Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I think all 100 Senators would agree, both from the standpoint of our needs for the future as well as what we have done in the past, that we all recognize the legitimacy of the Federal Government stepping in to compensate with Federal unemployment help when State programs have run out. There is no dispute about that. There is a dispute over when and how much, and the plan we are being offered now would be a plan that has been put in place at other times but under much higher rates of unemployment. I hope we do not have higher rates of unemployment, but sometime down the road we will, hopefully not now during this period of time, and it seems to me we ought to keep reserve to do what we have other times in the past when we have had higher rates of unemployment than we have right now, as opposed to triggering in programs that do much more for the unemployed than we normally do at 6-percent unemployment, let's say, as opposed to 7-percent unemployment. If we were to go the route that is being proposed, then we would be doing more than we normally do at this rate of unemployment we have now. Surely, the people who are proposing what they are proposing today, as all of us would probably do if there is a higher rate of unemployment, would expect the Congress to respond to that. It is not a question of should we respond; it is a question of a measured response and when it triggers in. I am not condemning people who say we ought to do more today beyond what States do, but they are responding in a way that we would normally respond when the unemployment situation would be much more negative than it is right now. I think it is wrong for my colleagues to speak about this recession being different than other recessions, for two reasons. No. 1, the definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth. We had three quarters of negative growth but that negative growth ended September 30, 2001. So we have had five quarters now of growth, about 2\1/2\ percent average. Economists are predicting the quarter we are in now for 2003 would be about 3-percent growth, so I do not think it is fair to say we are in recession unless we have a Senator who is making his own definition of a recession--and he has that right--but I think we should be comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges. The second point I make is even if we were just coming out of a recession instead of being five quarters out of a recession--an official recession as defined by economists--I think we all need to remember that historically unemployment as a statistic is a lagging indicator. So one would expect other indicators of an improving economy to improve before the unemployment figure improved. Consequently, this has to be taken into consideration as help is given to unemployed people. It is quite obvious that a number of my Democratic colleagues seem to think we can never spend enough on unemployment. So I want to review where we are so the record is straight. Under the regular State unemployment program, workers are entitled to as much as 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Under the temporary federally funded unemployment program enacted last March, those who exhaust their regular State benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of additional Federal benefits. In addition, workers in high unemployment States can receive yet another additional 13 weeks. That is a maximum of 26 weeks of Federal benefits. So to some, it works out this way: Workers in every State can collect up to 39 weeks of benefits, 26 of those being State and 13 Federal. Workers in higher unemployment States can collect up to a whole year of unemployment benefits, which means 26 weeks State, 26 weeks Federal. Last year, this temporary program was estimated to cost $11 billion. We are still responding, as we should in a bipartisan way, to this unemployment statistic still being relatively high but not as high as it has historically been. Earlier this month, in addition to what we did last March, Congress voted to extend these Federal benefits through May of 2003. This extension is estimated to cost $7 billion more. That happens to be a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that still seems not to be enough. Through this amendment, I think they are trying to spend an additional $6 billion. The amendment they offered today would change the current law to provide 26 weeks of federally funded benefits in every State, and 33 weeks in high unemployment States. The last time Congress provided 33 weeks of benefits, the unemployment rate was well over 7 percent. That is why I made the point. If we do this, what are we going to do if unemployment gets up to 7 percent, which I do not think anybody expects it to but suppose it did? The current unemployment rate is 6 percent. Now there is something even more troubling. What I have said until now has been done by Congress in the past during certain times of high unemployment. More disturbing to me, this amendment changes current law to provide a uniform duration of benefits. Most States vary the duration of benefits based on the worker's actual employment history. Variable duration recognizes the insurance principles inherent in unemployment compensation by providing a shorter duration for workers who had a limited amount of work prior to qualifying for the benefits. These workers have paid less unemployment taxes and they have less attachment to the workforce. Congress has never provided extended benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. That is a very dramatic departure that this amendment holds for the future. A uniform duration means some workers will be able to collect more Federal benefits than they would State benefits. Moreover, a uniform duration means some workers will actually be able to collect benefits for a longer period of time than they actually worked. Current law requires a minimum of 20 weeks of work to qualify for Federal benefit. Yet this amendment provides up to 33 weeks of benefits. These 33 weeks of Federal benefits could be paid in addition to as much as 39 weeks of State benefits. That happens to be a total of 72 weeks of benefits for someone who maybe only worked 20 weeks. This amendment represents the single largest expansion of Federal unemployment benefits in the entire history. That brings me to an issue of how, if this were a legitimate approach to unemployment compensation, this ought to be handled by committees of appropriate jurisdiction, not be offered on the floor of the Senate to an appropriations bill. I am speaking because that appropriate committee is the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over unemployment compensation. A departure in Federal responsibility is very important to consider as a committee--its impact, its costs. More important, if we are going to have this sort of an impact that is so different from what States have historically had, it ought to be considered by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. We are dealing with something that is other than just simple extension of unemployment compensation. Now, we may need to revisit this issue later this year, depending upon how the economy performs. But when we do that, we need to do it in a way that we take into full consideration that this amendment represents an unprecedented and, at least at this point with 6 percent unemployment compared to more than 7\1/2\percent unemployment when it has been used in the past, an unjustified expansion of the unemployment program. I urge my colleagues not to vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I commit to working together with those concerned to address this issue through the Finance Committee, which is the appropriate jurisdiction for resolution of this matter.