Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for Senator McCain. He is very consistent. I want to only argue with one point. This is a national facility. It was located decades ago in my State for reasons that I believe are closely related to Iowa State University being a very good land grant and research institution. Second, the issue of whether this is legitimate at this point is best justified by the fact that this renovation has already been reauthorized, and this is just one more step by the Congress in carrying out a decision that Congress previously made that this facility that is now decades old should be renovated for the good of the safety of food in the United States.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to express some concern to the Appropriations Committee about the report language that was included regarding the supplemental request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The Senate report indicates that the committee considers their funding of the President's request as a downpayment on funding for the next fiscal year. I would like to ask the committee to reconsider taking this position without a greater examination of both the 2004 request and how the supplemental funding will be used. I believe penalizing the 2004 request because of needed funds today will hamper the effectiveness of this program, particularly when it seems we may be turning the corner. This request is designed to support our current efforts in Colombia, which are occurring at a significantly higher operational pace than was anticipated when the current fiscal year budget was developed. Since the fiscal year 2004 budget was created, we have seen a wave in urban bombings, the launch of a rescue mission for kidnapped American citizens, a significant increase in the violent attacks against our spray aircraft, and an increase in the violent attacks against President Uribe and other top Colombian officials. These increased threats need to be countered now, and require a revision in the original budget estimates on what will be spent both this fiscal year and next. The supplemental funding is necessary to continue current operations at their current pace. By including the President's request in this bill, the committee is recognizing this need. But we should not penalize next year's efforts by counting this supplemental appropriations against the 2004 request. I strongly urge the committee to reconsider holding this needed supplemental funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative against the fiscal year 2004 request.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Diamond Trade Act. Technically, this act will implement a certification process for imports of rough diamonds. But, as many of you know, this bill goes far beyond technicalities. This bill will help put an end to trade in conflict diamonds. As many of you know, conflict diamonds are diamonds mined and used by rebel movements in many African nations as a source of revenue to fuel armed conflict and the activities of rebel movements aimed at undermining or overthrowing legitimate governments in African countries. Millions of people have been driven from their homes by wars that have been fought for control of these diamonds. Families and entire countries have been torn apart. That is why it is vitally important that we pass this legislation. Passage of this legislation would be a true bipartisan success and a significant step forward in stopping trade in conflict diamonds. And I would like to thank my colleagues for helping to develop the compromise legislation in this Act. I would especially like to recognize the hard work of Senators Gregg, DeWine, Durbin, Bingaman, and Feingold, whose devotion and dedication to stopping trade in conflict diamonds is unsurpassed. Prior attempts to move similar bills have stalled in both the House and the Senate. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I took great care to try and achieve the right balance so that we might implement a certification process that meets our international responsibilities, that can pass the House and the Senate, and most importantly, that works. The Clean Diamond Trade Act will implement the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. This is an international agreement establishing minimal acceptable international standards for national certification schemes relating to cross-border trade in rough diamonds. It represents over two years of negotiations among more than 50 countries, human rights advocacy groups, the diamond industry and non-government organizations. The next plenary session of the Kimberley Process is scheduled to convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, from April 28 to the 30, 2003. The U.S. played a leadership role in crafting the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, and it is critical that we implement the certification process before April 28 if we are to retain this leadership. We also need to do this to ensure that the flow of legitimate diamonds into and out of the United States will continue without interruption. Most important, we need to do everything we can to stop trade in conflict diamonds as soon as possible. Mr. President, we plan to mark-up this legislation in the Finance Committee tomorrow morning. I am confident the bill will receive strong bipartisan support in committee and am hopeful we can pass this bill by unanimous consent in the full Senate before we adjourn for the April recess. The people and countries in Africa affected by the damage of conflict diamonds deserve our support. Passing this bill is the right thing to do.