot believe the leadership of the other side harbors such a view. So if that is the true reason, concern that Senate Democrats will not be able to meaningfully participate, I have given my word that will not be the case. So we should now be able to go forward with a conference on the legislation that the minority leader stated, when it passed, . . . will get meaningful aid to organizations and institutions that are equipped to help those who need help the most. I am worried that even though I have addressed the stated concern, we will still not see movement on the CARE Act for unspoken reasons. When it comes to unspoken reasons, it is just a matter of guess, or maybe responding to whispers in the hallways. It has been discussed widely in the media that many people ``hate'' President Bush. I fear this hatred is being translated into stopping the President's signature initiative of strengthening our charitable arena. The sad thing is that the zeal to keep the President from having a ``win'' will mean, as well noted by the minority leader, ``fewer meals for the hungry, fewer beds for the homeless, fewer safe havens for battered wives and children.'' I think this is most unfortunate. When I questioned President Clinton's AmeriCorps Program 10 years ago, I did not seek to end that program. I sought to reform it and to make it work the way President Clinton intended that it work. I thought then that President Clinton had a right to a small program for which he had campaigned so aggressively. President Bush deserves the same courtesy by allowing these tax initiatives for chartable giving to go through. I am also concerned that overlooked is that the CARE Act contains many other provisions Members are stopping. Let us not forget that the CARE Act is paid for by the most sweeping efforts to stop tax shelters in a generation. Those who stop the CARE Act are certainly being cheered on by the hucksters selling tax shelters so that corporations can continue to avoid fair taxation. In addition, the CARE Act also now includes legislation that will provide tax relief for our military as well as low-income families with children. I have never seen such hand-wringing in this Chamber as has been the case regarding the need to pass military tax relief and expanded child credit for low-income families. Now that we have a chance to have these matters go to conference on a bill that has a real chance of becoming law, we are being stopped by the Democratic minority. I am worried that what is desired by some is an issue--not a solution to the child credit for low-income families and tax relief for military personnel. Let me close by saying I have addressed the other side's stated concerns. I have given my personal commitment that Democratic Members will be meaningful participants in the conference on the CARE Act. If that is their only reason, then I have put that to rest. If they continue to object, I fear it is for a small reason, maybe a petty reason, a reason that puts partisanship before the welfare of those most in need. If that is the case, I can only state that I am saddened and certainly disappointed. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, the charitable giving bill. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-Baucus amendments which are at the desk be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment which is the text of S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the charitable choice bill, as amended by the Snowe and Grassley-Baucus amendments, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 3 to 12, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are tonight adopting long overdue legislation to rectify a number of inequities faced by members of our Nation's armed services. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, these brave men and women have been called upon to make terrific sacrifices. They have left their families and friends behind for months at a time to willingly cast themselves into harm's way. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on whatever battlefield the war against terrorism must be fought, these courageous patriots have put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. While I realize that we could never begin to fully repay these fine young Americans--not to mention the loved ones they leave behind--the Senate has an opportunity tonight to show our gratitude for their sacrifices. The legislation before us, which the Finance Committee first developed during the 107th Congress, will ensure that members of the uniformed services, the National Guard, and the foreign service are treated fairly in all aspects of the tax code. First, this legislation ensures that the families of military personnel called into active duty are not disadvantaged under the home sale exclusion. Unlike most Americans, military personnel who are called to active duty or asked to relocate often lack the flexibility to meet residency requirements under the exclusion and are adversely impacted by these rules. This legislation would suspend the residency test for periods of active duty aggregating no more than 10 years. We should not punish members of our military and their families who are asked to relocate in the name of service to their country. This legislation also clarifies that dependent care benefits provided to families of the uniformed services will not be treated as taxable compensation. The provision of affordable childcare is an important function of the military during peacetime; but it is never more critical than during periods of conflict--families. We must also not forget about the increasing role that Reserve and National Guard members fulfill in our Nation's defense. Currently, more than 157,000 reservists and National Guard are on active duty status-- most assisting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have begun to rely increasingly on these service personnel to defend our borders and to serve and protect in other areas of the world. This legislation will allow an above-the-line deduction for travel expenses that these men and women incur related to training assignments. This provision will at least partially reimburse national guard members and reservists for the expenses they incur when they travel for weekend drills. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act also ensures that military personnel serving in Secretary of Defense designated ``contingency operations'' receive appropriate relief from the administrative burdens of our tax laws during participation in those operations. What's more, this legislation is completely offset. All of the military tax fairness provisions in this legislation are fully funded by extending Customs user fees. As we consider this legislation tonight, the men and women of our armed forces remain in hostile situations, battling terrorism wherever that battle may lead. At the same time, their loved ones--wives, husbands, parents, children--remain at home, making equally demanding sacrifices as they struggle to make ends meet. It is deeply regrettable that Congress has delayed so long to enact this commonsense legislation. We must delay no longer. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to provide the tax relief that our military personnel need and deserve.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 6 or 7 minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I would like to announce a significant achievement for this Congress, for the nursing home community, and for nursing home residents throughout the United States. I announce that the nursing home community committed itself to spending about $4 billion over the next decade to direct care and services for all patients in skilled nursing facilities. This past August, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services corrected for errors in rate calculations and adjusted Medicare payments to nursing homes by 3.26 percent. I approached the nursing home community and asked that they use a substantial portion of those funds for direct, hands-on care to residents. They not only agreed, but they committed their agreement to writing. The American Health Care Association, the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the American Health Quality Association, and the American Hospital Association all have agreed to spend a large portion of the increase in funding from that 3.26-percent adjustment formula for direct hands-on care to residents, specifically on registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and on certified nursing assistants. These are the people who touch the nursing home residents' lives most directly, and they are the backbone of the nursing home system of quality care if there is going to be quality care. Moreover, by committing to use these funds for hands-on direct care, these providers are acknowledging that more hands-on direct care will help to continue improving the quality of care provided