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I look forward to working with the Senator and his staff on this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have submitted an amendment dealing with the Total Information Awareness Program at the DOD. Many of my colleagues may know about this program designed to test technologies that collect information from public and private databases and try to find trends that could signal threats against the United States. Like many people, I have been concerned that this program could be used to invade the privacy of Americans by snooping around in our bank accounts, personal internet computers, phone records, and the like. In November of last year, I asked the DOD Inspector General to look into the purposes of TIA and to make sure that there are appropriate controls in place to ensure that it is used only for foreign intelligence purposes to protect us against terrorism and foreign threats, but not on Americans or for domestic crime fighting. I am told that the IG investigation is proceeding, and that the IG has ordered a formal audit of TIA. This amendment limits the use of the TIA funds appropriated by Congress to foreign intelligence purposes. DOD will be required to tell Congress what it is doing regarding TIA, and keep us in the loop on developments. It also provides that TIA can't be used on U.S. citizens once it is up and running. But the amendment allows development of TIA to continue for foreign terrorism purposes. So it is a great compromise in that it allows the development of TIA to help track international terrorism, but protects against abuses that could violate the privacy of our own people. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to have 3 minutes added to that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is it my understanding we have about 9 minutes left on our side?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have listened to a lot of debate yesterday and today on these subjects about the economy and about tax bills and things such as that. I want to address the tax bill as well. I think it is very legitimate for people to raise concerns about the deficit because I think a deficit is part of a measure of whether or not there is fiscal responsibility in Government. It is obviously not the only measure because you cannot have deficits and maybe still be fiscally irresponsible. I would like to hear from my colleagues who are concerned about deficits when they express these at times when we are talking about tax cuts. I have not seen that same concern about deficits when they want to spend more money. I think we ought to demand a certain amount of consistency from people who are worried about deficits; that they are equally concerned about them at the time we might be cutting taxes as well as when we are spending money. I bet before a week is out there will be--from the very same people who are concerned about tax cuts being too much right now and raising the deficit--dozens of amendments offered to spend more money on the appropriation bills for 2003. There is another thing I would like to make some comment on, because I have heard several members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, make reference to the fact that certain wealthy people have said they don't need tax cuts. Don't cut my taxes; I don't need the tax cut. I think it is very altruistic for people to say those things and probably mean them. But one of the things I hope we will consider as we are working at cutting taxes--particularly marginal tax rates--deals with the issue of whether or not you are a corporate executive of a Fortune 500-type company that says you don't need it because that individual might say he doesn't need a tax cut, as opposed to 80 percent of the benefits from the tax cuts, cutting the marginal tax rates from 39.8, 2 years ago, eventually down to 35 percent--85 percent of those benefits go to small business. It happens that small business is a class of people that create about 80 percent of the jobs in America. A lot of small business people regularly are investing in their own business to create more jobs, to expand their business and, in the process, living throughout their lifetime relatively modestly in order to expand their business and be successful. We are talking about a jobs bill and marginal rate cuts, 80 percent of which are going to small entrepreneurs to create jobs, which ought to be something we would separate from the CEO who may make a lot more money and doesn't need a tax cut. I want to speak generally about taxes and some reference to the tax bill of 2 years ago that the President's proposals are going to be building on, because I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee when that bill passed. I had a good working relationship with my colleague, Senator Baucus, in getting that bill to the floor and to the President. On June 7, 2001, President Bush signed tax relief legislation. For the first time in a generation, every income tax paying American received much needed tax relief. Unfortunately, in the period since Americans first started to receive their rebate checks, the effect of this legislation has been distorted. The distortion comes in the form of often-repeated bogus criticisms of the tax cut. This repetition has created what I will call three myths of the tax cut. The first myth is that the bipartisan tax relief was a partisan Republican product. The second is that the bipartisan tax relief package is the primary source of our current budget problems. The third myth is that the tax relief favored the wealthy over low and middle income taxpayers. Compare the first myth against the record. Often we hear the phrase Republican tax cut or partisan tax cut. In fact, the tax cut was bipartisan. Twelve Democratic Senators voted for the conference report. Senator Jeffords also voted for the conference report. That's over one- fourth of the Democratic Caucus. Let's take a look at the second myth. How many time have we heard in debate or seen written in the media the charge that the bipartisan tax relief caused the current and projected deficits. Cold hard numbers tell a different story. Cold hard numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and private sector sources reveal the truth. Here is what the numbers say. You can check it out on the CBO Web site. According to CBO, for the current fiscal year, the tax cut represents barely 8 percent of the total change in the budget since last year. For instance, for the same period, increased appropriations outranked the tax cut by $6 billion. So, spending above baseline, together with lower projected revenues, accounted for 92 percent of the change in the budget picture. Let me repeat that. Bipartisan tax relief was a minimal, 8 percent factor, in the change in the budget situation. Over the long term, the tax cut accounts for 33 percent of the change in the budget picture. There is a third myth about the tax relief package. According to this myth, the tax relief package was a tax cut only for the wealthiest Americans. Most often this myth comes in the form of a statistic. The statistic is that 40 percent of the benefits of the tax cut went to the top 1 percent of taypayers? Where did the statistic come from? Did it come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation? The answer is no. The statistic cited by the media and the Democratic Leadership critics comes from a liberal think tank. Once again, facts can be ugly things for harsh critics of the bipartisan tax relief package. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official non-partisan scorekeeper, the tax code is more progressive with the tax relief package. Joint Tax, concludes that the bipartisan tax relief returns to taxpayers, on a progressive basis, a small portion of the record level of Federal taxes. Joint Tax's analysis shows that the largest reduction in tax burden went to taxpayers in the lower and middle income brackets. For instance, taxpayers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, will see their taxes reduced by almost 14 percent when the tax cut is fully in effect. Taypayers with over $200,000 will see their taxes reduced by barely 6 percent. This analysis shows that the third myth, like the first two, does not stand up when compared to the facts. It is understandable that the largest tax relief package in a generation would spark continuous opposition from those that prefer record levels of Federal taxation. That is a good political debate that should play out. The terms of the debate, however, should be based on facts, not myths. Now, I raise this point because we are about to embark on a new effort at aiding the recovery of the economy. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am open to all ideas, Republican and Democrat, aimed at boosting investment and consumer demand. The Finance Committee will begin to examine these proposals in our usual bipartisan manner. When we examine these proposals, however, we will use facts, not myths as our guide. Now, let's look at some facts about the President's proposal. These are facts developed by the Treasury Department. These facts tell the story about who benefits from the President's proposal. I have five examples, and then I will yield the floor. Example No. 1: A married couple with one child making $40,000 gets a tax cut of $732. That is a tax bill of $2,235 goes down to $1,503. For that married couple with one child making $40,000, that is a 33-percent tax cut. Example No. 2: A married couple with two children making $40,000 will get a cut of $1,133; in other words, a reduction of their $1,178 tax bill down to only $45, and that is a 96-percent tax cut. Example No. 3: A married couple with two children making $20,000 more, $60,000, will get a tax cut of $900, a reduction, then, from $3,750 down to $2,850. That married couple with two children gets a 24- percent tax cut. Example No. 4: A married couple with two children making $75,000 gets a tax cut of $1,122, and that is from a $5,817 present tax bill reduced to $4,695, and that is a 19-percent tax cut. Example No. 5, the last example: A married couple, both age 65, making $40,000, of which $2,000 might be dividends and $15,000 Social Security benefits, will get a tax cut of $380--their tax bill down from $930 down to $550--or a 41-percent tax cut. I ask everybody to stick to the facts, use the facts, let the facts speak for themselves, and I think we will have a more intellectually honest debate. I yield the floor, and since I do not see any colleagues wanting recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I might modify it just a little bit, but understand that I am making this statement not having had a chance to think deeply on it. But it would be in relationship to the extent to which there should be a hearing just on this one company as opposed to a hearing on the pension problem generally and in the larger context because I did voice in my statement to the Senate that it seems to me that we do have to look into this area, and we have to look at it as a pension problem in a much broader context than just one company. Obviously, in that context, I have absolutely no opposition to looking at the problem of one company. But I also think it ought to be looked into only in the context of the others because of the extent to which it might lead to other companies making the same request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If my colleague would withhold his request, I would like to speak on this issue. I appreciate the efforts of the two Senators from Pennsylvania to help these underfunded airline pension plans, particularly as it relates to a company that is very important to the economy of their State. We are also in a situation where, as far as I know, the House Ways and Means Committee has not acted on this issue and, consequently, even if the Senate were to pass it the measure would be subject to a blue slip, meaning, under the Constitution, a revenue measure needs to start in the House of Representatives. So if we took action, what would that do? It could not become law. The legislation the Senator has introduced would create, as a matter of substance, perverse disincentives for all plans that paid premiums to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The bill would permit a single airline to avoid the pension funding rules in the Internal Revenue Code, while every responsible plan sponsor funds its own plans. We will need to deal with this particular problem when we deal with the rest of the funding rules and the pension interest rate problem because that is a very real problem and several times we have tried to address it, just not successfully through the whole process. So we get to a point that one set of rules for one company harms the nation's pension laws applicable to the remaining plans. I respectfully suggest that something this important would--surely ought to be referred to the Finance Committee and that we should deal with it under the regular rules of the committee, but particularly we need a solution that would be nation-wide, not dealing with just one company. So I express opposition to this effort.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the context of what I stated, the answer to that is, I would agree.