Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. N O T I C EEffective January 1, 2003, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $434 per year or $217 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $6.00 per copy. Subscriptions in microfiche format will be $141 per year with single copies priced at $1.50. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to brief my colleagues on Democratic gridlock in the Senate, and the only reason I feel comfortable using that word is that in 1993, I remember the headlines in the papers referred to ``Republican gridlock'' in the Senate when certain provisions and portions of President Clinton's program were not being acted upon, at least the way the newspapers believed they should be, in the Senate. It seems to me we have a similar situation now, but I do not see the newspapers writing about Democratic gridlock in the Senate. I wish to address my colleagues on a few provisions on the Senate calendar that are not being enacted, and these are the ones which I feel some expertise in talking about because they come from the Senate Finance Committee and deal with the legislative tax agenda. I am ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, and I am pleased to report that the committee has completed action on a number of bipartisan tax relief measures. The items I am going to discuss happen to have cleared the committee unanimously, which ought to say something about why they should be acted upon on the floor of the Senate, and I raise the question then: Why are they being held up? I will refer to two of many pieces of legislation about which I could talk. The first is a charitable tax reform bill known by the acronym CARE. By the way, this bill was introduced as a bipartisan bill. Senator Lieberman on the Democratic side and Senator Santorum on the Republican side worked closely with the White House because it is very high on the President's agenda. The second item I am going to refer to is one that is Enron related. Starting about a year ago, until about 3 months ago, Enron was voiced by everybody in the Senate as reason for doing certain actions-- corporate governance, pension reform, 401(k) reform, et cetera. For some reason, we do not hear anything about it now, particularly from the other side of the aisle, because there is some legislation on the agenda that is Enron related that reforms the pension statute that would help protect future Enron employees from losing their retirement nest egg. Again, both of these items--the charitable tax reform bill and the pension reform bill--were passed out of our committee unanimously. That is quite a reputation for a bill to have, considering how difficult it is to get even a majority view sometimes on the Senate Finance Committee. I wish to briefly describe the merits of this legislation. The charitable tax reform act is part of the President's compassionate, conservative initiative. The CARE Act has been carried forward on a bipartisan basis under the very energetic leadership of Democratic Senator Lieberman and Republican Senator Santorum. Others, including our own leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, have pledged their efforts to pass this bill. The House passed this bill over a year ago, and did it on a bipartisan vote. Several months ago, the Senate Finance Committee reported this bill to the full Senate. Most of the focus on the bill has been on provisions that reduce taxes. For instance, those who take the standard deduction--and that is about 70 percent of our taxpayers--will for the first time under this legislation be encouraged to contribute more to charities, and the incentive for doing that is the deductibility of these small contributions from their income taxes regardless of the fact that they take the standard deduction. As we know, people who tend to take the standard deduction are in the middle or lower income tax brackets. So the key provision of this bill provides a broad-based tax benefit to lower income taxpayers. This provision and others are obviously meant to, and will, enhance resources for charities to do their good work. This empowers people who are taxpayers to help charities, to empower the private sector of our economy to do more in humanitarian ways, and to have the resources to do what these organizations are already inclined to do. Even though this is a tax reduction measure, because obviously there is some lost revenue when these deductions are taken, we have offsets in this bill so there is not a net reduction in revenue to the Federal Treasury. The Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis as well, decided this should be done so that it was not subject to a point of order requiring 60 votes, or that we would be fiscally irresponsible in putting this tax benefit for charities into the individual tax law. I say to my fellow Senators, unlike a lot of spending legislation, the appropriations bills that have come before this body recently, this proposal does not add to the deficit. The Finance Committee found two important tax policy initiatives to offset this bill. All of these are related to corporate or individuals doing things to avoid taxes that may, in fact, be legal but are not necessarily moral or ethical. So we use these income-raising measures to offset the revenue loss in the Charitable Contribution Act. The first offset shuts down what are called corporate expatriations, also known as inversions. Let me explain to my colleagues that what we are talking about is corporations that over a long period of time have paid their taxes into the Federal Treasury exactly the way they were intended to be paid but there has been a recent trend of some corporations setting up a shell corporation in a place such as Bermuda for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes. We do not have any problems with people using our tax laws the way they were intended to meet international competition, but we are very chagrined at the act of people setting up a shell corporation for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes. On the one hand, we have corporations that have traditionally abided by the laws and not tried to finesse those laws to their own benefit. They basically stayed here and they paid. Then on the other hand, there is the whole trend of corporate tax filings to avoid paying taxes. They basically have dashed from the country, and they have stashed the cash somewhere else to avoid taxation. That is what is called an inversion. Passing the CARE Act will use the inversions as an offset so the money that would not be paid by corporations because they dashed and stashed the cash will still come to the Federal Treasury and will, in fact, offset revenue loss through the Charitable Tax Reform Act. I started talking about these inversions in January. I made my intention very clear then, and ever since, to shut down shell corporations being set up in Bermuda for the sole purpose of avoiding legitimate taxation. For me, it is critical that we act on inversions before we shut down this place this fall. Now is our chance on the CARE Act. We have people holding up this bill. They have to understand that they are responsible for holding up action on inversions. There are no two ways about it. They are not willing to shut down the immoral and unethical trend of corporate accounting by setting up shell corporations, going overseas to avoid taxation. We have another important offset in this CARE Act. It is also an important bipartisan Finance Committee initiative. It deals with tax shelters. This bipartisan proposal--and it was drafted in concert with the Treasury Department--is a result of over 3 years of work. It is a result of careful consultation with key professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and the Tax Executive Institute. This proposal was developed methodically and puts a premium on enhanced disclosures of tax shelter transactions. It also imposes tough penalties on those who undertake abusive tax shelter transactions. So as in the case of inversions, those who are right now blocking the Senate, under this Democrat gridlock, from considering the CARE Act are also blocking action to shut down tax shelters. I am pleased my colleagues on the Republican side are ready to proceed. Unfortunately, it is being blocked from the other side of the aisle. I am hopeful we will see cooperation from the Democratic side and get a chance to debate this bill, but time is running out. If we do not act on the Charitable Reform Act, called the CARE Act, including shelters being shut down and including expatriations from being stopped, it will be clear where responsibility lies. It lies with those who are blocking the bill now. A second piece of tax legislation that is caught in this Democratic gridlock is the pension reform bill. The pension reform bill is because of Enron-like corporate mismanagement, corporate greed, corporate fraud, corporate felons doing what they should not be doing, and that is mismanaging the money entrusted to them by stockholders and bondholders. What happens when there is this sort of corporate mismanagement? Thousands of Enron employees see their 401(k)s decimated. I know Enron is basically a Texas corporation, but there were 150 Enron employees in my State of Iowa who found that to have happened to their 401(k)s. How did it happen under their 401(k)s? Because under corporate laws there are corporate rules that do not allow a 401(k) holder to actually control their own account; for instance, having to be 55 years of age before someone can get rid of their stock or control their stock. Through this legislation, we want to protect people from Enron-like occurrences in the future. We do that through the legislation we call the pension reform bill, with the acronym NESTEG. That was considered by the Finance Committee over the spring and the summer subject to hundreds of hours of bipartisan staff discussion. That is how we get bills out of the Senate Finance Committee, through consensus. Every Member of the committee and even Members not on the committee with interests in this issue had input. It took several weeks. The discussions bore fruit. The chairman's markup with some amendments passed out of committee without opposition. This was all as a result of Members of this body saying Enron problems had to be solved. A lot of the people on the other side of the aisle were trying to fault President Bush's administration. They have not succeeded in doing that. That is intellectual dishonesty. If you look at a lot of the corporate mismanagement problems and follow the calendar back to when the first decisions were being made to do some of these things, they go well back into the Clinton administration. Our constituents, my 150 Enron employees, do not care who is to blame--Clinton, Bush, or whether nobody is to blame--except the corporate mismanager. The point is, they expect us to do something about it. A lot of this discussion was started on the other side of the aisle that brought us where we are now. There does not seem to be any interest on the part of the Democrat majority moving the pension reform and 401(k) bills that are so necessary to make sure future Enron- decimated 401(k)'s do not occur. I described how this bill was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee. There was another committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, known as the HELP Committee, chaired ably by Senator Kennedy, also working on some legislation in this direction. Chairman Kennedy took a little different route. He decided, for whatever reason, to refuse to engage Republicans on his committee, and the result was a raucous markup and a party-line vote. As I have said so many times, contrasting the work of the Senate Finance Committee, which was very bipartisan, from the work of the HELP Committee, which was more partisan, we cannot get anything done in a Senate that is divided 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent on a partisan plan. If you try to do that, the whole product is doomed. That was and is the fate of the HELP Committee bill on pension reform that came out of committee on a partisan vote. I digress for a minute. We are all legislators. Our job is to legislate. It is our responsibility, especially in these times, to use our legislative resources to actually accomplish something for the American people. However, I am the ranking minority Member on the Senate Finance Committee. Republicans are in a minority in this bed. The Democratic leadership runs the Senate. Like a point guard in basketball or a quarterback in football, the Democratic leadership has the ball. They call the plays. Unfortunately, serious legislating is not a game. When the Democratic leadership puts legislating the people's business ahead of partisan interests, they will get a product out. By the way, to be fair, that applies to Republican leadership, as well. Two examples come to mind. One is the bipartisan tax relief legislation of last year. The Republican leadership cleared the way for the bipartisan Finance Committee package, cleared the floor, became law June 7, 2001. Another example is the Sarbanes-Oxley corporation accountability bill. The Democratic leadership let Senators Sarbanes and Enzi craft a bipartisan compromise that cleared the Senate floor and became law. On the other hand, if the Democratic leadership wants to score political points and send a bill into the Senate ditch, that is their choice. Do not work with the other side, do not recognize that 49 of 100 Members of the Senate; somehow they do not exist. Do not respect 100 Senators. Do not respect Republican input on issues at hand. Just try to program your caucus poll-driven agenda down the throats of 100 Members. In the words of the distinguished majority leader, politicize it. The path is clear on pensions. The Democratic leadership is facing a fork in the road. The left fork is to play the partisan card. Pursuing that path means bringing up a bill that is designed to be controversial. It means bringing up a bill like the bill that came out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on a partisan vote. Then there is the right fork, bring up the Finance Committee bill, perhaps even with some bipartisan measures from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Frankly, Senators Baucus, Gregg, Kennedy, and myself made good progress. There is a bipartisan basis for proceeding. If the Democratic leadership follows this fork in the road, we can get a bill through the Senate, the very sort of thing people on the other side of the aisle have been clamoring for since last fall and for sure since January. Where are we? The Enron bankruptcy occurred about a year ago. Enron employees' retirement accounts have been devastated. People across the country rightly demand action. Shortly after the new year, the President proposed a multipoint plan to reform retirement plans. I don't know how many times I have heard since the President made that statement last spring from the other side of the aisle that the White House needs to be engaged. The White House engaged the Congress is the way I look at it. I did not hear much talk about doing anything about pension retirement plans until after the President said we ought to be working on it. The House acted very quickly in April on pension reform. But the full Senate has not acted. We cannot send the President a bill until the Senate acts. Choosing a partisan course means the Senate has default. That is very regrettable. Let me be clear. Republicans stand ready to work on this priority, and as we have already done, as indicated by the bill coming out of our committee on a unanimous vote, in a bipartisan manner, and even doing that in conjunction with committees that have tried to do the same thing in a partisan way. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter dated August 30 this year from the Finance Committee Republicans to Senator Daschle, on pension reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf of Sen. Baucus and myself to address the issue of inverting corporations that are awarded contracts by the federal government. Our bill is the ``Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits'', RECAP, Act. 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, Sen. Baucus and I introduced the ``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore'', REPO, Act to shut down these phony corporate inversions. Today, our REPO bill sits in the Care Act, awaiting Senate passage. 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. Imagine the nerve. They create phony foreign headquarters to escape taxes and then use other peoples' taxes to turn a profit. That's really something, something that needs to be stopped. Let's look at some of the numbers. Tyco had over 1700 contracts in 2001, worth over $286 million dollars. Accenture had contracts worth nearly $279 million. Ingersoll Rand left the United States for Bermuda, where it reportedly pays less than $28,000 a year to register its phony headquarters and receives $40 million in U.S. tax savings. Ingersoll Rand had more than 200 government contracts in 2001, worth over $12 million. I was the first member of Congress to disclose that inverting corporations were receiving Federal contracts, back in March of this year. Out of respect for the committee system, I have waited for the committees with jurisdiction over government contracts to act on this issue. They have not. Instead, we have seen a series of politically- inspired amendments offered in Congress, all of which are ineffective, easily evaded, and, if enacted, could cost thousands of Americans their jobs. I then read in the paper last week that the Defense Appropriations conferees dropped one of those amendments, rather than try to rewrite it. I decided enough is enough. It is time for serious legislation on this issue. Chairman Baucus and I offer our bipartisan RECAP bill as a compliment 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. The RECAP bill does not unwind Federal contracts that were legal when they were entered into. Therefore, unlike the other proposals, our RECAP bill will not throw thousands of Americans out of a job. The bill we submit today has only one objective: to permanently place corporate inversions on the endangered species list. I am aware that many of my colleagues believe this measure is unnecessary because inverting corporations pay U.S. taxes on their profits from Federal contracts. It is generally true that profits earned from a Federal contract are taxable in the United States, but those profits are easily reduced when an inverter creates phony deductions through its inversion structure. For example, most inverted companies create phony interest deductions for interest that is fictitiously paid to the ``file folder'' foreign headquarters. Objections to this bill simply overlook the real insult to the American people: these inverted companies take other peoples' tax dollars to make a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America strong. And that's just wrong. So let me be clear to everyone developing or contemplating one of these inversion deals, you proceed at your own peril. We are not only going after the corporate expatriation abuse, but also the abusers who seek big government contracts while skirting their U.S. tax obligations. I intend to pursue this issue throughout the remainder of this Congress and into the next. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 S. 3074 or any other legislation creating new bankruptcy judgeships. I believe that these changes should be enacted as part of the comprehensive bankruptcy reform conference report. Majority Leader Daschle has indicated that there will be a lame duck session, and he has indicated that the bankruptcy conference report will be taken up and passed. So I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass the comprehensive bankruptcy reform conference report.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf of Sen. Baucus and myself to address the issue of inverting corporations that are awarded contracts by the federal government. Our bill is the ``Reclaiming Expatriated Contracts and Profits'', RECAP, Act. 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, Sen. Baucus and I introduced the ``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore'', REPO, Act to shut down these phony corporate inversions. Today, our REPO bill sits in the Care Act, awaiting Senate passage. 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. Imagine the nerve. They create phony foreign headquarters to escape taxes and then use other peoples' taxes to turn a profit. That's really something, something that needs to be stopped. Let's look at some of the numbers. Tyco had over 1700 contracts in 2001, worth over $286 million dollars. Accenture had contracts worth nearly $279 million. Ingersoll Rand left the United States for Bermuda, where it reportedly pays less than $28,000 a year to register its phony headquarters and receives $40 million in U.S. tax savings. Ingersoll Rand had more than 200 government contracts in 2001, worth over $12 million. I was the first member of Congress to disclose that inverting corporations were receiving Federal contracts, back in March of this year. Out of respect for the committee system, I have waited for the committees with jurisdiction over government contracts to act on this issue. They have not. Instead, we have seen a series of politically- inspired amendments offered in Congress, all of which are ineffective, easily evaded, and, if enacted, could cost thousands of Americans their jobs. I then read in the paper last week that the Defense Appropriations conferees dropped one of those amendments, rather than try to rewrite it. I decided enough is enough. It is time for serious legislation on this issue. Chairman Baucus and I offer our bipartisan RECAP bill as a compliment 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. The RECAP bill does not unwind Federal contracts that were legal when they were entered into. Therefore, unlike the other proposals, our RECAP bill will not throw thousands of Americans out of a job. The bill we submit today has only one objective: to permanently place corporate inversions on the endangered species list. I am aware that many of my colleagues believe this measure is unnecessary because inverting corporations pay U.S. taxes on their profits from Federal contracts. It is generally true that profits earned from a Federal contract are taxable in the United States, but those profits are easily reduced when an inverter creates phony deductions through its inversion structure. For example, most inverted companies create phony interest deductions for interest that is fictitiously paid to the ``file folder'' foreign headquarters. Objections to this bill simply overlook the real insult to the American people: these inverted companies take other peoples' tax dollars to make a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America strong. And that's just wrong. So let me be clear to everyone developing or contemplating one of these inversion deals, you proceed at your own peril. We are not only going after the corporate expatriation abuse, but also the abusers who seek big government contracts while skirting their U.S. tax obligations. I intend to pursue this issue throughout the remainder of this Congress and into the next. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to place a hold on the nomination of Ms. Maura Harty to be Director of the Office of Consular Affairs within the Department of State. Ms. Harty was voted out of the Committee on Foreign Relations today by voice vote. My reason for placing a hold on this nomination is to hear from Ms. Harty regarding a number of controversial cases that were under her jurisdiction as an employee of the Office of Consular Affairs. First, I am seeking to know more about cases of international child abductions, which have left many parents frustrated with our Government. Many parents do not believe that Ms. Harty, in her capacity as the Managing Director of the Office of Overseas Citizens Services, vigorously pursued the interest of American abducted children. Second, I wish to convey my concerns about personal appearance waiver programs, such as Visa Express. I am seeking assurance from the nominee that visa issuing procedures will be improved, and future recommendations from the inspector general will be seriously considered by the Office of Consular Affairs. Finally, I intend to question the nominee on allegations that she fired an employee for blowing the whistle on a Foreign Service national who committed visa fraud. I have been a longtime champion for protecting the rights of those who shed light on the problems in our Government, so I take these allegations very seriously and look forward to hearing from Ms. Harty regarding this matter.

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. 5472 or any other legislation extending chapter 12 bankruptcy. While I am a strong supporter of chapter 12--in fact I was the author of chapter 12--I believe that these changes should be enacted as part of the comprehensive bankruptcy reform conference report, which includes provisions making permanent chapter 12 and extending other important family farmer protections in bankruptcy. Chapter 12 will be in effect until the end of this year, and I expect that the comprehensive bankruptcy reform conference report will be passed by the House and Senate by then. Consequently, an extension is not necessary at this time. So I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass the comprehensive bankruptcy reform conference report as soon as possible to extend these protections to our family farmers.

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 the nomination of Grover J. Rees to be Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of East Timor. I need further time to examine the qualifications of this nominee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues. It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken, but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and whether or not the President had access to that information. The insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and, why didn't he do something about 9/11? It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the President's call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why wouldn't you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United States today? I come to the floor today to share my thoughts concerning the resolution before the Senate. Again we find ourselves in the midst of an important debate with one of the most important decisions that many Senators will make in our lifetime. The issue of war and peace involves the threats to the lives of the men and women we send to battle. This issue may even involve threats to the American civilian population, as well. It was just a little more than a decade ago that many Members were here making similar decisions in regard to the Persian Gulf war. As many of my colleagues may remember, I was just one of two Senate Republicans who opposed the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 1991. I voted against that resolution because I questioned the timing of military action while diplomatic measures and economic sanctions had just been started. I felt they needed a chance to work. Opposing the resolution was a difficult decision, but one that I have never regretted. While today's decision is not one to be taken lightly, it stands in stark contrast to that of 1991. While I opposed that resolution for the reasons I stated, I intend to support the compromise resolution before us because I believe the time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable is past due. But, this is not the first time since 1991 that Congress has approved a resolution approving military action against Iraq. In 1998, by unanimous vote by the Senate and an overwhelming 407-6 vote in the House, Congress approved a resolution, and subsequently President Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998. Let us see how forthrightly the Senate spoke at that time about the dangers of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I speak from page 2 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It says in section 3: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime. It is pretty clear we knew about the threat