Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important children's care policy. They are correct that something must be done to address the funds that have and will revert to the Treasury in the near future. They are also correct to the constraints within the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a program that provides health care for over 16,000 low- income children in my State. Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP funds. The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP funding taking into account that some States are spending through their existing allotments and other States are ramping up their programs and will need additional funding in the years to come. This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I cannot support including this policy at this time. The omnibus is a poor vehicle for this necessary maintenance. I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and the House have an agreement with the administration to keep the omnibus appropriations bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over $1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I appreciate the willingness of Senators Snowe, Chafee, and Rockefeller to accept this reality. I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as chairman of the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP. With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this issue is to work with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion. I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, bicameral 2-year agreement on S-CHIP.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden today in introducing the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This is a continuation of an effort he and I spearheaded last year to update our laws so they can continue to be used effectively against drug dealers who are pushing drugs on our kids. As drug dealers discover new drugs and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this legislation does that. Our proposal will modify the existing crack house statute so that its jurisdiction over temporary events, such as raves, would be more clear. And although this legislation grew out of the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. Illegal drug use in any location should not be tolerated, regardless of what cover activity is created to hide the transaction. This said, I want to emphasize that our legislation should in no way hamper the activities of legitimate event promoters. I realize that drugs are not widely available at all raves or other events open to the public. And I know that my colleagues Senator Biden is just as aware as I am that drug use occurs at events without the knowledge or endorsement of the event promoters. This legislation should not affect the activities of legitimate event promoters. In no way is our bill aimed at stifling any type of music or public expression, it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids. The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit narcotics is Ecstasy--an especially popular club drug that is all too often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects. In general, Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to cool off--a fact that some unscrupulous event promoters take advantage of by charging exorbitant fees for bottles of water, after cutting off water to drinking fountains and rest room sinks. Too often, Ecstasy users collapse and die because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward to long-term problems such as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain. Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Ecstasy is readily accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to this drug or ignore the consequences of its use. That is why I believe it is important that we update the laws that have been effectively used to shut down crack houses so they can go after temporary events used as a cover to sell drugs. It is important to remember that this legislation builds upon an existing statute, with existing case law, and therefore existing standards of how it is to be implemented. The existing statute has been used to go after landlords who ``knowingly and intentionally'' let their property be used for illegal narcotics activities. It has not, nor should it be used, to take action against every landlord of every property where drug activity takes place. Similarly, the expansion of authorities created by this legislation is designed to target promoters who ``knowingly and intentionally'' allow drug use at their events. This is a high standard that should protect event promoters from casual application of this statute. Clearly, taking steps to reduce or eliminate drug use at an event, such as the posting of signs or through zero-tolerance instructions to security personnel, are not actions that would be taken by someone who would intentionally allow drug use to occur at an event. I believe an event promoter does have some responsibility for what goes on at an event that they create. Particularly if they knowingly create an event for the purpose of buying, using, keeping, or selling drugs. While not common, there have been court cases which have been able to reach this high standard of proof. Using 21 U.S.C. 856, more popularly known as the ``crack house'' statute, law enforcement has arrested drug dealers who hosted raves and other dance events as a cover to push their product. Four cases have been brought to Federal court, with mixed results--mostly because the applicability of current law is unclear. This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at risk. Ecstasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and help us work towards its quick passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden today in introducing the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This is a continuation of an effort he and I spearheaded last year to update our laws so they can continue to be used effectively against drug dealers who are pushing drugs on our kids. As drug dealers discover new drugs and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this legislation does that. Our proposal will modify the existing crack house statute so that its jurisdiction over temporary events, such as raves, would be more clear. And although this legislation grew out