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy we were able to get an extension of unemployment compensation earlier today so there is a seamless flow of checks from December 28 through the period of our new legislation. If we had not completed it today, and hopefully in the House tomorrow and with the President's signature on Thursday, there would have been a lapse of those checks. We could have gone back and made up the difference but there still would have been a period of time that unemployed people would not get checks. I know there was a lot of concern on the other side of the aisle that we were trying to pass this too quickly. I am glad they backed down and allowed us to move ahead. During the debate that took the form of reserving the right to object, there were a number of statements made about what they wanted to do. I take the opportunity to clarify the record of what my Democratic colleagues were really talking about. A number of colleagues have made the statement that the unemployment extension we passed earlier today leaves out a million workers. Under the regular State unemployment program--and this is under longstanding law--workers are entitled to as much as 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Under the temporary federally funded unemployment program that Congress passed last March, which we are continuing now, those who exhaust their State regular unemployment benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of additional benefits. In addition, the program we passed last March provided up to 13 weeks of yet more benefits in extremely high unemployment States. In those high unemployment States, that means a maximum of 26 weeks of Federal benefits on top of the usual 26 weeks of State benefits. I repeat, workers in every State can collect 39 weeks of benefits--26 weeks State, plus 13 weeks Federal. And workers in high unemployment States can collect 52 weeks of benefits--26 weeks of State benefits and 13 weeks Federal, plus an additional 13 weeks for unemployed people in the high unemployment States. As we discussed, the bill we passed earlier today would allow more than 2 million workers to collect extended benefits through May of this year. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that is not enough. They want to let workers who have collected 26 weeks of regular State benefits plus 13 weeks of federally funded benefits collect an additional 13 weeks of benefits, for a total of 52 weeks of benefits for everyone, every place, regardless of the unemployment rate of a particular State. In other words, the agreement we reached last March to provide up to 9 months of benefits in every State, and 12 months of benefits in high unemployment States, is no longer good enough as indicated by the debate of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle earlier this afternoon. They want 12 months of benefits for everyone in every State regardless of whether unemployment is going up or going down. They claim extending last year's agreement leaves out a million workers. I respectfully disagree. Their proposal goes well beyond anything Congress has ever done. It provides 12 months of federally funded benefits to all workers in every State. While the national unemployment rate is higher than it was at this time last year, the unemployment rate in 20 States is now lower than it was a year ago. Under current law, no one can receive more in federally funded benefits than they received in State benefits. In other words, those who collect 26 weeks of State benefits could also collect 26 weeks of federally funded benefits; but in those States that might have only 20 weeks of State benefits, then there would only be 20 weeks of federally funded benefits under current law. So there is a link between what we give in Federal benefits and State benefits. This link is designed to give States the ability to honor their unemployment program. Although we have not seen the latest version, the Democratic proposal would break this link. By breaking the link, it would pay federally funded benefits without regard to the 26 week level of State benefits. This represents a very historic and unprecedented expansion of the unemployment program. While we may need to revisit the issue of unemployment benefits later this year, it seems to me that we should carefully review this proposal before final action. In the meantime, we have had an opportunity to make sure that there is a seamless flow of checks from December 28, now, to those 750,000 unemployed people who would otherwise have had a lapse in receiving unemployment compensation, plus probably 2.5 million people connected with those respective families. And, for people on the other side of the aisle who think they have legitimacy and want to discuss these additional issues, the institution of the Senate is very prone towards hearing any idea that Senators want presented, having an environment or a forum for the presentation of that. So we probably will be forced to, and maybe ought to, review what the Democrats propose today. But we should not do it in an environment as we had today. If it had been adopted today, I am sure the House of Representatives would not have accepted it and, obviously, if we had gone to conference to work out the differences, no bill would have been presented to the President of the United States by Thursday--for his signature in time, then, to keep a seamless flow of unemployment checks. So I am glad we were able to work this out. Obviously, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I have to be open to discussion of any issues dealing with unemployment. I look forward to those discussions but in an environment that does not stall the flow of checks for people who are deserving of them, and that is those people who would have otherwise been cut off on December 28. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will again suggest the absence of a quorum, but I ask the time be evenly charged against each side.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. I certainly recognize that arbitration has its benefits. In certain cases, it can be less costly than other dispute settlement means. In certain other cases, it can remove some of the workload from our nation's overburdened court system. For these reasons, arbitration must be an option--but it should be no more than an option. Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the company, even when a violation of Federal and State law is suspected. Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. Such disputes often involve instances of discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. The effect of these violations for the individual farmer can be bankruptcy and financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration clauses make it impossible for farmers to seek redress in court. When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial. Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case, the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information. Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals, bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against farmers who join producer associations. During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. During the last session of Congress, 66 Senators cosponsored S. 1140, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001, to provide similar protection from mandatory arbitration clauses in franchise agreements between auto dealers and manufacturers. This legislation was enacted at the end of the last session. It is my hope that we will be able to move this legislation in an equally efficient fashion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of extending the temporary extended unemployment compensation program. In March of last year, Congress enacted the ``Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.'' This Act created a temporary program to provide additional unemployment benefits to workers in every State. Specifically, this program provided up to 13 weeks of federally funded employment benefits for workers who become unemployed and exhaust their regular State unemployment benefits. In addition, the program provided up to 13 weeks of additional benefits in high unemployment States--that's a maximum of 26 weeks. When this extended benefit program was originally enacted last year, it was scheduled to expire at the end of 2002. Unfortunately, the economy has not performed as well as we all hoped and the unemployment rate in many States continued to rise throughout last year. As my colleagues may recall, the Senate agreed to a unanimous consent request last year to extend the deadline. Unfortunately, the 107th Congress adjourned before reaching a final agreement on the extension. So, we are here again today seeking unanimous consent to extend the temporary extended unemployment compensation program. This agreement which has been cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Specter, Collins, Gregg, Nickles, and Clinton would provide a 5-month extension of the program through the end of May. This agreement has been reached in consultation with the House Leadership. I believe a 5-month extension is an appropriate timeframe to see how the economy will perform this year, as well as give Congress the opportunity to consider further economic stimulus legislation. Our goal should be make sure that everyone who wants a job gets a paycheck, instead of just an unemployment check. I also believe it is important to point out that although the program expired last week, if we can get this measure through the House and onto the President's desk by Thursday, no one will miss a check. Unemployment benefits are the bridges that help people get from one job to another. These benefits are not huge, but they're certainly better than nothing for those who are out of work and desperately looking for jobs. People have to put food on the table. They have to heat their homes. They have to buy their kids clothes, shoes and school supplies. Their needs are immediate, and they need immediate relief. While Congress is approving unemployment benefits, we need to do everything in our power to create jobs. I don't mean just any jobs, but quality opportunities that pay enough income to sustain families and build careers. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the President on creating jobs. Americans are the world's greatest workforce. Folks need and deserve to use their abilities and skills to the fullest. According to the Department of Labor, more than 780,000 individuals were collecting extended benefits in mid-December. If we act now to extend this program, workers who qualified before December 28th will be able to continue receiving their weekly benefit check without interruption. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the goal of the farm bill was to improve the economic condition of America's farmers over the next few years. However one of the many shortcomings of the new law is that it fails to protect family farmers and independent livestock producers from vertical integration in the livestock industry. In recent years, family farmers from across Iowa have contacted me to express their fears about the threat they fell from concentration in the livestock industry. They fear that if the trend toward increased concentration continues, they may be unable to compete effectively and will not be able to get a fair price for their livestock in the marketplace. The bill I am introducing would prevent meat packers from assuming complete control of the meat supply by preventing packers from owning livestock. This bill would make it unlawful for a packer to own or feed livestock intended for slaughter. Single pack entities and packs too small to participate in the Mandatory Price Reporting program would be excluded from the limitation. In addition, farmer cooperatives in which the members own, feed, or control the livestock themselves would be exempt under this new bill. We have tightened down the limitations in this new version of the packer ban. The last version provided an exemption to plants that killed less than 2 percent of the Nation's livestock, per commodity. That meant plants that killed less than 1.9 million pigs or approximately 725,000 cattle were excluded under the old version. We have changed the standard to be consistent with the Mandatory Price Reporting law and other legislation I've introduced. That means the new limit will be 125,000 for cattle and 100,000 for swine. It's also important to realize that this is not the original version I co-sponsored with Senator Johnson. Instead, this is the version I successfully offered on the floor during the debate on the farm bill that removed the word ``control'' so that the packers couldn't attack us with a red-herring argument. It's important for our colleagues to remember that family farmers ultimately derive their income from the agricultural marketplace, not the farm bill. Family farmers have unfortunately been in a position of weakness in selling their product to large processors and in buying their inputs from large suppliers. Today, the position of the family has become weaker as consolidation in agribusiness has reached all time highs. Farmers have fewer buyers and suppliers than ever before. The result is an increasing loss of family farms and the smallest farm share of the consumer dollar in history. One hundred years ago, this Nation reacted appropriately to citizen concerns about large, powerful companies by establishing rules constraining such businesses when they achieved a level of market power that harmed, or risked harming, the public interest, trade and commerce. The United State Congress enacted the first competition laws in the world to make commerce more free and fair. These competition laws include the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Federal Trade Commission Act and Packers & Stockyards Act. Since that time, many countries in the world have followed this U.S. example to constrain undue market power in their domestic economies. Unfortunately, competition policy has been severely weakened in this country, especially in agriculture, due to Federal case law, underfunded enforcement, and unfounded reliance on efficiency claims. The result has been a significant degradation of the domestic agricultural market infrastructure. The current situation reflects a tremendous mis-allocation of resources across the food chain. Congress must strengthen competition policy within the farm sector to reclaim a properly operating marketplace. While this legislation does not accomplish all that we need to do in this area, it's an important first step toward remedying the biggest problem facing farmers today, the problem of concentration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of accuracy in the debate over bipartisan tax relief. I was very pleased to work with over one-fourth of the Senate Democratic Caucus in passing the largest tax cut in a generation. That legislation has been the subject of a coordinated attack by the Democratic leadership and some of its allies in the media. For almost a year and a half, I have responded to these attacks in committee, on the Senate floor, and in the media. The basic premise of my responses has been that participants ought to be intellectually honest in the data used in the debate. Reasonable folks can differ on whether bipartisan tax relief is a good idea or not. We ought to conduct that debate in a fair and open manner. Apparently, my responses caught the eye of a key opinion maker, Mr. Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Mr. Krugman is a regular columnist and focuses mainly on economic policy. Mr. Krugman took aim at me and my statements in a column, dated October 18, 2002. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that op-ed be included in the Record. Mr. Krugman defended the often-mentioned but seldom-sourced statistic on distribution of the benefits of the tax relief package. It's the statistic we hear over and over again. The statistic claims that 40 percent of the benefits of the tax relief package go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Mr. Krugman claims that I did not have an alternative answer to the 40 percent statistics. I responded in a letter to the editor, dated October 24, 2002. My letter sources data from the unbiased, official scorekeeper of tax policy for Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation. This data had been placed in the record in the statements Mr. Krugman criticized. That data, updated for the last year the tax cut is distributed, 2006, shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers will receive a lower share of the benefits of the tax cut, 27 percent, than their burden, 33 percent. The remaining difference of 6 percent is distributed to taxpayers within comes below $100,000. That's why Joint Tax concludes that the bipartisan tax relief makes the Tax Code more progressive. By the way, this fact is not incidental. It reveals a key ingredient to our bipartisan success in 2001. My Democratic partners in the bipartisan bill insisted that we make the Tax Code more progressive as a condition for their support. That was a condition that I shared with them. We would not have produced the bill in the Senate without their support. Mr. Krugman struck back at me again in a column dated October 29, 2002. He claimed my letter was ``misleading'' because I did not include the benefits of death tax relief in the analysis. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that op-ed be included in the Record. I prepared a response to Mr. Krugman and submitted it to the New York Times editor. Unfortunately, the Times policy only permits two responses per person per year. So, Mr. Krugman can attack me every week if he wants to and my responses are limited. So, Mr. Krugman and the Times policy left me with the recourse of responding on the Senate floor. Otherwise, his charge would stand unanswered. That would be wrong. Joint Tax does not distribute the death tax benefit because the analysis requires a conceptual leap. Economists have attempted to distribute the death tax benefit. For instance, the Clinton Treasury performed an analysis at about the same time the former President was readying a veto on a tax bill that contained death tax relief. Joint Tax attempted to distribute the same kind of analysis in the early 1990s, but abandoned it after finding problems with it. If you only read Mr. Krugman's columns, you would think that this analysis is straight forward. It is not. Basically, to get to where Mr. Krugman and his allies want to go, you have to make a conceptual leap. You have to assume that heirs of an estate have the same income tax profile as the dead person. So, you need to ignore the reality that, for instance, tax-exempt organizations, can be heirs of an estate. You need to ignore the reality that, as a general matter, no two sets of heirs look the same for income tax purposes. For these reasons, an unbiased official source, like Joint Tax, does not distribute the death tax. That was the point I was not permitted to make in a response. For the sake of argument, however, let's give Mr. Krugman the benefit of the doubt. Let's stack the deck further in his favor by assuming that all of the death tax relief provided in 2006 inures to the benefit of the top 1 percent. Let's perform this calculation even though it is analytically unsound. If you add that revenue loss, about $4.6 billion for 2006, into Joint Tax's distribution table, you will find that the top 1 percent receive 29 percent of the benefits of the tax relief package. This compares with the 27 percent official Joint Tax figure. Recall that the top 1 percent bear 33 percent of the income tax burden. In this case, the 4 percent difference, once again, though to a smaller degree, increases the progressivity of the Federal tax system. Mr. Krugman also cites an alternative tax burden, total Federal taxes, as the appropriate measure. Joint Tax's distribution analysis includes the Federal tax burden and as the projection for the last year shows the total Federal tax system was made more progressive. Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Krugman on some things. We need to change the tone in Washington. If the tone is to change, all participants, including public servants, like myself, and opinion makers, like Mr. Krugman, must participate in the change. Several things must happen if the tone in Washington is to change. The first thing that needs to happen is everyone must debate in an intellectually honest manner. This means when a statistic is used, the source should be referenced. Mr. Krugman's op-ed is the rare exception when the source of the 40 percent figure has been revealed. Over the last 18 months, in countless Congressional debates, in press reports, and other venues, the 40 percent figure has been used without attribution. At every point when I have debated the other side of this issue, I have provided the source of my statistics. The source of the data is important because, in an honest debate, any biases should be revealed. The source of Mr. Krugman's statistic is Bob McIntyre of the Citizens for Tax Justice. I respect Mr. McIntyre as a spirited liberal advocate of his version of tax reform. Mr. McIntyre's organization has an agenda. It is a tax policy agenda that tends to be on the left side of the political spectrum. There are competing organizations on the right side of the political spectrum such as the Heritage Foundation. These organizations also produce data on tax legislation. I doubt Mr. Krugman would ever use alternative analyses. If he did use these analyses, I would expect him to cite the source. There are also unbiased sources of data. an honest debate ought to bring out that data and distinguish it from data produced from biased sources. The Joint Committee on Taxation, established in 1926, is an unbiased source of data on tax policy. By definition, Congress' official tax policy scorekeeper, Joint Tax works for the House and Senate. Joint Tax works for both sides of the aisle. Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, is the current Chairman of Joint Tax. Last year, Congressman Bill Thomas, a Republican from California, was Chairman. Opponents of the bipartisan tax relief package, like Mr. Krugman, do not use this objective source of data. If we are to change the tone in Washington, not only do we need to be honest about statistics, but we should put statistics in the proper context. Mr. Krugman uses the tax benefit figure in isolation. Mr. Krugman ignores the context of tax burden. Joint Tax's distribution analysis for 2006, shows that taxpayers who received the greatest reduction in their tax burden were those with incomes between $10,000 and $40,000. For instance, taxpayers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 will enjoy a reduction in their tax burden of 13.6 percent. Taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 will see their tax burden reduced by 6.1 percent. This example, drawn from Joint Tax, not a conservative think tank, puts the benefits of the tax cut in context. I agree with Mr. Krugman's objective. I also agree with many of his sentiments about my late friend, Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone liked a good and vigorous debate. He did so in an intellectually honest manner. Let's change the tone in Washington. Mr. Krugman has a role as an opinion maker who opposes last year's bipartisan tax relief package. I welcome a lively exchange with him and others of his view. All I ask is that we have that exchange in intellectually honest terms. So I describe a real difference in the approach of midwestern transparent Iowans and that of an ivory tower easterner. I ask unanimous consent to print the aforementioned materials in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of my two colleagues' viewpoints on the value of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program and its national resource center. The hearings that my colleague from Louisiana and I have conducted over the years have provided significant evidence that the ombudsman program is critical in protecting the rights of older and disabled individuals living in long-term care facilities. Training and technical assistance are among the critical variables in determining the quality of services that ombudsmen are able to provide. Additional funds appropriated for the National Long-Term Care Ombudsman Resource Center would be used to increase the capacity of the Center to develop and coordinate training systems and other skills-building opportunities for State, local and volunteer ombudsmen. The Center has an exemplary track record and this will improve program consistency among states and enhance program effectiveness.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I concur with that assessment. We know that there is a growing demand for ombudsman services and too few ombudsmen and volunteers to regularly visit all of the nursing homes and assisted living facilities. And we know that training and resources care essential. The Center provides individualized support to State and local ombudsmen on specific, complicated long-term care questions and provides training at state and regional conferences. The need to expand these supportive services is growing rapidly.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize and express appreciation for the contributions to public service made by Ann Jorgensen, who is finishing her term as board member to the Farm Credit Administration. A production agriculture and hog farmer from my home State of Iowa, Ms. Jorgensen moved to Washington in 1997 to serve on the Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed, three-member board of the Farm Credit Administration, FCA. FCA is an independent U.S. Government agency responsible for regulating and examining the entities of the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit System is a nationwide financial cooperative that lends to agriculture and rural America. Members of the FCA board also serve as Directors for the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, FCSIC, to which Ms. Jorgensen was elected as the first woman chair in January 2000. FCSIC is an independent U.S. Government corporation responsible for ensuring the timely payment of principal and interest on insured notes, bonds, debentures, and other obligations issued on behalf of Farm Credit System banks. Ms. Jorgensen's leadership was instrumental in keeping the insurance fund at or near the statutory 2 percent capitalization level. During Ms. Jorgensen's 5-year tenure at the Farm Credit Administration, many changes took place in the Farm Credit System influenced by the FCA board. Through the board approval of restructuring applications, the number of Farm Credit System associations consolidated from 250 to 103, thus creating greater efficiencies, better customer service, and cost savings to associations. The board also amended participation regulations allowing for the purchase of a 100-percent interest in participations and eliminating the territorial consent requirement. With these and other changes, the Farm Credit System today is well capitalized and profitable with a high asset quality. Prior to her appointment to the FCA board, she served on a number of governing boards for the State of Iowa, including 6 years as a member of the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents is responsible for the State's three universities, including the University of Iowa Hospital, a world-renowned teaching hospital, and its affiliated clinics. She also served on the board of the Iowa Department of Economic Development and chaired the Iowa Rural Development Council. Among many other boards and committees, she has also served on the Agriculture Product Advisory Board, the Interstate Agricultural Grain Marketing Commission, the National Pork Producers Council Environmental Committee, the European Trade Task Force Legislative Study Committee; the Iowa Public Broadcasting Network Board of Directors and Foundation Board. She was named to the Farm Foundation's Bennett Agricultural Round Table in June 2000. This provides a forum for discussion and dialogue among agricultural, agribusiness, government, academic, and interest group leaders on issues of importance to agriculture and rural America. Alpha Zeta, the national honorary agricultural fraternity, named her to its Centennial Honor Roll in 1997. She has also been inducted into the Iowa Volunteer Hall of Fame, and along with her husband, has previously been recognized by Farm Futures magazine as owner of one of the Top 10 Best Managed Farms. I thank her for her numerous contributions to our farmers as well as rural America, and I extend my very best wishes for her continued success.