Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to be reintroducing the FBI Reform Act of 2003 with Senator Patrick Leahy. This reform bill is designed to address the accountability problems that have plagued the FBI for years. For almost a decade, I have been engaged in FBI oversight, and during that time, I have seen numerous scandals and coverups. I am pleased to see that Director Mueller is committed to changing the culture of the FBI. He is making good strides toward overcoming past bad policies and procedures at the Bureau. However, Congress also has a role to play in this overhaul of the FBI. A little over a year ago, a bill similar to this one was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Since then, a number of the provisions of that bill were enacted in separate legislation. However, some of the most important provisions of that bill--provisions protecting whistleblowers, creating a Security Career Program and Counterintelligence Polygraph Program, and ending the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives--have yet to be taken up by the full Senate. These provisions are needed to maintain America's confidence in the FBI. When I was growing up, I was surrounded by a generation that believed the FBI could do no wrong. Yet today at a time when we rely on the FBI to protect us from acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people, a time when the need for confidence in the FBI is at its greatest, Americans' trust and confidence in the FBI has been shaken. Do not get me wrong, the majority of FBI agents and especially those who are posted all over the heartland of this country, are honorable, hard working Federal servants who are doing a great job of protecting us from harm. However, there are a few bad apples that must be dealt with because their actions give the Bureau a black eye. The spy cases of Robert Hanssen and Chinese espionage in Los Angeles have highlighted internal security problems. Retaliation against agents like John Roberts, Frank Perry, and Patrick Kiernan, who did their duty investigating internal wrongdoing and spoke the truth to Congress, highlight continuing cultural hostility to criticism. This bill goes a long way to address these systemic problems and shore up trust and confidence in the FBI in the wake of these concerns. While Congress sometimes follows a hands-off approach to the FBI, the Judiciary Committees hearings and other oversight activities over the last 2 or 3 years have highlighted the actions that Congress needs to take to do its part in reforming the Bureau. The hearings that spurred this legislation demonstrated the need to extend adequate whistleblower protections to the FBI, enhance the Bureau's internal security program, end the double-standard for discipline, and modernize the FBI's information technology systems. These and additional management issues the committee has explored are reflected in this bill. As the Patriot Act has increased the FBI's powers, as the American people have increased their reliance on the FBI to stop terrorism, and as we continue to increase the FBI's funding, it is time for Congress to take action with a more hands-on approach. Let me provide some more detail about the most important provisions of the FBI reform bill. First, title I of the bill contains much needed protections for FBI whistleblowers. As my colleagues know, I have long held that good government requires that the brave men and women who blow the whistle on wrongdoing be protected. It is my strong belief that disclosures of wrongdoing by whistleblowers are an integral part of our system of checks and balances. However, although whistleblowers play a critical role in ensuring that waste, fraud, and abuse are brought to light and that public health and safety problems are exposed, the same whistleblower protection laws that apply to almost all other Federal employees do not currently apply to the FBI. In fact, it is a violation for FBI agents to report problems to Congress. That restriction leaves patriotic, loyal FBI employees with little recourse. This bill will fix that problem. I truly believe that reform at the FBI will only occur when FBI employees feel free to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without adequate whistleblower protections, I am concerned that agents, such as Coleen Rowley and others, who speak out about abuses and problems at the FBI will be subject to retaliation. Thus, this bill finally gives FBI whistleblowers the same rights and protections that other Federal employees currently possess. When this bill is passed, FBI employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle will be able to avail themselves of all the protections afforded by the Whistleblower Protection Act. In order to enhance internal security at the FBI, title II of the bill requires the FBI to establish a career security program and ensure that appropriate management tools and resources are devoted to that task. Modeled after the Department of Defense Acquisition Career Program, security professional career development requirements would bring the FBI into line with the other Federal agencies that handle top secret intelligence. This bill establishes and defines the Career Security Program and sets out the framework for career development and training in internal security. With the development of a Career Security Program, the FBI can meet the challenges of espionage, information technology vulnerability, and the threat of direct terrorist attack. This bill requires the Attorney General to establish policies and procedures for career management of FBI security personnel. It directs the Director of the FBI to appoint a Director of Security who would chair a security career program board that would advise in the management of hiring, training, education, and career development. The bill also requires the FBI Director to designate certain positions as security positions. The bill requires that career paths to senior positions be published, and it ensures that all FBI personnel would have the opportunity to acquire the education, training and experience needed for senior security positions. Moreover, in order to ensure that security professionals gain the stature that special agents enjoy, the bill provides that special agents would not have preference