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Diamond Trade Act. Technically, this act will implement a certification process for imports of rough diamonds. But, as many of you know, this bill goes far beyond technicalities. This bill will help put an end to trade in conflict diamonds. As many of you know, conflict diamonds are diamonds mined and used by rebel movements in many African nations as a source of revenue to fuel armed conflict and the activities of rebel movements aimed at undermining or overthrowing legitimate governments in African countries. Millions of people have been driven from their homes by wars that have been fought for control of these diamonds. Families and entire countries have been torn apart. That is why it is vitally important that we pass this legislation. Passage of this legislation would be a true bipartisan success and a significant step forward in stopping trade in conflict diamonds. And I would like to thank my colleagues for helping to develop the compromise legislation in this Act. I would especially like to recognize the hard work of Senators Gregg, DeWine, Durbin, Bingaman, and Feingold, whose devotion and dedication to stopping trade in conflict diamonds is unsurpassed. Prior attempts to move similar bills have stalled in both the House and the Senate. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I took great care to try and achieve the right balance so that we might implement a certification process that meets our international responsibilities, that can pass the House and the Senate, and most importantly, that works. The Clean Diamond Trade Act will implement the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. This is an international agreement establishing minimal acceptable international standards for national certification schemes relating to cross-border trade in rough diamonds. It represents over two years of negotiations among more than 50 countries, human rights advocacy groups, the diamond industry and non-government organizations. The next plenary session of the Kimberley Process is scheduled to convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, from April 28 to the 30, 2003. The U.S. played a leadership role in crafting the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, and it is critical that we implement the certification process before April 28 if we are to retain this leadership. We also need to do this to ensure that the flow of legitimate diamonds into and out of the United States will continue without interruption. Most important, we need to do everything we can to stop trade in conflict diamonds as soon as possible. Mr. President, we plan to mark-up this legislation in the Finance Committee tomorrow morning. I am confident the bill will receive strong bipartisan support in committee and am hopeful we can pass this bill by unanimous consent in the full Senate before we adjourn for the April recess. The people and countries in Africa affected by the damage of conflict diamonds deserve our support. Passing this bill is the right thing to do.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today after hearing several reports of the continued problem of methamphetamine production in rural America. Law enforcement must dedicate more and more resources to the small, ``ma and pa'' meth labs. These small labs pose a threat not only because of the drugs they produce, but also the serious health and environmental risk caused by the production process. In years past, methamphetamine production was controlled by skilled chemists or well-educated individuals who were paid significant amounts of money to manufacture the narcotic. Methamphetamine production at times took an entire day to produce. Today, with modern technology and the help of information readily available over the Internet, methamphetamine production can be accomplished within a very few hours. Production no longer takes a highly skilled individual or chemist. Recipes for producing meth can be downloaded off the Internet, complete with step-by-step instructions anyone can follow. These recipes use products available at any number of local retail outlets as ingredients, first reducing them to the needed chemical components and then recombining them to produce meth. Small cooks, often producing only enough meth for themselves and a few friends, dominate the concerns of rural law enforcement organizations. Several of the narcotics task forces in Iowa report that while they believe over 80 percent of the meth within their jurisdiction comes from outside the State, they spend 80 percent of their time and resources on these small cooks. If we are going to get ahead of this problem, we must change this ratio. Several years ago we took some important steps in limiting access to many of the precursors needed for meth production. These were good steps, and have proven somewhat effective. But more needs to be done. Officers from the Southeast Iowa Task Force will tell you stories of suspects they have followed all over the county, stopping at each convenience store, supermarket, and drug store they passed to pick up as much cold medicine as they could. Not because they were sick, but because they needed the ephedrine in these drugs to cook meth. Sometimes it is purchased, but just as often it is stolen. These suspects were followed back to apartments, farm houses, motel rooms, or even deserted areas of gravel roads where the cold medicines were combined with other chemicals like starter flud, anhydrous ammonia, and drain cleaner solvents for a ``cook'' of methamphetamine. This is all too common anyplace we find meth being cooked by amateurs using recipes off the Internet. There are several different recipes for cooking meth. In rural areas, many of the small cooks use a receipt calling for anhydrous ammonia, which is a fertilizer readily available wherever farming occurs. Other recipes call for the use of red phosphorous, the common ingredient in emergency road flares. But all of these recipes need some form of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in cold medicine. If we make it more difficult for meth cooks to acquire ephedrine, then it will be more difficult for them to manufacture this poison. Several proposals have been put forth by the DEA and others which would help control access to ephedrine products. Many of these have merit, and I hope we will continue to pursue these proposals. One