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to support the Homeland Security Act of 2002, but must register my disappointment with the scope of this bill's ban on granting Federal contracts to corporate inverters. In October of this year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits, RECAP, Act to address the issue of inverting corporations that are awarded contracts by the Federal Government. Inverting corporations set up a folder in a foreign filing cabinet or a mail box overseas and call that their new foreign ``headquarters.'' This allows companies to escape millions of dollars of federal taxes every year. In April of this year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore, REPO, Act to shut down these phony corporate inversions. Today, our REPO bill has still not been enacted by the Senate. You would think that the ``greed-grab'' of corporate inversions would satisfy most companies, but unfortunately it is not enough. After these corporations invert and save millions in taxes, they then come back into the United States to obtain juicy contracts with the Federal Government. They create phony foreign headquarters to escape taxes and then use other peoples' taxes to turn a profit. Chairman Baucus and I offered our bipartisan RECAP bill as a complement to our earlier REPO bill on corporate inversions. For future corporate inversions, our RECAP bill will bar the inverting company from receiving Federal contracts. For the inversions that have already gotten out before the REPO bill can be enacted, our RECAP bill will make them send back their ill-gotten tax savings by forcing them to lower their bids in order to obtain Government contracts. Unfortunately, the Government contracting ban in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 only applies prospectively to a narrow band of inversions where 80 percent of the shareholders are the same before and after the inversion. The homeland security ban bill does not address the broader range inversion transactions involving less than 80 percent of the shareholders. It also does not touch inverters that have gotten out under the wire. This omission allows companies which have already inverted to avoid millions in U.S. taxes while easily reducing their taxable profits from Federal contracts by creating phony deductions through their inversion structures. This failure to address inverted companies gives them an unfair cost advantage over competing Federal contractors that choose to stay and pay in the U.S.A. So let me be clear. The Government contracting ban in the homeland security bill is merely a down payment on this issue, and it isn't good enough for me. The Homeland Security ban isn't half a loaf--it's barely two slices of bread. So to everyone developing or contemplating one of these inversion deals, you proceed at your own peril. We will continue to pursue corporate expatriation abuse, and the abusers who seek fat Government contracts while skirting their U.S. tax obligations. I will continue this issue in the 108th Congress and beyond. I look forward to enlisting the support of my colleagues with the Committee on Governmental Affairs as we march forward to shut down this abuse in all its forms.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the conference report to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. When the Senate first considered this bill in June, I expressed the hope that Congress would send the President a bill that was fair and balanced with respect to basic liability protections for all victims of terrorism. However, I believe that the conference report before us fails to provide reasonable restrictions on lawsuit liability, and instead exposes the American taxpayer to potentially excessive costs of unmitigated litigation as a result of terrorist attacks beyond anyone's control. Consequently, I am reluctant to vote for final passage of this conference report. I am glad that the final version of the terrorism reinsurance legislation is only a temporary fix. As a general matter, the Government should not be in the business of writing claims. Some have implied that we wrongly predicted an insurance crisis following the events of September 11, 2001, which was the reason for this temporary backstop. The insurance companies have survived without government support thus far, and banks are still lending where there is uncovered risks. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``the economy has continued to grow, albeit slowly, and some companies have started offering insurance again, albeit at very high premiums.'' The article states that a short-term solution would be nice, but the bill is ``a bonanza for the trial lawyers, an entitlement for insurers.'' Again, I do not believe that this legislation contains adequate liability protections. While some restrictions were negotiated in conference, I don't believe that they go far enough. Basically, American companies that are themselves victims of terrorists acts should not be subject to predatory lawsuits or unfair and excessive punitive damages. If that happens, not only will Americans be the victims of another attack, but the taxpayers will be the victims of trial lawyers who will seek the deepest pocket and rush to the courthouse to sue anyone regardless of fault. There needs to be careful restrictions on lawsuit liability to protect taxpayer funds from being exposed to opportunistic, predatory assaults on the United States Treasury. In fact, I agree with an editorial in the Washington Post: the other side of the aisle should be ``embarrassed by their efforts to defend trial lawyers at the expense of the American economy.'' Rather, we should be working to enforce the long-standing Federal policies behind the Federal Tort Claims Act: namely, that lawyers should not be making handsome profits when they are paid from the U.S. Treasury. I agree with a statement made by House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, that ``especially today, in a time of war, excessive lawyer fees drawn from the U.S. Treasury should not be allowed to result in egregious war profiteering at the expense of victims, jobs and businesses.'' Many say we can come back and revisit these provisions later. I say we get it right the first time we sign it into law. I ask unanimous consent to print the Wall Street Journal article to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury presently possesses the authority to administer the Federal alcohol and tobacco statutes referenced in the bill before us. These authorities currently are delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and now will be delegated to the new Tax and Trade Bureau. I appreciate this colloquy to confirm that the language in section 1111(c) (1) concerning the transfer to the Department of Justice not only excludes the authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that will be retained within the Department of the Treasury as set forth in paragraph (2) of this section, but also excludes the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury that relate to these retained authorities, functions, personnel, and assets.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I also wanted to confirm that section 1111(b) as it relates to alcohol and tobacco only invests the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at the Department of Justice with the responsibility to investigate with respect to the Title 18 laws pertaining to the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. All other investigatory responsibilities pertaining to alcohol and tobacco remain at the Department of the Treasury under the new Tax and Trade Bureau, or as otherwise delegated under existing law.