for security positions and security positions could not be restricted to special agents unless the Attorney General makes a special determination. Furthermore, the bill would direct that education, training, and experience requirements be established for each position and that before assignment as a manager or a deputy manager of a significant security program, a person would have to complete an accredited security program management course and have at least 6 years security experience, including 2 years in a similar program. In addition to the Security Career Program, the bill will also enhance security through the creation of an FBI counterintelligence polygraph program. The program would consist of the periodic screening of employees and contractors who have access to sensitive information or restricted data. While the program recognizes the value of polygraph screening, it also provides safeguards for those subject to polygraph examination. The bill directs that the program have procedures to address false positives, ensure quality control, requires that no adverse personnel action could be taken solely by reason of physiological reaction on an exam without further investigation, and provides that employees would have prompt access to unclassified reports of their exams that relate to adverse personnel action. Thus, title III provides increased security while at the same time protecting employee rights. Title IV requires the Attorney General to report on the legal authority for the FBI's programs and activities. This report will help the FBI focus on its most important duty--preventing terrorism--by cutting back on the FBI's jurisdiction, which has become cumbersome and unwieldy. Currently, the FBI investigates over 300 different Federal offenses, which are divided between violent crime, white collar crime, organized crime, drugs, national security, and civil rights. In many of these areas, there are instances of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction with other Federal law enforcement agencies who specialize in investigating these crimes. The FBI needs to scale back on the broad range of investigations which are duplicated by other Federal and State agencies. The Bureau needs to completely jettison some of these areas and in other areas, the Bureau could simply take a secondary role, allowing another agency to take the lead. In order to assist the FBI in scaling back its jurisdiction, this bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the legal authority for FBI programs and activities, identifying those that have express statutory authority and those that do not. The bill also requires the Attorney General to recommend what criminal statutes for which he believes the FBI should have investigative responsibility. Additionally, there exists a gross inequality in the way Senior Executive Service, SES, employees of the FBI and rank and file agents are disciplined. SES employees are often given a slap on the wrist for an infraction, whereas the rank and file agents are often punished to the letter of the law. Title V of the bill attempts to address this double standard. The bill attempts to address the double standard by providing some flexibility in how SES employees can be punished. The Senate Judiciary Committee has heard repeatedly that this inflexibility is one of the main causes for the inequality in punishment at the FBI. Under the current system, the minimum suspension that an SES employee can receive is 14 days. This means that the FBI's management is often left with the choice of either an overly harsh penalty or no penalty at all. Often they decide not to impose any meaningful disciplinary action. In order to attempt to remedy this problem our bill lifts the 14-day minimum suspension for SES disciplinary cases to provide for additional options in disciplining senior executive employees. Hopefully, this change will help to remedy this double standard. In addition, our bill would require the Office of Inspector General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of both houses, for 5 years, annual reports by the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility on its investigations, recommendations, and their disposition including an analysis of whether any double standard is being employed. Finally, title VI of the bill attempts to provide further enhancement to security at the Department of Justice as a whole. This title would implement recommendations of the Webster Commission for enhancing security at the DOJ. It requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the manner by which the Department plans to improve protection of security information at the DOJ. Moreover, this title authorizes funds to meet the demands for increased security at the DOJ. Also, the bill would authorize funds for the DOJ Office of Intelligence Policy and Review to help meet the increased demands to combat terrorism, process applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, participate effectively in counterespionage investigations, provide policy analysis and oversight on national security matters, and enhance computer and telecommunications security. Mr. President, I say to my fellow colleagues, it is time we acted on the reforms in this bill. It has been almost a year since this bill passed unanimously out of committee. Let's act to reform the FBI and help maintain America's trust and confidence in the Bureau. 