method that could be very effective would be to put products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine behind the counter, such as is currently do with cigarettes. Other proposals would increase the penalties for possession of excessive amounts of precursor chemicals for meth. Some quarters have suggested collecting names or even social security numbers for everyone who purchases products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. Clearly, each of these proposed solutions brings its own set of challenges. But new steps need to be taken. Spending 80 percent of the time on 20 percent of the problem is not a way to get ahead. Increasing the difficulty of getting the products needed to do a small ``cook'' of meth decreases the likelihood these ``cooks'' will take place at all. While none of these proposals will stop all of the ma and pa meth operations, the status quo is not acceptable. Our cops are being overwhelmed, and our kids are dying--we cannot remain silent.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the junior Senator from Louisiana for her bringing this important issue to the committee's attention. The Congress has an obligation to see to the well being of the men and women who are defending this Nation even now. For these reasons, the committee has adopted S. 351, and we would like to pass that legislation immediately. I know it contains provisions of deep interest to the Senator from Louisiana, and she would agree that the sooner they are enacted the better. However, I share her concern about the need to take whatever steps we can to support our troops and their families. For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that the S. 351 is the correct vehicle to address this problem. I do recognize that the issue appears to have drawn broad support as similar proposals have been introduced by Senators DeWine and Allen. I say to my friend from Louisiana, I will work with her and Senators DeWine and Allen on including the Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act in the reconciliation package that we will bring to the floor soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Montana. I share Senator Pryor's interest in a GAO study and will be glad to work with him on a letter. And, obviously, a person such as I, who relies upon the GAO for so much study on matters in which I am involved, would not discourage my colleague from likewise seeking the General Accounting Office's expertise and look forward to what such a study would show in regard to the treatment of our military personnel. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today for the very sad purpose of honoring a fallen American. I learned this morning that Sgt Bradley Korthaus of Davenport, Iowa, has died while in service to his country as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would like to take this opportunity to salute his patriotism and his sacrifice. Sgt Korthaus disappeared Monday during an operation in which he and three other Marines were swimming across a canal in southeastern Iraq, and his body has now been recovered. This is the first Iowan who has died in the current conflict in Iraq and the news has hit home with me and my staff. We all know that sacrifice is part of war, and the President has tried to prepare us for the inevitable losses; but it is impossible to fully prepare for the loss of a young life. My prayers go out to Steve and Marilyn Korthaus who grieve for their son and to all of the family, friends, and neighbors who are touched by his passing. There is nothing I can say that can take away the pain they must feel, but they should know that they are not alone in their grief. Iowans have a strong sense of community and I know that Bradley's loss will be felt deeply by many who never even knew him. Bradley Korthaus deserves the highest gratitude of this body and the entire Nation. His sacrifice reminds us that freedom is so precious because of its incredibly high cost. Bradley's father served in Vietnam and Bradley followed that tradition of service to his country. This is an example of the patriotic contribution made by thousands of American service members and their families. The love of country and dedication to service shared by so many of its citizens is the great strength of our Nation and we can all be very proud of patriots like Bradley Korthaus.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to be before the Senate again in a working relationship with Senator Baucus, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Finance Committee. It is another example of legislation that comes out of our committee in the bipartisan tradition of our committee, and this one came out, I believe, with unanimous support. I very much appreciate not only the cooperation of Senator Baucus, but other members on the Democratic side of the committee, for helping us move along a very important piece of legislation, one that was very important last fall when we did not get it passed but more important now because it deals with our people in the military and because of what is going on in Iraq at this moment. We are here today to consider the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act which the Finance Committee developed during this and the last Congress. This is a particularly somber time in our country as we continue our dangerous operations in the country of Iraq. The contributions of the men and women of our uniformed services, our reservists and our National Guard, are foremost in our minds, and our thoughts and prayers remain with their loved ones and with families. I particularly wish to extend my condolences to the family of SGT Bradley Korthaus of Davenport, IA, whose death was reported yesterday. SGT Korthaus died while serving his Marine Corps engineering unit in southeast Iraq. So we have before us legislation affecting all of these men and women, legislation to ensure that our service men and women and their families are treated fairly under tax law. It seems to me this