Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Monday was April 15. That is the day Americans file their income tax return with the IRS. April 15 was also the deadline for Congress to complete its work on the budget resolution for the Federal government. But, the deadline has come and gone and we still don't have a budget. It seems the Democratic leadership is reluctant to bring their proposed budget to the floor of the Senate for a vote. According to recent press reports, they don't know if they have the votes to pass their budget. What is interesting about the Democratic leadership's inability to find enough votes to pass a budget is that the makeup of the Senate this year is exactly the same as last year. With this same membership, Republicans last year produced a bipartisan budget supported by 65 Senators, including 15 Democrats. After taking a closer look at their budget, I am not surprised they do not have the votes. The Democratic budget is a case study in contradictions. They claim to support the war on terrorism, but they don't fund the Presidents' request for defense. They say the President's tax cut was too big, but they don't delay or repeal it. They claim to protect Social Security and Medicare, but they spend trust fund money on other programs for the rest of the decade. In short, the Democratic budget says one thing and does another. Take a closer look at these contradictions. First, according to the Democratic Budget Committee Report, ``the budget resolution provides all of the resources requested by the President for the Department of Defense for the next 2 years. It includes a reserve fund that will provide all of the defense funding requested by the President in 2005 through 2012 if it becomes clear that the funds are needed.'' In other words, the Democratic budget funds the President's request for 2 years and then cuts it by $160 billion the next 8 years. Their so called defense ``reserve fund'' is fraud. Unlike the other reserve funds in their budget--for Medicare, health care, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act--no money is actually being set aside for defense. Admittedly, the war on terrorism may not cost as much as the President has requested, but instead of honestly setting aside the extra money until we know for sure, the Democratic budget spends the money on other programs. According to the Democratic Budget Committee Report, ``The President's budget does represent an appropriate response to the September 11 attacks--it provides the resources that will allow our armed forces, homeland security personnel, and citizens to respond to the challenge posed by terrorists. But--just as last year--the President's budget does not respond adequately to the other major challenges facing this nation.'' In other words, the Democratic budget recognizes the potential need to fund the President's defense request, but insists other programs must come first. Compared to the President's budget, the Democratic budget spends $160 billion less on defense and $348 billion more on everything else. The second contradiction in the Democratic budget is the issue of tax cuts. The Democratic Budget Committee Report says, ``Last year our national leaders were presented with a golden opportunity to set this Nation on a course to deal with the challenges facing it . . . But the President and Republicans in Congress instead pushed through a plan that had only one priority--tax cuts . . . Becuase of the huge tax cut, there were not enough resources left to address other challenges . . . The effects of this squandered opportunity are being felt this year.'' So how does the Democratic budget propose to deal with this so called squandered opportunity. The Democratic Budget Committee Report states ``the budget resolution assumes no repeal or delay of tax rate reductions that are scheduled to occur in future years under the law enacted last year.'' So if last year's tax cut was such a ``squandered opportunity,'' why doesn't the Democratic budget do something about it? The reason is simple. They know the American people are overtaxed. They know twelve Democratic Senators vote for the tax cut signed into law by President Bush last year. They know their Senate colleagues will not vote to delay or repeal the tax cut. But instead of admitting these facts, the Democratic leadership continues its partisan attacks on Republicans for ``squandering'' the surplus and ``raiding'' Social Security. That brings us to the third and most outrageous contradiction of them all. The Democratic Budget Committee Report states, ``The budget resolution recognizes that it is crucial to return the budget to balance without Social Security as soon as possible . . .'' So how does the Democratic budget propose to do this? It contains a so called ``circuit breaker'' that would create a budget point-of-order against the consideration of next year's budget if it does not get to balance--excluding Social Security--by 2008. In other words, the Democratic budget believes it is so ``crucial'' to balance the budget without Social Security that it proposes to wait until next year. Apparently, ``as soon as possible'' doesn't apply to this year. During the Budget Committee markup, the chairman explained that he was not requiring a plan to protect Social Security this year because the economy was still weak and that it is unwise to engage in further deficit reduction during our recovery. One might be tempted to accept this explanation. But consider what the chairman had to say when OMB Director Mitch Daniels testified before the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee chairman stated, ``I'd be quick to acknowledge I could live with [a deficit] in a year of economic downturn and at a time of war. But you're not forecasting economic downturn for even later this year--you're forecasting economic recovery. And for the rest of the decade, you're forecasting rather strong economic growth and yet year after year you propose taking money from Social Security, taking money from Medicare . . . How do you justify it?'' Blaming the economy for their failure to make any effort to protect Social Security is especially ironic given the Budget Committee chairman's view of how the economy works. According to the chairman, the tax cuts reduced the surplus, thereby driving up long-term interest rates which have a negative impact on the economy. If one accepts the chairman's view of the economy, the sooner Congress enacts a deficit reduction package, the sooner we can bring down long-term interest rates and stimulate the economy. But instead of having the courage of his economic convictions, the Democratic budget fails to make any effort to reduce the deficit. Instead, it just digs the hole deeper. The Democratic budget resolution dips into the Social Security trust fund and spends $1.3 trillion of the Social Security surplus on other programs. What is even more ironic about the Democratic budget ``circuit breaker'' is that it only applies to Social Security. Last year, the chairman of the Budget Committee insisted that it was equally important to protect the Medicare trust fund as well. Last year during the debate over the Social Security lockbox, the chairman stated, ``Some of us believe it is critically important that we protect both the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund so they are not used for other spending in the Federal budget.'' Apparently, that was then and this is now. Now, the Democratic budget proposes to dip into the Medicare trust fund and spend $360 billion of the Medicare surplus on other programs. The Democratic leadership would like the American public to believe their opposition to tax cuts is based on their desire to protect Social Security and Medicare. But the budget they have produced this year shows that is simply not true. Despite what the Democratic leadership might say, their opposition to tax cuts has nothing to do with protecting Social Security and Medicare. If they were so committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, they could have proposed to delay or repeal the tax cut. If they were so committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, they could have proposed to reduce other spending. But they chose to do none of the above. Instead, the Democratic leadership chose to produce a budget that increases Federal spending and thereby spends $1.7 trillion of the Social Security and Medicare surplus on other programs. That is the dirty little secret of the Democratic budget. After spending all of last year and the first part of this year engaged in partisan attacks on a so called Republican tax cut--that passed with the votes of twelve Democrats--they have decided they would rather increase spending than protect Social Security and Medicare. Now, I believe we all know why the Democratic leadership doesn't want to bring their budget resolution to the floor of the Senate for a vote--they are too embarrassed. I have to admit, I would be embarrassed, too. Based on CBO latest projections, including the economic stimulus bill, the Federal budget will not have a surplus--excluding Social Security and Medicare--until 2011. Instead of addressing these long-term deficits, the Democratic budget proposes to increase spending by $1.1 trillion. ``New Spending'' shows how the Democratic budget would dig the deficit hole even deeper. The Democratic budget only achieves balance in 2012 by assuming the tax cut will expire. Between now and 2011, the Democratic budget would spend $1.7 trillion from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$362 billion from Medicare and $1.32 trillion from Social Security. The Democratic budget ``circuit breaker'' would require next year's budget to get the balance--excluding Social Security--by 2008. But this year's Democratic budget proposes to spend an additional $428 billion between 2004 and 2008. In order to comply with the ``circuit breaker,'' next year's budget would have to reduce spending or increase taxes by $424 billion. In other words, next year's budget would have to repeal virtually every dollar of additional spending provided by this year's budget. If the ``circuit breaker'' were expanded to include Medicare, then next year's budget would have to reduce spending or increase by $536 billion.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to speak on ANWR for about 10 minutes if I could, or a little bit less.

Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his kindness. I have heard discussed in the Senate this area of Alaska being about 19 million acres, and I have heard that there was only going to be drilling in about 2,000 acres of that 19 million acres. Two thousand acres out of 19 million acres is not very many acres. My State of Iowa is about 55,000 square miles, and that multiplies out to about 35 million acres. So 19 million acres would be a little bit more than half of my State of Iowa. I know how big the State of Iowa is. I do not want to claim that I know how big the State of Alaska is, but I know how big the State of Iowa is because I travel every year to all 99 counties to hold at least one meeting in each county. I know how much 2,000 acres happens to be because that would be about 3 square miles in the neighborhood of my farm in Iowa. Take 3 square miles out of my State of Iowa and it is practically nothing. So I do not know what the big deal is about drilling on 2,000 acres in the State of Alaska or even in the State of Iowa. It would be equivalent to about a pinprick on a map of the State of Iowa. That is the way I see it. I say to the Senator from Alaska, to me, this ends up almost as a no- brainer. From the facts we have heard, that this will supply enough oil for my State of Iowa for 126 years--I have also heard it would be equivalent to the amount of oil we would bring in from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. I think I have heard the figure of 55 years is the amount of oil that would come from Saddam Hussein. I have also heard my colleagues say we send $4.5 billion a year to Iraq for oil. If all of this is correct--I do not believe that it has been refuted. I have not heard all the debate. But it really comes down to whether or not we would like to get our energy from areas that we control in the United States, or we want to get oil from unstable governments around the world, and whether or not we ought to save that $4 billion for America, spend it in America, or spend it with Saddam Hussein. I also believe when we do drill in Alaska--and the Senator from Alaska does not have to respond to this unless I am wrong, but I believe when we drill in Alaska, there are very rigorous environmental rules that have to be followed. We hear about the pristine areas of Alaska, and I do not dispute that, but do we not also have pristine areas in Siberia? I assume that whether it is Alaska or whether it is Siberia, there is going to be more oil added to the world pool of oil because it is going to be needed. So would people in the United States rather have us drill under the strict environmental rules of the United States as they would apply in Alaska or would they rather have us let the Russians drill in Siberia where I know there was oil floating out of pipelines for long periods of time--and I do not know whether it has ever been cleaned up--and where there would be little concern about the environment in Siberia where Russia would be drilling? I would think people in America would rather have us drill under the strict guidelines of the environmental requirements of the United States than they would in a country that does not have such guidelines, particularly considering these are considered pristine environmental areas, whether it is in Alaska or whether it is anywhere in the Arctic area of the world. I think you would have to look at them the same way. So I have come to the conclusion, I want to tell the Senator from Alaska, not just from listening to him but listening to other people and studying this, that I happen to think he is right on this issue. I think we have an opportunity not only on this issue but on a lot of parts of this legislation to pave the way for a balanced, long-term national energy strategy that will increase U.S. energy independence and limit the stranglehold foreign countries have on American consumers. A comprehensive energy strategy must strike a balance among development of conventional energy sources and alternative, renewable energy and conservation. I think the President's approach of incentives for production, incentives for conservation, and incentives for alternative and renewable fuels is a very balanced energy program. It is a program that, No. 1, incentives for renewables take care of the short-term needs of the country, and in the case of the second and third points, conservation and renewables take care of the long-term energy needs of our country. During the past few weeks, I have had an opportunity to express my strong support for renewable fuel provisions included in this bill which require a small percentage of our Nation's fuel supply to be provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. As a domestic renewable source of energy, ethanol and biodiesel can increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase our national economic security. But they can't do it alone, and it can't be done overnight. That is why we need short-term solutions and we need long-term solutions. The Senate has had an opportunity to consider renewable portfolio standards, which I believe will go a long way to promote renewable energy resources for electrical generation. However, that is only part of a solution. As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have had an opportunity to work with Chairman Baucus to develop an energy-related tax amendment that includes provisions for development of renewable sources of energy such as wind and biomass and incentives for energy-efficient appliances and homes. The tax package, however, unlike the underlying energy bill, recognizes that a balanced energy plan can't overlook the production of traditional energy sources such as oil and gas. Developing domestic oil resources is vital to our national security. The United States is dependent upon foreign countries for over 58 percent of our oil needs. We are currently dependent upon Saddam Hussein, which I already referred to but, more specifically, for about 750,000 barrels of oil a day or 9 percent of our U.S. oil imports. Last week, as we have been reminded during this debate, Iraq stopped its exports of 2.5 million barrels a day in response to developments in the Middle East, further driving up crude oil prices. It is important that Americans know that last year alone, we spent $4.5 billion of our money to pay for Saddam Hussein's oil, thereby providing funding to help Iraq with its war machine. The United States has the resources on our land that could reduce or eliminate the stranglehold Saddam Hussein has on our economy. By developing our resources in Alaska, we could produce 10 billion barrels of oil and perhaps as much as 16 billion barrels of oil. This amount could replace the oil I have referenced from Saudi Arabia or the oil from Iraq for a long period of time. So for the sake of our national security, we ought to be developing our own natural resources at home. Opponents have made claims that opening ANWR to oil development would do tremendous environmental harm. But, again, I repeat for my colleagues, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres is a no-brainer. Only the best environmental technology will be used for exploration and development, leaving the smallest possible footprint. Opponents have also argued that oil development in ANWR will hurt wildlife. Remember the warnings from environmental groups about the danger to the caribou if we developed Prudhoe Bay? They were wrong. Since the development, we have had increases in herd size. I ask my colleagues, what is better for the environment: Developing resources in the United States, using the toughest environmental standards ever imposed, or importing foreign oil produced without much consideration for the environment? We must do more to develop in an environmentally sensitive way the resources God has given us in stewardship. I hope my colleagues will join with me to support this approach to opening Alaska and ensuring that the bill before the Senate does more to protect our national security and to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. I thank my colleague from Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am submitting, along with my colleague Senator Wyden, a Senate resolution to amend the Senate rules to eliminate secret holds. I know Senators are familiar with the practice of placing holds on matters to come before the Senate. Holds derive from the rules and traditions of the Senate. In order for the Senate to run smoothly, objections to unanimous consent agreements must be avoided. Essentially, a hold is a notice by a Senator to his or her party leader of an intention to object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration. This effectively prevents the Senate leadership from attempting to bring the matter before the Senate. A Senator might place a hold on a piece of legislation or a nomination because of legitimate concerns about that legislation or nomination. However, there is no legitimate reason why a Senator placing a hold on a matter should remain anonymous. I believe in the principle of open government. Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials. I would maintain that the use of secret holds damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate. It has been my policy, and the policy of Senator Wyden as well, to disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place on any matter in the Senate along with my reasons for doing so. As a practical matter, other Members of the Senate need to be made aware of an individual Senator's concerns. How else can those concerns be addressed? As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their elected Senators. Senator Wyden and I have worked twice to get a similar ban on secret holds included in legislation passed by the Senate. But, both times it was removed in conference. Then, at the beginning of the 106th Congress, Senate Leaders Lott and Daschle circulated a letter informing Senators of a new policy regarding the use of holds. The Lott/Daschle letter stated, . . . all members wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calendar business shall notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns. This agreement was billed as marking the end of secret holds in the Senate and I took the agreement at face value. Unfortunately, this policy has not been followed consistently. Secret holds have continued to appear in the Senate. For example, last November, it became apparent that an anonymous hold had been placed on a bill, S. 739, sponsored by Senator Wellstone. This bill had been reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. However, neither Senator Wellstone nor Senator Rockefeller, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, were ever informed as to which Senator or Senators had placed the hold. The time has come to end this distasteful practice for good. This resolution that Senator Wyden and I are submitting would do just that. It would add a section to the Senate rules requiring that Senators make public any hold placed on a matter within two session days of notifying his or her party leadership. This change will lead to more open dialogue and more constructive debate in the Senate. Ending secret holds will make the workings of the Senate more transparent. It will reduce secrecy and public cynicism along with it. This reform will improve the institutional reputation of the Senate and I would urge my colleagues to support the Grassley-Wyden resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one of the pieces of legislation I thought would be on the floor of the Senate by this time is trade promotion authority. I know our majority leader has a lot of problems and issues with which he has to deal. I think he has intentions of bringing the bill up sometime, but I am trying to encourage the Senate majority leader to bring it up soon because we have so many issues before us. I want to speak about one of those issues in regard to trade and agriculture. Trade promotion authority is so important for us to get down trade barriers that stand in the way of the successful and fair trade of our agricultural products with other countries. Without trade, there is not going to be any profitability in farming. The fact is, we produce 40 percent more on our farms than is consumed domestically. So a good trade policy is what is necessary if we are going to have full production and if we are going to have profitability in farming. We had the pleasure of bringing up a bill that had the support by a vote of 18 to 3 of