of the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. Illegal drug use in any location should not be tolerated, regardless of what cover activity is created to hide the transaction. This said, I want to emphasize that our legislation should in no way hamper the activities of legitimate event promoters. I realize that drugs are not widely available at all raves or other events open to the public. And I know that my colleagues Senator Biden is just as aware as I am that drug use occurs at events without the knowledge or endorsement of the event promoters. This legislation should not affect the activities of legitimate event promoters. In no way is our bill aimed at stifling any type of music or public expression, it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids. The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit narcotics is Ecstasy--an especially popular club drug that is all too often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects. In general, Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to cool off--a fact that some unscrupulous event promoters take advantage of by charging exorbitant fees for bottles of water, after cutting off water to drinking fountains and rest room sinks. Too often, Ecstasy users collapse and die because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward to long-term problems such as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain. Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Ecstasy is readily accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to this drug or ignore the consequences of its use. That is why I believe it is important that we update the laws that have been effectively used to shut down crack houses so they can go after temporary events used as a cover to sell drugs. It is important to remember that this legislation builds upon an existing statute, with existing case law, and therefore existing standards of how it is to be implemented. The existing statute has been used to go after landlords who ``knowingly and intentionally'' let their property be used for illegal narcotics activities. It has not, nor should it be used, to take action against every landlord of every property where drug activity takes place. Similarly, the expansion of authorities created by this legislation is designed to target promoters who ``knowingly and intentionally'' allow drug use at their events. This is a high standard that should protect event promoters from casual application of this statute. Clearly, taking steps to reduce or eliminate drug use at an event, such as the posting of signs or through zero-tolerance instructions to security personnel, are not actions that would be taken by someone who would intentionally allow drug use to occur at an event. I believe an event promoter does have some responsibility for what goes on at an event that they create. Particularly if they knowingly create an event for the purpose of buying, using, keeping, or selling drugs. While not common, there have been court cases which have been able to reach this high standard of proof. Using 21 U.S.C. 856, more popularly known as the ``crack house'' statute, law enforcement has arrested drug dealers who hosted raves and other dance events as a cover to push their product. Four cases have been brought to Federal court, with mixed results--mostly because the applicability of current law is unclear. This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at risk. Ecstasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and help us work towards its quick passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to join in the colloquy that has just been held because it comes under the jurisdiction--or at least some of it--of the committee that I chair. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important children's health care policy. They are correct that something must be done to address the funds that have and will revert to the treasury in the near future. They are also correct to note the constraints within the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a program that provides heath care for over 16,000 low-income children in my state. Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP funds. The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP funding taking into account that some states are spending through their existing allotments and other states are ramping up their programs and will need additional funding in the years to come. This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I can not support including this policy at this time. The omnibus bill is a poor vehicle for this necessary maintenance. I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and the House have an agreement with the Administration to keep the omnibus appropriation bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over $1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I appreciate Senator Snowe's, Chafee's and Rockefeller's willingness to accept this reality. I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as chairman of the Finance Committee. It my understanding that Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP. With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this issue is to work with the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion. I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, bicameral two-year agreement on S-CHIP.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to have a word with the Chairman concerning funding for the war on methamphetamine production and trafficking. I appreciate your accepting my amendment to allocate $10 million for the continuance of methamphetamine reduction efforts. I understand that these funds will come from the $50 million in the bill designated for policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug hot spots. It is also my understanding that this $10 million will be used to combat meth production and distribution in the State of Iowa. This money will go to the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy to fund programs that I consider essential to treating and controlling the drug problem in the State of Iowa. These programs would include a Drug-Free Workplace Coordinator to help educate employees to deter and detect use, and put procedures in place to take corrective action if there is a workplace-related substance abuse problem; various community prevention, intervention, and treatment programs; and for a Meth Safe House in Iowa to provide a safe and drug-free environment for recovering meth addicts, and help push them away from the negative influences that previously fed their addiction.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is a question before the Senate, I do not want to interfere.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is not more than 30 seconds and we can get the show on the road, let's do it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Of my time?