nursing home residents. I first got involved in the nursing home quality of care issue in 1997 when I chaired the Special Committee on Aging. There was, at that time, concern about thousands of deaths in the State of California due to dehydration, malnutrition, bed sores, and a lot of other conditions that indicate lack of concern, lack of quality of care. This may have been just in the State of California, but it was probably also true of other States. These were brought to my attention at that particular time. At that time I seized the opportunity to expose the sad state of affairs in too many nursing homes across the Nation. In 1998, the picture wasn't pretty. The General Accounting Office said there were serious quality care problems in about 30 percent of California's nursing homes. That report inaugurated a new and targeted effort to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities, and the quality of oversight and enforcement by responsible State and Federal agencies. Since 1998, there have been about 17 General Accounting Office studies on nursing homes, and even more if you count the work done by the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. Improving the quality of care provided in nursing homes is of paramount concern to all of us. At the same time, we must recognize that not all nursing homes are bad actors. Unfortunately, those who are cast the entire community in a bad light. Over the years in fighting the battle to improve care in nursing homes I have come to learn two very important realities about providing quality care to one of our most vulnerable populations. The first reality is that there is no quick fix that will cure the problem. There is no law, no penalty, no guidance that will eliminate the problem. The second reality is that we need the will to direct Federal funds right where they are most needed, to those hands-on professionals who feed, bathe, and turn the residents of a nursing home. That is what we have done here with this agreement among these various professional and trade associations. We worked hand in glove with these associations of the nursing home community, a community that provided me their written commitment to use real money to improve the plight of nursing home residents. The nursing home community put their money where their mouth is by committing to use billions for hands-on direct care to their residents. Today I applaud them, I thank them, and I look forward to more such agreements, all in the name of making sure that there is quality of care at the nursing homes of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every day, police officers from departments of all sizes spend their days trying to make sure the people under their protection have a safe and secure place to live, work, and play. But those who wish to break our laws don't make this an easy task. The tactics, threats, and information available to the modern criminal continue to grow. Just as developments in technology, transportation, and communications have created new opportunities for businesses to enter new markets, develop new products, and discover new efficiencies, crooks have taken advantage of these same developments to further their personal desires. Law enforcement has a responsibility to stay abreast of the latest developments, and this means learning the latest technologies and techniques used by criminals, as well as understanding and being able to effectively deploy countermeasures that have been developed. Staying on top of the game demands learning new techniques, understanding new technologies, and employing new tactics to counter the latest criminal scam. The challenge, then, is in identifying where this training should come from. Most citizens expect cops to learn many of these skills on the job--you never see the detectives on ``NYPD Blue'' or in ``Law and Order'' take classes to improve their skills. But the truth of the matter is what while on the job training is an essential part of any law enforcement organization, additional schooling is also increasingly prevalent and necessary. Some departments have funds in their budgets to bring in outside experts to provide training. Some depend upon classes offered by State governments. But for a vast number of departments, particularly those serving smaller, rural populations, the only training opportunities available are offered by the National Guard. Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code, Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies and community based anti-drug coalitions. Over the past several years, the Guard has supported the establishment of five Counterdrug schools which facilitate valuable training for State and local law enforcement agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community-based organizations. The classes range from specialties such as how best to search a loaded semi tractor-trailer for narcotics to generally applicable classes on interviewing or surveillance techniques. They provide training to thousands of officers each year who would otherwise not be able to receive it for a lack of resources. These schools, located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, and California, but serving law enforcement officers throughout the United States, have proved their effectiveness in developing training and educational opportunities for local law enforcement officials-- opportunities that would not otherwise exist. The schools fill a need readily apparent in conversations with State and local law enforcement officers. The National Guard Counterdrug schools represent one of the few opportunities available to State and local law enforcement officers to improve the skills they need to be as effective as possible in maintaining the peace. But in addition to law enforcement, community-based organizations also receive valuable training from the National Guard Schools, which allows them to be much more effective in their efforts. Almost any law enforcement officer will tell you that they would rather have a successful prevention effort, a way to convince kids that crime really doesn't pay, rather than having these kids begin a life of crime. Organized, motivated, effective community coalitions are a central, bipartisan component of our nation's drug demand reduction strategy. The challenge the schools face is one of funding. They have been funded to date by Sate Plans funds from the Defense department and line items from Congress. The funding to each school has varied from year to year, making it exceedingly difficult for the schools and the law enforcement agencies they serve to know how many of what classes will be offered. And while I do not believe this should be an issue, there have been some questions raised as to whether the operation of these schools should be conducted by the Guard. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Cochran, and Nelson in introducing legislation that addresses these challenges. This legislation will formally authorize the five schools, and create a separate budget account for the schools. The establishment of a single account for all five Counterdrug schools will stabilize the funding for the schools so they can more efficiently and effectively plan, manage, and execute training for the law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. In addition, a single line item supporting these schools will relieve the need for each school having to depend upon a Congressional line item for funding for their activities. It will provide easier management, oversight, and the establishment of performance expectations of the Schools by both the National Guard and Congress. With better oversight, management, and creating a regular funding stream, the schools will be able to better serve the training needs of state and local law enforcement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every day, police officers from departments of all sizes spend their days trying to make sure the people under their protection have a safe and secure place to live, work, and play. But those who wish to break our laws don't make this an easy task. The tactics, threats, and information available to the modern criminal continue to grow. Just as developments in technology, transportation, and communications have created new opportunities for businesses to enter new markets, develop new products, and discover new efficiencies, crooks have taken advantage of these same developments to further their personal desires. Law enforcement has a responsibility to stay abreast of the latest developments, and this means learning the latest technologies and techniques used by criminals, as well as understanding and being able to effectively deploy countermeasures that have been developed. Staying on top of the game demands learning new techniques, understanding new technologies, and employing new tactics to counter the latest criminal scam. The challenge, then, is in identifying where this training should come from. Most citizens expect cops to learn many of these skills on the job--you never see the detectives on ``NYPD Blue'' or in ``Law and Order'' take classes to improve their skills. But the truth of the matter is what while on the job training is an essential part of any law enforcement organization, additional schooling is also increasingly prevalent and necessary. Some departments have funds in their budgets to bring in outside experts to provide training. Some depend upon classes offered by State governments. But for a vast number of departments, particularly those serving smaller, rural populations, the only training opportunities available are offered by the National Guard. Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code, Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies and community based anti-drug coalitions. Over the past several years, the Guard has supported the establishment of five Counterdrug schools which facilitate valuable training for State and local law enforcement agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community-based organizations. The classes range from specialties such as how best to search a loaded semi tractor-trailer for narcotics to generally applicable classes on interviewing or surveillance techniques. They provide training to thousands of officers each year who would otherwise not be able to receive it for a lack of resources. These schools, located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, and California, but serving law enforcement officers throughout the United States, have proved their effectiveness in developing training and educational opportunities for local law enforcement officials-- opportunities that would not otherwise exist. The schools fill a need readily apparent in conversations with State and local law enforcement officers. The National Guard Counterdrug schools represent one of the few opportunities available to State and local law enforcement officers to improve the skills they need to be as effective as possible in maintaining the peace. But in addition to law enforcement, community-based organizations also receive valuable training from the National Guard Schools, which allows them to be much more effective in their efforts. Almost any law enforcement officer will tell you that they would rather have a successful prevention effort, a way to convince kids that crime really doesn't pay, rather than having these kids begin a life of crime. Organized, motivated, effective community coalitions are a central, bipartisan component of our nation's drug demand reduction strategy. The challenge the schools face is one of funding. They have been funded to date by Sate Plans funds from the Defense department and line items from Congress. The funding to each school has varied from year to year, making it exceedingly difficult for the schools and the law enforcement agencies they serve to know how many of what classes will be offered. And while I do not believe this should be an issue, there have been some questions raised as to whether the operation of these schools should be conducted by the Guard. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Cochran, and Nelson in introducing legislation that addresses these challenges. This legislation will formally authorize the five schools, and create a separate budget account for the schools. The establishment of a single account for all five Counterdrug schools will stabilize the funding for the schools so they can more efficiently and effectively plan, manage, and execute training for the law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. In addition, a single line item supporting these schools will relieve the need for each school having to depend upon a Congressional line item for funding for their activities. It will provide easier management, oversight, and the establishment of performance expectations of the Schools by both the National Guard and Congress. With better oversight, management, and creating a regular funding stream, the schools will be able to better serve the training needs of state and local law enforcement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of the Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophool Elimination Act of 2003. This legislation will make it harder for meth cooks to get an essential ingredient needed to manufacture methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a dangerous narcotic and is a serious challenge facing our country. The manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine has a lasting and devastating personal effect on our Nation's families, communities, and our environment. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain systems in the brain by releasing high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Some of the short-term effects of using methamphetamine include: an accelerated heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, irritability, extreme nervousness, confusion, insomnia, aggression, tremors, convulsions, and hyperthermia, which can potentially result in death. In addition to the effects on the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system, the prolonged use of methamphetamine also has many psychological effects. Some of the symptoms resemble those of schizophrenia and are characterized by anger, panic, paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, and repetitive behavior patterns. Other long-term effects can result in kidney and lung disorders, brain damage, liver damage, blood clots, a deficient immune system and chronic depression. The threat of methamphetamine is different than that of most other illegal drugs as it can be easily manufactured from readily available chemicals and substances. The relative ease of manufacturing and its highly addictive potential has caused methamphetamine use to drastically increase throughout the nation. According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health 5.3 percent of the U.S. population--over 12 million people--reported trying methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime. This is an alarming figure. Given the serious ramifications surrounding the use of methamphetamine, we need to be vigilant, making sure that we are doing all that we can to curb this dangerous statistic. This bill makes specific clarifications to the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Act of 1996. While current law establishes a retail sales limit of 9 grams for most pseudoephedrine products, which is one of the basic precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, there is no such limit on the sale of ``blister- packed'' pseudoephedrine products. The bill we are introducing today follows the recommendation of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that retail distribution of pseudoephedrine tablets in blister packages should not be exempt from the 9-gram retail sales limit. This will make it more difficult for methamphetamine producers to obtain large quantities of the precursor chemical pseudoephedrine. As Senator Feinstein well knows, the two largest means of acquiring precursor chemicals for methamphetamine in California are by mail order and retail sales. This acquisition is made easier because the meth cooks are able to exploit the blister pack exemption provision in the current law. Removing this exemption will not halt meth production but it will make it more difficult for meth cooks to collect the key ingredients they need. This is not the only answer to this problem, but it is an important step. Law enforcement cannot fix the problem alone. Schools can't do it alone. The Federal Government can't do it alone. It is important that we each unite and lead local anti-drug initiatives in our respective neighborhoods and communities. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting these important reforms. We cannot let this attack on our Nation's citizens go unchecked.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Biden and Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of the Steroid Control Act of 2003. Our youth need to understand that while the short-term use of steroids may seem beneficial, the long-term effects on overall health can be extremely harmful or even fatal. Adults need to be more vigilant in ensuring young people are not able to obtain these dangerous substances. The Steroid Control Act is an important step in working toward that goal. According to the latest Monitoring the Future Survey, 2.5 percent of eighth graders, 3.5 percent of tenth graders and 4.0 percent of twelfth graders used steroids at least once during their lifetime. Teens in particular seem to believe the myth that steroid abuse, typically at 10 to 100 times what might be prescribed by a doctor, is a quick way to gain muscle mass with little cost. But steroid abuse is associated with a range of physical and emotional problems. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the dangers associated with steroid use include liver tumors and cancer, jaundice, high blood pressure and increases in cholesterol levels, kidney tumors, fluid retention, and severe acne. Adolescents in particular risk prematurely halting their growth because of early skeletal maturation and acceleration of puberty. The emotional problems associated with steroid use include dramatic mood swings, including manic symptoms that can lead to violence called ``roid'' rage, depression, paranoid jealousy, extreme irritability, delusions, and impaired judgment. This Bill makes clarifications to the Steroid Control Act passed in 1990. It will make it easier to add steroid precursors such as androstenedione, THG, and other similar substances--many of which have been developed since the Steroid Control Act of 1990 passed in order to evade the law--to the list of Schedule III anabolic steroids. In addition, it adds a number of known steroid precursors to the anabolic steroid list, and removes the requirement that a substance be proven to promote muscle growth. The Steroid Control Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids. It provides an opportunity to conduct prevention programs for young students to educate them on the dangers of using steroids. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting these important reforms.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment Senator Domenici and I offered to address a regulation recently proposed by the Office of Personnel Management; a regulation that is wrong-headed. Congress and the executive agencies have long enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship where executive branch employees are detailed to congressional offices. These details typically exist for 1 to 2 years. As a result, the executive branch has an opportunity to have its employees learn about the legislative process and oversight activities. Likewise, the legislative branch has an opportunity to utilize the expertise of executive branch employees. Everyone benefits. The regulation proposed by the Office of Personnel Management will inevitably ruin the benefits of this long-term practice. The regulation proposed by the Office of Personnel Management for example, seeks to reduce to 6 months the time that a detailee can spend in Congress. This is too short a time for even the most industrious of detailees to understand the intricacies of the legislative process and contribute to that process. Moreover, this regulation attempts to limit the activities in which executive branch employees can engage while under the direct supervision of a Congressional office in an effort to micro-manage from afar. This is unacceptable. Senator Domenici and I have offered an amendment to prohibit the use of any funds for the implementation of this regulation that will severely reduce the number, availability and benefit of executive branch detailees to the legislative branch to the detriment of all. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Biden and Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of the Steroid Control Act of 2003. Our youth need to understand that while the short-term use of steroids may seem beneficial, the long-term effects on overall health can be extremely harmful or even fatal. Adults need to be more vigilant in ensuring young people are not able to obtain these dangerous substances. The Steroid Control Act is an important step in working toward that goal. According to the latest Monitoring the Future Survey, 2.5 percent of eighth graders, 3.5 percent of tenth graders and 4.0 percent of twelfth graders used steroids at least once during their lifetime. Teens in particular seem to believe the myth that steroid abuse, typically at 10 to 100 times what might be prescribed by a doctor, is a quick way to gain muscle mass with little cost. But steroid abuse is associated with a range of physical and emotional problems. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the dangers associated with steroid use include liver tumors and cancer, jaundice, high blood pressure and increases in cholesterol levels, kidney tumors, fluid retention, and severe acne. Adolescents in particular risk prematurely halting their growth because of early skeletal maturation and acceleration of puberty. The emotional problems associated with steroid use include dramatic mood swings, including manic symptoms that can lead to violence called ``roid'' rage, depression, paranoid jealousy, extreme irritability, delusions, and impaired judgment. This Bill makes clarifications to the Steroid Control Act passed in 1990. It will make it easier to add steroid precursors such as androstenedione, THG, and other similar substances--many of which have been developed since the Steroid Control Act of 1990 passed in order to evade the law--to the list of Schedule III anabolic steroids. In addition, it adds a number of known steroid precursors to the anabolic steroid list, and removes the requirement that a substance be proven to promote muscle growth. The Steroid Control Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids. It provides an opportunity to conduct prevention programs for young students to educate them on the dangers of using steroids. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting these important reforms.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of the Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophool Elimination Act of 2003. This legislation will make it harder for meth cooks to get an essential ingredient needed to manufacture methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a dangerous narcotic and is a serious challenge facing our country. The manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine has a lasting and devastating personal effect on our Nation's families, communities, and our environment. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain systems in the brain by releasing high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Some of the short-term effects of using methamphetamine include: an accelerated heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, irritability, extreme nervousness, confusion, insomnia, aggression, tremors, convulsions, and hyperthermia, which can potentially result in death. In addition to the effects on the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system, the prolonged use of methamphetamine also has many psychological effects. Some of the symptoms resemble those of schizophrenia and are characterized by anger, panic, paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, and repetitive behavior patterns. Other long-term effects can result in kidney and lung disorders, brain damage, liver damage, blood clots, a deficient immune system and chronic depression. The threat of methamphetamine is different than that of most other illegal drugs as it can be easily manufactured from readily available chemicals and substances. The relative ease of manufacturing and its highly addictive potential has caused methamphetamine use to drastically increase throughout the nation. According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health 5.3 percent of the U.S. population--over 12 million people--reported trying methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime. This is an alarming figure. Given the serious ramifications surrounding the use of methamphetamine, we need to be vigilant, making sure that we are doing all that we can to curb this dangerous statistic. This bill makes specific clarifications to the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Act of 1996. While current law establishes a retail sales limit of 9 grams for most pseudoephedrine products, which is one of the basic precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, there is no such limit on the sale of ``blister- packed'' pseudoephedrine products. The bill we are introducing today follows the recommendation of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that retail distribution of pseudoephedrine tablets in blister packages should not be exempt from the 9-gram retail sales limit. This will make it more difficult for methamphetamine producers to obtain large quantities of the precursor chemical pseudoephedrine. As Senator Feinstein well knows, the two largest means of acquiring precursor chemicals for methamphetamine in California are by mail order and retail sales. This acquisition is made easier because the meth cooks are able to exploit the blister pack exemption provision in the current law. Removing this exemption will not halt meth production but it will make it more difficult for meth cooks to collect the key ingredients they need. This is not the only answer to this problem, but it is an important step. Law enforcement cannot fix the problem alone. Schools can't do it alone. The Federal Government can't do it alone. It is important that we each unite and lead local anti-drug initiatives in our respective neighborhoods and communities. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting these important reforms. We cannot let this attack on our Nation's citizens go unchecked.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to vote in support of the motion to proceed to S. 1751, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This bill is a fair and balanced solution to the growing problem of class action abuses, and it has solid bipartisan support. The process that was used to get to the floor was open and fair. The bill deserves to be debated, and my colleagues should support cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can get on the bill and consider amendments. This modest bill will preserve class action lawsuits as an important tool that brings representation to the unrepresented. But it will also go a long way toward ending class action lawsuit abuses where the plaintiffs receive coupons of little or no value, while their lawyers receive millions. It makes you wonder who benefits from these class actions: the consumers or their lawyers? Given the trial lawyers' opposition to this bill, I think we know the answer to that question. Both forum-shopping plaintiffs' lawyers and corporate defense lawyers are abusing the system. Lawyers are choosing plaintiff-friendly county courts to hear national class action cases, and defendants are shopping around for the best settlement deal regardless of whether it is the right thing to do. The lawyers file competing class actions, and enter into collusive settlements. Some class action lawyers manipulate pleadings to avoid the removal of cases to the Federal courts, even if it hurts their clients. Some even name an innocent local defendant just to beat Federal jurisdiction. In the end, it is the consumer that is the big loser. This just isn't right. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 tries to fix the more egregious abuses. The bill includes a number of provisions to help protect class members. It requires that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, must be in clear, easily understood English. It requires that State attorneys general be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect residents of their States so that they can act as watchdogs for fairness. The bill includes provisions to help ensure that there are fair settlements. For example, it disallows cash bounty payments to lead plaintiffs so lawyers looking for victims can't promise them unwarranted payoffs to be their excuses for filing suit. It requires that judges to carefully scrutinize settlements where the plaintiffs get only coupons or noncash awards, and the lawyers get money. The bill requires a court to make a written finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable for class members. Finally, the bill injects some rationality in terms of where large, nationwide class actions can be heard. It allows more class action lawsuits to be removed from State court to Federal court, either by a defendant or an unnamed class member. A class action would qualify for Federal jurisdiction if the total damages exceed $5,000,000 and parties included citizens from multiple states. But if a case really belongs in State court because it is a local problem or the class members and defendants are in-State, the case won't be decided in Federal court. This is a good bill. It is fair and balanced. We have been working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to try to get it right. There is no question that there are serious problems with the current class action system and we need to deal with these abuses. So I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can finally get to the bill and debate this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to address my colleagues, as I did last night, on a bill of which I am the sponsor. It came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I serve with very broad bipartisan support. It is called the class action lawsuit reform legislation. There has been a lot said about that legislation today that I would like to address. I did listen with great interest, yesterday and today, to speeches made by my colleagues across the aisle, and I fear they greatly misrepresent the bill and the problems facing the class action system, so I will spend a few minutes setting the record straight. First, my colleagues are trying to characterize this bill as special interest legislation and are suggesting that the President is pushing this as part of some rightwing agenda. Given that I introduced this bill with my Democratic colleague from Wisconsin 6 years ago, I am surprised that my colleagues think that this President Bush's idea is bad and part of some rightwing special interest agenda because Senator Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, would not be interested in participating in any effort of a rightwing conspiracy. Anyway, Senator Kohl and I put this bill together because there is unfairness in the current class action system. Lawyers are getting rich while consumers and plaintiffs are getting worthless certificates and coupons. The current system has select State county courts deciding policies and interpreting laws for people that ought to be decided on the Federal level, in the Federal court, when they affect all 50 States. Some county judge in Illinois should not be making a decision that is going to affect consumer law of 49 other States. That flips, as you know, the Federal system on its head, and it needs to be fixed. Our legislation fixes it. I think that wanting to fix this problem makes sense. It is not part of some rightwing agenda. It is a very key economic issue in our country. This term ``special interest legislation'' is amusing in several other ways. The real special interest here is the plaintiffs bar; they are fighting this bill with everything they have. Crafty class action lawyers who are making out like bandits by bringing frivolous class action lawsuits and settling cases where they get all the money are the ones with the big special interest in this legislation because, if this bill passes, judges will have to scrutinize settlements to make sure that lawyers are not unfairly getting more money for their professional services than they ought to get. Also, if this legislation passes, these very same lawyers will not be able to do what we call forum shopping--finding the best county judge someplace in the country who is sympathetic to their cause, before whom they can go and win for sure. Of course, we have the Judicial Conference. In this bill, it would be required to figure out a way to make attorney's fees more reasonable and settlements more fair. So it looks like the biggest special interest with a dog in this fight is the plaintiffs bar. I heard a lot of talk on the floor about how critical class actions are, and I would be the first to suggest that there is a place in our legal system for class action suits. They are a great, important tool to help injured people collectively recover for their injuries in cases where it might not be worthwhile for an individual to do that by himself or herself. Somehow, my Democratic colleagues think this bill is the end of class action suits, and that is entirely wrong. Our bill leaves the important tool of class actions right where it is, in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, and similar rules in most of the individual States. But the bill just allows more class actions, those that ought to be nationally viewed and obviously national in scope, to be heard in the Federal courts. In-state class actions will continue right along in State courts and large national class actions will continue right along in the Federal courts. Consumers will still have their day in court. That is very important. Our bill does not take away their ability to sue as an individual or to sue as a class. Another claim I heard yesterday was that our bill allows defendants to remove a case to Federal court at any time, even on the eve of a trial. Senator Breaux says he is worried about this problem and his alternative would fix it. The claim is just plain wrong. Our bill does not change the current removal rule. Under that rule, a defendant can remove a case within 30 days of receiving notice that a case is removable. That is a good rule and one we do not need to change. I do not appreciate people saying we are changing it when we are not changing it. Our bill will function under that rule so a defendant can move only a case within 30 days of receiving a complaint or an amended complaint. To say a defendant under our bill can willy-nilly remove a case at any time or even while a jury is deliberating a case is just not true. That is not the case under the current rule. It is not the case with this bill which does not change the current rule. There are some other potential problems with the proposal by my friend Senator Breaux that