the Senate Finance Committee. That was about 4 months ago and we still don't have any commitment from the leadership to bring this critical, bipartisan trade legislation to the floor by a date certain, so we can plan on that date and be ready for one of the most important issues to come before Congress this year and eventually vote on it. We have had several offers: that this bill would come up sometime this spring; one time it was in March; another time, it was soon after the Easter recess; now it is maybe sometime before Memorial Day. There is a great deal of uncertainty. During this period of uncertainty, we lose opportunities for the United States to be a leader in global trade negotiation. Remember, this is not something new for the United States. This is something that the United States has been doing since 1947 when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was first started. Whatever success we have had until 1994, when the President's authority ran out, has been accomplished under U.S. leadership. We ought to be proud of our leadership and we ought to be looking forward to reestablishing that leadership once again after a period of about 8 years during which the President hasn't had the authority. Then we can continue the good things that happen when trade barriers are reduced. The good things that happen are the creation of jobs. I don't want people to take my word for that. I want to repeat one of the things President Clinton has constantly said, which I agree with, and that is during his tenure as President, with a rapidly expanding economy--I think in the neighborhood of about 20 million new jobs were created during that term of office--President Clinton would say that one-third of those jobs were created because of trade. I am not talking about trade as some abstract political theory or economic theory. I am talking about the good that comes from trade--the good of creating jobs in America, the good that it does for our consumers because of the opportunities to get the best buy for consumer goods. President Clinton's bragging about one-third of the jobs coming from international trade was a direct result of 50 years of America's leadership in the reduction of trade barriers. Two of those major agreements were completed in the first year of President Clinton's Presidency--the North American Free Trade Agreement, as well as the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which established the World Trade Organization as a more permanent forum for the establishment of trade agreements in the future and settlement of trade disputes. I am talking about having a better opportunity for America's economy, for creation of jobs. Again, this is not something from which just America benefits. We can look at the economies of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. As we know, after World War II, they were in a terrible state of affairs. They were Third World economies. Look at what those economies have done in the last 50 years through the principle of trading and through the regime that was established under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They were able to expand their economies to the advanced economies they have today. By having trade in the 77 countries in the world that are the most poor--Africa and other countries as well--we can help them expand their economies or, as President Kennedy said in his Presidency, trade not aid, meaning that trade was a better way of helping the developing nations to become strong economies rather than the United States just giving something that was not an encouragement for them to advance. When I talk about trade promotion authority, I am not talking about some abstract delegation of authority to the President of the United States to negotiate certain agreements that Congress is going to control in the final analysis as we have to vote on that product that comes out of those agreements. We are talking about helping countries all over the world because we have an expanding world population, and we have to have an expanding world economic pie. If we do not, we are going to have less for more people. But with an expanding world economic pie, for sure, with an expanding world population, we are going to have more for more people, and we are not only going to be talking about a better life for those people, but we are going to talk about more social stability, more political stability and more peace around the world. This is a very important issue that we ought to be dealing with in the Senate. Every day we delay in approving bipartisan trade promotion authority for the President is another day that the United States cannot advance the interest of our workers or, in the case of my remarks today, the interests of America's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers at the negotiating table as effectively as they should, as effectively as we did in the Uruguay Round starting in 1986 and ending in 1993, which resulted in a very favorable agreement or any time since 1947. It is a reality, not some theoretical point. While month after month there has been a delay in this issue coming up, our agricultural negotiators are at the table right now in Geneva. They are fighting for better market access for our farmers, but without trade promotion authority, our agricultural negotiators have one hand tied behind their backs. There are timetables, there are goals, and there are deadlines in Geneva that have to be met if these negotiators are going to accomplish what we want them to accomplish for the good of American agriculture. Without trade promotion authority, it will not be the United States that will shape the negotiating agenda of these talks. It will be the countries that want to shield their markets from competition that will shape the agenda and the timing of these negotiations. This would be a devastating situation for America's export-dependent farm economy, and it will cost virtually every farming family in America. Without greater access to world markets, America's family farmers and ranchers will pay more in the form of higher tariffs or taxes than will our competitors. As a result, our farmers will have lower prices, lower income, and lost opportunity. I thought I would bring to the attention of the Senate a letter that is shown on this chart in its entirety. I am not going to read the letter in its entirety. It is from a constituent of mine. He also happens to be a person I know well, not because I socialize with this person, but because he is an outstanding agricultural leader in my State and, in that capacity, I get to know some of these people who are outstanding farmers, outstanding civic leaders. I received this letter from Glen Keppy and brought it with me so my colleagues can see how a third generation pork producer from Davenport, IA, looks at the issue of trade and the relationship between trade and the profitability in farming and, more importantly, the strength of the institution that we refer to as the family farmer. If I can explain what I mean by a family farmer because some think that might be 80 acres or 500 acres. I am not talking about the size of the farm. I am talking about an institution where the family controls the capital, they make all the management decisions, and they provide most or all of the labor. That is a family farm. That can be a 30-acre New Jersey truck garden; that can be an apple ranch in the Presiding Officer's State of Michigan; that can be a ranch, with cattle on thousands of acres, in Wyoming where it takes 25 acres of grass to feed one cow and calf unit. Mr. Keppy wrote to me about the huge foreign tariffs that are on pork, averaging in some instances close to 100 percent. He also wrote about other foreign trade barriers that hamper his and other farmers' ability to export overseas. According to Glenn, and I am going to read the first sentence that is highlighted: The only way our family operation will survive over the long term is if we can convince other nations to lower or remove their barriers to our pork exports. That comes from some experience. We have learned from some reductions of tariffs going into Mexico since the North American Free Trade Agreement. We are sending more pork into Mexico. As a result of agreements with Japan, more beef is going into Japan. A lot of agreements that were made in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade proved that as well. Mr. Keppy knows that where barriers have gone down, it has created opportunities for the American farmer. What he is talking about is that we need to continue opening markets, and trade promotion authority is the tool that we give to the President to negotiate. We give to the President our constitutional power under certain short periods of time with restrictions so the President can sit down at the table and negotiate because, quite frankly, it is not possible for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate with the 142 different countries that are members of the World Trade Organization. So we give the President this authority. We have done it in the past. It has been very successful. We control the end products because if we do not like it, we do not vote for it, it does not pass, it does not become law. We also control the process through consultation that we require of the President of the United States. We limit some areas where he might be able to negotiate or not negotiate. We instruct the President to emphasize some things over other things. So we are not giving away any constitutional power. We are asking the President, as a matter of convenience, to negotiate for Congress in the exercise of our constitutional control over interstate and foreign commerce. I remember in the Senate at the beginning of this debate on trade promotion authority there were some who said it really was not necessary to pass trade promotion authority right away. These critics were wrong then. They are wrong now. To show how one of my constituents feels about this, this is what this family farmer who emphasizes and specializes in pork production, Mr. Keppy, says, and I would read another sentence: To the American farmer, despite the pressing need to improve export prospects and consequently, the bottom line for American farmers, no timetable for considering TPA legislation on the floor of the Senate has been set. That is his way of saying that is not a very good environment for agriculture at the negotiating table as we are right now in Geneva. He also says in another place in these letters: To farmers like my two sons and myself, trade is not a luxury. It is a vital ingredient to our success. ``It is the key,'' Mr. Keppy says, ``to our survival.'' There are a lot of Glen Keppys whose survival as family farmers depends on trade. So it matters a lot to Mr. Keppy and to all the farmers in America like him when the Senate leadership delays month after month in bringing legislation that is vital to the survival of family farmers to the Senate. Saying one is for the family farmer and then ignoring or delaying legislation that is vital to the farmers' survival is beyond most farmers' ability to understand. Glen Keppy, his two sons who work with him, and all the family farmers like them whose survival depends on trade hope the Senate Democratic leadership is listening and will schedule this bill for debate. More importantly, the family farmers of America hope we act on this bill. Again, I know this has been on Senator Daschle's list of important things to get done. I know he knows the importance of it because he is one of the 18 who voted to bring this out of our Senate Finance Committee, but it is something we have to get done, even if it takes working extra hours, as we are not tonight. I am not complaining about not working nights because none of us want to work at night, but sometimes we might have to do it to get the job done. I welcome that opportunity and I thank Senator Daschle for his consideration of my request. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf of Senator Baucus and myself, to address the growing problem of corporate inversions. Our legislation, the ``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore,'' REPO Act, will stem the rising tide of corporate inversions. It's tax season. Citizens across America are filing their taxes this week. They're paying their taxes. A lot of taxes. But some corporate citizens are relaxing this tax season. They've moved their mailing address out of the country. They've set up a filing cabinet and a mail box overseas. This way, they escape from millions of dollars of Federal taxes. These corporate expatriations aren't illegal. But they're sure immoral. During a war on terrorism, coming out of a recession, everyone ought to be pulling together. But instead, these companies are using recession and terrorism to get out of the United States. If companies don't have their hearts in America, they ought to get out. Adding insult to injury, some of these companies have fat contracts with the government. So they'll take other people's tax dollars to make a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America strong. The bill Chairman Baucus and I are introducing today will place corporate inversions on the endangered species list. Our bill requires the IRS to look at where a company has its heart and soul, not where it has a filing cabinet and a mail box. If a company remains controlled in the United States, our bill requires the company to pay its fair share of taxes, plain and simple. When I am firmly committed to halting corporate inversions, I also recognize that the rising tide of corporate expatriations demonstrates that our international tax rules are deeply flawed. In many cases, those flaws seriously undermine an American company's ability to compete in the global marketplace. This competitive disadvantage is often cited by companies that engage in inversion transactions. I believe that we need to bring our international tax system in line with our open market trade policies, and wish to affirm for the record that reform of our international tax laws is necessary for our U.S. businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, those U.S. companies that rejected doing a corporate inversion are left to struggle with the complexity and competitive impediments of our international tax rules. This is an unjust result for companies that chose to remain in the United States of America. I am committed to remedying this inequity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a technical explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have before us a bill that seeks to take unprecedented steps to improve the methods by which Americans vote for our elected officials. To a large extent, Congress is charting new territory in an area where States have traditionally been left to their own devices. Congress has in the past stepped in to guarantee the right to vote for American military personnel and U.S. citizens who live abroad as well as to protect the voting rights of Americans against discrimination. Most recently, Congress has involved itself in the area of voter registration with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. However, the Federal Government to date has had little or no role with respect to the administration of elections, which is traditionally a State and local responsibility. Since this is new territory for Congress, we must start by asking ourselves what we are trying to accomplish. The closeness of the 2000 presidential election highlighted some of the shortcomings in the voting systems and processes that are used throughout the country. Many suggestions have been tossed around for ways we can improve elections in the United States ranging from radical constitutional reforms to minor adjustments on the local level. It is clear to me that the most important role Congress can play is to provide the resources, both financial and technical, that are necessary for states and communities to administer fair and accurate elections. The Dodd-McConnell compromise legislation being considered by the Senate takes steps to help State and local governments achieve high standards of fairness and accuracy in elections. Still, the bill is not perfect. Because of the nature of compromise legislation, every Senator can find things they like and things they do not. Nevertheless, this bill does accomplish one of the key objectives of Federal election reform. Central to any attempt to help States and localities improve their election systems is providing funds to do so. It's usually not lack of will but lack of funds that hinders local reform efforts. I'm pleased that this bill provides a total of $3.5 billion to States and localities to help improve the administration of elections. Funds will become available through a newly created Election Administration Commission for items like upgrading or replacing voting machines, improving accessibility for disabled voters, and simplifying voting and voter registration procedures. On the other hand, one problem with this bill is the degree of Federal control that will be exerted on elections. It's difficult to strike the right balance between helping States and localities improve the administration of elections while still allowing for local flexibility. This bill contains a number of well intentioned but specific mandates on States and localities along with potentially heavy handed enforcement procedures if they are deemed to be out of compliance with Federal mandates. Still, the bill does provide for 100 percent funding for all Federal mandates thus lessening the impact on the State and local governments that must implement these mandates. Finally, I'm pleased that measures were included in this bill, largely through the work of Senator Bond, to combat the problem of voter fraud. The Dodd-McConnell compromise strengthens language in current law providing penalties for giving false information with respect to voting or voter registration, or for conspiring to do so. It also clarifies that these penalties apply for giving false information with respect to naturalization, citizenship, or alien registration. The compromise also contains carefully balanced language designed to protect against the kinds of fraud that can occur with mail-in voter registration and mail-in voting. While efforts to strip out these anti- fraud protections threatened to unravel the compromise, I am pleased that this matter was resolved and a compromise was found that protects the ability to vote by mail without weakening the bill's anti-fraud protections. In addition, other measures have been added to the bill through amendments on the Senate floor to give States more tools to ensure the integrity of their voter lists and prevent fraud, including my amendment to allow for coordination of statewide voter lists with social security records to check for deaths and individuals registered under false identities. Voter fraud is a direct threat to the electoral process and these measures represent progress toward eliminating that threat. At the end of the day, we have a bipartisan bill that takes concrete steps to help state and local governments improve the administration of elections. While it isn't perfect, the Dodd-McConnell legislation represents a positive move that should give Americans greater confidence in their elections and our system of government.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his leadership in opposition to this amendment, and more importantly for his leadership over the last several months in bringing together unity on this issue that is both bipartisan as well as across industry and economic sectors. Madam President, there was a time when the States of New York and California were represented by Senators who supported requiring the use of ethanol and other domestic alternative fuels. In fact, there was a time, less than 3 years ago, when two of the current California Senators and the senior Senator from New York, voted in favor of replacing MTBE with ethanol. What has changed to cause these Senators to reverse themselves? I frankly don't know. But there is one thing that has changed since the time New York and California were represented by Senators who supported replacing foreign fuel with domestic alternative and renewable fuels. Today, more than ever, our national security is at risk because of our dependence upon foreign energy. Today, more than ever, the Middle East oil and MTBE producers, have us literally, over the barrel. More than ever. That is the biggest change since the time California and New York Senators supported replacing Middle East oil and MTBE with home grown renewable and alternative fuels. Yet, today, they come to the floor of the Senate, to offer an amendment which will help assure that Middle East oil and MTBE producers maintain and increase their grip over the United States. Today, 75 percent of the MTBE California uses, is produced by foreigners. Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of California MTBE. In March of 1999, California's Governor, Gray Davis, issued an executive order, stating that by the end of 2002, all MTBE would be banned from California. In August of 1999, Senator Boxer of California introduced a Senate resolution, calling for MTBE to be replaced by renewable ethanol. With the help of Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer, that resolution was adopted by the Senate. That resolution underscored that renewable ethanol should replace MTBE. Why? It specifically stated that ethanol should replace MTBE to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy. It also stated that renewable ethanol should replace MTBE because MTBE was polluting drinking water. Patriotic American farmers and ethanol producers, in direct response to these two initiatives by California's elected officials, invested $1.4 billion of their hard earned money to increase ethanol production by 1 billion gallons a year. By the end of this year, when MTBE was supposed to be banned in California, our Nation's farmers and ethanol producers will be able to produce 400 to 500 million gallons more than is necessary to replace all of California's MTBE. The California Energy Commission conducted a survey and concluded that by the end of 2004, U.S. ethanol production capacity will reach 3.5 billion gallons a year. The renewable fuels standard, which these Senators want to gut, requires only 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol to be used starting in 2004. So even by the California Energy Commission's admission, the United States will be producing 1.2 billion gallons above and beyond what is required under the renewable fuels standard. We are awash in ethanol produced in America's Midwest, yet 3 weeks ago, the Governor of California announced that MTBE can be used for another whole year. It doesn't make sense. Some elected officials would rather force their consumers to use MTBE from the Middle East, instead of ethanol from America's Middle West. They can't seriously be worried about motor fuel prices. How can increasing and diversifying your sources of energy, increase the price of your product? Today, California has only seven refiners, and its two largest sources for MTBE are foreign. In sharp contrast, there are 61 ethanol plants in 19 States in the United States--two of which are in California. The California Energy Commission has determined that fuel without oxygenates, such as MTBE or ethanol, will actually be more expensive. In a recent report, the commission explained and I quote--``non- oxygenated reformulated alternatives are not necessarily easier to produce (than ethanol RFG), would involve significant capacity loss, and would require even more complex logistics.'' A recent poll of Californian opinion, conducted by the California Renewable Fuels Partnership, found that 76 percent of likely voters support banning MTBE because we can't afford the pollution caused by MTBE. Only 13 percent of those polled thought that it was a bad idea to ban MTBE because of potential higher gasoline prices. The concerns expressed by opponents of the renewable fuels standard don't stand up to the facts. So it boils down to this: If you want to take a positive step toward helping our Nation become less dependent upon foreign energy and the Middle East and to encourage the development of jobs and family income here in the United States, then join me in defeating this attempt to gut the renewable fuels standard. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to offer a bill on behalf of Senator Baucus and myself, to address the growing problem of corporate inversions. Our legislation, the ``Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore,'' REPO Act, will stem the rising tide of corporate inversions. It's tax season. Citizens across America are filing their taxes this week. They're paying their taxes. A lot of taxes. But some corporate citizens are relaxing this tax season. They've moved their mailing address out of the country. They've set up a filing cabinet and a mail box overseas. This way, they escape from millions of dollars of Federal taxes. These corporate expatriations aren't illegal. But they're sure immoral. During a war on terrorism, coming out of a recession, everyone ought to be pulling together. But instead, these companies are using recession and terrorism to get out of the United States. If companies don't have their hearts in America, they ought to get out. Adding insult to injury, some of these companies have fat contracts with the government. So they'll take other people's tax dollars to make a profit, but they won't pay their share of taxes to keep America strong. The bill Chairman Baucus and I are introducing today will place corporate inversions on the endangered species list. Our bill requires the IRS to look at where a company has its heart and soul, not where it has a filing cabinet and a mail box. If a company remains controlled in the United States, our bill requires the company to pay its fair share of taxes, plain and simple. When I am firmly committed to halting corporate inversions, I also recognize that the rising tide of corporate expatriations demonstrates that our international tax rules are deeply flawed. In many cases, those flaws seriously undermine an American company's ability to compete in the global marketplace. This competitive disadvantage is often cited by companies that engage in inversion transactions. I believe that we need to bring our international tax system in line with our open market trade policies, and wish to affirm for the record that reform of our international tax laws is necessary for our U.S. businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, those U.S. companies that rejected doing a corporate inversion are left to struggle with the complexity and competitive impediments of our international tax rules. This is an unjust result for companies that chose to remain in the United States of America. I am committed to remedying this inequity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a technical explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is a very serious issue concerning the proper functioning of elections--the integrity of voter lists. All eligible voters should be given every opportunity to vote. In fact, much of this bill is aimed at doing just that. However, without integrity in our voting lists, the door is wide open to many kinds of voting irregularities. Every ineligible vote denigrates the efforts of every eligible voter to cause participatory democracy to work. When votes are cast by individuals who are not legally entitled to vote, whether it be because they are using a false identity or because they are dead, the value of all properly cast votes is diminished. We have all heard reports of people who are registered to vote and should not be or who voted illegally. Senator Bond has already mentioned during the debate on this bill an investigation by the Missouri secretary of state which determined that, in the 2000 election, votes were cast in the St. Louis area by 14 dead people. Senator Bond has also told us about troubling instances in St. Louis where large numbers of voter registration forms were submitted to election officials using false identities. In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution conducted a study comparing voting records and death records from the state Department of Human Resources and the Social Security Administration. The investigation revealed that 5,412 dead people voted over the past 20 years and that the number of registered dead voters has increased dramatically in recent years. As of November 2000, 15,000 dead people remained on the active voting rolls in Georgia. Sometimes we hear these anecdotes about instances of voter fraud and they take on the character of a cynical joke, but I don't think it is very funny. Such cases erode public confidence in the electoral process and are an affront to all those who cast votes legally. The bill before us already takes an important step in ensuring the integrity of States' voter rolls by providing for interactive, computerized, statewide voter registration lists. This will enable States to check for duplicates and coordinate with State agencies to verify that registered voters are legally able to vote under State law. However, more can and should be done. My amendment would give States a much needed tool to check the accuracy of their voter roles against information possessed by the Social Security Administration. Specifically, my amendment allows a State to coordinate its statewide voter registration list with social security records to check identity, and to see if a voter has died. The commissioner of Social Security would be required to provide, upon request from a State, applicable information for the purpose of determining the eligibility of an individual to vote. This amendment would not require States to undertake any action nor would it affect State laws governing eligibility of individuals to vote. It simply gives the States a valuable tool in their efforts to maintain clean and accurate lists of eligible voters. The State decides when and whether to use this tool. Over the last decade, it has become increasingly easy for people to register and vote due in large part to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also called the motor voter law. This trend has increased voter registration across the board, including registrations by individuals who are not eligible to vote. Along with the relaxation of voter registration requirements comes the responsibility to provide for safeguards to preserve the integrity of the voter rolls. I can think of no reason why individuals who are not eligible to vote should be allowed to remain untouched on State voter lists. A State can decide to do that. But, today, if States want to be extra careful in preserving the integrity of their voter lists, they lack some very important information. Give them the tools! This amendment is just one more way that we can help the States maintain the most accurate, reliable list possible of eligible voters. This is a commonsense, good government reform and I would urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the pending Feinstein amendment concerning modifications to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act only a year and a half ago has provided legal certainties that I believe have resulted in increased market participation, greater transparency and heightened market liquidity. I agree there are lessons we can learn from Enron's collapse, particularly with respect to accountability issues. I share in my colleagues' outrage over these events, and truly feel for the workers and innocent investors who lost their jobs and life savings. There are legislative actions that we in Congress can take to ensure that similar corporate failures aren't allowed to fester elsewhere, In fact, as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, I've taken steps to do something about a number of tax and pension related problems that have been exposed by the Enron collapse. However, as regulatory agencies continue to investigate Enron's over- the-counter derivatives activities, Congress must exercise caution when considering a legislative fix to a problem that has yet to be clearly identified. Without the benefit of the results and recommendations of these investigations, any legislative action will surely be premature. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oppose adoption of this amendment because of the lack of opportunity for a full review, as well as the absence of any determination that energy derivatives played a role in the collapse of Enron. I also have concerns that this amendment has not been thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewed by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. The Senate Agriculture Committee, which I served on when the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was considered, addressed the issue of the uncertainties with respect to over-the-counter derivatives. The lack of hearings and analysis by the Senate Agriculture Committee prior to the consideration of this amendment is unfortunate. I therefore oppose this hastily drafted amendment, and will formally request that the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee thoroughly analyze, and if necessary, conduct hearings on the results and recommendations of the numerous agency investigations concerning the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a member of my staff who as a Girl Scout loved Girl Scout cookies so much she went into debt selling herself cookies. She said she had every variety of cookie in her possession, for her own consumption, hidden from her little brother and the family dog. Her parents had to give her a low-interest loan so she could pay off her obligation. I don't recommend her financial habits, but I definitely recommend Girl Scout cookies, and most of all, for girls to become Girl Scouts. The organization just celebrated its 90th anniversary, and it shows no signs of going out of style. There are 3.7 million Girl Scouts nationwide--2.7 million girl members and 915,000 adult members. My state of Iowa has 53,000 members. I see why scouting has such broad appeal. The Girl Scouts offer community service, field trips, camping, science awareness, sporting and fitness development, health education and many more activities to girls ages 5 to 17. These programs teach girls not only about the world around them, but also about themselves. They learn leadership skills, self-confidence, respect for others, companionship and responsibility. They also learn egalitarianism. Girl Scouting is open to all girls of the eligible age. A girl just has to have the will to participate and enjoy. Given the competitiveness of so many extracurricular activities for kids, it's refreshing to have an outlet for girls to interact as equals. Girl Scouting also engages family members and adults in their communities. Almost all adults involved with Girl Scouting are volunteers, and the organization sponsors activities for mothers to spend special time with their daughters away from the distractions of everyday life. I congratulate the Girl Scouts on 90 years of success. Like all classics, the Girl Scout Promise and the Girl Scout Law remain as fresh and relevant today as ever. Here they are, for the Congressional Record, for posterity, for the girls of today, and for the women of tomorrow. The Girl Scout Promise: On my honor, I will try: to serve God and my country; to help people at all times; and to live by the Girl Scout Law. The Girl Scout Law: I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in morning business; is that right?