Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Was the President going to put my unanimous consent before the Senate?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there appears to be broad consensus that pension plan administrators should be required to provide 30 days' notice to affected plan participants before limiting their ability to exercise the rights provided through their pension plans. These advance blackout notices will become integral requirements for how pension plans will operate in the future. Because of this, notice requirements were included both in the pension bill reported by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee on March 21, and in the bill reported by the Finance Committee unanimously on July 11.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1982, Congress required the Federal Government to find a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Now, 20 years later, we are finally taking the necessary action to move ahead with this plan. Yucca Mountain was recently designated as a suitable site for development as the Nation's permanent repository, with over 24 years of Federal research and scientific evaluation. The Secretary of Energy, after thoroughly examining the relevant scientific and technical materials, concluded that the site is scientifically and technically suitable for construction of a repository. Now, it is up to Congress to ensure that we provide a safe, permanent storage facility. In this time of heightened terrorist threats, it is absolutely necessary that the Government provide safe and secure permanent storage for our spent nuclear fuel. Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive waste is stored at 131 sites in 39 States. We can no longer afford to continue storing nuclear waste in temporary sites that are too often located near densely populated areas and water supplies. It seems only logical to want to safeguard public health and safety by storing nuclear waste at a site that would be highly guarded against any terrorist activity. Even in my home State of Iowa, spent nuclear fuel from the Duane Arnold plant is stored just outside of Cedar Rapids near the town of Palo. Like too many other facilities in the United States, the plant is being forced to construct temporary storage because of the Federal Government's lack of action on a permanent facility. And, just 10 miles from the Iowa border, at a plant that ceased operation in 1987, sits 42 tons of nuclear waste in a waterpool that is designed for temporary storage during operation, not permanent storage. It's for these reasons that it is crucial the Senate move forward in designating Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage facility. Storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would protect public safety, health and the Nation's security. Opponents continue to raise questions concerning the safety of the transportation of this material to Nevada. For over 30 years, there have been 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel without a single release of radioactive material harmful to the public or the environment. It is important to remember that because spent fuel is stored at over 100 temporary sites across the Nation, shipments of spent fuel will cross the country whether or not Yucca Mountain is approved. Secretary Abraham has assured that the Department of Energy will develop a transportation plan and work with State and tribal governments regarding shipments to Yucca Mountain. Iowa's Governor, Tom Vilsack, has also shared with me his support for designating Yucca Mountain, based on the outstanding record of safely transporting nuclear material. Given Iowa's geographic position across major transportation routes, Governor Vilsack relayed that Iowa has consistently met its responsibilities in this regard. Lastly, those who oppose the transportation of the waste across the country because it could be a terrorist target have clearly disregarded the fact that spent fuel in secure transit to a permanent repository is far less of a target than the spent fuel scattered across the country at over 100 temporary, stationary sites. With over 2,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in Iowa or on it is borders, it's imperative that the Senate take the necessary action today to finally begin the process of developing a permanent repository. To protect our national security, enhance our energy security, and ensure the safety of the public, we must support this resolution and move ahead on this project. I request that a copy of Governor Vilsack's letter to me dated May 8, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution to designate a Medal of Honor Flag to further honor those individuals who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in service to their country and to present that flag to each recipient of the Medal of Honor. This idea came from a constituent of mine, retired First Sergeant William Kendall of Jefferson, IA. Mr. Kendall had been thinking about another resident of Jefferson, Captain Darrell Lindsey, who was shot down while on a bombing mission over France during World War II. Captain Lindsey was able to keep his aircraft in the air long enough to allow the members of his crew to escape safely, but this action cost him his life. As a result of this selfless sacrifice, Captain Lindsey was awarded the Medal of Honor. A Medal of Honor monument commemorating this heroic Iowan now stands on the courthouse lawn in Jefferson, IA. It was partly this monument and the proud history of his fellow Iowan that inspired Bill Kendall to ponder the heroism of all recipients of the Medal of Honor. He then began to wonder why there was no official flag to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest award for bravery he felt that a flag would help to show respect for this award as well as all those who have earned it through their service to the United States of America. I agree. The Medal of Honor is not given out lightly. To date, only 3,439 individuals have been awarded the Medal of Honor and there are only 143 living recipients of this award. Each of the armed services has very strict regulations for judging whether an individual is entitled to the Medal of Honor. The award is only given for acts of exceptional bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond what is expected and must involve risk of life. The deed must be proved by incontestable evidence of at least two eyewitnesses. I should also add that there is an Iowa connection going back to the creation of the Medal of Honor. In 1861, during the Civil War, Iowa