of Saddam Hussein under a Democratic President--President Clinton--with a bipartisan action by consensus of this body. Why should anybody be surprised if President Clinton and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, would be expressing the same concern 4 years later? What was the basis of that overwhelming vote? Primarily, it was because Iraq has kicked United Nations weapons inspectors out, as they did in 1998. Today we have a lot of intelligence information saying it is a far more dangerous situation today, and particularly for the United States. Thousands of Americans were killed in that 9/11 attack by terrorists. Iraq is aligned with those terrorists, and Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction. We must, therefore, respond appropriately. One of the most pressing concerns expressed by my constituents over the past few months is that of timing. The question: Why now? The question: Why can't we continue to pursue inspections and other diplomatic measures? They are legitimate questions. Many of my colleagues will answer this differently than I will. But the response for me is quite simple. I believe the actions by Saddam Hussein over the past 10 years builds a strong case why firm action is needed and why we cannot afford as a Congress delaying a decision any longer. None of this precludes inspections or diplomatic missions. But these alternatives demand full cooperation by Iraq if a military response is to be withheld. However, during the past 10 years, the international community has worked with Iraq through diplomatic efforts, various inspection regimes, economic sanctions, and even limited military force in an effort to encourage Saddam Hussein to abide by the very resolutions he agreed to at the end of the gulf war. He agreed to follow these within the rule of law--the international rule of law. We can legitimately expect any person to agree to follow those agreements. Yet Saddam Hussein has consistently and convincingly evaded and defied those obligations he agreed to. In the spring of 1991, the United Nations Security Council agreed to Resolution 687, which required Saddam Hussein to destroy his chemical and biological weapons and to unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. That same resolution also demanded Iraq not develop or acquire any weapons of mass destruction. However, the CIA reported Iraq is continuing to develop and acquire chemical and biological weapons. The report states since the United Nations weapons inspectors left in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort and invested even more heavily in biological weapons. In addition, the CIA estimated Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in the near term with the proper supply of material. United Nations Resolution 687 also required Saddam Hussein to end his support for terrorism and to prohibit terrorist organizations from operating inside the borders of Iraq. Yet there is clear evidence Iraq has provided safe haven to a number of prominent, international terrorists. Iraq has provided assistance to terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to disrupt and prevent peace efforts in the Middle East. Most importantly, fleeing al-Qaida members now reside in Iraq. Of course, it is only a matter of time before these two enemies of the United States join forces--and maybe they already have. Altogether, Saddam has defied at least 16 United Nations resolutions during the past decade. He has manipulated U.N. weapons inspectors, tortured and repressed Iraqi people, supported international terrorists, and violated United Nations economic sanctions. So he continues to thumb his nose at the world, and particularly the rule of law under the international regimes we all respect. The issue is as much about protecting people as it is about enforcing the international rule of law. But enforcing international rule of law is one way to eliminate chaos so people can live peacefully. Will the United Nations take a stand in defense of their very own resolutions and hold Saddam Hussein accountable? Will the United Nations resolutions, which seek to provide peace and security in the region, continue to be unenforced? This resolution before the Senate then asks the United Nations: Does the organization want to be relevant during the 21st century, an instrument of peace in this century, or does it somehow want to fade away as the League of Nations did because of its failures in Abyssinia in the 1930s? I want, and I hope all my colleagues want, the U.N. to be relevant. I want the U.N. to lead. Its moral leadership is important. We have to discourage tin-horn dictators from violating the rule of law. The time for accountability is right now. According to former President Clinton, in a speech on December 16, 1998: Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. That is what President Clinton said in a speech on December 16, 1998. Former President Clinton's words are very applicable to the situation now, even 4 years later. I have also heard concerns from people who question this resolution, saying that by supporting it, we are supporting preemptive military action against a sovereign nation. However, for the last decade, the United States and allied forces have patrolled no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq to protect Kurdish and Shiite minority populations from Saddam Hussein, and all the while they have been fired upon by Iraq's military. These are American pilots. Some of them have been Iowans because over the past 6 years the Iowa Air National Guard has completed five 90-day missions and will likely be needed for a sixth mission before the end of this year. And as the President stated earlier this week, the American and British pilots have been fired upon more than 750 times. In a sense, we have been involved in military action in Iraq since the 1991 gulf war. So what is contemplated by this resolution cannot be described as preemptive. Some of my constituents have also questioned the effect this will have on our war on terrorism. I believe that forcing Iraq to disarm is part of the war against terrorism and is consistent with the war on terrorism. Iraq has already been labeled by previous administrations as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq is one of seven nations to be designated by our own State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. And given Iraq's support for international terrorists and its support for efforts to provide safe haven for al-Qaida, it is clear that this effort should not be seen as separate from the war on terrorism but very much an integral part of the war on terrorism. It is because of our obligations to enforce international law, and to disarm this threat to our national security and to the security of the entire world, that I have decided to support the resolution offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. A decade ago, as I said, I opposed war with Iraq because I believed we had not exhausted all alternatives available at that time. Today, I support this resolution because we have exhausted all other remedies, unless somehow Saddam Hussein has a change of heart. After years of evasion, after years of defiance, the time has come to stand firm and enforce the resolutions to disarm Iraq. Or, on the other hand, it is time for Saddam Hussein to repent and fully cooperate. But his track record in that regard is not very promising. It is important to keep in mind that this resolution before the Senate does not guarantee military action, nor do I think it should. But it does authorize the use of United States military forces to defend the national security of the United States against this continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq. In other words, this is as much about enforcing the rule of law as a policeman in Washington, DC, would enforce the domestic rule of law to prevent chaos and to encourage law- abiding citizenry, as it is about military action, at least from my standpoint. Most importantly, this resolution makes clear that if the United Nations fails to ensure full compliance with international law, we will not sit quietly and let this tinhorn dictator ignore the rule of law. At the same time, we will be sending the message to other tinhorn dictators around the world that they had better not violate the international rules of law. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, dispelled notions of America's invincibility, it placed greater demands on our Government to protect and defend American citizens, and it put more demand on American citizens themselves to look out for their own safety, as a Jerusalem-type terrorist bombing could happen in New York City or Washington, DC, as much as it happens in Jerusalem. My resolve is stronger than ever to win the war on terrorism, protect U.S. citizens, secure the homeland, and, most importantly, defend American values and our way of life. By supporting this resolution, we will send a strong signal to the United Nations, as well as our friends and allies around the world, that we will not sit idly by and allow a ruthless dictator to violate international law and threaten the security of that region and, in fact, impact the whole world. This resolution says to the world community that America stands together, committed to the rule of law and the security of all nations. So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution offered by our colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself the requisite amount of time to speak in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have addressed the Senate many times on my oversight efforts of the FBI. As my colleagues know, I have been trying to improve the FBI for years. Sometimes that means investigating problems that some people would otherwise rather cover up. But there is nothing like sunshine that fixes what is wrong, particularly in Government. I do this not because I am against the FBI but because I think the FBI is meant to work well and work right so our country is protected. In fact, since September 11, the FBI is on the front line on the domestic war on terrorism. Obviously, the FBI must change to meet that demand. If it does not, we lose the domestic war on terrorism when the people on the front line are not ready to do what needs to be done. In February, I was addressing the Senate about the FBI reform bill introduced by Chairman Leahy and myself to help bring more security and accountability to the FBI. I want to highlight that bill. The bill strengthens the FBI uniformed police, creates an effective polygraph program to detect moles, and establishes an attractive career path for internal security officers. This is important. It has not been that long since probably the worst spy case in FBI history, Robert Hanssen, was uncovered. For accountability, it ends the double standard in discipline that allows top bureaucrats to escape punishment. This bill gives real whistleblower protections to FBI agents so others, such as Coleen Rowley of Minneapolis, can come forward with the truth, as Director Mueller complimented her as a whistleblower for bringing valuable information to the surface. I happen to think the Attorney General and the FBI Director are working hard to reform and improve the FBI, but the Leahy-Grassley bill will help ensure that reform really happens. In fact, the Justice Department has even asked us for several provisions that we agreed to put in the bill. The Judiciary Committee approved this bill unanimously back in April. Since then, this bill has been in limbo. There is now a hold on this bill--one of these secret holds. I do not do secret holds. When I put a hold on a nominee or a bill, I always put a statement in the Congressional Record so Senators know it is Chuck Grassley and why Chuck Grassley is putting a hold on a bill. It seems we need to put a stop to the backroom squabbles that have brought this hold about and put national security first and help reform the FBI. A few parts of the bill were luckily included in the Department of Justice reauthorization bill last week. I appreciate that the inspector general's authority to investigate the FBI is now codified, and I am sure the FBI appreciated the help we gave them by including provisions for the uniformed police force. That is all nice, but the heart of the FBI reform bill was left out, and that heart is more whistleblower protections and ending the double standard in discipline. I have outlined why this bill is important. Now I think an example I have will help people understand why we need to enact this bill very shortly. Quite recently, my staff was shown a Tiffany crystal paperweight globe. This globe sells for $100 to $200 but has been valued by experts at more than $5,000. This globe was wrapped in an evidence bag. What does this have to do with the FBI? Well, the answer is this globe was stolen from Ground Zero New York City, as you know. I don't think I have to explain how disgraceful that act is. It is not only illegally taking evidence from a crime scene, but it is stealing from hallowed ground where thousands of people died on September 11. There have already been numbers of prosecutions for removing items from Ground Zero. There is not question then that this act was wrong. But in this case, I am told that the globe was taken by one or more FBI agents. That is right. I am sorry to say it was taken by FBI agents. Agents from the Minneapolis Division apparently took it back with them after being on official business at Ground Zero. When they returned, I guess they gave it to a secretary in the office, as if it was some memento from the trip. This is how I know that: because an FBI agent decided to blow the whistle after her superiors would not do anything about the theft. The FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Administration Inspectors General have been investigating a Minnesota company for stealing items from Ground Zero and other matters. Coincidentally, Agent Jane Turner of the Minneapolis office discovered that other FBI agents did the very same thing. In fact, it was one or more agents from the Evidence Response Team that took the globe. The ERT is supposed to secure and collect evidence at a crime