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Arizona used his 5 minutes, and I have yielded 3\1/2\ minutes to Senator Santorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Okay. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona and then 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and then I will yield Senator Kyl 5 minutes. I want my colleagues to reject this amendment. I, like the Senator from New York, agree we need to strengthen and improve Medicare, and I proved that last year with a bipartisan bill on Medicare give-back. Working with Senator Baucus, we put together a $43 billion bill that would have improved health care in rural America and address many of the issues the Senator from New York wants to address as well. While I support addressing the needs of all Medicare providers, I cannot support doing it in this way in the amendment being proposed. We have to do this in a comprehensive, studied, and targeted way. Everyone agrees that Medicare needs improving, and most of us would agree that Medicare payments need to be updated, but we do not have agreement on how that should be done. Some, including this Senator, believe that at least some providers need more money, but other Senators who might disagree with me say that providers are doing well and that their funding should be reduced. Even very recently, we had the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Committee last week make recommendations to Congress calling for reductions in some provider payments. I do not take these recommendations as gospel truth, and they are not going to govern my decisionmaking, but I believe we have a responsibility in the Finance Committee to examine all of these issues closely. More important, the only way we get anything done in this body is by a bipartisan approach. So we have to build a consensus before we pass a one-size-fits-all policy such as the one before us. I believe the place to do that is the Finance Committee. We will do our homework. That means listening to providers, beneficiaries, and experts to craft payment adjustments that ensure access to services for Medicare beneficiaries. I will certainly ensure that the Finance Committee consider my colleague's proposal. The two Medicare provisions in this omnibus bill are limited in time and duration. They target the cases with the most widespread support--physicians as well as rural and small urban hospitals--while we can do it. These two items stand the best chance of being preserved through conference and in negotiation with the White House. If this bill turns into some sort of Christmas tree for additional health care provisions, then the reality is that these provisions are likely to come out of the bill entirely, and we will not be helping anybody. Consequently, particularly doctors are going to have to wait until spring or summer. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. That is why I suggest we keep with the compromise in the bill and expect our committee, which we will do, to bring forth recommendations. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Stevens, I would like to speak with you for a moment about the recent vote on Senator Harkin's Byrne Grant Program amendment. While I agree with you that it is vitally important that this Omnibus Appropriations bill adheres to principles of fiscal responsibility, I must stress that the continuation of the Byrne Formula Grants is absolutely critical to local law enforcement, especially in rural States like Iowa. I voted on the procedural motion to table the Harkin amendment, because of our need for fiscal responsibility. However, I would not have done so, if you had not made a personal commitment to me that the funds for the Byrne Formula Grants would be fully restored in conference. Because the availability of these funds makes such a difference to Iowa, I want to once again get an assurance from you that when we take the final vote on this bill the full funding for the Byrne Grants will be included in the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the ability to address a problem that has been neglected for the last 18 months. For 18 months farmers have been waiting for 2001, and now 2002 disaster assistance, but partisanship kept us from providing rural America with relief. Today, we will provide the remedy. Today the Senate has the opportunity to address the issue of significant loss in the agriculture community due to natural disasters. In Iowa we have experienced both drought and flood during the last 2 years. For instance, last year the eastern side of the State--counties such as Clayton, Delaware, Jackson, Clinton, and Scott--had a disaster in 2002 due to flood. In 2001, the southern two tiers of counties in Iowa experienced drought. Turning back to 2002 again, one of Iowa's best production years ever, we saw counties such as Harrison, Mills, Adams and Cass turn up bone dry during critical states of the growing season. Iowa had record yields in 2002, but we did not have uniformity in state-wide averages of precipitation or production and that has made the package we are debating today very important to many family farmers in my home State. The agriculture assistance package I have worked on with Chairman Cochran and other Members provides $3.1 billion of assistance to areas and individuals with the greatest need. Our proposal will give assistance to farmers who live in ``primary'' designated disaster counties and to farmers who have had a 35 percent crop loss outside of those primary counties. We will be able to get checks to the farmers in the primary designated counties within 4 weeks after the President signs the bill. The farmers who can account for a 35 percent crop loss will need to go to their local FSA office and sign-up for assistance. Our program also contains