Senator James Grimes introduced legislation in the Senate to create a Medal of Honor for the Navy. This first Medal of Honor was followed by similar awards for the other services. It is appropriate that another Iowan, Sergeant William Kendall, should create the first Medal of Honor flag. It is indeed right and appropriate to honor those Americans to whom we owe so much. Bill Kendall's idea for a Medal of Honor flag is a good one and I am honored to do what I can to help see his vision realized. I am pleased that the House has already acted on a similar measure and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution to designate a Medal of Honor Flag to further honor those individuals who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in service to their country and to present that flag to each recipient of the Medal of Honor. This idea came from a constituent of mine, retired First Sergeant William Kendall of Jefferson, IA. Mr. Kendall had been thinking about another resident of Jefferson, Captain Darrell Lindsey, who was shot down while on a bombing mission over France during World War II. Captain Lindsey was able to keep his aircraft in the air long enough to allow the members of his crew to escape safely, but this action cost him his life. As a result of this selfless sacrifice, Captain Lindsey was awarded the Medal of Honor. A Medal of Honor monument commemorating this heroic Iowan now stands on the courthouse lawn in Jefferson, IA. It was partly this monument and the proud history of his fellow Iowan that inspired Bill Kendall to ponder the heroism of all recipients of the Medal of Honor. He then began to wonder why there was no official flag to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest award for bravery he felt that a flag would help to show respect for this award as well as all those who have earned it through their service to the United States of America. I agree. The Medal of Honor is not given out lightly. To date, only 3,439 individuals have been awarded the Medal of Honor and there are only 143 living recipients of this award. Each of the armed services has very strict regulations for judging whether an individual is entitled to the Medal of Honor. The award is only given for acts of exceptional bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond what is expected and must involve risk of life. The deed must be proved by incontestable evidence of at least two eyewitnesses. I should also add that there is an Iowa connection going back to the creation of the Medal of Honor. In 1861, during the Civil War, Iowa Senator James Grimes introduced legislation in the Senate to create a Medal of Honor for the Navy. This first Medal of Honor was followed by similar awards for the other services. It is appropriate that another Iowan, Sergeant William Kendall, should create the first Medal of Honor flag. It is indeed right and appropriate to honor those Americans to whom we owe so much. Bill Kendall's idea for a Medal of Honor flag is a good one and I am honored to do what I can to help see his vision realized. I am pleased that the House has already acted on a similar measure and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senators Smith and Cantwell, along with several other Senators, in proposing an amendment to end, once and for all, an ill-conceived and discriminatory policy in the U.S. Military. Several years ago, the United States Central Command instituted a policy that requires our female service members in Saudi Arabia to wear an abaya while off base. The abaya is a traditional religious garment worn by Saudi women not unlike the Afghan burqa. Saudi women can face beatings by religious police if they are not wearing this garment and the U.S. Central Command has justified this policy as a force protection measure. However, the Saudi Government does not require non-Muslim women to wear an abaya. Westerners are merely expected to wear conservative clothing, such as slacks and collared shirts for men and long skirts and long sleeved blouses for women. While it's sensible to make reasonable accommodations for a host culture, we must not forget that American personnel abroad are representatives of our free society. In fact, the U.S. State Department explicitly forbids its female employees in Saudi Arabia from wearing the abaya while serving in an official capacity for the United States Government. We should be setting a positive example of respect for women, especially the very women who are helping to defend Saudi Arabia from would-be aggressors. In order to try to alleviate the mounting criticism of the abaya policy, the Central Command revised its policy in January to state that the wearing of the abaya is ``not mandatory but is strongly encouraged''. This distinction does not go nearly far enough and may mean little in practice. Let me be clear, the abaya policy is not simply a bad idea and completely unnecessary, it is blatantly discriminatory. All attempts to justify this policy have fallen flat and it has become painfully obvious that this policy must be abolished entirely. Our amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya and forbid DOD to spend taxpayer money to purchase the garment. It also protects our female service members from any kind of retaliation for not wearing the abaya garment. At a time when Afghan women are celebrating their new found liberties, it is frankly embarrassing to have a policy in place that subjects our own servicewomen to a demeaning practice. It is time for this policy to go and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. No.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I would like to recognize several remarkable young Iowans who put in an impressive showing at the recent National History Day contest. I am very pleased to announce that a total of eight entries from the great State of Iowa qualified for the national finals. Each of these talented young people represented their State with distinction and all Iowans can be very proud of these students. Gabriella Green, who attends Alan Shepard Elementary in Long Grove, took first place with a junior individual documentary entitled ``Solution to Hunger: Dr. Norman E. Borlaug and the Green Revolution.'' Amy Paul and Katie Pauley of Indian Hills Jr. High in West Des Moines took first prize in junior group documentaries for ``Grace Hopper: Expanding Computer Horizons.'' Stephen Frese of Marshalltown took the second place medal for his junior historical paper, ``Wrestling with Reform: Iowa Coal Communities and the Transformation of Childhood.'' In addition, Alex Cahill and Emily Green from