legislation is particularly timely. The military bill we consider today rectifies a number of inequities faced by the uniformed services, our National Guard, and even Foreign Service personnel. For example, this legislation before the Senate now ensures that the families of military personnel called into active duty are not disadvantaged under the home sale exclusion provisions that affect many homeowners in the United States because most Americans are permitted to exclude built-in gain on the sale of their personal residence if they meet certain residency requirements. The situation for military personnel owning a home is entirely different because we know that military personnel, called to active duty or asked to relocate, do not have the flexibility to meet these residency requirements and are consequently then adversely impacted by these rules. The Tax Code is unfair to them because they have no control over where they are going to live because they are called to meet the command of a military commanding officer to move out to someplace else. The legislation, then, would suspend the residency test for periods of active duty aggregating no more than 10 years. We should obviously not punish members of our military and their families who are asked to relocate in the name of serving their country and protecting our national security, protecting our freedoms. To that extent, the Tax Code is unfair so that they get punished in ways that people who are nonmilitary and can control more of their lives would not be punished. Another important issue weighing on the minds of many military personnel called into active duty is the well-being and the care of their children. The Federal Government works to ensure that military families have adequate and affordable access to child care, as we should. This is an important function of the military during peacetime, but it is essential, even more so, during periods of conflict such as the one we are experiencing in Iraq. The need is that much more pressing obviously for single parents and dual military career families. This legislation clarifies that dependent care benefits provided to families of the uniformed services will not be treated as taxable compensation. In recent days, the press has focused significantly on the impending service contributions of our Reserve, military people, and National Guard members. To date, we have more than 200,000 reservists and National Guard being called to active duty, most of them called for the sole purpose of assisting Operation Iraqi Freedom. This includes, in my own State of Iowa, 3,500 men and women who have been called to active duty. We have begun to rely increasingly on these service personnel to defend our borders and serve and protect in other areas of the world, meeting their commitment to our total force concept of the military. Many of Iowa's reservists have contacted me to emphasize that reservists who travel for training exercises that they do on weekends, or any other time, are required to spend their own money for these travel expenses. If our military is not able to reimburse reservists for travel expenses related to training assignments, we should, at a very minimum, allow these men and women to fully deduct those expenses on their Federal tax returns and not be hit by some threshold that precludes most of these deductions from being taken. Reservists should not be in a position of subsidizing their own military training. Among other things, this legislation also ensures that military personnel serving in Secretary of Defense-designated contingency operations--and this would include Operation Desert Storm and presumably now Operation Iraqi Freedom--receive appropriate relief from the administrative burdens that our tax laws foist upon them during participation in those operations. In closing, we all thank the men and women of the U.S. military and Reserve components. The onset of the conflict in Iraq, no doubt, renews our deep appreciation for the tremendous sacrifices and risks that they undertake to protect the freedom of American people and others around the world. It is a perfect time then to ensure that our military is more fairly treated under our country's tax laws. That is what this legislation is all about. So I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this legislation. I urge each of my colleagues to vote for this very important tax fairness measure, particularly considering the importance of it at this time of sacrifice on the battlefield of Iraq. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we all have an opportunity today to show support for our men and women in uniform in faraway places such as Iraq. The bill before us is the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act. It is a bipartisan product. The bill represents the Senate's position pretty much as it was last year when this bill was brought up in the Senate. The revenue loss of the military tax relief package is offset with a crackdown on tax-motivated expatriates. I ask my colleagues to please show their support for our troops and support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, next week we are going to have a supplemental appropriations bill of at least $75 billion before the Congress of the United States for the funding necessary for the military action in Iraq, at least for the early part of that action, which number could not have been decided when we passed the appropriations bills in January because at that point there would not have been any military action. I raise this issue now in conjunction with what there is in international law in regard to a victorious power in a nation, after the war is done, of what can be used of the natural resources of a country for the victorious country to administer the nation as well as to rebuild that nation. The reason I raise these points about international law is because there is very clear international law about what a victorious nation can do and cannot do in regard to the resources of the defeated nation. I