Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Finally, I wish to confirm that Treasury retained the authority to audit or investigate violations such as false or inaccurate records of production, false or inaccurate tax returns, failure to respond to delinquency notices, unlawful transfers in bond, and the unlawful production, labeling, advertising and marketing of alcoholic beverages.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the homeland security bill. I believe that today we are taking definitive action to put the Government in a better position to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The creation of a Department to oversee homeland security has been a tremendous undertaking for the White House and Congress. It has forced all of us to face multiple challenges, including overcoming the various agencies' desire for self-preservation and the longstanding turf battles we are all too familiar with. Regardless of these difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen our national security. A Department of Homeland Security is our best answer, and I have tried to do all that I could to enhance the effectiveness of the New Department. This new Department will have to improve and coordinate our intelligence analysis and sharing functions, as well as our law enforcement efforts. Our Nation needs to do everything possible to make sure the attacks of a year ago never happen on American soil again. The creation of the Department will help coordinate our homeland security efforts and better protect the United States from terrorist attack. The new Department will also identify and destroy barriers to effective communication and cooperation between the many entities involved in America's national security. It will identify our security and intelligence shortcomings and resolve them appropriately. It should also guarantee that the various infrastructure protection agencies moving to it have a smooth and seamless transition, and that whistle protections are given to each and every employee, without exception. I was glad to have an opportunity to work with the sponsors of the bill to secure adequate whistleblower rights for Department employees. Because rights are worthless unless you have a process by which those rights can be addressed, I worked with the sponsors to ensure that whistleblowers have procedural remedies. The bill's whistleblower protection language grants the Department's employees the same Whistleblower Protection Act rights that are currently enjoyed by almost all other Federal employees. Another big part of (the homeland security bill includes provision to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The new Department will be instrumental in securing our border, but we will have to steadily implement changes to improve the agency's service and enforcement functions. Improvements to this agency are long overdue and cannot be ignored after this bill passes. Just because we have streamlined their management, the INS's performance will be scrutinized in the years to come. The INS will be accountable to the American people, and I look forward to seeing some changes in the way they do their business. I am pleased that I was able to work on an immigration reform measure that will strengthen the Secretary's visa issuance powers. This provision authorizes the DHS Secretary to put DHS agents at consular posts or requires a finding that DHS agents aren't needed, and it gives the DHS Secretary influence in the State Department personnel matters relating to visa issuance. It also requires annual reports to the Congress on security issues at each consular post. These changes will help us avoid dangerous programs like visa express that let terrorists in without any real screening. I am also pleased that the homeland security bill we are considering today incorporates a number of our recommendations to ensure that the international trade functions of the Customs Service are not subsumed by the need for strong law enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security. In order to achieve this, we included a number of procedural protections. However, even with these safeguards, I am somewhat concerned that an attitude could prevail over time in which the trade function of the Customs Service become nothing more than a tool for the enforcement functions. I do not think this is an insignificant concern. Today, Customs operates under the umbrella of the Treasury Department, whose core mission it is to serve as a steward of the economy. Moving the 200 year old agency to Homeland Security could fundamentally alter the traditional mission and culture of the U.S. Customs Service. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I plan to exercise my oversight function diligently to make sure that this does not happen. Another provision that I worked hard to secure, along with Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, is the transfer of ATF agents to the Justice Department. The firearms and explosives experts will work alongside the FBI and the DEA at Justice Department. The firearms and explosives expert will work alongside the FBI and the DEA at Justice, and the revenue-collection experts and auditors will stay at the Treasury Department. This move will help coordinate criminal and antiterrorism investigatives at the DOJ, but will keep the ATF's revenue-collection duties at Treasury where they belong. So I thank the leadership for making sure these important changes were made. I also applaud the inclusion of language that I advocated requiring the new Secretary to appoint a senior official to be responsible for ensuring the adequacy of resources of drug interdiction. The smuggling, transportation, and financing organizations that facilitate illegal drug trafficking can just as easily smuggle terrorists or terror weapons into the United States. Many of the agencies being moved into the new Department were previously focused on the fight against narcotics. By coordinating counternarcotics policy and operations, this new official will ensure that our efforts to respond to future acts of terrorism will not come at the price of relaxing our efforts against the dehumanizing and painful effects of drug use on society and families. I was also pleased to work with Senators Lott and Bennett on FOIA provisions that encourage the private sector to alert government officials about risks to our critical national infrastructures. While public disclosure laws such as FOIA are central to the policy of preserving openness in government, they sometimes serve to inhibit our ability to receive vitally important national security-related information from information from businesses that fear unwarranted loss of public confidence and use by competitors, criminals, and terrorists. This new language will strike the dedicate balance between ``sunshine'' in government and the responsibility that we have to collect and share sensitive information about infrastructure vulnerabilities in an atmosphere of trust and confidence. The ultimate goal here before us is to help our intelligence and law enforcement communities at being the best they can be at protecting our nation and the American people. But we can't build a new house with broken blocks. If we don't fix the problems at the various agencies that will make up the new Department, we won't see real homeland security. A lot of work has been done, and I believe we are on the right track. I believe this plan is indeed the answer for effective homeland security, now and for the future. Let's move forward from here and get it done. Homeland Security