North Scott High School took fifth place in the senior group performance category with ``The Works Progress Administration: Our Business of Relief'' and Elyse Lyons took seventh place in junior individual performances with ``Alice Hamilton: Friend of the Factory Worker.'' Johnston Middle School Student Abigail Bowman, who took eighth place in junior historical papers with ``Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: Reformer of Turkey,'' was invited to present her paper at the Turkish Embassy while she was in the Washington, DC area for the national competition. Laura Westercamp, a student at Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, took eighth place in senior individual exhibits with ``Battle of the Bottle: The Woman, the Reaction, the Reform'' and was able to present her project at the Smithsonian Museum of American History. Lauren Appley, who attends Akron-Westfield School, took the ninth place award in junior individual papers with ``Martha Graham: Revolutionary Genius of Modern Dance.'' I would like to congratulate each of these Iowa students. The number of quality entries by Iowans in this national contest demonstrates the importance Iowans place on education. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the State Historical Society of Iowa, which sponsors the National History Day program in Iowa, as well as the American Legion of Iowa Foundation, which provides funding for the program. Again, congratulations to Gabriella, Amy, Katie, Stephen, Alex, Emily, Elyse, Abigail, Laura, and Lauren. You have done Iowa proud!

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to reauthorize the Arsenal Support Program Initiative, ASPI, for 2 more years. This program has been successful but the need continues. Both the Rock Island Arsenal and the Watervliet Arsenal are now suffering from underutilization. Both are currently at under 30 percent of their capacity. This underutilization has greatly affected overhead rates at both arsenals, making it increasingly difficult to compete with private industry. At the same time, the base of skilled arsenal workers has steadily eroded. I strongly believe that an organic industrial base must be maintained if we are to be prepared to meet future, unanticipated national security needs. Arsenals provide a valuable rapid manufacturing capability for specialized and unique defense manufacturing needs. The decline in skilled arsenal workers is therefore particularly troubling in light of the new threats our forces will face in the war on terrorism. The ASPI addresses the problem of underutilization of arsenals by encouraging private industry to utilize the arsenals. This provides a way to help keep the arsenal industrial base warm, while helping to save taxpayer dollars by supplementing arsenal overhead costs. The ASPI has already helped initiate many beneficial relationships with private industry. For instance, the Rock Island Arsenal currently has a contract with the Quad City Labor Management Partnership, which provides training to Rock Island Arsenal personnel in return for the use of administrative space. Another company, TDF Corp., is currently a tenant at the Rock Island Arsenal and the Arsenal is in discussions with a cellular telephone company and others. The Watervliet Arsenal is currently in the process of executing contracts with three different private manufacturers and is exploring other possibilities. Pine Bluff Arsenal has also taken advantage of contracts with the private sector to provide additional revenue. The Arsenal Support Program Initiative opens up new opportunities for savings at our arsenals as well as making them more self-sufficient. This program is a win-win situation for the Army, the arsenals and industry, and I urge my colleagues to allow this program to continue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, Senators Breaux, McCain, and I introduce the Turkish-Israeli Economic Enhancement Act of 2002. This legislation will allow qualified products from Turkey to be eligible for duty-free entry into the United States under the Qualified Industrial Zone program. Congress first established the Qualified Industrial Zone program in 1996 to facilitate economic cooperation between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The impetus behind this program was to help create the economic basis for sustained peace in the region. While peace still eludes us today, there is little doubt that the program has helped to foster greater economic cooperation in the region. Allowing Turkey to participate in the program will foster even greater economic growth and stability in the region. The Israeli-Turkish Economic Enhancement Act would amend Section 9(e)(1) of the United States Israel Free Trade Area Implementation Act of 1985, as amended, the ``FTA Act, by expanding the definition of ``qualifying industrial zones'' to include portions of the territory of Israel and Turkey. Under the FTA Act, the President may proclaim duty- free benefits for certain products produced within the qualifying industrial zones. The bill would allow the President to proclaim duty- free benefits for certain products, excluding certain import sensitive products, of qualifying industrial zones established jointly by Israel and Turkey. The bill would foster cooperation between Israel and Turkey and help promote economic growth, opportunity and development in Turkey, a vital security partner in NATO and a key ally in the war against terrorism. I am committed to working with my colleagues and the President to enact the legislation as soon as practicable. Enabling Turkey to participate in the Qualified Industrial Zone program can help attract foreign investment to Turkey and build greater regional stability. I understand that there is strong interest in supporting high- technology investment in Turkey. The investment potential for high technology products and services in Turkey has not gone unnoticed by major U.S. investors. Microsoft has installed a subsidiary in Istanbul responsible for sales and support to all of the Middle East, Central Asia and Northern Africa. By creating a qualified industrial zone, Turkey may be able to attract even more foreign investment in this important sector. Turkey has been a staunch, long-time ally of the United States. American and Turkish troops fought together in Korea. Today we are fighting a different war on a different front in Afghanistan. But our friendship and joint commitment to freedom and democracy remains the same. By enacting this legislation, the U.S. Congress can send a strong message to the people of Turkey that we appreciate and value their friendship and support and that we will continue to work with them to promote freedom and prosperity for all of our people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden today in introducing the RAVE Act, or Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstacy Act of 2002. I believe this legislation will help America's law enforcement go after the latest methods drug dealers are using to push drugs on our kids. As drug dealers discover new drugs and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this legislation does that. Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Esctasy is readily accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to this drug or ignore the consequences of its use. The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit narcotics is Ecstasy, an especially popular club drug that is all too often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects. In general, Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to cool off, a fact that some rave promoters take advantage of by charging exorbitant fees for bottles of water. Too often, users collapse and die because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short- term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward long-term problems such as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain. The legislation that we introduce today is the result of information gathered during a series of hearings held by the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. It will help U.S. attorneys shut down raves and prosecute rave promoters who knowingly maintain a place where drugs are used, kept, or sold by expanding the existing statute that allows the closure and prosecution of crack house operators. The statute would only be applicable if the rave promoters or location owners ``knowingly and intentionally'' either use or allow to be used space for an event where drugs will be ``manufactured, stored, distributed, or used.'' This legislation will not eliminate all raves. Provided rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertized, as places for people to come dance in a safe, alcohol-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this law. But this legislation will give law enforcement the tools needed to shut down those rave operators and promoters who use raves as a cover to sell drugs. Innocent owners or proprietors will remain exempt from prosecution. This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at risk. Esctasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting the RAVE Act, and help us work towards its quick passenge.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as you know, for as long as I have been in Congress, my belief is that no American family should be forced to pay over half of their savings, their business, or their family farm in taxes when they die. No taxpayer should be visited by the undertaker and the tax collector at the same time. With the President's support we have helped those families we care about, this Senate voted by a wide majority to help those families who are being crushed under the expensive responsibilities of estate tax planning and estate taxes. I have heard the concerns of the people in Iowa and the American people, and this Congress voted to repeal the ``death tax.'' Now, the Democrat leadership wants to take that all away. Once again they want to take more then half of a family's assets because someone has died. The Democrat leaders just want to spend your money. Well, folks, that is not right. Death is not a taxable event. We have the chance today to make death tax repeal permanent. We have heard from the brave men and women who fought World War II, they fought for democracy and then came home to help fuel the economy that created this wealth. They are dying by the thousands everyday, now they want the death tax to die forever. That means for the first time, American taxpayers, who are good Americans, who saved and invested in savings accounts and stocks and bonds will be treated equally with all other taxpayers. It means, that for the first time, American farm families and the owners of small businesses will not have to jump through hoops, hold their breath, and pray they did it right, subject to audit, in order to know they will not have to pay death tax. Last year we repealed the death tax, effective for anyone dying after December 31, 2009. If not for budget constraints we would have repealed it sooner, but at least today we can vote to make the repeal permanent. We will be able to start a new decade with no death tax to burden the future generations. By repealing the death tax we will save thousands of family-owned businesses and in turn saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of employees when family businesses are faced with death tax. We have heard the American people, we have reformed and repealed the death tax. I urge all of my fellow Senators to repeal the sunset so death tax will be dead once and for all. Beware of all these Democratic amendments that try to once again make the law murky and complex. Keep it simple and fair--repeal the sunset. Make death tax repeal permanent.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, now, more than ever, Americans are expressing their patriotism. Patriotism means different things to different people, but for some, like Ed Lawrence, patriotism comes through his ``determination'' to help others. Mr. Lawrence, a wildlife artist from McGregor, IA, is a retired game warden and a U.S. Air Force veteran. After hearing President George W. Bush's address to the Nation following the September 11 attacks, Lawrence was moved into taking action. Although unsure of what contribution he could make, he retreated to his studio and began to sketch. Out of his sketches rose images of the American bald eagle with the Stars and Stripes waving behind it. These heart-felt images became the foundation for Mr. Lawrence's work, ``Determination.'' With ``Determination,'' Mr. Lawrence was able to give back to the nation. At the end of last year, Mr. Lawrence devoted his energy to the Grant Wood Chapter of the Red Cross in Cedar Rapids. From the proceeds of his ``Determination'' prints, the group was able to pay the shipping costs of care packages sent to troops on hardship assignments in Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Uzbekistan. The care packages were meant to send a bit of home abroad and included puzzles, games, footballs, microwave popcorn, toiletries, gum and magazines, among other items to boost the troops' morale. In addition to covering