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will address the issue of defense expenditures and the rapidly rising appropriations for defense, particularly for the war on terrorism, and do it in light of the fact that probably within the next couple of weeks the budget will be before the Senate. The 9-11 attack wiped out any lingering doubts I or anybody else had about the intention of terrorists. Their intentions are now crystal clear: Kill as many Americans as possible and bring a lot of psychological trauma on the American people. I do not doubt for a second they will strike again when they think the time is right. If they do not, we will be lucky, but if we do not plan on it, we will be stupid. We must not allow American citizens to live with constant fear that moment will come again. This is a threat to our way of life. As Americans, we cannot accept that threat to our way of life. The terrorist threat must be eliminated. President Bush is doing everything possible to restore and maintain our security at home and to win the war on terrorism abroad. The war on terrorism will not come cheaply. We must all accept that. Right now we have no choice. So I am not going to quibble with the details of the Department of Defense budget and the recommendations from the Senate Budget Committee. Secretary Rumsfeld and the President have my support in the war against terror. We ought to look at history and think in terms of other times the defense budget has been ramped up very quickly and the considerable amount of waste that accompanied it. The situation of the 1980s, when this last happened, obviously, was somewhat different from what the situation is today when we are in the midst of a war. Back then, we were in the cold war. There was some understanding we needed to do more, but in the process of not fighting a war and not having a demonstrated need that was as conclusive as this war on terrorism is now, there was an opportunity for waste. I want to warn Secretary Rumsfeld about waste. Big budgets breed waste, and the Pentagon has shown a world class reputation for waste and mismanagement. It seems to be lurking in the shadows waiting for the Secretary of Defense to open the money spigot. If he fails to keep a lid on waste, support for President Bush's defense buildup will evaporate quickly, particularly if there is a downturn in the war on terrorism where there is not quite as evident to the public at large of the need for the amount of money we are now appropriating when one might say the war is very active. If this were to happen, the support for the defense buildup would evaporate and troops in the field would end up on the short end of the stick. If we do have this waste, this Senator will be on the Secretary's back. A little piece of local history might help everyone in the Senate understand where I am coming from. Back in the early 1980s, at the height of the cold war, President Reagan launched a massive military buildup that was fiercely debated in the Senate for 3 or 4 years. I challenge my colleagues to understand this was a defining experience for me and it still shapes my thinking on defense. I was convinced almost from day 1 that President Reagan's defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, was bent on throwing new sums of money at problems better solved by structural reform and real leadership. So joining a lot of my colleagues, we made an effort to stop it probably 2 or 3 years after we should have. As a conservative Republican, this was not easy for me to do but it was the right thing to do, and we should be prepared to watch how this money is spent in this ramp-up and be cognizant, watching for waste. During this time in the early 1980s, I offered an amendment to freeze the defense budget. This was in the fiscal year 1986 budget resolution. My amendment was adopted May 2, 1985, by the slimmest of margins: 50 to 49. I think the Senate, by making that decision and through that act alone, threw a monkey wrench into the last big plan to ramp up the defense budget. There was quite a case built for doing that at that particular time. Even though $750 pliers, $750 toilet seats, and $7,000 coffee pots are not the reason for defense waste in its entirety, they are clear-cut examples that everybody understands. Those examples helped make a case for the freezing of the defense budget. The spare parts horror stories were a turning point. They convinced many that the Pentagon defense buildup was a colossal taxpayer rip-off. It undermined the credibility of the planned defense buildup and it turned many into defense reformers, to watchdogging, digging into the waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon. I was at it that day, today, and I will be at it tomorrow. That is my warning to the people at the Defense Department, from Secretary Rumsfeld on down, and, in the process of spending more money, find a way to control waste. Unfortunately, the Secretary has a major obstacle to overcome before getting waste under control. It is a simple rule that you cannot begin to control waste until you know what things cost. You will never get a handle on the cost until the books of account are in order. Every shred of evidence I have examined over the years tells me that the books at the Defense Department are in shambles. The chief financial officer, Mr. Zakheim, knows exactly what I am talking about. I have had opportunities to discuss this with him. The best barometer on the quality of bookkeeping at the Pentagon is the annual audit of financial statements. The results are dismal. There is over $150 billion in financial actions for which there is no supporting documentation. Those are accumulative, over some years. Criminals, quite frankly, could be tapping into the money pipeline at the Department of Defense. People there would never know it. During Secretary Rumsfeld's nomination hearing last year, he was grilled by the senior Senator from West Virginia about the very same problem. As a result of that exchange, Senator Byrd and I cosponsored a financial oversight initiative, section 1009 of the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill. Having accurate financial information at your fingertips is a key to controlling waste. And to do it right now, we don't have that tool. The Defense Department needs to get it. I believe they are working on getting it. I believe I can speak for Senator Byrd and for myself that we want to help the Defense Department get there. The Secretary has his work cut out. For starters, he is going to need a junkyard dog. Now that there is an inspector general in place, I believe that will help. With the Pentagon's money spigot wide open--once again in a way that nobody at this point is going to raise any questions because you only go to war to win a war or else you do not have any business going to war--the new inspector general has to be operating on a high state of alert. A 3-year oversight investigation of the office of the inspector general tells me that is not the case today. That office has serious management problems. The new inspector general will need to clean house. We are obviously asking the Secretary to control waste, do it by cleaning up the books, get a handle on costs, and do not fritter away a golden opportunity to rebuild the Armed Forces. Waste is a constant danger at the Pentagon. When we send military personnel into harm's way, we should all be confident they have what they need to get the job done. If we allow waste to spin out of control, our troops on the front lines will be the first to suffer; we will be back making the same cases as we did in the mid-1980s. I believe there is some reason to think this Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, sees a need to overcome these problems more so than a lot of his predecessors. There are two reasons I say that. No. 1, 2 or 3 weeks ago I was able to speak to a House committee on the sloppiness of how credit cards are handled by Department of Defense personnel and the tremendous waste of taxpayer money by the purchase of personal items on a card that says ``for official government business only.'' Within 2 days of those remarks, the Secretary of Defense told the comptroller of the Defense Department to get this matter under control. There has been put in place immediately a task force to accomplish that goal. I publicly thank Secretary Rumsfeld for responding as he has in that particular instance. Last, I refer to a speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave on September 10, 1 day before the infamous day of September 11. It seems to me, without anticipating the terror that was going to be brought against America with that dastardly act of September 11, he recognized in this speech the importance of being on top of the taxpayers' dollars as spent on defense. I read from his speech delivered on September 10: Every dollar squandered on waste is one denied to the warfighters. That's why we're here today challenging us all to wage an all-out campaign to shift Pentagon resources from bureaucracy to the battle field, from tail to tooth. We know the adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at it and stay at it. Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself. The men and women in this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They, too, are fed up with bureaucracy. They, too, live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime they, too, want to fix it. In fact, I bet that they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking. I say parenthetically, I think what the Secretary of Defense did 2 weeks ago, in getting the comptroller on that credit card situation in the Department of Defense, is an example of his willingness to ask and hopefully get it done. Continuing to quote: They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill--a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and inattention. Then in the last paragraph I am going to quote he says: That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends upon public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts. There is a lot more from this speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave back on September 10 to employees of the Defense Department. But these few paragraphs, I hope, will give you hope, as they give me hope, that Secretary Rumsfeld will get on top of the situation at the Defense Department, an environment that encourages waste of the taxpayers' money, and will see through the process of financial management reform and all that will do for controlling the waste. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For about 6 minutes. Would that be possible?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his gracious attitude.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Earlier today, unanimous consent was requested on the part of Senator Lott that the Andean pact come before the Senate. That request was not granted. So I rise to express my regret of that happening and to express my support for the fact that the Andean Trade Preferences Act legislation should be on the floor and should have been considered by now. I am concerned if the Senate doesn't act early on the Andean trade bill, that America's continued leadership in the international arena of trade will be severely impaired. Specifically, I fear our failure to approve this legislation in a timely manner will undermine our ability to constructively engage with our Latin American neighbors at a time when many of them face enormous economic and political challenges. Today, President Bush leaves on an important mission to Latin America. Just on Saturday, he will visit Peru, one of the Andean nations, where he will meet with four Andean leaders. President Bush's trip builds on a long tradition of promoting vigorous United States engagement with Latin America that started as far back as President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress in the 1960s. As did President Kennedy, President Bush has a vision for Latin America. The President wants to tell our Andean neighbors--Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador--that the United States wants to be their hemispheric partner in peace. He wants to tell them that trade and prosperity go hand in hand. President Bush wants to make the case that the benefits of trade are not just for rich countries like the United States; they are also for countries that aspire to become rich countries; for countries that want better, more secure lives for their citizens; for countries that want better health care, better education, and better futures for their children. President Bush wants to encourage our Andean neighbors to use trade to promote economic development through a diversified export base as an alternative to the allure of the drug trade. When President Kennedy unveiled his Alliance for Progress in 1961, he said if we were bold and determined enough, our efforts to reach out to Latin America could mark the beginning of a new era in the American experience. This is just as true today as it was way back in 1961. Through the Andean pact, and complimentary trade initiatives such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, we can achieve a new era of hemispheric economic cooperation that benefits everybody--not just these four countries, not just the United States, but it has a benefit way beyond that. The Andean nations know trade, not aid, is the best way to overcome the fragmentation of Latin American economies, and to build the self- sustaining growth that nourishes democratic institutions. But because the Andean trade bill still languishes in the Senate-- along with another important bill, trade promotion authority, another vitally important trade bill as well--the President's trip will not be as effective as it could have been if the Senate had acted. Obviously, we should expect our President to be successful and want him to be successful. For a long time, we had a tradition in this country that politics stops at the water's edge. Unfortunately, that is not as true now as it once was. A lot of trade and foreign policy issues get entangled with our domestic partisan politics. I very much regret this development because it is very harmful to the U.S. leadership in any subject but particularly in the area of trade. It is harmful to the enhanced prospects for prosperity and peace that we are trying to promote around the world, and commercialization is a very useful tool in promoting world trade. Mr. President, the other day, the lead editorial of the Washington Post addressed the issue of the Senate majority leader's failure to bring up the Andean trade pact. I would like to read a portion of that editorial, which appeared March 19 in the Washington Post: The Senate's failure to help the four Andean states--Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia--is particularly egregious. A package of trade concessions has passed through committee and commands an overwhelming majority of the full chamber. . . . Only a handful of Senators opposes the package. But the Senate leadership has failed to bring it to the floor, making it likely that Mr. Bush will arrive in Peru empty-handed . . . at a time when American leadership in Latin America is being questioned, the least the Senate could do is to pass a trade measure that almost nobody opposes. As is clear from my point of view, the time to act was months ago. But it is never too late to do the right thing. We had that opportunity today and it failed. So I urge my colleagues to, just as soon as we get back from the Easter recess, put not only the Andean pact but other trade issues very high on the agenda and get them passed and help us to help these Andean nations, which are so poor and need our help. Trade is one way to get them the necessary help and develop a good economy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Secretary of Agriculture Veneman has proclaimed this to be ``National Agriculture Week.'' In this spirit, I rise today to recognize the countless and immeasurable contributions of hard- working farm families across the country who throughout our nation's history have worked relentlessly to ensure the food security of our nation and to eliminate hunger around the world. Some of my colleagues may believe I sound like a broken record when it comes to my advocacy for the nation's mid-section and its hard- working food producers. But I like to remind them about an old saying: ``We're only nine meals away from a revolution.'' In other words, empty stomachs can prompt a traditionally law-abiding populace to mob hysteria and mayhem. A stable food supply brings social stability. For seven decades the Federal Government has recognized the importance of maintaining a farm safety net to ensure America's homegrown food security. The tragic event of September 11 underscored the significant responsibilities the Federal Government must undertake to protect our national security interests at home and abroad. Safeguarding the American public and shielding the U.S. economy, transportation infrastructure, health care delivery systems, energy supplies, natural resources and production agriculture from the threats of 21st century terrorism have become Washington's top priority. This effort must include a farm safety net that works to ensure our farmers and ranchers are able to continue feeding America by making a decent living off the land. Otherwise, American consumers could well find themselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers at the grocery store much like we are today at the gas station. We must not forget our nation's long agrarian heritage. In 1790, ninety percent of the nation's labor force were farmers--feeding a population of only 4 million. Today, with less than 2 percent of our population actively engaged in agriculture, our nation's family farmers feed a U.S. population of 265 million, along with millions of others around the world. The contributions of the agriculture industry on our economy are many. Agriculture is the largest positive contributor to our nation's balance of trade. Last year, American farmers exported $53 billion worth of commodities. The State of Iowa alone exported more than $3 billion worth of corn, soybeans, live animals, and red meats. Moreover, according to the Department of Agriculture, each dollar from agricultural exports generates another $1.47 in additional economic activity. Twenty-four million Americans depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Despite the enormous contributions of farming to our country, today, fewer and fewer people have direct ties to life on the farm, and fewer still depend solely on farming for their livelihood. Technological efficiencies and mechanical advances on today's farm require less labor to produce more food. While fewer hands may be needed on the farmplace, new opportunities exist in food production and value-added agriculture to keep future generations of Iowans productive contributors in the food chain. In conclusion, farming has come a long way over the last 100 years. The horse-drawn plow has turned into a tractor-drawn, fully- computerized farm implement. In the next 100 years, farmers will again serve as pioneers in newly-tilled fields of emerging technologies. The world's food producers will not only feed the world but expand their traditional contribution to humanity as advances in agricultural sciences allow raw food to carry health, disease-resistant benefits for consumers. Whatever the future may hold, I will keep my nose to the grindstone in Washington to help Iowa's century farms and farm families enjoy another 100 years of prosperity.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have permission from Senator McConnell to yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to explain my opposition to this bill but also to point out that I voted for cloture because it is quite obvious that we have reached closure on this bill, and we might as well get to final passage and move on. I could just as well vote yes and look like a reformer, but looking at it cynically and looking at the history of the 1974 legislation, previous reform attempts have evolved into a money machine for politics. Congress meant to reform the process in 1974, but it has been proven that legally money is going to find its way in to support political speech. I could find a way to rationalize voting yes on this bill to look like a reformer. Still, down the road there are going to be people who are very astute at finding a way within the law to spend money in the support of political speech. Because the democratic process in the United States is so central to our way of life, there should not be any impediments whatsoever put in the way of getting political ideas adequately explored, particularly during a Presidential election. I am not going to look like a reformer. I am going to vote no on this legislation. And the reason is this: I see people get worked up about the fact that candidates spend large sums of money in their campaigns--I will use myself as an example. Every sixth year my campaign might spend roughly $2.3 million to get reelected. My campaign does. My junior partner from Iowa has generally spent about $6.5 million. But whether it is $2.5 million or $6.5 million, it is all spent to promote ideas. That is what our form of government is all about--the expression of ideas and the implementation of ideas. What is wrong with that? But to do so, I might spend, let's say, $2.3 million, to be reelected. Now, why do people get all worked up about $2.3 million, when you watch the Super Bowl