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 in support of the homeland security bill. I believe that today we are taking definitive action to put the Government in a better position to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The creation of a Department to oversee homeland security has been a tremendous undertaking for the White House and Congress. It has forced all of us to face multiple challenges, including overcoming the various agencies' desire for self-preservation and the longstanding turf battles we are all too familiar with. Regardless of these difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen our national security. A Department of Homeland Security is our best answer, and I have tried to do all that I could to enhance the effectiveness of the New Department. This new Department will have to improve and coordinate our intelligence analysis and sharing functions, as well as our law enforcement efforts. Our Nation needs to do everything possible to make sure the attacks of a year ago never happen on American soil again. The creation of the Department will help coordinate our homeland security efforts and better protect the United States from terrorist attack. The new Department will also identify and destroy barriers to effective communication and cooperation between the many entities involved in America's national security. It will identify our security and intelligence shortcomings and resolve them appropriately. It should also guarantee that the various infrastructure protection agencies moving to it have a smooth and seamless transition, and that whistle protections are given to each and every employee, without exception. I was glad to have an opportunity to work with the sponsors of the bill to secure adequate whistleblower rights for Department employees. Because rights are worthless unless you have a process by which those rights can be addressed, I worked with the sponsors to ensure that whistleblowers have procedural remedies. The bill's whistleblower protection language grants the Department's employees the same Whistleblower Protection Act rights that are currently enjoyed by almost all other Federal employees. Another big part of (the homeland security bill includes provision to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The new Department will be instrumental in securing our border, but we will have to steadily implement changes to improve the agency's service and enforcement functions. Improvements to this agency are long overdue and cannot be ignored after this bill passes. Just because we have streamlined their management, the INS's performance will be scrutinized in the years to come. The INS will be accountable to the American people, and I look forward to seeing some changes in the way they do their business. I am pleased that I was able to work on an immigration reform measure that will strengthen the Secretary's visa issuance powers. This provision authorizes the DHS Secretary to put DHS agents at consular posts or requires a finding that DHS agents aren't needed, and it gives the DHS Secretary influence in the State Department personnel matters relating to visa issuance. It also requires annual reports to the Congress on security issues at each consular post. These changes will help us avoid dangerous programs like visa express that let terrorists in without any real screening. I am also pleased that the homeland security bill we are considering today incorporates a number of our recommendations to ensure that the international trade functions of the Customs Service are not subsumed by the need for strong law enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security. In order to achieve this, we included a number of procedural protections. However, even with these safeguards, I am somewhat concerned that an attitude could prevail over time in which the trade function of the Customs Service become nothing more than a tool for the enforcement functions. I do not think this is an insignificant concern. Today, Customs operates under the umbrella of the Treasury Department, whose core mission it is to serve as a steward of the economy. Moving the 200 year old agency to Homeland Security could fundamentally alter the traditional mission and culture of the U.S. Customs Service. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I plan to exercise my oversight function diligently to make sure that this does not happen. Another provision that I worked hard to secure, along with Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, is the transfer of ATF agents to the Justice Department. The firearms and explosives experts will work alongside the FBI and the DEA at Justice Department. The firearms and explosives expert will work alongside the FBI and the DEA at Justice, and the revenue-collection experts and auditors will stay at the Treasury Department. This move will help coordinate criminal and antiterrorism investigatives at the DOJ, but will keep the ATF's revenue-collection duties at Treasury where they belong. So I thank the leadership for making sure these important changes were made. I also applaud the inclusion of language that I advocated requiring the new Secretary to appoint a senior official to be responsible for ensuring the adequacy of resources of drug interdiction. The smuggling, transportation, and financing organizations that facilitate illegal drug trafficking can just as easily smuggle terrorists or terror weapons into the United States. Many of the agencies being moved into the new Department were previously focused on the fight against narcotics. By coordinating counternarcotics policy and operations, this new official will ensure that our efforts to respond to future acts of terrorism will not come at the price of relaxing our efforts against the dehumanizing and painful effects of drug use on society and families. I was also pleased to work with Senators Lott and Bennett on FOIA provisions that encourage the private sector to alert government officials about risks to our critical national infrastructures. While public disclosure laws such as FOIA are central to the policy of preserving openness in government, they sometimes serve to inhibit our ability to receive vitally important national security-related information from information from businesses that fear unwarranted loss of public confidence and use by competitors, criminals, and terrorists. This new language will strike the dedicate balance between ``sunshine'' in government and the responsibility that we have to collect and share sensitive information about infrastructure vulnerabilities in an atmosphere of trust and confidence. The ultimate goal here before us is to help our intelligence and law enforcement communities at being the best they can be at protecting our nation and the American people. But we can't build a new house with broken blocks. If we don't fix the problems at the various agencies that will make up the new Department, we won't see real homeland security. A lot of work has been done, and I believe we are on the right track. I believe this plan is indeed the answer for effective homeland security, now and for the future. Let's move forward from here and get it done. Homeland Security