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 morning business be extended for 7 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues that I have raised an objection to proceeding to S. 1125. Although I support finding a solution to the asbestos litigation crisis, there are a number of problems with this bill as currently drafted regarding the tax treatment of the asbestos fund. These problems affect the tax treatment of the amounts paid into and received from the asbestos fund. If not remedied, there could be serious adverse tax consequences to the companies, the asbestos fund, and, most importantly, the beneficiaries. These tax issues are within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, I believe that S. 1125 should be referred to the Finance Committee, but in the event it is not, the bill should be held from the floor until the Finance Committee can report a separate tax title for floor consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1399, a bill I am happy to cosponsor with Senator Harkin, to name the post office in Glenwood, IA, the William J. Scherle Post Office Building. Former Congressman Bill Scherle served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four terms, from 1967-1975. Before that, we served together in the Iowa House of Representatives. Bill Scherle is originally from New York State, so he was not born an Iowan, but you would never know it. He acclimated well to Iowa, living on a farm near the small southwestern Iowa town of Henderson. Bill is a farmer through and through. He was a plainspoken conservative voice in Congress and he represented his largely rural western Iowa district well. He then went on to serve his country in the Department of Agriculture. Bill Scherle has given a good portion of his life to public service and it is fitting that a post office near his home be named in his honor. In fact, Bill Scherle's legacy as a public servant is demonstrated by the fact that this bill to honor him is a bipartisan initiative. Both Senator Harkin and I recognize the contribution made by Bill Scherle to Iowa and to the United States. I was very sorry when I recently learned that Bill is in poor health. I wish him the best and my prayers are with him and his family. I am glad that we have this opportunity now to recognize Bill and his service to his State and his Nation. I would like to thank Chairman Collins for her help in allowing this bill to be moved quickly through the Government Affairs Committee and the Senate. I know that Congressman King, who follows in Congressman Scherle's footsteps, has sponsored a similar measure in the House with the support of others from the Iowa delegation. Those who know Bill Scherle or know of his legacy understand why this honor is so appropriate and I hope this bill can be enacted very soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I rise in strong support of granting normal trade relations status to Serbia and Montenegro, which was revoked from Yugoslavia under U.S. sanctions in 1992. Senator Voinovich submitted an amendment to the Department of State Authorization bill to grant normal trade relations status to Serbia and Montenegro. However, because this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, which I chair, I felt it necessary to object to including the provision on that piece of legislation. Still, I understand Senator's Voinovich's frustration. The Finance Committee reported out legislation which would renew normal trade relations status for Serbia and Montenegro on March 20, 2003, in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, S. 671. This bill generally passes each year by unanimous consent in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill has been held up for months by the insistence of some Senators on including an unrelated, controversial provision to the bill. This provision cannot be included in the bill because other Senators will object. By holding up this important piece of legislation, U.S. manufacturers and workers whose businesses rely on duty suspensions are being harmed. They are losing money, and facing the possibility of laying off workers every day that we fail to act. This is important legislation, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks so. Sixty-six of my colleagues sent a letter to the Majority Leader, urging him to bring up S. 671 for a vote. I support their efforts, and hope this vitally important legislation will move as soon as possible. I would like to thank Senator Voinovich for raising the issue, and ask that all my colleagues recognize not only the importance, but the urgency of this legislation. I will submit for the record a letter in support for NTR for Serbia and Montenegro, from the America's Development Foundation, ADF, a nonprofit organization assisting the international development of democracy. The ADF is working in Serbia to promote economic and social development through a program called Community Revitalization through Democratic Action, or CRDA. I will continue to try and pass normal trade relations for Serbia and Montenegro and appreciate my colleague's strong support and advocacy on the issue. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Is the amendment before us now?

Mr. GRASSLEY. We have looked at the amendment on this side. It has been modified, and I urge we accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I use my time, I have a unanimous consent request. That unanimous consent request is that the time lapse between the next two votes be 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, from a parliamentary point of view, this amendment, if adopted, would subject the entire bill to a budget point of order. We have enough people in this body who maybe do not want a prescription drug bill that could take down the whole bill. The other reason is, all the concerns the Senator has mentioned we have taken into account within the $400 billion capability of our legislation. We have before us this $400 billion to provide prescription drug benefits to our seniors. We have used that $400 billion to help low-income seniors with prescription drug costs if they have cancer, diabetes, or anything else for which they need drugs. We have used the $400 billion to limit the catastrophic costs of prescription drugs to all seniors. We do not create two drug classes for the sick and the ill, and that is why we should move forward with this amendment so it does not bring down the whole bill on a potential budget point of order. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Kyl, to withdraw the Kyl amendment to the Grassley amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is unfair for Members of the other side of the aisle to give us statistics that say 89 percent of the seniors are in for fee-for-service Medicare and only 11 percent are in Medicare+Choice and that is a nationwide average. It is an accurate statistic, but it does not speak to the seniors of America who like Medicare+Choice and I have figures from four cities--Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. In Miami, 45 percent of the senior citizens have chosen managed care, the Medicare+Choice option, as opposed to fee-for-service; New York, 22 percent; San Francisco, 29 percent. In Chicago, it was only 6 percent. That may be one reason why Senator Durbin keeps bringing this up quite regularly. This data is from the Congressional Research Service, and it is as recent as March 2003. When people, wherever they are in the Senate, want to denigrate Medicare+Choice by saying only 11 percent of the people in this country join in and that is such a small percentage and that these figures are evidence it is not liked, go to Miami and ask 45 percent of the citizens who belong to Medicare+Choice why they like it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Two things for my colleagues to consider during the consideration of how to vote on this amendment: No. 1 is the money that is available to pay for his amendment, an offset, is the very same amount of money we, Senator Baucus and I, are using to offset the cost of a lot of demonstration projects that colleagues have asked us to do, a lot of minor amendments they have asked us to do. If that money is not there, there cannot be consideration given. That is not a threat; it is just a practical aspect of how the budget law works. Secondly, remember, these dual eligibles are being taken care of very well in our underlying legislation. The point being, they will not be taken care of better. It is just it is going to cost the Federal Government more. I hope you will take those things into consideration and vote down this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I commend Senator Hagel and Senator Ensign because they have been working very carefully over the last few years to help move this process along. They have had a different approach than I have had. I have had what I call a comprehensive, universal, voluntary approach. They have had one that is more targeted toward low-income people and toward catastrophic. We deal with that in our legislation, but we are very comprehensive. We are very universal. I don't attack their attempt, but it is just not as good as what is before the Senate. S. 1 already reflects the influence of their plan by providing a drug discount card which will give seniors access to discounted drug prices. I would like to point out a few things. The Hagel-Ensign plan has two laudable objectives: to protect seniors against catastrophic costs and to ensure that low-income seniors are fully protected. I am happy to report that S. 1 already meets these goals. S. 1 provides a generous protection for low-income beneficiaries, very generous. It also covers fully 90 percent of beneficiaries' out-of- pocket costs beyond $3,700. Most seniors don't have catastrophic drug costs and thus would not see any benefit from the coverage in the Hagel-Ensign plan. S. 1, on the other hand, would provide a significant basic benefit to most seniors each year. Passing a drug bill that most seniors would see no benefit from is a prescription for disaster. I am afraid of that. So S. 1 already meets the main goals of the Hagel-Ensign plan, but it provides additional value to a much broader group of beneficiaries as well, the underlying bill, the one that they amend, the one they would decimate. Another thing S. 1 does very well is use competition to maximize value to the taxpayers. There has been some concern that S. 1 doesn't have as much competitive reform as many of us would have preferred. But the Hagel-Ensign plan has far less reform and is much more government run. I would like to explain: First, this amendment would rule out any true competition in the delivery of Medicare drug benefits. S. 1 would let private drug plans assume a modest amount of financial risk, giving them an incentive to drive hard bargains and keep taxpayers' costs down. It seems to me that is very significant--the difference between the underlying bill and their bill. We are going to drive drug prices down more through competition. The Hagel-Ensign plan, it is pretty obvious from my point of view, allows for no such exemption, specifically mandating that the Government--in this case we are talking about the taxpayers--bears all the financial risk for delivering the benefit, much as Senator Bob Graham's did the last year when we debated this very issue. Under this amendment, the benefit would be delivered just like other Medicare benefits are today--by contractors that merely pay the claims that come in without any effort whatsoever, no effort to contain costs. Second, the Hagel amendment doesn't include any of the improvements to the Medicare Program that President Bush has proposed and our bill includes. It does not include the role for private preferred provider organization plans to deliver an improved Medicare benefit package. It doesn't make modern innovations such as disease management services or rational cost sharing available to beneficiaries who choose them. It simply dumps a catastrophic drug benefit on to the 1965 vintage Medicare system. What the people of this country need is improvement in Medicare, strengthening of Medicare, voluntary, universal, comprehensive. The Ensign plan wouldn't improve S. 1, but it would make it substantially worse. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments and the following pending amendments be adopted en bloc and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table: Amendment No. 1017, Allard; No. 968, Harkin; No. 948, Graham of South Carolina; No. 960, Dayton; No. 1054, Feingold; No. 1030, Enzi.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and that the following amendments be called up en bloc: No. 1122, Brownback; No. 1074, Coleman; No. 1023, Collins; No. 1114, Kyl; No. 1115, Kyl; No. 1045, Chambliss; No. 1058, Craig; No. 1117, Baucus; No. 1044, Bayh; No. 1056, Shelby; No. 996, Reed of Rhode Island; Bond amendment No. 1013; Kyl, No. 1128; Collins, No. 989, as modified; Dole, No. 1126, with Edwards added as a cosponsor; Reed of Rhode Island, No. 996; Specter, No. 1118; Specter, No. 1085.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Collins amendment, amendment No. 989, be modified with modifications that I send to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the vote by which amendment No. 1040 was adopted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton's amendment, No. 960, be modified with the modification that I send to the desk.