an additional $250 million for the Livestock Assistance Programs--LAP provides direct payments to eligible livestock producers who suffered grazing losses due to natural disaster--and offers a sense of the Senate that encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide surplus dry milk supplies to pork producers to use as feed. Some members of the Senate will try to make ``political hay'' out of this by opposing our proposal. They will say the need is greater than $3.1 billion and our assistance isn't focused, but the fact is the only way the House of Representatives and the White House are going to allow us to spend more on agriculture, after we have already spent over $180 billion on the other agriculture disaster we experienced last year, the 2002 farm bill, is if we ``find'' the money through offsets. Those who choose to oppose this proposal will claim that their proposal was better for rural America, but what good is a proposal that can't pass? We tried it their way; I voted for emergency funding more than once, but the Senate leadership was unsuccessful in advancing any assistance to rural America. In fact, the last time I voted for emergency spending we couldn't even get it off the floor of the Senate. Doesn't it seem reasonable that we should actually vote on something that can actually pass? Isn't tangible assistance better than empty promises? The assistance in our proposal will get to farmers months before the assistance in the Democratic alternative. Most farmers will get help within four weeks after the President signs the legislation, instead of waiting up to eight months under the alternative approach. Family farmers that carry significant debt, or those that have been forced to arrange ``bridge loans'' because of the problems with farm bill payments need the assistance now to reduce their debt, not eight months from now when the debt has had plenty of time to build due to interest. Chairman Stevens worked diligently to find an offset that would provide funds to address the current need. I appreciate the work of Chairman Stevens and thank him for his assistance. I would also like to thank Chairman Cochran for working with me and other members to fit this proposal to the need in rural America. Without Chairman Cochran's dedication to developing the best proposal possible for rural America we would not have such broad support. Mr. President, family farmers need disaster assistance, not ``pie in the sky'' empty promises that can't make it past the House of Representatives or the White House. It was important to make sure farmers who need assistance receive help as quickly as possible, and we've done that. I encourage my colleagues to support family farmers and support the Cochran amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself the 1 minute remaining. At the end of the time being used up, I will make a motion to table. I will not do that yet. But I want to reiterate what my colleague from Montana said; that this is a problem bigger than USAir and requires the time of our committee to work on it. The statistic the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee gave me is that there are about 125 companies in one shape or another that are working in unison to try to find a global solution. So taking care of the situation for US Airways ought to be taken care of in conjunction with the issues that other companies have before the Congress instead of using a rifleshot. This is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Nothing has been said about those left, but the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee is trying to write an appropriations bill that would avoid the blue slip problem with the House of Representatives. So this has a lot of problems. We have to deal with it in the committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my colleague from Rhode Island. While I understand his desire to address the problem of unemployment, I would suggest this is neither the time nor the place to do so. First, I would remind my colleagues that this amendment would increase mandatory spending in an appropriation bill, and therefore is subject to a 60-vote point of order. Second, let's remember what we've already done to address this issue. Last year, Congress voted to provide more than $11 billion in federally funded benefits, and we voted earlier this month to provide an additional $7 billion on top of that. That's a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits. Third, I would suggest this amendment is based on a faulty premise. On one hand, my colleague seems to suggest unemployment is worse than ever before. On the other hand, he suggests this amendment is no more than we've done before. I would suggest he is mistaken on both counts. The truth is this amendment represents the greatest expansion of Federal unemployment benefits in history, and it is being proposed at a time when unemployment is well below historical recession levels. Let's be clear about what this amendment does. It would provide a minimum of 26 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits and a maximum of 33 weeks--at an additional cost of more than $6 billion. The last--and only time--Congress provided up to 33 weeks of unemployment benefits was back in 1992 when the unemployment rate reached nearly 8 percent. Today, the unemployment rate is 6 percent. Moreover, every other time Congress has provided federally funded unemployment benefits, they have been linked to the duration of State benefits. This amendment would provide between 26 and 33 weeks of Federal benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. This is an unprecedented expansion of the unemployment program. It violates the insurance principles inherent in the unemployment program by breaking the link between the time someone has worked to the time that person can collect unemployment benefits. This amendment would allow someone who worked as few as 20 weeks to collect as much as 33 weeks of federally funded benefits. This is neither the right time, the right place, nor the right way to change the unemployment program. Unemployment has not risen to the historical level of previous recessions. Moreover, a uniform duration of benefits would violate every historical precedent. I urge my colleagues to sustain the point of order and defeat this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.