raise this issue at this point because I want to make sure the American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding Iraq that can be legitimately paid for, under international law, out of the resources of Iraq. After the first full week of the conflict, the allied forces have pushed well into the country, liberating Iraqi populations across western and southern Iraq. These developments, then, raise an issue that must be explored and discussed before we obligate taxpayers' money to rebuilding Iraq; that is, with regard to the United States and allied occupation of Iraq, what does international law tell us? What does international law dictate with regard to our rights as the occupying power to administer Iraq's oil resources and our obligations to the citizens of Iraq? The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention provide the basis for international law with regard to the obligations and rights of an occupying power. They provide specific guidelines for administering the resources of the occupied territory and the obligations of the occupying power to provide for the welfare and the safety of the occupied people. With regard to the rights of an occupying power to use public property and resources, article 53 of Hague regulations of 1907 provides that an occupying power can only take possession of state- owned property, and any seizure of private property must be restored and compensation provided when peace is made. Further, article 55 provides: The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State. The rules of usufruct provide a tenant--in this case it would be the United States or the coalition forces--the right to use and enjoy the profits of property owned by Iraq, as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. In addition, the allied forces may use the public assets only for the benefit of Iraq and the Iraqi people, and to defray the costs of administration. Secretary Powell recently reaffirmed this right. When discussing the issue of oilfields, he stated: You can be sure that they [meaning the oilfields] would be protected and the revenue generated from any such oil fields would be used in accordance with international law and to the benefit of the Iraqi people. The occupying power may also take possession of public movable property only if such property can be directly or indirectly used for military operations. Clearly, Iraq's oil reserves are susceptible to military use and thereby subject to seizure by U.S. military forces under the laws of war to restore Iraq. In addition, the oil produced from Iraqi wells may be considered similar to the produce of public land which, under article 55, may be appropriated by the occupying power. With regard to the obligations of the occupying power, article 43 of Hague regulations of 1907 state: The authority of the legitimate power, having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take steps in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. The Geneva Convention, relevant to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, states that the occupying power is also responsible for establishing a direct system of administration and maintaining the public order. The key restriction to the use of Iraq's oil is that the proceeds are limited to occupation purposes, which includes measures taken in the furtherance of fulfilling that obligation that I just read under article 43, to reestablish peace and order to Iraq. Clearly, international law provides that the United States is entitled to use the money from oil sales to pay for such obligations as long as food and water, health care, roads and bridges, schools and airports, as examples. Once a viable Iraqi government is established, the oilfields must be returned to Iraq in a reasonable condition. One final issue for debate will be the role of the U.N. in the reconstruction and administration of Iraq. For example, what will remain of the United Nations Oil For Food Program in post-Saddam Iraq? Given the U.N.'s inability to fulfill its obligations with regard to enforcing Security Council Resolution 1441, it is unclear whether the U.N. will be relevant at all in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq. It is my hope that the U.N. will follow the lead of the United States, Britain, and the other 40 or more allies currently in Iraq enforcing the U.N. resolutions. After all, it must be made very clear that the resources of Iraq will finally be available for the use of the Iraqi people, for the betterment of those same people. For far too long, we know the prisoners of Saddam's regime have been deprived of their country's riches and forced to survive as peasants. While the responsibility for providing for the welfare of the Iraqi people belonged to Saddam Hussein, he was, as we know, more interested in spending it on himself in the form of elaborate palaces and in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi people will finally share in the wealth of their country that has always belonged to them rather than Saddam sharing it with his family and the cronies of his brutal regime. I hope the Congress will take into consideration the rights the taxpayers of the United States have under this Geneva Convention, to make sure the resources for the rebuilding of Iraq come from Iraqi natural resources and not from the American taxpayers. That should be fully taken into consideration, as some of the money we appropriate next week will probably be used for that purpose of at first establishing administration in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm. Last year, the Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target Federal assistance to small-and medium-sized family farmers. The amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to $75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to $150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of $275,000. That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa and indeed farmers across the Nation. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa and failed all of our farmers when it failed to effectively address the issue of payment limitations. A solid majority in the Budget Committee voted last week in favor of a payment limitation provision to limit total payments of all kinds to a combined limit of $300,000. This is more than I think is necessary. It is $25,000 more than the limit that won over two-thirds of the Senate. But in the interests of compromise it seems like a fair approach. The most important thing is that loopholes in the payment limitation law be closed so that the limitation at whatever level is actually the real, effective level. The Budget Committee voted to apply the savings from this reasonable payment limit proposal against the reductions suffered by the Conservation Security Program, CSP, during consideration of the agricultural disaster package in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. This new conservation initiative from the 2002 farm bill will reward farmers and ranchers who voluntarily implement effective conservation on their working lands. Farmers and ranchers will receive public support as they provide public benefits to the Nation's natural resources and environment. This program allows family farmers to solve critical resource problems, with graduated rewards for increasing efforts. The CSP is an innovative new program in the Federal agricultural conservation toolbox and its full funding should be restored as soon as possible. The Budget Committee endorsed payment limitation reform including a combined maximum cap of $300,000 and endorsed restoring funds to the Conservation Security Program. Payment limitation reform is long overdue, a fact reflected in the vote of the Budget Committee. If cuts should be ordered in the final budget resolution emerging from conference, payment limitations would be the most logical place to look for savings. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will work with both Senators and other interested Members to provide for consideration of legislation to provide reimbursement to health providers who provide federally required, but uncompensated, emergency health treatment to undocumented aliens.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, obviously, like on so many issues, I happen to agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. But where do you make this decision? You don't make it on the Budget Committee. You make it on the Finance Committee. I am committed to having a drug benefit for all seniors. We developed such a bill last year, so we have the capability of doing it. We are going to do it this year. I do not want this decision made here. I do not want to curb the freedom of the Finance Committee. I argued the same point on an issue that friends on the other side of the aisle would have agreed with me, on a Medicaid issue, that would have been in this budget that is not in the budget. Leave these issues to a committee of competence, the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Which amendment is this?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night the President addressed the Nation to announce that coalition forces were in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger. This action was taken as a last resort against an evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, who for 12 years has continued to defy and evade his commitments and responsibilities set out for him by 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions. I believe Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, and for this reason I supported the resolution authorizing the President to take military action if diplomatic efforts were unsuccessful. And, while some Members of this body did not support the authorization for the use of force back in October, I am confident that we here, Republicans and Democrats, stand united in our support for our uniformed personnel now in harm's way. During the past few weeks and months, I have seen and heard communities all across my State send off, with tearful eyes, their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and moms and dads who have been called to serve. These brave men and women, from Decorah to Muscatine, Red Oak, to Mason City, Pocahontas to Davenport, stood proud while high school bands played the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and local religious leaders prayed for their safe return. Over 3,700 Reserve and National Guard troops in Iowa have been called up for active duty. They come from all professions and all economic backgrounds. I commend them, and all those serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, for their courage, bravery and patriotism. I am grateful for the enormous sacrifice made by these men and women and their families. I could not be more honored by their commitment to freedom, and I will continue to pray for their quick and safe return home to their loved ones.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address Senators Lautenberg and Corzine's proposed amendment to the budget resolution. Superfund and the cleanup of pollution sites should be an important concern to all of us. We must be concerned that our future generations are not jeopardized by past inactions. But this amendment has been offered in an inapproprate forum, at an inappropriate place, using an inappropriate procedural method and I have voted no. As chairman of the Finance Committee, we will be able to consider this issue under more appropriate circumstances.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself time. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I obviously do not rise in opposition to the goals the Senator from Maryland seeks, because I, along with Senator Graham of Florida--the two of us are sponsors of an amendment that would provide a $3,000 tax credit for family caregiving. But what we are involved with here is taking money from the tax reduction fund to put into another program. What we need to do is keep the tax reduction fund very strong because it is a growth package, it is a job package. We want to create jobs. We want an economic environment so when our men and women come home from Iraq there are jobs for our men and women. There is no job creation now. We want to create jobs. It is going to take a tax cut to create jobs.