he talked about yesterday, but I will be happy to look at any amendments he has available. One thing he said sticks out in my mind. Senator Breaux suggested if a class of plaintiffs is all from Louisiana and a class is injured by an out-of- state meatpacker--that was the example he used--they should be able to sue the meatpacker in the State court. He describes a pure diversity case which under the Constitution belongs in the Federal court. He is proposing to turn constitutional diversity jurisdiction on its very head. That does not sound like a very good idea to me. His approach would allow the same rampant forum shopping we currently see in the system. Senator Breaux's alternative would not fix any of these abuses and, in fact, his alternative plan makes things much worse. Another misstatement that concerned me is this claim that the bill before the Senate is not the same bill that came out of committee; that the mass action language materialized out of thin air; that we are trying to pull the wool over our colleagues' eyes. Not true, again. First, the Class Action Fairness Act--the bill before the Senate, the bill I am sponsoring--included a provision dealing with mass actions when it was first introduced. If my colleagues look at the transcript of the committee markup, they would find, and I think they would probably remember this, that Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee agreed to strip the mass action provision in committee on the condition that Senator Specter and Senator Feinstein worked on compromise language to be included in the bill when it got to the Senate floor. It is in the Record. Nobody is pulling any wool over anybody's eyes. Chairman Hatch, Senator Specter, and I collaboratively reworked the mass action language, had Senator Feinstein look it over and sign off on it. In fact, we made modifications she requested and then we ran it by all of the original cosponsors of the Class Action Fairness Act. So the claim this bill is somehow unexpected and that we are hiding the ball is an unfair, untrue statement. I also heard opponents of the bill claim this bill will hurt consumers, will hurt civil rights litigants, will hurt tobacco plaintiffs, and will hurt gun victims. The reality is these class actions will continue to be brought in both Federal and State court after this bill becomes law. I don't understand what the big fear is about the Federal courts deciding some of these cases. In fact, I remind my colleagues many of these cases against tobacco plaintiffs and gun manufacturers and civil rights violations have for years been routinely filed in the Federal courts of America. The claim that somehow taking a big national class action out of State court will hurt these folks just does not hold water. Another claim we heard yesterday was Chief Justice Rehnquist opposes this bill. For months we have been hearing this claim, that the Chief Justice opposes the bill, and for months we have asked for proof of the claim. There is no proof. Why continue to quote him? Maybe this claim comes from a letter the Judicial Conference sent to the last Congress criticizing certain aspects of the older version of the bill. Justice Rehnquist is the de facto chair of the Judicial Conference. They must be making a gigantic leap to claim he had problems with parts of that old bill. The fact of the matter is, currently the Judicial Conference, which Chief Justice Rehnquist chairs, supports many things about this bill and has publicly thanked the Congress for taking up this issue. It offered a few ideas last spring for determining which cases should stay in the State courts and which ones should go to the Federal courts, and our Feinstein compromise addressed some of those very ideas suggested by the Judicial Conference Chief Justice Rehnquist chairs. We are going to hear a lot about class actions during this debate. Many of them will be important cases. Two things I ask my colleagues to remember regarding a good, necessary class action: First, it is very possible our bill will not have any effect whatever on the case. Second, the only effect our bill might have is just to make the case eligible for Federal court where the case was filed. In fact, many of the cases discussed yesterday sounded to me as if they would either be unaffected by the bill or could be proceeded to in Federal court. I know there are Members of this body who will not ever support this bill. They will never go up against the plaintiffs bar. They will never go up against those personal injury lawyers. They would say the present system, even though it gives lawyers millions of dollars and little old consumers a coupon for some product they will never want to buy, or for some part of an airplane ticket for some place they are never going to go, somehow is OK. I hope they will check their facts before they make statements against this bill even though they may never vote for it. They ought to be intellectually correct as they make their points. I have taken this opportunity to set the record straight. That ought to give us the number of votes it takes to get beyond a Democrat filibuster and move forward on a bill that has passed the House three times in 6 years and ought to pass the Senate and ought to go to the President. We ought to have fairness in our court system. When consumers need to be protected, we ought to have consumers getting the benefit of winning the case, not their lawyer.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am pleased that the Senate is finally reaching the point of moving ahead with this very important legislation. We call this the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 because, quite frankly, everything dealing with class action lawsuits--maybe I should not say everything because I admit there is a very important role in some instances for class action lawsuits, but the way the regime is working out now is very unfair, particularly in instances where consumers get practically nothing and lawyers representing the class get millions. That is not an occasional happening. That is happening quite regularly. So the current class action system is rife with problems which undermine the rights of both the plaintiffs and defendants alike; hence, our legislation. Class members are often in the dark about their rights, with class lawyers driving lawsuits and driving the settlement. Class members receive court and settlement notices in hard-to- understand legalese. Many class action settlements only benefit the lawyers, with little or nothing going to the class members. We are all familiar with class action settlements where the plaintiffs received coupons of little value or no value, and the lawyers received all the money available in the settlement agreements. More and more, we are seeing lawyers bringing frivolous lawsuits which are of no real interest to class members but are just a bonanza of quick and easy legal fees for the class lawyers because companies want to settle those cases rather than expend lots of money in frivolous litigation defense. I have been invited into class action lawsuits. One gets a notice in the mail, probably because they did business with a particular company. Maybe it is because I am in agriculture and a family farmer that I might get some notices of this, but I can speak to the fact that--and obviously I hope people know I am not a lawyer, but the legalese that comes in these notices informing you why you might possibly be a member of a class, or you might possibly benefit, quite frankly I do not give those notices much consideration. Maybe I should. Maybe there is a jackpot out there that I could get something out of. I do not know. It really is not very inviting to the people who may have been injured. Even if it is inviting, and they join it and they win, they could get a coupon; whereas the lawyers are going to get millions of dollars. In addition to current class action rules, the current ones are such that a majority of the large nationwide class actions can only proceed in our State courts, when these are clearly the kinds of cases that should, in fact, be heard in Federal courts. It makes sense that these class action cases have the opportunity to be heard in Federal courts because these cases involve lots of money, citizens from all across the country, and issues of nationwide interest. To further compound the problem, the present rules are easily gamed by unscrupulous lawyers who steer class actions to certain preferred State courts where judges are quick to certify a class and approve a settlement with little regard to class member interest and the parties' due process rights. For example, class lawyers manipulate pleadings to avoid removal of the lawsuit to Federal court by claiming that their client suffered under $75,000 in damages in order to avoid meeting a Federal threshold, even though their client may have suffered greater injury. Class lawyers craft lawsuits to defeat the complete