Mr. GRASSLEY. Finally, I wish to confirm that Treasury retained the authority to audit or investigate violations such as false or inaccurate records of production, false or inaccurate tax returns, failure to respond to delinquency notices, unlawful transfers in bond, and the unlawful production, labeling, advertising and marketing of alcoholic beverages.

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.

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

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. Mr. President, let me thank the good Senator from Montana and take a moment to echo his remarks. I strongly supported the Brownfield Revitalization Act and applaud the strides that it is making toward remediating brownfield sites across our Nation. In Iowa, as in many other States, we are challenged with our share of brownfields in places like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. The cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites can help reduce health risks, protect the environment, revitalize surrounding communities, preserve open space and create jobs by reintroducing properties into the stream of commerce that have languished for years. Philosophically, I support efforts to encourage private markets to help solve problems such as those presented by our Nation's brownfield sites. Given the size and scope of the brownfield problem in this country, I believe it behooves us to look for additional, innovative and low-cost solutions to help encourage investment in the remediation and redevelopment of these sites. I understand that current law may discourage tax-exempt investors from contributing capital to the remediation and revitalization of brownfield sites. Let me say to my good friend and colleague from Montana that I will gladly work with him to explore legislative options to help bring additional private capital to bear on solving our Nation's brownfield problem.

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. Mr. President, let me thank the good Senator from Montana and take a moment to echo his remarks. I strongly supported the Brownfield Revitalization Act and applaud the strides that it is making toward remediating brownfield sites across our Nation. In Iowa, as in many other States, we are challenged with our share of brownfields in places like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. The cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites can help reduce health risks, protect the environment, revitalize surrounding communities, preserve open space and create jobs by reintroducing properties into the stream of commerce that have languished for years. Philosophically, I support efforts to encourage private markets to help solve problems such as those presented by our Nation's brownfield sites. Given the size and scope of the brownfield problem in this country, I believe it behooves us to look for additional, innovative and low-cost solutions to help encourage investment in the remediation and redevelopment of these sites. I understand that current law may discourage tax-exempt investors from contributing capital to the remediation and revitalization of brownfield sites. Let me say to my good friend and colleague from Montana that I will gladly work with him to explore legislative options to help bring additional private capital to bear on solving our Nation's brownfield problem.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to proceed to consider the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be solicitor for the Department of Labor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Let me respond to the distinguished chairman on this point. At the request of the Senator from Louisiana, our staffs made inquiries of the administration on this question this evening. In discussion with Treasury officials, our staffs have been assured that the Treasury Department will look into this matter and work with the Senator from Louisiana to address the questions raised by the Senator. We look forward to an expeditious response from the Administration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I note that, technically, the bill allows even revenue- related authorities to be delegated. However, it is my understanding that a wholesale--or even a large-scale--delegation of such authorities is not contemplated by this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate the Senator's recalling our hearing of last July. I would note that following the hearing and our letter to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, we worked closely with that Committee and with the Administration to develop text that would keep intact the commercial functions of the Customs Service. That text has evolved. I note that the bill now before the Senate provides, as a general matter, for the transfer of Customs Service functions and personnel to the new Department of Homeland Security. Notwithstanding that, authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury relating to customs revenue functions are to remain with the Secretary of the Treasury unless delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. My understanding is that this exclusion from transfer pertains to authorities now exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury to issue revenue regulations developed by the Customs Service, and authority to provide oversight and supervision of the Customs Service in this area, especially with regard to policy matters.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Baucus on provisions in the homeland security bill pertaining to commercial operations of the Customs Service.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate this colloquy, and I thank the Senator for engaging in this colloquy on a very important topic. migratory bird treaty act