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, obviously we need to be very bold in our response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks who sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do the centrists led by Senators Breaux and Snowe. The question is a difference of the size of the tax cut. I say be bold. We want American businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances. I understand the concerns of my friends from the centrist coalition. They are worried about long-term deficits. I am as well. I am more worried, though, about the spending side of the ledger. Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. We need more than $350 billion in tax relief to do the job the right way. Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number that, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I will work with. The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can. My point is, the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number above $350 billion. There is a war going on. When those men and women come home from the battlefield, we want a growing economy so that those folks will have jobs.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, not because Medicare is not a very legitimate subject of discussion; it is. The difference between this year and last year, last year we did not have a budget resolution. The process this year is a very orderly process toward getting us a prescription drug program as part of Medicare. That very orderly process is, first of all, to have a budget resolution. It is a very orderly process. We are going to have a budget resolution this year. We are going to have $100 billion more for Medicare/prescription drugs than the last time we debated this. Most of the people on the other side of the aisle 2 years ago helped us get a $300 billion figure. We have a $400 billion figure. We have a Senate majority leader who is committed to the committee process working. Out of the Finance Committee in June, we will produce a good prescription drug program for the Senate to debate this summer. I urge Members to vote against the amendment. I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I start by congratulating the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, on his fine work. One of the reasons for the problems of last session was the absence, for the first time in a generation, of a budget resolution. Chairman Nickles has carried the President's budget to the floor and been a loyal lieutenant for our Commander in Chief. It looks as if much of the President's budget may remain intact, but it is also true that the budget will change somewhat. Let me make it clear. I support the President's budget, including the tax cut number and the growth package. I believe we need a bold response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks that sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do the centrists, led by Senators Breaux and Snowe. Where the Democratic caucus, the Republican caucus, and the centrists differ is on the number we allocate for growth proposals. The debate we have this afternoon is about that number. Really, though, the debate is about whether we should be bold, cautious, or timid. The President and most of the Republican caucus want to be bold. We want American businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances. The Democratic leadership's proposed growth package yields a net tax increase of $11.7 billion. That package also contains new spending of $118.7 billion. I call that a timid response to the flagging economy. Now, let's turn to the Breaux-Snowe-Baucus-Voinovich amendment. I understand the concerns of my friends from the Centrist Coalition. They are worried about long-term deficits. I am too. I am more worried about the spending side of the ledger. The Centrists are focusing on the tax cut side only. It is important that the Centrists' amendment does place the tax cut reduction into deficit reduction. There is, however, no guarantee that the $375 billion will not be spent in subsequent amendments on this resolution. Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. In 2001, they, along with Senator Baucus, were critical supporters of the bipartisan tax relief package. They are widely known for their efforts to find bipartisan consensus on Medicare. I will be looking to this group when we take up Medicare legislation later this year. Senators Breaux and Snowe suggest that the middle ground is splitting the difference between the President's number of $726 billion and the Democratic leadership's position. I am opposed to this amendment because we need more than $350 billion to do the job the right way. Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number the Finance Committee will work with. The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can. My point is that the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number above $350 billion. Now, some view the net $350 billion as a vote against the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. I support the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. It is good tax policy and it is good economic policy. This vote is not about the dividends proposal. The Finance Committee, in its bipartisan way, will decide the composition of the growth package. To my moderate friends, let me say something in conclusion. No matter where the number ends up, I expect Senator Baucus and I will produce a bipartisan growth package. The Breaux-Snowe amendment, while well intentioned, does not provide the Finance Committee with the tools necessary to do the job of delivering a bold growth package to the American people. Amendment No. 363