the costs of sending out the care packages, Mr. Lawrence created 911 numbered prints as a special tribute to U.S. troops. He donates these prints to various community group fundraisers. The limited edition prints go to groups willing to sell a print in support of the Grant Wood Chapter's project. U.S. Armed Force bases that receive donations also receive a special copy of ``Determination.'' Numbered prints were reserved for Veterans Administration hospitals in Iowa City and Des Moines, and a copy was presented on the floor of the Iowa House at the Iowa State Capitol. Mr. Lawrence is hoping to take the project nationwide and is working with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the American Red Cross to do just that. He and his wife, Chris, have made appearances nationwide to promote the project and received warm responses, as they should. The ``determination,'' of Ed Lawrence to spread patriotism and promote morale nationwide and across the seas has lifted the spirits of troops and civilians alike. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence, for setting such a positive and patriotic example for fellow Iowans and Americans to follow.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Absolutely. There is an administrative structure already in place for hospitals and counties to seek these reclassifications. This process was put into the Medicare statute specifically to review and adjust payments to hospitals that might be disadvantaged under the current system. Unfortunately, hospitals often seek a legislative remedy either before they have exhausted this administrative avenue or after they have been turned down by the Classification Review Board because they don't meet the standards. It is also my observation that including one hospital or one county will only invite dozens of other hospitals and counties to seek similar payment increases, regardless of whether such a fix is warranted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Hospitals in Iowa are already concerned about payment levels compared to more urban states. It is not acceptable to me to lower payments to them for the benefit of hospitals in other states that are already much higher paid. One approach we should consider for rifleshots is to require budget neutrality to be applied only to hospitals in the area into which the county is reclassified, or perhaps to all hospitals in that state. In other words, if hospitals in certain New York counties want to be reclassified into New York City, then the budget neutrality payment reductions could be applied to New York City hospitals, or to all hospitals in New York State, rather than to the rest of the country. That might help bring some discipline to this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree, and believe that we have got to take other steps to ensure that seniors understand the choices they have even before the lock-in is in place. I have always believed that informed health care choice is the key to a successful Medicare+Choice system. That is why I fought hard in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act for the National Medicare Education Project, which required CMS--then called HCFA--to start a 1-800 number and to send out detailed plan comparison materials to every senior every year. I think this program has been a success, and I intend to push for additional funding for it this year. But Medicare education needs even more improvement, especially before seniors get locked-in to a specific plan for a whole year. So I think it is important that this bill delays the lock-in requirement. I would also like to point out that our doing so today is in sync with recent recommendations from the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education. Finally, the bill gives health plans an additional three months to assess their costs before making a decision to participate in the Medicare program. Because of exceptional circumstances with respect to timing, we needed to make this change to the so-called ``ACR filing date'' now--prior to the time the Finance Committee acts on Medicare legislation. As I have mentioned, I am not normally willing to make exceptions to Finance Committee jurisdiction, but the circumstances here justify such an exception in this case.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, allowing items within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee to be added in conference is not something I do lightly. It is critical that we follow regular order, and that committees of jurisdiction hold hearings and examine proposals before the Senate acts. This is, however, an exceptional situation. In light of the current threats to our nation, we must make these changes to make our Federal health care programs more flexible, and more responsive to patients, in times of crisis. In my view, this is important enough to make an exception to our general rule of asserting our committee's jurisdiction. Also urgent are two provisions that stabilize Medicare managed care plans, which many seniors have come to rely on. And as Senator Baucus mentioned, our staffs worked closely with the conferees' staffs to make sure that we were comfortable with the provisions that were included.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I believe that bodes well for our future work together on Medicare legislation in the Finance Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is also a lot of benefit in trade promotion authority and trade agreements for the American farmers and ranchers, and it is beneficial to us because our farmers and ranchers are competitive and technologically advanced in the world. The United States has long been a world leader in agricultural exports. Dollar for dollar, the United States exports more meat than steel, more corn than cosmetics, more bakery products than motor boats, more fruits and vegetables than household appliances. One in three acres of agricultural production of the United States is exported. In 2000, the U.S. agricultural community exported $51 billion in products and supported at least 750,000 American workers. With 96 percent of the world's population living outside the United States, there is a huge market for food products of American farmers and ranchers. In the absence of trade promotion authority, other countries have entered into trade agreements that have driven foreign consumers from the U.S. agricultural market. Burger King restaurants in Chile buy potatoes from Canada. Canada's free trade agreement with Chile gives their farmers eased access to the Chilean market while American farm products are subject to high tariffs that drive up the price to the consumer. So, consequently, we do not sell to Chile. Trade promotion authority will expand existing markets, open new markets for American food products, and allow our farmers and ranchers to better compete, boosting our exports. Previous trade agreements demonstrate benefits to American farmers and ranchers. U.S. agricultural exports to our NAFTA partners have increased $4 billion since that agreement went into effect 8 years ago. Under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports doubled. Canada is the No. 2 market for our agricultural exports, buying $7.6 billion in the year 2000. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, our agricultural exports to Mexico have nearly doubled, making it our third largest agricultural market buying $6.5 billion in the year 2000. U.S. pork producers credit the North American Free Trade Agreement with their 130-percent increase in market share in Mexico between 1994 and the year 2000. The United States beef and veal exports to Canada increased 26 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased five fold with Mexico from 1993 to the year 2000. The sale of United States corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000, and exports to Mexico increased by nearly 18 times between 1993 and 2000. Mexico voluntarily chose to accelerate its market opening for corn under the North American Free Trade Agreement to provide lower cost food for its consumer. Canada imported 15 percent more soybeans from the United States between 1990 and 2000. Mexican imports of United States soybeans doubled from 1993 to the year 2000. I would also like to comment on the seriousness of defeating the Byrd (3447) amendment on the Congressional Oversight Group. The Byrd amendment will curtail the authorities on international trade within the Congress of the United States; those people who have been given authority, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means, will be curtailed. It will curtail our oversight of these agreements. We need to work toward that. I am also asking my colleague, for the sake of maintaining the authority of an oversight of the Senate Finance Committee, that we defeat the Byrd amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Hollings amendment that is before the Senate. I will tell you two reasons I strongly oppose the amendment. My comments are in regard to why trade adjustment assistance should not be expanded in the way Senator Hollings proposes it. Before I give those reasons, I remind my colleagues of the tremendous expansion of trade adjustment assistance that is already in the bipartisan bill before the Senate. A lot of programs that are part of trade adjustment assistance have never been part of the program in the 40-year history of trade adjustment assistance. We in a bipartisan way in this body are very concerned about workers who are dislocated for trade or economic reasons. The usual retraining and support programs are being continued, but as one of several examples of additional programs, we are going to provide health insurance benefits for dislocated workers because of trade under trade adjustment assistance. When I speak against any further outrageous expansions of this program, as Senator Hollings' amendment would do, I do not want anybody saying that those of us who oppose it do not have any concern about those who are dislocated because of trade. First, this is an extremely expensive, radical expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program that cannot be justified in any fashion as a program that is related to trade. In fact, this amendment completely severs the traditional 40-year link between adjustment assistance and trade. All you have to do is work in one specific industry during a specific period of time and you are eligible to receive benefits. The fact is, workers in the textile industry and in other industries as well often lose their jobs for reasons having nothing to do with trade. Often workers might lose employment because of new advances in technology, changes in the national economy, their company is not well run, or because of improvements in productivity. For all of those, we have programs on the books to help those dislocated workers, albeit dislocated unrelated to trade. The textile industry in particular has seen tremendous changes because of new technology, such as the introduction of new computer- assisted design techniques that have often transformed many labor- intensive jobs into more high-tech workplaces over the past decade. While it is certainly regrettable that these new developments in technology mean some workers lose their jobs, we should try to help these workers and help their families at the same time and do it as much as we can through other types of assistance. They are not workers, though, who have lost their jobs because of trade. Furthermore, I do not know on what basis we can simply give Government benefits to workers in one industry but not to workers in other industries. Do not workers in industries other than textiles also deserve the same treatment? The bottom line is the purpose of trade adjustment assistance. It is designed to help workers who are adversely affected solely because of trade. This amendment would signal a radical transformation of trade adjustment assistance into another welfare program with no connection to trade. It would also sharply boost the cost of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision alone would cost over $700 million in a 10-year period. That would nearly double the cost of the entire Trade Adjustment Assistance Program with just the one provision: The provision put forth by Senator Hollings. I regret that any American loses his or her job. There is nobody who wants to see an American lose their job. I have had the opportunity twice in my industrial employment to lose jobs, once in 1960 and once in 1971. In 1971, I drew unemployment compensation for a short period of time. I know what it is like to be dislocated from a job, but I was not dislocated because of trade. There were other programs that helped me during that period of time, and those programs are available for people because we know that losing a job is a terrible blow to an individual. It affects the entire family. But there are other programs designed to help these individuals. We should not take money away from other Federal programs and from other pressing needs in our country to pay benefits under a trade adjustment assistance program to workers just in one industry, and particularly when they are not affected by trade. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. President, while I have time remaining, I wish to speak generally--how much time do I have Mr. President?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the underlying legislation. When talking about trade promotion authority, opponents seem to love to use the term ``fast track'' because I think they believe that this sounds somewhat sneaky or somewhat uncontrollable. That is a shame. It is a shame because the term ``fast track'' does not really reflect what this legislation is all about and the procedures that are connected with giving the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements. The term we use in this legislation, ``trade promotion authority,'' is more accurate. In reality, trade promotion authority is a contract. It is a contract between the President and the Congress. When the Congress extends trade promotion authority to the President, the Congress agrees to authorize the President to negotiate trade agreements and to do it on behalf of 280 million Americans. Why do we have this contract with the President of the United States? We have it because there is only one person who can speak on behalf of 280 million people in international affairs, and that is our chief diplomat, the Chief Executive of our country, the President of the United States. It is that simple. We cannot have 535 people in Congress negotiating with other nations. It would not ever work. If we are going to succeed at the negotiating table, our trading partners need to know that the person to whom they are speaking has authority to negotiate. Trade promotion authority not only gives that authority to negotiate, but it gives a great deal of credibility to our President at these tables. That is what the trade promotion authority contract between the Congress and the President is all about. Let me be clear. The President does not go into trade negotiations without guidance and without always being reminded that the constitutional power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce rests with the Congress of the United States. Through this trade promotion authority bill, the Congress gives very careful direction to the President, with detailed lists of instructions. The Congress tells the President--we do that through this legislation--if he follows these directions we give him, if he fulfills the details of consultation procedures laid out in this bill, we will do three things. First, we will actually consider the agreement. We will not have these agreements sitting around collecting dust on Capitol Hill. The Congress will actually pick up this agreement and we will consider it. Now, that does not mean we will agree with the bill, it does not mean we would pass the bill, but we are committed to considering it. Secondly, we will not change the agreement before we consider it. We authorize the President to negotiate. He follows our directions. He consults with the Members of Congress through the process. We know what is in the negotiated instrument. Now we will consider it without changing it. Third, we will limit debate on the agreement. We will not tie it up in endless debate in the Congress. That is the contract we have with the President of the United States, an agreement between the President and the Congress that if he will do certain things for us, we will do certain things. Why do we do it that way? We do it because it empowers us as a Congress, it empowers us as a nation. Without trade promotion authority, the President has no clear direction from Congress. He can basically negotiate anything he wants without consulting with Congress, but he will not do it in a credible way with the other nations that are with him because they are not apt to agree if they are not certain that a final agreement will be considered by Congress No. 1, and not changed by Congress No. 2, and actually voted upon. Congress can selfishly observe its constitutional power because we keep a watchful eye on the President of the United States over many months, sometimes over many years, in the process of the negotiations to reach an agreement. Trade promotion authority also empowers us as a nation of 280 million people. Our foreign trading partners know the President speaks for the Nation in international trade and that he has the backing of Congress. With this knowledge, they can be sure any agreement concluded with the President will be considered by Congress without being amended to death. That empowers our Nation to get the best bargain we can at the negotiating table. What happens if the President does not fulfill his end of the bargain? What if he does not follow Congress's direction or fails to consult with the Congress as the law requires? Then he does not get the benefit of agreement. The trade promotion authority bill itself contains procedural enforcement mechanisms to ensure the President does not overstep his agreement with the Congress. Trade promotion authority procedures are very carefully balanced in a thoughtful way for the President and the Congress to work together to advance the economic interests of our Nation. It is a procedure that has worked well for over 50 years, and on the basis of this legislation, trade promotion authority has worked well for 25 years. It is also a procedure that since 1995 our Nation has gone too long without. One hundred thirty agreements around the world have been negotiated. Our President has not had the credibility to be at the table. He has not been at the table. We have been at the table of three bilateral agreements but otherwise not. So the interests of 280 million Americans have never been represented, never been protected, and the rest of the world is going to move on. Prior to 5 or 6 years ago, the rest of the world used to wait for the United States to take the first step. We have an opportunity now by passing this legislation to put our Nation once again in the lead. So that is why I urge my colleagues to work our way through the rest of these amendments and to work with Senator Baucus and me to pass this bill and help get our Nation's trade back on track. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin for working closely with us over a long period of time to reach agreement on exact language. He has spoken as to how difficult that was and how hard everybody worked. I won't repeat any of that. I associate myself with that part of Senator Harkin's remarks. I support this amendment. For Senator Baucus and I, as managers of the legislation, were glad to have it go through in this fashion. When discussing trade and particularly this trade promotion authority bill, it is important to put the issue of child labor in the proper context. What I want to say as the bottom line, before I say everything above the bottom line, is that trade is the instrument to improve the economy of countries because economies that are not in poverty do not have child labor problems that countries in poverty do have. I will discuss this from two standpoints: One, how the bill was crafted even prior to Senator Harkin's amendment to deal with the issues of child labor, and also what we are doing as Government and the people of the United States to help in other ways on the issue of child labor. First, I will address what the United States has done with respect to internationally recognized working rights. Our country is not a newcomer to this arena. We have formally recognized core labor standards, including workers' rights, in our statutes since 1984. Many of the core labor standards that we recognize are similar or identical to those of the International Labor Organization. In addition, the United States has consistently been on the front lines in fighting for internationally recognized workers' rights. We have also fought the problem of child labor around the globe, and we have done it quite effectively over the years. I have consistently supported and encouraged these efforts because although these efforts have not been on the front pages of the newspaper, they do have a track record. We know that these efforts work. Most of what we as a country do internationally is part of what I call a positive agenda for workers' rights and for the elimination of child labor. It has little or nothing to do with trade. The United States is the single largest donor to the International Labor Organizations's premier program for addressing the child labor problem, known as the International Program for Eradication of Child Labor. This program does a lot of heavy lifting and gets things done. For example, the Program for Eradication of Child Labor works effectively with local nongovernmental organizations. This Program for Eradication of Child Labor helps to ensure that when children are found working in conditions where they are being exploited and are taken from work, they are put into schools. It helps provide funds to poor parents so that when their children are taken from work, the family does not starve. We do many other things as part of this ``positive agenda.'' The United States helps fund School Lunch Programs worldwide. Something as simple as providing a school lunch to a poor child in a developing country is one of the most effective things we can do to combat child labor because it helps supplement a poor family's income. The United States is also actively engaged in labor law enforcement around the world. We provide technical assistance to help countries change their laws so that they can be more effective in combating child labor. We help train the inspectors in foreign countries who go out and investigate these child labor violations. In addition, the U.S. Government is a signatory to the International Labor Organization Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor such as slavery, bondage, enforced labor, child prostitution, and working in dangerous conditions. Clearly, then, trade and openness is not the problem for poor countries. Rather, it is as simple as too little trade and not enough openness, particularly openness of their economy. The International Labor Organization Convention on the worst forms of child labor is extremely significant for other reasons. It admits that the overwhelming cause of child prostitution, child slavery, and forced labor is, in fact, poverty. This is where trade and open economies can and do make a huge difference in the lives of people. Over the past 20 years, globalization has been a great force for good in reducing poverty. It has sparked a dramatic rise in living standards in many countries across the world. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. There is overwhelming evidence that trade boosts economic growth. A famous Harvard University study by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner found that developing countries with open economies grew 4.5 percent a year, while developing countries with closed borders grew a paltry seven-tenths of 1 percent. So it is 4.5-percent growth for countries with open economies to less than 1 percent--seven-tenths of 1 percent--a year for countries with closed economies. That is simple, common sense. Open the economies of poor countries and they will grow economically and they can lift themselves out of poverty. At that rate, open economies double in size every 16 years, while closed ones can only reach that goal in 100 years. Again, 16 years doubling for an open economy, 100 years for doubling the economy of a closed economy. The rapid growth of developing countries that embrace free trade always leads to a rapid decrease in child labor. A 1998 World Bank report shows that once per capita GDP hits $500 per year--just $500 per year--the incidence of child labor falls dramatically. Clearly, then, promoting trade, freedom, and openness is one of the single most important things we can do to end child labor around the world. It is not the only solution, though, and I don't pretend that it is. But trade and open markets are a key part of any solution to ending poverty and eradicating child labor. The only way we can promote and lead the effort to open world markets is if the President of the United States has the authority to negotiate credibly with other countries at the bargaining table. That is what trade promotion authority is all about. History has shown time and again that if the United States does not lead in the effort to open markets and tear down job-killing trade barriers, the gains we made in the past can be lost. Finally, I want to point out that the core labor standards dealing with the worst forms of child labor that we are addressing in this amendment by Senator Harkin are embedded in the same core labor standards that the United States has recognized and has promoted in our law since 1984. So I commend my colleague from Iowa for making positive contributions to this debate. When it comes to child labor and workers' rights, this modified amendment and this total trade promotion authority bill does the right thing. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the right thing again and pass it with the overwhelming bipartisan vote as we did coming out of the Finance Committee, 18 to 3. I yield the floor.

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