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Montana. I also would note that the issue of Customs' revenue functions is dealt with differently in this bill than in the draft bill originally sent to Congress by the Administration. In the Administration's draft bill, all Customs functions would have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security without any further action by any government official. That is, no Customs-related authorities would have been retained by the Secretary of the Treasury. Would the Senator from Montana agree that this contrast further supports the point that the bill now before the Senate is not intended to give the Secretary of the Treasury blanket permission to engage in a wholesale or large-scale transfer of revenue- related authorities to the Secretary of Homeland Security?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I implore the Democratic leadership to get in gear. The American people deserve action on this charitable tax reform action called the CARE Act. We should not forbear on curtailing tax shelters and corporate expatriations, which all may be legal, but in a time during the war on terrorism for a corporation to flee the country to Bermuda and not do anything more than set up a shell corporation is unethical and immoral--tax shelters, where the people who write the tax shelters sell them on the basis of how much money you will save the corporation in taxes, and where the people who write them do not even have to defend them. That seems to me to be professionally unethical as well. In other words, sell your product to a corporation and then let them hold the bag. We are losing a lot of revenue that can be used for charitable purposes under the CARE Act. Workers rightly expect a debate and action on a bipartisan retirement security package. Let's do the right thing. Let's do the people's business. Let's undo the gridlock on these important bills. Let's bring up the CARE Act. Let's bring up the NESTEG Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues that I have requested to be notified of any unanimous consent agreement before the Senate proceeds to the consideration of H.R. 4125. I have some concerns with this bill and would like to review it further. In addition, there are other Federal courts improvement measures that could be added to make this bill better, such as my Sunshine in the Courtroom legislation, which would allow federal judges discretionary authority to allow media coverage of Federal court proceedings with appropriate safeguards.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to be introducing with Senators DeWine, Leahy, Brownback, and Cantwell the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan bill authorizes the Attorney General to administer a grant program to assist communities in planning and implementing services for mentally ill offenders. These grants will increase public safety by fostering collaborative efforts by criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse agencies. I've seen these types of collaborative programs work in Iowa and I know that they can work elsewhere. We have an obligation to ensure that the public is protected from these offenders who suffer from mental illness. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that over 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has reported that over 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental problems. This grant program will help increase public safety, as well as reduce the number of mentally ill adults and juveniles incarcerated in correctional facilities. These grant dollars may be used by States and localities to establish mental health courts or other diversion programs, create or expand community-based treatment programs, provide in-jail treatment and transitional services, and for training of criminal justice and mental health system employees. The State of Iowa and a number of its counties are already leading the way in finding creative and collaborative programs to address the problems presented by these mentally ill criminals. Working together, the criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse professionals can make a difference in the lives of this special class of offenders and also increase the safety of the public. I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership on this important issue. He has drafted a bill that reflects a common sense approach to a serious public safety issue. I also want to encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to be introducing with Senators DeWine, Leahy, Brownback, and Cantwell the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan bill authorizes the Attorney General to administer a grant program to assist communities in planning and implementing services for mentally ill offenders. These grants will increase public safety by fostering collaborative efforts by criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse agencies. I've seen these types of collaborative programs work in Iowa and I know that they can work elsewhere. We have an obligation to ensure that the public is protected from these offenders who suffer from mental illness. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that over 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has reported that over 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental problems. This grant program will help increase public safety, as well as reduce the number of mentally ill adults and juveniles incarcerated in correctional facilities. These grant dollars may be used by States and localities to establish mental health courts or other diversion programs, create or expand community-based treatment programs, provide in-jail treatment and transitional services, and for training of criminal justice and mental health system employees. The State of Iowa and a number of its counties are already leading the way in finding creative and collaborative programs to address the problems presented by these mentally ill criminals. Working together, the criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse professionals can make a difference in the lives of this special class of offenders and also increase the safety of the public. I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership on this important issue. He has drafted a bill that reflects a common sense approach to a serious public safety issue. I also want to encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to your attention an outstanding individual, Eric C. Hurst of Minot, ND. This young man tragically lost his life in an attempt to rescue one of my fellow Iowans. Mr. Hurst loved his job as a canoe guide in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. While working on July 30, 2002, Mr. Hurst witnessed a young lady, Jamie Christenson, drowning in the boundary Waters near Basswood Falls. Without hesitation, Mr. Hurst dove in to rescue Ms. Christenson. Unfortunately, both Mr. Hurst and Ms. Christenson were pulled under water by the strong undercurrent. When they surfaced, revival attempts were futile. Although this story has a tragic ending, we must not forget the heroism displayed by Eric Hurst. He was willing to try to save Ms. Christenson from the turbulent waters of Basswood Falls without regard to the danger it posed to his own life. This is truly the ultimate sacrifice one can make. It is with deep respect and great sadness that I recognize Mr. Eric C. Hurst before this body of Congress and this nation for his unselfish act of heroism. Eric Hurst and Jamie Christenson will be missed by the many people they touched in their life and I express my sincere condolences to their families.