scene. Their job is to preserve the integrity of a crime scene, not take from it and disrupt it. When Agent Turner told her supervisor about this, he said he already knew about it. It evidently was not that big a deal because he did not do anything about it. Well, I do think it is a big deal. I think it is outrageous. And I suspect that the loved ones of the 9/11 victims would think this is an outrage. In New York, the fact is people are working overtime to try and return items like this to the families that once owned them. Maybe some people who work at these scenes think that taking something is OK, like it is a trophy for their hard work, but I do not think so. Most important, it is against the law. This makes me wonder what else these agents stole, if they were generous enough to give a pricey crystal globe to a secretary. This is the kind of behavior from a law enforcement agency that could backfire and hurt the case against criminals. For example, if a company were to do the same thing, steal something from Ground Zero, they might argue in court that the FBI did it, so it must be OK and why can't they get away with it? So taking this from Ground Zero was not only wrong, but it could really hurt prosecutions. Because Agent Turner could not get an investigation into this matter by the FBI, she had to bring this to my staff and Chairman Leahy's staff. Because of the severity of the situation, it was decided that she report the situation to the Justice Department Inspector General for a criminal investigation. Fortunately, Agent Turner was able to recover the globe from the Minnesota office and bring it to the Inspectors General in a sealed evidence bag. The bag was sealed and signed both by Agent Turner and an agent from the FEMA Inspector General office, which is also working the case. I have also learned of other problems with the FBI Minneapolis office. Apparently, a former FBI agent from that office is using his influence and access to undermine an FBI investigation. This former agent is now a consultant to the subject of an investigation. So he is working against the FBI on a case, but at the same time trying to influence and get information from the FBI with such perks as sideline- access Vikings tickets. This appears to be a violation of Government ethics rules, a big security problem and conflict of interest. I hope the FBI looks into this problem as well. What does this have to do with the FBI reform bill? Agent Turner's disclosures to the committee are not protected. The FBI knows they could retaliate. It is the same thing that happened with Agent Coleen Rowley from Minneapolis. She was involved with the Moussaoui case, and she was not retaliated against because of media attention and Director Mueller's promise. But that is not going to happen every time. FBI agents cannot always take the risk that comes with blowing the whistle. There has to be protection in the law, and that's what the FBI reform bill does. In the Turner case, Chairman Leahy and I wrote to the Director asking for his assurance that Agent Turner not get hit with retaliation, but we have not gotten an answer back yet. This bill also will put an end to the double standard in discipline, where senior officials get away with misconduct and coverups, while rank-and-file agents get punished for the same thing. This hurts the morale of the FBI. And how do we know about these discipline problems? We know about them because of whistleblowers, patriotic American citizens wanting the law to be abided by. Agents John Roberts, Frank Perry, Patrick Kiernan, and former agent John Werner all testified about this discipline scandal last summer. This bill is only the first step to fix it, but the bill has not gone anywhere. These agents stuck their necks out to explain what is wrong with the FBI to Congress and the public. So far the Senate has ignored them, and their careers continue to be at risk. I know all this might be embarrassing for the FBI, but stealing is wrong, especially from Ground Zero, and there has to be consequences. Heads have to roll. I think the FBI agents in the field around the country do a great job. I have found that the big FBI mistakes over the years usually come from headquarters, not from the grassroots. In this case, it looks as if there are a few bad apples who did something wrong. And no one wanted to deal with it, so Agent Turner was obligated to blow the whistle. It was her sworn duty as a Federal law enforcement officer. If we do not have the FBI reform bill, we will not have whistleblowers like Jane Turner and Coleen Rowley who expose these hidden problems that need to be fixed. Without the bill, agents in the field will still think senior bureaucrats are held to a different standard, so morale suffers. Without the bill, FBI internal security will not be the best it can be. That means the FBI will be more vulnerable and less effective, and that hurts national security. This is not about politics. It is about improving the FBI and national security, and about making sure truth, fairness and justice prevail. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, finally, our tax fairness bill ensures that military families receive comparable tax treatment for child care expenses. Most American workers are permitted to exclude from income $5,000 of employer-provided child care expenses. A separate blanket exclusion is provided to the military for all benefits. The provision, however, does not specify the treatment of military-provided child care expenses and some confusion has resulted. Our bill confirms this exclusion from military personnel. This ensures that military-provided child care is not treated less favorably than employer-provided child care or other military-provided benefits. Increased focus on national defense no doubt renews our deep appreciation for the members of our military. These men and women make tremendous sacrifices, and in some cases, risk their lives to protect and defend our freedom. It is a perfect time to ensure that men and women in service are treated fairly under our country's tax laws. In closing, I would like to thank those who continue to serve in the United States military and protect the freedoms that we so frequently take for granted. I thank my colleagues and urge them to vote for this important tax fairness measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are here today to consider the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act which was voted out of the Finance Committee on September 12. A similar tax relief package was passed unanimously by the House in July. No one would dispute that many national defense challenges lie ahead for our country. We have spent and will continue to spend a good deal of time discussing homeland security and the war on terrorism as we continue our efforts to secure our borders. Now, we must consider seriously the possibility of military operations in Iraq. For those reasons, it is a particularly appropriate time to focus our attention on the important contributions of the men and women of our Armed Forces and national guard. These folks are the lifeblood of any initiative against terrorism or movement in Iraq and the first lien of defense in homeland security efforts. We need to make sure that these men and women are treated fairly in all respects and that the Tax Code does not provide any disincentives to continued service. Our military tax bill would remedy several tax problems and inequities faced by members of our uniformed services, National Guard, and foreign service. As a starting point, the legislation would make sure that military personnel subject to relocation are not disadvantaged in the Tax Code on the sales of their homes. In 1997, we enacted a capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of personal residences for individuals who live in the home for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. This works well for most people, but the provision offers little help for military personnel who are frequently transferred. We should not punish members of our Armed Forces and foreign service who are asked to relocate in the name of service to their country. Like many of the provisions in this bill, the issue is one of fairness, and we should provide our military with home ownership tax incentives at least as favorable as those available to most Americans. Our military tax relief package also makes some important additions to the military tax package sent over by the House. One of those, Senator DeWine's proposal for the benefit of Reservists and National Guard, is both timely and important. Timely because Reservists continue to play an increasingly prominent role in our country's military operations. Historically, Reservists were used as manpower replacements only in national emergencies and wars. In fact, between 1945 and 1990, 85 percent of involuntarily activated Reservists assisted in the Korean war. In the last decade, however, we have involuntarily activated Reservists six times for a broad array of operations, including (i) nation-building operations in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, (ii) armed conflicts such as those in Iraq, and (iii) current military operations fighting terrorism. Iowa alone currently has about 800 Guard and Reservists on active duty. Important because many Guard and Reservists who travel for weekend drills are required to spend their own money for travel expenses. If our military is unable to reimburse these folks for travel expenses related to training assignments, we should at a minimum allow these men and women to fully deduct those expenses on their Federal tax returns. Although we currently allow miscellaneous itemized deductions for such expenses, a limited number of Reservists itemize on their tax returns. Our bill includes a provision offered by Senator DeWine that such expenses be deductible by all reservists in above-the-line form. This would ensure (i) that Reservists are at least partly compensated for training-related travel expenses paid out of their own pockets, (ii) that all Reservists are treated equally, and (iii) would eliminate a potential disincentive to service. Many Iowans have contacted me with respect to this issue, and I ask unanimous consent to print their comments in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object for the leadership, as a ranking Republican on the committee that has jurisdiction over unemployment compensation for our side, there is not unanimous view that something should be done in this area. The most important thing is, for now, we object. We would think in terms of looking at the economy and not only ways to support people who are in need at a time when the economy might be in problems down the road, but also to consider as part of a package things that would help the economy grow and create jobs. It is essential we think in terms of expanding the economy when we put together packages that are needed for economic relief and not just to help those who are unemployed. We look forward to working with the other side of the aisle in seeing what could we come up with in terms of a package that will help people in need but also help to grow the economy. Since that is not part of this package, I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss a provision in the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act I introduced yesterday with Senator Baucus. The core of our bill, as the short title indicates, ensures beneficiary access to care and improves equity in Medicare payments. But the bill also makes important other improvements to the Medicare program that go beyond payment policy and beneficiary improvements. Chief among those is regulatory relief for providers. Every day, in cities and towns across Iowa, health care providers treat the sick, restore them to health, and work to prevent further illness. Iowa's proportion of older adults in the population exceeds that of the United States as a whole. In fact, we rank second in the Nation in our percentage of persons aged 85 and older. Simply put, the Medicare program means a great deal to Iowans, not only from a beneficiary perspective but also from a provider perspective. Health care providers in Iowa rely on the Medicare program for much of their business. I have had extensive conversations with many Iowa health care providers and workers, and a complaint I have heard over and over is that the Medicare program is too bureaucratic. Too much time is spent on paperwork instead of treating patients. Rules coming out of Washington are confusing and contradictory. Doctors and nurses receive one answer to a question from their Medicare contractor and a different answer from Medicare headquarters in Baltimore. Now, don't get me wrong. My position on the sin of Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse has not changed. As a watchdog of the taxpayer dollar, I firmly believe in asking health care providers to account for the money they receive from the government. Taxpayer dollars must be spent responsibly. However, when honest providers are unable to get straight answers from the government, frustration and inefficiency can result. The outcome is a health care program that is not serving beneficiaries or taxpayers as well as it could. So I am proud that this legislation takes steps to treat some of these bureaucratic ills afflicting Medicare. Based on provisions in a bill introduced last year by myself and Senator Baucus, along with Senators Murkowski and Kerry, the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act offers additional appeal rights for providers, mandates enhanced provider education, and ensures that providers receive straight answers from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Importantly, our legislation reforms the way Medicare contracts with the private companies that process and pay claims. Today, CMS is stymied by outdated guidelines that fail to recognize efficiency and quality in contractor performance. Today's system is also not competitive. Our legislation brings competition into the program so that the best available contractors, in terms of quality and efficiency, will serve it. The bill provides incentives for contractors to give timely and accurate information to beneficiaries and providers. For Medicare contractor reform to succeed, however, contractors need protection from unlimited civil liability in carrying out the payments, provider services, and beneficiary services functions expected of them. The bill I have just introduced would therefore continue the past policy of limiting the liability of certifying and disbursing officers, and the Medicare administrative contractors for whom those officers serve, with respect to certain payments. In addition, the language contained in Section 621 clarifies that Medicare administrative contractors are not liable for inadvertent billing errors but, as in the past, are liable for all damages resulting from reckless disregard or intent to defraud the United States. Importantly, the reckless disregard standard is the same as the standard under the False Claims Act, a 150-year-old Federal law that I updated in 1986 and that has had unmatched success in fighting fraud and abuse in Federal programs like Medicare. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733, applies to Medicare fiscal intermediaries and carriers under current law and has been used effectively by whistleblowers and the Department of Justice to uncover and penalize fraud against the program by some intermediaries and carriers. This specially calibrated version of reckless disregard balances the practical need to shelter Medicare administrative contractors from frivolous civil litigation, with the Medicare program's interest in protecting itself from contractor fraud. This legislation makes it clear that the False Claims Act continues, as in the past, to remain available as a remedy for fraud against Medicare by certifying officers, disbursing officers, and Medicare administrative contractors alike and that, among other things, the remedy subjects Medicare contractors to administrative as well as trust fund damages. I am pleased that the Department of Justice and the HHS Office of Inspector General believe this special liability standard serves taxpayers and the Medicare program extremely well. In closing, let me again say how proud I am that on this issue and on the many other provider and beneficiary policies in this bill, Chairman Baucus and I were able to work together in a balanced, bipartisan fashion. Together, we carefully considered and came to agreement on payment, administration and benefit policies that make sense for Medicare. I urge the Senate Democrat leadership to call up our bill for full consideration in short order before we adjourn next week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am joining Chairman Baucus today to introduce the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002. This legislation arrives at an important time for Medicare beneficiaries and the providers that care for them: October 1. Many provisions of the Medicare law that ensure adequate payment for providers, and in turn, beneficiary access to care, expire today. I urge the Senate to consider this legislation with all speed, as soon as possible. Our bill addresses pressing needs. The clock is running out on Medicare payments to doctors, who are scheduled for yet another reduction in their fees for a second straight year, absent Congressional action. Skilled Nursing Facilities also face a major reduction in payment today. In other areas facing imminent payment cuts, such as home health and hospital services, our bill injects financial support that will stabilize these essential services our seniors rely on. The legislation also provides billions in aid to State governments, many of them facing steep budget deficits, so they can meet the needs of citizens who rely on the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs. In addition to ensuring continued access to quality care for Medicare beneficiaries, our bipartisan Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act makes long overdue improvements to health care in rural America. Our bill invests in States like Iowa, my home State, where small providers that practice efficient medicine are hurt by complex payment formulas that favor high-cost care in big cities. The formulas also don't recognize special costs faced by smaller, more isolated physicians, hospitals and clinics. It obviously doesn't make sense to penalize States like Iowa who do more with less. That's why I'm so committed to fixing these formulas. The proposal I've put together with Senator Baucus would provide a tremendous infusion of cash to hard-pressed health care providers across Iowa and to other rural States. It takes money to ensure access to care for Iowans, and this will help make the federal government part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Together, Senator Baucus and I have introduced our bill under Rule 14, which means the bill will be placed directly on the calendar two days from now, rather than referred to our own Committee, the Finance Committee. We agreed to take this extraordinary step because the Senate is basically tied up in knots right now. Well, our message is that Medicare fairness is too urgent to let this bill be a victim of gridlock. Our action today gives Senate Majority Leader Daschle the ability to call the bill up as early as Thursday. In short, there's no time to waste.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak in support of an amendment that Senator Baucus and I introduced which modifies the Customs provisions of the homeland security bill. The creation of a Department to oversee homeland security is a tremendous undertaking for Congress and the White House which will face multiple challenges. This is certainly true in the context of incorporating the U.S. Customs Service into the new Department. The U.S. Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the U.S. Government. Created in 1789 to enforce U.S. tariff policy, the agency's mission has continually adapted to meet the changing needs of our Nation. Today, it is one of the most modernized agencies in the U.S. Government, responsible for managing over 23 million entries and 472 million passengers a year. It collects over $23 billion dollars in duties and fees and is responsible for seizing millions of pounds of contraband narcotics every year. The Customs Service is a vital component of our Government. Given the importance of the agency in facilitating international trade and law enforcement, I think we have an obligation to do everything we can to enhance the effectiveness of the new Department as it moves from Treasury too Homeland Security. That is why I, working closely with Senator Baucus, developed a series of recommendations regarding the Customs Service which we presented to the Committee on Governmental Affairs early in the process of developing this bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators Lieberman and Thompson for incorporating the vast majority of our recommendations into the homeland security bill. I especially appreciate the collegial and bipartisan spirit in which the recommendations were developed and adopted by the committee. I think we will have a much better product because of our joint efforts. The additional changes we are offering to the bill will further enhance the effectiveness of the Customs Service as it moves into the Department of Homeland Security. The ability of the Customs Service to effectively facilitate international trade while at the same time perform its law enforcement functions is in large part due to the cooperative relationship which the Customs Service has with much of the international trade community. This cooperative relationship benefits both parties and has been developed over a long period of time. By understanding the business community and how international trade actually works, the Customs Service is much more adept at identifying anomalies in trade patterns that often point to illicit activity. I want to make sure these relationships are not lost with the transfer of the Customs Service to Homeland Security. Part of the key in maintaining this traditional cooperative relationship is to maintain the advisory elements on which they are built. This means carrying forth such committees as the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Commercial Operations of the Customs Service, or COAC, to the new Department of Homeland Security. This is precisely what our amendment does. I also want to make sure the international trade functions of the Customs Service continue to receive adequate resources to continue their work. A good example of this is the continued construction of the automated commercial environment, or ACE. Currently, the automated commercial system is the only comprehensive mechanism to monitor trade flows. Yet it is antiquated and subject to periodic slowdowns. We must do better. That is why I strongly support rapid and efficient deployment of ACE, the automated commercial environment. The ACE system will be key to facilitating economic trade in the future. We must make sure than, even in these times of tight budget constraints and intense focus on homeland security, we continue to provide Customs with the funds needed to get the ACE system up and running. A well-functioning automated mechanism for monitoring trade flows will help facilitate international trade and help Customs more effectively perform its law enforcement functions. Our amendment establishes a new account within the Customs Service called the Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation Account. For fiscal years 2003 through 2005, $350 million in Customs user fees would be allocated specifically to this account. Creation of this account will ensure that sufficient funding is available to complete construction of the automated commercial environment ACE after Customs moves from the Department of the Treasury to Homeland Security. As we move forward in enhancing our border security efforts, it is important to keep in mind that a large part of homeland security is economic security. And, international trade is a critical component of our economic security. Exports alone accounted for 25 percent of U.S. economic growth from 1990-2000. Exports alone support an estimated 12 million jobs. Trade also promotes more competitive businesses--as well as more choices of goods and inputs, with lower prices. If we impede trade, we impede our own economic growth and our own well-being. The tragedy of September 11 make it clear that the United States must be at the forefront in developing the border technologies and enforcement methodologies which will enable our economy to prosper and grow in the new global environment. We cannot afford to do any less. A nation which master the competing goals of international trade facilitation and border security will be a nation which can confidently embrace new world trading system. It will be a nation which prospers well into this new millennium. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and President Bush to make sure our Nation rises to meet this challenge.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am joining Chairman Baucus today to introduce the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002. This legislation arrives at an important time for Medicare beneficiaries and the providers that care for them: October 1. Many provisions of the Medicare law that ensure adequate payment for providers, and in turn, beneficiary access to care, expire today. I urge the Senate to consider this legislation with all speed, as soon as possible. Our bill addresses pressing needs. The clock is running out on Medicare payments to doctors, who are scheduled for yet another reduction in their fees for a second straight year, absent Congressional action. Skilled Nursing Facilities also face a major reduction in payment today. In other areas facing imminent payment cuts, such as home health and hospital services, our bill injects financial support that will stabilize these essential services our seniors rely on. The legislation also provides billions in aid to State governments, many of them facing steep budget deficits, so they can meet the needs of citizens who rely on the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs. In addition to ensuring continued access to quality care for Medicare beneficiaries, our bipartisan Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act makes long overdue improvements to health care in rural America. Our bill invests in States like Iowa, my home State, where small providers that practice efficient medicine are hurt by complex payment formulas that favor high-cost care in big cities. The formulas also don't recognize special costs faced by smaller, more isolated physicians, hospitals and clinics. It obviously doesn't make sense to penalize States like Iowa who do more with less. That's why I'm so committed to fixing these formulas. The proposal I've put together with Senator Baucus would provide a tremendous infusion of cash to hard-pressed health care providers across Iowa and to other rural States. It takes money to ensure access to care for Iowans, and this will help make the federal government part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Together, Senator Baucus and I have introduced our bill under Rule 14, which means the bill will be placed directly on the calendar two days from now, rather than referred to our own Committee, the Finance Committee. We agreed to take this extraordinary step because the Senate is basically tied up in knots right now. Well, our message is that Medicare fairness is too urgent to let this bill be a victim of gridlock. Our action today gives Senate Majority Leader Daschle the ability to call the bill up as early as Thursday. In short, there's no time to waste.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to respond to what has been a coordinated attack by the Democratic leadership on President Bush. This drumbeat, as we all know, started a couple of weeks ago. Our distinguished majority leader, Senator Daschle, took the lead on a Senate floor speech to question the leadership of President Bush. He was joined by others in the Democratic leadership who pummeled the President and used many colorful charts and other props to make their points. I was tempted to respond at that time, but, as you know, the Senate has been in debate on homeland security, so I didn't have an opportunity at that time. It is probably good to reflect upon what was said 2 weeks ago and remind the public once again. The attack basically blamed the President for all that ails our economy. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal, dated September 18 of this year, the day the attacks started, summarizing the strategy of the other party and the substance of their arguments. I will put that article in the Record. I will quote from it: In a Senate floor speech he plans to make following the breakfast meeting with Mr. Bush, Mr. Daschle . . . expected to say the President's policies are responsible for U.S. job losses, weak economy, declining business investment, shrinking retirement accounts, an erosion of consumer confidence, rising health care costs, vanishing budget surpluses and record executive pay. Indeed, we have seen our Democratic friends on several occasions use charts with the listing referenced in the article. Let me be clear on the attack because this kind of summarizes the various issues I am going to address. According to the Democratic leadership, the President's policies are the cause of job losses, weak economic growth, declining business investment, shrinking retirement accounts, an erosion in consumer confidence, rising health care costs, vanishing budget surpluses, and record executive pay--meaning record executive pay in the private sector. I will tell you, Mr. President, that is an awesome amount of power that has been attributed to one individual--the President of the United States. But there is a little bit of irony here. The distinguished majority leader ascribes so much power to the President you could almost make the public believe the President is a king. Maybe this much power makes the President an emperor. Now, how many times have we heard another Democrat--the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd--pull his Constitution out of his pocket and say the President is not a king. So who is right? Is it Senator Daschle, who has made the President such an imperial figure, or is it Senator Byrd, who says the President is not a king? I think we need to work through this. My view is reality and history favor Senator Byrd's point of view that the President is only the President of the United States and not an imperial power. So I want to go through the Democratic leadership's attack point by point. According to Senator Daschle, the President singlehandedly fired millions of workers. Funny, Mr. President, I thought employers laid off workers, not the President of the United States. It seems to me the President can fire political appointees, such as White House staff, but I don't think he can even fire Federal workers in America. Heck, right now we are hung up on the homeland security debate. That is a fight over the extent of the President's powers with respect to Federal workers in the Department of Homeland Security. The next charge, Mr. President. All by himself, the President has slowed economic growth. Funny, I thought we had a global economic downturn, we had war on terrorism, we had overcapacity in telecom, and we had a bubble in the stock market during the Clinton years. These things might have had something to do with it--but not acccording to Senator Daschle. No. Under the Democratic leadership's theory, all of these things are the fault of the President of the United States. A third charge. Declining business investment is all George W. Bush's fault under the Daschle theory as well. Funny, I thought businesses made investment decisions, not the President of the United States. Actually, we had a stimulus package pushed by the President. Well, that hasn't had any effect, according to Democratic leadership. I guess the business cycle doesn't exist under Daschle economics. The fourth charge. Democratic leaders blame recent decline in 401(k) accounts all on President Bush. Senator Daschle seems fixated on recent stock market decline. I have a lot of concern myself. The Democratic leadership, however, seems very obsessed with assigning blame. By contrast, folks in the heartland, such as my State of Iowa, tell me they want us to look forward and do something. They do not want a bunch of political fingerpointing. If we look forward, we see some very good issues in the area of retirement security. In fact, last year's bipartisan tax relief bill contained the largest expansion of tax incentives for retirement security in a whole generation. There is $50 billion in new incentives. I guess Senator Daschle's opposition to the largest increase in IRA and 401(k) account contributions in last year's tax bill does not make a bit of difference; it just does not matter. While some may want to find fault, constructive legislators can point to bipartisan initiatives on retirement security that workers can look forward to in the future. Why scare workers? Why whip up anger? Why not work together? Why not recognize some good we do around here, such as the retirement security package that phases in as part of the bipartisan tax relief legislation? Why not bring up the bipartisan Finance Committee pension bill which has been on the calendar for the last 3 months? I introduced it only this year as a consensus document, and the Finance Committee approved it. Let's get out of the partisan blame game and do some bipartisan work for the benefit of our workers. Let's build on what we did last year. The fifth charge: Senator Daschle blames an erosion in consumer confidence all on President Bush. Funny, it seems to me that the President, although being a very important leader, cannot stimulate consumer confidence all by himself. What he can do is propose to return more taxpayers' money to the taxpayers so they have a brighter future. As policymakers in a time of slackening demand, we hope consumers will spend the extra tax dollars that were left in their pockets by this tax bill. So the Bush tax cut, the largest tax cut in a whole generation, with checks to every taxpayer, which the Democratic leadership opposed, had a negative effect on consumer confidence? Give me a break. But that is the charge Senator Daschle has made. More money to spend for every American on their needs negatively affects their confidence? That is the charge. It goes to tell you, this makes no sense. In the parlance of a hunter, that dog does not hunt. The sixth charge: The Democratic leadership says rising health care costs are all the fault of the President. Funny, the last time I checked, the President of the United States was not a physician. He is not a nurse. He is not an insurance company executive. He is not a pharmaceutical executive. He is not a trial lawyer who sues physicians, nurses, and hospitals. The President of the United States does not send you a health care bill. But none of that matters. It just does not matter. No, ignore market dynamics and other conditions. According to Daschle economics, the President all by himself is responsible for these rising health care costs. The seventh charge: Vanishing budget surpluses are all the President's fault, according to Senator Daschle. According to the Democratic leadership, their spending demands have never fit into the ledger. The recession does not matter. The money for rebuilding New York after September 11 does not matter. Bailing out airlines has no consequences on the budget, or fighting the war in Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have no consequences. These are all unanticipated bipartisan responses to unexpected events, and all that does not matter. No, under Daschle economics, it is all the fault of President Bush. Just plain and simple, it is the President's fault. Fairminded folks back home know it is not that plain. They know it is not that simple. And the folks in the heartland of America are right. I will get back to that in just a minute. I want to go to the eighth and final charge. And hold on to your hat. This one is pretty amazing. According to the Democratic leadership, record executive pay is all the President's fault. Apparently, Senator Daschle thinks the President votes every share, controls every board of every corporation that has suffered from excessive executive pay. So folks such as Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman who profited from insider deals, are somehow not accountable for their own actions. The boards of directors do not matter, according to Daschle economics. Oh, and there is another thing. Just ignore the fact that a lot of these sweetheart insider deals occurred long before President Bush was ever sworn in on January 20, 2001. Do not let that little fact get in the way of the debate. How can anyone take that charge seriously, that the President of the United States is responsible for excessive executive pay of corporations? The President no more sets executive pay than you or I do, Mr. President. It is true that we can affect how executive pay is taxed, or disclosure, but we do not decide the level of that pay. Let's be clear: Either the President is an imperial figure or the charges made by the Democratic leadership are without merit. Both cannot be true in a modern global economy. I will take a few minutes to talk specifically about the bipartisan tax relief package enacted last year. Despite the-sky-is-falling partisan opposition during the tax debate last year, the passage of time tells a very different story and it discounts the fictitious picture of doom and gloom portrayed last year by my big-spending friends, most on the other side of the aisle. According to revised economic data released by the Federal Government in August, the economy started to falter earlier than previously believed. The figures from economists show that the economy started negative growth as early as January 2001, 20 days before President Bush was sworn in. This proves the economy needed a shot in the arm sooner rather than later to get things rolling again; quite frankly, even more so than we thought at the time we passed the tax bill. What is more, the primary weakness causing the economy to sputter was lackluster business investment, not a waning of personal consumption and the expenditure by our consumers. Clearly, the job-creating machine in America needed a tuneup, and that is just what the President set out to do when he took his oath of office. As a cornerstone of his campaign for the White House, the President made good on his pledge to return more hard-earned money to the working men and women of America. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee at that time, I had the privilege of steering through Congress the largest Federal income tax cut in a generation. The best way to grow the economy is not by growing Government, it is by allowing the industrious people of the United States to manage their own income. Reducing marginal tax rates on income and investment was exactly the right policy prescription to cure sluggish business investments and prime the pumps that enable American entrepreneurs, small business owners, manufacturers, and corporate employers to grow the economy and create jobs. It was the right policy. We thought so at the time. History now, learning that the recession started on January 1, 2001, and not in the fall 2001, as we had anticipated, it was absolutely the right policy to do. And we are fortunate it came along at the time it did, in the middle of that recession. Letting workers, investors, entrepreneurs, employers, families, and retirees keep more of their money unleashes chain reaction because they spend two-thirds of the economy. They save it--not enough of our economy. They invest it--probably not enough of our economy. But they open small businesses, creating jobs; they pay higher wages, or they buy a house, upgrade manufacturing equipment, pay for higher education. The list goes on. It is a fundamental principle that policymakers need to remember. Money recycled through Washington does not squeeze the most bang out of our almighty dollar, and yet plenty of critics continue to blame the Republican tax cut rather than the bipartisan tax cut for the Federal budget shortfall. This was a bipartisan tax bill because one-quarter of the Democratic caucus in the Senate voted for the tax cuts. In an election year, too many candidates still like to divide the American electorate, and they do that in the demagogic way of pitting the rich against everyone else. I am sure voters will get their fill of statistics claiming that the Bush tax cut hands out 40 percent of the benefit to the top 1 percent of the taxpayers. This is not merely misleading, it is outright false. Some folks must be under the impression that as long as something is repeated often enough, it will become true. That was how Adolf Hitler got to the top. The facts certainly are thorny little details for the critics of the bipartisan tax relief package. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Federal Tax Code became more progressive with the tax relief package passed in Congress last year, and taxpayers in the lower to middle income brackets get the biggest break. For example, taxpayers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 will see their taxes reduced almost 14 percent when the tax cut takes full effect, whereas taxpayers with over $200,000 a year in income will see their taxes reduced by a mere 6 percent compared to that 14 percent. As for the budget, the bipartisan tax cut was a minimal factor in the Federal Government's surplus to deficit situation. In its first year, the tax cut accounted for just 8 percent of the shortfall. Indeed, increased spending outpaced tax cuts by $6 billion. In other words, Congress spent $6 billion more than the taxpayers got back in their pocket from the tax bill. Over the long term, the 10-year surplus declines from $5.6 trillion to $300 billion. The tax cut represents 33 percent of the decline. Those who are looking to lay blame need to point their fingers then at Congress's appetite to spend. Folks who decry the tax cut should instead weep for the hard-working taxpayer because of the bite that Uncle Sam takes out of their paychecks. The Bush tax cut saved Iowa households $752, on average, in its first year. So I ask Iowans if they can't use that money and if that money probably has not been put to good use, now that the economy has slowed, to keep the economy out of recession once again. Even with that tax cut, the Federal Government takes 19 cents out of every dollar earned. That is a record burden, higher than any decade since World War II. So thanks in part to the bipartisan tax cut enacted in the summer of 2001, things are starting to turn around. Weaknesses persist in the manufacturing and employment sectors, but regardless, the U.S. economy is as resilient as the spirit of the American people. Lowering the tax burden in America triggers growth, creates jobs, spreads economic opportunity. Plus, tax cut opponents need to be reminded that a bigger economic pie will dish up a bigger slice of revenue to fulfill the Government's needs and priorities, including what is a result of the war on terrorism and the need for homeland security. As the top Republican on the Senate tax-writing committee, I will continue to champion progrowth economic policies. That includes making last year's tax cuts a permanent part of the Tax Code. We have, as I am told, maybe just a handful of days between now and the end of the session. There are a lot of bipartisan measures that are on the agenda that are going to be left undone because we have wasted the whole month of September not wanting to vote on a lot of critical issues. We have the Enron-induced 401(k) refinements so that workers can control their own 401(k). We have prescription drugs for senior citizens on the agenda. We have the bipartisan approach to recapturing lost corporate tax revenue because corporations overseas set up shell corporations to avoid tax policy. We have welfare reform that needs to be reauthorized. We can go on and on. Not just economic policy but the management of the Senate needs to be an issue in this election because with so much left undone on the Senate calendar that is bipartisan, there is no excuse for that not having been done because somebody does not want to take some hard political votes between now and the election that could have moved the Interior appropriations bill and homeland security along very quickly. Management of the Senate is a very important issue in this upcoming election based upon what is left on the calendar's unfinished business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Strom Thurmond achieved more before middle age than many of us achieve in a lifetime. Born in 1902, Senator Thurmond in 1933 was already a State senator in South Carolina. In 1938, he was a State court judge. From 1942 to 1946, he served in World War II, landing on the beach in Normandy on D-day with the 82nd Airborne Division and earning numerous decorations, medals and awards. In 1947, the year he turned 45, he was the Governor of South Carolina. In 1954, when he was elected to the Senate, he already had a full history of serving the public, especially the people of his beloved home State of South Carolina. In the Senate, Senator Thurmond has demonstrated a keen political instinct and achieved a legendary reputation for constituent service. The people of South Carolina know Senator Thurmond will treat them royally--a standard I try to emulate for my own constituents. Senator Thurmond's imprint on the Senate is with this institution forever. Senator Thurmond is responsible for one of the highlights of my Senate service. In 1980, soon after I was first elected to the Senate, Senator Thurmond was becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He asked me to join the committee. I explained I wasn't a lawyer, but he explained I didn't need to be. Senator Thurmond promised to get me good staff to help me with the technical points of Judiciary Committee work. He delivered on that promise, and I thoroughly enjoy serving on the Judiciary Committee. I hope to continue serving on that committee as long as I'm a member of the Senate, although of course I won't serve as long as Senator Thurmond. I appreciate Senator Thurmond's support of me as a freshman Senator, and an unknown quantity, by giving me the opportunity to join his committee. I hope I haven't disappointed him. As a farm State Senator, I seek like-minded Senators to support the survival of family farmers. Senator Thurmond has always supported any efforts to advance this cause. He comes from a largely agricultural State, and he understands how family farmers not only feed the world, but also make up part of the fabric of American life. I'm grateful to have served with Senator Thurmond over the years, and to continue serving with him.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr President, this year marks an historic turning point for U.S. international trade policy. For the first time in over eight years the Congress renewed the President's authority to negotiate new trade agreements. This authority, called Trade Promotion Authority, reestablishes the traditional partnership on trade between the Congress and the Executive branch. It allows us to work together to open new markets for American exports, set fair rules of conduct for U.S. investors overseas, and help raise the standard of living for millions of people around the world. The negotiating objectives and procedures laid out in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act represent a very careful substantive and political balance on some very complex and difficult issues such as investment, labor and the environment, and the relationship between Congress and the Executive branch during international trade negotiations. Because this balance is so delicate, I was somewhat dismayed to learn recently that some groups and Members of Congress are trying to push for interpretations of certain provisions of the TPA bill that do not comport with the negotiating objectives laid out in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act. For example, an article in the September 18, 2002 edition of National Journal's CongressDaily noted that ``a group of labor officials who were active in the fight against, TPA, are meeting in the offices of the AFL-CIO. At the top of their agenda: mapping a plan to ensure future trade agreements include strong provisions on labor rights and the environment. Labor officials plan to hold future agreements to standards set in an earlier free-trade agreement reached with Jordan, which they consider a model of backing up labor and environmental provisions with enforceable sanctions.'' Some Members of Congress are even arguing that future agreements must follow the ``Jordan Standard'' on labor and environment in order to meet the objectives laid out in the TPA bill. Perhaps even more ominous were the public remarks of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who urged the administration to follow the model of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement ``exactly'' in implementing the labor and environment provisions of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act. On this issue, I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Montana. In fact, I think this would be a serious mistake. The negotiating objectives in the TPA bill set the parameters for future trade negotiations, not some past agreement like the Jordan FTA that was negotiated during the Clinton Administration. To follow the provisions of this past agreement ``exactly'' would ignore the clear will of Congress as set forth in the TPA bill. Even more disconcerting is that such a stark litmus test ignores that basic premise that the most appropriate mechanisms to improve labor and environment standards abroad differ from country to country and agreement to agreement. In short, one size does not fit all. Trying to solve complex environmental and labor issues with rigid constructs will do nothing to actually improve environmental or labor standards abroad. At the same time, demanding that our trading partners accept specific language laid out in past agreements during trade negotiations will come at a heavy price for our farmers and workers, as our trading partners can demand significant concessions on other issues, such as agriculture, in exchange for our rigid insistence that they accept specific language from our trade negotiators. The Administration and Members of Congress need to remember that the underlying premise of the TPA Act is to provide the President and our trade negotiators with flexibility so they can negotiate the best trade agreements for the American people. It is not intended, nor should it be used, to try to tie the President's hands on any particular issue. It is also troubling that some advocacy groups are pushing to ensure that future free trade agreements adhere to their version of so-called ``Jordan Standard.'' I think it bears repeating that it is the negotiating objectives laid out in the Trade Promotion Authority bill that should guide the Administration in future trade negotiations, not a single free trade agreement that was concluded long before TPA became law. I also believe it would be a political miscalculation to insist that new trade agreements must follow the ``Jordan Standard'' to gain support in Congress. First, no one really knows what the ``Jordan Standard'' is. In fact, when we held a hearing on the Jordan Free Trade Agreement on March 20, 2001 in the Senate Finance Committee, one of the most controversial issues raised was what the labor and environmental provisions of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement actually mean. For example, former United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky testified that the labor and environment provisions in the Jordan FTA ``while restating the existing commitment of both countries to environmental protection and the ILO's core labor standards, neither imposes new standards nor bars change or reform of national laws as each country sees fit.'' Ambassador Michael Smith, former Deputy United States Trade Representative and the first American Ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, testified that ``Articles 5 and 6 [of the Jordan FTA] as written are largely fluff, open to widely differing, even if plausible, interpretations and, as such, causes for possible unfortunate differences between Jordan and the United States in the years ahead as the agreement is implemented. Articles 5 and 6 do not advance the ``cause'' of either international environmental or labor affairs and add only confusion to what should be a straightforward free trade agreement. Indeed, the only result I can foresee is countries adopting lower environmental and labor standards for fear of themselves being unable to effectively enforce higher standards hardly a desired result.'' During the hearing it became clear that labor and environment provisions, and their relationship to the dispute settlement procedures established in the Jordan FTA, are highly controversial. A number of groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, strongly opposed including the labor and environment provisions in the Jordan FTA without some clarification from the Administration that these provisions would not be implemented in a trade restrictive manner. Many members of the Republican party, including myself, shared these concerns. Had the U.S. Government not agreed to side letters with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, clarifying that these and other provisions would not be implemented in a manner that results in blocking trade, it is highly likely that the agreement would not have gained the support of the Republican caucus in the Senate, and may not have passed the Senate at all. And, if the proposed agreement had not been with our good friend and ally Jordan, side letters may not have been enough. I think this represents an important political reality which the Administration must gauge in entering into new free trade agreements. Almost 90 percent of the Republican Caucus in the House and Senate supported passage of Trade Promotion Authority. In contrast, only 12 percent of the House Democratic Caucus and 40 percent of the Senate Democratic Caucus supported the bill. And the price for that support was high. Clearly, if future free trade agreements are going to pass Congress, the strong support of the Republican caucus will be key. In short, I am deeply concerned that some advocacy groups and Members of Congress are pushing the Administration to adhere to a highly controversial and vague ``Jordan Standard'' which does not have the strong support of the Congress and that is not clearly reflected in the Trade Promotion Authority negotiating objectives. While the labor, environment, and dispute settlement negotiating objectives in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act are loosely based on provisions found in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, there is clearly a distinction between the two. In implementing the will of Congress as embodied in the Trade Promotion Authority Act, it is critically important for the administration to keep this distinction in mind if future agreements are to gain the support of myself and other strong supporters of free trade in the Congress. Before I conclude I would like to talk about another important development in U.S. trade policy. Last week, for the very first time, the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Oversight Group, COG, met with Ambassador Zoellick to discuss pending and future trade agreements. The COG was created by the Trade Promotion Authority Act to provide an additional consultative mechanism for Members of Congress and to provide advice to the U.S. Trade Representative on trade negotiations. The COG is comprised of: the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees; three additional members from the Senate Finance Committee, no more than two of whom may be of the same political party; three additional Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, no more than two of whom may be of the same political party; and the chairman and ranking member or their designees of the committees of the House or Senate which would have, under the Rules of the House or Senate, ``jurisdiction over provisions of law affected by a trade agreement negotiations for which are conducted