commercial on Super Bowl Sunday, and one 30-second commercial costs about $2.3 million? Are we ready to say that it is OK on one Sunday afternoon out of a year that it is OK for commercial free speech, for people to spend $2.3 million for a 30-second ad, and it is wrong for a candidate and his supporters for a whole year of an election to spend approximately that amount of money? No. I think political speech is even more important than commercial free speech, and that we ought to do everything we can to perpetuate more political free speech than we do, instead of trying to curb it. It is quite obvious that I think we should not pass this legislation. The American people deserve an open system--one that shines in the full light of day on campaign contributions, and that ought to be the ruling force--not the amount of money. At the same time, we should make it easier for citizens to become engaged in the electoral process. However, the campaign finance bill before us contains fatal flaws. The one I am going to mention has been talked about so much that I almost do not need to repeat it. That is the most egregious problem with this legislation--the provision that limits the free speech of some organizations 60 days before an election. Whether it is an individual or an organization, why curb discussion of any political issue in America? Groups from across the political spectrum would be prohibited from communicating their views if they even refer to a candidate for Federal office. I don't think we should put a damper on any organization speaking at any time in the United States about political ideas, but especially 60 days before an election. Limiting political discourse at election time solves nothing and it curbs the advancement of democracy. It also goes against the grain of one of our most fundamental rights, the right of freedom of speech. Political speech is what the authors of the Bill of Rights were talking about, although it has been expanded way beyond political speech, to even cover commercial speech. But I also believe that the complete ban on soft money in this bill goes too far. Political parties raise this money to finance voter registration drives, get out the vote activities, and communications about issues that parties stand for. These are essential functions of a political party. They are also activities that increase voter participation. Effective limitations on soft money are necessary to reduce real and perceived corruptions in the system, but a complete ban would undermine the role of national political parties. Who is going to fill the void in the process if we tie the hands of the parties? The Democrats have always relied upon labor unions to man phone banks and get people to the polls. That would not change the result of this bill. The Republicans, however, don't have an external organization to fall back on. Republicans rely on the party to build and mobilize their grassroots network. This bill takes the Republicans' organizational ability and cuts it off at the knees, but it leaves the other party untouched. They have legitimate ideas that ought to be explored, but so do we. That is hardly a balanced approach. A big reason why soft money spending has increased in the first place is the limitations on campaign contributions by individuals. The cap on individual donations has been frozen at the same level since 1974. This made the individual contributions work less and less over the years. I am pleased that this bill increases the individual contribution limit amount and indexes it for inflation. It is high time we put more emphasis back on individuals by individual citizens instead of corporations or unions. On the other hand, the new prohibitions on soft money will simply cause an increase in spending on other areas. For instance, spending on issue ads can impact a campaign but is not regulated. Some have advertised the new restrictions as getting the money out of politics, but they don't get the money out of politics--or they don't get rid of the money in politics. They only shift it from one place to another. In fact, this point is illustrated by an article that appeared in Roll Call, February 21, entitled ``House Democrats Make Plans to Circumvent Campaign Reform.'' This article described a promise that was made, apparently, by the House minority leader to a group of Democratic Members. He assured them that he would help raise money for certain outside groups aligned with the Democrats, despite the new fundraising restrictions that he supported. These groups can then turn around and use this money to run unregulated issue ads to the benefit of Democrat candidates. This example belies the contention that a soft money ban will solve the problem of money in politics. The best method of combating the influence of money in politics is to require full disclosure of campaign donations. I don't care even if it is to the penny. We can try to regulate ethical behavior by politicians, but the surest way to cleanse the system is to let the Sun shine in. We must allow the voters to hold candidates accountable. I have been a longtime advocate of comprehensive disclosure requirements. In fact, this bill contains several positive reforms. It increases the number of times candidates have to report contributions to the FEC, and it makes report information more accessible to the public. This bill also increases penalties for campaign finance law violations and provides for tough new sentencing guidelines. These are precisely the sorts of reforms of which we should be doing more. However, some of the purported reforms in this bill simply won't work and may even be counterproductive. I am not the only one to spot the problems in this bill. Recent editorials in the two largest newspapers in the State of Iowa highlight many of the same concerns I have just outlined. Many attempts were made in both the House and the Senate to fix the problems with this bill, but to no avail. If this bill passes in its current form, I believe we will have lost an important opportunity to enact a balanced and sensible package of real reforms to our campaign finance system. Therefore, I must reluctantly vote against the final passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print several editorials and an article in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a subject that I hope will be on the Senate's agenda after we come back from Easter recess, which I think starts at the end of this week. That issue is Trade Promotion Authority for the President. It is time for the Senate to pass Trade Promotion Authority, not only for President Bush, because he has asked for it, but because every President ought to have this authority. The President needs this authority to help in the reduction of non-tariff trade barriers as well as tariffs and to negotiate international trade agreements. It has been over a decade since our Nation has had Trade Promotion Authority for the President. Since that time, we have fallen further behind. This map shows how far behind we are. It shows that the rest of the world is no longer going to stand around and wait for the United States to show leadership on trade. Here you can see all these countries in red. That sea of red represents 111 countries that are a party to more than 130 free trade agreements that do not include the United States of America. The United States was not at the negotiating table for these 130 free trade agreements. How many free trade agreements do we have with other countries? Three! Until just last year, with the passage of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, it had been over 6 years since the United States enacted a free trade agreement with another country. Our failure to act, in fact, does make a difference. While we stay on the sidelines, the rest of the world moves ahead, concluding an average of twenty new free trade agreements every year. The European Union alone has signed preferential agreements with 27 countries and is right now working on 15 more. That means other countries are writing the rules of trade, and the United States is not at the table. The rules these other countries write are not designed to benefit U.S. companies and U.S. workers. When other countries write the rules of trade, we lose. In the absence of Trade Promotion Authority, we have allowed our foreign competitors to make deals that have placed U.S. interests at a disadvantage. If we do not pass Trade Promotion Authority soon, then we are going to continue to fall further and further behind. We will sit on the sidelines and our competitors will continue to make deals that exclude us--it's a game plan for failure. Without Trade Promotion Authority, American negotiating power to bring down trade barriers is severely limited. Foreign competitors will continue to weave a web of preferential trade and investment opportunities for themselves, and we will fall further behind. American companies, workers, and farmers are paying a high price for our inaction. Compared to their foreign counterparts, U.S. exporters often face higher tariffs, higher costs, and greater administrative delays, and even less favorable investment opportunities and protection. While other countries negotiate free trade agreements, ensuring that their products sail across borders tax free, American workers face high tariffs that erode their competitive edge. I will just give one example: Caterpillar, a corporation headquartered in the State of Illinois. Caterpillar's motor graders, made in the United States for export to Chile, face nearly $15,000 in tariffs whereas Caterpillar, making those same motor graders in Brazil for export to Chile, only face a tariff of $3,700. That ought to get anybody's attention about the importance of negotiating down these barriers. Further, when Caterpillar's competitors produce the same product in Canada, it can be exported to Chile free of tariffs because of the Canada-Chile free trade agreement. We cannot continue to put U.S. workers at a disadvantage in the international marketplace. Isolationism is a failed policy that damages U.S. interests on many levels. This year the Senate has the ability to reject this failed policy by bringing up and passing Trade Promotion Authority. This is not the time for us to take a pass on policies that could enhance our global competitiveness and increase our economic stature worldwide. Presidential leadership is very obvious in the war on terrorism. We have a strong diplomatic component to that. We have a strong military component to that. But we also need a strong economic component to the President's leadership, and that can come in part through this President having Trade Promotion Authority. The Senate Finance Committee reported Trade Promotion Authority out of our committee last year in its usual way of doing business, by a strong bipartisan vote of 18 to 3. I am confident when this bill comes to the floor it will receive bipartisan support from the entire Senate. So it is time to get this bill, Trade Promotion Authority, on the Senate floor and get it passed. Renewing Trade Promotion Authority will help level the global playing field and create countless opportunities for our workers, our farmers, and our businesses. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We negotiated three trade agreements. Of these countries, 111 have negotiated 130 trade agreements.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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