diversity requirements by ensuring that at least one named class member is from the same State as the defendant. These are just a few of the games that are played and the gamesmanship tactics that we have heard of that lawyers like to utilize to bring down the entire class action legal system. The Class Action Fairness Act that is before us will address some of the most egregious problems with the class action system; yet preserving class action lawsuits is an important tool which brings representation to the unrepresented. I will briefly summarize what this bipartisan bill does. First, the act requires that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, must be in clear, easily understood English and must include all material settlements, including amounts and sources of attorney's fees. When that happens, and I get one of those notices, I am going to read it and maybe I can make a decision that I ought to join that class. But I am not going to mess around with trying to have some lawyer interpret to me whether or not I ought to be in a class action lawsuit when I get those notices. These notices that most plaintiffs receive are written in small print and in confusing legal jargon. Since plaintiffs are giving up their right to sue, it is important that they understand what they are doing and the ramifications of their actions. Second, this act requires that State attorneys general, or other responsible State government officials, be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect the residents of their State. This provision helps protect class members because such notice would provide these State officials with an opportunity to object if the settlement terms are unfair for their citizens. Third, this act disallows bounty payments to lead plaintiffs so lawyers looking for victims cannot promise them unwarranted payoffs to be their excuse for filing a suit. The bill also prevents class action settlements that discriminate on the basis of geography so that one plaintiff does not receive more money than other class members who have been equally injured just because that plaintiff lives near the courthouse. Fourth, the act requires that courts closely scrutinize settlements where the plaintiffs only receive coupons or noncash awards while the lawyers get the bulk of the money. The bill requires the judge to make a written finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable for class members. A court will still be able to find that a noncash settlement, as in the case of injunctive relief banning some type of bad conduct, is fair and reasonable, but a court would also be able to throw out sham settlements where lawyers get big paychecks while the plaintiffs get nothing or, as I have said before, worthless or almost worthless coupons. The bill also requires the judicial conference to report back to Congress on best practices in class action cases and how to best ensure fairness of a class action settlement. Finally, the Class Action Fairness Act allows more class action lawsuits to be removed from State court to Federal court, either by a defendant or even by an unnamed class member. However, the bill is drafted to ensure that truly local disputes would continue to be litigated in State court. Current law provides that class lawyers can avoid removal of a class action to Federal court if the individual claims are $75,000 or less, even if hundreds of millions of dollars in total are at stake, or if just one class member is from the same State as the defendant. Our bill would eliminate the ``complete diversity'' rule but leave in State court class actions with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, class actions that allow less than $5 million, class actions in which a State entity is a primary defendant, and class actions brought against a company in its home State if two-thirds or more of the class members are residents of that State. We have been working on finding a fair solution to the class action problem for several years. For the past four Congresses, Senator Kohl, Senator Hatch, and others have joined me, as the main sponsor of this bill, in studying the problems with the class action system and working on a way to deal with such egregious abuses of our tort system. Over the years, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have convened numerous hearings on these class action abuses, making very obvious the need for reform. The House has passed similar versions of the class action bill in several Congresses, and they have done it with strong bipartisan support, so frankly I don't understand why we are running up against opposition on the other side to even bringing this bill up for discussion. In the Senate, in the 105th Congress, I held hearings in the Judiciary Committee's Administrative Oversight Subcommittee and then marked up the first Grassley-Kohl class action bill. In the 106th Congress my subcommittee held another hearing on class actions and the Judiciary Committee marked up and reported out class action legislation. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on class actions in the 107th Congress, and in this Congress the Judiciary Committee marked up the language of the bill we are considering today. Chairman Hatch, Senator Kohl, and I worked closely with Senator Feinstein of California to make sure that more in-State class actions stayed in State court. We also worked with Senator Specter to make sure his concerns relative to class actions were also addressed. The bill then was approved by the Judiciary Committee and it was approved on a solid, bipartisan vote. I wanted to elaborate on the history of this bill to show how much time Congress has spent on the problems with our class action system and all the work and all the compromises that have been put into this bipartisan bill. The Class Action Fairness Act has garnered increasing support over the years and I expect it will receive even greater support now with the significant changes we have made in the Judiciary Committee several months ago. We need class action reform badly. Both plaintiffs and defendants alike are calling for change in the area of tort and class actions. The Class Action Fairness Act is a good, modest bill that will help curb many problems that have plagued the class action system. The bill will help class members know what their rights are, increase their members' protection, and ensure the approval of fair settlements. It will allow nationwide class actions to be heard in the proper forum, and that is the Federal courts, but keep primarily State class actions where they ought to be, in State court. It will preserve the process, but put a stop to the more egregious abuses. It will also help to put a stop to the more frivolous lawsuits that are very much a drag on the economy. I hope we can proceed to this bill. We are very happy to consider amendments. This bill is something that has had so much work on it over the last four Congresses that it should move ahead. The situation has not improved any during that period of time. In fact, TV magazine-type programs are full of stories about continuous abuse of the tort class action system. We have situations where someone, a lowly county judge in some State, is making a decision that is applicable to all 50 States in a way that should not be done by one isolated judge. These are cases that should be decided at the Federal level and have something that is going to be a Federal policy applying to all 50 States done by a Federal court as opposed to a county court system. There are a lot of things we can say about this bill, but it is about time. I would think there would be some embarrassment on the other side of the aisle, considering the fact of the bipartisan support of this bill in the House of Representatives and how it has come out of our Senate Judiciary Committee with solid, bipartisan support, considering modifications that have been made for Democratic Senators who were not part of the original bipartisan coalition putting this bill together, that the legislative process is working, the Senate is working its will, and now we are up against what could be a stone wall of resistance that is unjustified. I hope we can move forward. We will find out with votes very shortly. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, am I in order to speak on the class action tort reform legislation?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help curtail abuses of government-issued credit cards throughout the Federal Government. I am pleased to join Representative Wilson who is introducing an identical measure in the House today and I thank him for his interest and work on this important issue. I am also very glad to have Senator Byrd co-sponsor my bill. He has been a staunch advocate for improved management of government credit programs and I have been honored to work with him on this issue in the past. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been working for several years to expose abuses of government purchase cards and travel cards, starting with the largest user of government charge cards, the Department of Defense. Working with the GAO, former subcommittee Chairman Horn in the House, and others, we have been able to uncover a disturbing number of instances where DOD-issued credit cards have been abused. When I say abused, I mean government credit cards were used to pay for everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. The list also includes furniture, breast implants, and gentleman's clubs. So what does all of this mean for the American taxpayer? In the case of government purchase cards, it means that hardworking Americans are paying for government employees' Christmas shopping. Purchase cards are intended to be used to purchase supplies or other items needed by a government agency and are paid directly by the agency with taxpayer money. However, it is hard to justify payments on a sapphire ring, kitchen appliances, and gift certificates to department stores as necessary office expenses. Astoundingly, these are examples of charges that have been made and paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket with no questions asked. Government travel cards work differently, but are still subject to abuses that negatively impact the American public. They are issued to individual employees for use on official travel. The employee must pay the bill and is reimbursed by the agency. Unfortunately, government travel cards are routinely issued to individuals who have a bad credit history or even a record of credit card fraud. This opens up the door for abuse. Not only have travel cards been used for questionable travel expenses, but travel cards have been used when employees are not on official travel to pay for items from gambling and prostitution to tickets for a pop music concert by the Backstreet Boys. Some employees have committed fraud by repeatedly writing bad checks to pay travel card bills and some have taken government funds in reimbursement for travel expenses and not paid off their travel card bills. When a travel card bill is not paid on time, the agency loses out on rebates that the agency would otherwise receive from the credit card company. These rebates add up. In fact, in fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government received $71 million in rebates, but this amount declined in fiscal year 2002 to $69.2 million mainly due to delinquencies in paying off travel cards. We're talking real money and, especially in a time of budgetary belt-tightening, this trend cannot be allowed to continue. In addition, since Bank of America took over the DOD charge card contract in 1998, it had to ``charge off'' over $61 million dollars in bad debt. The military service branches have recovered less than $24 million of that amount, leaving almost $40 million in losses to the credit card company. In fact, the situation got so bad that Bank of America considered dropping its account with DOD. Although actions by DOD to reduce delinquencies and recover bad debt through methods like salary offsets have now improved the situation somewhat, this scandal has left a black mark on the reputation of the Federal Government. Furthermore, these losses inflicted on credit card companies by Federal employees hurt the millions of innocent Americans who are credit card customers by raising the interest rates and fees the company must charge. What we have learned through our investigation of the travel card and purchase card programs in the Department of Defense is that these abuses were allowed to occur as a result of weak internal controls. The revelations about DOD sparked questions about the possibility of similar deficiencies in other departments. In fact, subsequent work with the GAO and agency Inspectors General has uncovered weak internal controls in the travel card and purchase card programs of agencies like the Department of Education, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture leading to wasteful and questionable purchases with taxpayer dollars. We know about HUD employees using agency purchase cards for personal shopping sprees at stores like Best Buy and JC Penny, FAA employees purchasing individual subscriptions to Internet providers and gift cards from Home Depot, and Department of Agriculture employees using travel cards to buy a car and enroll in bartending school. The list goes on. Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be addressed government- wide. Ideally, Federal agencies would get their own houses in order. Unfortunately, the atrocious abuses that have been uncovered in the charge card programs of agency after agency would likely never have come to light without congressional oversight. In fact, the positive developments we have seen so far in curtailing government credit card abuses have been the result of Congress cajoling the bureaucracy to put controls in place. The bill I am introducing today would require all agencies to promulgate regulations to establish safeguards and internal controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of Federal purchase cards and travel cards. The GAO has now issued an Audit Guide for auditing and investigating the internal control of government purchase card programs, which it developed based on its experiences auditing various agencies purchase card programs. This excellent guide outlines five standards for internal control to curtail fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases. These include: establishing a positive control environment among agency management and employees, providing for a risk assessment, implementing control activities to enforce management directives and help ensure actions are taken to reduce risks, recording and communicating information to program managers and others who need it, and ongoing monitoring. My bill would go a long way to push agencies toward the effective management approach GAO has outlined. In fact, my bill requires agencies to establish policies for purchase card programs, and travel card programs where applicable, that incorporate many of the specific recommendations GAO has made to various agencies as a result of its investigations. These include: training for cardholders as well as approving officials and agency program coordinators, establishing who is eligible to be a cardholder and limits on how much they can charge, limiting the number of cards distributed to those who really need them, establishing requirements for documentation and records to support each purchase, cancelling cards for employees who leave or transfer, and establishing penalties to hold card holders and approving officials accountable for misuse. My bill also requires that credit checks be performed before issuing a government charge card and that no one found to be not creditworthy be issued a government credit card. In my opinion, it is absurb that this is not standard practice. Government employees who could never get a private credit card due to bad credit, bankrupty, or history of fraud will no longer be handed a government charge card with no questions asked. Finally, my bill would provide that the each agency Inspector General will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. The information continually provided to the head of each executive agency as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Comptroller General by each agency IG will be an enormous help in strengthening and maintaining a rigious system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. Due to aggressive congressional oversight and the efforts of talented investigators working for the GAO and agency IG's, we now know that weak internal control over agency purchase and travel card programs has lead to waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government. It has come to the point that Congress must intervene to require agencies to put in place the policies and procedures necessary to stop the misuse of taxpayer dollars and the abuse of the public trust. I wish I could say this bill is a silver bullet and that once enacted, all the problems with government credit cards will disappear, but I don't pretend this is the case. Ultimately, it is up to agency officials and program managers to implement best practices for managing purchase card and travel card programs. To that end, I would encourage all agencies to take a close look at the GAO Audit Guide and use its approach. Meanwhile, continued congressional oversight will still be necessary. Nevertheless, my bill will serve to kick-start the bureaucracy into taking this problem seriously and I believe it will be a big step toward putting the lid back on the Federal cookie jar. I know many of my colleagues are equally appalled by the many tales of credit card fraud and abuse perpetrated on the American public and I would urge senators to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.