at any time during that Congress.'' The purpose of the COG is to ``consult and provide advice to the Trade Representative regarding the formulation of specific objectives, negotiating strategies and positions, the development of the applicable trade agreement, and compliance and enforcement of the negotiated commitments under the trade agreement.'' In addition, each member of the COG is to be accredited as an official adviser to the United States delegation in the negotiations. However, those Senators or Members who are Members of the COG because they are the chairman or ranking member of a Committee which has ``jurisdiction over provisions of law affected by trade negotiations'' are to be accredited as advisors only on those provisions which would fall under their Committee's jurisdiction. The TPA bill makes it clear that the COG is a mechanism for enhanced consultations and that it is not designed to serve as a referendum on new agreements or on particular negotiating positions. I am pleased to report that our first meeting was a great success. A number of Senators and Members of the House from both political parties attended the meeting, including the chairmen and ranking members of both the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees. During the meeting Ambassador Zoellick expressed his strong support for enhanced consultations and his keen interest in meeting with the COG on a regular basis. I certainly would support his enthusiastic efforts. The TPA bill also requires the chairmen and ranking members of both the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to establish guidelines for the exchange of information between the Congress and the Executive branch. I plan to work diligently to ensure that these guidelines are feasible and that the resulting exchange of information is meaningful. With the passage of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, we begin a new phase in the history of U.S. trade policy. Although the bill contains some new buttons and bows, the underlying premise of the bill remains the same as it was decades ago to give the administration the tools it needs to liberalize trade and create new opportunities for America's farmers, ranchers and workers. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to ensure that the Trade Promotion Authority Act is implemented in a manner that does just that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Lieberman's amendment establishing a National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States. This amendment would direct the new independent commission in both investigation of the facts and circumstances relating to the September 11 attacks, and evaluation of the lessons learned from the attacks regarding the Federal Government's abilities to detect, prevent and respond to such attacks. Further, the bill empowers the commission to hold hearings, collect relevant materials and subpoena witnesses for the purpose of studying the systemic problems within the intelligence and law enforcement communities and to discover what part these problems played in the September 11 attacks. I support this amendment with the expectation that the recommendations coming from this commission will assist us in strengthening our national security by improving our intelligence and law enforcement as well as our intelligence efforts. We need to do everything possible to make sure that this type of attack never happens again. As we learn more from the investigation into the September 11 attacks, it is increasingly evident that there are many barriers of communications between the several agencies involved in the battle against terrorism. I have been concerned about this problem for a number of years. There is no place for jurisdictional battles and unnecessary statutory barriers when America's security is at risk. We also need to determine where our national security shortcomings are, and what can be done to remedy them, so that we can look at potential legislative initiatives or the appropriate allocation of resources. Make no mistake, this commission will not be a witch hunt. We are not trying to place blame. Our goal in creating this commission is to find the best way to make our law enforcement and intelligence the best that it can be. Although I support this amendment and the general idea of a commission for this purpose, I would like to note that I have concerns regarding the changes to the composition of the commission. Focusing on the party affiliation of the officials who select the commission members unnecessarily politicizes the commission's work. This commission should be staffed by men and women with knowledge and expertise necessary to develop solutions that will prevent further terrorist attacks. That having been said, I would like to reiterate the importance of this amendment and the need for an independent commission that will dedicate its time to fleshing out these problems and in turn allow us to prevent further attacks and most importantly to protect the American people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today on this 1 year anniversary of September 11 to join my colleagues, as well as the rest of the country, in a day of reflection and remembrance. It is often said that time heals all wounds. Obviously, it is going to take an eternity for the grief to subside for the families of the 3,000 people mass-murdered last year, with the mental image of commercial jetliners searing into the national landmarks remaining fresh in our mind. If they do not, we are reminded of it by watching TV this very day and maybe all week. Such horrific acts that happened a year ago today seemed impossible at that time. But, of course, all that has changed. Now it is hard to understand how such hate and extreme acts of horror against humanity can take place. While the Federal Government is working to beef up the military to protect our borders and to improve its intelligence gathering, it is virtually impossible to guarantee a risk-free environment in a free and open society that we proudly claim as America. One year after the attacks, I am not so sure the American people really remember that we are in a war on terrorism. But the fact is, we are, and we will be for some time to come. I pray that we do not end up with a situation in the Middle East that we see too often on television where there are random suicide bombings. The risk exists and Americans are not realistic if they do not think of those things happening here like they might happen in Jerusalem. Terrorism has changed our way of life. We might be complacent about it and not want to realize it, but it is here. And every one of us, then, has a responsibility to remain vigilant. The 1-year anniversary of September 11 is an important reminder that the war against terror has not yet be won. Considering the loss of human life, imminent terrorist threats to our security, and even our ailing economy, it is not easy to look for the silver lining on the 1- year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. But remember what the President said in the week after those attacks: The terrorists succeeded in tearing down bricks and mortar, but they failed to rock the foundation that has kept America strong. A year later, America's resilience can be seen from sea to shining sea. September 11, 2001, ushered in a new era. Notions of invincibility have been shattered. But the uncommon courage of first responders called to duty on that day reflects the steadfast spirit of our great Nation and our people called Americans. Our resolve to pull together and to stand united against evil immediately resurrected the principles on which this country was founded some 226 years ago. Despite the attacks, attacks defined to pit fear against freedom, the United States of America is yet stronger than ever. Like the rest of the country, lawmakers in Washington, DC, dropped partisan pretense, worked quickly to assist survivors, backed recovery efforts, ensured the safety of the flying public, and got the economy rolling again. The 107th Congress threw its support behind the President to root out the terrorist networks responsible for the attacks, realizing the war in Afghanistan is probably only one of many battles to be fought and hopefully won. Thanks to courageous service men and women, the al-Qaida network has been largely dismantled from its base in Afghanistan but not elsewhere. That evil continues to lurk in other regions of our world. And with the security of the American people first and foremost in our mind, the President has worked to leave no stone unturned. That includes creating a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security and keeping Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from unleashing weapons of mass destruction against the United States or other places within our world. The President needs to make the case to the American people, to Congress, and our allies abroad, and he will do that hopefully within 48 hours, and do it in a way that says freedom and peace will remain at risk, as he explains it, until rogue dictators and others who harbor terrorists and finance their evil acts are no longer able to do those things. This month, the Senate is debating the proposal to realign the Federal Government's infrastructure and operations charged with thwarting acts of terrorism. I am working to make sure the new Department helps to solve the shortcomings exposed by September 11 and not create new ones. Many recall the patriotism displayed by native Iowan Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on bureaucratic bungling at the FBI. I will work in this bill to see that new Department employees are guaranteed strong whistleblower protections and to strengthen accountability within the intelligence community. These protections for whistleblowers are very important to make sure our intelligence community and the homeland security is working for the good of the American people and to see the statutory requirements are carried out. When the Department of Homeland Security bill is up, I will make sure that hard-working taxpayers' money is not wasted with this new Federal agency. One year later, after September 11, life goes on in America. It is not the same as it was a year ago. Life is not as secure or risk free as we once thought it was--and maybe we should not have thought that it was, but we did. Air travelers deal with tightened security measures at the Nation's airports. People are staying closer to home, flying less. Ordinary Americans and law enforcement officials do not hesitate to report suspicious activity. For many, it has enhanced common courtesies and boosted greater appreciation for the simpler things of life. Iowans deserve a lot of credit for their outpouring of support in the last year. From a remarkable quilt-making project for the victims, particularly in New York City, to generous charitable cash donations, and to those serving in our military, Iowans are proud, compassionate Americans. Many agree that the tragedy a year ago has renewed a sense of civic duty, patriotism, and appreciation for the U.S. military. There is a spirit of all-for-one and one-for-all, as we wear, display, and decorate with all things red, white, and blue. With this 1-year anniversary, I join my colleagues in reflection and remembrance. While we go about our daily business, we can consider the tragic loss in human life and the acts of heroism by brave defenders. In the weeks and years ahead, we can continue to work for the betterment of our communities. We can donate blood, pray for the victims and their families, support emergency workers, and give thanks for the precious freedoms we enjoy every day. We cannot erase the sorrow and suffering brought by September 11, but with our actions each one of us can make America stronger. I remember this day especially Miss Kincade, from Waverly, IA, who was on the plane that hit the Pentagon. She was an intern in my office in 1984. I remember Mr. Edward V. Rowenhorst, whom I did not know but I know his brother who goes to my church in Cedar Falls, IA. He was in the Pentagon working. I remember traveling to a ceremony last Veterans Day in Anamosa, IA, where they honored one of their own who was also killed in the Pentagon 1 year ago today. So Iowans, as most people in most States, have victims to remember. I remember them. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an act that I am cosponsoring with Senator Hatch that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children, the Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002. As Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I have been greatly concerned with the recent increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection. I am also pleased that the President will be hosting a conference on missing and exploited children at the end of this month, and I look forward to that conference and appreciate the President's and First Lady's work on behalf of children. This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence. The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully-informed decisions about their childrens' safety, and will greatly aid law enforcements' response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison. So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an act that I am cosponsoring with Senator Hatch that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children, the Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002. As Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I have been greatly concerned with the recent increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection. I am also pleased that the President will be hosting a conference on missing and exploited children at the end of this month, and I look forward to that conference and appreciate the President's and First Lady's work on behalf of children. This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence. The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully-informed decisions about their childrens' safety, and will greatly aid law enforcements' response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison. So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.